An Idea on Gravity...weired

[Abstract]

Preface: it may be best to read through the whole thing before you put to much effort into arguing…IDK

First off I’m sure I am wrong somewhere, point it out, and I’ll do my best to alter appropriately, unless it seems more evident that your suggestion of wrongness is wrong in itself, of course. I say this because I may use some words for which the definition is not what you might agree the definition is, but I will say that typically when I use a word I use it in the way I have commonly herd it to be used and if other wise, or if I’m not using it in the “average” sense I will try to make that alertion (yeah that word was to be funny)

Contra-positives: One might say, “A higher energy containing body has a tendency to lose energy to a lower energy containing body.” the contra-positive would be “A lower energy containing body has a tendency to gain energy from a higher energy containing body.”: Toe-mae-toe, toe-mot-o… as some might say it… In mathematical proofing it is often better to make an attempt at proving or disproving the contra-positive then the original assertion. Other contra-positives are these: “Mass has a tendency to expand in a vacuum” or contra-positively I might say that “A vacuum has a tendency to suck/pull mass.” I point this out because I think to use the assertion that “A vacuum has a tendency to suck/pull mass.” may be better than using its contra-positive, and because I proposed this theory to a thermodynamics teacher once and that teacher said; well no that can’t be because mass expands in a vacuum it is not that a vacuum pulls on mass. And I believe that in order to understand gravity it may actually be necessary to look in the light of the idea that the vacuum is pulling on mass…

So, First I’ll say that this particular theory leaves many things unexplained, and I actually do have explanations for many of the things that seem not to make since with regard to it but I think I might have to right a book to explain all those things. For now it seems best to make my initial assertion and just get the discussion started if anyone is willing to debate this…assuming anyone sees this…

I’ll start the theory with what started me on the idea. At a particular age, a distance from now, I did a thought experiment: Imagine two objects in emptiness. each ball is expanding at exactly the same rate, each ball is also moving away from each other at the same rate they’re expanding, and you or the observer is moving away from those two objects at the same rate at which they are expanding. What would be observed? Well clearly because the two things are expanding, and not actually getting farther apart themselves, they would eventually touch each other as they expanded, but because you are moving away those objects would appear to be getting smaller…if you weren’t moving away at the same rate as they are expanding, if you are moving away at the same rate (or perhaps a specific rate) those objects would not appear to be expanding or getting smaller, but they would still eventually touch each other, as such what would appear to happen is that the two objects would move closer together, but interestingly they would not actually be moving! Originally I had this thought experiment in an attempt to understand what movement was…

Now what this led me later to see is this: There are two possibilities; one, the amount of mass in the universe is finite, or the amount of mass in the universe is endless. Now I would say that if it is finite then it should be definite that out side of “All-mass” (and when I say all-mass I am also including all energy, basically all physical things…not all things as one could say a complete vacuum, for example is a thing) Anyways It seems to me that if the All-mass is finite, there must exist a complete vacuum outside of it. And I would propose that even if the All-mass is infinite, there is still the possibility that a complete vacuum exists out side of it: now that is likely to be deeply argued but take a look at the idea of “Hyper-reals” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number) Now regardless of me completely being in line with this idea or not, I would assert that it is possible that there be infinites represented by sequential numbers such as 1,2,3,4,5 and basically thus indicating that you can have various infinites that are one greater than the other: the beginning of this idea stemmed from the thought that even the number 1 is composed of an infinite number of fractions….(or say an apple is of size 1…1 what?….1 inch, ok seemingly finite, but just 1, and the actual size is “undefined” and thus can fairly be considered to be infinite, especially if say thought in regards or “relative” to something say, infinitely small…)

So lets then, just for now, regard that a complete vacuum exists outside of the All-mass and consider what the indications of such would be. So several questions arise in my mind…I can’t remember the order but here we go. If there exists a complete vacuum outside of the All-mass what effect does this vacuum have on the All-mass? First I would think of course the All-mass would have to be expanding into the vacuum, or contra-positively you might say the vacuum is consuming/sucking/pulling the All-mass. Now one, I think, very important question is: How fast, at what speed, would the All-mass be expanding into the complete vacuum? Or maybe you might say with what “force” does the vacuum pull on the All-mass? (Most scientists I would think would not like the idea that the vacuum is pulling with a “force” on the All-mass, but I think the consideration can be functional) First one would likely hypothesize that the vacuum could not cause the All-mass to expand any faster than the speed of light. But one must ask, is the limit of the speed of light actually dependent on the particular expanded state of the All-mass? Or perhaps; does the speed of light seem the limit only because after things go faster than that they are no longer sensible to our current sense abilities? (We have all sensing abilities? How would you “know” that?) As such it seems indefinite as to whether the speed of expansion into the vacuum is finite at all… But anyways, one test I would propose is as such: You construct a capsule that contains something like shaving cream, then you place this capsule inside a vacuum chamber, you then induce a specific level of vacuumity and then open the capsule, and then see how long it takes the shaving cream to expand, given that particular vacuumity… Then of course you graph your result and see if there is an increase in the speed at which the shaving cream expands in relation to the vacuumity within the chamber. I Have a tendency to think, or you might say that my Hypothesis would be that the speed approaches infinity… But then again I recognize the possibilities that there won’t be any alteration in speed of expansion or the approach of the line of the graph might be to some speed, which if finite, I would think the speed of light.

Now what is the point of all this? One other question I might ask is in what manner does the expansion into the vacuum occur? In other words does say the expansion begin on the exterior and slowly the inside begins to expand, or does it all begin to expand at once, and if it does all expand at once, is there nonetheless some variance in the relative rate of expansion? I have a tendency to think that the expansion occurs “universally” in other words, every bit of the shaving cream, for example, would begin expanding at the same time and at the same rate.

Now relate that to the All-mass. If the All-mass expands at the same rate as a result of the complete vacuum outside of the All-mass in all areas, then like the thought experiment I suggested regarding the two objects and the observer; then it seems probable that the expansion would be completely in-evident as an expansion. Of course people that have got the gist of where I am going might ask; Wouldn’t we observe said expansion, the earth would constantly be growing for example? But if every”thing” (other than I guess the complete vacuum) is expanding then that expansion would not be exactly evident as expansion, but as seen in the case of the two-object thought experiment there would still be the evidence of objects getting closer to each other! Gravity!

Now the next thought I could think of to disregard this is that one might ask: If that is the case then wouldn’t the earth be expanding and the moon be expanding, wouldn’t they eventually touch eachother? Well I would assert that it may be probable that eventually they will. But that may not be the case at all simply because lets face it, the “space” between the earth and the moon is not a complete vacuum, as such it contains mass, as such you could say this mass or “space” is expanding as well. So one could then assert that given say a large enough “space” between two objects, the expansion of the mass between those two objects would prevent those two objects from getting closer to each other. It might even be possible that if two objects are distant enough the mass within the “space” between them would be large enough such that the expansion exerted on the two objects would be great enough to actually result in the objects getting farther apart. Likewise if the space was too small they might begin to get closer.

One thing this would suggest is that if Gravity is a “result” as such, then it would make sense that gravity was felt from any distance; for no matter how far you are from another mass you might be, that mass would be expanding and thus technically approaching you in the sense of a part of itself at least moving towards you, except due to the “space” in-between that movement of the mass towards you would be defected…(in other words it would be approaching in the sense of taking say 1 step towards you, but the space in-between might be pushing it back such that it seems to be then taking 3 steps back, as such one would observe that the object was actually taking 2 steps back.)

