The Vision Thing

[brodix]

I've posted the basics of this here before, but it's been evolving, so I'm putting it forward again;

There is a basic factor which has been overlooked in how we conceive of reality. Time has two directions.

As point of reference, the observer goes from past events to future events, but as frame, these events go from being in the future to being in the past.

Time isn't a dimension because the frame of reference does not constitute an absolute against which the point of reference transcribes another dimension. It is a process in which the point and frame move relative to their respective influence on one another. Content and context go in opposite directions. To the hands of the clock, it is the face going counterclockwise.

The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. A day is measured by the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but the reality is the earth is rotating the other direction. As our day ends, others are dawning.

Our lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

Think of a factory; The product moves from initiation to completion, but the production line faces the other way, with its mouth consuming raw materials and finished product being expelled.

This relationship of the process and the unit is one of perspective. A unit at one level is a process at another and vice versa. We go through time as time goes through us. What matters is energy generated, whether calories burned, or wages and profits earned.

Time is not so much a projection out from the present event, as it is a coming together of factors to define what is present. The past is the influences which define current order and the future is the energy which will motivate that order. When this order is an open set, it absorbs fresh energy, defining it, so the future is a continuation of the past. When the order is a closed set, the energy accumulates in open spaces and the future becomes a reaction to the past. Evolution and revolution.

Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. This information is a product of relationships of the manifest energy. The only absolute frame is the present, so any action is balanced by an "equal and opposite" reaction. Reality is the energy defining the space. Time is a function of the information. "Past" and "future" do not physically exist because the energy necessary to manifest them is manifesting the present.

The existence of the animal is linear. We travel along a path and the brain originated as a navigational instrument. One side might be more focused then the other, but that's a matter of developing perspective, much like binocular vision is necessary for depth perception. Flora doesn't need a brain because it doesn't have to navigate.

Time, like temperature, is a method of measuring motion, not its cause. Temperature is a level of activity against a prevailing scale. Time is the tensor relationship of the particular point of reference moving against context. At the atomic level, the concept of temperature is meaningless, as it is individual atoms moving in context. On the human level, government economic statistics are a form of temperature reading, that of a level of activity against its prevailing scale.

To the individual, time is a primary concern, as past and future are the path we've traveled and the pitfalls and rewards ahead. Now we are not all traveling along the same path, but are expending and absorbing energy in the same reality. So when considering the mass of humanity, concepts related to the fluctuations of activity, such as the social and economic expansion of liberalism, or the civil and economic consolidation of conservatism, are of more consequence then specifically remembering the past, or planning for the future. Temperature, rather then time, is the more approximate concept for understanding political activity. While particular movements have their own historical perspective, consideration for the past and concern for the future don't have the larger political resonance one would assume they should.

To the extent we form social, civil and economic groups, they are to give purpose and direction to a number of individuals within the larger context. To maintain their identity, they must maintain this specific motivation and direction, or be torn apart by other cross currents.. This must be balanced by the need to maintain a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship with that larger situation, or be isolated and terminated.

The bottom up processes and the top down entities they create and which then define them, are all around us. Democracy is a process. The Republic is an entity. Capitalism is a process. The corporation is an entity. Russian communism failed because it tried to take the competitive ecosystem/process of the economy and turn it into a single cooperative unit, so it rose and fell as a unit. Since a unit is ordered top down, rather then the government fading away, everything became the government. Chinese communism has so far succeeded because it has turned itself into the worlds largest corporation.

Why is something seemingly basic overlooked in our conception of reality? The mind is a process and its product is the thought. So it's natural for our understanding to congeal as units. Even though science understands objective reality is effectively an illusion of interacting fields, rather then materially solid, modern physics is still trying to define it in terms of the unit. Be it particle, wave, string, Big Bang, even time and space are considered to be ultimately quantized. These discrete units measure out some linear length of time from the moment they are formed until they dissipate, but unit and continuum are two sides of the same coin. One defining, one creating.

This search for ultimate answers in terms of the reductionistic units is currently expressed in string theory, but searching the extremes isn't the best way to understand the equilibrium. As content, reality is manifestly quantifiable, but as context, it is equally manifestly wholistic. Studying the ends of the spectrum is fundamentally useful for understanding details, but when you don't find what you're looking for, just adding extra dimensions, or additional universes or whatever until the figures come out somewhat even doesn't really solve anything.

I think part of the problem originates in the fact that geometry never incorporated the zero. Geometry begins with the point, which is a virtual one, rather then an actual zero. Zero in geometry would be empty space, which would be all potential points, not a fixed one. What this means is that geometry only defines space, it does not create it. Geometry is a product of space, not space is a product of geometry. It is our ability to measure space that is contextually relative and therefore curved, not that space itself is curved. This means empty space acts as the median, so that while our measure of it might curve one way, the equilibrium of the context provides balance and in sum these two forces of expansion and contraction balance out. If space actually expanded, so would our measure of it, the lightyear and we wouldn't be able to detect this expansion.

Remember that three dimensions are a frame of reference. Potentially an infinite number of frames can define the same space. Sort of like we all live on slightly different planes on the surface of this planet. While a particular map of space may be three dimensional, the actual territory of space is infinitely dimensional.

As both median and medium, space is the absolute, as well as infinite. Time is a second order measure of motion.

I may as well admit there are issues with the Big Bang theory arising here. I think we will eventually come to see expansion is a quality of radiation as gravity is a quality of mass. Neither of which we fully understand yet. This will eliminate the need for Inflation theory, dark matter and dark energy. Some agreement here:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ ,http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp , http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=2404626

If space itself really expanded, so would our unit of measure, the lightyear and we wouldn't even be able to detect this expansion.

The content direction of time is matter, coalescing out of the energy of space into ever more complex forms, until the intensity reaches the point it burns up and radiates back out again. The contextual direction of time is radiation, breaking down old forms and expanding out to create and inhabit new ones. One goes beginning to end and and the other goes on to the next, shedding the old.

What of our religious assumptions? Christianity is this narrative unit structured around a spiritual entity leading humanity forward. The notion of God started out as a personification of the tribal soul and anthropomorphization of the elements of nature. Three thousand years ago, it was cutting edge logic to combine all these manifestations into one.

The problem is that one isn’t the absolute, zero is. The medium and median are essence we rise from, not a focal point from which we fell. A spiritual absolute wouldn’t be a singular entity, definable quantity or extreme, but, like zero, both void and center.

An all-knowing absolute is a contradiction. The absolute has no distinctions, while knowledge is an endless process of distinction and judgment. That is why a triune deity makes some sense; Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Absolute, extant, infinite. Past, present, future. Order, complexity, chaos.

Good and bad are not a metaphysical dual between between the forces of light and darkness, but the binary code for conscious decision. A bottom up accumulation of billions of years of biological yes/no, on/off, I/O.

For the process, good and bad are relative. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken. For the individual, such distinctions may as well be absolute, at least for the chicken.

By assuming the top is good and therefore the bottom is bad creates a mindset which allows those at the political apex to claim more legitimacy then they deserve. When humanity was a tribe in the wilderness, leadership was a consequence of ability. As we settled down and social structure solidified, two effective means of maintaining control for those at the top was to claim representation of something higher and maintaining an enemy to define the us from the other. These methods are still in use today.

The moral argument for monotheism is that belief in God instills respect for law and order. I would point out that the natural tendency to identify ones own soul as an expression of God sometimes results in the impression that ones natural impulses are potentially infallible. The current U.S. President would be a prime example. If we were instead to view that source of being as the essence from which we are all striving, yet fallible expressions of, then the more natural tendency might be to think before we act.

As median of the medium, the absolute is center of opposites, but monastic thinking gives people a one sided view of reality, so they pick sides and pick fights. There will always be two sides of the coin, be it male/female, individual/community, conservative/liberal, etcetc. Even if we can only see one at a time. The world is getting too small not to give some credence to dualism.

The scientific consensus seems to be of the opinion that life is essentially deterministic, but since any definable aspect of our existence is a factor in reality, we affect the world as it affects us. Yes, it is not that we seem to have all that much control over our own lives, but we do have an effect on others. Therefore our actions are even more important than if it was only our own lives we had total control over. The puppet pulls back on the strings, giving purpose to the puppeteer.

All of reality is both absolute and infinite, but when you separate out one point of reference, it is all relative to that point. This is what makes our individuality so overwhelming. We overcome that enormity by focusing on the details of living and this ties us back to the larger whole.

The reason life sometimes seems meaningless is because the concept of objective ‘meaning’ is static and reductionistic, while life is dynamic and holistic. It is when we distill away all that seems transitory about life, searching for that hard little nugget of value, that we have lost all we threw away and have so little to show for it. Everything has subjective purpose. That is what ties it all together.

There is a time in one’s life when the father goes from being the model one follows, to the foundation one rises from. I think humanity is nearing that point.

