mystic64
nolonger active
But there is no state where there is no movement to my understanding....the vibrations of zpe go to the infinitesimal wavelengths at the 'floor' of the 'ocean'...where energy density is infinite... And particles are only spherical standing waves of the relevant zpe frequencies that constitute them.. That's why in the LHC, when particles are smashed...the spherical standing wave dissolves into energy before that energy is able to reform into spherical standing wave of another kind in order to restore equilibrium of zpe in the spacial medium of the experiment...
There was no beginning to matter, for it is as eternal as energy...for as explained above...the so called particles are just a standing wave resonance of the same zpe energy that the particles arose from... The zpe is ubiquitous throughout infinite space...but it is not homogenous and there are gravity ripples and eddies throughout...
But do not imagine I think my model is the only one, or the best one even, to represent the reality behind gravity, inertia, cosmology, etc., for I am always learning and having insights that require modifications to the model.. So if your model works for you in gaining a better understanding of cosmology, that is fine......science is not about consensus...it's about understanding the universe in all its aspects..
I too am a mystic mystic , and totally understand about the visualization you refer to...it is an amazing faculty connected to intuition.. Some people have well developed mathematical 'visualization', others have a different kind of 'visualization'... we are each given the best tools for the task destiny has for us....which ultimately is an inner realization so all is unfolding as it should...
Ben d you are so fun to visit with ! And we are just two old mystics kicking things around just for fun. What started me on all of this a little over thirty-five years ago was an attempt to corollate the first verses in the Bible book Geneses with science. And as you correctly say , "These is no Darkness in creation." For some reason scripture calls movement "light" and non movement "darkness". And the movement that was created on the surface of the Deep was separated from the ocean (the Deep) of non movement. Therefore there isn't any non movent in Creation. Everything is moving. From there we end up with a cloud of "particle one(s)" in movement that is independent of the ocean of "particles one(s)" that are in a state of non movement. And for some reason scripture calls this cloud of "particle one(s)" in movement, "waters"? Whatever that means ? Then a part (lower part?) was dried up. Now utimately the existance of the "Deep" as a source of protomatter does not matter unless for some reason it is still in play some how, but scripture says it isn't. And, ultimately whether or not God did it does not matter either. What could possibily matter is whether or not there is a clue in this that would help to set up a model that would help in the understanding of the physics of Creation. From there we have the first question to the intuitive mind (God what is going on here ?), "How was the "waters" dried up to create the dry?" The answer was to accelerate a part of the "waters" through the other part of the "waters" until you reach a point where resistance become a barrior and when you breach the barrior you create the turbulance that creates the "suck" that causes the part of the cloud of proto-matter that broke through the barrior to condense into what we call matter. Now, all of that is pretty simple (that which is basically particle physics) until you try to understand the dynamics of the turbulance that creates the "suck". The reason for that is that when you attempt to create a mathematical model of the forces at work in the turbulance, that mathematical model presents a multi-dimentional phenomenon that takes a super computer to do the math . Which is why I as a mystic have quit trying to make any contributions to the world of physics, because they are still building the super computer that it is going to take to do the math . Personally I think that there is a short cut to the math and that things could be done simpler, but to explore that concept I would to have a working knowledge of the mathematical language of theoretical physics and the odds of that happening is pretty much "zip" (non existant) because I am old and they are busy.
Ben d, to me happiness is a good question to use to challenge/play with the intuitive mind with . The problem is that I have run out of questions except for the small questions that come up in the RF world of "minds at play". And to be honest with you I really do not want notoriety. That is a potiental messy situation that I would rather not deal with ! I am happy just working with the fancy guppy genetics project that I am working with and hanging out in RF's world of minds at play. And the other mostly little things that a retired fellow has to deal with from day to day. And also the yogi mind physics meditations that I am exploring.