The next thought that might disregard this that I had is that how would this explain tides? On Wikipedia there is this diagram…I can’t figure out how to post the picture… it is on this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide. The diagram I am regarding is the one that shows the moon above the earth such that the water is pulled up in the direction of the moon. If this was actually the case then I don’t know how this would be explained. But I don’t think this is actually the case I think this image was purely made on the idea that the gravity “pulls” on the water. My theory would suggest otherwise. People see that the water is rising and thus think something is pulling it up. But have people actually measured the sea level directly below the moon, taking into consideration the position of the sun and how it would effect things, given this idea…I don’t know that I could do the math but here it goes. The effect of the moon and the expanding “space” in-between it might actually push down on the water as a result it might make sense that while in the center or the place directly below the moon the water would be lower or at least pressurized, as a result water would expand and raise farther away. In other words it seems plausible that the pushing, or pressurization, resultant of the overhead moon, might pressurize the water directly below it such as to result in the raising of water elsewhere. This is one of those things that seems as one might say, “no-way”, but I think that it may actually be the case, its just according to what we see the opposite seems to make more sense.

Overall what this suggests is that Gravity isn’t so much a pulling force as it is a result of expansion of mass in a complete vacuum.

One more note, I have suggested this to some people and they have said, “well if that was the case scientists would have already figured it out.” or “They probably took all these things into consideration already.” I would say, “really?” if we assume that then how can we ever disprove anything that is wrong, or prove any new idea, if we always assume that, we get stuck in our current view of things instead of progressing.

[James_S_Saint]

Wow… you have raised so very many issues.
You obviously have a very rational mind. But it seems sad to me that you lack the actual information with which to build useful mental constructs within the arena that you have entered. By “information”, I don’t mean formal education, but rather the “what is out there”. It is hard for me to discern where to begin…

@Abstract

Preface: it may be best to read through the whole thing before you put to much effort into arguing…IDK

First off I’m sure I am wrong somewhere, point it out, and I’ll do my best to alter appropriately, unless it seems more evident that your suggestion of wrongness is wrong in itself, of course. I say this because I may use some words for which the definition is not what you might agree the definition is, but I will say that typically when I use a word I use it in the way I have commonly herd it to be used and if other wise, or if I’m not using it in the “average” sense I will try to make that alertion (yeah that word was to be funny)

Contra-positives: One might say, “A higher energy containing body has a tendency to lose energy to a lower energy containing body.” the contra-positive would be “A lower energy containing body has a tendency to gain energy from a higher energy containing body.”: Toe-mae-toe, toe-mot-o… as some might say it… In mathematical proofing it is often better to make an attempt at proving or disproving the contra-positive then the original assertion. Other contra-positives are these: “Mass has a tendency to expand in a vacuum” or contra-positively I might say that “A vacuum has a tendency to suck/pull mass.” I point this out because I think to use the assertion that “A vacuum has a tendency to suck/pull mass.” may be better than using its contra-positive, and because I proposed this theory to a thermodynamics teacher once and that teacher said; well no that can’t be because mass expands in a vacuum it is not that a vacuum pulls on mass. And I believe that in order to understand gravity it may actually be necessary to look in the light of the idea that the vacuum is pulling on mass…

So, First I’ll say that this particular theory leaves many things unexplained, and I actually do have explanations for many of the things that seem not to make since with regard to it but I think I might have to right a book to explain all those things. For now it seems best to make my initial assertion and just get the discussion started if anyone is willing to debate this…assuming anyone sees this…

The notion that a vacuum pulls CAN be used if, and only if, you also reverse the meaning of almost every other word and concept within physics. You cannot presume to declare that a vacuum pulls and maintain what the definition of “energy” is. Energy is the ability to change or alter something; “to do work”.

A vacuum is specifically a volume that is void of any energy/mass, “ability to do work”. But that doesn’t mean that one cannot use the, as you say, counter-positive for sake of perspective.

@Abstract

I’ll start the theory with what started me on the idea. At a particular age, a distance from now, I did a thought experiment: Imagine two objects in emptiness. each ball is expanding at exactly the same rate, each ball is also moving away from each other at the same rate they’re expanding, and you or the observer is moving away from those two objects at the same rate at which they are expanding. What would be observed? Well clearly because the two things are expanding, and not actually getting farther apart themselves, they would eventually touch each other as they expanded, but because you are moving away those objects would appear to be getting smaller…if you weren’t moving away at the same rate as they are expanding, if you are moving away at the same rate (or perhaps a specific rate) those objects would not appear to be expanding or getting smaller, but they would still eventually touch each other, as such what would appear to happen is that the two objects would move closer together, but interestingly they would not actually be moving! Originally I had this thought experiment in an attempt to understand what movement was…

You seem to have some movement premises confused. Or perhaps it is in the wording.

@Abstract

Now what this led me later to see is this: There are two possibilities; one, the amount of mass in the universe is finite, or the amount of mass in the universe is endless. Now I would say that if it is finite then it should be definite that out side of “All-mass” (and when I say all-mass I am also including all energy, basically all physical things…not all things as one could say a complete vacuum, for example is a thing) Anyways It seems to me that if the All-mass is finite, there must exist a complete vacuum outside of it. And I would propose that even if the All-mass is infinite, there is still the possibility that a complete vacuum exists out side of it: now that is likely to be deeply argued but take a look at the idea of “Hyper-reals” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number) Now regardless of me completely being in line with this idea or not, I would assert that it is possible that there be infinites represented by sequential numbers such as 1,2,3,4,5 and basically thus indicating that you can have various infinites that are one greater than the other: the beginning of this idea stemmed from the thought that even the number 1 is composed of an infinite number of fractions….(or say an apple is of size 1…1 what?….1 inch, ok seemingly finite, but just 1, and the actual size is “undefined” and thus can fairly be considered to be infinite, especially if say thought in regards or “relative” to something say, infinitely small…)

ALL measurements are ONLY comparisons. It amazed me the first time I heard the statement, “all things are relative”. I thought, “well since we measure all things relative to other things, what else would we find but relative measurements?..Duhuhhh!” And then it bothered me that Science is declaring that “things” are merely their measurements. That was one of many problems I eventually discovered in Science’s inability to be logical in what they declare.

But your “1” is merely a concept. Concepts don’t have size. That 1 is most definitely finite (not endless or unbounded).
Any one object can be said to have an infinite number of infinitesimal parts within, but that doesn’t make the object infinite, but rather the number of parts infinite.

@Abstract

So lets then, just for now, regard that a complete vacuum exists outside of the All-mass and consider what the indications of such would be. So several questions arise in my mind…I can’t remember the order but here we go. If there exists a complete vacuum outside of the All-mass what effect does this vacuum have on the All-mass? First I would think of course the All-mass would have to be expanding into the vacuum, or contra-positively you might say the vacuum is consuming/sucking/pulling the All-mass. Now one, I think, very important question is: How fast, at what speed, would the All-mass be expanding into the complete vacuum? Or maybe you might say with what “force” does the vacuum pull on the All-mass? (Most scientists I would think would not like the idea that the vacuum is pulling with a “force” on the All-mass, but I think the consideration can be functional) First one would likely hypothesize that the vacuum could not cause the All-mass to expand any faster than the speed of light. But one must ask, is the limit of the speed of light actually dependent on the particular expanded state of the All-mass? Or perhaps; does the speed of light seem the limit only because after things go faster than that they are no longer sensible to our current sense abilities? (We have all sensing abilities? How would you “know” that?) As such it seems indefinite as to whether the speed of expansion into the vacuum is finite at all… But anyways, one test I would propose is as such: You construct a capsule that contains something like shaving cream, then you place this capsule inside a vacuum chamber, you then induce a specific level of vacuumity and then open the capsule, and then see how long it takes the shaving cream to expand, given that particular vacuumity… Then of course you graph your result and see if there is an increase in the speed at which the shaving cream expands in relation to the vacuumity within the chamber. I Have a tendency to think, or you might say that my Hypothesis would be that the speed approaches infinity… But then again I recognize the possibilities that there won’t be any alteration in speed of expansion or the approach of the line of the graph might be to some speed, which if finite, I would think the speed of light.