After the structure of debt does collapse and we are putting the financial world back together, a point to consider is that the modern monetary system functions as a form of public commons and it would be wise to regulate it as such. We still operate with the assumption, from the age of metal based currency, that value is inherent in the token, when it is the responsibility of the issuer to maintain the value of the money. Given that in a democratic society, the government is the property of the citizen and its currency is a form of public accommodations, similar to the highway system, it should be governed for the greatest good of the greatest number. This principle would not interfere with the basic rights of private property. In fact, if people were thus encouraged to invest their efforts into maintaining value within every aspect of life, rather then being tempted to drain reductionistic units out to store in a bank, this would lead to a healthier society and environment.

Regards,

John Brodix Merryman Jr.
Sparks, Maryland USA

[DomainRider]

Er, what was the question again?

[Mike Dubbeld]

Originally Posted by brodix

I've posted the basics of this here before, but it's been evolving, so I'm putting it forward again;

There is a basic factor which has been overlooked in how we conceive of reality. Time has two directions.

Why not 3? Are you specifying this by analogy or literally?

Originally Posted by brodix

As point of reference, the observer goes from past events to future events, but as frame, these events go from being in the future to being in the past.

Time isn't a dimension because the frame of reference does not constitute an absolute against which the point of reference transcribes another dimension. It is a process in which the point and frame move relative to their respective influence on one another. Content and context go in opposite directions. To the hands of the clock, it is the face going counterclockwise.

Its not a dimension but was inextricably bound up with dimensions by General Relativity. I’ve not heard anyone talk about direction of causality.

Originally Posted by brodix

The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. A day is measured by the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but the reality is the earth is rotating the other direction. As our day ends, others are dawning.

yippee.

Originally Posted by brodix

Our lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

ditto.

Originally Posted by brodix

Think of a factory; The product moves from initiation to completion, but the production line faces the other way, with its mouth consuming raw materials and finished product being expelled.

This relationship of the process and the unit is one of perspective. A unit at one level is a process at another and vice versa. We go through time as time goes through us. What matters is energy generated, whether calories burned, or wages and profits earned.

Originally Posted by brodix

A unit at one level is a process at another. That’s right but like Microsoft technical support it is true but equally useless. You either have a quantum or you don’t. The parking meter accepts nickels, dimes and quarters. Not pennies. The size of the unit is the issue. All dressed up. No where to go.

Time is not so much a projection out from the present event, as it is a coming together of factors to define what is present. The past is the influences which define current order and the future is the energy which will motivate that order. When this order is an open set, it absorbs fresh energy, defining it, so the future is a continuation of the past. When the order is a closed set, the energy accumulates in open spaces and the future becomes a reaction to the past. Evolution and revolution.

Guess you’re just thinking out loud but you really need a synopsis with a point.

Originally Posted by brodix

Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. This information is a product of relationships of the manifest energy. The only absolute frame is the present, so any action is balanced by an "equal and opposite" reaction. Reality is the energy defining the space. Time is a function of the information. "Past" and "future" do not physically exist because the energy necessary to manifest them is manifesting the present.

While this is interesting, like Microsoft technical support it is true but equally useless.

Originally Posted by brodix

The existence of the animal is linear. We travel along a path and the brain originated as a navigational instrument. One side might be more focused then the other, but that's a matter of developing perspective, much like binocular vision is necessary for depth perception. Flora doesn't need a brain because it doesn't have to navigate.

yawn.

Originally Posted by brodix

Time, like temperature, is a method of measuring motion, not its cause. Temperature is a level of activity against a prevailing scale. Time is the tensor relationship of the particular point of reference moving against context. At the atomic level, the concept of temperature is meaningless, as it is individual atoms moving in context. On the human level, government economic statistics are a form of temperature reading, that of a level of activity against its prevailing scale.

To the individual, time is a primary concern, as past and future are the path we've traveled and the pitfalls and rewards ahead. Now we are not all traveling along the same path, but are expending and absorbing energy in the same reality. So when considering the mass of humanity, concepts related to the fluctuations of activity, such as the social and economic expansion of liberalism, or the civil and economic consolidation of conservatism, are of more consequence then specifically remembering the past, or planning for the future. Temperature, rather then time, is the more approximate concept for understanding political activity. While particular movements have their own historical perspective, consideration for the past and concern for the future don't have the larger political resonance one would assume they should.

Its amusing to see you at one moment talking about binocular vision and the next inextricably binding metaphysics like economic indicators with physical reality. As though you are unable to separate analogy from physical. I’m not saying you should not, but most people do not do this so extremely and it could be easy to see how you could hide in ambiguity or be criticized for not being clear on your explanations.

Originally Posted by brodix

To the extent we form social, civil and economic groups, they are to give purpose and direction to a number of individuals within the larger context. To maintain their identity, they must maintain this specific motivation and direction, or be torn apart by other cross currents.. This must be balanced by the need to maintain a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship with that larger situation, or be isolated and terminated.

Ever read Heidegger or World Soul stuff? – mass consciousness as an entity?

Originally Posted by brodix

The bottom up processes and the top down entities they create and which then define them, are all around us. Democracy is a process. The Republic is an entity. Capitalism is a process. The corporation is an entity. Russian communism failed because it tried to take the competitive ecosystem/process of the economy and turn it into a single cooperative unit, so it rose and fell as a unit. Since a unit is ordered top down, rather then the government fading away, everything became the government. Chinese communism has so far succeeded because it has turned itself into the worlds largest corporation.

Like Japan Corporation.

Originally Posted by brodix

Why is something seemingly basic overlooked in our conception of reality? The mind is a process and its product is the thought. So it's natural for our understanding to congeal as units. Even though science understands objective reality is effectively an illusion of interacting fields, rather then materially solid, modern physics is still trying to define it in terms of the unit. Be it particle, wave, string, Big Bang, even time and space are considered to be ultimately quantized. These discrete units measure out some linear length of time from the moment they are formed until they dissipate, but unit and continuum are two sides of the same coin. One defining, one creating.

yippee – its called Process Philosophy see Whitehead

Originally Posted by brodix

This search for ultimate answers in terms of the reductionistic units is currently expressed in string theory, but searching the extremes isn't the best way to understand the equilibrium. As content, reality is manifestly quantifiable, but as context, it is equally manifestly wholistic. Studying the ends of the spectrum is fundamentally useful for understanding details, but when you don't find what you're looking for, just adding extra dimensions, or additional universes or whatever until the figures come out somewhat even doesn't really solve anything.

That won’t be known until it is decided there are such other dimensions. Also ‘dynamic equilibrium.’

Originally Posted by brodix

I think part of the problem originates in the fact that geometry never incorporated the zero. Geometry begins with the point, which is a virtual one, rather then an actual zero. Zero in geometry would be empty space, which would be all potential points, not a fixed one. What this means is that geometry only defines space, it does not create it. Geometry is a product of space, not space is a product of geometry. It is our ability to measure space that is contextually relative and therefore curved, not that space itself is curved.

Space itself is curved. I understand what you are saying however nothing whatsoever can exist in the Universe without context anyway. Put another way, nothing can be understood by a mind without it being compared to another thing. So while what you say may be true it is again equally useless. The Hubble Constant is not really a constant. It changes over time. However, at any given time throughout the Universe it is the same.

"Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move" John Archibald Wheeler, Princeton University and the University of Texas at Austin.

Originally Posted by brodix

This means empty space acts as the median, so that while our measure of it might curve one way, the equilibrium of the context provides balance and in sum these two forces of expansion and contraction balance out. If space actually expanded, so would our measure of it, the lightyear and we wouldn't be able to detect this expansion.

That’s nonsense. Space does expand and is expanding. In gravitationally bound clusters of galaxies where gravity is not negligible it is not. Quasars are not moving through space at 90 percent the speed of light. Space is expanding them away at that rate.

Originally Posted by brodix

Remember that three dimensions are a frame of reference. Potentially an infinite number of frames can define the same space. Sort of like we all live on slightly different planes on the surface of this planet. While a particular map of space may be three dimensional, the actual territory of space is infinitely dimensional.

That is also nonsense. Each of us does exist on a separate plane with slightly different curvature from the roundness of the Earth, however, all those planes are located within 3 dimensional space. There may be an infinite number of dimensions however not in the context you are using. That’s why I criticized your analogy vs physical above because now you are being ambiguous.

Originally Posted by brodix

As both median and medium, space is the absolute, as well as infinite. Time is a second order measure of motion.

You can differentiate a function that is a function of multiple variables like space and time with regard to one or the other to determine rate of change within a specific context also. Just like the Hubble constant, if you hold time constant everywhere in space the constant is constant.

