Grand Unified Theory

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Vagabond -SC2-

I thought that Einstein removed gravity that it does not really exist. It is a function of curved spacetime??

Well, I removed Einsteins Mass/Energy formula by showing that FORCES create all the energies.

I also consider Einsteins GR that is based on Newtonian gravity as false because it has NO explanation for the 'enhanced' galactic cluster gravity that I call 'Zwicky gravity' since he was the first to point out that the increased galaxy velocities did not match their calculated mass/luminosity ratios.

NS

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by arkain101

He may have,

but ya, all motion originated from a force.

Since everything is in motion, they all came from a force.

Force came first. What could it be? could it be thought related, or mechanical realted..

Forces are 'intrinsic' to matter portrayed as two 'charges' (+ and -) such as the Coulomb charge that I call a force that can attract dis-similar charges and repel similar charges.

According to the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, they imply that matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.
So my conclusion is that matter always existed.

That is the most important reason why I refute the BBU.

NS

[arkain101]

To say matter has always existed, is quite a leaping thought.

Firstly, we know that we do not know what matter is. Infact, without us trying to describe what it is, it is relatively nothing.

We also know in quantum mechanical experiments that matter is not in the same stable-certain catagory as we put mental construct objects, such as a grain of sand. Matter or say at the quantum level of matter, it is in a catagory of its own, behaving like mental contructs, but also not like mental constructs.

(sorry if this sounds obvious, I am using it to make a point)

In all the ways I can think about it, trying to see what matter is, by interacting the system of reality of energy(emr) and mass, while excluding the mental construct interpratation, we disect reality itself to the point of which of course things then become unreasonable, because all that is reasonable is based on what we know as mental constructs which of course requires a 3 part system.

If our mind was not capable to take momentary pictures and send them into memory, and instead, it (the mind) resided in each picture reality of course would be defined in an entirely different way. A way in which time would be experienced differently, which I can imagine would be like existence growing, but life itself being unrestricted to time, and in a sense time travel would exist.

So we can see I think that reality is very much defined on our mental construct and design logic.

To assume matter has always existed is under this stated logic is to say the state of consciousness we experience has always existed, including all the known colors produced in the consciosness and other such related pehnomina if I may use such a word.

It is also to state, a sort of paradox of sorts to say, matter has always existed when matter itself is undefined and undesribed, likewise can not necessaraly be given much for characteristics without a comparison or learned mental construct.

I understand some people view that because existence is, it may have always been, and does not even need a creator or source, but this is infact an unreasonable thing. If we see a painting we never say or assume nature naturally stained a canvas with such care and creativity as to make itself.

The mental is there, it is important to include, it is what is, not the other way around, as reasoned here.

So I would be interested in knowing how you may say mind has always existed.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by arkain

It is also to state, a sort of paradox of sorts to say, matter has always existed when matter itself is undefined and undesribed, likewise can not necessaraly be given much for characteristics without a comparison or learned mental construct.

I understand some people view that because existence is, it may have always been, and does not even need a creator or source, but this is infact an unreasonable thing. If we see a painting we never say or assume nature naturally stained a canvas with such care and creativity as to make itself.

So I would be interested in knowing how you may say mind has always existed

I never said mind always existed. The bible implies that with its existence of spirit as having 'everlasting life'.
Also, do not confuse the 'biological' with the 'physical' because they are NOT the same.
The biological can reproduce (stem cells) but the physical cannot (hydrogen atom, HA).

The components of the HA such as the proton and the electron have been studied to its limitations. These two particles are known to have mass, charge, dimensions, densities and momentum that there is nothing else to evaluate regarding them.
All this data is the result of RESEARCH, not mental constructs like math that is a human language although it may be needed to refine and predict further data regarding same.
That is why I give more credibility to research and developement that can be visualized into a picture than a language of symbols.such as math.

NS


.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

According to the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, they imply that matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed.
So my conclusion is that matter always existed.

