h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is not a thread. This is a specially re-inforced titanium beam.

The origins of this thread come from these posts made in the PR thread of 'The Nature of Time':


FordsTowel moves pawn two spaces:
"Oh Great! Just thank You, BB!

Just when it seemed that we were all well in general agreement, and the remaining differences of opinion marked down to subtleties, you had to go and throw in a major curve!!

1 through 9 are great. Really.

But that first line ?!?!?!?!
I try to be careful, but sometimes I screw up. I try to say things carefully enough that what I know, I say that I know; when I think, I say that I think I know; and when I just believe without proof, I call it a theory.

I'm refering, of course, to:
'We have plenty of sausages. We call them parallel sausages - they represent their own time continuum.'

This is written as if it's fact, not belief or supposition. Are you one of those who believes in 'parallel universes'?

Actually, if you are, you're just the guy I've been want to talk to.

If there are parallel universes, through which dimensions would you think they are parallel through? In the case of Linus and Linnea, they would be additional one-dimensional universes, traveling through our three and through time (possibly).

Actually, since all points in any dimension are part of all dimensions, no matter how many dimensions their peculiar and limited inhabitants may perceive, there can be no additional room for 'universes' that aren't already present in relation to all of the others. Every dimension passes through every point of every reality.

It would seem to me that, just as 15 pool balls on a three-dimensional pooltable are all non-overlapping in a 3D world, separate but equal, they all continue to exist in the identical three dimensions (and normally pass through time at the same rate). Yet, no matter how many dimensions I propose, those balls will each continue to 'take up' the same amount of three dimensional space in all the dimensions that I cannot perceive, as well.

I also wonder how a parallel universe pooltable could exist in parallel to ours, and each individual ball have a parallel equivalent parallel to it, all simultaneously.

Maybe we'd both just better ignore this whole posting.
I'm not sure that I understand the questions well enough to have any chance of understanding a hopefully appropriate answer. And, I'd never know if it actually fit the question!"


BB brings out a knight:
"The arguably controversial parallel sausage sentence was only intended as a joke. I wouldn't say that I 'believe' in parallel universes, but I am not adamantly against their existence either. I have written an entry about how to prove their existence once and for all (A2528444).

"Maybe we'd both just better ignore this whole posting."

No! You can't back out now! The debate has begun and must be settled until both parties are certain that they understand the whole concept.

Unfortunately, this conversation is probably not the best place for the discussion, so if you would like to set up a thread somewhere convenient, or if you would like me to set up a thread somewhere convenient perhaps we could settle the dispute there.

The subject of the conversation should probably be 'Quizzical Quantum Quodlibet: Debut Song of Feverish Debate'."



There're the origins; here are the rules:

In order to prevent any confusion, it would be a great help if all postings made clear the precise theories of the universe they will consider to be correct throughout the posting.

For example, try to begin a posting like this:

'This posting assumes that the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics, as well as relativity, and the IGUS theory of the perception of time as detailed in the Nature of Time entry are correct, along with the normal laws of physics.

...'

Or, you could use a short-hand:

#include
#include
#include
#include

bool feverishDebate() {

...

}




Hopefully that should make it clear what our mind-set is when writing the arguments for the debate. Items within the debate are best set out if they include a quote of the phrase we are arguing against/for (though probably against), and preferably numbered too; we usually do this automatically anyway.


OK. You go first.

*Passes dice.

Where to begin, where to begin? FT rolls a 3.1415; Protects his pawn by moving the the opposite knight; and spins the spinner to 'blue'. (takes a big swig from a large drink, "hi")

Given:
I'm comfortable in a 3D space-time construct, and would have settled for Newtonian physics if a more precise description of our universe had not come along.
I acknowledge the math that suggest time is our 4th dimension, always recognizing that the numbering system is arbitrarily based on our 3D limitations.
I am in awe that, sitting on a tiny mudball, circling and insignificant sun (etc., etc.), we have sought far-reaching information from distant galaxies and delved so deeply into the nature of matter and energy, and dared to ask 'what was God thinking?'
Certain evidence strongly suggests a 'big-bang', an expanding universe, and finite amount of 'stuff' to work with.
The more we peer outward, and the more we examine inward, the more 'space' between things tends to dwarf the need for the 'stuff'. The handful of dirt thrown in, is inconsequential to the size of the universe (except, of course, that without it I would not exist. )


Postulated:
If time is a dimension, there is no proven reason to assume that it differs so wildly from the other three, that it wouldn't be bi-directional.
Other dimensions almost certainly exist, even if outside our perception; and that (theoretically) any number can play.
All dimensions pass through all points in any 'x'D universe.
Science has been on a 'good, if not best' path since the discovery of sub-atomic particles.
The universe's expansion is based on a 3D model, and affects us spatially, but not universally (ie. local systems are more stable than the universe as a whole. Galaxies move away from each other, but planetary systems tend to pull in toward their solar foci.)
If, indeed, 'everything' was expanding (assuming the expansion is postulated to be proportional), the result is the same as not expanding. All things would be relatively unchanged, and the galaxies would still be moving away from each other.
The previously mentioned 'stuff', though perceptible to us, may extend much further in dimensions unseen. It may well be that the energy/matter we perceive is only a manifestation of its greater reality's protrubence into our perceptible dimensional space (like the circle caused by poking a pencil through a flat piece of paper).

SS, glad you've jumped in with both rooks:

(1) I admit ot being 3D biassed. May be 'cause I'm a 3D sort of person. Cannot envision universes without space.

[On the language bit, we'll communicate better, I think, if you call the 3D 'space' volume. Space will come up enough without multiple definitions ]

(4) Oh no. Time cannot be a constant. If the 'space ' of the popular 'space/time continuum' is extending, then 'time' must also be extending, so every second is longer than the last. Don't you find that natural?

[Nope. In fact, I consider this a wildly strange and unnatural possibility; but I acknowledge that it is worthy of consideration and discussion. It is based on a big 'IF'. We know that the galaxies are moving apart, but I don't know that the continuum is in an expansion mode.]

In an extending universe all celetial bodies, including our moon, is receeding. Yet when meaasured by the time of a laser pulse to the moon and back it reads the same at any time (apart from natural and understood orbital perurbations).

[This sounds as if it is based on an assumption that 'because the known universe is an expanding one, that it affects all individual systems and bodies as well. If this were the case, we would not be able to detect the expansion as all would look consistently the same. It is the fact that we can measure a red-shift, indicating the expansion, that points to them getting further away (in terms of light-years). If the speed of light sped up to account for this, there would be no red-shift, would there?]

"Turning theoretical physics back a couple of decades". What's wrong with that? If you lose your way and drive into a dead end, what would you do? Inventing new particles doesn't seem to help. The GUF theory is still the victim of countless attempts at unifying forces which were never divided. And so on.

[Perhaps more work has been done in the field of theoretical physics than any one of us is aware. Turning back the clock might lead us to make some of the same mistakes or miss some of the successes. Even driving into a dead end helps if it eliminates a possibility, thereby clarifying somewhat the likely successful road.
Inventing new particles has actually proved to be of inestimable value. Actually, postulating them would be a better way of putting it. The fact that physicists have often postulated a particle, its attributes, its characteristices, and then proven its existence, is key to many of the successes in reaching far enough into an atom to talk about gluons and quarks that no one has seen. Certainly, there are still problems and paradoxes, but diagnosing those engine ignition problems can also be challenging.
The GUF is also closer to a resolution now than even five years ago. I'd certainly hate to throw away all the promising work that has been done. You and I could live our whole lives imagining an unnamed but simple 'one unit of energy' construct, without worrying about working out the math or what that really means. The whole world could get by for generations that way. Some just aren't geared for accepting the unexplained.

(5a?) I,ve a lot of intriquing thoughts after more than eighty years of observation of Life, the Universe and Everything. Have learned to watch, listen and think. When people start to agree with me I worry that I must be wrong.

"Only reality is truth."

[I'll certainly stand up an applaud when someone comes up with a really good definition of either truth or reality.]

(5a?) I,ve a lot of intriquing thoughts after more than eighty years of observation of Life, the Universe and Everything. Have learned to watch, listen and think. When people start to agree with me I worry that I must be wrong.