I may as well admit there are issues with the Big Bang theory arising here. I think we will eventually come to see expansion is a quality of radiation as gravity is a quality of mass. Neither of which we fully understand yet. This will eliminate the need for Inflation theory, dark matter and dark energy. Some agreement here:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ ,http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp , http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=2404626 [/QUOTE]

I did not go to those sites yet, but expansion is due ton non-zero quantum vacuum fluctuations. Not only is the Universe expanding. It is accelerating in its expansion.

Originally Posted by brodix

If space itself really expanded, so would our unit of measure, the lightyear and we wouldn't even be able to detect this expansion.

Space is expanding. I don’t know how much you know about the properties of light but the spectrum of a galaxy that is shifted = rest velocity – start velocity/start velocity = v/c is the redshift formula from which you can multiply through by c (the speed of light) and get v which is the velocity of the galaxy away from us. A unit of measurement like an inch or a light year is a concept. It does not change. Objects outside gravitationally bound clusters of galaxies where space is expanding means the light years between objects is getting larger/more light years can be placed between us and the quasar.

Originally Posted by brodix

The content direction of time is matter, coalescing out of the energy of space into ever more complex forms, until the intensity reaches the point it burns up and radiates back out again. The contextual direction of time is radiation, breaking down old forms and expanding out to create and inhabit new ones. One goes beginning to end and and the other goes on to the next, shedding the old.

Read that back to yourself.

Originally Posted by brodix

What of our religious assumptions? Christianity is this narrative unit structured around a spiritual entity leading humanity forward. The notion of God started out as a personification of the tribal soul and anthropomorphization of the elements of nature. Three thousand years ago, it was cutting edge logic to combine all these manifestations into one.

The problem is that one isn’t the absolute, zero is. The medium and median are essence we rise from, not a focal point from which we fell. A spiritual absolute wouldn’t be a singular entity, definable quantity or extreme, but, like zero, both void and center.

I find it curious the way you use medium and median. I call it content and context. It is not possible to separate content from context. Observer from observed. Experiencer from experienced etc.

Originally Posted by brodix

An all-knowing absolute is a contradiction. The absolute has no distinctions, while knowledge is an endless process of distinction and judgment. That is why a triune deity makes some sense; Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Absolute, extant, infinite. Past, present, future. Order, complexity, chaos.

The above makes no sense.

Originally Posted by brodix

Good and bad are not a metaphysical dual between between the forces of light and darkness, but the binary code for conscious decision. A bottom up accumulation of billions of years of biological yes/no, on/off, I/O.

Good and bad are creations of the mind like up and down. They exist only in context.

Originally Posted by brodix

For the process, good and bad are relative. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken. For the individual, such distinctions may as well be absolute, at least for the chicken.

At least if you think death is the end. It is not.

Originally Posted by brodix

By assuming the top is good and therefore the bottom is bad creates a mindset which allows those at the political apex to claim more legitimacy then they deserve. When humanity was a tribe in the wilderness, leadership was a consequence of ability. As we settled down and social structure solidified, two effective means of maintaining control for those at the top was to claim representation of something higher and maintaining an enemy to define the us from the other. These methods are still in use today.

You know, you need to straighten out your head. I admire your attempts to make sense out of all this but it is a hodge-podge collection of ideas at best. Bouncing ideas off other people is a good idea it is just that its not a good idea to mix apples and oranges right off the bat. You want to make sense of the Universe – as if that wasn’t hard enough – and compare it to religions and society. You make assumptions that lead me to believe you are an atheist but clearly you could use some philosophy and metaphysics.

Originally Posted by brodix

The moral argument for monotheism is that belief in God instills respect for law and order. I would point out that the natural tendency to identify ones own soul as an expression of God sometimes results in the impression that ones natural impulses are potentially infallible. The current U.S. President would be a prime example. If we were instead to view that source of being as the essence from which we are all striving, yet fallible expressions of, then the more natural tendency might be to think before we act.

The ego is a reflection of the soul which is the essence of God. As a reflection, the ego too thinks itself to be Perfect. All knowing etc. It leads to all sorts of problems for us. The ego is the so-called devil. There is no other.

Originally Posted by brodix

As median of the medium, the absolute is center of opposites, but monastic thinking gives people a one sided view of reality, so they pick sides and pick fights. There will always be two sides of the coin, be it male/female, individual/community, conservative/liberal, etcetc. Even if we can only see one at a time. The world is getting too small not to give some credence to dualism.

No, no, no. Dualism is a fact of life. It does not need any ‘credence.’ It is something we are stuck with and a fundamental limitation of the mind. It is not possible for the mind to know anything whatsoever without comparing it to another thing. When you believe yourself to be your mind dualism is your reality. We are not our mind however we are consciousness in the Universe. The mind is an inanimate object like your car or toaster.

Originally Posted by brodix

The scientific consensus seems to be of the opinion that life is essentially deterministic, but since any definable aspect of our existence is a factor in reality, we affect the world as it affects us. Yes, it is not that we seem to have all that much control over our own lives, but we do have an effect on others. Therefore our actions are even more important than if it was only our own lives we had total control over. The puppet pulls back on the strings, giving purpose to the puppeteer.

That’s why without metaphysics you’re not going anywhere. From an Absolute standpoint there is no such thing as free will. Past, present and future are an open book. To a mind that cannot know the future, free will appears to exist. Minds believe themselves to be making decisions in the present that could be otherwise. They cannot from an Absolute standpoint/frame of reference.

Originally Posted by brodix

All of reality is both absolute and infinite, but when you separate out one point of reference, it is all relative to that point. This is what makes our individuality so overwhelming. We overcome that enormity by focusing on the details of living and this ties us back to the larger whole.

In other terms, it is a wave in reality. It becomes 35 miles per hour when we look at it/’particularize’ a form of justice/individualize something/place it in context/look at it.

Originally Posted by brodix

The reason life sometimes seems meaningless is because the concept of objective ‘meaning’ is static and reductionistic, while life is dynamic and holistic. It is when we distill away all that seems transitory about life, searching for that hard little nugget of value, that we have lost all we threw away and have so little to show for it. Everything has subjective purpose. That is what ties it all together.

That’s true but it implies the physical is what is real. That is false. The Universe as being in a constant state of change is not ‘real’. The Universe comes and goes but we were never born and cannot die.

[QUOTE=brodix]
There is a time in one’s life when the father goes from being the model one follows, to the foundation one rises from. I think humanity is nearing that point.

Originally Posted by brodix

After the structure of debt does collapse and we are putting the financial world back together,

Whoa! where did you get that crap? You said that from out of the blue.

Originally Posted by brodix

a point to consider is that the modern monetary system functions as a form of public commons and it would be wise to regulate it as such. We still operate with the assumption, from the age of metal based currency, that value is inherent in the token, when it is the responsibility of the issuer to maintain the value of the money. Given that in a democratic society, the government is the property of the citizen and its currency is a form of public accommodations, similar to the highway system, it should be governed for the greatest good of the greatest number. This principle would not interfere with the basic rights of private property. In fact, if people were thus encouraged to invest their efforts into maintaining value within every aspect of life, rather then being tempted to drain reductionistic units out to store in a bank, this would lead to a healthier society and environment.

John you really need to get your act together. You want to talk about the Big Bang and then start talking about the debt structure collapsing and society and democracy all in the same breath. Stick to one subject at a time and if you feel the need to analogize, then do it with deliberation and clarity that the rest can understand. Don’t just jump all over the place. No wonder you thread is so long and seems to have no apparent point. I am glad to see you are thinking about these things but it is not constructive to do things this way.

Originally Posted by brodix

Regards,

John Brodix Merryman Jr.
Sparks, Maryland USA

Where is Sparks? I lived in Germantown MD till 2003

Mike Dubbeld

[galatomic]

Only our Mike Dubbeld could begin to respond to that overwhelming summary of the story of the Universe from all perspectives.

I also wonder where Sparks is as I lived in Towson for 10 years and the only Sparks I saw were Baltimore's fireworks.



Originally Posted by brodix

The bottom up processes and the top down entities they create and which then define them, are all around us. Democracy is a process. The Republic is an entity. Capitalism is a process. The corporation is an entity. Russian communism failed because it tried to take the competitive ecosystem/process of the economy and turn it into a single cooperative unit, so it rose and fell as a unit. Since a unit is ordered top down, rather then the government fading away, everything became the government. Chinese communism has so far succeeded because it has turned itself into the worlds largest corporation.

MD:

Like Japan Corporation.

This doesn't really explain why Russia failed and China is doing so well, same for Japan (MD). Your statement on the face of it just says Russia failed because it became a single corporation and china succeeded because it became a single corporation. I'm sure you realize this is not a satisfactory analysis. I think you could dig a little deeper, like e.g. a comparison of the structure of their daily command and control business decisions or what segments of their extremely hierarchical strucure were facing the past v.s. the future. We should look at them like fire insurance inspectors and see where the entropic expolsion began. Was arson at play or did they die a natural death?

galatomic

[brodix]

Originally Posted by brodix

There is a basic factor which has been overlooked in how we conceive of reality. Time has two directions.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Why not 3? Are you specifying this by analogy or literally?

