I must admit that spherons are way beyond me. The CMB provides the universe with its only absolute frame of reference and it moves at 99.9991% of c. You might say that the CMB movement is what defines c as just this side of the universe edge, which is aethertime.

However, the big bangers say that the CMB will go over the event horizon in another billion years or so along with a lot of the cosmic universe and so our descendants will not be able to figure out the universe at all since they will only have darkness.

Entropy is simply the log of the possible states and so entropy is easy as long as you can count states. In aethertime, dark matter is simply a consequence of star matter decay, which couples with other star matter decay. Since matter decay is the source of all force, star matter decay ends up as another force and so there is no dark matter. Dark energy is the same.

The universe runs on matter decay and the exchange of matter is what bonds objects together.

...and of course, the matter wave of the universe is the key to the truth. If science can break out of the prison of time and space, they will finally realize the nirvana of matter and action. The universe only needs the duality of matter and action and time and space both emerge nicely from that duality.

There are no singularities with matter and action since all spatial displacement and time are due to the periods of quantum action. Since there are no zero periods of quantum action of 1/tau at action centers of mass, there are no singularities like 1/r at body centers.

Such a simple proposition should result in a simple universe...

Thanks for Sharing Mr Agnew,we have all our own interprétations.But we evolve also.

ps CMB is just photonic, you must forget a little the chains due to relativity.It is a prison Mr Agnew ,for the mind and also physically.You can do it if you open your mind to this gravitation.nNever you could find it if you continue on this road.Le logarythtms or thisor that utilise this relativity, it is not sufficient.You think really that it exists only stards producing photons insie our universe ?That has no sense in fact.It is just a tool to see our past.How could you see this dark matter and dark energy in this logic ??? I can understand that allmust eat at the same table, but business is business and siences is sciences.If now people forgets to open their eyes just due to obligations, wowww there we are on a bad global boat my friend and of course the vanity has nothing to do with our foundamentals équations.Open your mind :)Regards

I'm curious about something...

When you guys talk about entropy, matter and energy can you answer one question for me?

Why does E=mc^2?

i.e. what is mass and energy? Please use a specific definition, not an allegorical one.

Rather than wait for a reply I already know is coming, and will be insufficient, I will go ahead and point out that there is no axiomatic definition for any of them. There is a mathematical anomaly hidden in plain sight in the equation definition. Energy = mass times the speed of light squared. In other words, energy is completely relative to mass, and mass is completely relative to inertia of a frame of reference that is completely relative to the observer.

The closest approximation from first principles is the lattice QCD. Original paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9710463v1.pdf with an alternate method described here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-lat/9909003v1.pdf

There isn't a paper on doing the same using a differential frame lattice making no assumptions about inherent mass and types of fundamental particles. This is because a huge collaboration is needed to get the computing time to test the formulae and get a definitive result. It is, I need not overly stress, incomplete and contains a number of anomalies in the outcomes.

The issue here is that while the models claim to be based on 'first principles' they are in fact making all of their assumptions based on the classical physics definitions of what matter is and what energy is when in fact there is no solid classical definition for them.

For myself, I think it would be more 'scientific' if we didn't attempt to force our observations and measurements into a classical framework until they are well understood. By well understood, I mean until we have a solid relative model of interactions between the quantum and nuclear lattices.

It is my firm opinion that if we start with no assumptions other than differences (differentials) between boundaries we can build up physical (fermionic) fundamental particles as standing waves of potential. Bosons would therefore be the bleed-over in the boundaries as the standing waves are created by interaction with each other.

I fully realize this is a non-standard approach to building up first principles without firm ideas of what does and does not constitute a particle and that is not a comfortable starting point for many physicists. With that said, however, it is obvious that we do so already. Energy is potential and is already equated with matter and self-contained velocity through the equivalence principle.

One of the issues with driving down this vector of inquiry is that it implies a kind of weak anthropic principle. I call it 'a kind of weak anthropism' because I do not believe (make a pre-judgement) that a complex observer is required, but rather that time, and the speed of light, are a boundary zone of relative interaction between infinite potentials that observe themselves (another way of viewing entanglement).