There is a maximum speed of affect or of change.
We know that speed cannot be infinite because if it were, there would be no distinction between the source and the destination and thus we would merely declare them to be the same thing with no altering going on. The speed of the alteration would be instantaneous, and thus there is nothing to measure to say that it was ever any different than it is now. Without finite speed of affect, there can be no universe at all.

@Abstract

Now what is the point of all this? One other question I might ask is in what manner does the expansion into the vacuum occur? In other words does say the expansion begin on the exterior and slowly the inside begins to expand, or does it all begin to expand at once, and if it does all expand at once, is there nonetheless some variance in the relative rate of expansion? I have a tendency to think that the expansion occurs “universally” in other words, every bit of the shaving cream, for example, would begin expanding at the same time and at the same rate.

This part is answered by the fact that the speed of information is the same as the speed of affect (presumed to be the speed of light). When the shaving cream is opened, that opening must begin somewhere and the affect of it must travel from that point to the rest of the universe. Thus the expansion of the cream, cannot, can not, be simultaneous. And in addition, it cannot expand any faster, under any circumstances, than the max speed of affect, again presumed to be the speed of light.

@Abstract

Now relate that to the All-mass. If the All-mass expands at the same rate as a result of the complete vacuum outside of the All-mass in all areas, then like the thought experiment I suggested regarding the two objects and the observer; then it seems probable that the expansion would be completely in-evident as an expansion. Of course people that have got the gist of where I am going might ask; Wouldn’t we observe said expansion, the earth would constantly be growing for example? But if every”thing” (other than I guess the complete vacuum) is expanding then that expansion would not be exactly evident as expansion, but as seen in the case of the two-object thought experiment there would still be the evidence of objects getting closer to each other! Gravity!

You could also speculate, as I have, that all things are actually dissolving/vanishing/fading, entropy into subspace. If truly all things were getting smaller uniformly, not only would you not notice that you were shrinking, but you would see the universe as though it were expanding… even though it actually wasn’t.
But gravity is not merely objects getting closer. The size of an object would directly determine the gravity that you propose. But the mass of an object is what determines gravity by what Science proposes. In Science, the same size object can have different gravity potential.

@Abstract

Now the next thought I could think of to disregard this is that one might ask: If that is the case then wouldn’t the earth be expanding and the moon be expanding, wouldn’t they eventually touch eachother? Well I would assert that it may be probable that eventually they will. But that may not be the case at all simply because lets face it, the “space” between the earth and the moon is not a complete vacuum, as such it contains mass, as such you could say this mass or “space” is expanding as well. So one could then assert that given say a large enough “space” between two objects, the expansion of the mass between those two objects would prevent those two objects from getting closer to each other. It might even be possible that if two objects are distant enough the mass within the “space” between them would be large enough such that the expansion exerted on the two objects would be great enough to actually result in the objects getting farther apart. Likewise if the space was too small they might begin to get closer.

One thing this would suggest is that if Gravity is a “result” as such, then it would make sense that gravity was felt from any distance; for no matter how far you are from another mass you might be, that mass would be expanding and thus technically approaching you in the sense of a part of itself at least moving towards you, except due to the “space” in-between that movement of the mass towards you would be defected…(in other words it would be approaching in the sense of taking say 1 step towards you, but the space in-between might be pushing it back such that it seems to be then taking 3 steps back, as such one would observe that the object was actually taking 2 steps back.)

You are proposing that if you were to remove the “space stuff” around the moon, the moon would then “fall” to Earth… …?
But how would you explain orbits? Why would the moon or anything orbit anything? Expanding space wouldn’t account for that.

@Abstract

The next thought that might disregard this that I had is that how would this explain tides? On Wikipedia there is this diagram…I can’t figure out how to post the picture… it is on this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide. The diagram I am regarding is the one that shows the moon above the earth such that the water is pulled up in the direction of the moon. If this was actually the case then I don’t know how this would be explained. But I don’t think this is actually the case I think this image was purely made on the idea that the gravity “pulls” on the water. My theory would suggest otherwise. People see that the water is rising and thus think something is pulling it up. But have people actually measured the sea level directly below the moon, taking into consideration the position of the sun and how it would effect things, given this idea…I don’t know that I could do the math but here it goes. The effect of the moon and the expanding “space” in-between it might actually push down on the water as a result it might make sense that while in the center or the place directly below the moon the water would be lower or at least pressurized, as a result water would expand and raise farther away. In other words it seems plausible that the pushing, or pressurization, resultant of the overhead moon, might pressurize the water directly below it such as to result in the raising of water elsewhere. This is one of those things that seems as one might say, “no-way”, but I think that it may actually be the case, its just according to what we see the opposite seems to make more sense.

Tides have been, very, very measured in extreme detail. They follow the Moon… and also the Sun to a very much smaller degree.

@Abstract

Overall what this suggests is that Gravity isn’t so much a pulling force as it is a result of expansion of mass in a complete vacuum.

Haven’t convinced me.

@Abstract

One more note, I have suggested this to some people and they have said, “well if that was the case scientists would have already figured it out.” or “They probably took all these things into consideration already.” I would say, “really?” if we assume that then how can we ever disprove anything that is wrong, or prove any new idea, if we always assume that, we get stuck in our current view of things instead of progressing.

Yeah well, that tendency isn’t going to go away until we remove it (and there is a design to get that done).

[Abstract]

@James S Saint

Wow… you have raised so very many issues.
You obviously have a very rational mind. But it seems sad to me that you lack the

actual information with which to build useful mental constructs within the arena that

you have entered. By “information”, I don’t mean formal education, but rather the

“what is out there”. It is hard for me to discern where to begin…

I’ve actually recognized all(or at least a good bit of) the arguments you have

suggested and yet seeing these things I still think this is plausible, likely because

there are other things i am seeing that I have a hard time to explain. but that is

like saying “God told me.”, I know… But I’ll try my best to discuss this, it is so

much that it is hard to stay focused but here I go…

@James S Saint

The notion that a vacuum pulls CAN be used if, and only if, you also reverse

the meaning of almost every other word and concept within physics. You cannot presume

to declare that a vacuum pulls and maintain what the definition of “energy” is.

Energy is the ability to change or alter something; “to do work”.

A vacuum is specifically a volume that is void of any energy/mass, "ability to do

work". But that doesn’t mean that one cannot use the, as you say, counter-positive

for sake of perspective.