Literally.

Originally Posted by brodix

As point of reference, the observer goes from past events to future events, but as frame, these events go from being in the future to being in the past.

Time isn't a dimension because the frame of reference does not constitute an absolute against which the point of reference transcribes another dimension. It is a process in which the point and frame move relative to their respective influence on one another. Content and context go in opposite directions. To the hands of the clock, it is the face going counterclockwise.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Its not a dimension but was inextricably bound up with dimensions by General Relativity. I’ve not heard anyone talk about direction of causality.

Direction of causality is the reference going from past to future. Direction may imply dimension, the effect is being cancelled by the reaction inherent in the frame.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Guess you’re just thinking out loud but you really need a synopsis with a point.

Time is process, not a dimension.

Originally Posted by brodix

Reality consists of energy recording information. As the amount of energy remains the same, old information is erased as new is recorded. This information is a product of relationships of the manifest energy. The only absolute frame is the present, so any action is balanced by an "equal and opposite" reaction. Reality is the energy defining the space. Time is a function of the information. "Past" and "future" do not physically exist because the energy necessary to manifest them is manifesting the present.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

While this is interesting, like Microsoft technical support it is true but equally useless.

Julian Barbour wrote a book some years ago, that was generally given serious attention by the science press, in which he essentially laid out the argument for time as a dimension and that we just happen to be at whatever point we are at. The concept also underlays a lot of the logic behind various multiple worlds scenarios posed to explain quantum indeterminism. The idea of time as some form of actual dimension runs through modern physics.

Originally Posted by brodix

Time, like temperature, is a method of measuring motion, not its cause. Temperature is a level of activity against a prevailing scale. Time is the tensor relationship of the particular point of reference moving against context. At the atomic level, the concept of temperature is meaningless, as it is individual atoms moving in context. On the human level, government economic statistics are a form of temperature reading, that of a level of activity against its prevailing scale.

To the individual, time is a primary concern, as past and future are the path we've traveled and the pitfalls and rewards ahead. Now we are not all traveling along the same path, but are expending and absorbing energy in the same reality. So when considering the mass of humanity, concepts related to the fluctuations of activity, such as the social and economic expansion of liberalism, or the civil and economic consolidation of conservatism, are of more consequence then specifically remembering the past, or planning for the future. Temperature, rather then time, is the more approximate concept for understanding political activity. While particular movements have their own historical perspective, consideration for the past and concern for the future don't have the larger political resonance one would assume they should.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Its amusing to see you at one moment talking about binocular vision and the next inextricably binding metaphysics like economic indicators with physical reality. As though you are unable to separate analogy from physical. I’m not saying you should not, but most people do not do this so extremely and it could be easy to see how you could hide in ambiguity or be criticized for not being clear on your explanations.

Metaphysics and physics are both attempting to explain the same reality. You're criticizing me for my style, but I suspect you would have jumped more readily on any obvious flaws in my logic. Yes, these ideas don't tie together as well as I would like them to, but I do much thinking on my feet and write and arrange it as best I can.

Originally Posted by brodix

To the extent we form social, civil and economic groups, they are to give purpose and direction to a number of individuals within the larger context. To maintain their identity, they must maintain this specific motivation and direction, or be torn apart by other cross currents.. This must be balanced by the need to maintain a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship with that larger situation, or be isolated and terminated.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Ever read Heidegger or World Soul stuff? – mass consciousness as an entity?

No, but I am of that opinion anyway. Professionally I've spent my life working with racehorses and it is a very organic culture.

Originally Posted by brodix

Why is something seemingly basic overlooked in our conception of reality? The mind is a process and its product is the thought. So it's natural for our understanding to congeal as units. Even though science understands objective reality is effectively an illusion of interacting fields, rather then materially solid, modern physics is still trying to define it in terms of the unit. Be it particle, wave, string, Big Bang, even time and space are considered to be ultimately quantized. These discrete units measure out some linear length of time from the moment they are formed until they dissipate, but unit and continuum are two sides of the same coin. One defining, one creating.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

yippee – its called Process Philosophy see Whitehead

A lot of this comes from reading up on Complexity and Chaos theory, but that was 10-15 years ago.

Originally Posted by brodix

This search for ultimate answers in terms of the reductionistic units is currently expressed in string theory, but searching the extremes isn't the best way to understand the equilibrium. As content, reality is manifestly quantifiable, but as context, it is equally manifestly wholistic. Studying the ends of the spectrum is fundamentally useful for understanding details, but when you don't find what you're looking for, just adding extra dimensions, or additional universes or whatever until the figures come out somewhat even doesn't really solve anything.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

That won’t be known until it is decided there are such other dimensions. Also ‘dynamic equilibrium.’

I stretching there.

Originally Posted by brodix

I think part of the problem originates in the fact that geometry never incorporated the zero. Geometry begins with the point, which is a virtual one, rather then an actual zero. Zero in geometry would be empty space, which would be all potential points, not a fixed one. What this means is that geometry only defines space, it does not create it. Geometry is a product of space, not space is a product of geometry. It is our ability to measure space that is contextually relative and therefore curved, not that space itself is curved.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Space itself is curved. I understand what you are saying however nothing whatsoever can exist in the Universe without context anyway. Put another way, nothing can be understood by a mind without it being compared to another thing. So while what you say may be true it is again equally useless. The Hubble Constant is not really a constant. It changes over time. However, at any given time throughout the Universe it is the same.

"Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move" John Archibald Wheeler, Princeton University and the University of Texas at Austin.

Nothing can exist without balance, ie. matter/anti-matter, positive/negative, etc. The issue that gets raised is what is the equilibrium? No, it isn't physical, but there are lots of factors which are not physical.

Originally Posted by brodix

This means empty space acts as the median, so that while our measure of it might curve one way, the equilibrium of the context provides balance and in sum these two forces of expansion and contraction balance out. If space actually expanded, so would our measure of it, the lightyear and we wouldn't be able to detect this expansion.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

That’s nonsense. Space does expand and is expanding. In gravitationally bound clusters of galaxies where gravity is not negligible it is not. Quasars are not moving through space at 90 percent the speed of light. Space is expanding them away at that rate.

I'll refer you to this again; http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

I originally shied away from including cosmology in this, as I've spent years discussing it and know just what a can of worms it is.

Originally Posted by brodix

Remember that three dimensions are a frame of reference. Potentially an infinite number of frames can define the same space. Sort of like we all live on slightly different planes on the surface of this planet. While a particular map of space may be three dimensional, the actual territory of space is infinitely dimensional.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

That is also nonsense. Each of us does exist on a separate plane with slightly different curvature from the roundness of the Earth, however, all those planes are located within 3 dimensional space. There may be an infinite number of dimensions however not in the context you are using. That’s why I criticized your analogy vs physical above because now you are being ambiguous.

The point is that a dimension isn't the potential, it is an actual projection and is limited by its very definition. Whereas space can have any number of potential such projections. Potential and actual are two very different things.

Originally Posted by brodix

As both median and medium, space is the absolute, as well as infinite. Time is a second order measure of motion.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

You can differentiate a function that is a function of multiple variables like space and time with regard to one or the other to determine rate of change within a specific context also. Just like the Hubble constant, if you hold time constant everywhere in space the constant is constant.

Time is the measure of change. What exists is the present, while change is relative.

Originally Posted by brodix

I may as well admit there are issues with the Big Bang theory arising here. I think we will eventually come to see expansion is a quality of radiation as gravity is a quality of mass. Neither of which we fully understand yet. This will eliminate the need for Inflation theory, dark matter and dark energy. Some agreement here:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ ,http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp , http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=2404626

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

I did not go to those sites yet, but expansion is due ton non-zero quantum vacuum fluctuations. Not only is the Universe expanding. It is accelerating in its expansion.

If you were to consider the possibility that redshift is a property of radiation, rather then the result of a singularity, then this phenomena could be looked at from the other direction and the question might be what is causing the average redshift of the most distant objects to slow, relative to the redshift of closer sources? Could it be that this distant light is passing through enough residual gravity fields and the lensing effect is nominally blueshifting the light, thus reducing its overall redshift? If you want to get in that conversation, there are a number of websites I could point you toward.

Originally Posted by brodix

If space itself really expanded, so would our unit of measure, the lightyear and we wouldn't even be able to detect this expansion.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Space is expanding. I don’t know how much you know about the properties of light but the spectrum of a galaxy that is shifted = rest velocity – start velocity/start velocity = v/c is the redshift formula from which you can multiply through by c (the speed of light) and get v which is the velocity of the galaxy away from us. A unit of measurement like an inch or a light year is a concept. It does not change. Objects outside gravitationally bound clusters of galaxies where space is expanding means the light years between objects is getting larger/more light years can be placed between us and the quasar.

