KHTK AXIOM #6: The Universe

Observing space through a telescope
[Reference: KHTK AXIOM #5: Existence]

.

KHTK Axiom #6: A universe is all that exists.

  1. Universe consists of all objects whether they are concrete or abstract.

  2. Concrete objects are those that are sensed through eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. These objects may be broken down into compounds, molecules, atoms, and fundamental particles.

  3. Abstract objects are those that are sensed through the mind. These objects may be broken down into language, symbols, thoughts, emotions, and impulses.

  4. Anything that one can be aware of, whether real, unreal, imagined, assumed or speculated is also an object that exists in this universe.

.

[For further details, please see: KHTK Research]

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 5:43 AM

    According to Lorentz and Fitzgerald moving matter suffers a physical contraction in the direction of its motion. According to Einstein this contraction is observational as a result of relative motion. This is so even when observed by the use of instruments.

    The contraction occurs because light from the farther end of the object takes longer to reach the observer, while the light from the closer end reaches the observer much quicker.

    So if the object is moving toward the observer it will seem to contract in length. If it is moving away from the observer it will seem to elongate in length.

    Einstein is right. This change in length is observational because the observation is influenced by the finite speed of light.

    .

    • MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 2:44 AM

      My father once told me, when I was about 10 and asked him about the speed of light, that the basic rule is that “All particles MUST move at the speed of light. Sub-atomic particles I assumed. That at speeds, the breadth of object will appear the same, but the length as it is moving away or toward you, is skewed as the particles must appear to move at the same speed. I don’t know that this is true.
      Any thoughts?
      Mark

      • vinaire  On November 5, 2013 at 1:33 PM

        I don’t know of any such requirement that all particles must move at the speed of light. In fact the absolute speed of a particle cannot be determined.

        • MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 7:27 PM

          Vin
          “must move at the speed of light” was a theory put forth to me when I was 10. I must add, “at the APPARENT speed of light. Yes, light speed is relative, but it is constant to any observer at any given time.
          Mark

  • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 5:44 AM

    Our fears are very real to us. A fear or hallucination exists for the person who experiences it. It may not exist for others because they are not aware of it. But others may have their own fears and hallucinations. So fear and hallucination does exists as a phenomenon to be studied by the psychologist. This phenomenon cannot be ignored.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 6:16 AM

    Life is the feedback loop in a system of motion. This feedback loop is not there in a stone; but it is there in a biological cell.

    Feedback loops created in mechanical devices do mimic very primitive sort of life.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM

      Not in a stone? And what of the feedback loops of the convection currents within the Earth’s mantle? Are these not feedback loops on which the continents float and move? We should be slow to dismiss if we are to be mindful. We need to watch for assumptions when we are trying to be mindful. Soon the world opens up to our minds and life is everywhere including the backdrop of everything that is.

      • vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 5:30 AM

        Life may be regarded as a dimension. There is no absolute zero of life quite likely. We may only compare.

        .

  • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 6:23 AM

    The interface between physics and metaphysics consists of

    (1) The speed of light

    (2) Motion

    (3) The feedback loop of motion

    .

  • 2ndxmr  On October 19, 2013 at 5:15 PM

    v.:”Anything that one can be aware of, whether real, unreal, imagined, assumed or speculated is also an object that exists in this universe.”

    This Universe and all the matter in it began from a point.

    That point may have been a point in a larger void.

    This universe may resemble an expanding cloud in a sky with other expanding clouds in the same sky. This “sky”, of course, is this larger void.

    So, I am speculating this. Does that place me in this universe or the void?

    • MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 2:52 AM

      “The universe is a boundless sphere who’s center is everywhere.”
      Author?

  • vinaire  On October 19, 2013 at 5:40 PM

    Yes, that speculation is an object. It is an abstract object, so it does not exist in the physical space. It exists in the abstract space. You’ll understand what I mean by abstract space from the following model.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/08/01/khtk-model-of-universe/

    Abstract objects may be divided into two categories:
    (1) Consistent, and therefore, forming the background of abstract space.
    (2) Inconsistent, and therefore, floating unanchored in the abstract space.