What we do is we call energy as that which is something that can do work, that

doesn’t mean that something other than it isn’t actually what is allowing it to do

work, or that there is not some other thing that can…say without empty space to

exist in, mass/energy could not exist and thus could not do work…And i will be

honest i question as i was writing that stuff as to whether it is needed to say the

vacuum pulls, it might just be fair to say that because there is an absence outside

of the All-mass the All-mass transmits/falls into it. Such seems odd though when one

considers that gravity which is associated with mass pulls and yet it still expands

into emptiness…why is this? What is causing it to expand? what say, causes a system

containing higher energy to transfer energy to a system with a lower energy state? if

it is not the vacuuming pulling is the mass some how actually pushing itself into the

vacuum? but how does that make sense, I can push my self in the sense of walking, but

I can only walk if i have something to walk on. how can all mass be pushing if it

doesn’t push off anything, you can say it is pushing off itself by as if say, i was

in space and cut off bits of myself and through those bits away, and thus “I” was

expanding… but how is it and why is it that mass would do this while at the same

time having a at least seeming quality of pulling together…?

@James S Saint

ALL measurements are ONLY comparisons. It amazed me the first time I heard the

statement, “all things are relative”. I thought, "[i]well since we measure all

things relative to other things, what else would we find but relative

measurements?..Duhuhhh![/i]" And then it bothered me that Science is declaring that

“things” are merely their measurements. That was one of many problems I eventually

discovered in Science’s inability to be logical in what they declare.

Indeed, things are relative, as such while we say the earth revolves around the sun

and the sun the galaxy and so on, you could say that relatively it is actually fair

to say everything is moving around earth and earth is the center, the problem with

that though is that the math required to think that way prevents many understandings

and calculations from being easy if possible… So sometimes it is better to think of

things in one relative way rather than another…

@James S Saint

But your “1” is merely a concept. Concepts don’t have size. That 1 is most definitely

finite (not endless or unbounded).
Any one object can be said to have an infinite number of infinitesimal parts within,

but that doesn’t make the object infinite, but rather the number of

parts infinite.

“That 1 is most definitely finite (not endless or unbounded).” what are you referring

to by your “that”. The 1 as in the All-mass or what?

You say 1 is bounded and thus finite…what then is 1 bounded by?

Say the All-mass was infinite, what if we were a fraction of it, not something

infinitely small relative to it, but an actual fraction of an infinite. A fraction of

infinity is infinity right? If so then we would be infinite, if we were infinite we

would not exactly be able to continually divide ourselves to our simplest state but

we might still arrive at the conclusion that nothing can get smaller than say the

plank constant, purely because we were incapable of perceiving beyond that or sensing

with what senses we had or currently new of. And we would then conclude that we were

finite because we were not composed of an infinite number of Plank-constant-sized

particles. The next thing is that while we were fractions of the infinite we could

still be less than the infinite of the All-mass, but we would see that a certain

amount of us, or other things which we also perceived as finite, would limited-

seeming fit into the All-mass. In other words we wouldn’t exactly recognize that the

All-mass was infinite unless we were apparently infinitely smaller relative to it, if

we were a fraction of it we would be infinite but finitely limited relative to it…

@James S Saint

There is a maximum speed of affect or of change.

I recognize that we think that but I am postulating as to what might be the case if

we are wrong.

@James S Saint

We know that speed cannot be infinite because if it were, there would be no

distinction between the source and the destination and thus we would merely declare

them to be the same thing with no altering going on. The speed of the alteration

would be instantaneous, and thus there is nothing to measure to say that it was ever

any different than it is now. Without finite speed of affect, there can be no

universe at all.

Unless all things were actually infinite in which case an infinite speed going thing

might not be implausible if it was a lesser-relative-infinite.

But it would seem that if you were in a finite system that yes something going at a

relatively infinite speed would be gone the instant it achieved that speed…

@James S Saint

This part is answered by the fact that the speed of information is the same as the

speed of affect (presumed to be the speed of light). When the shaving cream is

opened, that opening must begin somewhere and the affect of it must travel from that

point to the rest of the universe. Thus the expansion of the cream, cannot, [u]can

not[/u], be simultaneous. And in addition, it cannot expand any faster, under any

circumstances, than the max speed of affect, again presumed to be the speed of

light.

you have to make the experiment before one presumes that it is limited by the speed

of light… but I think of the expansion as similar to this: If you have a stick

pinned at one end and push the stick round and round, the whole stick moves though at

different angular velocities along it. Although I do see that technically it would

take time for the other parts of the stick to begin moving so… but is that due to

the nature of the thing to bend, or the molecules to alter in position? Would it be

different given a perfectly rigid stick?

But this still doesn’t answer the other questions like whether the limit of speed of

light is somehow different depending on the state of expansion of the All-mass or

where you are in it…

And i don’t know that whether such is limited actually impacts the overall theory. It was

more of a side question as to whether the expansion was limited…

@James S Saint

You could also speculate, as I have, that all things are actually

dissolving/vanishing/fading, entropy into subspace.

I would think that is happening if you look at things from an alternate relative

stand point.

Although “dissolving/vanishing/fading” if into subspace isn’t that the same thing as

things expanding into subspace? Just perhaps in such a manner as to be becoming more

distant from all; like unto things dividing such as to, if taken into infinititum, the approach

of reduction in size would be zero…? Odd wording there…

@James S Saint

If truly all things were getting smaller uniformly, not only would you not notice

that you were shrinking, but you would see the universe as though it were expanding…

even though it actually wasn’t.

Actually i think the appearance of expansion my be due to another thing… but yeah,

you would at least not notice it, but it would seem that all things would seem to be

getting farther apart: If i was in space and another object were in space and we were

both shrinking then it would seem to each that the other was getting farther and

farther away, unless the actual space between them was also shrinking, but in that

case everything would seem as not to be moving at all. whereas in the case of

universal expansion there would be the appearance of the opposite…i would think…

@James S Saint

But gravity is not merely objects getting closer. The size of an object would

directly determine the gravity that you propose. But the mass of an object is what

determines gravity by what Science proposes. In Science, the same size object can

have different gravity potential.

i would agree that the amount of mass would still affect the rate of expansion and

thus the apparent extent of gravity. but if you say, had an empty sphere, except i

guess a few inches inward or something, then even in my theory’s case that large

sphere would expand at a lesser rate because there would be less expanding mass to

add to the overall apparent expansion: If you had say 3 balls expanding in another

expandable ball than the larger containing ball would expand at a rate proportional

to the combined expansion of all 3 balls: if each of the three balls were expanding

at a rate of 3 m/s then the expansion of the exterior-container-ball would

be…something…but it would be greater than just 3 m/s second sense each ball would

be pushing off the other…i think it might be 9 m/s…( although you might say that it was actually 18 m/s if you asserted the rate of expansion as like the speed at which it took one side of the mass to go a specific distance when pressed against a wall, other wise it would be a matter relative to the center and the distance difference occurring from the exterior getting farther from the center…Ahhh! it would be so much easier to show this on a piece of paper, a drawing or two…)

@James S Saint

You are proposing that if you were to remove the “space stuff” around the moon, the

moon would then “fall” to Earth… …?

that would actually be the case regardless of my theory, depending on how much you

removed. for if you removed the mass within that space between the moon you would be

creating a vacuum between the earth and the moon and thus they would move to fill it,

and if you some how prevented all other mass from surrounding space from filling in

first then the earth and the moon would be pulled together.

@James S Saint

But how would you explain orbits? Why would the moon or anything orbit anything?