"A unit of measurement like an inch or a light year is a concept. It does not change." Exactly! Now if you were to say that space itself is expanding, then these units of measurement would be stretched as well. It is only due to the fact that space is apparently stable that we can detect the increasing number of light years between galaxies, according to Big Bang Theory.

I first started questioning Big Bang theory upon reading that for the universe to be as stable as it is, the forces of universal expansion and gravitational attraction had to balance out. The has since been proven by measurements of the CMBR, by the Cobe satellite. For one thing, if we can accept that gravity effectively contracts our measurement of space and gravitational processes constantly shed radiation, doesn't it seem somewhat logical that radiation might be expanding our measure of space in a similar fashion? And also, if intergalactic expansion is effectively balanced by intragalactic contraction, wouldn't these two effects be cancelling each other out and we have some form of convective cycle?

This fits in a balanced philosophy of nature and passes Ocham's razor.

Dark matter is proposed to explain why the outer rings of galaxies spin faster then Newtonian gravity would explain. If space is effectively being expanded by radiation, but the universe as a whole is stable, the result would be increased pressure on these gravitational structures. This would explain why it is primarily the outer parts of the galaxy that are moving faster then expected, rather then having to place an unseen quantity of mass at just the right radius.

Originally Posted by brodix

The content direction of time is matter, coalescing out of the energy of space into ever more complex forms, until the intensity reaches the point it burns up and radiates back out again. The contextual direction of time is radiation, breaking down old forms and expanding out to create and inhabit new ones. One goes beginning to end and and the other goes on to the next, shedding the old.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Read that back to yourself.

Basically this is the convective cycle of collapsing mass and expanding radiation.

Originally Posted by brodix

What of our religious assumptions? Christianity is this narrative unit structured around a spiritual entity leading humanity forward. The notion of God started out as a personification of the tribal soul and anthropomorphization of the elements of nature. Three thousand years ago, it was cutting edge logic to combine all these manifestations into one.

The problem is that one isn’t the absolute, zero is. The medium and median are essence we rise from, not a focal point from which we fell. A spiritual absolute wouldn’t be a singular entity, definable quantity or extreme, but, like zero, both void and center.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

I find it curious the way you use medium and median. I call it content and context. It is not possible to separate content from context. Observer from observed. Experiencer from experienced etc.

You just did separate them. It's the whole point of my observation about time as the relationship of content and context that explain how such relationships can be both whole and components. Median is the point of equilibrium, while the medium is the entire spectrum.

Originally Posted by brodix

An all-knowing absolute is a contradiction. The absolute has no distinctions, while knowledge is an endless process of distinction and judgment. That is why a triune deity makes some sense; Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Absolute, extant, infinite. Past, present, future. Order, complexity, chaos.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

The above makes no sense.

Just relating various manifestations of dualistic relationship and unit/median they define. In the history of monotheism, God the father was the one who brought order out of chaos. As order tends to be self limiting, the resulting logical constraints it places created the need for the regeneration of God the Son. That his ministry didn't have the immediate desired effect, created the need for the Holy Ghost as symbol of future hope. So the Christian Trinity is a product of and analogy for time.

In reading up on Complexity theory in the early nineties, I saw that it also was a description of the process of time, in that the top down ordering was past defining the future and the bottom up growth of chaotic systems was an analogy for the future revitalizing the order of the past.

Originally Posted by brodix

Good and bad are not a metaphysical dual between between the forces of light and darkness, but the binary code for conscious decision. A bottom up accumulation of billions of years of biological yes/no, on/off, I/O.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Good and bad are creations of the mind like up and down. They exist only in context.

They are also the original biological distinction. It is good to eat. It's bad to be eaten.

Originally Posted by brodix

For the process, good and bad are relative. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken. For the individual, such distinctions may as well be absolute, at least for the chicken.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

At least if you think death is the end. It is not.

That is also my point. Life only exists in the present, which is an organic whole, growing new, shedding old.

Originally Posted by brodix

By assuming the top is good and therefore the bottom is bad creates a mindset which allows those at the political apex to claim more legitimacy then they deserve. When humanity was a tribe in the wilderness, leadership was a consequence of ability. As we settled down and social structure solidified, two effective means of maintaining control for those at the top was to claim representation of something higher and maintaining an enemy to define the us from the other. These methods are still in use today.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

You know, you need to straighten out your head. I admire your attempts to make sense out of all this but it is a hodge-podge collection of ideas at best. Bouncing ideas off other people is a good idea it is just that its not a good idea to mix apples and oranges right off the bat. You want to make sense of the Universe – as if that wasn’t hard enough – and compare it to religions and society. You make assumptions that lead me to believe you are an atheist but clearly you could use some philosophy and metaphysics.

It's an experiment. Not overly successful, but it's led to some interesting conversations and additional insights. Generally I used to kept my writings fairly concise, but in many ways they do spillover and this was an attempt to tie various concepts into a larger meme. It started out much smaller, but things had a way of slipping in. I'm agnostic. Belief is a limitation, as well as definition.

Originally Posted by brodix

The moral argument for monotheism is that belief in God instills respect for law and order. I would point out that the natural tendency to identify ones own soul as an expression of God sometimes results in the impression that ones natural impulses are potentially infallible. The current U.S. President would be a prime example. If we were instead to view that source of being as the essence from which we are all striving, yet fallible expressions of, then the more natural tendency might be to think before we act.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

The ego is a reflection of the soul which is the essence of God. As a reflection, the ego too thinks itself to be Perfect. All knowing etc. It leads to all sorts of problems for us. The ego is the so-called devil. There is no other.

A necessary evil. To define is to limit. To limit is to define. Life is full of fundamental contradictions which give it endless character.

Originally Posted by brodix

As median of the medium, the absolute is center of opposites, but monastic thinking gives people a one sided view of reality, so they pick sides and pick fights. There will always be two sides of the coin, be it male/female, individual/community, conservative/liberal, etcetc. Even if we can only see one at a time. The world is getting too small not to give some credence to dualism.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

No, no, no. Dualism is a fact of life. It does not need any ‘credence.’ It is something we are stuck with and a fundamental limitation of the mind. It is not possible for the mind to know anything whatsoever without comparing it to another thing. When you believe yourself to be your mind dualism is your reality. We are not our mind however we are consciousness in the Universe. The mind is an inanimate object like your car or toaster.

Yet this elemental being insists on trying anything and everything.

Originally Posted by brodix

The scientific consensus seems to be of the opinion that life is essentially deterministic, but since any definable aspect of our existence is a factor in reality, we affect the world as it affects us. Yes, it is not that we seem to have all that much control over our own lives, but we do have an effect on others. Therefore our actions are even more important than if it was only our own lives we had total control over. The puppet pulls back on the strings, giving purpose to the puppeteer.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

That’s why without metaphysics you’re not going anywhere. From an Absolute standpoint there is no such thing as free will. Past, present and future are an open book. To a mind that cannot know the future, free will appears to exist. Minds believe themselves to be making decisions in the present that could be otherwise. They cannot from an Absolute standpoint/frame of reference.

Yet if our minds are reflections of god, the impulse is irresistible.

Originally Posted by brodix

The reason life sometimes seems meaningless is because the concept of objective ‘meaning’ is static and reductionistic, while life is dynamic and holistic. It is when we distill away all that seems transitory about life, searching for that hard little nugget of value, that we have lost all we threw away and have so little to show for it. Everything has subjective purpose. That is what ties it all together.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

That’s true but it implies the physical is what is real. That is false. The Universe as being in a constant state of change is not ‘real’. The Universe comes and goes but we were never born and cannot die.

All is present.

Originally Posted by brodix

After the structure of debt does collapse and we are putting the financial world back together,

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Whoa! where did you get that crap? You said that from out of the blue.

Sorry. That was part of something else and got included in the course of another conversation.

Originally Posted by brodix

a point to consider is that the modern monetary system functions as a form of public commons and it would be wise to regulate it as such. We still operate with the assumption, from the age of metal based currency, that value is inherent in the token, when it is the responsibility of the issuer to maintain the value of the money. Given that in a democratic society, the government is the property of the citizen and its currency is a form of public accommodations, similar to the highway system, it should be governed for the greatest good of the greatest number. This principle would not interfere with the basic rights of private property. In fact, if people were thus encouraged to invest their efforts into maintaining value within every aspect of life, rather then being tempted to drain reductionistic units out to store in a bank, this would lead to a healthier society and environment.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

John you really need to get your act together. You want to talk about the Big Bang and then start talking about the debt structure collapsing and society and democracy all in the same breath. Stick to one subject at a time and if you feel the need to analogize, then do it with deliberation and clarity that the rest can understand. Don’t just jump all over the place. No wonder you thread is so long and seems to have no apparent point. I am glad to see you are thinking about these things but it is not constructive to do things this way.

