hoola

I see the topic question as implying "why energy", and therefore the why anything question asked once again. If wheeler is right and all is math information, then energy is a description of those energies, and not "real", only lingering math models . The main question of why energy, or why anything, calls into question "why mathematics?" I see it as a local manifestation that is largely unique to this universe and evolved from simpler substances. A scenario can be derived that explains not only why the pre-BB realm delivered the BB, how this illusion of reality is maintained, (lingering)...and how both acts could have come from the same modus of operation, or starting point.

1no, 2yes, 3no,4 yes...

any attempt to explain why the universe exists, must include reasoning as to how an initializing entity (BB?) could have come to exist first.

hello I try....I would think there would be little ability to understand concepts without the math to delineate them. I have no real understanding of what you write as far as the thermo-gravity thing, but I do tend to think that the universe originated prior to math construction, and assert there is no formal mathematics to relate to prior BB events. I propose that logic itself must have developed before formal math, along with 2 precursor states that led to logic. To attempt to provide thought on any supposed entity that cannot be held up to the rigors of math is probably not going to be well received anywhere. This I see for two reasons, either the idea doesn't hold water in the current thinking on the accepted mathematically based evidence providing a modern physical model of the universe, or there is no math provided, or even possible to provide, to support the idea. To even infer that math is not always associated with every phenomena, is disquieting. However, you are attempting to describe a possible gravitational effect, which I see as interesting, as I see the mechanism of gravity possibly having originated from the logic that underlies the maths, and it was that fundamental computing ability of logic itself that began the gravitation framework...this is within the bounds of philosophy and rightfully placed in speculations. In short, I am saying that gravity mechanism may have originated before the BB under the rubric of logic, then evolved further to physical behavior post BB with the completion of the data set with formal math development...I see the BB as the transition point between pre and post mathematical existence...

to me, reality perceptions flow between the two states of subjective and objective. We feel as if in a dream at points within the waking state, as we are never fully in either state, only that one state predominates. But the intellectual idealization of states are differing enough to be clearly defined by the waking state as being currently in predominate waking state..in which I am dutifully carry out the day's duties, not dreaming of them. They will actually be carried out in a physical sense, and reality is "recorded evidence" of my occasional existence in this state. I have been in dreams while I considered the question from the other side..am I dreaming or awake? I would shift between considering the question, then continue to experience the dream, and return to questioning what state I was in, constantly never quite sure. With the awake state I am much more sure of the state as the intellect is more fully functional to determine the state convincingly enough to keep the questioning as to state relatively quiet...since the intellect is the arbiter of the definition of sleep states, that is the gold standard of evidence on each one's predominance...here come D judge...

we exist, therefore law...

s1eep...I can relate to the "imagination encircles the world" idea with "illogic is a by product of the universe". I see the universe as consisting of a physical reality composed of logical information, and a sort of "dark logic" (illogic) that exists due to the underlying mechanism of reality, similar to the "junk dna" idea as regards to our own composition. I see that sentience is the ability to access that illogic which presents itself as data scripts of various levels of rational impossibilities, but nonetheless, constitute valid information. The free will to imagine anything, then to "cancel" it with a sort of negating thought doesn't seem really to apply, as both forms of information are "out there" to be accessed. Once the thought the individual "wills" into existence is not going away, as math doesn't "go away", despite another thought to the contrary, (and both were there all along anyway). Both were expressed in the underlying math of reality, along with countless similar variations both "pro and con" . I see the illogical component of "math as reality" the source of our supposed "free will", which allows an upper limit to what can be actualized in the mind of sentient beings. If math doesn't describe it (yet) you can't even imagine it. This also implies that if you have a truly novel thought, the pre-existing math describing the thought is "disovered" and nothing is "invented" by you, not that you shouldn't be very pleased with the experience (but curb your enthusiasm). This is also saying the imagination is very vast and we will never run out of things to think of...I see the process of math continuing, allowing an ever expanding, but never infinite library with which to choose thoughts from...and physically observable in the expansion of the universe in the continuing logical informational content of the common source of both families of data...I see the endless attempt to compose new music a subconscious attempt to actually express something not "pre-described" by the mathematical object of reality, with a truly novel thing that exists outside the bounds of our universe's well of illogic. The muse of creativity...