Expanding space wouldn’t account for that.

how does one explain orbits otherwise? I mean why is it that gravity doesn’t just

pull a thing directly straight in?

it would be explainable that things aren’t pulled directly in with regards to my

“theory” because the mass in the space between prevents that by resistance, but that

any action on the body…or moon… would cause it to easily slide along the orbit

continually until stopped by some other action. (odd though, it might be plausible

that the action that cause and actually is_ continually causing the moon to move might

be the continual bombardment by energy from the sun, that is to say light, I mean

over a very long period of time this might cause such…IDK) And indeed there would

be little resistance by rotational motion around an object because there would not be

any other objects significantly close enough that might produce a pressurized-space-

mass between. As to why the moon revolves around the earth as it does, if the case of

the light of the sun pushing on it which seems less likely, it would seem more likely

that the motion was produced by an impact or series of impacts, but if the sun was

the cause it would make sense only if the moon was say moving clockwise around the

earth while the earth was moving clockwise around the sun. Or both moving counter

clockwise, because it would seem that other wise the moons motion would be

counteracted by the light it encountered from the sun when reaching the other side

of earth…

@James S Saint

Tides have been, very, very measured in extreme detail. They follow the Moon… and

also the Sun to a very much smaller degree.

You say this, but do you actually know that they measured that the water was higher

when directly below the moon? if they did could you provide me with evidence? I did a

little research myself and could not find that…a little

[Abstract]

Sorry about the parsed text, fortunately I was saving this in a note pad as I was righting it, and when I went to submit the message I had to sign back in and that started me over, and the note pad did a word rapping thing or something…

P.S. I’m “Valley” i had to get a new account because my password stopped working, and it wasn’t because I was banned, or at least if that was the case I couldn’t tell. I tried typing in what I thought the password was… I thought i just forgot it but my password wasn’t working on that e-mail either, so i couldn’t look up the password in my e-mail either…weird stuff…But I thought you might want to know sense we have had discussions in the past…

[Abstract]

Oh and is it OK if I post this discussion on my blog?

[James_S_Saint]

@Abstract

What we do is we call energy as that which is something that can do work, that doesn’t mean that something other than it isn’t actually what is allowing it to do work, or that there is not some other thing that can…

Emm… I think you have your cart before your horse.
It isn’t that “we call energy that which can do work”, but rather;
What we call that which can do work is “energy”.
If it can do work, it is defined to be of energy.

@Abstract

.say without empty space to exist in, mass/energy could not exist and thus could not do work.

The need for “empty space” within with which energy can function, is a different equivocated use of the phrase “empty space”.
If it is empty, no energy can function within because there is no energy within to function.

On an additional much higher metaphysical note, space is created by energy. Energy is not within space. It is actually more correct to say that space is within energy. Without energy, there be no space. Odd, but true.

@Abstract

…And i will be honest i question as i was writing that stuff as to whether it is needed to say the vacuum pulls, it might just be fair to say that because there is an absence outside of the All-mass the All-mass transmits/falls into it. Such seems odd though when one considers that gravity which is associated with mass pulls and yet it still expands into emptiness…why is this? What is causing it to expand? what say, causes a system containing higher energy to transfer energy to a system with a lower energy state? if it is not the vacuuming pulling is the mass some how actually pushing itself into the vacuum? but how does that make sense, I can push my self in the sense of walking, but I can only walk if i have something to walk on. how can all mass be pushing if it doesn’t push off anything, you can say it is pushing off itself by as if say, i was in space and cut off bits of myself and through those bits away, and thus “I” was expanding… but how is it and why is it that mass would do this while at the same time having a at least seeming quality of pulling together…?

What causes it, is actually what it is. Higher affect displaces lower affect, by definition. Gravity is not a high affect compared to the other forces of electric/magnetic potential and kinetic momentum. The Big Bang theory discusses a huge explosion (mass against mass) wherein potential energy got released into momentum. Gravity is simply too weak of an affect to prevent kinetic momentum from escaping it.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

But your “1” is merely a concept. Concepts don’t have size. That 1 is most definitely
finite (not endless or unbounded). Any one object can be said to have an infinite number of infinitesimal parts within, but that doesn’t make the object infinite, but rather the number of parts infinite.

“That 1 is most definitely finite (not endless or unbounded).” what are you referring to by your “that”. The 1 as in the All-mass or what?

The “1” that was in your sentences;
“i say I have 1 object…That doesn’t actually tell you its size thus 1 as itself is actually an indefinate”, and
“1 is composed of an infinite number of fractions….(or say an apple is of size 1…1 what?….1 inch, ok seemingly finite, but just 1, and the actual size is “undefined” and thus can fairly be considered to be infinite”
In rereading it, I think I might have confused your intent the first time.
The higher point is that until you compare two things, you have no measure of anything and cannot conclude.

@Abstract

You say 1 is bounded and thus finite…what then is 1 bounded by?

It is defined as a finite quantity. It is not endless or boundless. It is bound to its definition of always and only being merely “one”, no more, no less.

@Abstract

Say the All-mass was infinite, what if we were a fraction of it, not something infinitely small relative to it,

That is a contradiction.
“We” are a finite entity even if we have an infinite number of parts within.
We have no choice but to be infinitesimal compared to any infinite entity.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

There is a maximum speed of affect or of change.

I recognize that we think that but I am postulating as to what might be the case if we are wrong.

What if you were wrong in doubting it?
It happens to be a necessary logical conclusion.
If you can’t accept logic, you actually can’t accept any evidence at all nor draw any inference of doubt.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

We know that speed cannot be infinite because if it were, there would be no distinction between the source and the destination and thus we would merely declare them to be the same thing with no altering going on. The speed of the alteration would be instantaneous, and thus there is nothing to measure to say that it was ever any different than it is now. Without finite speed of affect, there can be no universe at all.

Unless all things were actually infinite in which case an infinite speed going thing might not be implausible if it was a lesser-relative-infinite.

“All things being infinite” has no meaning.
Something is only infinite in reference to something that is finite.

@Abstract

I think of the expansion as similar to this: If you have a stick pinned at one end and push the stick round and round, the whole stick moves though at different angular velocities along it. Although I do see that technically it would take time for the other parts of the stick to begin moving so… but is that due to the nature of the thing to bend, or the molecules to alter in position? Would it be different given a perfectly rigid stick?

Rigid bodies are impossible to be physical.

@Abstract

But this still doesn’t answer the other questions like whether the limit of speed of light is somehow different depending on the state of expansion of the All-mass or where you are in it…

It does depend on it. Light travels at different speeds through higher mass volumes than lower.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

But gravity is not merely objects getting closer. The size of an object would directly determine the gravity that you propose. But the mass of an object is what determines gravity by what Science proposes. In Science, the same size object can have different gravity potential.

i would agree that the amount of mass would still affect the rate of expansion and thus the apparent extent of gravity. but if you say, had an empty sphere, except i guess a few inches inward or something, then even in my theory’s case that large sphere would expand at a lesser rate because there would be less expanding mass to add to the overall apparent expansion: If you had say 3 balls expanding in another expandable ball than the larger containing ball would expand at a rate proportional to the combined expansion of all 3 balls: if each of the three balls were expanding at a rate of 3 m/s then the expansion of the exterior-container-ball would be…something…but it would be greater than just 3 m/s second sense each ball would be pushing off the other…i think it might be 9 m/s…( although you might say that it was actually 18 m/s if you asserted the rate of expansion as like the speed at which it took one side of the mass to go a specific distance when pressed against a wall, other wise it would be a matter relative to the center and the distance difference occurring from the exterior getting farther from the center…Ahhh! it would be so much easier to show this on a piece of paper, a drawing or two…)

I suspect that you missed my point.
Size of expansion is independent of gravity of mass, because mass is independent of size.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

You are proposing that if you were to remove the “space stuff” around the moon, the moon would then “fall” to Earth… …?

that would actually be the case regardless of my theory, depending on how much you removed. for if you removed the mass within that space between the moon you would be creating a vacuum between the earth and the moon and thus they would move to fill it, and if you some how prevented all other mass from surrounding space from filling in first then the earth and the moon would be pulled together.

