* * The Universe from Nothing: T=0K. / by*Israel Socratus /

[socratus]

* The existing interpretation of quantum mechanics is contrary to common sense.*
* * * * WHY?
================

* The Universe from Nothing: T=0K. / by*Israel Socratus /
====...
Maybe 99% thinks that everything began from big-bang.
A few % have another opinion:
Book 'A universe from nothing' by Lavrence M. Kruass.
===.
My opinion.
Why* everything was started from Nothing ?
Because there is fundamental fact in Nature :
The critical density in the whole Universe* is so small
that it cannot 'close'* the Universe into sphere.
And therefore the Universe as whole is flat - infinite flat.
But what to do with 'infinity' physicists don't know
and they try to escape (throw* out) concept of 'infinity'.
===..
I say that infinite (eternal) nothing has one physical
parameter: T=0K* and therefore* nothing is not nothingness.
We can use many theories to understand condition of T=0K continuum :

1) Theory of ideal gas* ( temperature is T=0K )
2) Hawking black hole radiation* ( temperature is T=0K )
3)* Bose-Einstein condensate* ( temperature is T=0K )
4) Dark energy* ( nothing is some kind of infinite energy )
5) Dark matter* ( consist of virtual particles, antiparticles )
6) SRT** ( explain behavior of quantum particles in nothingness )
7) QT** ( explain the reason and laws of quantum particles behavior )

These theories are subject for rethinking and ,by the way,
** such interpretation** obeys* Occam's* razor.
============...
P.S.
Scientists say:
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was proved
* ** that Big Bang* theory is correct.
* ** My opinion.
Have you see the waves on the surface of sea ?
But deep down of* the sea* , you know, the picture is different.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is only surface of infinite zero vacuum.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is a false vacuum.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is result of work
(fluctuation) of virtual particles.
Deep down of the 'Dirac's sea'* is state of* zero vacuum* T=0K
* with potential negative virtual particles: - E=Mc^2.
And according to the 'Law of conservation* and transformation* energy/mass'
these** virtual negative* particles* can change their potential state
into real* active*positive* particles with energy E=hf.
( Casimir effect, Lamb shift )
Quantum effects (fluctuations)* are dominate in the Universe.
=====================
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
============================

[socratus]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/a-brief-history-of-quantum-alternatives/

[socratus]

Together with Brandon Carter and Jim Bardeen, Hawking wrote a paper, published
. . . . .
. . . the team commented, '' In fact the effective temperature of a black hole is
absolute zero . . . No radiation could be emitted from the hole.''

/ Book: Stephan Hawking, A life in science,
by Michael White and John Gribbin, page 156./

Later, using concept of entropy and Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
Hawking changed his mind and wrote that black hole can emit
( Hawking radiation )
============================================

[Gambeir]

Hmm...no comments?
This reminds me of the six blind men whom are asked to describe an elephant.

Scientists don't really grock what science actually is about, and so we now have six brilliant but blind men wandering round a giant elephant and quite bamboozled by the whole: Truth is found by destructive testing and that's what applied law is in a nutshell. That's what every prosecutor and detective must deal with. They know that they must prove beyond reason, to their peers, that their hypothesis is the right hypothesis because it is the most rational when attacked, or cannot otherwise be destroyed by contradictions, and as judged by other normal humans in a fair and open court.

Science has done exactly what the legislatures have been doing to remove judgement by your peers from the judicial system. That's what determinate sentencing laws are about, and that's what the " Scientific Star Chambers" of supposed scientific review are also about: Recognize them for the evils that they are. History should teach us that much.

Ideas supported by mathematical proofs, even when those proofs fill black boards dating back to the 1930's, do not constitute evidence of reality, and therefore the truth. Almost assuredly these equations do cross over into truth as they would in any complex case in law would likely also involve half-truths.

We now know that the the idea of quantum mechanics are in error. That the double slit experiment, once a riddle, is now understood and that this solution shows that the foundations of quantum mechanics are probably not right. This isn't a minor issue, it's split below the waterline, and like the Titanic it's probably a fatal injury.