[A kindred spirit! Thank you.]




BB, You force me to bring out my brigand to B6-level5.

After all, the search for extra-solar planets has so far only revealed gas planets larger than Jupiter but far closer to their parent stars.

[Two things immediately lept to mind when I read this: 1) I've read about the technique they are using, and how it operates at the distances involved. Strangely, it is only equipped to register gas planets about the size of Jupiter. I wondered how they expected this to tell them anything about the possibility of earth-like planets? 2) There was a scientist who declared that all see life was at least 2 inches in size, until someone pointed out that the fishermen who brought him his samples used nets with 2 inch gaps.]

"Of cause, they would never contact us... not for a long time."
Why not? If they soon invent wormholes, it may be very soon before they contact us. And, if an intelligent civilisation five billion light years away sent a simple radio signal to us almost five billion years ago then we may receive it quite soon.

[How old do you think the universe is?? Invent wormholes?? Our signals are just getting to planets about 60 light-years away, so our presence has hardly been advertised for very long, and the signal strength gets pretty weak at that distance. They'd have to be listening pretty carefully, wouldn't they?]

There is even a theory that intelligent life came to Earth before life evolved here and put some 'unnecessary' genes into our DNA that actually contain a carefully coded message. Such unnecessary genes do exist, and scientists are indeed searching for hidden messages.

[Pardon, but I think you're thinking about StarTrek-TNG here.]

A good start is to use the popular words 'ana' and 'kata' as counterparts to the words 'forwards' and 'backwards' for use with a fourth dimension.

[Thanks for the useful terminology!]

"I see everything extending in perfect proportional relativity. Took many years to see the interlinking independencies that control the life and death of this universe."
Would you care to elaborate on the 'interlinking independencies'? It sounds very interesting, but myself I cannot see it.

[I agree. This deserves more clarification]

"All is energy."
Clarification: 'everything in this universe is energy'. I would agree with that statement on the outset. But I don't know about 'everything'.

[Valid point, but what is this 'energy' made of, and how many flavours are there?]

Phew!!

"BB, You force me to bring out my brigand to B6-level5."

Ah! I see we are playing multi-dimensional chess. In that case I shall move my bishop in a kata direction to C7-level2.



""After all, the search for extra-solar planets has so far only revealed gas planets larger than Jupiter but far closer to their parent stars."

[Two things immediately lept to mind when I read this: 1) I've read about the technique they are using, and how it operates at the distances involved. Strangely, it is only equipped to register gas planets about the size of Jupiter. I wondered how they expected this to tell them anything about the possibility of earth-like planets? 2) There was a scientist who declared that all see life was at least 2 inches in size, until someone pointed out that the fishermen who brought him his samples used nets with 2 inch gaps.]"

I did not know about point (1). Now that I do, I realise that the fact that Jupiter-sized-close-to-parent-sun-planets are all we can find proves nothing. For purposes of clarity, if we refer to such extrasolar planets again, we should use the following construct:

Jupsictopsups = Jupiter-sized-close-to-parent-sun-planets.

This should make it easier to explain what we mean.


""Of cause, they would never contact us... not for a long time."
"Why not? If they soon invent wormholes, it may be very soon before they contact us. And, if an intelligent civilisation five billion light years away sent a simple radio signal to us almost five billion years ago then we may receive it quite soon."

[How old do you think the universe is?? Invent wormholes?? Our signals are just getting to planets about 60 light-years away, so our presence has hardly been advertised for very long, and the signal strength gets pretty weak at that distance. They'd have to be listening pretty carefully, wouldn't they?]"

What's wrong with aliens developing wormholes. For clarity, I shall invent an imaginary alien planet called Curea (actually one of the civilisations that appears in my [as yet unpublished] novel) that has developed wormhole technology. Regardless of whether or not they have received signals from Earth (and as you point out, it is very unlikely that they would have), they can still begin to use their wormholes to chart the vastness of interstellar space and discover other life. They might very quickly be able to discover Earth using the wormholes. I don't see why this is hard to imagine. If the Cureans have brains that work at blazingly fast speeds, which is perfectly possible, then they could conceivably have evolved after Earthlings but already be far in advance of us.



""There is even a theory that intelligent life came to Earth before life evolved here and put some 'unnecessary' genes into our DNA that actually contain a carefully coded message. Such unnecessary genes do exist, and scientists are indeed searching for hidden messages."

[Pardon, but I think you're thinking about StarTrek-TNG here.]"

On the contrary I was thinking about an article I read in NewScientist. So there.



""A good start is to use the popular words 'ana' and 'kata' as counterparts to the words 'forwards' and 'backwards' for use with a fourth dimension."

[Thanks for the useful terminology!]"

Yes; I find it useful too. Troublingly, it only accounts for one more dimension, when there could be as many as 11. I think we should have terms for a fifth dimension too.

Would you like to think of some vocabulary for it?


""I see everything extending in perfect proportional relativity. Took many years to see the interlinking independencies that control the life and death of this universe."
Would you care to elaborate on the 'interlinking independencies'? It sounds very interesting, but myself I cannot see it.

[I agree. This deserves more clarification]"

Well done FordsTowel! You've just one five hundred olives! This is the last point at which you could go home with nothing so consider the next question carefully.


"what is this 'energy' made of, and how many flavours are there?"

As far as I understand it, energy is matter, and vice versa. Energy can't exist in a 'pure' form, but takes lots of different forms, such as heat, light, movement and so on. There might be a pure form of energy, but I haven't come across it, and neither have the physicists.


"Phew!!"

I dispute that quite categorically. Whether intentionally or not, I believe you have ignored the debate at hand here! What about parallel universes, say I? What happened to the Frivolous, Frantic, Feverish, Fantastical and Frenzied Quodlibet about the existence of parallel universes?

I suggest we begin the aforementioned debate after the debates above have been settled to a satisfactory standard.

Ah! I see we are playing multi-dimensional chess.
[Why BB! Certainly you wouldn't have expected a two-dimensional game?? In fact, I've kata'd myself to win the game before it has even begun! Your pawn and knight had already been eaten by my fulournis fire dragon, after he avoided your magic missle.]

Jupsictopsups = Jupiter-sized-close-to-parent-sun-planets.
[For a moment, I thought you just ate too many of the olives; but for as often as this concept is likely to be brought up, works well for me!]

This should make it easier to explain what we mean.
[Oh yes. That will make it MUCH easier .]

Cureans ... "might very quickly be able to discover Earth using the wormholes. I don't see why this is hard to imagine. If the Cureans have brains that work at blazingly fast speeds, which is perfectly possible, then they could conceivably have evolved after Earthlings but already be far in advance of us."
[First, we should probably define 'wormholes', and how they MIGHT work. Postulating unproven technologies, developed by unrecorded species, whose brains work in an undefined ultra-speed manner, is not much better than postulating Magic, Manna, and Mantras as feasible communication technologies.
Still, if we consider that there is such a race 'out there', and that their techonology is successful, the odds of them having a 50-50 chance of coming across our species in 2 billion years is still pretty far-fetched.
This presupposes a random search, at one galaxy arm per month, with a BIG luck charm factored in.]

"There is even a theory that intelligent life came to Earth before life evolved here and put some 'unnecessary' genes into our DNA that actually contain a carefully coded message. Such unnecessary genes do exist, and scientists are indeed searching for hidden messages."
. [Pardon, but I think you're thinking about StarTrek-TNG here.]"
On the contrary I was thinking about an article I read in NewScientist. So there.
[Do tell? Sounds like an interesting article. But it does smack of seeing Jesus' face in the woodgrain of a lavatory stall door.]

Troublingly, it (ana and kata) only accounts for one more dimension, when there could be as many as 11. I think we should have terms for a fifth dimension too.
Would you like to think of some vocabulary for it?
[Hmmm, Perhaps Ipso and Facto?]

As far as I understand it, energy is matter, and vice versa. Energy can't exist in a 'pure' form, but takes lots of different forms, such as heat, light, movement and so on. There might be a pure form of energy, but I haven't come across it, and neither have the physicists.
[Well, this is what the GUF theory is supposed to make possible. Once they viewed gravity, as it would appear coming into a 2D universe and realised it looked like electro-magnetism, I became convinced that the 'stuff' (energy, if you will) is of one variety, but it looks awfully different as it comes in through different dimensional protrusions.
For now though, I have no problem agreeing that we haven't come across the 'pure stuff' yet.]

