“
1. Either stuff was here forever or stuff is a distribution of nothing into positive and negative displacements about A zero point—a balance of nothing, essentially, being a ‘sum-thing’ of QM (Quantum Mechanics), as noted in the vacuum fluctuations.
”
False dichotomy.
James, how about saying why not and/or propose a third alternative.
Need a longer refutal for the two possibilities. The rest is about the ZPE.
“
3. ‘Nothing’ never sleeps, as we see from QM; it is always up to something, being, one might say, a perfectly unstable ‘state’. Everything melts, via uncertainty, as when we try to measure a quantum property—and so this means that no quantum property can ever be zero, for zero is a precise amount, so, it must be that motion can never cease, it being the natural state, and ever in that fuzzy QM way.
”
It is not true that "no quantum property can ever be zero". There are lots of quantum quantities that are zero.
Then what happened to quantum uncertainty?
“
6. Cause and effect cannot go on forever, thus there must be a causeless prime mover that depends on nothing before it, for there couldn’t be anything before, both due to an impossible infinite regress of actions that would take forever, and also since then we would not then be identifying Totality, but something secondary or higher.
”
The premise here is unproven: "cause and effect cannot go on forever".
Then wouldn’t effect from cause take forever to happen? I need more from you.
“
9. Yet another reason that the same stuff itself could not have been around forever without its making via the QM jitterbugging is that there was/is still nothing to make it out of, and, while that is the answer, I mean that there were no ‘more original’ stockpiles of stuff just sitting around to then make the regular original stuff out of.
”
This assumes that it is impossible to create matter and energy, which is probably false when you're talking about the big bang.
It’s not impossible, for we do have matter and energy, yet whence and how did it come about? Also, the Big Bang theory needs to say how it conserves energy.
“
11. There are only two possible stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton(+), which suggests that that is all there can be, perhaps since pair production has but two ways to make matter particles (and their antiparticles). The third arrangement is the energy particle, the photon, its positive and negative aspects residing in peace and summing to its neutral charge. 1 + (-1) = 0. Empirically, it appears that Totality is electrically neutral, there being as many positives as negatives
”
Neutrons are also stable matter particles. So are anti-protons and positrons.
I have included antimatter. Neutrons only last about 12 minutes on their own. So, only two stable matter particles (and their anti's) is a clue.
“
18. The cosmos is so tremendously large because the Planck size (and within) is so minuscule.
”
You have established no reason to connect the Planck size (whatever that is) with the size of the cosmos.
I can’t put everything here all at once. Anything that can’t even be logically shown will be abandoned.
“
19. We can only reside at the finite mid-point between the largest infinity and the smallest infinity (infinitesimal), perched in this finite realm. While ‘size’ may be seem to be somewhat relative, there is a definite ordering to sizes.
”
What we "can" do and what we "do" do are different things. What you're doing here is setting up some kind of anthropic principal.
It is not really ‘we’ (my mistake), but that the finite can only be at this mid-point, plus, again, I must show more.
“
20. Our 4D existence is completely nullified by electric charge’s polarity, but again, only in the overview. Charge’s polarity is like ‘time’, the 4th dimension, which is the difference of space, and not a compositional dimension like space. I’m choosing charge, rather than matter and antimatter, since those make light, but one still argue that photons contain both positive and negative which could nullify in principle, if not in the actual. Others, like Hawking, see the positive kinetic energy of matter being balanced and canceled out by the negative potential energy of gravity. It always comes down to zero, these theories.
”
What a mess. You haven't even begun to explain how "electric charge's polarity" would "nullify" a "4D existence". Lots of fancy words, but no substance. Also, photons are not agglomerations of positive and negative charges.
James, a photon can become an electron and a positron, and vice-versa, via annihilation. The ‘mess’ is but an overview of a possible direction.
“
22. The largest infinity times the smallest infinity equals unity, or 1, where we exist.
”
Such an "equation" is meaningless. Mathematically, infinity multiplied by negative infinity is undefined, not unity.
