Jump to content

1x0

Senior Members
  • Posts

    217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 1x0

  1. I would be happy if the question would stay as I am curious about what professionals think and thanks for the guidelines.
  2. Could you than just express with reasoning It is finite or infinite and why? Does the lack of our understanding of this information changes the fact that the Universe is finite (or infinite)... So then does not our understanding is relative to our capability to perceive reality at the end of the day... Anyway if it so easy why isn't it determined yet? As far as I understood the previous suggestions, the result pointed towards infinity... so felt fitting to the topic started.
  3. I am relatively primitive in comparison to Einstein(i own less intelligence than he had). I am not an absolute simple being I am more intelligent than ants. So my intelligence is relative. If I can suspect based on the size of the space-time realm we exist in that significantly higher intelligence than myself is possible to find in this reality, than I think I can call myself and the species I am part of which still have problems with calculus (1/0) relatively primitive. I do not understand why you sense that my expression is speculative?
  4. Does the fact, that we have no way of telling does the Universe is finite or infinite change the original fact that the universe is finite (or infinite)? Our own view must be relative too... Does the Universe contain all information to absolute clear physical reality recognition? I have studied in my whole life but there are so many things I do not know yet.... I would be happy about a good limited advanced AI...
  5. That would need a bit more evolved human value recognition (we yet seems to be a bit simple for such a solution- lack of general co-operation, respect, knowledge, intelligence, peace, unity, love, freedom....) You just have to change humanities general basic value recognition/perception (i.e: not everything is negative - open the news - but it is absolutely positive). It is suggested that your approach to common co-operation and basic human value recognition is scientifically grounded so you can create a good solution and so a science supported trust-based better acceptance.
  6. Intuition. Past knowledge and experience based general understanding and shaped personal attributes. Emotion. Intuitív reaction on current physical reality based information. If space(time) contains all energy and matter observable than does not that mean that Space itself has (contains) energy and matter? Or has some kind of relation to energy and matter evolution. Why I can not let this thought go.... Could someone definitely deny this possibility? Prove that space has no velocity detectable. What does Hubble say than? If not nothing is at the beginning rather a spaceless, infinitely dens singularity than what could impact such dens infinite singularity....? What could be that impact and where from/how that impact would have been coming if there had been nothing else (not even space) what could exist....? Why and how can we reject a step by step, physically balanced, simple information* based, fine evolution? (even the first steps appear singular, singularity itself has to be relative) *simple information: Everything in proportion to Nothing.
  7. I do not wonder that you bring up consciousness. I wonder sometimes could the fact that evolved consciousness (we)can exist basically in any space with the right physical circumstances (at the end of the day we "glide" through reality with at least the motion of our galaxy and the solar system itself). So if consciousness basically can exist in space that does not mean that space itself is fundamentally conscious as it able to support and maintain (give the right realm) for existing, observable, recognizable conscious entities. Could consciousness mean the awareness of at least the physical attributes the examined physical entity owns? If I observe a photon, It has the very rigid physical presentation (velocity, energy, wavelength). Does the fact that it acts always based on the information this physical presentation visualize (and by that recognizable for us) meaning that on a very simple way it is aware of the information (the fundamental determination by the Laws of Nature) about its existence. I think everyone has its own way to recognize the personal, biophysical, experience-based values ones owns as everyone has a different path in reality. I have written a small essay kind of paper for my Strategy Exam which got a bit philosophical (the professor give the perfect question to wonder...) but shows my own way (the questions I raise trying to determine biological, physical, mathematical, philosophical, economical, personal values) on the path of recognition. I am not fully aware for sure because there are so many things I do not know but for sure I recognized a lot of reality-based values which I would not have been able to do if I do not sense what Nothing could mean (i.e. medically and economically relevant informations during the operation of the praxis). In proportion to the sense of Nothing everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value. I see this in basically everything..... I will add a link to the essay if you are interested. It is a limited minds wondering about reality. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pRWgdGuKa665mMpmTvGnQI7KapVMpVJMhCPofbTbj9w/edit
  8. By being aware of time and the motion of the examined realm. Is there anything without some level of velocity?
  9. Could we account time as a vector (it tick since space exist) and can something change a vectors attributes?
  10. Time is more "just" information although perceived physical. Energy...Still "feels"(sorry for the expression) correlated to spaces expenditure....Energy is not a substance... I have a hard time to grep this.... especially if it has/can have mass. I would inspect the option of spaces rigidity i.e matter has no effect on space. Just space can have an effect on mass....(space expenditure = cause, matter=effect..... If it would be true that mass can torsion space than does not that indicate that space has weight? Otherwise, how can mass effect space? Which physical attribute of space can be impacted by mass? Space itself. But how space could be more than information about any physical entities whereabout? Time? But isn't time is information about any physical entities when about? If space and time can be impacted than aren't they physical? And we are back to the original question. Thought experiment: What is more likely: Mass impacts the mass of photons(yet not recognized) and by that torsion their path (does the torsion of the common path has to mean the torsion of space (the 4D coordinate system) itself? I mean photons are waves in proportion to one another while impacted......or mass torsion spacetime itself (meaning the impact implied throughout the system and that every concentrated structure such as an atomic nucleus bends spacetime itself the same way pulling some part of it with while existing in a new space-time reality in every upcoming moment...) The second version sounds a bit messy.... How could you prove that space has no velocity and it does not expand it just is? The infinite ever Being? What observation indicates this? Hubble's work seems to reject this or I perceived it wrong..