Mike, I spend my life working on a farm and I really like it, but it seriously limits my time and patience for writing, which I obviously also like. This is one of the consequences. Thanks for the feedback. Its been very enlightening in how this is perceived. I'm constantly reworking it and have the feeling a re-write is building. I'll file it eventually, when I get tired of it. I go through these stages.


John Brodix Merryman Jr.
Sparks, Maryland USA[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Where is Sparks? I lived in Germantown MD till 2003

Due north of Baltimore, center of Baltimore county.

regards,

brodix

[DomainRider]

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

The Hubble Constant is not really a constant. It changes over time. However, at any given time throughout the Universe it is the same.

A pedant writes: this can't be right - the Hubble Constant may vary over time, but there is no universal absolute time, given or otherwise, to measure it for uniformity against - not that we could do so if there were... check SR.

[brodix]

galatomic,

Russia shut itself off.

Take York road north, Lutherville, Timonium, Texas, Cocheysville/Hunt Valley and then you get to what used to be country, at least it isn't entirely paved over. That is Sparks. Next is Hereford and then you're getting pretty close to Pennsylvania.

I've got the alarm set for 3:30 and it's waay past my bedtime.....

[Ben Burkhill]

Brodix, hey

I enjoyed reading your theory, held me the whole way. I especially liked the concepts on balance, relativity and God - my particular interests. I was interested to see you refer to God as limiting, I guess it depends on the God you yourself imagine or imagine for others, for myself the God I have discussed several times, in several threads, I have found is the opposite to your distinctions, please read these if you are interested and see if you agree.
Good work and good work standing up to Mike's blunt rebuttles.

[Ben Burkhill]

I felt Russia died because they were a communist state and foolishly entered into capitalistic races with America whose political capitalistic foundation ensured complete victory within their forum.

[galatomic]

Brodix:

I have been to Shrewsbury and seen the light from the sun be completely obscured by birds.
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

That’s nonsense. Space does expand and is expanding. In gravitationally bound clusters of galaxies where gravity is not negligible it is not. Quasars are not moving through space at 90 percent the speed of light. Space is expanding them away at that rate.

Brodix is correct at least on this point. If space expanded then so would our measure of that space. Mike has two different spaces. One space explains the ever accelerating expansion of distant objects and the other space is held in ckeck by gravity. God help us the tensions that must exist between those two different spaces.

I do believe that the notion of expanding space was part of the inflationary theory that tried to account for the faster than light expansion of the universe. Contemporary cosmology has no need for this theoretical fudge factor. Distant objects are accelerating their withdrawal but not at faster than light speeds and therefore we don't need to stretch our context.

Brodix:

"A unit of measurement like an inch or a light year is a concept. It does not change." Exactly! Now if you were to say that space itself is expanding, then these units of measurement would be stretched as well. It is only due to the fact that space is apparently stable that we can detect the increasing number of light years between galaxies, according to Big Bang Theory.

Yes
Brodix:

I first started questioning Big Bang theory upon reading that for the universe to be as stable as it is, the forces of universal expansion and gravitational attraction had to balance out.

No, this is not a correct statement. You should say that for the universe to be as stable as we hoped the expansion would be slowing and that is why Einstein introduced a cosmological constant to GR but he later thought this was a blunder. I'm really not an expert here but I think the Cosmological constant must turn out to be negative. Is that right Mike?

For one thing, if we can accept that gravity effectively contracts our measurement of space and gravitational processes constantly shed radiation, doesn't it seem somewhat logical that radiation might be expanding our measure of space in a similar fashion?

No, gravity contracts space itself and not uniformly, at least according to theory. Gravitational processes do not shed radiation. Gravity waves have never been detected and are renderered irrevalent by geometric Reimean fiat.
Brodix:

And also, if intergalactic expansion is effectively balanced by intragalactic contraction, wouldn't these two effects be cancelling each other out and we have some form of convective cycle?

That was our hope but it hasn't proved to be true. We are going to freeze to death if we don't counter these forces of nature.

galatomic

[galatomic]

Mike:

Galatomic likes fractals.

So does nature.

galatomic

[Mike Dubbeld]

Originally Posted by brodix

Julian Barbour wrote a book some years ago

I have that book right next to me. 'The End of Time.' I did not read it although I intend to - Brian Greene (Elegant Universe/String theory) basically says Barbour is out to lunch in Fabric of the Universe.

Originally Posted by brodix

If you were to consider the possibility that redshift is a property of radiation, rather then the result of a singularity,

Excuse me, redshifts from large gravitational fields are a real thing but galaxies moving away from us at significant fractions of the speed of light have nothing to do with gravity. The redshift is from their velocity moving away from us.

Originally Posted by brodix

"A unit of measurement like an inch or a light year is a concept. It does not change." Exactly! Now if you were to say that space itself is expanding, then these units of measurement would be stretched as well.'

No they would NOT. Good guess. WRONG. As I have said it is only the space BETWEEN clusters of galaxies that is expanding. Not in galaxies or among clusters of gravitationally bound galaxies.

Originally Posted by brodix

Could it be that this distant light is passing through enough residual gravity fields and the lensing effect is nominally blueshifting the light, thus reducing its overall redshift? If you want to get in that conversation, there are a number of websites I could point you toward.'

The above statement is testament of lack of knowledge of redshifts as it does not make sense at all. Galaxies are redhifted BECAUSE they are moving away from us. Passing through residual gravity fields is bullshit/not even an issue/is irrelevant. Keep your websites they are not about science. I mean you didn't even list one of the usual bogus redshift ideas like 'tired light.'

Originally Posted by brodix

'I first started questioning Big Bang theory upon reading that for the universe to be as stable as it is, the forces of universal expansion and gravitational attraction had to balance out. The has since been proven by measurements of the CMBR, by the Cobe satellite. For one thing, if we can accept that gravity effectively contracts our measurement of space and gravitational processes constantly shed radiation, doesn't it seem somewhat logical that radiation might be expanding our measure of space in a similar fashion? And also, if intergalactic expansion is effectively balanced by intragalactic contraction, wouldn't these two effects be cancelling each other out and we have some form of convective cycle?'

The above is your speculation. It is not what is currently believed in science today. They are not canceling each other out. The expansion is due to quantum fluctuations that do not cancel out exactly. The universe is accelerating in its expansion. The things you are talking about are OLD. You are back at a time when people talked about Friedman universes with positive, negative and flat geometry. Questioning whether positive curvature would cause gravity to result in a big crunch or not. That is no longer a question. It is not what has been observed experimentally.

You are WAY behind. You need to find out what has been discovered from supernova data. COBE and WMAP confirm the expansion acceleration of the universe. It is no longer simply speculation. It is an observational fact. Gravity does not balance out with expansion or anything even remotely close. I'm not going to argue with you there are scores of people that don't know enough about the Big Bang to know why their ideas are a mess/the particular experiments that confirm the BB and GR. They are complex subjects and require a great deal of background to properly understand them. You have not demonstrated that you have here. You have only stated speculation that is not popularly held in science without sufficient evidence. I suggest you do a search on Alex Filippenko and 'supernova hunter' to catch up and discover how your speculation is no longer even warranted. The flatness of the universe is due to its enormous size. Omega = 1. Dark energy is the non-zero cancellation of vacuum fluctuations. Casimir Effect.

I don't agree the universe is in equilibrium. Spacetime is expanding and the geometry of spacetime is negative/saddle-like. The universe is not only expanding it is accelerating in its expansion. Not equilibrium.

Originally Posted by brodix

In reading up on Complexity theory in the early nineties, I saw that it also was a description of the process of time, in that the top down ordering was past defining the future and the bottom up growth of chaotic systems was an analogy for the future revitalizing the order of the past.

I find that interesting that you know this - usually people launch into entropy from there - particularly when talking about time! But you don't mention Kruskal diagrams or light cones either.

Originally Posted by brodix

Mike, I spend my life working on a farm and I really like it, but it seriously limits my time and patience for writing, which I obviously also like. This is one of the consequences. Thanks for the feedback. Its been very enlightening in how this is perceived. I'm constantly reworking it and have the feeling a re-write is building. I'll file it eventually, when I get tired of it. I go through these stages.

Well you must have time to contemplate these things a lot cause you sure know lots of stuff. I need more time to research fractals and time. Galatomic likes fractals. Besides with your long posts, people can't say my posts are too long....

I live on property that has a pasture next to a Game Reserve here in Florida. But no more horses or cattle are on it. The only time I got up in North Maryland was for triathlons and on my way to NJ, NY and Pennsylvania. I rode my bike all the way from Washington DC to Cumberland Maryland along the C&O Canal along the Ptomac. 182 miles. I heard there were a lot of horses in northern MD but I think Florida is the horse capital of the world now? Least people around here talk like that.