I dispute that quite categorically. Whether intentionally or not, I believe you have ignored the debate at hand here! What about parallel universes, say I? What happened to the Frivolous, Frantic, Feverish, Fantastical and Frenzied Quodlibet about the existence of parallel universes?
[Ah, finally we are solidly back on track! As just mentioned, I do favour a multitude of dimensions (ie. more than 8), my son has worked out what he believes to be the maximum number of dimensions which with we can possibly ever become acquainted with. I'm just not ready to agree with him.
He does admit that there could be more, but that none of the additional dimensions would play any part in ours, or interact with it in any form. Again, he hasn't convinced me as of yet.]

I suggest we begin the aforementioned debate after the debates above have been settled to a satisfactory standard.
[I thought this was a discussion about the nature of TIME!?!?!]
[No, sorry. This is abuse. Nature of time is down the hall.

One of your pawns has fallen down a wormhole. I suggest you bring in back-ups, because my knights are moving ipso very fast.


"Cureans ... "might very quickly be able to discover Earth using the wormholes. I don't see why this is hard to imagine. If the Cureans have brains that work at blazingly fast speeds, which is perfectly possible, then they could conceivably have evolved after Earthlings but already be far in advance of us."
[First, we should probably define 'wormholes', and how they MIGHT work. Postulating unproven technologies, developed by unrecorded species, whose brains work in an undefined ultra-speed manner, is not much better than postulating Magic, Manna, and Mantras as feasible communication technologies.
Still, if we consider that there is such a race 'out there', and that their techonology is successful, the odds of them having a 50-50 chance of coming across our species in 2 billion years is still pretty far-fetched.
This presupposes a random search, at one galaxy arm per month, with a BIG luck charm factored in.]"

Unproven technology? Unrecorded species? Undefined manner? Sounds like the build-up to the chorus of the song, doesn't it?

You could say that anything is unproven, but Kip Thorne and a lot of other physicists have done a lot of work just to show that the currently accepted laws of physics do allow, in theory, for the existence of use-able wormholes.

The fact that the species is unrecorded is just something we need to accept for the purposes of the argument. It is quite likely that advanced life-forms exist in the universe, but they could exist beyond our 'horizon' of visibility. The furthest out that we have seen is about 13 billion light years away, but the light from things further away hasn't had time to get here yet. Even worse, these things we can't see are getting further and further away with the expansion of the universe, and so our 'horizon' is always going to be the limit of what we can see until we travel out there.

In such a vast universe, it's actually very probable that the Cureans in some form or other, do exist, depending on how big the universe is. If the universe is infinite, then the likelihood is certain. And, if an infinite number of parallel universes exist, then the likelihood is again certain.

As for the undefined ultra-speed, we again just need to accept for the purposes of the argument that they do have brains that work at some ultra-speed, whatever that may be. I don't see why this is inconceivable.

Anyway, the fact is that, supposing they exist, they may not actually be 'looking' for us purposefully. They may use wormhole technology, along with many other advanced equipment that we cannot conceive of that charts the entire universe. They would hence find out about our existence. You might understand precisely 'how' they achieve this with the definitions given below, but remember, I'm not saying that all this is likely to be true, I'm just saying that it's possible. Personally I don't think it is ever going to happen, but I never rule out the possibility that this could happen in our universe. There is certainly nothing in physics that forbids it (yet).


OK. A definition of wormholes is required. Here we go.

I know! I think an extract from my [as yet unpublished] sci-fi novel might help here. In the following scene, an Earthling [Oberon] has entered a wormhole shop on an alien planet, and here is how their custom goes:-

---

"Which model would you like, sir?" the shop assistant asked Zeus. Oberon wandered over to where Zeus was standing, at the opposite end of the shop with the grinning salesman.
"Which do you have?" Zeus inquired.
"Everything," said the salesman, "We have rotating CMBH models, we have CS-TPs, we have CQFEs, CPUEs and CWHSEs too. Which do you prefer?"
"Could you explain, for the benefit of my associate here, what the benefits of each are?"
"Certainly sir," said the salesman and he turned to Oberon. Oberon listened intently. "Let's start with the first one. The Corfizz Mini-Black Hole models construct two nanoscopic black holes in an empty parallel universe. It then twists the black hole tunnels together so that you have a linked wormhole with two mouths. Now, you can get two versions of these: the tachyon models make the black holes out of tachyons which means you can move them faster than the speed of light and therefore create the space-time-probability discrepancy that you need; then there's the gravity version that puts one of the mouths in a spinning black hole torus. Now, the tachyon models are slightly cheaper but they do have the added danger of transporting you to a different period in time as well as space.
"What's next? Yes, the Corfizz Space-Time Penetrators are the cheapest models because it is the easiest method of wormhole production but isn't always reliable. This model uses masses and masses of antimatter energy to punch a hole in the fabric of space-time, and that, is a wormhole.
"Then there's the Corfizz Quantum Foam Extractors. These are very complex and have the smallest power consumption. They were the first model ever to be built. They take the wormholes from the sub-atomic quantum fluctuations that already exist within quantum foam. You see, all you have to do is create a tiny vacuum chamber that generates enough negative energy. You can get versions of this one that generate the negative energy through a mains supply of antimatter energy, and you can get the ones with rotating mirrors that reflect laser beams, the latter being more expensive.
"Corfizz Parallel Universe Extractors are probably the simplest design, which makes them the smallest, lightest and most easily transportable. They are a bit of a cheating system because they use wormholes that have been generated through other methods to steal wormhole mouths from parallel universes where wormholes are abundant. For a CPUE you're looking in the region of two to three thousand yezzes.
"Corfizz White Hole-Smith Extractors are quite similar to the CPUEs because they take wormholes from white holes when they're spewed out. However, they take a very long time to load because finding a white hole that spews wormhole mouths is rather tricky nowadays. These models aren't really recommended, and they are known to spew out other matter as well. I remember once when we tested a CWHSE, we got a load of iaos in the face. Ha ha!"
"Ha," said Oberon, wondering what an iao was. "So, Zeus, which one do we need?""

---

A good explanation, do you think? Please treat that extract as an explanation only; if we start talking about other things in that scene we'll be here forever. In the context of the rest of the novel it makes more sense.

The fact is, Cureans might use any number of these systems for finding other life-forms quickly and easily.

QED.


***


""There is even a theory that intelligent life came to Earth before life evolved here and put some 'unnecessary' genes into our DNA that actually contain a carefully coded message. Such unnecessary genes do exist, and scientists are indeed searching for hidden messages."
. [Pardon, but I think you're thinking about StarTrek-TNG here.]"
On the contrary I was thinking about an article I read in NewScientist. So there.
[Do tell? Sounds like an interesting article. But it does smack of seeing Jesus' face in the woodgrain of a lavatory stall door.]"

What is there to tell? Didn't I explain the theory enough?


"Troublingly, it (ana and kata) only accounts for one more dimension, when there could be as many as 11. I think we should have terms for a fifth dimension too.
Would you like to think of some vocabulary for it?
[Hmmm, Perhaps Ipso and Facto?]"

Perfect.


"As far as I understand it, energy is matter, and vice versa. Energy can't exist in a 'pure' form, but takes lots of different forms, such as heat, light, movement and so on. There might be a pure form of energy, but I haven't come across it, and neither have the physicists.
[Well, this is what the GUF theory is supposed to make possible. Once they viewed gravity, as it would appear coming into a 2D universe and realised it looked like electro-magnetism, I became convinced that the 'stuff' (energy, if you will) is of one variety, but it looks awfully different as it comes in through different dimensional protrusions.
For now though, I have no problem agreeing that we haven't come across the 'pure stuff' yet.]"

OK. I think this concludes that particular argument.


