Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier

From: Ron McFarland <RonMcF.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:21:53 -0800

On 27 Feb 2004 at 16:16, John M wrote:
> Thanks Ron, for the teaching in particular particles.
Allow me to
> interspace some naive remarks into your text John

Mine be not teachings, but only musings. Your thoughts
impress me as fully 180 to those musings and I am not so
sure that either of our musings are lacking in substantial
basis of experiment!

> If you just "think" about 100% nothingness, it disappears:
by
> thinking of it you imply the information of such and that
makes
> it already into "somethingness".

I can not follow that logic, friend John. I can not hold to
the philosophical viewpoint that the universe exists because
it is envisioned. My opinion is 180 to that: all that exists
does so because the universe is so constructed as to have
made existence probable. Not certain, but merely probable
and perhaps not enduring. It is not necessary to think in
order for something to be true or false. Imagining the
number zero (nothingness) does not change its attribute.

> Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got
to
> get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only?
> Or - as seen below - a nihilistic solipsism?

No, I've not meant to infer that the self is the only
reality, nor do I mean to infer that values are baseless and
that nothing can be known or communicated.

But yes, I did speculate to "outside" factors; I impute to
the other side of the boundary of our expanding universe
(the nothingness). Zero energy does not rule out
perturbation (virtual particles) as long as those
perturbations cease to exist. The difficult thing to confer
is the thought that space/time and matter/energy are 2
different things, unrelated to each other, and both are
constrained within the boundary of the perturbation. The
other side of the boundary, the domain of zero energy, seeks
for the perturbation to cease existence; it seeks for the
virtual particles to annihilate so that the average
condition of zero energy is maintained over eternity.

But how can zero energy be expressed to have a factor called
eternity? In truth, it can not because space/time and
matter/energy do not exist within zero energy. Such terms
belong only within the boundary of a perturbation. From the
viewpoint of zero energy a perturbation both does, and does
not, happen simultaneously (it is only a probability).

> I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations of
inevitable
> stress-seeds in a Plentiude of Everything in total dynamic
> exchange, an infinite symmetry where the completeness of
> diversity produces violations of the invariance =
BigBangs,
> i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate into
the
> symmetry in a timeless manner. This is outside the
boundaries
> of our universe.

That is a lot to say in so few words! By total dynamic
exchange, do you mean equilibrium? If so, could equilibrium
be equivalent to zero energy? What are the attributes of
this symmetry? How to define that boundary of our universe?
What causes existence of stress-seeds?

> The dissipating "stress-seeds", however, are called 'energy'
> in the reductionist physics. So I disagree with your zero-energy
> startup and only the endup is such when "universe" also
> disappears in the Plenitude.

What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds? I do not yet
understand why you disagree, as those questions are not
resolved to my benefit.

Ron McFarland

===
"The idea is that you could understand the world, all of
nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When
assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole" (John
Holland)
===
Received on Sat Feb 28 2004 - 01:23:29 PST