Mike Dubbeld

[brodix]

Originally Posted by Ben Burkhill

I enjoyed reading your theory, held me the whole way. I especially liked the concepts on balance, relativity and God - my particular interests. I was interested to see you refer to God as limiting, I guess it depends on the God you yourself imagine or imagine for others, for myself the God I have discussed several times, in several threads, I have found is the opposite to your distinctions, please read these if you are interested and see if you agree.
Good work and good work standing up to Mike's blunt rebuttles.

Thanks for the encouragement. As I see it, this elemental consciousness must work within the parameters of the fact that definition and limitation are two sides of the same coin. It cannot manifest itself without adhering to definite property values. "Freedom's another word for nothing left to lose." I'll try digging up the posts. This time business is a bitch lately.

Originally Posted by Ben Burkhill

I felt Russia died because they were a communist state and foolishly entered into capitalistic races with America whose political capitalistic foundation ensured complete victory within their forum.

In order to maintain control from the top, they discouraged initiative from the bottom and it's difficult to maintain effort without expressing initiative. Entropy as applied to society. A closed set loses energy.

Originally Posted by brodix

Julian Barbour wrote a book some years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

I have that book right next to me. 'The End of Time.' I did not read it although I intend to - Brian Greene (Elegant Universe/String theory) basically says Barbour is out to lunch in Fabric of the Universe.

There are any number of books out there that take fifty pages to express ideas that could be made in five. I make a general point in two pages that any graduate student would have taken fifty and a professional author would have take two hundred. Yes, it does require a bit more mental effort on your part to scramble over the rough spots, but you don't have to pay twenty bucks. You may not like my style, but so far you haven't really argued my central point that time has two directions and is simply a method for measuring motion, not the dimensional stage for it.

Originally Posted by brodix

If you were to consider the possibility that redshift is a property of radiation, rather then the result of a singularity,

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Excuse me, redshifts from large gravitational fields are a real thing but galaxies moving away from us at significant fractions of the speed of light have nothing to do with gravity. The redshift is from their velocity moving away from us.

Since you cannot be bothered to check this out, I'll post the whole thing(minus the pictures);

January 10, 2005

Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle:
Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?

By Kim McDonald

An international team of astronomers has discovered within the heart of a nearby spiral galaxy a quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away. The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?

The team’s findings, which were presented today in San Diego at the January meeting of the American Astronomical Society and which will appear in the February 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal, raise a fundamental problem for astronomers who had long assumed that the “high redshifts” in the light spectra of quasars meant these objects were among the fastest receding objects in the universe and, therefore, billions of light years away.

“Most people have wanted to argue that quasars are right at the edge of the universe,” said Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and a member of the team. “But too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental. If this quasar is physically associated with this galaxy, it must be close by.”

Astronomers generally estimate the distances to stellar objects by the speed with which they are receding from the earth. That recession velocity is calculated by measuring the amount the star’s light spectra is shifted to the lower frequency, or red end, of the light spectrum. This physical phenomenon, known as the Doppler Effect, can be experienced by someone standing near train tracks when the whistle or engine sounds from a moving train becomes lower in pitch, or sound frequency, as the train travels past.

Astronomers have used redshifts and the known brightness of stars as fundamental yardsticks to measure the distances to stars and galaxies. However, Burbidge said they have been unable to account for the growing number of quasi-stellar objects, or quasars—intense concentrations of energy believed to be produced by the swirling gas and dust surrounding massive black holes—with high redshifts that have been closely associated with nearby galaxies.

“If it weren’t for this redshift dilemma, astronomers would have thought quasars originated from these galaxies or were fired out from them like bullets or cannon balls,” he added.

The discovery reported by the team of astronomers, which includes his spouse, E. Margaret Burbidge, another noted astronomer and professor of physics at UCSD, is especially significant because it is the most extreme example of a quasar with a very large redshift in a nearby galaxy.

“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” said Geoffrey Burbidge.

Margaret Burbidge, who reported the team’s finding at the meeting, said the quasar was first detected by the ROSAT X-ray satellite operated by the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany and found to be closely associated with the nucleus of the spiral galaxy NGC 7319. That galaxy is unusual because it lies in a group of interacting galaxies called Stephan’s Quintet.

Using a three-meter telescope operated by the University of California at Lick Observatory in the mountains above San Jose and the university’s 10-meter Keck I telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, she and her team measured the redshifts of the spiral galaxy and quasar and found that the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas within the galaxy.

Because quasars and black holes are generally found within the most energetic parts of galaxies, their centers, the astronomers are further persuaded that this particular quasar resides within this spiral galaxy. Geoffrey Burbidge added that the fact that the quasar is so close to the center of this galaxy, only 8 arc seconds from the nucleus, and does not appear to be shrouded in any way by interstellar gas make it highly unlikely that the quasar lies far behind the galaxy, its light shining through the galaxy near its center by “an accident of projection.”

“If this quasar is close by, its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe,” he adds. “If this is the case, this discovery casts doubt on the whole idea that quasars are very far away and can be used to do cosmology.”

Other members of the team, besides Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, included Vesa Junkkarinen, a research physicist at UCSD; Pasquale Galianni of the University of Lecce in Italy; and Halton Arp and Stefano Zibetti of the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany.


Comment: Geoffrey Burbidge, (858) 534-6626

Media Contact: Kim McDonald (858) 534-7572

Originally Posted by brodix

"A unit of measurement like an inch or a light year is a concept. It does not change." Exactly! Now if you were to say that space itself is expanding, then these units of measurement would be stretched as well.'

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

No they would NOT. Good guess. WRONG. As I have said it is only the space BETWEEN clusters of galaxies that is expanding. Not in galaxies or among clusters of gravitationally bound galaxies.

Galatomic seems to have understood what I'm saying. The distance is expanding, but we can only detect that because our measure of space is stable.

Originally Posted by brodix

Could it be that this distant light is passing through enough residual gravity fields and the lensing effect is nominally blueshifting the light, thus reducing its overall redshift? If you want to get in that conversation, there are a number of websites I could point you toward.'

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

The above statement is testament of lack of knowledge of redshifts as it does not make sense at all. Galaxies are redhifted BECAUSE they are moving away from us. Passing through residual gravity fields is bullshit/not even an issue/is irrelevant. Keep your websites they are not about science. I mean you didn't even list one of the usual bogus redshift ideas like 'tired light.'

Refer the above article.

Originally Posted by brodix

'I first started questioning Big Bang theory upon reading that for the universe to be as stable as it is, the forces of universal expansion and gravitational attraction had to balance out. The has since been proven by measurements of the CMBR, by the Cobe satellite. For one thing, if we can accept that gravity effectively contracts our measurement of space and gravitational processes constantly shed radiation, doesn't it seem somewhat logical that radiation might be expanding our measure of space in a similar fashion? And also, if intergalactic expansion is effectively balanced by intragalactic contraction, wouldn't these two effects be cancelling each other out and we have some form of convective cycle?'

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

The above is your speculation. It is not what is currently believed in science today. They are not canceling each other out. The expansion is due to quantum fluctuations that do not cancel out exactly. The universe is accelerating in its expansion. The things you are talking about are OLD. You are back at a time when people talked about Friedman universes with positive, negative and flat geometry. Questioning whether positive curvature would cause gravity to result in a big crunch or not. That is no longer a question. It is not what has been observed experimentally.

You are WAY behind. You need to find out what has been discovered from supernova data. COBE and WMAP confirm the expansion acceleration of the universe. It is no longer simply speculation. It is an observational fact. Gravity does not balance out with expansion or anything even remotely close. I'm not going to argue with you there are scores of people that don't know enough about the Big Bang to know why their ideas are a mess/the particular experiments that confirm the BB and GR. They are complex subjects and require a great deal of background to properly understand them. You have not demonstrated that you have here. You have only stated speculation that is not popularly held in science without sufficient evidence. I suggest you do a search on Alex Filippenko and 'supernova hunter' to catch up and discover how your speculation is no longer even warranted. The flatness of the universe is due to its enormous size. Omega = 1. Dark energy is the non-zero cancellation of vacuum fluctuations. Casimir Effect.

I don't agree the universe is in equilibrium. Spacetime is expanding and the geometry of spacetime is negative/saddle-like. The universe is not only expanding it is accelerating in its expansion. Not equilibrium.

There is an awful lot of information coming in, but I am somewhat leery of the interpretations being applied to it. One of those links you won't look at was an interesting article from the Economist magazine discussing the possibility that dark energy and matter are modern day epicycles. As you pointed out in the conflict between Barbour and Greene, that there are any number of conflicting theories out there and they all can't be right. Many of them seem to be mental Escher drawings. They look interesting on paper, but don't try building one.

Is the cosmic background radiation due to the residue of a 13 billion year old event, or could there be a natural level of radiation, whose evenness is due to a normal phase transition level, like the dew point of the atmosphere. We understand gravity collapses mass to the point most of it burns up and is radiated back out, what would side of such a cycle look like? Could basic forms of mass be effectively condensing out of this distributed radiation?