I specifically said, “around the Moon”, not merely between the Moon and Earth. The vacuum would be “pulling” the Moon in all directions evenly. Yet there would be no space stuff between the Earth and Moon at any one time.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

But how would you explain orbits? Why would the moon or anything orbit anything? Expanding space wouldn’t account for that.

how does one explain orbits otherwise? I mean why is it that gravity doesn’t just pull a thing directly straight in?

Centrifugal force by virtue of momentum.

@Abstract

it would be explainable that things aren’t pulled directly in with regards to my “theory” because the mass in the space between prevents that by resistance, but that any action on the body…or moon… would cause it to easily slide along the orbit
continually until stopped by some other action. (odd though, it might be plausible that the action that cause and actually is_ continually causing the moon to move might be the continual bombardment by energy from the sun, that is to say light, I mean over a very long period of time this might cause such…IDK) And indeed there would be little resistance by rotational motion around an object because there would not be any other objects significantly close enough that might produce a pressurized-space-mass between. As to why the moon revolves around the earth as it does, if the case of the light of the sun pushing on it which seems less likely, it would seem more likely that the motion was produced by an impact or series of impacts, but if the sun was the cause it would make sense only if the moon was say moving clockwise around the earth while the earth was moving clockwise around the sun. Or both moving counter clockwise, because it would seem that other wise the moons motion would be counteracted by the light it encountered from the sun when reaching the other side of earth…

Objects move in straight lines unless something is causing them to turn. The Solar Wind would not push the Moon into a circle around the Earth, but merely push it into outer space.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

Tides have been, very, very measured in extreme detail. They follow the Moon… and also the Sun to a very much smaller degree.

You say this, but do you actually know that they measured that the water was higher when directly below the moon? if they did could you provide me with evidence? I did a little research myself and could not find that…a little

I don’t know that the Moon orbits the Earth either for that matter. Nor anything related to “out there” other than what Rational Metaphysics tells me absolutely must be out there regardless of what anyone has ever said about anything.
It is very difficult to get real information online.

@Abstract

Oh and is it OK if I post this discussion on my blog?

Fine by me.

[Abstract]

@James S Saint

Emm… I think you have your cart before your horse.
It isn’t that “we call energy that which can do work”, but rather;
What we call that which can do work is “energy”.
If it can do work, it is defined to be of energy.

i think i can agree, but it might be better then to say that it is plausible that a complete vacuum is or contains some form of energy…?

@James S Saint

The need for “empty space” within with which energy can function, is a different equivocated use of the phrase “empty space”.
If it is empty, no energy can function within because there is no energy within to function.

perhaps i should say that there cannot be mass so long as there is not a place for it to be…but yeah i think you might be right there…

@James S Saint

On an additional much higher metaphysical note, space is created by energy. Energy is not within space. It is actually more correct to say that space is within energy. Without energy, there be no space. Odd, but true.

I think that may be simply a different way of looking at it, another “relative”, i don’t see how it is definitive that space is created by energy. it might be better to say that they are two things(space and mass), which are not complete opposites, that exist in unison as to form some sort of whole, as to whether one actually “causes” the other that may not be the case but rather that, in one existing the other must exist. Especially if you are to say that the universe has always existed, as such would indicate that there is no initial cause. And that if it always had existed, what we attribute to being the cause is such simply by the relative significance that said thing seems to have in leading to an event. In reality we say that bob killed Joe so bob should go to jail, but then bob’s mom raised him and gave birth to him so it can be said that the further cause of the event was his mom. We tend not to punish the mom because typically it isn’t the case that the mother was aware of the consequences of her treatment of the child(i recognize that bth parents are really the raisers but bare with me for exemplum)… And if one is to take the cause further and further back from the recognized event, one could then say it was maybe the fathers fault for impregnating, or his mothers fault, all the way back ad infinitum. But if there is no beginning nothing really has fault if every actor is actually acting as a result of the effects which compound on said actor…which would then indicate that the idea of blame is purely a matter of perception rather than an actuality.

@James S Saint

What causes it, is actually what it is. Higher affect displaces lower affect, by definition.

That seems like saying “just because”. My question still holds, why is that the case, why must higher affect displace lower affect, by definition?

@James S Saint

The Big Bang theory discusses a huge explosion (mass against mass) wherein potential energy got released into momentum. Gravity is simply too weak of an affect to prevent kinetic momentum from escaping it.

(not that I am saying it is but:) If one proposes that the big bang was the beginning of all things, then there would clearly have to have been an absence of at least mass, before mass came into existence. Other wise mass would have always have existed as such the big bang is not a beginning but rather a reference to an observably sudden alteration in size relative to a previous state. If the whole mass as well as the mass-space in between the mass like unto the earth were all equally compounded then such difference in size would not necessarily have had much if any affect on how things behaved within the previous state of the mass. in other words it might have been possible for things including life to have existed in it, as we our selves exist, but in its previous state.

@James S Saint

The higher point is that until you compare two things, you have no measure of anything and cannot conclude.

Like unto perhaps the universe as a whole, as if nothing is outside of it then it would seem not possible to arrive at an actual size other than to say it might be composed of a particular number of parts of itself…Like saying an apple is 50/50ths of an apple…

@James S Saint

@Abstract

You say 1 is bounded and thus finite…what then is 1 bounded by?

It is defined as a finite quantity. It is not endless or boundless. It is bound to its definition of always and only being merely “one”, no more, no less.

it being defined as such is only evidence that people think such is the case…

Definition found here: dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite

"fi•nite
/ˈfaɪnaɪt/ Show Spelled[fahy-nahyt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2.
Mathematics .
a.
(of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
b.
not infinite or infinitesimal.
c.
not zero.
3.
subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: man’s finite existence on earth. "

According to 1. it must have bounds to be finite, if so what are the bounds of 1? Are there not bounds and yet it is finite?
According to 2.a it must be of a set of elements capable of being completely counted, but the set of all numbers cannot be counted as it approaches infinity.
With respect to 2b. to say it is simply not infinite, is a “just because” argument.
According to 2c. it is indeed not zero, but infinity is not zero either, right?
According to 3. it is not the case if it is not limited=bounded, and it is not limited specifically by conditions as of space, time, circumstances, or laws of nature… as 1 itself, it might be otherwise the case if you say, “1 inch” or “1 dog” and etc…might…

@James S Saint

@Abstract

Say the All-mass was infinite, what if we were a fraction of it, not something infinitely small relative to it,

That is a contradiction.

I don’t exactly see how that is a contradiction, and I did say “If” we were a fraction of an infinite thing… did you regard what my deductions were assuming that as being possible?

@James S Saint

“We” are a finite entity even if we have an infinite number of parts within.
We have no choice but to be infinitesimal compared to any infinite entity.

That might be the case if you say that the said thing is “infinitely greater than” its part, but if the parts were themselves infinite, it might be plausible, that those infinites be less than but not “infinitely less than” the whole which is also infinite.

I think it is more a matter of perception, for example: some one says you can either go in entrance A or in entrance B. We think there are only 2 choices then. But there are really still an infinite number of choices, for choices refer to the number of things you can do, and in actuality the number of things you can do are infinite, while there are two categories: entering A or entering B, you can enter A or B an infinite number of ways. For example, you can go in it at a relative 90 degree angle relative to the normal of the door, or you can go in at a 90.1 degree angle, or a 90.111 degree angle, or a 90.111111 degree angle, and so forth ad infinitum. So it comes down to the perceptive quality that we have to categorize things into two ways, when in reality there are an infinite number. As such it should be at least clear by this example that infinites do exist within the thing we are in whatever it may be. And I find it somewhat hard to think that any infinite thing can be purported to be possible in a finite entity…

Now if you are right and “We have no choice but to be infinitesimal compared to any infinite entity.” that would be definitively suggestive of the fact that .000…0001 exists. in so far as if you referred to the
“whole” of which we are in as an infinite but 1 infinite thing then relative to that 1 then we must be like unto that which is .000…0001, a thing but infinitely small, by relativity.

@James S Saint

What if you were wrong in doubting it?

Indeed, I would think everything is uncertain.

@James S Saint

It happens to be a necessary logical conclusion.

How so? how does one define a “necessary logical conclusion”?
While I do deeply regard logic as essential, i would think that different people have different ideas as to what is or isn’t logical. As such it seems pointless to merely say that things are simply the case because they are logical, to you. it would seem more accurate to use logic to attempt to show what you think…

@James S Saint

If you can’t accept logic, you actually can’t accept any evidence at all nor draw any inference of doubt.

Indeed, if you can’t accept logic you can’t really accept that anything is logically un-logical… As such it would seem you wouldn’t be able to think at all. I would hope that you do think that I think.

@James S Saint

“All things being infinite” has no meaning.
Something is only infinite in reference to something that is finite.

Again i think that might simply be a matter of ones choice of definition, or perception.

@James S Saint

@Abstract

I think of the expansion as similar to this: If you have a stick pinned at one end and push the stick round and round, the whole stick moves though at different angular velocities along it. Although I do see that technically it would take time for the other parts of the stick to begin moving so… but is that due to the nature of the thing to bend, or the molecules to alter in position? Would it be different given a perfectly rigid stick?

Rigid bodies are impossible to be physical.

I recognize that such is most likely the case, but we do propose rigid bodies all the time in things like Mechanical Engineering. It is often useful for making deductions to first make an assumption, as in reality every premise is an assumption, sense nothing can be known with 100% certainty. And as such I was proposing the possibility to suggest that the apparent time-delay in effect may actually be due to a lack of rigidity…

@James S Saint

@Abstract

But this still doesn’t answer the other questions like whether the limit of speed of light is somehow different depending on the state of expansion of the All-mass or where you are in it…

It does depend on it. Light travels at different speeds through higher mass volumes than lower.

Yet they define the speed of light or at least a maximum speed of light. I’m asking if it is possible that the maximum speed of light is dependent on the particular expansive state, or location within the whole. Likewise I question whether it would actually be possible to tell whether that occurred or not, how would we sense such?

@James S Saint

I suspect that you missed my point.
Size of expansion is independent of gravity of mass, because mass is independent of size.

I was merely using size as an example, I would think that indeed the amount of mass or density would be relevant, for if a smaller yet more massively dense thing existed I would think its expansion would still occur faster…

@James S Saint

I specifically said, “around the Moon”, not merely between the Moon and Earth. The vacuum would be “pulling” the Moon in all directions evenly.

Indeed the vacuum would be pulling in all directions equally, and yet due to the mass in between the two densities of the earth and the moon there would still be a pressurization between them to keep them from falling towards each other…

@James S Saint

Yet there would be no space stuff between the Earth and Moon at any one time.

This doesn’t seem logical to me, in that I thought that by our current scientific reckoning there is and must be mass, and thus as i said"space stuff", in between the earth and the moon.

@James S Saint

Centrifugal force by virtue of momentum.

What, in that case, induces the momentum? To say Gravity would seem to be a circumlocution.

@James S Saint

Objects move in straight lines unless something is causing them to turn.

Mentally frustrating thought I know but: one might say that whether something is moving straight is dependent on the thing you are relivating(not a word yet…but I’d think contextually clear) that thing to.

@James S Saint

The Solar Wind would not push the Moon into a circle around the Earth, but merely push it into outer space.

I think you are right there. unless there is some other unknown oppositional force, but that seems unlikely…but who knows, right.

[James_S_Saint]

@Abstract

i think i can agree, but it might be better then to say that it is plausible that a complete vacuum is or contains some form of energy…?

If it has anything in it, it is NOT a complete vacuum.
The energy is in the difference between a vacuum and “higher energy/mass” states.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

What causes it, is actually what it is. Higher affect displaces lower affect, by definition.

That seems like saying “just because”. My question still holds, why is that the case, why must higher affect displace lower affect, by definition?

“By definition” means that such is what the words and concepts mean.
They are not subject to assumptions or observations.
They are defined concepts that can be nothing other than how they are defined.
When you define what the word “tree” means", it is irrational to then say, “maybe a tree isn’t really a tree and we just thought it was.”

@Abstract

@James S Saint

The Big Bang theory discusses a huge explosion (mass against mass) wherein potential energy got released into momentum. Gravity is simply too weak of an affect to prevent kinetic momentum from escaping it.

(not that I am saying it is but:) If one proposes that the big bang was the beginning of all things, then there would clearly have to have been an absence of at least mass, before mass came into existence. Other wise mass would have always have existed as such the big bang is not a beginning but rather a reference to an observably sudden alteration in size relative to a previous state. If the whole mass as well as the mass-space in between the mass like unto the earth were all equally compounded then such difference in size would not necessarily have had much if any affect on how things behaved within the previous state of the mass. in other words it might have been possible for things including life to have existed in it, as we our selves exist, but in its previous state.

The Eternal Universe – An Ocean of Motion

@Abstract

@James S Saint

It is defined as a finite quantity. It is not endless or boundless. It is bound to its definition of always and only being merely “one”, no more, no less.

it being defined as such is only evidence that people think such is the case…

Reference above. It being defined means that when the word is used, that is EXACTLY what it means and is not subject to merely “thinking that what is the case”.

@Abstract

According to 1. it must have bounds to be finite, if so what are the bounds of 1? Are there not bounds and yet it is finite?

Its bounds are its definition.

@Abstract

@James S Saint

Objects move in straight lines unless something is causing them to turn.

Mentally frustrating thought I know but: one might say that whether something is moving straight is dependent on the thing you are relivating(not a word yet…but I’d think contextually clear) that thing to.

If something comes around to again meet itself, it is NOT traveling in a straight line no matter what the reference.

[Abstract]

@James S Saint

@Abstract

i think i can agree, but it might be better then to say that it is plausible that a complete vacuum is or contains some form of energy…?

If it has anything in it, it is NOT a complete vacuum.
The energy is in the difference between a vacuum and “higher energy/mass” states.

Maybe I should then be refering to the lowest state vacuum, or the space with the least amount of energy in it…

@James S Saint

“By definition” means that such is what the words and concepts mean.
They are not subject to assumptions or observations.
They are defined concepts that can be nothing other than how they are defined.
When you define what the word “tree” means", it is irrational to then say, “maybe a tree isn’t really a tree and we just thought it was.”