In short, physical reality is a zone of probability approaching certainty (predictable outcome) that results in causality and reliable physics that can be expressed as single plane of relative interaction in a vector space of infinite possibility.

Of course, I am calling it 'implied' because it is extrapolated from differential potentials. I have nowhere near the computing resources to run this model. The few pieces I can run using resources I have access to show potential only.

Tell me...why does E/c2 = mass? What you are talking about, mass energy equivalence, just is the way the universe is. Asking why is like asking why matter or action are the way they are. These are axioms and therefore are among the anchors for consciousness.

Since the universe comes from just the two principles of matter and action, the MEE principle is simply a restatement of the equivalence of matter and action. Action is change and change is what we typically call energy, which is just another form of matter. Action is the integral of change over time and so the differential of action with matter is what provides us with time.

You can build the universe from any number of different axioms as long as they are independent and therefore orthogonal. In fact, different kinds of predictions often involve different axioms.

The real key is not to build a universe to reexplain the reality that the present model explains quite well. The key is to build a model that explains what the current model fails to explain.

One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.

I have notified forty active Physics Professors of the simple fact that only infinite unified surface is common to everything physical. Not one of these professors has disputed it. Yet they persists in denying publication of my truth in any scientific journal on the grounds scientists do not want to know anything about observable literal physical truth. Scientists only want to keep on exchanging reams of codswallop about invisible quantum particles and invisible black holes in invisible empty space.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi,

All this is interesing but I beleive that we must differenciate the computing and its maths with our phsycis.Universe is not a computer.A computer is a human invention and the codes are binar codes,the turn on and the turn off simply.The algorythms make the rest with th axioms of choice corrlated with adapted mmaths.Now we must differenciate the universe and its laws and domains,the codes are photonic ,indeed mc² but it is not all ,the gravitational codes also.These codes are not binar codes and the axioms of choice of this infinite entropy above our physicality are not so simple.The mass energy equivalence is not a problem nor the special and general relativity, nor the thermo heat ,electromgnatism and this and that.I am doubthing that the central supermassive BH are just mega stars ,that has no sense.It exists a gravitational stable code there.You can tell us all what you want about axioms or this or that or publications or this or that.Don't forget that all publications or pappers are not always deterministic and foundamental.Dark matter and dark energy explain gravitation when we accept that we cannot pass c with bosons photons.But not with spherons.A computer is Under c ,not universe.The wave particle duality is not the problem and mc² is easy to encircle whenyoy see the generality.It is not sufficient mc² because it exists not only photons wich are encoded since the begining of the physicality.The gravitation is universal and is not an emergent properties of our standard model.The CMB the QCD or this or that are Under thisspecial relativity, it is not sufficient simply.The simulations on computing it is well or the pappers it is well but sometimes the complexity returns to simplicity.E=mc² is not sufficient and is a prison furtermore,that has no sense.You know in a simulation I can insert what I want like parameter,I can even change the number of stars or galaxies.But universe is more than our simple limited interprétations.Thanks for this course of university,go more far now :)the anthropical principle is interesting ,lifes are created everywhere in our universe ,we observe what ? :) and Tautologically speaking of course why we are created dear friends entropically speaking now .Regards Jedis and simulate well of course and choose well the axioms.Regards

Hi,I agree totally with the first part of yoyr comment Mr Agnew,the second for me is not correct,but of course it is just my opinion, a simple nursery man,a simple cultivator of flowers and plants :) the second part seems lacking of two foundamentals important, the coded gravitational singularitiesHow can we have this general analyse,the codes are essential ?All is coded and these codes are created.The emergence of properties are due to intrinsic codes and these stable series encode furthermore respecting this entropical evolution of matters.The foundamental of matter is not the photon Mr Agnew,it is not possible considering the necessity to have a gravitational chief orchestra.The zero absolute is intriguing considering this gravition.I beleive strongly that if an infinite entity above our understanding exists and has created this physiclity.I am doubting that this infinite entropy has created a prison where we cannot travel between stars and galaxies even.The earth is a big village, the universe also.If we remain,we stay in this special relativity,never we shall travel Inside this universe.It is just that we are Young at this universal scale.We evolve quietly and it is welllike that, already that we are not able to harmonise this planet :) The matter Mr Agnew is more than we can imagine;more more far of our human interpretation.Don't forget our thinkers thinking in god if I can say,Tesla, Newton,Einstein ...and so more had understood the matter energy evolution by encodings spiritually speaking.Photons are just a tool,the energy matter is more than this simple analyse.It is not possible simply.Regards