The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...t_Re-Explained [accessed Nov 09 2017].
Finally, Feynman once described the double-slit experiment, stating that, “we choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which is in the heart of quantum mechanics” [60], but as seen some great historical lessons could be draw from this experience that, the collection of lots of data without being able to find any basic underlying principles is not science [27], closure of any scientific debate on alleged accomplishment is not scientific in nature, and science is an open field, in which an exploration by an individual could benefit and progress humankind.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299347018_The_Compton_Effect_Re-Visited

Propulsion

We know that there isn't any dark matter filling the void of space. We know that this idea is a shoddy makeshift explanation for why galaxies rotate as wheels with their stars and planets attached to their cores as though spokes to a wheel. We know it's not even remotely logical to any sensibly minded and rational being when exposed for the reason behind the creation of the idea of dark matter, and when exposed to daylight with otherwise more rational ideas about how and why stars rotate around the galactic core, then the whole idea of dark matter shows itself to be what it honestly is: A darkly constructed lie.

https://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.fr/2014/04/kapitza-dirac-superfluid-jet-powered.html

Ultimately, what we are looking at is manifestly a criminally inspired plan to deceive and obfuscate truth in scientific knowledge which cannot have accidentally occurred all by itself. It is not in the interests of the rulers that their system of rule be overthrown, and clearly they do have control over what is taught as science and what is not taught as science, what is marketed and officially approved by them, and which is to be subverted, destroyed, and hidden away.

Quantum is a meme.
"When you want to overthrow a society what you do is hijack and redefine key words"
John Taylor Gatto

Words exist to define and form foundations upon which our basic understandings exist. Destroy or change that and you destroy or change the foundations upon which everything else stands. Quantum is the retardation of meaning and definition. A thousand times I've read someone mindlessly toss this word out instead of the defining word which should have been used.

Quantum is a word which has as much meaning as saying rock for anything which is made from stones. It's about that helpful and that's just not something that happens accidentally because it goes against the very nature of science itself as a reductionist philosophy. This is proof of meddling. Any linguist worth 50 cents will understand this and understand the impact that altering key words can have upon a society. The word Quantum is now a catch all which ends up describing nothing since it proclaims to describe everything. Thus, quantum as word is spreading out as a kind of meaningless scientific sloth which has reduced everything to nothingness; essentially meaningless gibberish since whatever and wherever the term is used could then be read just about anyway any individual happens to think about it. That's not exactly precision now is it?

[socratus]

Hmm...no comments?
This reminds of the six blind men whom are asked to describe an elephant.

[socratus]

[Gambeir]

I actually have touched an elephant once. Whilst at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle in the kids sections, or whatever they call it, and so anyways this baby elephant had gotten spooked by ten thousand screaming brats whom evidently began chasing it.

True story BTW, and so I'm standing there when out of nowhere, like a small locomotive, this baby elephant runs right up next to me and comes to a screeching halt sticking it's trunk out, like help me you fool! So I tried to calm it by stroking it's ...ah hide...which is about the the closest thing to flexible steel that I can describe.

Anyone else ever get to touch an elephant? If you have then you know what I'm talking about. There's just nothing with which to compare it to really.
How about an electron? Seems like electrons are sort of like seeing elephants, seeing an elephant and touching an elephants are completely different experiences: Ever so similar in a kooky kind of way. Maybe I shouldn't have started this elephant thingy?

[Gambeir]

Generally speaking I'd agree; up to a point. The way the mind works is to hold complexity in simplicity. Complex ideas are retained in thought under general headings. Only when called upon to dig deeper are complexities of a topic called up from deep memory.

So the goal isn't then to "actually" create a kind of Occam's Razor, but by reducing complexities to outlines a puzzle is laid out, and which can be examined to see if it holds all the parts to a complete picture, and which can then reveal the whole elephant....so to speak: There is a step by step process to this which comes down to us through the workings of one hundred and fifty years of police science.

In other words, you must have an Occam's Razor, but the razor must be understood for a whole picture of a more complex mass.

You did that in post five in ways which I've never encountered previously. In truth I never knew the half of what you reduced to simplicity. Every successful detective knows that the first step in solving complex cases is to reduce bamboozling complexity to simple probabilities. Only then can a picture of the whole begin to emerge. Only then will logical deduction bring you closer to the truth. Only then can you see if you have all the parts to a puzzle which collude to produce a whole that cannot be destroyed and which is logical and rational.

[Gambeir]

I am quite incapable of communicating with you at the same levels you've previously posed, and in many other ways, but I would agree that the picture I've managed to cobble together says that we do not have all the parts to the puzzle, and that the puzzle we have now has parts which work for themselves.