  11. This question came up for me too, because how would I know that it is space which is moving and not energy and matter itself. I think the consistent velocity of the two suggests that, something fundamental has to move the whole system. As long as I am pondering uppon the question I can not exclude velocity of spacetime That it is moving. If it would be infinite energy and matter would have to be infinite as well. Infinity has to apply to everything if it would be physically possible for infinity to exist more than an information. Meaning here the forward pointing evolution of spacetime. Because here we, not just space itself have to recognize but the fundamental information about it as well: Time. Can it more than information about the length of existence. Can I say that space is existing even physically I can not grep it but I can measure it with fine precision. Can I say that space is more than information? Can I grep it? You can give me in an empty bucket! That would be space which would not be more than information. You can give me space, but you can not give me the exact same space for example when the request was made. Does not this incapability indicates that we constantly existing in different space in a different time as before and that energy and matter "glides" towards infinity by the pull of space itself. If space expands c2 then energy and matter with a limitation of c. Time would be here the indicator of velocity meaning the length of an area burst to existence under a certain time (c2). From somewhere we have to start to measure....
  12. If it expands should not that have speed (velocity)? Something physically measurable. What is frequency? The physical property of what? Does frequency is something more than information? What determined frequency? Does frequency have velocity? Does frequency have space-time detectable? (i.e. the area where the frequency which dictates momentum universally applied and recognisable)
  13. so all the energy comes from velocity in spacetime? Or velocity of space(time)....?
  14. How can photons have energy and no mass? Would not that be contraindicated by our own calculus? The recognition of Energy would look like this based on Einstein's theory: E=mc2 which is, in this case, E=0*c2 indicating the energy of the photon should be 0. This does not feel right. Alternatív approach to recognition try to play outside the box presenting the thought just as an alternatív example and not like the ultimate truth and I am very interested what are the physical contraindications for the process suggested: If we would not have the same calculus and zero would not have the absolute degrading effect how we use it today the equation could express E=space(time) which would suggest that matter is energies evolved state in expanding space(time). This could suggest an evolution in the physical reality where photon (energetic wave) is an existing state before gaining mass (if it does not have some anyway, yet unrecognizable to us....)
  15. So electrons are substance and electrons are not energy rather the property of matter. The question is then: what is matter? As far as I understand it is materialized energy in spacetime. Or in other words, collapsed energy with mass in space(time). Is this thought is incorrect? What was first, energy or matter? Could be that mass is a pre-state of matter? Meaning that every energy has mass but until the physical circumstances do not allow, it can not collapse to be matter? I sense that E=mc2 could say that Energy=mass in space(time)
  16. Hello Gee, Yes, It has been a while, I applied to a University to further understand different aspects of value recognition. The answer is in the reality we try to understand. It will come. I really like this thread. I hope we will be able to keep it opened and that with the Moderators help will be able to protect it from off threads rather than close it. Thanks for your explanation!
  17. Energy, mass, and matter are different states of the same thing? Would that be correct? I can differentiate the states by observation, energy with mass or matter, that's why I claimed I understand the difference. Could an electron with mass become matter without further physical impact? Which part of Einstein's theory do I get incorrect? Maybee that I try to apply space-time itself to c2 ... Why would be this an absolutely incorrect thought experiment?
  18. Agree. An evolved state could be when gained space, age, and energy...
  19. How do you mean this? How can be something absolutely separate from other physical things? Gravity impacts everything.... Can we say that gravity is physical if it impacts everything, i.e. cannot be separate from other physical things? I bring an empty bucket.
  20. This is clear. Does not mass makes them recognizable substance? They feel inevitable in the atomic structure, participating in the existence of substance (matter) while adding some level of mass to it as well.
  21. He recognized space expands. If space expands from which state to which state is it expanding to?
  22. Einstein suggested a correlation between energy and matter. How is it possible that energy is not a substance if electrons have mass? Exactly. Observation itself does not make information physical but the application of the information could do that. Could we apply zero as a basic digital matrix to express space, time and fundamental velocity(c2) = 0.0....0....? What is velocity if not information about/for application? Does application make information physical?
  23. Hubble's work and the currently observable reality: if something grows by the time, its size was smaller a measurable time before the current observation.
  24. They feel perceivable, measurable and recognizable to me. What makes something physical? What are the requirements for something to be physical?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.