  • [deleted]

Quantum space -time is just gravitoetherton granules. First of all time is to be separated from space. Time is a space point variable as dictated by atomic clock due to force of gravity. Gravity varies due non isotropic directional push by the presence of gravitons. Gravitons are flowing like arrows towards center of earth . As such the concentration get increased by a factor 1/R.R. Therefore measurement of time depends on the atomic clock which varies with its position in space. So the time measurement varies from place to place. We do not know whether Newton is correct in saying that universal time which Einstein explained relative from reference frame to reference frame. Does that mean time dilation is actually measurement dilation. So I prefer not to attach space with time as space=time. Then what do we mean by quantum space-time? Space is gravitoetherton super fluid consisting of many dark/white particles including graviton . If we `fill all space with water then quantum space may be water molecules. Space will acquire the property of water. Space may considered as total empty stage where drama of all its contents take place. Our space is dark energy which I named gravitoetherton super fluid. In earlier days, we used to call it ether also. Even now Newton is right in space and time concept. I am attaching two papers --one commented in ASTRONOMY.NET IN YEAR 2003 and another published soon after to give some ideas about our approach for a new physics.Attachment #1: 1_I_Think_Dr._Datta_Makes_A_Valid_Point_-_an_Astronomy_Net_Blackholes_Forum_Message22.htmAttachment #2: 1_New_Physics_with_Emergent_Gravity_Mechanism.pdf

    Dear Durgadas,

    One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.

    Visible surface does not contain invisible quanta. Visible surface contains no invisible space. Visible surface is not affected by invisible gravity.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Hello,

    Mr Fisher please we have understood.It is crazy you know to always see the same words about your infinite surface.I like you but really it is became totally ironical there Mr Fisher.Please critic the posts,blogs,forums but stop to repeat that.We are on a wonderful Platform to share, critic,improve,develop,correct the ideas,the theories, the pappers....but you you do not make it.You repeat.Please develop your ideas Mr Fisher,Explain usyour infinite light surface.Do yoy want to tell us that the infinite surface is light correlated with entropy ,so god if yoy prefer ?So in fact you tell us that we are part of this entropy without wall seperating this physicality and this entropical infinite energy ?Please explain us in détails.Regards

    Gravity is not a potential or a field . Neither it is fundamental or universal. The emergent push theory has two directional push operations. At molecular level , we see classical effect due to directional push by massive gravitons on molecules so that all molecules/objects fall equally. We know FORCE=MASS X ACCELERATION. But by a simple calculation , we can predict that M/R.R for any molecule is constant . M is mass and R is radius of any molecule. This constant gives rise to AVogadro law and possibility of chemical reaction. Now at quantum level inside proton and neutron , the graviton reacts with a mono magnetic coupling with the color charge quarks to keep them bound. We normally assume a strong nuclear force to keep the nucleus bound. But that may not be necessary as quantum gravity effects provide mono magnetic coupling. However ,the new particle found in LHC having 750 proton mass is not very much known from mono magnetic coupling and spin2. Then even a proton pulp atomic model can even be contemplated. The quantum theory of gravity is under development .

      Steve,

      This site boasts that it is dedicated to finding the truth about the real Universe. Stephen Hawking has spent his entire life attempting to find "a theory of everything." The only real visible physical component common to everything in the real Universe is infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. It is time that everyone who visits this site has the decency to thank me for finding out the observable truth about the real Universe.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Durga Das Datta,

      One real observable Universe must consist only of one unified observable infinite physical surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. This utterly simple truth is of course completely unscientific.

