A New View To The Unyfing Theory Of Nature , Upn

[Turtle]

The UPN is a direction for science to use in our technology .

Once we agree that the UPN is correct than you and other skillful mathematicians will develope formulaes to be used in engineering and science .

But first we must prove that the UPN is correct .

Please keep in perspective that Logic superseeds math , this is good because we first test the principle and then develope the math around it .

 

I have nothing against math , we need it .

 

logic does not supersede math any more than a branch supersedes a tree. there would be no discussion in your piece concerning black holes or antimatter were it not for math inasmuch as anti-matter & black holes began conceptually as purely mathematical constructs. only after that were experiments devised & conducted to look for evidence of these concepts. you have your cart before a horse that isn't there.

 

black hole history@ wiki

 

...The first modern solution of general relativity containing a black hole was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, although its interpretation as a region of space from which nothing can escape was not fully appreciated for another four decades. Long considered a mathematical curiosity, it was during the 1960s that theoretical work showed black holes were a generic prediction of general relativity. The discovery of neutron stars sparked interest in gravitationally collapsed compact objects as a possible astrophysical reality. ...

[Urod]

logic does not supersede math any more than a branch supersedes a tree....

 

So you are saying that we first write the formulas and then we try to work the logic behind it ... what ever spins your world .

Anyone cares to comment on Turtle ?

 

But if you want the updates on the UPN you can find them at the original post , on the same web site as the Recipe for a Nation .

 

http://RecipeForaNationUnderground.WordPress.com

[Rade]

An interesting use of words above concerning what Karl Schwarzschild discovered about black holes...the comment that "nothing can escape" from black holes. I wonder why the author did not say instead..."something cannot escape" from black holes. To suggest that nothing "can" take an action (escape) implies that nothing must be a special form of something that can act.

[Rade]

the 'first' 'something' is the SuperFluid that actually is the Universe

If, as you claim below, the universe has no begin or end, then you cannot also claim that there was a "first" of something.

 

because ... Nothigness doesn't exist and the surrounding reality shows that Somethigness is replacing it

But, suppose a ball A at point x and it is replaced by ball B at exact same point x. Then we say that something B has replaced something A. Now suppose no ball at point x, and ball B is placed at point x. When we say that ball B replaces nothing, the nothing was always present as an expectation of a possible ball at point X to fill a space not fulfilled. So, while it is true to say that something can replace nothing, it is not true to say that nothing does not exist, it exists as expectation that something that will fill the space of the nothing.

 

For the universe, it is logically possible that the expectation that allowed the universe to come to be in space-time was (1) the mind of God or (2) the random quantum emergence of expectation from a black hole found in another universe that replaced the nothingness that can escape from it. Thus the claim ...nothing CAN escape from a black hole.

[Turtle]

logic does not supersede math any more than a branch supersedes a tree....

 

So you are saying that we first write the formulas and then we try to work the logic behind it ... what ever spins your world .

 

no. i am saying logic & math are co-dependant. neither supercedes the other.

 

i see you numbered and/or lettered parts of your arguments. that ordering is mathematics no matter how you spin it and your arguments demand ordination. likewise, the mathematics of ordination demand logic. damned demand if you do & damned demand if you don't.

partially ordered set @wiki

In mathematics, especially order theory, a partially ordered set (or poset) formalizes and generalizes the intuitive concept of an ordering, sequencing, or arrangement of the elements of a set. A poset consists of a set together with a binary relation that indicates that, for certain pairs of elements in the set, one of the elements precedes the other. Such a relation is called a partial order to reflect the fact that not every pair of elements need be related: for some pairs, it may be that neither element precedes the other in the poset. Thus, partial orders generalize the more familiar total orders, in which every pair is related. A finite poset can be visualized through its Hasse diagram, which depicts the ordering relation. ...

 

 

Anyone cares to comment on Turtle ?

 

i'm all ears.

 

But if you want the updates on the UPN you can find them at the original post , on the same web site as the Recipe for a Nation .

 

no thank you. this was sufficient. :coffee_n_pc:

[Urod]

mjtydtky

Edited December 1, 2012 by Urod

[Urod]

An interesting use of words above concerning what Karl Schwarzschild discovered about black holes...the comment that "nothing can escape" from black holes. I wonder why the author did not say instead..."something cannot escape" from black holes. To suggest that nothing "can" take an action (escape) implies that nothing must be a special form of something that can act.

 

Funny , the UPN shows the black-holes as creaters of matter as we know it ( micro-vortices forming sub-particles , etc ) . In other words something comes out , is ejected ( the spun SuperFluid forming the micro-vortices ) .

So in a black-hole SuperFluid is sucked in and Spun-at-the-speed-of-light SuperFluid is ejected ( the micro-vortices ) .

 

BTW of Descartes , " I think , therefore I am " he also said . Now however , the UPN can guide the thought even closer to its cause by saying instead " I spin therefore I am " . ( UPN = we all are spinning SuperFluid , micro-vortices in association/groups formind sub-particles , atoms , etc. ) .

 

Cheers

[Urod]

If, as you claim below, the universe has no begin or end, then you cannot also claim that there was a "first" of something.

...

 

That was precisely a huge conudrum to overcome , what came first ?

But the logic steps I posted before helped escape it by showing that a Begining/A First it is Not necessary !

The SuperFluid ( somethigness ) is the status-quo , never been different , never will .