"I dispute that quite categorically. Whether intentionally or not, I believe you have ignored the debate at hand here! What about parallel universes, say I? What happened to the Frivolous, Frantic, Feverish, Fantastical and Frenzied Quodlibet about the existence of parallel universes?
[Ah, finally we are solidly back on track! As just mentioned, I do favour a multitude of dimensions (ie. more than 8), my son has worked out what he believes to be the maximum number of dimensions which with we can possibly ever become acquainted with. I'm just not ready to agree with him.
He does admit that there could be more, but that none of the additional dimensions would play any part in ours, or interact with it in any form. Again, he hasn't convinced me as of yet.]"

There are so many different theories of higher dimensions. String theorists claim that everything is 11-dimensional, but that 7 of these dimensions are curled up so small that they can never be observed. I recommend the book 'Surfing Through Hyperspace' by Clifford Pickover if you want more details about higher dimensions. And 'Hyperspace' by Michio Kaku is literally a must-read, as is 'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene.


"I suggest we begin the aforementioned debate after the debates above have been settled to a satisfactory standard.
[I thought this was a discussion about the nature of TIME!?!?!]
[No, sorry. This is abuse. Nature of time is down the hall. "

Yes. We'll get on to parallel universes after the responses about my responses to your responses.

Olive?

This conversation is a source of constant delight. I came to this thread to see what you are making of this branch subject....whatever it is. Having been quoted and queried I thought I would respond, but that which I feared would happen is happening. Remember I said that there is need for a whole new vocabulary?
Already been suggested that 'space' be called 'volume'. In normal parlance, 'space' means an unoccupied volume (empty). Volumeis a doubtful word when describing a universe.


Einstein's term 'zero energy field' was an indication that there exists some sort of interstellar medium. His 'zero' actually states that the energy level is always zero. How could it be otherwise?

I will call it a 'universal neutral field'.
The word 'neutral' is only necessary because it is the only description we have for that which is neither 'positive' or 'negative' (Victorian terminology). This medium is both positive and negative.
This energy-medium is the universe. Matter is energy retained in the form of concentrated, oscillating-medium particles. All forces are conditions of the field. Elementary time is the extension of the field, awareness of time is the effect of the extension upon atomic particles (matter).

Sorry, am I back to time again? I'm told that Time is down the hall.
Cheers (there's a lot more wher this came from)

BB: My cadre of paladins have stormed three of your castles, and freed the quorum of prisoners in their dungeons.

Unproven technology? Unrecorded species? Undefined manner? Sounds like the build-up to the chorus of the song, doesn't it?
[Fitting with yet another definition of Quodlibet; I think we now have them all covered!]

You could say that anything is unproven, but Kip Thorne and a lot of other physicists have done a lot of work just to show that the currently accepted laws of physics do allow, in theory, for the existence of use-able wormholes.
[Yes, considering the possibility that their is only one 'human mind', being fed signals from an undisclosed species, the entire universe may be considered 'unproven' as this mind would never know that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax/experiment, a la 'Matrix'.
The induced physical nature of everything could just be a method of testing other universe constructs, to see if the beings created in them could survive and figure it all out logically. ... Or, that mind could simply be a pet.
But, given what we have to work with, there's a big difference between 'assuming' this species, and theoretical allowance for their existence, isn't there?]

The fact that the species is unrecorded is just something we need to accept for the purposes of the argument. It is quite likely that advanced life-forms exist in the universe, but they could exist beyond our 'horizon' of visibility ...etc.
[True, it is vast enough that they may exist and all that; but why are they necessary for the purposes of this argument?
If the universe IS infinite, then the likelihood of them finding us falls all the more short of probability, doesn't it? There'd be an infinite number of choices against our one!]

As for the undefined ultra-speed, we again just need to accept for the purposes of the argument that they do have brains that work at some ultra-speed, whatever that may be. I don't see why this is inconceivable.
I am willing to accept, 'for the purposes of the argument', that their brains work much faster than ours, with one or two caveats/questions. Our brains work pretty quickly and well using chemically fired neurons. Are we assuming something faster? The fastest speed alledged to be possible is the speed of light. How much faster would a photonic, positronic, fiber-optic brain function? And, do your really want to propose that they came by them naturally, or do you suggest that they built them to do their thinking for them?]

Anyway, the fact is that, supposing they exist, they may not actually be 'looking' for us purposefully. They may use wormhole technology, along with many other advanced equipment that we cannot conceive of that charts the entire universe. They would hence find out about our existence. You might understand precisely 'how' they achieve this with the definitions given below, but remember, I'm not saying that all this is likely to be true, I'm just saying that it's possible. Personally I don't think it is ever going to happen, but I never rule out the possibility that this could happen in our universe. There is certainly nothing in physics that forbids it (yet).
[Okay, we have reduced from probability to assumption. I can handle this. But, even if physics did forbid it, it wouldn't be the first time that nature stuck out its tongue and said, 'Nyaah, nyaah!']


OK. A definition of wormholes is required. Here we go.
[Zeus? Oberon? Interesting juxtaposition.

The fact is, Cureans might use any number of these systems for finding other life-forms quickly and easily.
[I'll concede that the wormhole concept would make searching much faster; but you'll have to concede that the assumption of a virtually infinite universe, necessary to assume their existence, exponentially increases the unlikelihood that they would ever run across the Earth.
And, that the infinite number of races that they would find, at any level of development they sought, would each take a significant amount of time and resources to form mutually communicative relationships, slowing their progress, and more probably exhausting their resources before they got to us. - QED cubed and facto'd]

""There is even a theory that intelligent life came to Earth before life evolved here and put some 'unnecessary' genes into our DNA that actually contain a carefully coded message. Such unnecessary genes do exist, and scientists are indeed searching for hidden messages."
What is there to tell? Didn't I explain the theory enough?
[Actually, yes. I'd just hoped that there was more than a vague search involved. You know, like some indication that the coding followed some seemingly linguistic pattern, or something. Not to worry.]

"Troublingly, it (ana and kata) only accounts for one more dimension, when there could be as many as 11. I think we should have terms for a fifth dimension too.
Would you like to think of some vocabulary for it?
*[Hmmm, Perhaps Ipso and Facto?]"
Perfect.
[Thanks! I liked it.]

"As far as I understand it, energy is matter, and vice versa. Energy can't exist in a 'pure' form, but takes lots of different forms, such as heat, light, movement and so on. There might be a pure form of energy, but I haven't come across it, and neither have the physicists.
OK. I think this concludes that particular argument.
[That would be great, but perhaps Noggin or S. Simon have some pieces to move from their sides of the chessboard.]

There are so many different theories of higher dimensions. String theorists claim that everything is 11-dimensional, but that 7 of these dimensions are curled up so small that they can never be observed. I recommend the book 'Surfing Through Hyperspace' by Clifford Pickover if you want more details about higher dimensions. And 'Hyperspace' by Michio Kaku is literally a must-read, as is 'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene.
[I look forward to them, and may I suggest: 'Fearless Symmetry - The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics' and 'An Old Man's Toy - Gravity at Work and Play in Einstein's Universe', both by Dr. Anthony Zee.
Tim Allen (nee Timothy Dick), of TV and Movie fame, suggests 'The Tao of Physics', and 'Dancing Wu Li Masters'; also on my must get/read list.]

Soon, back to the future!

FT:

"[Yes, considering the possibility that their is only one 'human mind', being fed signals from an undisclosed species, the entire universe may be considered 'unproven' as this mind would never know that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax/experiment, a la 'Matrix'.
The induced physical nature of everything could just be a method of testing other universe constructs, to see if the beings created in them could survive and figure it all out logically. ... Or, that mind could simply be a pet.
But, given what we have to work with, there's a big difference between 'assuming' this species, and theoretical allowance for their existence, isn't there?]"

I don't think there is. I think the theoretical allowance for their existence can be assumed quite easily, and vice versa.



"[True, it is vast enough that they may exist and all that; but why are they necessary for the purposes of this argument?"

I don't know. I've forgotten what the argument was.


"If the universe IS infinite, then the likelihood of them finding us falls all the more short of probability, doesn't it?"

Yes, obviously.

"There'd be an infinite number of choices against our one!"

Yes. But you must agree that there is still a possibility - no matter how small - that they can and may have develop(ed) technology that quickly and easily allows them to see all the life-forms in the universe. Maybe they have found a way to enter a higher-dimensional universe from which vantage point they can see the entire universe at once, and perhaps 'pick out' sentient beings as easily as picking out an olive from a plate pineapples.