    Speculations float in the abstract space until they are sorted out. At that point they merge into the background of the abstract space.

    I hope this answers your question! 😐

    .

  • vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 9:08 PM

    1. We sense motion as CHANGE from a REFERENCE BODY.
    2. The ABSOLUTE MOTION of the reference body cannot be determined.
    3. We are familiar of motion as changing position of mass.
    4. Mass is resistance to change or inertia, which tends to fix the position.
    5. The more is the mass, the more fixed is the position.
    6. When there is no mass it is impossible to fix the position.
    7. Therefore, we sense “positions” in terms of mass.
    8. We sense “motion” in terms of changing distance between masses.
    9. Thus, we sense motion in terms of relativity among masses.
    10. On cosmic scale, the masses are huge, and hence, the positions are pretty clear. The sense of motion among masses is also very clear. Awareness comes from light coming from the masses. The awareness is influenced by the speed of light.
    11. At atomic scales, the masses are almost non-existent, and hence, the positions are not clear. The sense of motion is also not clear. Direct awareness through light is not there. Awareness comes indirectly through relationships among various phenomena.
    12. Quantum Mechanics talks about motion in terms of probabilities at atomic levels because neither the objects (positions) nor the changing distance between them (motion) can be determined.
    13. The physical instruments are entirely dependent on light and suffer from the limitations indicated above.
    14. Science, however, can be more penetrating because it is supported by deeper awareness through the use of abstraction.
    15. Abstraction replaces light at deeper levels of awareness.
    16. Abstraction applies to both cosmic and atomic scales alike
    17. Greater understanding seems to lie in the direction of resolving the mystery of mass and inertia.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 9:12 PM

    POSITIONS SEEMS TO BE DETERMINED BY MASSES, OR INERTIA.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 21, 2013 at 9:16 PM

      We’re still treating the space between objects as nothing. This is not consistent. Space is something even if a very thin something.

  • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM

    POSITION SEEMS TO BE DETERMINED IN TERMS OF MASS, OR INERTIA. WITHOUT INERTIA THERE IS NO POSITION. THERE IS ONLY A WAVE.

    Is wave is a “position” that is trying to find itself. This sounds almost poetic. There is no mass in an electromagnetic wave. How can motion be defined without mass?

    Earlier we thought EM (electromagnetic phenomenon) to be a disturbance in space. But now it seems that EM is a phenomenon prior to firmed up space.

    Or, EM itself is “disturbed space.”

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 10:20 AM

      Vin: Or, EM itself is “disturbed space.”

      Chris: Got it, but we are still stuck in my tautological universe here.

      • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM

        What’s wrong with that?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 8:59 PM

          haha, well nothing really wrong or new about that. It’s just still the squirrel cage and I’m keeping me eye peeled for the inconsistency that releases to the next squirrel cage!

        • vinaire  On October 23, 2013 at 4:38 AM

          It is a matter of looking more and more closely.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM

          Looking more closely seems to continually reveal something more which is recursive and self-similar. I wonder if I am supposed to watch for inconsistencies in that self-similarity or I should notice that self-similarity as the inconsistency?

        • vinaire  On October 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM

          I don’t know about you but I am making progress.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

          Are we? It is a real question. Is this how things are or just how they seem to be?

        • vinaire  On October 23, 2013 at 5:08 PM

          If I am still interested then I am making progress. I am not bored yet.

          .

  • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 5:32 AM

    Masses are like “anchors” of awareness. Without such anchors what happens to awareness?

    Awareness without anchor is like a wave that is coming or going nowhere, and which is trying to fix itself somehow.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM

      Vin: Awareness without anchor is like a wave that is coming or going nowhere, and which is trying to fix itself somehow.