Originally Posted by brodix

In reading up on Complexity theory in the early nineties, I saw that it also was a description of the process of time, in that the top down ordering was past defining the future and the bottom up growth of chaotic systems was an analogy for the future revitalizing the order of the past.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

I find that interesting that you know this - usually people launch into entropy from there - particularly when talking about time! But you don't mention Kruskal diagrams or light cones either.

Entropy applies to closed systems, units, so to speak. It is process which is depleting the energy of these closed systems and using it to build new ones. Big Bang theory attempts to explain the entire universe as one closed system, but it's got a lot of holes in it. Light cones deal with the effect of specific events, but reality has to factor in all events.

Originally Posted by brodix

Mike, I spend my life working on a farm and I really like it, but it seriously limits my time and patience for writing, which I obviously also like. This is one of the consequences. Thanks for the feedback. Its been very enlightening in how this is perceived. I'm constantly reworking it and have the feeling a re-write is building. I'll file it eventually, when I get tired of it. I go through these stages.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

Well you must have time to contemplate these things a lot cause you sure know lots of stuff. I need more time to research fractals and time. Galatomic likes fractals. Besides with your long posts, people can't say my posts are too long.... ?

I tend to glean basic principles and my mind blanks pretty quickly on detail. My people have learned to be patient, because I make up for my air-headedness by covering a lot of bases otherwise, like riding the ones no one else wants to.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld

I live on property that has a pasture next to a Game Reserve here in Florida. But no more horses or cattle are on it. The only time I got up in North Maryland was for triathlons and on my way to NJ, NY and Pennsylvania. I rode my bike all the way from Washington DC to Cumberland Maryland along the C&O Canal along the Ptomac. 182 miles. I heard there were a lot of horses in northern MD but I think Florida is the horse capital of the world now? Least people around here talk like that.

Florida is big horse country, but I've never been there, other then the airport in Miami. California and New York are the big racing states. Kentucky is the biggest breeding state. Florida is big in both. There is alot of showing there too. Winter playground.

Originally Posted by galatomic

I have been to Shrewsbury and seen the light from the sun be completely obscured by birds.

The Atlantic seaboard in a big migration route. Of course, these days, the Canadian geese roost here. I've found two nests lately.

Originally Posted by brodix

I first started questioning Big Bang theory upon reading that for the universe to be as stable as it is, the forces of universal expansion and gravitational attraction had to balance out.

Originally Posted by galatomic

No, this is not a correct statement. You should say that for the universe to be as stable as we hoped the expansion would be slowing and that is why Einstein introduced a cosmological constant to GR but he later thought this was a blunder. I'm really not an expert here but I think the Cosmological constant must turn out to be negative. Is that right Mike?

As he proposed it to balance the positive curvature of gravity, it is. As balance to gravity, the cosmological constant would be expressed as negative curvature of space, which was exactly what Hubble discovered. We can accept space being curved one way, but cannot accept that it might be curved the other way.

Originally Posted by brodix

For one thing, if we can accept that gravity effectively contracts our measurement of space and gravitational processes constantly shed radiation, doesn't it seem somewhat logical that radiation might be expanding our measure of space in a similar fashion?

Originally Posted by galatomic

No, gravity contracts space itself and not uniformly, at least according to theory. Gravitational processes do not shed radiation. Gravity waves have never been detected and are renderered irrevalent by geometric Reimean fiat.

Mass is a gravitational property and it very much does shed radiation.

Originally Posted by brodix

And also, if intergalactic expansion is effectively balanced by intragalactic contraction, wouldn't these two effects be cancelling each other out and we have some form of convective cycle?

Originally Posted by galatomic

That was our hope but it hasn't proved to be true. We are going to freeze to death if we don't counter these forces of nature.

We really don't fully understand mass and gravity, yet we have constructed this extremely complex model of the universe because we are absolutely sure we fully understand how light functions over enormous distances. Read over that article I posted from the UCSan Diego website. Could it be that there are any number of professional cosmologists who have stake their career on Big Bang Theory and cannot professionally or emotionally accept any other explanation? As the old say goes, Change happens one funeral at a time.

Hope this formats right, lunch is way past.

regards,

brodix

[Ромѕкі]

Is there a Biggest Posts award?

Just wondering.

[Mike Dubbeld]

I don't think you get it. You cannot travel/causally affect different parts of the universe faster than light. But the Hubble constant applies at any given part of the universe at any given time. But over time it changes. 2 parts of the universe separated by light years act the same at any time as far as the Hubble constant goes. If you freeze the universe in time, then all parts of the universe you can apply the Hubble constant to correctly. However this 'constant' changes over time. You can have a sinewave vary as a function of time and distance. Sin(x + 2t). You can hold time constant and ask the question what is the rate of change of this function (its derivative) with respect to distance x or you can hold distance x constant and ask the question what is the rate of change of this function with respect to time? Some people like to call it the Hubble parameter because it does change over time and it can be confusing.

This constant is very important for cosmological decisions and that is why supernova data are so important. You can see a supernova in a galaxy 40 million light years away and 8 billion light years away. Type Ia supernovas have very well defined properties and are thought to be white dwarf stars that undergo a thermonuclear runaway explosion of the whole white dwarf (as opposed to a Nova where only the surface undergoes a nuclear runaway). Since they are all white dwarfs and all under 1.4 solar masses, their brightness/light curves are very good 'standard candles.' It is from the supernova data that astronomers discovered the universe is accelerating in its expansion.

Because of the nature of the negative energy (cosmological constant) is not well understood, it is plausible to consider that this acceleration might reverse at some point. No one knows. Just because it is accelerating now from Dark Energy, does not mean it will continue to do so. The fact that it is accelerating in its expansion is not a question in science. It IS accelerating in its expansion as per the vast majority of scientists. It is Brodix that speculates as well as some others but such speculations is not accepted by the vast majority of scientists and has not been since about 2000. The supernova proof by the 2 independent teams both reported the same thing. (I say Brian Schmidt's team was the actual discovery team. I don't think much of the other team at all). Alex Filippenko is on Brian's team the 'High Z Team.' (High redshift team)

One of the few things people talk about is why omega is so close to 1. It could have been anything. 14 trillion billion or 10^-14 - anything. Omega is the ratio of the actual mass of the universe divided by the critical mass of the universe. If omega is less than one, it means the universe will expand forever and has negative curvature. If it is greater than 1 it means it will cease expanding and begin contracting at some point and collapse in a GNAB GIB (BIG BANG spelled backwards). If it is exactly 1 it will expand forever but slow infinitely to a crawl. Obseveration puts it at about .2 - expand forever and the universe is very flat/Euclidian. Inflation theory by Alan Guth explains this flatness but what is really incredible is for omega to be as close to 1 as it is today, it would have to have been between .999999999999999 and .000000000000001 the first second after the Big Bang.

It is a lot like a pencil standing on its point. The tinyest little deviation would have resulted in an omega either extremely large of extremely small. The critical value of omega is 6-8 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of space in the universe. That is about 10 million times a better vacuum in space than any vacuum that we have ever achieved on Earth. The actual value is the mass of all the galaxies in the universe which I would be glad to explain how that was arrived at but it takes about a page. omega = actual mass/critical mass. So if actual mass is greater than critical mass (about 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter in space) then the universe has a positive curvature and should collapse back in on itself in a big crunch at some point. But since the ratio of omega is about .2 as currently observed, it means the actual mass is smaller than the critical mass and the universe will expand forever and has negative curvature.

As far as the cosmological constant goes, gravity is directly proportional to the masses of the objects and inversly proportional to the distance between them. So why doesn't the universe collapse in on itself over time? Newton tried to explain that with an infinite universe but his logic was flawed. Silpher and others recognized Einstein's equations produced a universe that did not support a static universe so Einstein added the cosmological constant. He needed something to balance gravity. But it couldn't be something as strong as gravity so he made it only linearly proportional to the negative energy of the Big Bang. Gravity decreases by the square of its distance but the CC decreases only by a factor of its distance. So it works more at a further range than gravity/is stronger at greater distances.

That works nicely to produce a static universe. Einstein of course dumped the idea when Hubble found the universe was expanding in 1929 and George Gamow said Einstein said it was the greatest blunder of his life including it. His equations were smarter than he was and he could have predicted an expanding universe in theory. But now we have non-zero vacuum fluctuations of quantum mechanics to deal with (Einstein hated quantum mechanics 'God does not play dice with the universe.') and these fluctuations cause space to expand and account for the enormous energy (a googol -- googol a number that is equal to 1 followed by 100 zeros and expressed as 10^100.) in space. See Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking for one on this - the Casimir effect. So a cosmological constant of some type is needed to explain the expansion but it is likely not going to be as simple as what Einstein came up with?

Mike Dubbeld