Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

How was "Space" created before the Universe

o0gregory0o said:
You know what would be funny?... If there is an "exit" to the universe.

Think about the planets in the universe as cells inside of the human body. What if SOMEHOW we discovered an exit.... ( Ass, nose, or mouth ) and on the outside is a HUGE ASS REAL WORLD like ours with giant motherfuckers walking around. :hmm:
Click to expand...

1. Universe implies only one 'space' so even if there is further space then that too is the universe... sort of like if you find an underground civilization in france they are still earthlings... if you follow me
2. The consciousness may hold the key to that door... that would eliminate the issue of size...

o0gregory0o said:
Here to add yet another unimportant question to the mix of all these other "unknowns"...

Are the planets "floating" like dust or a feather? Or are we just free falling at such a high rate of speed through "space" to where it only appears that the universe and planets are "standing still" and orbiting each other? :confused:

Which also leads me to ask, If one was able to go at such a speed (far surpassing the speed of light)... wouldn't that put said person in another dimension at those speeds?
Click to expand...

1. Laws of motion seem to differ at unknown thresholds (which science doesn't seem very interested in) to answer your question we would need more information on gravity and electromagnetism... I personally think our solar system is a gravitational microcosm for the whole universe... so everything is orbiting everything else in the system
2. What do you mean by "dimension"? If you mean alternate reality then that is pretty much sci-fi as every dimension would coexist in the same SPACE... if you mean go so far distance-wise/spatially that you are in a reality that works different than this one then I doubt that you would need to go at light speed to reach there...
 
Selfscience said:
do you have the ebook?
Click to expand...
no sir, pure old fashioned paperback:yes: you can try requesting it in the e-books sub forum, however IMO it's worth dropping $$$ on.

eewwll said:
added to wishlist based on comments
Click to expand...

just finished reading this one as well

421.jpg
 
RoadRage said:

On the topic of whats real where you said, "Something is real because you experience it as being real" are you suggest that a hallucination or virtual reality are also real, just because the mind experience it as being real?
Click to expand...
if the individual believes it to be real, it's real to them regardless of what the status quo is. This is just my opinion though. I've given this issue a lot of thought and i'm convinced that using the popular consensus criteria for discerning reality is circular. I proposed a thought experiment a while back in some thread to address this.

You have only 2 people in space, x and y, and a object, z. That's all. Now if x perceives z as having some arbitrary property, say, the color blue. And y perceives z as green. What color is z?
 
sean69 said:
Talking about "wow" moments, read that article on gravity from the spaceandmotion website. WSM explains gravity so elegantly and simply!
Click to expand...

still have to finish but this part :itsawrap:


Gravity is caused by the mass-energy density of space. This mass-energy density of space is determined by the square of the Wave-Amplitude and is always positive (squares are always positive). The Wave-Velocity is inversely proportional to the mass-energy density of space, the higher the mass-energy density of space, the slower the Wave-Velocity. As Matter and its resultant mass-energy density of space are always positive, this causes a slowing of In-Waves as they travel through other matter/wave-motions, and it is this property of Space that causes the natural ‘Gravitational’ attraction of all bodies, and explains why Gravity is always attractive.

Thus we realise that the presence of another ‘particle’ (as the Wave-Center of a Spherical Standing Wave/electron) will add to the density of space and slow down and thus distort the in-waves. Part of the in-wave near the other particle will travel slower. Thus the slower part will cause the center of the in-wave to continually move. We will observe this as motion of the ‘particle’ though it is actually caused by a succession of wave-centers forming in different locations in Space. Slowing occurs because the presence of the waves of the other particle increases the mass-energy density of space. This increase is very slight compared the whole density of Space which is determined by the sum of the waves of all the matter in our Hubble Universe This Mass-energy density of space rule is Principle Two, an extended version of Mach's Principle. The small effect of one particle is the reason why gravity is such a small force - that is, about 10^-40 times smaller than the electric force.
 