I've said this many times on this forum, and I'll say it again. Energy conservation is a consequence of the time translation symmetry of physics. (I.e. results are independant of time- tomorrows experiments yield the same thing as todays).

What this means is that you cannot use conservation of energy to say there could not have been a beginning- IF there were a beginning, conservation of energy would obviously break down near the beginning, which is to be expected, there is no time translation symmetry at the beginning.
-Will

[livingproof]

For the law of conservation to be applied, wouldn't there have to be something pre-existing to apply it to? If forces create all the energies, then is force not an energy? Are all energies then created by the interaction of pre-existing forces on matter and/or other form of energy as they emerge under force influence? Is force then always the catalyst for transformative processes?

[CraigD]

It’s important to be precise in the use of terms and concepts when discussing astronomy and physics – to “get the basics right”. So, please pardon a brief off-topic excursion into some essential classical mechanics and modern physics.

Originally Posted by livingproof

For the law of conservation to be applied, wouldn't there have to be something pre-existing to apply it to?

Yes, basically. The classical conservation laws – mass, momentum, and energy – require that they system to which they are applied is “closed” – no mass or energy may be added or removed from it. Though tremendously useful for calculating many practical, everyday physical problems, classical mechanics fails when explaining more exotic systems, such as ones including nuclear fission and fusion, where the mass and energy of the system are allowed to change.

If forces create all the energies, then is force not an energy?

Force is not an energy.

Here’s classical mechanics, in brief:

• Fundamental properties (and standard units):
  • Mass (kg)
  • Distance (m)
  • Time (s)
• Definitions:
  • Velocity = Distance / Time (m/s)
  • Acceleration = Velocity / Time (m/s/s, m/s or m/s^2)
  • Force = Mass * Acceleration (kg m/s, or N)
  • Energy = Work = Force * Distance (N m, or J)
  • Power = Work / Time (J/s, or W)

Note that energy and work share the same units, and can be used somewhat interchangeable. Energy is the potential for or consequence of work, work the use or creation of energy.

A little simple calculus allows the following equation for energy to be derived from the above definitions:

• 

Here’re the laws of conservation of momentum and energy, in 3 spatial dimension, x, y, and z (there are other notations for them, but this is a nice, simple one):

• Momentum (“M” the usual symbol for mass, “P” is usually used for momentum)
  • 
  • 
  • 

Because , , and can be positive, zero, or negative, , , and can be positive, zero, or negative. It’s convenient to have them be zero.

• Energy
  • 

Because a real number squared must be non-negative, must be non-negative.

What a “body” is in classical mechanics depends on how its being used. It may be as larger than a planet, or smaller than an atom. Essentially, as long as it doesn’t come apart within how the system is used to make calculations, anything can be a body.

Are all energies then created by the interaction of pre-existing forces on matter and/or other form of energy as they emerge under force influence? Is force then always the catalyst for transformative processes?

Pretty much, yes. “Catalyst” and “transformative” should be considered imprecise and metaphorical in this context, but convey the basic concept.

Modern physics expands classical mechanics in several important ways. As it pertains to the summary above, the most important expansion allows mass and energy to be considered equivalent, per the following, famous relationship:

• , where is the speed of light in vacuum.

The classical definition of energy can be show to be an approximation of this equivalency via this other, slightly less famous modern physics equation:

• 

[Mike C]

Craig

I do not consider the mass/energy formula as valid as I have explained previously on another thread.

The photons created in the SUN and stars result from ELECTRON TRANSITIONS and there is NO matter involved in these creations.
These are strictly forces at work here.

NS

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by New Science

The photons created in the SUN and stars result from ELECTRON TRANSITIONS and there is NO matter involved in these creations.
These are strictly forces at work here.

Sir, how do you define matter?

An electron has mass ( ), so how is it anything but matter?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by New Science

I do not consider the mass/energy formula as valid as I have explained previously on another thread.

Electons and positrons colliding and producing photons has been directly observed. You have a lot of theories that involve ignoring mountains of empirical evidence.
-Will