"I am willing to accept, 'for the purposes of the argument', that their brains work much faster than ours, with one or two caveats/questions. Our brains work pretty quickly and well using chemically fired neurons. Are we assuming something faster? The fastest speed alledged to be possible is the speed of light. How much faster would a photonic, positronic, fiber-optic brain function? And, do your really want to propose that they came by them naturally, or do you suggest that they built them to do their thinking for them?"


Subclassing...

"Are we assuming something faster?"

We are definitely assuming something faster than our own brains.

"The fastest speed alledged to be possible is the speed of light."

No! Don't fall in to the metaphorical trap of poisonous olives! There is nothing to say that things can't travel faster than light. The only restriction is that we can't CROSS the light speed barrier; in other words, it is impossible to accelerate beyond light speed if one has begun travelling slower than light. I'm sure you knew this, but you said it in a way that was technically incorrect.

"How much faster would a photonic, positronic, fiber-optic brain function?"

I don't know. I haven't got one. I'd imagine that ten times faster is a useful advantage. But we could imagine brains that can operate incredibly speedily. One race of aliens in my [AYU (As-Yet-Unpublished)] novel, for example, have brains powered by matter-anti-matter collision. Don't ask me how they manage not to annihilate themselves; that isn't the point. The point is that the resulting energy is very large, and can power their brains indefinitely.

"And, do your really want to propose that they came by them naturally, or do you suggest that they built them to do their thinking for them?"

I really don't see what's so difficult about imagining that they came by their brains naturally. I don't think it would be necessary to 'build' their brains, although the aforementioned species does actually develop upgrades for their brains.


"[I'll concede that the wormhole concept would make searching much faster; but you'll have to concede that the assumption of a virtually infinite universe, necessary to assume their existence, exponentially increases the unlikelihood that they would ever run across the Earth.
And, that the infinite number of races that they would find, at any level of development they sought, would each take a significant amount of time and resources to form mutually communicative relationships, slowing their progress, and more probably exhausting their resources before they got to us. - QED cubed and facto'd"


Sub-classing...

"I'll concede that the wormhole concept would make searching much faster;"

Great.

..."but you'll have to concede that the assumption of a virtually infinite universe, necessary to assume their existence, exponentially increases the unlikelihood that they would ever run across the Earth."

Only on the condition that you will concede that their ultra-fast brain-power could allow them to develop technology that exponentially increases their likelihood of coming across sentient beings in the universe, thereby cancelling out the difference. Note the word 'could'.

"And, that the infinite number of races that they would find, at any level of development they sought, would each take a significant amount of time and resources to form mutually communicative relationships, slowing their progress, and more probably exhausting their resources before they got to us. - QED cubed and facto'd""

On the contrary you haven't QED cubed and facto'd anything. I have a counter-move up my sleeve, and it is very uncomfortable, so I shall have no fear in removing it and displaying it in a very matter-of-fact manner.

Time and resources can easily be managed by an ultra-advanced civilisation, like the ones being postulated here. Note the word 'can'. If we use an alien race with a brain that works with the matter-anti-matter principle described above as an example, then it is unlikely that they will run out of resources. The alien race in question could quite easily use the matter-anti-matter principle to amass vast quantities of energy. Releasing the full energy contained within just one particle of matter, by successfully colliding it with its anti-matter counterpart and subsequently successfully harnessing the resulting gamma-ray outburst - things that the alien race would most probably be able to do quite easily given their intelligence, could power an entire alien city for at least the equivalent of one Earth month.

All the aliens would need to do is to find a reliable source of anti-matter.

Perhaps - in an infinite or otherwise amazingly massive universe - the alien race evolved right next to a big source of anti-matter, which is why their brains work on such a principle.

It may sound far-fetched, but you must admit that it is possible, at least in theory.


Three OKs to your next three points and thanks for the book recommendations!


S_Simon:

I'm glad you've been enjoying this debate. It is quizzical is it not?

"I will call it a 'universal neutral field'.
The word 'neutral' is only necessary because it is the only description we have for that which is neither 'positive' or 'negative' (Victorian terminology). This medium is both positive and negative."

I get this bit.

"This energy-medium is the universe."

I understand that bit.

"Matter is energy retained in the form of concentrated, oscillating-medium particles."

I can definitely see the truth/logic in this.

"All forces are conditions of the field."

In my understanding, forces are simply more particles, but they're 'carrier' particles, carrying the force. This is the standard interpretation from the Standard Model of Particle Physics, anyway.

"Elementary time is the extension of the field"

Why did you use the word 'elementary'? What other types of time are there in your opinion? And as for the 'extension' of the field, I automatically substitute this word in my mind for 'expansion'. Is that the same thing?

"awareness of time is the effect of the extension upon atomic particles (matter)."

This is an interesting thought.

You sound very definite about all of these theories. You sound as though you are a prophet telling us the way things are. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this, but are you willing to consider other viewpoints?

Hello FT
I'm back again. Been scanning your posting and had to respond

'In an extending universe all celetial bodies, including our moon, is receeding. Yet when measured by the time of a laser pulse to the moon and back it reads the same at any time (apart from natural and understood orbital perurbations)'.

[This sounds as if it is based on an assumption that 'because the known universe is an expanding one, that it affects all individual systems and bodies as well. If this were the case, we would not be able to detect the expansion as all would look consistently the same. It is the fact that we can measure a red-shift, indicating the expansion, that points to them getting further away (in terms of light-years). If the speed of light sped up to account for this, there would be no red-shift, would there?]

Red shift is standard Doppler effect observable in receeding light sources, police car syrens, etc. Everything does look the same because everything is extending pro rata, including you, me and the distance between us. Don't worry too much, there's plenty of space to extend into because space is extending as well.

Speed of light: as you know, velocity is distance over time. Universal extension increases distance and velocity increases. As time extends, velocity reduces and maintains the velocity of light as an apparent constant.
It is only a matter of synchro-relativity like all extension phenomena. I told you. There go all your constants.

Two observers moving together on a parallel course and isolated from other bodies wil be convinced that they are stationary relative to each other and to the rest of the universe. Likewise, a celestial object moving away from an observer and growing in size appears the same to him.

The difficulty here is that my observations are of changes in absolutes.
The aforementioned parallel observers cannot be persuaded that they are both moving at x kmh (relative to something). Perhaps they are not. There is no proof, only indications that it supports other observatios that are equally difficult to prove.

As I have said before, no part of the picture has validity out of context any more than a single note removed from a symphony. The inherent unity of the evolving universe can only be comprehended as a whole.


"Certain evidence strongly suggests a 'big-bang', an expanding universe, and finite amount of 'stuff' to work with".


I take your reference to a finite amount of 'stuff' as meaning one unit of energy in one unit of energy medium.
Incidentally, it is time to remark that nobody has queried my use of the word 'extension' when referring to the 'expansion' of the universe. It is the vital part of the Big Bang story.

I have a story of the origins which explains the strange things I keep introducing. but I am loathe to embark on this scenario with so much still under discussion


"Oh no. Time cannot be a constant. If the 'space ' of the popular 'space/time continuum' is extending, then 'time' must also be extending, so every second is longer than the last. Don't you find that natural?"

[Nope. In fact, I consider this a wildly strange and unnatural possibility; but I acknowledge that it is worthy of consideration and discussion. It is based on a big 'IF'. We know that the galaxies are moving apart, but I don't know that the continuum is in an expansion mode.]

In fact, it is in an extension mode. See above.

"Turning theoretical physics back a couple of decades". What's wrong with that? If you lose your way and drive into a dead end, what would you do? Inventing new particles doesn't seem to help. The GUF theory is still the victim of countless attempts at unifying forces which were never divided. And so on".

[Perhaps more work has been done in the field of theoretical physics than any one of us is aware. Turning back the clock might lead us to make some of the same mistakes or miss some of the successes. Even driving into a dead end helps if it eliminates a possibility, thereby clarifying somewhat the likely successful road.

When a new idea arises that may challenge what has gone before, it does not undoe everything. Things don't become 'uninvented' nor do ideas and theories instantly disappear from memory. Nobody can 'turn back the clock'.