Yes, it’s like 1 meter * .001 meter = 1, or 100 *.001 = 1
“
23. A finite 4-D hypercube is proposed that is a singularity of sorts, the one and only boundary condition of Totality. Extending Einstein’s block universe suggests that there is a finite 4-D hypercube consisting of 3-D infinite spaces that are indexed by time, the spaces being the infinite 3-D ‘surface’ of the 4-D hypercube, just as t here is a 2D infinite surface on a 3D sphere.
”
The word "singularity" is being used here in a way that makes no sense.
I’ll fix it.
“
24. Time is the difference of space and space is the difference of time.
”
Meaningless blather. A "difference" is a relation between two things, not one.
Should have said spaces, plural, like those slices of the Einstein block universe, or, think of infinite 3D spaces stacked like pancakes into 4D hyperspace.
“
26. Distance^4 = c(time-distance^3)
”
This equation must be wrong because it is dimensionally incorrect.
“
Distance^4 / (time-distance^3) = c = distance/time
”
And this one.
James, the dimensional units of ‘c’ are distance/time, 186,282 miles per second, thus distance^4 is left. By the way, hc also resolves to distance^4.
“
27. The hypercube has dimensions of quadratic distance; however, any incomplete representation of this hypercube, such as half of unit hypervolume, has units of time-distance^3.
”
More meaningless blather. Also "quadratic" doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up.
OK, then distance^4.
“
The space of our universe is three-dimensional because this is the only dimension whose volume is compositionally consistent through all levels of infinite size while forming the surface of its own hypersphere.
”
The term "compositionally consistent through all levels of infinite size" is undefined and amounts to more meaningless blather.
Will explain.
“
30. Proof of the non-statistical universe: Variability Inversion: The larger an object, the less its universal variability, which is precisely the opposite of what would be expected in a statistical universe.
”
The term "universal variability" is undefined and amounts to more meaningless rubbish. So is the term "statistical universe".
‘Statistical’ refers to random or random-probable. I am showing determinism.
“
32. If there was no Big Bang, then red shift would really mean that photons are expanding, not space, because they are taking several million years to decay, finally quantum emitting decay-photons in the microwave range, this constituting the CMBR.
”
Photons do not decay into other photons.
Probably not, but thisis just an aside, for photons are known to be asymmetrical, since they do not all go through the crystal lattice of a polarizing substance, thus they could, over millions of years, be unevenly acted on by gravitational waves, producing a differential velocity gradient that would expand them, producing an unstable relativistic system, necessitating an energy loss. It is an alternative to space expanding.
“
CMBR electric currents would also play a role, and this could be the banding seen in galaxies.
”
There are no electric currents in the CMBR.
Yes, could or could not be, but, again, not essential to the base theory, but only if Big Bang fails, but I don't think we need that to happen unless we see stuff coming out of galaxies, making new stars, plus other things.
“
What is fourth-dimensional, intrinsically polar, external to space, and a metric for spacial distance? Time.
”
The term "metric" here is being used in a nonstandard way. Also, time is one-dimensional, not four-dimensional.
I’m not saying 4D, for time is 1D, and that’s the only place left to nullify all of existence, thus its relation to charge polarity.
“
34. Complete solidity (One) is impossible, and the same for total vacuity (Zero); thus the in-between zero-balance ‘sumthing’ of positive and negative.
”
I think we've seen near-total vacuity in this thread.
No, for you did not undo the main points at all, nor provide better alternatives, plus I explained some of your points, prefacing with 'James' for the good ones.
---
The rest is so vague that it can't be analysed. There's lots of scientific-sounding jargon put together in random patterns there, but it's all essentially meaningless.
Maybe some of it is cleared up now, or will be. This was just an intro.
Probably you should give up trying to do physics and stick to art and poetry. Either that, or start doing some physics for real rather than pretending.
No, not yet, plus one might go to the positives of the main logic, but I’ll take the gibe in good humor. It is also that physics has no answer for how everything came about, although some go into bi-verses, use QM as I do, and whatnot.
What do you or the readers think about why and how stuff could have been forever around, or, why not, and then why and how for it becoming of some basis?
Can’t just knock without totally undoing and not providing just as logical an alternative. Even if “don’t know”, what about the logic that is presented here?
Remember, all other answers through history didn't get too far, and that when face two seemingly impossible answers, one of them must be true, no matter how much we don't like either one to be.