glad to be of service....and I wish someone would offer an alternative to my model that attempts to delineate a process that starts with (one) void and ends with the BB, or asks more specific questions about the way I define terminology within the model. I recently answered specific questions as to the relationship between chaos and virtual particles, and how I define chaos itself. Earlier was a prediction from the model that explains why gravity is somewhat discordant with the other 3 forces as gravity might stem from the logic of mathematics, and the other 3 derive from math itself as a somewhat later manifestation, though closely "related"....perhaps the most difficult thing to grasp is the first postulate, in that the void had a default minimum of information, that of there being "one" void, not 5 or 78 or 2/3 voids. That is the primary theoretical bit of the model. Everything flows from that... it is easily criticized. I don't have a problem with that.... I wait patiently under the "flickering IBH streetlight" , watching a bat emerge from darkness to eat a finite number of hungry moths...*sigh*....now, who took my coat !?

I have repeated several times in the last months of attempted discourse, that I do not think what I am saying is correct. Am I supposed to say " I suppose" or "not barely likely" before each statement? What I am saying is so ridiculous, no serious person would presume otherwise. I say what I am thinking only to start a dialogue of the why anything question...with which I have offered a fairy tale of weak logic to attempt to view the perhaps unknowable pre-big bang scenario. I have stated this IBH model as one possible way that something might come from a supposed void, with all it's obvious weakness. The way I have expressed my thinking is fairly obvious, and just as obviously wrong, but nothing I have said is in anyway difficult to understand. To be specifically saying that mathematics is a contrived substance, ordered about by a logic that was cobbled together in an ad-hoc fashion, from a flimsy assemblage of near nothingness, is annoying to science in general as it subverts the last god standing, Mathematics. And I realize the gaps are all over, mostly in how one level of reality could exist in a strictly theoretical sense, and the eventual outcome is another layer of reality that is slightly "more real". The model predicts with the basic idea that everything evolved from something else, including the sacred cow of mathematics. The only reasonable idea I have heard is from Krauss, who thinks a quantum fluctuation created the universe. Well, what created this quantum fluctuation? And the math that delineates it, and the logic that underpins that math? If they are eternal "givens", then perhaps math is God, In which case I should offer an abrupt apology to the residing Christ...and all his obedient followers. I challenge once again anyone to provide a scenario that goes from the void to the BB without the benefit of hindsight provided by contemporary mathematics...

try a conventional heavy full range speaker, or better yet, a sub-woofer in a strong cabinet. That would deliver a larger SPL, or sound pressure, but the range would be more limited. What frequencies are you interested in doing the stimulation with? I don't know the chaladni experiment, but I presume it is stimulating grains of sand into resonant patterns...is that correct?

chaos was produced by the void which has one identifier, that it indeed, it is one void. This is the original " proto-bit" of information. This proto-bit is initiated before the production of logic, therefore there is an impetus without form. This impetus results in the original bit having no particular value, or contantly changing values. As this fragmenting froth (or chaos) of unstable information continues, eventually some proto-bits remain at random to become stable long enough to develop math relations, which, given enough time, will form the basics of logic in the fundamentals of proto-math. Once this logic is established, more proto-information is ordered by this logic to go on to accumulate the various forms and branches of the maths, all occurring within the dimensionless point. Eventually enough information occurs to code for (what will become) mass, then the "informational black hole" appears, as the next step towards actual physical manifestations. The shape of this dimensionless point is spherical, which adds to the basic logic constructions with the algorithm PI, which is delivered through the geometric shape of the sphere, as arranged via the dictates of the newly formed logic . The concordance of the two realms of information go on to develop all the energies / materials eventually to be expressed in the BB, but at present only a description of such (software). As the black hole continues to gain informational mass via the equation of PI results, a description of the hardware to express the software will occur. The completion of this hardware set-function results in the BB, This hardware is perhaps a finite number of universes, ours included. The dark matter is left-over information from the hardware component which may or may not relate to other universes. The virtual particles are left-over information from the still fragmenting chaos...as an analogy to the CMB being a leftover from the BB...