Sean69.... this spaceandmotion site is one of the best sites (of any category) I have seen in a long time. I am surprised that I hadnt run across this site before.
 
tical said:

As i read what he wrote i saw your query as a likely response. It does beg the question as we become more "apt" at reproducing these waves patterns without the stimuli, what does that mean in terms of reality?
Click to expand...
how can you produce brain waves without neuronal activity? uhm. no.
 
eewwll said:
still have to finish but this part :itsawrap:


Gravity is caused by the mass-energy density of space. This mass-energy density of space is determined by the square of the Wave-Amplitude and is always positive (squares are always positive). The Wave-Velocity is inversely proportional to the mass-energy density of space, the higher the mass-energy density of space, the slower the Wave-Velocity. As Matter and its resultant mass-energy density of space are always positive, this causes a slowing of In-Waves as they travel through other matter/wave-motions, and it is this property of Space that causes the natural ‘Gravitational’ attraction of all bodies, and explains why Gravity is always attractive.

Thus we realise that the presence of another ‘particle’ (as the Wave-Center of a Spherical Standing Wave/electron) will add to the density of space and slow down and thus distort the in-waves. Part of the in-wave near the other particle will travel slower. Thus the slower part will cause the center of the in-wave to continually move. We will observe this as motion of the ‘particle’ though it is actually caused by a succession of wave-centers forming in different locations in Space. Slowing occurs because the presence of the waves of the other particle increases the mass-energy density of space. This increase is very slight compared the whole density of Space which is determined by the sum of the waves of all the matter in our Hubble Universe This Mass-energy density of space rule is Principle Two, an extended version of Mach's Principle. The small effect of one particle is the reason why gravity is such a small force - that is, about 10^-40 times smaller than the electric force.
Click to expand...


Wave-Velocity (X^2) is inversely proportional to mass-energy density?

W-V^2 = mass-energy
==> W-V = sqrt(mass-energy)
===> But that make sense though right? The heavier the slower, the lighter the faster. So the presence of a particle would give for a greater mass thus slowing the in-wave. Is this saying that the presence of a particle results in the standing spherical wave center?
 
eewwll said:
Sean69.... this spaceandmotion site is one of the best sites (of any category) I have seen in a long time. I am surprised that I hadnt run across this site before.
Click to expand...
word. i've been on that site since '06. Top of my bookmarked favorites. It's dense with knowledge like you don't even know.
First time i saw it i was like ... :dance2:
 
sean69 said:
if the individual believes it to be real, it's real to them regardless of what the status quo is. This is just my opinion though. I've given this issue a lot of thought and i'm convinced that using the popular consensus criteria for discerning reality is circular. I proposed a thought experiment a while back in some thread to address this.

You have only 2 people in space, x and y, and a object, z. That's all. Now if x perceives z as having some arbitrary property, say, the color blue. And y perceives z as green. What color is z?
Click to expand...

Very interesting and the reason why I even brought any of that stuff up is because I was studying DMT and became very fascinated with the subject especially how it relates to dreams. Soon after I happen to meet a woman form Peru who said she was very close friends to a shaman who made and took ayahuasca and according to this lady, according the woman I met, her Shaman friend believes that the brain is a portal or a receiver of information and during birth, death or in psychedelic states under the influence of ayahuasca, our minds frequency are altered allowing us to perceive different frequencies thus opening different portals or channels that changing our perception of reality...
With the WSM it certainly re-opens the possibility of multi dimensions based on different frequency substance co-existing in the same space, similar to the way different stations can co-exist on radio waves.
Im gonna try to read up more on WSM and hopefully I will get a chance to meet the Shaman, myself and ask her what she thinks about the WSM theory, just to see if there are any similarities about her people belief system and the WSM theory.
 
Selfscience said:
Wave-Velocity (X^2) is inversely proportional to mass-energy density?

W-V^2 = mass-energy
==> W-V = sqrt(mass-energy)
===> But that make sense though right? The heavier the slower, the lighter the faster. So the presence of a particle would give for a greater mass thus slowing the in-wave. Is this saying that the presence of a particle results in the standing spherical wave center?
Click to expand...
No. You have it backwards. There are no particles. THE PARTICLE IS AN ARTIFACT OF THE WAVE. It's the illusion created by the wave-center.
 
tical said:
I never said "without" neuronal activity, I'm pretty sure what i implied was by approximation.
Click to expand...
sure you did. you said producing brain waves "without stimuli". Neurons respond to stimuli. Even when you're asleep. So how is it possible to produce brain waves without stimuli?:confused:
 
sean69 said:
sure you did. you said producing brain waves "without stimuli". Neurons respond to stimuli. Even when you're asleep. So how is it possible to produce brain waves without stimuli?:confused:
Click to expand...

The point i was getting at is simply this, If we know what(the pattern) those neural activities are of X(reality) then we could in theory at least "emulate said stimuli" Thus creating the conundrum i was alluding to earlier... what's real and what's not?
 
tical said:
The point i was getting at is simply this, If we know what(the pattern) those neural activities are of X(reality) then we could in theory at least "emulate said stimuli" Thus creating the conundrum i was alluding to earlier... what's real and what's not?
Click to expand...
honestly, i have no idea what you're talking about.

Selfscience said:
So basically these standing waves are just there....in space?:confused:

No cause, by default?
Click to expand...
dude, you really should check out the website ...
 
we, the growing seed, were planted here petri dish style in a single cell format. we are allowed to grow for future anomalies to exist. It's not important where we came from so states the seed. what is important is our purpose. our purpose is to live in harmony through much stress, which will bring salvation for our future. we are a science experiment to onlookers, I can not deny it anymore. all we can do is live our short lives and pay forward truths. ;)
 
Principle One - On What Exists and its Properties

One Thing, Space (Infinite and Eternal) Exists as a Wave-Medium and contains Wave-Motions which Propagate at the Velocity of Light c.

Matter Exists as the Spherical Wave Motion of Space (which determines) the Size of our Finite Spherical Universe within an Infinite Space.
Click to expand...

:hmm: So our universe is finite and spherical 'within' infinite space? You said earlier in a post that the universe do not have to have shape to model. http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=10958547&postcount=426

I didn't think it had to have shape to model either, but according to this principle the universe in fact is spherical and finite. It just exist within infinite space. Am I taking it too literally?

This has been one of the major errors and stumbling blocks to knowing Reality, to imagine Matter as small ‘Particles’ when in fact Matter is a Spherical Wave Structure the size of the Universe (though it is true that we only observe the ‘particle’ effect at the tiny Wave-Centers, and this has greatly deceived us!).
Click to expand...

:confused:

Secondly, as stated in Principle Two, the Wave Velocity c is not constant, and is determined by both the Wave-Amplitude and the mass-energy density of space of matter’s Waves in Space. These changing Wave-Velocities are simply the Properties of Space as a Wave-Medium, they are stated rather than deduced.
Click to expand...
:eek:

What are the properties of space?

These are just somethings I wanted to question. I still have much more to read when I get some time.....
 
eewwll said:
Sean69.... this spaceandmotion site is one of the best sites (of any category) I have seen in a long time. I am surprised that I hadnt run across this site before.
Click to expand...

thanks, as well.....

what subject is the gravity article under?
 
THIS. THREAD. ROCKS.


Yo Sean69,


I haven't forgotten your replies . . . an subsequent comments. There's a LOT to digest and reconsider. The implications are paradigm shifting. Which is cool, because progressive thinking in science is where the rubber meets the road.


Anyhow, I have a lot to say and my thoughts are all over the place, especially since I can't help swimming in the details to put my mind at rest. But I agree COMPLETELY on the import of space and motion. I mentioned it in a much older thread that without motion NOTHING 'works', which as you said requires space. Otherwise we're looking at a non-state or single state, dimensionless motionless reality? Which isn't really a reality, I don't think. (Thinking aloud here)


"Everything is a wave", the simplicity of this statement belies it's significance, especially since you're asserting that what we observe as particles are mere artifact expressions of wave propagations. The nature of these artifacts is a whole subject unto itself. But all this lends itself to the idea that our reality is really fractal in nature, and produced by wave oscillations. It also helps me reconcile this idea of infinity. Really fascinating stuff! So I'm gonna check out the links you posted to see what WSM has to say about reality.


Will add more later. However, I haven't digested the idea that 'space' just IS. It implies a causeless existence that I can't leap to at this point. But I haven't thought it all the way through yet. But given that said thought is 'materialistic' in nature, and I need to be thinking more along the lines of a probabilistic attribute. As I type, I'm starting to rethink motion . . . that there is no 'motion', so to speak. That motion itself is an artifact 'appearance' of a state-by-state probabilistic wave function. Man I'mma back away until I give this more thought.

Y'all excuse me for spilling. :lol:


Good exchanges though!! :dance:


JG
 
Last edited:
Selfscience said:
:hmm: So our universe is finite and spherical 'within' infinite space? You said earlier in a post that the universe do not have to have shape to model. http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=10958547&postcount=426
I didn't think it had to have shape to model either, but according to this principle the universe in fact is spherical and finite. It just exist within infinite space. Am I taking it too literally?

