hoola

as to the question of no communications, even of entanglement failures being faster than light, doesn't newtonian gravitational laws require that the orbiting bodies "communicate" in a near instant fashion in order to maintain stable orbits?

if the singularity had a "central figure" of PI plotting out information, and this information manifested the "big expression", then the resulting points of space became clones of the original PI, all in sync in mathematically identical informational outputs. All points of space emitting the same frequency means they are defacto entangled as they have the same description moment to moment. This is because the rate of calculation of the next digit of PI is fixed, and the next resultant is also fixed, regardless of which point in space is emitting. So space itself is essentially all cloned from this "central figure", establishing the basic framework for other (near) instantaneous events being possible on a macro scale such as gravity between orbiting bodies and entanglements of elemental particles, which I can see as intimately related due to "casual entanglements" of random particles. If all points of space are putting out similar radiation, then the distance differentials between all the points causes them to mix or average out in a homogenous tensor field of an averaged energy flux, or dark energy on the macro level....edd on the issue of space being composed of separated points, I see a maintenance of separation caused by opposing force between the adjoining points, as they would repel each other as two similarly charged electons or protons would. The basis of repulsion here being of similar instantaneous outputs, being felt as similar "charges" by immediate neighbors, maintaining a homogenous granularity of space. This microscopic scale force is the dark energy on the macro scale...edd

and perhaps shouldn't be asked if such contemplations are against the will of god and the grace of the king......ah, there ain't no life nowhere (hendrix '67)

I looked at the movie "trial-err" and was pretty disappointed...this "crisis" supposedly within the physics community is the way science works...the world isn't flat,,,the earth isn't the center of the solar system, time is relative.....yadayadayada ....get used to it people. If the movie lives down to this promo, it is another typical pseudoscience / creationist theatre-filling piece of propaganda from the hollywood opium dens...exploiting human ignorance for profit.....edd CALL OPRA......IT'S A CRISIS !!!

I have a question as to line 3 "there exists a concept in data base theory where we normalize data (remove redundant choices) and make the data best fit....what do you mean by fit best? As relates to our pre-conception as to what the world is, and our relation to it, or what we prefer the world to be in order to find a better "fit", by paring down some of those "redundant" choices?..edd

the black box idea is good...I see the first box as the first identifiable theoretical structure within the void. A randomly occuring point of entropy reduction within the void....normally not a self sustaining or self-referenced one. But at least once in the history of time, just the right parameters persisted long enough to proceed to the next black box... (2). logic construction based upon the parameters given by previous box leading to... (3). logic maturation, but needs some "raw material" to work with to create something beyond theoretical possibilites. (3.5) So, how many "voids" has appeared within the chaos of the particular properties leading to us? ONE...and only one void. One "point" only, unique and perhaps never to be repeated....not 3 voids, or 38 voids....just one...So a first digit is produced with this new development... but this doesn't go anywhere either without help from "simple" geometry. We have a theoretical point, and any point regardless of size or being theoretical or real, has within it, as granted by the logic substrates, PI. An endless source of information, going on forever within the theoretical point leading to.....(4) singularity construction with increasing amount of information, increasing to becoming a "informational black hole". The maturation of information construction leads to box....(5) and the final informational algorithmic sets creating the dimensions....with these dimensions being the first theoretical constructs to depart the containment of the singularity.....with this departing, and the establishing of the 3 dimensions, the next event in box.....(6) is the "big bang" or release, as I prefer, as finally all the information within the singulariy, has a place to go...the "vessel" of the 3 dimensions.....this gives the first expression of "physical" reality of primordial energies.....edd follow-up on chaos....I see one and one only truly infinite anything, anywhere, any time....the chaos. Since the chaos is truly infinite, any definable area within it, (while not a true "point") must have information from an area of the chaos since it must have been complex. However, if the chaos is infinite, than any finite area within it is an infintesimal point in comparison to the infinite size of the chaos....that is how I get around having an area within the chaos becoming a defacto "point".....edd

yes, were all buggy computers....curb your enthusiasm...

yes, we don't know if or how the universe would "die". I was extrapolating on the fundamental concept of ...if something is born (big bang), than it has to die....but if the BB was not a "birth" in a logical sense of the word, then the problem is what was the BB? Was there some other earlier state that could be related to as a "birth". I thought proton decay was thought to eventually eliminate matter in a trillion years or so....if the universe is a "steady state" of matter/energy going through various transformations, that doesn't explain why stuff is there to be "transformed".

global over population exaggerating normal problems into a slow death....death by 7 billion cuts....

heightened global awareness via fewer pre-judgements attached to what things are

yes, in the sense that the maths are a computer program, with a near infinite and increasing program complexity, to the point that "islands of stability" within the program have developed "points" of sentience...and this universe is a device, or display mechanism of one particular set of information's surface features. As the underlying rules of logic call for an endless math construction, a natural sub-set of derived algorithms describe this universe, which runs in tandem with the greater body of the maths.....a number of universes may be constructed with flexible, yet logical sets of principles. This is a sort of "assembly line" of constructions, with an economy of basic components...in our material case, largely hydrogen....this would give the most (big) bang for the buck, or a concept of efficiency in overall constructions. I begin with a guestimate that an equal amount of change (work) occurred within the 4 stages of my TOE 1. (Chaos to Logic to early Maths) 2. (Math maturity to singularity formation) 3. (singularity maturation to expression). The expression is the "big bang", an obsolete term, and should be discarded. 4. ( post expression of energy to mature physical reality)...edd

a general conversation as to human beings and all other animals consisting of various shapes of bacterial colonies.... of what extent does any correlation apply? And, if this applies to life in general being separated into two basic categories. Animal bacterial colonies and plant bacterial colonies....with continuing modifications of blue/green bacterial colonies by the force of evolution, thrusting them into the realm of the theoretical...and why this, or something like this has happened in the universe? edd

I was thinking I had heard of some bracketing of the cosmological constant with the supernova studies of '96.... coming from the study other than the simple statement of acceleration... the acceleration rate depends upon the distance away....so a bracketing of this curve of "accleration/distance" seems possible, but somehow isn't.....?

what michel is saying, I think is that the universe is a dangerous place. The "citadel" or "spiderweb" is an analogy of treacherous passage life has been on since the blue green algae began the fight for survival, in brackish pools.....what we call evolution. He can hardly blame science for this...science is the culmination to the process....take this forum for example...a "brackish pool". for various ideas to float within certain forum parameters, just as the algae had to float within certain temperatures, salinity levels, and the like to allow survival of the fittest. We carry on with a digitized information survival evolution...with rules and limits, and a "moderator" to enforce them.....of which.... I feel a lightning strike is imminent upon this "blue green bacterial" conversation for being off-topic.....we should perhaps move this discussion to philosophy, a more appropriate brackish pool for such conversations....and pay homage to the "rules" that allow us to go on....how about this as a topic in philosophy....." the blue/green blues"...?.. .edd

I read the link to the ultra cold neutrons and the vibrating mirrors (!) and saw the equivalence principle reference as to a hammer and feather being dropped on the moon....I thought that some time ago that the equivalence was disproved, in the sense that a feather would drop slower than the hammer.. by a tiny amount. I don't remember anything was said to as why, but I can see that the dark energy anti-gravity would affect the lighter feather more than the hammer. This would be the "viscosity" of space and this would explain why gravity's effect is reduced by this quantum force under certain conditions, but not negated. Dealing with atomic sized particles of matter interaction with gravity being an extreme example. The link referred to casimir force being an issue in the problem of seeing gravity interactions. The case of casimir force "virtual particles" and dark energy being direct equivalents seems more apparent. The dark energy may not be responsible for all cosmic acceleration, as gravity may weaken at distances beyond possible entanglement induced gravity derivations. In local measures of the the force, the distance problem doesn't factor, so would make casimir force appear weaker than dark energy driven cosmic acceleration, without the gravity inconsistency between extreme distances making the dark energy appear stronger....edd

I think the "dark side" you may fear with the math's being the > ALL < is misplaced. The fear is the unknowable preceedings to the maths....do not shoot the messenger for a while yet.....his is the only way to illuminate this "darkness" ...edd

in regards to the quantum "resting points" of a particular particle's value being of a discrete quantum value, I say that there is a finite period of time between value changes. This period is the plank-length of time, or minimum period of time allowable in this universe, and is (currently) immeasurable, and a smaller period of time cannot exist in physical reality. This period is perhaps equivalent to the other three identifiable superluminal speeds of 1. straight-line gravitational effects between orbiting bodies 2. speed of entanglement failure regardless of positions of said particles 3. speed of early universe's expansion rate due to inflation....edd what establishes this value change rate limitation has to do with the smallest theoretical fractions being calculated in a data stream from one value to the next, with all theoretically possible values between the "resting" values necessarily being calculated. Since the speed of each individual calculation has it's own finite limit, this suggests a finer component of time (in a theoretical sense) than is available to the physicaly real universe (plank-time interval). I suggest that this data stream is the "strings" of string theory and therefore exist at the boundary between the theoretical universe (the maths) and extant reality. Each data bit of the accordant string is the next calculated resultant from the previous calculation, and a starting point for the next calculation, in the math's quest to arrive from one value "resting point" or quantum value to the next....edd perhaps this entry should be removed to it's own thread with a title of "small details as to quantum value changes" (thank you mr. moderator)

I would think anything considered as a "theory" would have to have mathematical testability throughout is conceptual structures. Therefore a TOE is different than a TOU, or theory of the universe....so you are correct since the thread title is "TOU". ..edd

this arrangement of near infinite numbers of "shell max. diameter points" would lead to an overall limit to gravity density within any particular two points within each theoretical shell, thus establishing the gravitational constant within each shell, and assuring gravitational constant consistency, shell to shell, over the entire universe....edd

perhaps present day cosmic expansion acceleration is enhanced by an upper limit in the gravity's ability to function past a certain physical distance. If gravity is a resultant of momentary entanglements, and if there is an near instantaneous constant speed of communications between these momentarily entangled particles, then the comm. freq. must increase past the upper limit of comm. bandwidth if the particles are more distant than the bandwidth can supply the back and forth messaging, to allow action to take place. This would allow a gravitational isolation from any inner material in an expanding shell as the outer edge pulls itself out of range by becoming "silent" to it's inner former "partners". This would create zones or shells that will exhibit an overall reduction of gravity forces between individual particles as the universe grows, limiting total gravity force expressed within the universe, regardless as to how large it grows...by overall entanglement negation due to the distance/bandwidth issue.....edd

If the inflation of the immediate post big bang era, essentially caused a sea of hot primordial energy/matter to appear instantaneously at a given size, what caused that size limit? If this "instantaneous" expression is not instantaneous, and is of some finite rate, but superliminal, then perhaps a sort of communication was between every particle, giving a defacto entanglement to the entire early universe. This entanglement would be due to each particle being of the exact same description, leading to a perfectly homogenous state. If the entangled particles are exchanging information with each other at a fixed speed, then the farther apart the particular points of primordial particles are, the frequency of this entanglement communication must increase. This suggests a bandwidth of this communication with a finite limit. Early size limit was reached by the longest physical extent that the upper frequency limit would allow, the inflation ceased as any further extension of the boundary would have gone past the upper limit of the entanglement communication frequency spectrum. Thus, the early limit was set by the farthest physical distance between any two particles in the universe allowing entanglement. As this soup expanded farther than this frequency limit would allow, entanglements would collapse, leading the the beginning of inhomogenous matter/energy differentiations.....edd (as the outer edge would reach entanglement limits, the expansion would continue, but at the slower speed of light). as entanglements collapsed at the boundary edge, the unentangled material would have begun a process of disturbing the entangled material just inside the boundary limit. This would have been a catalytic effect of destroying entangements throughout the universe, as in a collapsing diameter spherical zone of influence. This would have ended the early primordial state of homogeneity when the process concluded.....edd (as the collapsing would have come from both inner and outer boundaries of the universe, there would have been an expanding zone of catalytic dis-entanglement from the center towards the boundary edge also, with eventual complete loss of entanglements at some point near the middle. Entanglements would continue, but only the randomized events occurring within the finite distance limit established by comm. frequency limit, giving us the gravitational resultant within the inhomogenous universe)

the topic being "why don't you don't have a new theory of the universe" can have the answer..... Of that it is impossible to have a complete theory of this universe. Eventually physics will have to give way to philosophy when it can no longer point to a state previous to the earliest reasonably evidenced state. In this case that limit (so far) is the big bang. A series of theories starting with the anchient greeks have done a fantastic job of getting us to the big bang, and with the math to back up relevant evidences. But, if the universe is indeed arisen from the maths, as Information Describing Reality, then there must have been an origin to the maths, non-derivable from the maths themselves. Only logic, using whatever supporting evidence available to us which points to a most likely candidate as to how the maths were formulated, or somehow formulated themselves....can get to a final minimum state from which things progressed to now. I propose a thought experiment that the Big Bang is an approximate "middle-point" in the overall evolutionary history of this universe. As much change occurred prior to the big bang, as has occurred post......edd

I have a few long-standing questions as to the speed of entangled particles communicating a loss of entanglement vs. the speed of gravity. Newton's equations require (near) instantaneous action between bodies to function correctly. Does not straight line gravity reactions between orbiting bodies and entanglement failure reaction speed being (near) infinite, lead to the questions.... 1. is this assessment of these two speeds as superluminal correct? 2. is not the speed of inflation post big bang supposed to be (near) instantaneous? 3.are there any other speeds theorized to be superluminal in the universe?

I have noticed that the top key of most pianos sounds dead.....even on brand new ones. Seems odd that they can't make that sound better. I bought a kimball baby grand as it sounded good, plus the top key seemed playable....don't those high priced steinways sound good on the top key? I suppose it is a matter of getting a good hammer alignment, mechanism strike/release, and proper felt density......how are the two bow experiments going?

I am proposing using the vacuum pump, achieving a hard vacuum, then using the getter after the fact to suck up residual gasses that the elements from the tube, as in a regular tube....with an additional getter mounted on the hot plate to allow that to activate it instead of the filament heating it. I don't think one molecule of air in a tube, hot or cold cathode would hurt anything, or no tubes would work...there was a guy in S. Africa that tried to make a large flat screens using the diamond cathode idea years ago, but his efforts got eclipsed by the plasmas, then the LCDs, now the LEDs , so the only viable market would be the boutique high end audio market...which sadly seems terribly disinterested.....I sometimes think I am the only one who wants the idea to get picked up by Winged C of russia or JJ of slovokia, or the chinese guys.....edd