|
| |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:33 am Post subject: Post |
|
|
All motion, including the expansion of the
universe, is the result of a disturbance of equilibrium.
What would be the explanation for disturbance? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Corey
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Posts: 6
Location: www.nothingnesstheory.com
|
|
Posted:
Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:06 pm Post subject: Reply
to "disturbance" question. |
|
|
"What would be the explanation of disturbance?"
is a great question. I never thought of defining it. I'll give it a try.
A disturbance in this context would be a force that increases or creates
unevenness between two or more parts of a system.
Lifting a rock from the ground increases the unevenness of space/time
between the rock and the earth. Releasing it enables it to resolve the
space/time gradient created by the force applied in lifting it. Motion
toward the earth resolves the unevenness, regaining the initial state of
equilibrium.
What then disturbs the universe prior to its existence, and what does it
disturb? I assume you are implying this question by asking for the
definition of disturbance.
The answer is that the idea of nonexistence and the complete absence of
the universe is an abstraction the way that the idea of a dimensionless
point is an abstraction in geometry.
The universe can never be absent in terms of physical, material reality.
It has and always will exist. When it passes through the phase of
greatest uniformity, it becomes undetectable to humans. We therefore
assume it has an absolute beginning at that time. That however would
violate simple logic - that there can not be a time before the existence
of the universe because "before" is a time designation.
there can also be no time taken for the universe to be completely
uniform because time requires the separation of space and matter - which
by definition would be non-uniform.
I hope this answers your question. The answer looks right to me at first
viewing. Let me know if you see any flaws.
Thank you for your excellent question,
Corey |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
crazymofo55
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:03 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
You cannot use physics to decribe what occured
when the universe began because the laws of physics broke down at the
singularity. Even the law of conservation of matter did not apply at
this point. Therefore, the current universe is independent from it's
original state. Some attempt to use the second law of thermodynamics to
set limitations of a continual system, but it is not a continual system.
When gravity takes over and sets the universe back to a state of
equilibrium, that universe is done, a new universe completly independent
from the first is created and you have a tangent system to the first.
There are minimums and maximums to this new system limiting it's
possible states. If it has too much matter the system will not only
fail, but never even occur within a time designation. It will go back to
equilibrium state before a planck constant of time can take place and
the process will start over. If it has too little matter the system
won't do anything with relativity not kicking in and so it will go back
to equilibrium without going through a single plack constant of time. It
is a processs of trail and error with limitless randomness, but limited
successful results. The thrown out results are nonexistence or what
cannot occur. The accepted results are what actually exists. When you
look at the entire system of our universe you cannot simply look at the
3 spacial dimensions or even 4 and use that to describe the entirety of
existence. There may be as many as ten dimensions just in our system.
The actual universe is a compilation of unrestricted potiential with the
self restriction that only certain states are stable enough to have the
attribute of existence. BTW, the definition of beginning and end is also
just based on an obervation point from within this closed system.
Considering all these tangent systems that may exist with there own time
designations, there is no such thing as beginning or end. The universe
as a whole simply IS all possible time designations of all possible
systems stable enough to exist. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Corey
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Posts: 6
Location: www.nothingnesstheory.com
|
|
Posted:
Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:29 pm Post subject:
Disturbance |
|
|
Crazymofo brings up a number of complex and
interesting points. Taken as a whole, they address the idea of
disturbance of equilibrium by exploring excursions to and from
equilibrium in an existential context.
In Nothingness Theory, there are three states of equilibrium – Static,
Dynamic, and Perfectly Uniform. Static equilibrium is seen when
measuring a system on a time scale within which no motion is detected.
Dynamic equilibrium occurs when the motion of a system’s parts is
predictably repeated. Perfectly Uniform equilibrium is the undetectable
state of relative nonexistence occurring at the complete collapse of the
wave function along a line of cycles.
The mystery lurking underneath all this is that something restarts the
universe’s cycle of existence after it has collapsed into apparent
nonexistence, which is the most complete (perfect) state of equilibrium.
If all natural systems including the universe are inexorably attracted
to equilibrium and ultimately nonexistence, what prevents them from
achieving it permanently? Put another way: What disturbs the perfect
equilibrium of nonexistence?
Though I agree that if there is a succession of universes, they are each
new and unrelated to the other from the point of view of human beings,
they are still related via the impossibility of achieving absolute
nonexistence. In that sense, there is an infinite continuum of existence
with its particular rules of constraint.
Disturbance takes on a profound aspect here. In science, force is the
disturbance. In philosophy, the disturbance is human consciousness, and
in theology, the disturbance is God. Given this, I have to conclude that
my definition of disturbance is inadequate after all.
How disturbing. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
crazymofo55
Guest
|
|
Posted:
Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:52 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Nonexistence brings on the ulitmate instability
which is the lack of restriction. Existence was brought on as a way to
stabilize because existence creates restriction. Existence was limited
by systems that would destroy themselves bringing them out of
existence's potientiality. Nonexistence therefore is everything too
unstable to exist, and existence is everything that is stable enough to
take on the attribute of existence. I cannot go any further to explain
the disturbance of equilibrium because it is something that cannot be
related to cause and effect as we see in the universe we reside in.
Personally, I believe that the orginal chaotic state of the nonexisting
universe is what god is. No matter what anyone believes though I don't
think that creation can be explained using the laws of physics because
for starters creation conflicts with the law of conservation of energy
and matter and eternity conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics
which states that distrophy will increase over time. If anyone attempts
to argue that science gives a proper explaination to the creation of the
universe they must disprove one of these laws in order to prevent a
paradox in their arguement. |
|
|