      Chris: This is workable. When these processes condense, distill, resolve, imprint or otherwise touch an object they possibly collapse. But yet we work around the tautology of what is already there to study.

  • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 5:34 AM

    How is mass generated from electromagnetic phenomenon?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      1. This is an assumption, but that may be alright. 2. Again, possibly we are looking at a quality or a quantity of space. 3. Probably accretion begins very, very small. And if I said, “Accretion of space” you’d get what I mean.

      • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM

        Now I have a different definition of space, which depends on mass particles. Space comes about as mass particles come about.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 9:06 PM

          This is definitely a new direction and I don’t savvy your meaning. When I say accretion of space, I am talking about an older more ancient milkier version of space than what we see today. I imagine it to be elastic and condensing with the condensed particles, very small particles accreting. In my model, there could be a singularity existing which divides to produce space in the fashion that you suggest. Yet it is difficult for me to visualize a singular object without dimension.

        • vinaire  On October 23, 2013 at 5:04 AM

          (1) In a solar system, planets are moving around the sun. We are aware of this motion.
          (2) In an atom. electrons are moving around a nucleus. We are not directly aware of this motion.
          (3) Thr motion of planets is very different from the motion of the electrons.
          (4) A planet has a tremendous amount of inertia.
          (5) An electron has wave-particle properties.
          (6) An electromagnetic wave has only wave properties at low frequency end of the spectrum. However, it starts to gain particle properties (photons) as its frequency increases.
          (7) Transition from wave to particle seems to involve increasing frquency.
          (8) A particle is recognized by its form, inertia and discreteness.
          (9) Inertia means resistance to motion. The greater is the inertia, the more is the resistance to inherent motion, and better a particle may be located as a discrete entity.
          (10) Thus, inertia and precise location of a particle go hand in hand.
          (11) At one end of the spectrum we have a wave with no inertia and no precise location.
          (12) At the other end of the spectrum we have a particle with inertia and a precise location.
          (13) Space is a matrix of locations. The more precise are the locations, the more “focused” is the space.
          (15) At cosmic scale, particles have inertia, their locations are precise, and the space is “focused” in awareness.
          (16) At quantum scale, there are wave-particles with little inertia, locations are very fuzzy, and it is very difficult to be aware of the space.
          (17) EM phenomenon is very different from the particle phenomenon. The space associated with them is very different.

        • Chris Thompson  On October 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM

          Vin: (17) EM phenomenon is very different from the particle phenomenon. The space associated with them is very different.

          Chris: Quite a list. EM causes a change in the space around the object generating EM? Or is the the assumption that the object is generating the EM wrong? Or is the EM generated by the object extraneous to the space and rather is an energy emanated by the object?

        • vinaire  On October 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM

          I don’t think I look at it in terms of cause-effect. I am simply trying to look at what is there.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM

          I didn’t mean to create a cause-effect question. I am only looking at the sequence for seeing the earlier as I call it iteration to help me understand. Dropping out time leaves only a single slice of the matrix and not a full picture.

        • vinaire  On October 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

          I use the method that I documented here:

          https://vinaire.me/2013/09/11/contemplation-2/

          .

  • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 5:50 AM

    It seems to be EM itself, which, when “condensed,” provides a “position.” Space is a matrix created from such “positions”.

    Light (EM) is the material from which space is created. Light, when condensed, generates particles and positions, which then bring about the awareness of space.

    How is light condensed?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      Possibly there are states of mass besides particles or waves. Over along the line of plasma.

      • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 12:13 PM

        Well! that is something to look at more closely.

        .

  • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 5:54 AM

    What comes out from the contemplation above is that

    LIGHT DOES NOT TRAVEL IN SPACE. LIGHT IS A PRE-SPACE PHENOMENON.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2013 at 10:34 AM

    All of our senses tell us that waves travel in some medium.

    • vinaire  On October 22, 2013 at 12:12 PM

      So we have an interesting mystery to solve here! 🙂

      .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: