The Big Bang Never Happened?

[Joshpantera]

No point particles in this model. Accordingly if it is not simple in concept, it accordingly does not exist. The beginning entity would accordingly have been the simplest type of matter particle, that still exists today and has always made up all matter. 

 

What I'm saying is that there was a beginning particle that started the universe with internal potential energy, but it could have had no possible cause, because a cause or any kind would be logically impossible for any cosmological model, whether finite, or infinite. Examples: if it was god-did-it then he would have had no cause or beginning. If the universe was infinite in time and matter it would have had no cause.

 

The logic is that a cause implies a time before which would imply another cause etc. so it is logically impossible.

So you're more or less repeating what I've already said and the points I've already made about the pointlessness of any beginning. 

 

That being said, I have to wonder why through all of this agreement you're still calling this particle "a beginning particle that started the universe?"

 

If you're talking about that which has no cause then of course we're now beyond "beginnings" and onto that which is necessarily eternal. It sounds like you're saying that an eternal particle "with no possible cause" transitioned from no change, to change. And at that specific point time arose within an eternal cosmic sea that previously existed without time / change.  

 

So what type of realm of existence was this eternal particle without change existing within the bounds of? 

 

Was there (1) space and also 2) this eternally existing particle without change?

 

Basically, how many things are required for you to describe reality via Pantheory?  

[pantheory]

Strong Minded,

 

The point, I think, behind a beginning particle with no cause is that if you consider the opposite, that it did have a cause then you will go infinitely back in time and could never logically come to an ultimate cause where you could not ask "what came before that." So the point is that a beginning cause is a violation of logic, for any universe model whether finite, infinite (no beginning), or a god-did-it model. An infinite model could have had no cause by definition, but neither could a finite model via logic.

 

 

......I have to wonder why through all of this agreement you're still calling
this particle "a beginning particle that started the universe?"

 

 

So for my simple particle model beginning one could hypothesize a cause and time before that but this is where the model begins, at a particle much simpler and smaller than an electron. Then I explain how the universe slowly is created from this one particle, which accordingly is the only particle that exists today, since accordingly all matter is made up of this particle.

 

 

you're saying that an eternal particle "with no possible cause"
transitioned from no change, to change. And at that specific point time
arose within an eternal cosmic sea that previously existed without time /
change.

 

 

 

 

 

This model is saying that space or time outside the confines of matter could have no meaning to it. Although I have a different gravitational model than Einstein and General Relativity, Einstein's related quote also would apply to my model.

 

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.
(Albert Einstein)

 

 

So what type of realm of existence was this eternal particle without change existing within the bounds of?

 

There accordingly was absolutely nothing outside the bounds of this particle, not even space. Accordingly the theories definition of space even the question is meaningless. Accordingly space only has a meaning within the confines of matter: the distance between matter, or the volume which matter encompasses. This is done to convey the idea that in every way the universe is very simple: Nothing mystical, no forces or laws of nature.

 

 

Was there (1) space and also 2) this eternally existing particle without change?

 

Accordingly the volume of the particle was the only space in existence by definition. You could call the exterior of the particle space also, but what be the meaning of it? It would have no characteristics and could logically not have had any different past or future.

 

 

Basically, how many things are required for you to describe reality via Pantheory? 

 

Only one thing, a "pan" and nothing else. Pan is the name given to the beginning particle which is also the only fundamental particle now and for all times. It accordingly makes up all of reality, There accordingly is nothing else, no pure energy, no forces of nature, no laws of physics, etc. Pan in the Greek language means "everything." -- hence the name Pan Theory -- meaning a Theory Of Everything (TOE). It is strictly a theory  of materialism, strictly a mechanical theory of nature.  

[pantheory]

BAA,

 

Thanks for your time and comments. I am compassionate and empathetic. I think you will find my ideas, perspectives, and advice interesting, outside the Science vs. Religion forum.  And over time you will realize my contribution   And of course I can also learn from others experiences, ideas, and opinions

 

regards, Forrest

[Joshpantera]

pantheory wrote:

There accordingly was absolutely nothing outside the bounds of this particle, not even space. Accordingly the theories definition of space even the question is meaningless. Accordingly space only has a meaning within the confines of matter: the distance between matter, or the volume which matter encompasses. This is done to convey the idea that in every way the universe is very simple: Nothing mystical, no forces or laws of nature.

So then your theory suffers the same problem that the BBT has faced and which has prompted newer theories to account for by extending space infinitely and not trying to confine it's origin to the BBT event.

 

That's the entire push of modern theorizing basically, you know, to get past the paradox of trying to assign space an origin and suggest that the question of what was outside of the potential universe or what has the universe been expanding out into all this time is a meaningless question. That's more of a dodge than anything else.

 

It lays out a ridiculous paradox that should be a tell tale sign that something is wrong and is in need of better consideration. That's essentially what 11th dimensional hyperspace and other theories aim to reconcile by suggesting that all around the universe is a much larger space, endless space, or so on.

Now of course Milo Wolff is well worth reading because with the WSM alternative model it's even more simple than what you seem to be going for with pantheory.

 

There exists one thing, space wave motion. And everything is composed out of it. The one thing is everything. And that one thing has no logical origin. Space has always existed, always had the properties of a continuous wave medium, has always been in motion, and the motion creates spherical standing wave centers in the continuous wave medium of space which have a particle-like appearence at their centers.

This models tends to consume all others as far as Occam's Razor is concerned. It's been called the most simple explanation:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm
1.4 Matter's Particle Effect is Caused by the Wave Center of the Spherical Standing Wave


Note: This is a two dimensional cross section of a spherical standing wave (there is a moving image below) but it is obviously hard to show a sphere / spherical wave on a flat computer screen so some imagination is needed!


Fig.1 - The Electron / Positron
The image represents the most simple form of matter, the electron. The positron (anti-matter) is simply the opposite phase standing wave which sensibly explains matter / anti-matter annihilation due to destructive wave interference. (The proton and neutron are more complex wave structures which still need further study)
It is easy to see how the particle effect of matter is formed at the Wave Center.
You can also see why Pythagoras' theorem is not just a mathematical (axiomatic) truth, but fundamental to physical reality. If you draw two lines at right angles to one another, radiating from the wave center, one 3 wavelengths, the other 4 wavelengths, then complete the rectangle, magically! you find the hypotenuse is exactly 5 wavelengths long. This is because this wave diagram truly represents how matter interacts / forms its spatial dimensions.
Further, three dimensional space and spherical space are equivalent, as it takes three variables to describe a sphere. In fact the cause of three dimensional space is simply that matter interacts spherically (see Einstein quote below).
The fourth dimension of 'time' is really just the motion of the wave (motion causes time).


It is important to realise that this conception of matter founded on waves in Space has a different metaphysical foundation. Currently in physics we have a Metaphysics of Space and Time to which we add discrete 'particles' and thus also continuous 'fields' to connect them (thus we have four different things - space, time, matter particles and fields).


The Wave Structure of Matter is founded on one thing, Space, existing as a wave medium. i.e. A Metaphysics of Space and (wave) Motion - where matter is formed from the spherical standing wave motions of Space. This unites Space, Time, Motion and Matter. Thus Aristotle was also correct when he wrote;


Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it. ... there being two causes of which we have defined in the Physics, that of matter and that from which the motion comes. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)


This is also consistent with the fact that atomic clocks use the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz) to measure time.

This sort of reminds of the mythological scene where Moses enters the Pharohs court and turns his staff into a serpent. The Pharoh's mystics do likewise demonstrating that they have the same magic tricks up their sleeves. But then Moses' serpent begins to consume the other serpents. This tends to happen with respect to the WSM physicists when facing all other competitive alternative theories. Same Einsteins quote / same serpent staffs, however one begins to consume the others:

Thus the most simple science theory of reality requires that matter is not a tiny particle separate from Space, instead it is a large spherical spatially extended wave structure of Space (the size of the observable universe within infinite Space).
Einstein's relativity agrees that matter is a structure of space (not a discrete particle in space). His error was to work with continuous fields in space-time rather than discrete standing waves in continuous Space.


When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)


History shows that Einstein's continuous field theory of matter in space-time does not explain the discrete properties of light and matter found in quantum theory. And Einstein also came to suspect this was the case, he writes;


All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)


We now realize that his relativity theory can be simplified by working with real wave motions of a continuously connected space, rather than 'continuous fields' in 'space-time' (a mathematical construction).

I'm surprised that you haven't delved into any of this yet Forrest.

You may want to check it out closely and compare.

[pantheory]

Strong Minded,

 

 

 

So then your theory suffers the same problem that the BBT has faced and
which has prompted newer theories to account for by extending space
infinitely and not trying to confine it's origin to the BBT event.

 

To me the concept of no possible cause for the universe as a whole, no matter what model of the universe you choose, seems obvious. Nor did I ever see any problem to this aspect of the BB theory when I first became aware of it in the middle 1950's. It was just the rest of the theory that made no sense to me like at that time, the big bang explosion, an expanding universe denser in the past, but a finite beginning did not bother me. I see no paradox of any kind, in that it seems like the most likely possibility. It also could be infinite with no beginning but for any model it would be impossible for the universe to have had a beginning. That's the main point I am trying to make.

 

Hawking does not like a BB beginning because he could not model it mathematically.

 

I remember that you discussed the wave structure of the universe model. In my model matter is physical and the wave that it produces in the background field is also physical.  But I think there is no cosmological model that proposes that all reality, and every aspect of it, can be explained by just one entity/particle. That is what this model proposes. It states that, right or wrong, it is the simplest possible cosmological model for this reason.

 

This theory proposes to replace most all other theories in modern physics asserting their lack of validity based upon numerous observations. The only thing this theory generally retains is Newtonian physics and general physics before the turn of the last century.

 

There are no other models really anything like this model since it not only proposes the replacement of the BB cosmology, but also Quantum Theory, Special and General Relativity, and the standard model of particle physics. Right or Wrong, no other model addresses and proposes alternatives for all of these theories.

 

The beginning concept, however, is very important and quintessential for understanding in that one most recognize that no theory could logically assert a cause for a beginning entity, because such a concept would be logically impossible. Of course for an infinite model there would be no beginning entity to require a cause.  Regardless of the model that you like, this beginning understanding must be recognized to move further concerning explanations.

 

The concept of one particle to start with does not have to be an ultimate beginning particle but one must be able to consider the possibility that a single particle could have at one time been the only thing that existed. Upon the recognition of this possibility then I could move on to explain how this one simple particle alone could create the universe the way that we presently see it, whereby it still would be the only fundamental particle today, and nothing else will be needed for this explanation.

 

The wave structure of matter is not a cosmological model. It is a model proposing another form of matter to replace particles. It has a number of interesting aspects to it but generally has very little to do with my own model, which proposes both a particle of wave structure of matter at the same time.

 

Thanks for the interesting material you posted.

 

regards, Forrest

[Joshpantera]

It actually is a cosmological model Forrest:

 

 

 

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

 

Cosmology
What is the Most Simple Cosmology & Does it Work? How our Finite Spherical 'Observable Universe' Exists within Infinite Eternal Space

You can read the page to see the cosmological implications and how Geoff compares this against the BBT. 

 

You see, I was raised a YECist who did not believe in the BB nor evolution while growing up as a child. I didn't know anything about either branch of science because they shielded us from any such knowledge while in fundamentalist schools. Like yourself, I too experienced a breakthrough @ age 15 while off at fundamentalist boarding school my freshmen year. It was becoming bloody obvious that our fantastic and sensational supernatural Biblical stories are not different from any one else's mythology in the world - Greek, Persian, Hindu, Egyptian, etc.

 

And that reality became increasing obvious the more I focused in on it. And I had to attend required church and worship services right on through high school as a non-believer which was less than enjoyable. After graduation I swore to break free from the institution and I had myself removed from membership and sought a life @ the beaches surfing, fishing, and basically doing what I want to do. 

 

But there was this nagging feeling inside about the loss of my former world view. My mind started drifting off towards the question of ultimates and I wound up reading through cosmological material to see once and for all what the BBT was really about, not the religiously biased strawman arguments I'd grown hearing against it. 

 

I remember looking at the cone shaped diagram funneling down to the first atom(s) and then sub-atomic particles through the quarks and anti-quarks, x-boson and anti-x, and finally the "superforce" as per the Time Life edition of the Universe that I was reading at the time to get a feel for what the BBT is. That's when I started wondering if perhaps Genesis and the Bible might have been a metaphor or symbolic for how the universe really began. I could see close similarities between the evolution of the universe and the sequence in Genesis. I thought, "what if God is simply energy, or a force, out of which all existing material has it's origin? If we took the superforce as the energy of God then that vaguely seemed to make sense. And in Genesis you have the first "let there be light" which sounds like a superforce origin for the universe. Then the days of creation seemed like evolution a little bit because earth, oceans, sky, sea, air, and land creatures came to be and then finally human beings. Maybe Genesis is a metaphor for the real evolution of life on earth within the universe in a strange way, right? 

 

Wrong! The closer I paid attention to this line of reasoning the more I discovered the errancy in the Genesis myth. The first three "days" marked by "evenings and mornings" go by without any physical sun, moon, or stars, the sun being necessary to mark out something like an "evening and morning." Light before the sun, moon, and stars. What Light? Grass on the land mass before the sun, moon, and stars too.

 

So the idea that the "days" of creation might mark out symbolically some vast amount of time where evolution was occurring was just plain out the window. Without the sun, moon, or stars there couldn't be a literal day nor any number of years going by before the 4th day of creation. And if we tried to take an OEC view then each day might represent a billion years or something like that, but of course that makes the myth all the more ridiculous because you'd have something 3 billion years going by before the sun, moon, and stars were created. So from YEC to OEC the hole only gets deeper and deeper. I could see that Genesis was not redeemed in any way by that line of reasoning, the symbolic instead of literal method. I decided to go on and read the Bible cover to cover once again from this newer perspective and found all variety of God awful contradiction and nonsense this time around because I was paying close attention. So in the end it merely confirmed that I had been correct all along while judging the Bible as mythology in high school. I just didn't know the details yet.

 

But needless to say, I went with the standard model from then on and understood that it contradicts Genesis more so than justifies it. It wasn't until some number of years later when I ran into alternative cosmologies around the time I was reading Brian Greene. I wanted to look deeper into the structure of matter and consider the bigger picture concerning cosmology. The "God-did-it" option was long since out as a possibility. But I was interesting in naturalistic explanations for possible pre-BB conditions and so on. And I got into the Brane theory, Blackhole - Whitehole exchange, Expansion Theory, and the WSM cosmology. I was interested in what the secular and atheistic anti-BB was all about. I was little taken back because I only knew of anti-BB from a creationist perspective and for the purpose of trying to claim the universe is younger, not older or infintely old.

 

I was reading this material along with the mythicist works and considering the possibility of major paradigm shift, one so major as to affect both religions and science all in one shot. I spent a few years considering the possiblity of such a thing. I even attempted to write a sci-fi theme based on trying to project such a major paradigm shift that takes out both traditional religion and science at the ankle. There's a lot of creation direction one can go in that direction.

 

But eventually I had shake out of it a bit and say, "really? Come on. Is really possible that mainstream science can be that out of whack with reality? Religion, sure. That goes without saying. But secular science? And began to place less confidence in the alternative theories I'd been discovering. I don't want to close them off. I don't want to close theories like the WSM or even your PT Forrest, but I do believe that incredilbe claims require incredible evidence to back them up and when you guys go up against the standard model the evidence in your favor must be overwhelmingly strong for any hope of change. Haselhurst has been up against depression and all sorts of problems by going against point particle physics and BB cosmology. Right or wrong, something more is required to bring the sort of paradigm shift to mainstream science that he hopes for. It isn't my burden of proof to carry, but I do feel bad for the guy.

 

So what about you Forrest, why don't you tell us all a little bit about yourself and your own deconversion with regards to how it changed your view of the Bible vs modern cosmology.  

[pantheory]

Strong Minded,

 

Thanks for the material. I will seriously read and check out your link and posting. Thanks, talk to you soon.

 

 

It was becoming bloody obvious that our fantastic and sensational
supernatural Biblical stories are not different from any one else's
mythology in the world - Greek, Persian, Hindu, Egyptian, etc.

 

Yes, my thoughts were very similar at the same age.

 

regards, Forrest

[pantheory]

 

........I do believe that incredible claims require incredible evidence to back them up and when you guys go up against the standard model the evidence in your favor must be overwhelmingly strong for any hope of change.

 

My thinking went along similar lines about the same time. At age 15 I had a eureka moment concerning religion being 100% BS. About age 16, after studying for maybe a year or more I came to a similar conclusion concerning modern physic and cosmology, that it was mostly BS. I was fond of evolution theory, particularly "natural selection" as being a major player concerning the evolution of the species. I thought the BB model was a joke, and Quantum Mechanics was not much better.  I started theorizing myself about age 16 because I was not fond of the Steady State model either. It took me a few years to get my head around Special and General Relativity before I decided they too were BS.  I developed an aether model which is completely contrary to Special Relativity, and though the bending and warping of space idea of General Relativity was completely wrong. It wasn't until the early 80's until it was realized that GR was totally wrong at the galactic scale, so they invented the dark matter hypothesis. It was at this time I started formulating (mathematics) my own model of pushing gravity which prior to that time was conceptual without any math.

 

Like I think we both know, religions in general are just a joke like astrology. But, in my opinion, modern physics Is not much better , such as Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, and the standard model of particle theory.

 

As to myself, my theories are not that well known to get that much flack. I rarely get depressed. It amuses me that the few that appose my theories the most probably never read more of it than someone's synopsis.  

 

I think the mainsteam BB model will be generally easy to disprove about 2020, more or less, after the James Webb space telescope goes up. If at that time at the farthest distances they see nothing but small young appearing galaxies, then all infinite and older universe models would be disproved including my model. On the other hand if with the James Webb they see some old appearing galaxies like they are presently seeing with the Hubble Space telescope,  then the BB model will need to come up with another ad hoc hypothesis to lengthen the age of the universe according to the BB model. Once they do this I think it will be the beginning of the end for the BB model. So I don't think we have that long to wait to find out whether the BB model is correct or not. As to the best alternative model, I think it will depend up what other predictions alternative models are predicting, and if those predictions will be verified. The Pan Theory, for instance, predicts that some of these most distance galaxies will be brighter than they're supposed to be because they are both larger, closer (and older), than what present theory calculates.

This would not be true for any other cosmological model that I know of.

 

Sorry I kept calling you "Strong Minded." I now realize your call name is Joshpantera

[Joshpantera]

^ Don't worry, I know you're just trying to get oriented to the forum settings. No big deal. 

 

 

Like I think we both know, religions in general are just a joke like astrology. But, in my opinion, modern physics Is not much better  , such as Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, and the standard model of particle theory.

Ok, so then you see yourself in some way as the Moses whose serpent / staff consumes the surrounding serpent / staff's which include the serpent / staff's of Milo Wolff, Geoff Haselhurst, and Eric Lerner? 

 

I suppose that since you're rejecting not only the BBT and particle physics but also GR and SR then you have reason to see it that way. Fair enough.  

 

 

I think the mainsteam BB model will be generally easy to disprove about 2020, more or less, after the James Webb space telescope goes up.

 

That could be true. 

 

I'm at the point where I just go along with the standard model for the most part but realize that it could be taken down at any time and I'm not attached to it as if were some infallible absolute fact. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some radical paradigm shift were to occur. I think when it comes to both mainstream religious and scientific ideas, non-attachment is a good thing.

 

Because I've noticed that some people have the tendency to want to cling to science as a replacement for what they'd lost in religion, and science becomes a type of new religion to fill the void. I'm sure that several of the deconverts around here who have taken up a hard atheist view have been guilty of this. I was to some degree and then realized what was happening and backed off. If Genesis was out as credible in any way, then I wanted a correct knowledge of origins and I just assumed that there is such thing, when in all reality there isn't. And there's nothing wrong with understanding that it's all still very much a work in progress. 

 

That really seems like the best way to approach religion and science, as two works in progress that we shouldn't really get too attached to. 

[pantheory]

Joshpantera,

 

I feel a kinship to alternative theories since they/we are in the same circumstance together. In my opinion Lerner wrote a great book. It was more about trying to show what is wrong with the BB model then promoting Plasma Cosmology. I have never seen any picture of him with a smile on his face, not good in my opinion. All other cosmological models that I know of are either infinite in time or can calculate no minimum age of the universe. I prefer aether theories like my own, and would expect maybe Wolff and Haselhurst's wave model is aether based.
 

 

I suppose that since you're rejecting not

only the BBT and particle physics but also GR and SR then you have
reason to see it that way.

 

 

Don't forget my opposition to the whole of Quantum Mechanics. The other theories I think are just misguided, I don't really appose them; I simply think they are wrong. But I think QM is worse in that it promotes mysticism and illogical concepts

 

 

That really seems like the best way to approach religion and science, as
two works in progress that we shouldn't really get too attached to.

 

 

 

Yes, I think when it comes to both mainstream religious and scientific ideas, non-attachment is a good thing.

 

 

.....some people have the tendency to want to
cling to science as a replacement for what they'd lost in religion, and
science becomes a type of new religion to fill the void. I'm sure that
several of the deconverts around here who have taken up a hard atheist
view have been guilty of this.

 

Yes, I agree. I similar type problem. Even though I have promoted my own model for now more than 50 years. But If the James Webb found a great deal of evidence to support a universe 13.7 billion years old, my cosmological model, maybe half of my theories, would necessarily be wrong and I would be happy to change my model as needed.

 

Many of today's theorists have spent their entire lives believing in the BB model and have dedicated their lives and carriers to it. Some of these theorists will never give up hope. They will jump to believe any new hypothesis proposing a much older BB universe if necessary, which of course should not be surprising.
 

As to all religions, however, I am somewhat amused, like the stories of the Greek gods, or turtles on the back of elephants holding up the world. I consider all of it as being from some ancient era, and based upon the "gods of the gaps" and hope for a afterlife

[pantheory]

Haslehurst has a very nice website and lots of his idea and theory have kinship to my own   I have looked at his website long ago and look to it for many of the quotes I use concerning philosophers and theorists of yore. Even the quote from Einstein that I used here, I double-checked there for the word-for-word quotation of it

[Joshpantera]

It's like an updated aether approach. 

 

One of the more interesting things is how closely the first empirical photograph of an electron resembles the spherical standing wave models that long since predicted what an electron ought to look like:

 

 

[pantheory]

Joshpantera,

 

Much of his theory and model is not contrary to my own model. The primary difference, I think, is that there is an underlying cause of the physical waves that he proposes. In my model this underlying cause is a physical aether of physical minuscule spinning particles at the center. It is entirely a theory of materialism and nothing else supposedly exists; no pure energy, forces, etc.

 

The coming couple of weeks I will be gown to Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Will be back online the 15th of March. Talk to you again at that time my friend. I will study his model in further detail at that time

 

best regards,  Forrest.

[Joshpantera]

Off to womenize in Central America eh?

 

lol

 

Talk to you later.

[BlackCat]

It's alright for some......

[Joshpantera]

It's alright for some......

BC, just curious, why did you refer me to pantheory earlier in this thread? 

 

Have you just stumbled into this or have you known about it for a while? 

[BlackCat]

 

It's alright for some......

BC, just curious, why did you refer me to pantheory earlier in this thread? 

 

Have you just stumbled into this or have you known about it for a while? 

 

Hi Josh.  After checking this thread when it first started, I remembered a similar thread and similar videos that were linked to on the science forum.  I made reference to 'pantheory' as he seemed to be qualified to speak about these things and plus him having a theory is interesting.  'No big bang'  is quite an unusual proposition, that I've only come across a few times, but certainly not recently.  I haven't been on that forum since reading that thread that 'Diamond' started, and so I'd forgotten all about it til now.  You jogged my memory.   

[pantheory]

Hi again guys and gals,

 

Back again in the USA. Spent 2 weeks in Costa Rica but never made it to Nicaragua. I was a little tired from my Costa Rican tours and wanted to spend more time in Nicaragua than time allowed for on this trip. Hope to go to Nicaragua probably later this year, and spend a week or two.

 

The womanizing went just fine, lots of new e-mails to follow up on.  

 

My next travels will probably be back to St. Louis and Virginia (USA) to visit with friends and business associates during late Spring or summer. Will probably be going down to Mexico, T.J., next week end, about 21/2 hours drive by car. I usually stay over just one night.