'Bye for now SS

"As far as I understand it, energy is matter, and vice versa. Energy can't exist in a 'pure' form, but takes lots of different forms, such as heat, light, movement and so on. There might be a pure form of energy, but I haven't come across it, and neither have the physicists.
OK. I think this concludes that particular argument".
[That would be great, but perhaps Noggin or S. Simon have some pieces to move from their sides of the chessboard.]

Energy is (local) change in the status of the universal energy medium. A query has been raised (in humerous vein) regarding how many flavours of energy there are. The serious answer is ....seven. Pure energy is not a good description but the nearest is the original energy of expansion which I call 'primal energy'. It is the one unit of energy which lives in the one unit of energy medium. It is the universe.


At this juncture you probably decide that you have been unsuspectingly communicating with a well camouflaged joker or a raving nut. I realised the risk at the beginning of this conversation. thus my initial reluctance to join in. That's my move...what's yours?

At my age, life is really too short for chess

Cheers SS

Welcome, SS!

This conversation is a source of constant delight.
[Glad to hear it.]

Already been suggested that 'space' be called 'volume'. In normal parlance, 'space' means an unoccupied volume (empty). Volume is a doubtful word when describing a universe.
[Interesting take, SS. IMHO, space is nothing but volume, occupied or not. It was just an attempt to clarify. No harm, no foul.]

Einstein's term 'zero energy field' was an indication that there exists some sort of interstellar medium. His 'zero' actually states that the energy level is always zero. How could it be otherwise?
[Makes sense to me! I was worried by your 'one-energy-unit' theory, because I have always felt that the universe resulted in a null-sum.]

I see something very fascinating is brewing... Allow me to add a few olives to the brew.


"Speed of light: as you know, velocity is distance over time. Universal extension increases distance and velocity increases. As time extends, velocity reduces and maintains the velocity of light as an apparent constant.
It is only a matter of synchro-relativity like all extension phenomena. I told you. There go all your constants."

""Certain evidence strongly suggests a 'big-bang', an expanding universe, and finite amount of 'stuff' to work with".

I take your reference to a finite amount of 'stuff' as meaning one unit of energy in one unit of energy medium.
Incidentally, it is time to remark that nobody has queried my use of the word 'extension' when referring to the 'expansion' of the universe. It is the vital part of the Big Bang story.

I have a story of the origins which explains the strange things I keep introducing. but I am loathe to embark on this scenario with so much still under discussion"


Please refer to my previous post, and you'll see that I have indeed queried your use of the word 'extension', and I have made a few other points in that post that I'd really like to have feedback on.

May I just get some clarification of what you're saying, please, Simon?

This is the impression that I get from your postings:
The universe, in your opinion, is one unit of energy in an energy medium that can contain one unit of energy. And you say that the universe is expanding, or 'extending', and everything that we consider to be 'inside' the universe, or part of it, is also expanding at the same rate. This produces the effect that every second and every centimetre is longer than the last, but we don't notice it because everything is doing this at the same rate; and it does this because the universe is all one unit of energy...

Am I right?

You mention a 'story' that explains this. I'd love to hear it.

I do have some questions though.
In this theory, how do you suppose the unit of energy (the universe) got here in the first place? Or, how did the energy medium get here?

Why is it expanding, or extending?

And how can you sound so certain that this theory is correct?


Please don't be reluctant to join in! I am getting increasingly intrigued by your ideas, and I don't think you're a joker or a nut, camouflaged or otherwise. I would be interested to know who you actually are, but that's not really a point is it?


FT: What's your move? You have conveniently skipped over my last move, I see! Or are you just gathering your forces?

BB: I didn't see your move after my paladins stormed your castles and released the querilous prisoners. I assumed that they all stopped for tea.

I don't think there is ['a big difference between 'assuming' this species, and theoretical allowance for their existence']. I think the theoretical allowance for their existence can be assumed quite easily, and vice versa.
AND;
I don't know [Why are they necessary for the purposes of this argument?']. I've forgotten what the argument was.
AND;
Yes. But you must agree that there is still a possibility - no matter how small - that they can and may have develop(ed) technology that quickly and easily allows them to see all the life-forms in the universe.
FURTHERMORE;
We are definitely assuming something faster than our own brains.
I'd imagine that ten times faster is a useful advantage. But we could imagine brains that can operate incredibly speedily.
AND, FINALLY;
I really don't see what's so difficult about imagining that they came by their brains naturally. I don't think it would be necessary to 'build' their brains, although the aforementioned species does actually develop upgrades for their brains.
ETC., ETC.
[It wouldn't be any further unlikely then, to assume that a less mentally agile race came along and blew them out of existence before they come across us.
Still, since they exist only in the AYU form, let's assume that a theoretical 'they' could have coded messages in our DNA. Since this is yet to be proven true or false, I suggest we leave them to their work and remove them and their wormholes from the playing area (unless they show up to complain, of course).]
---------------
S_Simon {from BB}:
I'm glad you've been enjoying this debate. It is quizzical is it not?
"I will call it a 'universal neutral field'.
The word 'neutral' is only necessary because it is the only description we have for that which is neither 'positive' or 'negative' (Victorian terminology). This medium is both positive and negative."
I get this bit.
"This energy-medium is the universe."
I understand that bit.
"Matter is energy retained in the form of concentrated, oscillating-medium particles."
I can definitely see the truth/logic in this.
"All forces are conditions of the field."
In my understanding, forces are simply more particles, but they're 'carrier' particles, carrying the force. This is the standard interpretation from the Standard Model of Particle Physics, anyway.
"Elementary time is the extension of the field"
Why did you use the word 'elementary'? What other types of time are there in your opinion? And as for the 'extension' of the field, I automatically substitute this word in my mind for 'expansion'. Is that the same thing?
"awareness of time is the effect of the extension upon atomic particles (matter)."
This is an interesting thought.
You sound very definite about all of these theories. You sound as though you are a prophet telling us the way things are. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this, but are you willing to consider other viewpoints?
---------------
SS: I have to say that I got the same bits as BB, and found myself asking similar questions.

Considering that much of what BB and I agree upon is based on either 'proven', current, or the 'best-guess' work of experts in the field, we naturally have to question your source of information. There are several researchers who have come onboard (perfectly welcome, mind you), who have set in their minds particular thoughts that either disagree even with things that are the result of relatively simple observations or concepts that are demonstrably false.

I often find myself trying to school those minds in argumentation and critical thinking. Simply asserting something, I tell them, does not constitute proof, and asking others to accept ideas or theories without question is not an option. The things we say here, we must be willing to defend with definitions of terms, logic, and (where applicable) authoritative support or proof.

Failing that, we must admit that we are only putting forth a personal viewpoint of how things appear to us, which was I think your point. But, even then, it will only be a fruitful conversation if you can elaborate (in terms your audience can understand), and take us down your road step-by-step.

Hope you don't mind, but I'd like you to take a few steps back to the basics, and give us an idea of where your theory of everything comes from (not the source, the process).

Therefore:
'In an extending universe all celetial bodies, including our moon, is receeding. Yet when measured by the time of a laser pulse to the moon and back it reads the same at any time (apart from natural and understood orbital perurbations)'.
[This could well be true, but you haven't yet convinced us that we exist in an extending universe. Acknowledging the difference between extending and expanding, I need you to discuss what YOU mean by extending that is different.]

Red shift is standard Doppler effect observable in receeding light sources, police car syrens, etc. Everything does look the same because everything is extending pro rata, including you, me and the distance between us. Don't worry too much, there's plenty of space to extend into because space is extending as well.
[It would seem that if 'Everything does look the same because everything is extending pro rata', then the red-shift would not exist, being a part of the same 'light', through which we see that 'Everything does look the same ...', the light from receding galaxies would not shift to red.
You must contend with the red-shift through some other movement than the extension, or the theory fails its first observational test. 'Everything' can not be extending pro-rata without light being part of everything, and equally affected.]


Speed of light: as you know, velocity is distance over time. Universal extension increases distance and velocity increases. As time extends, velocity reduces and maintains the velocity of light as an apparent constant.
It is only a matter of synchro-relativity like all extension phenomena. I told you. There go all your constants.
[I think that BB and I have the same problem with the 'I told you' parts of your arguments. We don't so much need to be 'told' as we need these things 'explained'. Terms like 'synchro-relativity' have absolutely no meaning to me until you define them.]

