Jump to content

Ron Bert

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ron Bert

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Colorado Springs
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Deep Space, Overall Quantum Structure
  1. I do believe that it can be stated that the banks of time in space remain open for collection. It is only by our ignorance that methods have not been developed to take advantage of infinite voltage. We have yet to understand absolute fundamental reality and agreement has always been the challenge of unity. Everyone wants to be a star. In a world of schisms and cynicisms, it would appear a miracle to achieve our rise to the batteriless electric age, preferred over that of the fluid fire age that we find ourselves quagmired in. The greatest endeavors known in human history have always started with skeptics shouting impossible. If we are genuinely to achieve the greatness that can be had by the wonders of the universe, bestowed upon us all, it will only be realized when the humble rule over the arrogant. It will be then that the truth shall set us free to ride those horizons that now only dreams can know.
  2. Spin, what a great loop to be in! I believe our conception of what occurs at the quantum level can not be separated from that of the origin of our universe, the initiator of spin. I would rhetorically ask, is there any real particle or photon void of angular momentum? For the eureka conjecture, it is our misconception in defining fundamental reality that disables our ability to clearly see why "all" spins, even that which we can not perceive. This involves reference and specifically where we try to "isolate" rather than "acknowledge" the expanse of reality itself. Creation does not separate from itself and so what began at some time long ago still effects us all presently. The rip-cord of time in space. The enigma of our universe is found in its dualistic nature. Does the quantum world rise or fall? Is it pulled or pushed? These are questions of perspective, irrelevant to observation. Whereas we look to define this bottom world, could it not oppositely be the top? Again, irrelevant to observation but crucial to absolute understanding. Let us choose to look at the bottom that is falling away being pushed; this is one form of the quantum foundation. To actually see how "all" spins, either inwardly or outwardly, the mathematics required goes right to the base; the heart of the matter. Simply, all points center on themselves and are referenced by being positioned at negative infinity (bottom) or conversely, positive infinity (top). It is by this bottomless nature that "all" spins.
  3. Reality does not change because we are unable to absolutely possess it. All real points maintaining position and motion came long before any of us. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is just the tip of a proverbial ice-berg crossing the vast reaches of all matter/photon interactions in space. Predicting weather is so simply complex! No one can tell a cloud to stop. Would we claim to have power over push and pull and yet even time itself? Personally, when one looks at one's own hand it is an image from the past exciting the retinas firing neurons. We can not even locate ourselves exactly and that is the beauty of our open flowing universe, freedom. It is the old adage that we are superior to the universe and not that the universe is superior to us. I'll bet anyone will still take the money even if they don't know exactly where it is. All roads are in motion. If we would ever be able to describe unambiguously the location of anything, it would have to involve the theoretical spaces of above or below our reality; hard spots to grapple with.
  4. Physical Mass and Relational Speed are related only in a system where both are valid considerations. In the case of our tangible universe, one would be hard pressed to isolate one from the other making them always directly related to that of the observer. However, multiple answers exist depending upon various considerations and indirect viewpoints. Simple questions at times are the most complex. It has always been a challenge to see things outside of the box, truthfully. We can say, I believe with certainty, that the present connects us to the observable. So, does this always mean mass and relational speed correspond with inflation? Ponder on. Take, for example, any rest mass or inert substance under consideration, the penny in your hand for example. Location, location, location. This is what gives us one answer over another, the frame reference that we decide to use; here or there? There are so many considerations to your fundamental question that most if not all still scratch heads over the basic principles involving space, time, speed, energy, substance, parabolic or hyperbolic relations, etc. My dear friend, books have been and are yet to be written concerning your simple inquiry. As for the penny, at rest mass for you, seemingly without velocity, is our illusion. My vague memory tells me that we propel about the Sun at some odd 65,000 miles per hour and in relation to the galactic core, perhaps 500,000 miles per hour. Still, these are yet relatively low speeds in relation to what the Red Shift indicates with a universal universe edge approaching the speed of light in all directions. So, if I looked back from that distant edge of our universe to the penny in your hand, its mass would appear unchanged, yet traveling at the fantastic speed of near light speed. You see how mass and speed need that third element of location to make precise judgments. I might add in fact, that a fundamental premise for the way absolute time works is that all mass falls forward at the speed of light causing all mass to be in a state of inflation which we do observe (If it were The Big Crunch, we would observe deflation which has not been observed). For the tangible, all things are in motion. Time stops for no man. It is in different relative present speeds, in space, that calculates various openings out, or in, perspective wise. My high school teacher once told me that if mass opened to the speed of light, that it would timelessly and instantly expand to the size of the universe. Seeds from the past. This link may help you - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html . Good luck in your continued thinking!
  5. Visualizing a googolplex (1 with all those zeroes) is our attempt as humans to reach out and touch something larger than ourselves. It is still a finite number in the googolfold of space in time. In the search for the largest number, endless zeroes may be added to the void or realm we attempt to understand. To physically represent this 'googolplex' number, one could consider volume over the conventional linear number frame reference that we are all more familiar with. Compactness could also be considered in representing the area involved, as has been suggested by using sub-atomic particles or photons as character counters (still mostly space if gravitationally loose; density yet another variable). Ah, counting sands in the sea of space. In fact, I may suggest that at times we all try to think too hard. I believe the larger question, in our ability to cope with these huge numbers, is found in the limits of what we can perceive. Directional focus would also have to be considered in that of an inward or outward (or both) nature. How much of the (chosen frameset) universe would we have to fill with zeroes to complete this answer. There is more than a googolplex of possibilities. Perhaps a googolplex is best seen in the palm of each of our hands as we all hold the sky. There is an incomplete rendition at http://www.googolplex.com.
  • 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.