This is like saying a story told by a suspect works so long as you don't look at anything else: Just imagine the audacity of a criminal inventing a story to escape suspicion; who'd have thunk it? So it appears there's a lot of suspect understandings which claim to explain the whole elephant the same way any suspect might themselves construct a plausible explanation. Now what kind of imbecile gulps down a story told by a suspect without question?

Is the Universe infinite, flat, and created out of nothingness, but which is some-thing? Consciousness comes out of nothingness and goes into a physical form. There has to be mass given to create the form. In any part of our reality mass seems to be a key part that defines our reality and (near as I can tell) mass springs forth from nothingness the same as consciousness itself does.

So forgetting about consciousness, where does matter get mass from? When matter loses all mass it disappears from our reality.
* PS: For all practical purposes what then is mass because it doesn't appear except in matter and when in this reality. It appears to me that it comes out of this nothingness you've postulated. I'm not saying the nothingness is mass but it seems to contain the ability to assign mass to this reality and to take it back out of this reality when it's through with it. If you're following, the idea then is that nothingness creates the reality; a key part of the creation appears to be the assignment of mass to our plane of reality without which matter evidently doesn't exist.

[socratus]

In truth I never knew the half of what you reduced to simplicity.

Every successful detective knows that the first step in solving complex cases
is to reduce bamboozling complexity to simple probabilities.
Only then can a picture of the whole begin to emerge.
Only then will logical deduction bring you closer to the truth.
Only then can you see if you have all the parts to a puzzle which collude
to produce a whole that cannot be destroyed and which is logical and rational.

[socratus]

Physics Professor Baumgarte Describes 100 Years of Gravity
April 1, 2015
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same,
independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with
respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence,
space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered
a new joint entity called "spacetime. But special relativity describes physics in the absence
of gravity, whereas general relativity describes gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime.

Physics Professor Baumgarte Describes 100 Years of Gravity | Bowdoin News


Today scientists are trying to reconcile Newton's absolute time and Einstein's spacetime.

========================================

[socratus]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/02/21/gravity-in-the-electric-universe-space-news/

====================
My opinion.
Zero Vacuum (T=0K) is itself some kind of an Infinity Energy continuum ( universe).
Where does gravity fit in the infinity T=0K electric-energy universe?

a) according to quantum theory the Zero Vacuum (T=0K) being energy continuum
can create only potential - virtual negative energy particles: -E=Mc^2.
b) these potential - virtual negative energy particles: -E=Mc^2 somehow
can transformed themselves into real energetic particles: E=h*f
c) these real energetic particles somehow can create local gravity - solar system.
=========================

Gravity is indivisible from the electromagnetic force.
To create local gravity - solar system is needed EM force.
================

[socratus]

a) According to Newton, absolute time and space respectively are independent
aspects of objective reality

b) In Einstein's theories, the ideas of absolute time and space were superseded by
the notion of absolute spacetime in special relativity, and curved absolute spacetime
in general relativity

c) SRT is theory without gravity but with an absolute spacetime.
It means, we need to take Newton's absolute time and Newton's absolute space
simultaneously together in order to have Einstein's spacetime.
Newton's absolute time + Newton's absolute space = Einstein's spacetime.

d) And this absolute spacetime can be curved by masses ( for example:
by Sun masses ) in some local region of absolute Einstein's spacetime.

e) According to GRT the curvature depends on masses and its speed.
And because masses (of stars and planets) are different so every local
region has its own gravity-space and gravity. For example: Earth
has its own gravity-space and gravity-time, and Venus or Mars has
another gravity-space and gravity-time. But for humans on the Earth
their Earth's gravity-space and Earth's gravity-time seems absolute.

==========================================

[socratus]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...-time-problem/

[socratus]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...-time-problem/

Why did scientists call Einstein's /Minkowski absolute a four-dimensional
spacetime as a " fabric " ?

And '' If space-time is a fabric, so to speak, then what are its threads? ''
Zeeya Merali
Theoretical physics: The origins of space and time

Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
Zeeya Merali
28 August 2013

https://www.nature.com/news/theoreti...d-time-1.13613

I want to correct Zeeya Merali.
It needs to write:
Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of Gravity-space and Gravity-time, but where these entities come from.

In such description the situation is more clear.

============================