I don’t think I could argue that a tree is a tree, in that the word we use to describe a tree is the word used by us to describe a tree.But I still wonder why it is that something of a higher energy state bleeds energy into a lower energy state. Indeed it seems like one of thos things that is Just the way it is, but mustent there be a reason to everything? How can there not be a logical reason for a thing. To say that simply is the way it is doesn’t seem fair to me: practiley what it seems is that is all we have aever abserved we think that such is the way that things must work, but why “must” things work that way? I thought everything had to have a cause.

@James S Saint

The Eternal Universe – An Ocean of Motion

I wouldn’t say I entirely disagree with that… but It talks of waves, but what are waves made out of?

@James S Saint

Reference above. It being defined means that when the word is used, that is EXACTLY what it means and is not subject to merely “thinking that what is the case”.

I guess we don’t define things inappropriately…No perhaps then I should just suggest a new 1, that fits into reality better that a finite 1, in that things are not really finite, or at least they are more likely to be indeterminate than finite, al thought I wtill tend to the idea that things are actually infinite… Again perhaps we need a new math to deal with certain things.

@Abstract

According to 1. it must have bounds to be finite, if so what are the bounds of 1? Are there not bounds and yet it is finite?

Its bounds are its definition.

This definitional definitiveness you are supporting seems about like someone saying that God must exist simply because he is defined as being the creator and things must have been created…

What you seem to be saying though not so directly is that it is bounded because we say it is bounded.

@James S Saint

If something comes around to again meet itself, it is NOT traveling in a straight line no matter what the reference.

That seems the case, though seemingly like proposeing a rigid body, as a stright line does not atually exist in reality…

[Abstract]

Here is another thing regarding the infinitness of 1 or at least the indeterminateness:

Finite means to be bound, by definition!
So to say that 1 is finite by definition but not bound is a contradiction!

You can’t say y always contains z, and then say that x contains y but not z…

Then as I mentioned the next step one might make is that 1 is bounded by .99999… on one side and 1.000…0001 on the other side. but that can’t suggest anything until you prove that say 1.000…00001 is finite, but in order to prove it was finite you would have to show what it is bounded by but the only thing you could say it was bounded by was 1 and 1.000…0002 thus you circumlocute, as you haven’t yet proved that 1 is finite or bounded and you would then have to show that 1.000…0002 is bounded and so on…

[James_S_Saint]

“Bound” in that context, doesn’t infer that there is anything beyond its boundary but only that it doesn’t go beyond the boundary itself.

[Abstract]

@James S Saint

“Bound” in that context, doesn’t infer that there is anything beyond its boundary but only that it doesn’t go beyond the boundary itself.

In which context are you replying to my post right above your last one or more the one above that, I would honestly like a response regarding both…

But nonetheless, what would be the boundary of one?

[James_S_Saint]

@Abstract

@James S Saint

“Bound” in that context, doesn’t infer that there is anything beyond its boundary but only that it doesn’t go beyond the boundary itself.

In which context are you replying to my post right above your last one or more the one above that, I would honestly like a response regarding both…

But nonetheless, what would be the boundary of one?

I answered both with the 2 prior posts??

[Abstract]

@James S Saint

@Abstract

@James S Saint

“Bound” in that context, doesn’t infer that there is anything beyond its boundary but only that it doesn’t go beyond the boundary itself.

In which context are you replying to my post right above your last one or more the one above that, I would honestly like a response regarding both…

But nonetheless, what would be the boundary of one?

I answered both with the 2 prior posts??

Well I mean are you specifying that there is a number that bounds it or are you saying that all numbers bound it or what?

[James_S_Saint]

@Abstract

Well I mean are you specifying that there is a number that bounds it or are you saying that all numbers bound it or what?

Every number is bound by its definition. It is only exactly what it is defined to be. That is all there is to it. It has nothing to do with sizes.

[Abstract]

@James S Saint

@Abstract

Well I mean are you specifying that there is a number that bounds it or are you saying that all numbers bound it or what?

Every number is bound by its definition. It is only exactly what it is defined to be. That is all there is to it. It has nothing to do with sizes.

So you are saying that 1 infinite thing is actually finite because any one thing is finite?
I think I would suggest that 1 itself is actually indeterminate, because for example if i say I have 1, that doesn’t tell you anything, or if you ask me how big something is and I say 1 that doesn’t tell you anything, it requires an association with something else for us to recognize the given identity of size as being relivant. In otherwords something can not be posited as having a definite size when it is pose relative only to itself.

I believe you yourself mentioned that you were working on a new form of math to deal with infinites, what this suggests is that such may not be neccissary, it may only be a matter of percieving the current number system we have differently.

[Abstract]

Plus this definition found at the meriam-webster online dictionary doesn’t suggest that one is finite, it says it is a single thing but then you can have a single infinite thing, indeterminate thing and so on.

1one adj \ˈwən
Definition of ONE
1: being a single unit or thing
2a : being one in particular b : being preeminently what is indicated
3a : being the same in kind or quality b (1) : constituting a unified entity of two or more components (2) : being in agreement or union
4a : some 1 b : being a certain individual specified by name
5: only 2a
See one defined for English-language learners »
See one defined for kids »

[James_S_Saint]

@Abstract

@James S Saint

@Abstract

Well I mean are you specifying that there is a number that bounds it or are you saying that all numbers bound it or what?

Every number is bound by its definition. It is only exactly what it is defined to be. That is all there is to it. It has nothing to do with sizes.

So you are saying that 1 infinite thing is actually finite because any one thing is finite?

Geez…
No.
“1” is not a “thing”
“1” is merely a quantity; a concept.
It has no size, shape, color, or pimple marks.

[Abstract]

@James S Saint

Geez…
No.
“1” is not a “thing”
“1” is merely a quantity; a concept.
It has no size, shape, color, or pimple marks.

And concepts aren’t exactly finite, they are beyond the realm of size, and as such would be indeterminate with regards to boundedness, fininity, or size.

[barbarianhorde]

@Abstract

I’ll start the theory with what started me on the idea. At a particular age, a distance from now, I did a thought experiment: Imagine two objects in emptiness. each ball is expanding at exactly the same rate, each ball is also moving away from each other at the same rate they’re expanding, and you or the observer is moving away from those two objects at the same rate at which they are expanding. What would be observed? Well clearly because the two things are expanding, and not actually getting farther apart themselves, they would eventually touch each other as they expanded, but because you are moving away those objects would appear to be getting smaller…if you weren’t moving away at the same rate as they are expanding, if you are moving away at the same rate (or perhaps a specific rate) those objects would not appear to be expanding or getting smaller, but they would still eventually touch each other, as such what would appear to happen is that the two objects would move closer together, but interestingly they would not actually be moving! Originally I had this thought experiment in an attempt to understand what movement was…

I want to understand this theory but I can’t, the reason is I can’t get through to this experiment I cannot visualize it.

each ball is expanding at exactly the same rate, each ball is also moving away from each other at the same rate they’re expanding, and you or the observer is moving away from those two objects at the same rate at which they are expanding. What would be observed?

I would say no chance as if the balls were fixed.

Well clearly because the two things are expanding, and not actually getting farther apart themselves, they would eventually touch each other as they expanded,

This is what I dont get because they are getting apart from each other equally as they are gaining on each other because they are expanding. And you have to move away to still keep seeing them because otherwise they would fill your field of vision.

I think I have not understood maybe but please could you explain, I want to read the rest.