There is no Reason to have a beggining since Nothingness doesn't exist hence since for ever somethigness ( SUperFluid ) replaces it , hence nothing was Before , no beginning .

 

The problem was just my head used to live in a world that everything SEEMS to have a begining BUT all is just ... recycled SuperFluid , hence nothign we see has a real structural begining in our life times , is just recycled SuperFluid taking new shapes .

 

Cheers

[Urod]

kluytfdlu

Edited December 1, 2012 by Urod

[Urod]

For those that embraced religion here is an interesting thought received from a reader of the UPN :

 

Dalius : " One more excellent idea has emerged from your post. You ask how SuperFluid came to the being. It is obvious. Actually, the SuperPower created the SuperFluid.

 

Besides, Urod , what forces prevent SuperFluid from being compressed? " .

 

Urod's answer : I would add the question ' Are there any limitations that your said SuperPower ( SP ) has ? ' . That will determine if we play on an even field or if there are no rules/limitations in which case no discussion is necessary .

 

The limitations of the SuperFluid are two : incompressible and can not dissapear into nothigness .

If the SP is made of SF and shares its two restrictions then :

a) the SP can know and react instantiniously to any movement of the SF including neuron transmission ( hence us and anything else in the Universe regardless of distance ( thanks to incompressibility that transmits vibrations instantly ) . That's How the SP is described in the Bible , He knows everithing , anywhere ... So that's a positive for your SP .

 

b) the SP has a restriction , besides that it can not dissapear itself , it also can not make the SF dissapear ! That's against its description so is a negative .

 

What do you think Dalius , I suggest to be different and take Both the blue and the red pill ...

 

Please note that the UPN demonstrates that there is no begining to the Universe , otherways it would imply that Nothigness 'ruled' before the SF ( which is impossible because nothing can be made out of nothigness .

As you see , the above is fatal to any SuperPower existance prior to the SuperFluid ...

 

Cheers !

 

http://RecipeForaNationUnderground.WordPress.com , future shocking .

[Urod]

I would like to point again at one significant aspect of the Universe being made of the SuperFluid , something that has profound implications in all aspects of science and our lives .

 

Since everithing is made of a SuperFluid implies that all phenomenon that are possible in the Universe must be of the type that can be accomodate by a super fluid .

Therefore all we can encounter and observe are Waves and Vortices , from gravity and heat to micro-vortices ( sub-sub-...particles ) and black-holes .

 

Ponder about it and see how much easier is to understand the Universe dealing only with Fluid Dynamics , I am looking forward to the new understanding of particles , atoms and molecules .

[Urod]

MATH !

Math and formulas describing a super fluid have been around since 2004 thanks to proffessor Ballagh but I only found out last week , sorry .

 

When reading them please keep in mind that the super fluid analyzed was not the SuperFluid described in the UPN which is a non-granular ( no atoms , sub-particles ) type unlike the laboratoty type which is made out of atoms .

 

Enjoy the formulas and if you are the math type than please try to adjust them for a non-granular super fluid like the one described by the UPN .

 

Also keep in mind the spontaneous Vortices occuring naturaly in a super fluid , the action of those vorticers moving about each other tossing the super fluid around and therefore applying a Force on the soraunding super fluid can represent the reason and explanation of the Fundamental Viscosity in the super fluid , as small as it is .

 

This has interesting cosequences , besides forming black-holes spontaneously ! , but also allowing certaing vortices occuring in the centre of neighboring vortices that move in the same direction to experience true Zero viscosity and enable those vortices to get ahead slightly and creating further anomalies perhaps the mechanism of instanteneosly forming black-holes .

 

Here is Prof. Ballagh web site , sorry , I could not copy the formulas :

 

R.J. Ballagh

Department of Physics

University of Otago , New Zealand

 

http://www.acqao.org/workshops/2004_School_lectures/VortexLectureBallagh.pdf

 

... and always remember the Universe made of the non-granular SuperFluid described by the UPN , a world where only waves and vortices can occur . Did you try to explain Any phenomenon using only waves and vortices in a SuperFluid ? Make sure to use Harmonics which are Fields ( magnetic ,etc. ) creators and Movement ( energy ) amplifiers .

Did you arrived at the conclusion that there is no perfect Direct Current ( DC ) but only minusculary pulsating ?

 

Your comments are appreciated , thank you all .

 

Urod

[sigurdV]

Thank you for being diligent to read first the UPN , now we can have real fun discussing it .

OK , Rade , all , what do you think ?

I'll go water the plants and take a beer brake , BRB ...

 

Hi again Urod!

 

With pleasure I see you surviving in an environment full of sharks! Congratulations!!

 

Then:

 

1 Maths presuppose logic you say ... That may be so but i think logic also presupposes maths!!!

It might be as in the case of "force": All known forces unite into a single force at a high enough temperature;)

 

2 I will yet not dive deep into your thread... its too many levels gives me headache, but of interest to me is that your wiew starts from the realization that something had to be the case , and , however that should be formulated/formalized I think it is an interesting foundation for developing a model of reality. Good luck ;)

[Urod]

ooooooooooo

Edited December 1, 2012 by Urod

[belovelife]

interestting, i need to read more of this topic

[sigurdV]

Investigating the something is an act that is in need of a close up :)

 

interestting, i need to read more of this topic

 

I think a picture might be be of some help here: x = "x"

[Urod]

sdddfghj

Edited December 1, 2012 by Urod