I will espouse the model if requested in full detail...

yes, the IBH model is disbursed through several of my thread entries over the last year or so. Search engine hoola and it can be read...the short version is that the void has a single bit of information (that there was one void), that mutated to the chaos, which developed logic, which proscribed the various disciplines of mathematics, which describes this universe with the BB as a physical starting point, or execute function...IBH stands for "informational black hole"....

It seems that dark matter is probably not light, but it may degenerate into light. I see dark matter as the overall effect of living in a finite multiverse situation, with gravity being a commonality, and "spread out" with the other extant universes...which explains why gravity is weak overall. I don't presume that there is a fully formed universe or set of universes out there, only that there was some left over information from the original description of our universe, and that may simply be "junk dna" that simply sits there lifeless, with an incomplete data set for full expression...but enough data to proscribe gravity function...

In the IBH model of void to chaos to logic to math to us, I can see a correlation of the chaos (unstable values of proto-particles) to the virtual particles of today. This would allow for an efficiency of use of the basic formulations of reality. First using the chaos to generate the next level of reality (logic), and then do double duty as the virtual particles of space today, whatever that ultimate function turns out to be. I presume it may have something to do with the gravity mechanism, which I think may have expressed via the logic function, which went on to "double duty" also, with the expression of mathematics, which is why gravity has a hard time fitting in with the other 3 forces, coming from a prior source...

yes, there seems a bit of a confusion between space expansion and gravitationally bound object orbital expansions...

within the mathematical body of the IBH model, certain algorithms create particles and energies. The photon has (at least) two main descriptive subset categories, (all) of differing numerical combination orders, but granting the same rough principle of operation. The wave function and the particle function of the photon is an example of the "overdiscripton" of light that allows it to behave both as wave or particle, depending on which main subset dominates an observation. Is there a test that shows the particle and wave functions at the same time? Is the "unobserved" wave pattern actually showing both patterns with the wave result major and the particle result a minor influence on overall test display patterns?

The faster than light idea comes from isaac newton, who's calculations require a near instantaneous action between orbiting bodies, or the orbits will not be stable. The is the straight-line gravitation, not gravity waves, which do find a limit at C. The bending of space supposedly causes this straight-line action to "appear" instantaneous...in the mechanics of orbits this "bending" has already been accomplished and therefore the action between bodies only "appears" to be near instant. This is what I presume is accepted thinking on the subject. Do you agree? And do you think the heating of Io is not caused by the accepted explanation of gravitational interactions of jupiter and it's moon?

upon re-reading some of the first posts you made, it seems I had the voyager speed anomaly wrong. You are saying it is going faster than expected. That makes some sense to me, in that as the object has less heat energy from the sun, it has less overall energy, and accordingly, less physical mass. This would seem to allow the acceleration to be higher than expected. The power supply within the craft is keeping overall heat higher than a simple mass, and that should add craft mass slightly, causing the over speed to be slightly slower than if would be if it gave off no heat of it's own......The gravitational thermal thing seems to be slightly different than I thought. You say that the ? effect determines that gravitational heat is actually manifest in an energy form as a precursor to heat....is this anywhere near correct?..