      No part of visible infinite surface is subject to finite invisible gravitational, or finite invisible nuclear force.

      Glad to set you straight,

      Joe Fisher, Real

      Hi Mr Fisher,

      Prof Hawking has published wonderful pappers about BH and others.He is a respected scientist.I likehis works.That said I beleive that he has forgotten an important parameter considering our entropy.It exists Inside the sciences community people thinking in God, others no.It is a personal choice.I am respecting this.That said I beleive strongly that it is not possible to ponder general équations or works without thisreal understading of what is entropy.That said these skilling scientists can ponder very relevant détails in maths and applications.Sometimes these détails are true, sometimes no.Sometimes it is deterministic , sometimes no.If Professor Hawking study a little entropy and God,he could ponder very relavant general équations.But apparently he does not want, he prefers to think about an universe without God, it is a choice simply.He is a big thinker you know Mr Fisher.

      • [deleted]

      REALITY QUANTUM-GEOMETRODYNAMICALLY EMBEDDED

      Logic is Quantum. Quantum, logic. First order logic formulas are built by atomic formulas (see OP). Which themselves combine to form first order theories. A first order theory that is satisfiable has a model M |= T. We derive Quantum logic from this and the CTMU derives a reality that is Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded. Where spatiotemporal containment defines the location of objects within time and space. As the objects move through time and space, they take their state-recognition and state-transformation syntaxes directly from this ambient spatiotemporal background. Now, what does this have to do with first order logic? Well, if you read the very first paragraph of what I posted from the Wikipedia article, it says that Universal Algebra provides the semantics for the signature of a formal language, whereas logic provides the syntax. So we have reality being logically Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded within itself using syntax.

        Nicholas,

        Real physical presence consists only of unified infinite visible surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Please stop writing unreal codswallop about supposedly finite invisible quanta.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Absolutely beautiful work here @Sean Carroll http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.08444v1.pdf

        / http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08444

        Now combine H-spaces with lie-algebra and n-dimensional fourier to get space-time complete with wave/particle and the reason for the observable speed-of-light.

        The isometric result will astound you as it emerges.

          The works of Garret Lisi The E8 seems interesting but of course it is just a simple mathematical tool.That said the lie algebras are interesting.Like Hopf,Clifford or others.I amasking me what could be the results about my theory of spherisation in inserting the Quantum 3D speres and the serie of volumes correlated with p adic numbers.The dimensions are always in 3D.The lie algebras are a simple 3D tool permitting a fractalisation.That said it is a good tool.But frankly don't say me that it is toe.Regards sky Leach ,fourier analysis and serie can be relevant for the oscillations and fréquences.with of course the good persiodicities and substitutings.The fourier coefficients and the euler formules can be inserted with my humble équations and the three motions of 3D sphères.Now see also The volumes and the central biggest volume and insert the primes.Trigonometry Inside the 3D sphere with the good parametrrs.Convergences must appear in logic if you resect the theorem of developments.Parseval can help.See also that it exists a bridge for gravitation and that oscillations must be relative for this gravity because it is not bosonic nor baryonic.So special relativity, standard model, electromagnetism,heat and thermo are not sufficient so we have a bridge also for the oscillations of the 3D spheres.You like my theory of spherisation Mr Sky?Regards

          You know Mr Sky,I work actually about my spherical algebras (I have invented them like I love maths :) )I search the correct formalism to formalise my theory of spherisation with quantum sphères and cosmological sphères Inside an uniqueuniversal sphere in spherisation optimisation of matter energy on an irreversible entropical Arrow of time.My équations are inserted of course.Thhe serie of uniqueness is a finite serie for the gravitational serie from the singularity.The number is the same in logic at two scales.One produces, theothers encode.But our nuclei do not encode only bosons photons ,particles of gravitational also more far towards our quantum singularities.The planck wall seems interesting to analyse like the zero absolute at 10^-35 m.The bridge is there giving the road towards our quantum BH and their volumes increasing towards the central biggest 3D sphères.The standard model is encircled by gravitation at the two scales, quant and cosmol.Regards