Two observers moving together on a parallel course and isolated from other bodies wil be convinced that they are stationary relative to each other and to the rest of the universe.
[These two observers WILL be stationary, relative to each other. There would be no convincing to be done. I'm not sure how you mean 'isolated' though, in a universe full of bodies. No galaxy, star, or planet in this universe appears to be stationary to any other.]

Likewise, a celestial object moving away from an observer and growing in size appears the same to him.
[This is not the least bit accurate; for, given two distant planets that appear the same size, simple triangulation will sort out relative size and distance for the two bodies.]

The difficulty here is that my observations are of changes in absolutes.
[This is the type of statement that needs expansion and explanation, especially why they should be accepted except as your viewpoint and for sake of discussion.]

The aforementioned parallel observers cannot be persuaded that they are both moving at x kmh (relative to something). Perhaps they are not. There is no proof, only indications that it supports other observatios that are equally difficult to prove.
[Sorry, but wrong. They can be persuaded that they are moving, and proof can be offered. Some people still may believe the earth is flat, but we are hoping that your two observers are above that sort of rigid mindset.]

As I have said before, no part of the picture has validity out of context any more than a single note removed from a symphony. The inherent unity of the evolving universe can only be comprehended as a whole.
[Short passages, however, can and are studied, and when viewed in small sets reveal either beauty or dischord. A single note can not be determined to be right or wrong, but relatively short passages can illuminate melody, harmony, or a really bad note.
This is a case where, indeed you 'have said before', but not necessarily stopped to convince. There are those of use who believe that, even though the universe is a holistic 'whole', it can be studied in pieces or subsets to advantage. That we can build-up an accurate picture of the universe by first examining pieces, processes, and phenomena. The picture has to add up to something that makes sense, and answers any questions thrown at it, but the process of painting that picture has to begin with the detail.]

I have a story of the origins which explains the strange things I keep introducing. but I am loathe to embark on this scenario with so much still under discussion
[I think that this would be an excellent time to embark. It would, one hopes, go far toward allaying our concerns about your claims and certainties; and provide useful fodder for discussion.]

In fact, it is in an extension mode. See above.
[Meanwhile, please refrain from statements like this one. If we were assume 'you're a joker or a nut', this is the kind of statement that would do it. You haven't proven it to the point of being able to make this assertion, ... yet.]

When a new idea arises that may challenge what has gone before, it does not undoe everything.
[We thrive on new ideas, and most everything in physics has had to change gears or direction on occasion; but, again, ideas are not facts, theories are not proofs, and there is much to be questioned in any current official or non-official theory I have ever heard, including my own.]

Energy is (local) change in the status of the universal energy medium. A query has been raised (in humerous vein) regarding how many flavours of energy there are. The serious answer is ....seven. Pure energy is not a good description but the nearest is the original energy of expansion which I call 'primal energy'. It is the one unit of energy which lives in the one unit of energy medium. It is the universe.
[Okay, this is bad. 'Energy is (local) change in the status of the universal energy medium.'
One thing best avoided is any attempt to define something in terms of itself. Clarification is in order.
Perhaps you meant that 'what we perceive as energy is ...', but that would still beg the question of what you mean by 'status' and 'medium'.]
---------------
I'm glad to see that we're all enjoying this line, and thanks to BB for suggesting reinforced titanium for this beam!



PS: BB, if your move was the bit with the olives, prepare for the "coming of the Great Plastic Toothpick"!

PPS: If either of you have missed the official H2G2 movie website, go and push the red button twice! (Ignore the "Please do not push this button again" message.
Keep going back until you've seen at least six different 'effects'.

OK, FT. Clarifying is a good thing if it doesn't lead to further confusion.



"Already been suggested that 'space' be called 'volume'. In normal parlance, 'space' means an unoccupied volume (empty). Volume is a doubtful word when describing a universe".
[Interesting take, SS. IMHO, space is nothing but volume, occupied or not. It was just an attempt to clarify. No harm, no foul.]

Space-aether-interstellar medium-volume(?)-etc., there was a lovely Geek word that I can't remember By a wise old philospher in 600 something meaning 'empty but alive', describing space. I would like a word meaning 'universal energy medium'. EUM? (Everyone would assume it was another European quango)'

Seems that visionaries are the first ones to look deeper into this mysterious universe and see the invisible and the the improbable....not forgetting the impossible and the unpopular. They are mostly wrong of course but that doesn't matter.

"Einstein's term 'zero energy field' was an indication that there exists some sort of interstellar medium. His 'zero' actually states that the energy level is always zero. How could it be otherwise?"
[Makes sense to me! I was worried by your 'one-energy-unit' theory, because I have always felt that the universe resulted in a null-sum.]

You may be right about the null-sum. The universe started from nothing (apparently) and in my model it ends as it started, completing this cycle (universe No.?)

A universe compressed into an 'atom' is a lot of energy in a small space. but there ain't no more. It's the only game in town. It can't be lost outside of the universal energy medium. Hence your conservation of energy laws. I hope this explains my one-energy-unit

By the way, have you ever wondered what was in this atom? Matter did not exist. Leaves only compressed medium -- call it what you will. And BOY did it expand. This is the big story of the Beginning (The Word)
Don't underestimate the old boys who wrote the old testament. They were trying to describe what they could see to a bunch of shepherds and fishermen. We have to decode it.

Must fly SS

You know what? I think I agree with just about everything you said there, FordsTowel.

Isn't that great?

And the h2g2 movie website has some very good animations; thanks for pointing that out.

Hello, SS, again. Sorry you had to 'fly' but I can't help feeling that your posting really didn't explain much of what we were eager to hear. I'm still a bit unsure of what you mean by your energy-unit and energy-medium and why it's here. And I'm still anticipating your grand 'story' of the whole shebang. When you're ready, perhaps you could elaborate further.

And the 'boys in the old testament' didn't 'see' the origin of the universe did they? They must have just speculated on how it was.

Thank you anyway. You are raising some very interesting discussion points.

SS: Sorry you were apparently in a rush, and didn't have the time to reply as fully as I am sure you would have liked. Take your time. Explaining the virtually unexplainable is worth waiting for.

One suggestion is simplification from UEM, to UM. If the medium is universal, the energy component is probably superfluous or redundant.

I sympathise with your search for the lovely Geek word (was that supposed to be 'Greek'?). Vocabularies are great, but when retreival is lacking, ... ; my constant affliction.

If you are referring to yourself as the 'visionary', you're in good company. Feel free to check out BB's other work, and my own 'Time: A Bi-Directional Dimension', and 'The Amazing 42-Minute Gravity Sled'.

Please remember to get back to describing the seven flavours of energy, as well as the whole UEM thing.

I happen to agree with you on the whole Christian scripture thing, by the way. It amazes me how closely the 'Seven Days' concept coincides with the currently understood formation of the cosmos and life on Earth. I, for one, don't see the major disagreement between science and the Holy Bible.

Like you (if I may be so bold), I understand that any book is limited to the available vocabulary of the people and the time. No matter how accurate the message is, it is always constrained by the vocabulary available for capturing and communicating it.

BB: I am Shocked! I hope that we aren't putting aside fun points of discussion, just because we found someone who disagrees with both of use even more .

FT, how is the Seven Days theory closely related to the scientific view of the universe's origin?

And, would it be appropriate to start discussing parallel universes as was planned at the beginning, or should we wait for SS so that we don't lose the plot (so to speak)?

BB. A few years ago I scribbled my story of the universe on seven A4's
and took it first to Birtil Laurant, head of Theoretical Physics Stockholm and then to Prof. Dorling, Philosophy of Science Amsterdam.(you need guts for such an impertinence). In each case,after an hour or so discussing and disagreeing both admitted that there was nothing that could be ruled out on grounds of the present understanding of physics. Laurant ventured a remark to the effect that it may be time for looking from a different view point. I think he meant it.

Explaining to experianced physicists requires much reorientation of long-held views based on information widely accepted within the scientific commmunity. Constantly looking for the one with the time to listen and the breadth of mind to consider the propositions. To your posting ....