:confused:
Click to expand...
No, you're not. My mistake. I was actually asking about modeling the infinite space (universe) not the 'observable universe'. I should have distinguished between universe and observable universe. The WSM theory actually invokes a finite spherical observable universe called "Hubble Sphere" in order to explain certain phenomena like RedShift, Mach's Principle and Huygen's Principle. A sphere is just the simplest form/shape a thing can assume and it also insures that everything is connected. See the article:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Christiaan-Huygens-Wave-Theory.htm

See, the universe of the big bang has to have a shape (bounded) in order to model in curved/warped space that Einstein was talking about. WSM's space is unbounded, infinite and eternal. no beginning no end.

Hope this makes sense.

:eek:

What are the properties of space?

These are just somethings I wanted to question. I still have much more to read when I get some time.....
Click to expand...
like i said above. but it's likely to have other properties we're yet to discover.

Read this: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Space-Aether-Ether.htm
 
so in outer space, do compasses work properly? is it really as cold out there as we have been led to believe? if time travels only forward naturally, wouldn't it be harder (or require much more energy) to travel back in time as opposed to traveling ahead in time?
 
so in outer space, do compasses work properly? is it really as cold out there as we have been led to believe? if time travels only forward naturally, wouldn't it be harder (or require much more energy) to travel back in time as opposed to traveling ahead in time?
 
First things first for those of us new to all of this:

1. What is Metaphysics? It is the study of the one substance that necessarily exists and causes / connects the many material things we observe. It is useful to quote Aristotle since he first formalised the subject of metaphysics.
Click to expand...

A simple way to explain metaphysics is to simply drop a ball. Notice that you do not see any obvious connection between the ball and the earth - yet they are obviously connected because we see the effect of this connection, the ball moves (accelerates) towards the earth. The same argument applies to the Earth orbiting the sun, an electron in an atom, how we can see stars across the universe.
We give these connections names, e.g. light and gravity, but no one knew what these hidden causal connections were.
Click to expand...

Since we do not see the causal connection between things in space, this means that metaphysics must somehow be founded on something that we imagine. The problem here is that our minds are very good at imagining things that do not exist, e.g. dragons and particles.
This has allowed much to be published in the name of 'metaphysics' which is just imagination and has no relation to physical reality (thus exacerbating the poor reputation of metaphysics). Leibniz states this well also;
Click to expand...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htm
 
Last edited:
anyone taken a shot at this question?

sean69 said:
You have only 2 people in space, x and y, and a object, z. That's all. Now if x perceives z as having some arbitrary property, say, the color blue. And y perceives z as green. What color is z?
Click to expand...
:idea:
 
sean69 said:
anyone taken a shot at this question?

:idea:
Click to expand...



Z has no defined color or color name per se. X and y can only say 'green' or 'blue' respectively, based on how x's and y's eyes registers and processes light, and an agreement with other observers on the categorization of some range of 'perceived' hues thereof. Without definition and agreement (and of course proper visual equipment) you just have photons, but no color. I'm also assuming you're referring to green and blue from our perspective as participants of the experiment, not the subjects (x,y,z).


Why? 'Color' is only meaningful to those with sensory apparatus to process light. To a bat (if it's true that they can't see), there is no such thing as color. So color is context oriented and relative to the observer. Even then, I'd say there was no color at all EXCEPT that you say that x an y 'perceived' z as possessing the attribute/property 'green' or 'blue' respectively, suggesting both the presence of light, and the sensory machinery to 'register/process' it. But the between x and y, it can only be said that z has color, but nothing further.



JG
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Database Error
Oxygen detected in the most distant galaxy ever found
Replies
3
Views
237
Dr. Truth
Dr. Truth
lightbright
Damn...... now they stealing EV charging cables for the copper..... it was only a matter of time before an enterprising thief/thieves thought of this
Replies
1
Views
121
Ceenote
C
DC_Dude
3 Myths That Keep Us From Our True Potential (And How to Break the Mental Chains)
Replies
4
Views
298
DC_Dude
DC_Dude
DC_Dude
How Food and Music Control Your Consciousness—And How I Broke Free
Replies
3
Views
220
lightbright
lightbright
DC_Dude
How the Kushite Kings Rebuilt the World’s Greatest Civilization Africa’s Last Great Walk in the Sun
Replies
0
Views
101
DC_Dude
DC_Dude
Back
Top