 

Changing horses:  So the Catholics now have a new Pope. It is pretty exiting for Hispanic Catholics from the Americas. He is from Argentina, as I recall, Spanish being his first language. He is the first Latin American Pope. From all accounts he is a very humble man which I think is a good thing

 

Although my own theories say nothing about religions, it generally puts them all in the same category as superstition, astrology, and other ancient non-science based ideas. I think many of such religious beliefs have as part of their unspoken foundations/justifications, "Pascal's Wager."

[Legion]

 

Much of his theory and model is not contrary to my own model. The primary difference, I think, is that there is an underlying cause of the physical waves that he proposes. In my model this underlying cause is a physical aether of physical minuscule spinning particles at the center. It is entirely a theory of materialism and nothing else supposedly exists; no pure energy, forces, etc.

 

...

 

best regards,  Forrest.

Pantheory, Forrest, do you ever use categories?

[pantheory]

 

Legion,  cool dog picture ! 

 

 

Pantheory, Forrest, do you ever use categories?

 

Yes, as an organization tool they are great. What did you have in mind my friend ?  Categories are important in mental organization especially but they are not written into stone and can often readily be re-arranged/ reformulated based upon alternative perspectives

[Legion]

 

 

Legion,  cool dog picture ! 

I'm glad you dig it.

 

 

 

Pantheory, Forrest, do you ever use categories?

 

Yes, as an organization tool they are great. What did you have in mind my friend ?  Categories are important in mental organization especially but they are not written into stone and can often readily be re-arranged/ reformulated based upon alternative perspectives

Oh! I'm not sure what I had in mind. I've read your criticisms of contemporary physics. And I lean towards agreement. I was hoping you might be familiar with relational science I suppose. It is rare enough to find those familiar with categories. For me to hope for more might be too much.

[pantheory]

Legion,

 

I also could have said "cool picture, dog"  but that could be construed as too slangy or ghetto-ish

 

My criticisms are generally in theories of physics and cosmology. I find much to support in geology, chemistry, natural selection, for instance. Philosophy, sociology and psychology are sciences of organized perspectives and are considered "relational sciences." I wrote a related book which might be considered "relational science" called "Living Symbiotically," planned for publication near the end of 2014. I presently need more research and one or more re-writes before completion.

 

The theme goes like this:

 

--First one must learn how to live in harmony with oneself. Many suggestions are given how one might progress at this concerning knowing oneself, health, making a living, learning, improving, enjoying what one has, etc. Once one thinks they are properly progressing in this --

 

--then one tries to live in harmony with family, friends, ones society, culture, and other people in general of all beliefs and cultures if possible. Strategies such as sympathy, empathy, altruism, etc. are discussed.

 

-- following these one tries to live in harmony with all animals, starting with the higher animals but also considering the nature of all animal life, also involving strategies like sympathy, empathy, altruism, birth control pets, etc.

 

-- following this I discuss living in harmony with plants. I discuss different strategies for this.

 

-- lastly I discuss how it might all fit together concerning ecology and for a happier life for those following their own related ideas/methods of these concepts.

 

One of the best parts of the whole book, I think, is that I do not assert, profess, or pretend that there is any "truth" of any kind to any of it. Only that this type of living, using ones own determined guidelines, will likely lead to a happier life for the individual and maybe a "better" existence for the natural world which we all encounter over ones given lifetime.

[Legion]

 

My criticisms are generally in theories of physics and cosmology. I find much to support in geology, chemistry, natural selection, for instance. Philosophy, sociology and psychology are sciences of organized perspectives and are considered "relational sciences." I wrote a related book which might be considered "relational science" called "Living Symbiotically," planned for publication near the end of 2014. I presently need more research and one or more re-writes before completion.

I like the focus on symbiosis. It's one of my preferred subjects too.

 

By relational science I intend to mean the study of natural organization using categorical language.

[pantheory]

 

I like the focus on symbiosis. It's one of my preferred subjects too.

 

By relational science I intend to mean the study of natural organization using categorical language.

 

I will study up on this topic so that I hopefully can ask relevant questions in my next posting 

[pantheory]

Legion,

 

OK, here are the questions.

 

By "science" you mean: " the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and/or natural world......", as in Relational Science, right?

 

By "Natural Organization" do you mean the organizations and inter-relationships of nature, or something else?

 

By "Categorical Language" are you referring to Categorical Logic via computer-programming language, or something else?