"All forces are conditions of the field."

In my understanding, forces are simply more particles, but they're 'carrier' particles, carrying the force. This is the standard interpretation from the Standard Model of Particle Physics, anyway.

No argument with Standard Models as they come and go. Carrier particles are good candidates for the various forces. Particle interactions are multitudinous, multifunctional and often extremely complex. Why not?

Excellent minds have confered to produce the Standard Model which is based on sound evidence. But it is tricky playing with entities that are mathematical equations. Somewhere in our Conversations you or FT mentioned the paradox of having to stop things working in order to find out how they work. Nature constantly demonstrates that any observation alters the natural functioning of the observee. (Like Auntie Meg when she sees the camera).
I have always doubted the method of throwing particles at each other at high velocity to find out what they're made of. Glad they don't use this method in my garage to investigate my car. Been no advance on the Wilson Chamber for a long time. Particle accelerators produce more and more energy and so we go. All exciting stuff.


By the way. When questioned ancerning how many 'flavours' of energy there were I said "seven". Each condition of the energy medium relative to the normal medium and to other conditions produces a force which is viewed as a different energy but is one discernable expression of the energy field. Not sure why I included this


"Elementary time is the extension of the field"

Why did you use the word 'elementary'? What other types of time are there in your opinion? And as for the 'extension' of the field, I automatically substitute this word in my mind for 'expansion'. Is that the same thing?

I originallly thought of elementary time as 'space time'. An extending univeral unit of energy without matter would proceed to become time (continuation of existence) without you or I to observe or matter to affect. The term may be self-explanatory to me but not to others, so I tried Elementary Time ( which is equally confusing, of course).



*** Extension/Expansion. Needs explanation but there is a difference. As you will see, the life or death of a universe.

The explanation of extension involves the full story of the Big Bang, so I must pick the relevant parts from the full account with care.
Take an 'Atom' packed with a Universe. There can be no description of the pressure or 'voltage' or density or temperature, nor is it worth speculating. Sufficient to say that it seems to have expanded with indescribable force.

Two things spring to mind.
(1)If that force is the energy of the universe within, whatever the
material (medium) may be, it is ELASTIC.

(2)If this mrdium continued to expand and accelerate with the total energy of a universe behind it, the medium would expand to near-infinity and the density fall to nil in an infinitesimal part of a nanosecond. Total time would be insufficient for the evolution of a universe. Velocity of time would rise almost into the no-time. But salvation is at hand. the very characteristics that would seem to be the destruction of the embryo universe are actually those that enabled its birth and evolution.

Ref.(1) Elasticity infers the characteristics of compression (clearly demonstrated) AND extension. Logic insists that between the two stresses lies a zone of non-stress or complete relaxation.

(1) and (2) Now comes the tricky bit. Fasten your seat belt.

A universal energy field, expanding under extreme conditions of high density and velocity (a few quadrillions of light years per nanosecond), hits and passes the 'neutral' zone. Massive momentum blasts the medium from extreme velocity expansion into extension, producing giant shock waves and a release of primal energy that fractionates the medium releasing a gigantic incondescent fireball of
high energy plasma, ionised particles and a plethora of unique entities that will never reappear in this universe.

Now I can take of my flak-jacket, tin hat, goggles, gasmask and anti-everything sunglasses. Y'see,I'm very close because there's nowhere else and once you start this scenario it can't be stopped.

To continue... This second phase starts with the huge detonation and conversion of energy which violently reduces the main energy of expansion (now extension) and the velocity of extension suddenly drops.
Rising stress in the extending medium rapidly brings down the velocity of extension. The increasing volume dissipates heat and reduces temperature. Particles and primal matter disperses throughout and the universe is on course for evolution to present and beyond.
I hope this explains the difference between expansion and extension.


"You sound very definite about all of these theories. You sound as though you are a prophet telling us the way things are. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this, but are you willing to consider other viewpoints?"

I like nothing better than other viwpoints. Always dying to meet somebody to communicate on all the many subjects included in life, the universe and everything. What are theories but viewpoints? Our world is full of viewpoints. They are the cause of conversation, disagrement, fisticuffs, attack with lethal weapon, murder, uprisings, mutinies, war/starvation/pestilence/death and a lot of other things. Wouldn't be any fun without viewpoints.

Seriously. Vigorously persue huge range of interests. Also do things. Music. Painting. Writing. Inventing. Was member of Institute of Patentees and Inventors until went to the Continent. I'm here to look listen and learn. Enjoying Conversations. Returning to your comments...

Sorry about sounding like a prophet. I suppose it's telling it as I see it. So far only replied to comments and queries. Sometimes 'simple questions require complicated answers. This posting is a good example of defining two similar words (you said interchangeable) which in the context of what I was describing defined the difference between life or death of the universe. But these are all good questions and I try to give goood answers. Any rate, prophets forecast things to come. My present subject is the past, but I catch myself speaking in the present if I'm describing what I see. I'll try ....
God speed to all who sail in her
SS

BB: I really don't want to get onto additional tangents, so feel free to say you agree or disagree; but let's not get hung up on this. The only reason I'm posting this at all is because we have asked our new friend S_Simon to come forward with his story. I wouldn't want to be accused of not 'splainin' my statement.

Not wanting to risk misquoting scripture, I did a quick google search. Before I could find the text, I ran across this site that tried to do something similar. Feel free to check it out or not.
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm

When I did find the text, I took it from here:
http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofspirituality/sevendaysofcreation.com/

Please keep in mind the vocabulary of the people at the time. It would not have included concepts or terms that we commonly use today, so everything was pushed through a pretty crude filter.
Well, only cause you asked, (deep breath) here goes:

Genesis, chapter 1
1: In the beginning Yahweh created the heavens and the earth.
2: The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of Yahweh was moving over the face of the waters.
3: And Yahweh said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4: And Yahweh saw that the light was good; and Yahweh separated the light from the darkness.
5: Yahweh called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
[I equate this with the big bang. Highly energized photons, according to conventional theory, were zooming around so fast that they initially kept nuclei from forming and electrons from getting involved with protons.]

6: And Yahweh said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7: And Yahweh made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.
8: And Yahweh called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
[The void, filled with fluidic matter-energy (not specifically water, of course), represents a euphemism for the formation of early hydrogen atoms and the occasional clumping. The photons (still present) were starting to lose energy and could no longer break up the partners.]

9: And Yahweh said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10: Yahweh called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And Yahweh saw that it was good.
11: And Yahweh said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.
12: The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And Yahweh saw that it was good.
13: And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
[This equates with the formation of the bodies, formed by gravity, the formation of early suns, all the way through early primordial life.]

14: And Yahweh said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
15: and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16: And Yahweh made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
17: And Yahweh set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
18: to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And Yahweh saw that it was good.
19: And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
[I can’t envy the idea of trying to explain cosmology to farmers and shepherds of the time, but overall this explains that the stars light took some additional time to reach the earth (actually, each other), and that the balance of gravity and velocity created stable orbits for the planets.]

20: And Yahweh said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
21: So Yahweh created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And Yahweh saw that it was good.
22: And Yahweh blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23: And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
[Sounds like evolution to me. The waters bring forth life, and the birds came last.]

24: And Yahweh said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
25: And Yahweh made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And Yahweh saw that it was good.
26: Then Yahweh said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27: So Yahweh created man in his own image, in the image of Yahweh he created him; male and female he created them.
28: And Yahweh blessed them, and Yahweh said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
29: And Yahweh said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
31: And Yahweh saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
[Continuing evolutionary trends, all the way up to modern man, as best as could be described in the vernacular of the time.]

Genesis, chapter 2
1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2: And on the seventh day Yahweh finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
[We have turned out to be the ultimate in evolutionary advancement, at least from our viewpoint. The theory is that it is all now left in our hands, to do with as we see fit (preferably as good stewards).]

I tend to excuse any inexactness, due to the problems of translation through several languages, as well as any original communication problems. Assuming the scriptures are the ‘Inspired Word of God’, it still doesn’t equate to being handwritten by the deity.

S. Simon:
Guess I’ll have to study yours more in the morning (or later, depending on work).