Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jck

  1. Hi, Without getting into the topic the problem here is simple. It is impossible to state that something comes from nothing as by default it cannot. What is meant is at this time no source has been detected that can explain where the something came from. It is the same as when science states it cannot obtain any information from before big bang and that is confused with some people stating there was "no before" as if that was a fact. john jck
  2. Hi, Not really my topic but I did think the key was the "in-between-state" where a switch was on and off at the same time, this being the intrinsically fast switching possibility. john jck
  3. Farsight, I like the way you go to lengths to explain things in a reasonable manner. Having said that I have a severe problem with how I determine energy for my logic based solution and how you describe it here. Basically I am happy with you reflecting theory and the definitions used by those theories for energy along with mass and matter, for a logic based solution it is different and the definitions are different. You seem to want as much clarity as possible while conforming to the theory but from a logic based beginning the definitions have to be absolute. Because I do not have to conform to theory, due to the fact I start from scratch before big bang where there was no theory, then so too are my definitions from scratch so at least when I talk about such things as mass and matter and energy everyone is clear it is definitions provided for the solution alone. As a matter of interest here are the definitions: Anything that exists is mass All mass contains matter All matter is created from energy. This again is not contradicting theoretical definitions but are provided as clarification for my solution alone. I do not see how anyone could confuse my meanings as much as the problems caused by theoretical definitions but that is my personal view. As you can see I have all matter created from energy, this is absolute for I see no other basic substance that could create anything at all. It is all well and good considering certain properties of mass and matter as energy but that defers from the absolute question that dictates all matter is created from energy and nothing else. It is fundamental, take away all the energy from the universe and nothing is left except empty space. Composite particles at the atomic level are energy particles, take away the energy and there is no particle. To speculate that mass and matter are substance and energy is not requires all the energy be removed from mass and matter and a clear definition of the substance that is left is shown to be that mass or matter less the energy. I would add at this time that I have the single fundamental particle that is the building block for the standard model particles as an energy particle. So it is with some interest that I have read your posting here, I do not have a problem with how it is presented and accept it is mainstream theory that it follows. My problem is that energy particles can only be created using energy and only a single energy particle can be fundamental as to be required by default. The reason for that is without even a single fundamental energy particle nothing would exist as a multitude os standard model particles require a multitude of origins that defies explanation. best wishes, john jck
  4. Robbo, My solution will appeal to you for it rests on the alternative consideration that space existed before big bang. Now this is not a multi choice question as space existed before or it did not. While there is ample evidence that space exists there is no evidence that space does not exist at anytime or anywhere. To have some sort of theoretical contorted space before big bang is simply a provision for science based on theory which is rather like the police policing their own. My solution therfore establishes the only alternative that has evidence in this universe that space must exist before big bang. It has the logic that once you have space not having it at anytime is not an option. While theoretically you can remove space without leaving a space in reality this cannot be done. While theoretically you can create space with energy in reality this cannot be done as no one can find anywhere where space does not exist to create some space from the energy. Starting from complete scratch the first requirement in order for anything to exist is space, endless space. Anything that conjures up anything at all without the endless space has nowhere for that to exist. Once the space constant is applied a logical solution becomes automatic which has nothing to do with theories that were calculated billions of years later from observations. A strange thing happens when space everywhere before big bang is considered, the theories cannot be correct almost from day one. The problem for the theorists is they fail to understand starting from scratch with just space does not require theory. There is no observation with simply endless space existing, it has to be worked out from there with logic. Now the logic should lead to the same answers as the theories, for science has it that it does not matter what was before big bang so it does not affect the situation we have in the universe now. In fact the opposite is true, if space existed before big bang the theories cannot be correct. It then becomes a game of chance, heads there was no space before big bang and the theories can be correct or tails there was space before big bang and the theories cannot be correct. My solution considers the space before big bang option and works through from scratch to a complete solution based on logic and certainty be default. best wishes, john jck
  5. Farsight, Only just arrived so hello to everyone. My solution to the theory of everything is logic based with certainty by default. At no point did time become a consideration, movement certainly but without human intervention time did not enter into the reality of the universe or anything else. Time is known to be a concept yet for most it represents conceptual physics which somehow brings the concept to life. I have found no value for anyone taking opposing views on this matter and arguing which is correct. john jck
  6. Hi to everyone, This is my first post here, previously my views have been expressed on the closed BBC forums. I am more than happy to use speculation rather than theoretical threads which just as easily complicate simple logical ideas that deal with the very foundation of all speculation. Science cannot obtain any information prior to big bang, it cannot state that there was "no before" except for the theories that are mainstream. How that relates to no one else working through the problem in other ways I have no idea. It is speculation to consider that what came before big bang does not matter and that is very convenient for theory. Some have theoretical models prior to the creation of the universe but by there nature they represent support for the theory which comes later. To me the foundation of science dictates that every possible alternative prior to big bang be examined, for me personally it is critical because that is exactly what I did and obtained the certain alternative to "no before" which results in "some before" and that is when everything else looks flawed by comparison. I could post away here further but unless others wish to discuss this issue then there is little point so I will wait a while and see if there are any replies. best wishes, john jck
  • 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.