I try....within entanglement breaking between remote particles, there seems to be the spooky action communication mechanism....gravity seems to require a similar "apparent" instant communication at a distance between orbiting bodies. I see the similarities of both phenomena requiring an "illusory" faster than light process. How many other processes have some evidence for this feature ? Only one that I know of, and that is the "admittedly" faster than light inflationary period after the BB...I have read some of the gravitational thermal idea and admit I need to go back and re-read it as I skimmed through it. I will do so and perhaps some more relevant questions will come to mind..from what I did see, you say that a body, the comet, has a temperature change when accelerating towards the sun that is not only due to solar heating but from the gravitational potential energy between the two bodies, being converted to kinetic energy within the comet (and and equal amount within the sun also?) ....could this be because the sun is slightly "squeezing" the comet as it approaches, with gravitation stresses, and the internal friction of the moving parts is the cause of additional heat? The sun would be squeezed by the same amount, but of course the temperature change would be too small to ever measure, but in the small comet it might be. There also some reference to voyager being of a slightly different velocity than predicted and that this is attributed by you to unknown gravitational artifacts...is there an inverse cooling effect going on? I had heard that voyager was going slightly slower than expected, and was determined to be heat from it's power supply radiation altering the sattelite's trajectory. I am going to have to re-read all of that and your thermal gravity model too...

three jeers for fox news.

to say that reality is not mathematics is stating a presumption as fact...there are 2 "regularities" , if I understand your meaning, that do not directly equate from mathematical structures to known physics. Zero and infinity. Math is so vast that one component describes the software (fixed), and another describes the hardware (fluid). Our universe is that hardware being described by the software functions, all based upon the structure of logic that preceeded and formed the entirety of maths. This is not to say that the entire scope of the maths are needed to do the job of describing that hardware...there are other exceptions perhaps, those 2 seem the most obvious...and I am also speculating that gravity is a product of the logic that formed the maths, so the gravity function developed before logic went on to describe the math necessary to cause the BB. That is possibly why gravity is difficult to reconcile with the other 3 forces which developed later. I think gravity may play by slightly different rules than the rest of the physical universe, but close enough to interact with it. This also may explain why gravity seems so weak compared to the other 3...

here is an idea I had a while back when considering a possible gravity mechanism, Suppose gravity is due to random entanglements between various components within matter. If, as an average, all the spins within material constituents occasionally "see" the exact same alignment in materials surrounding them, and they become briefly "entangled", but then quickly lose that, as they are exposed to the random "brownian motion" in the immediate spin state environment. During that brief moment of entanglement, which is going on between a certain proportion of all material objects in the universe continuously, each momentary entanglement allows a component of the gravitation process to engage. Those brief pulses of entanglement "make and break" somehow provide the necessary "communication" between every bit of matter in the universe...the more matter in a large object, the higher number of possible arbitrary entanglements it could have to be "communicated" within itself and to external matter...so the more matter, the more gravitation. If this were to be true, in order to cancel a gravitational field, you would have to shield entanglements from occurring across a specific boundary of a test area. It would have gravity within itself as normal, but would be free from external gravitational influences...if the test area was inside a sphere, it would become gravitationally detached from the rest of the universe...this goes along with the idea that gravity does warp space, but that may be more of a result of the gravitational process, and not a mechanism...as space itself, or virtual particles, may respond to the same make and break mechanism of the arbitrary entanglements to proximate massive objects...

I think reality is mathematics, or a mathematical object. Although some information that math describes is not within physical reality...such as zero and infinity. So to say "why does nature follow mathematics", or "why are there laws-rules in science", is due to nature and science having no choice in the matter. There is no other path (at the moment) to follow...unless and until the substance that delivered the maths can be discovered, with which to probe into details prior to the BB, plus offer insights as to why the math laws that describe out universe have the properties that they do...

Reality follows the laws of nature. The laws of nature are essentially an exposition of mathematics. Mathematics is a derived "thing" from the laws of logic. Logic must have preceded mathematics and is also a "thing" that evolved from simpler forms...from a "thing" with less than logical informational content...