The First Cause of the Universe

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Asexperia, Apr 2, 2015.

1. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
THE FIRST CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE

The First Cause of the Universe (CPU for its initials in Spanish) is the philochrony or philochron time. The force and energy are the Second Cause (CSU). The subject's action is the Third Cause (CTU).

.....FOR EXAMPLE ........................... CSU
1- The food cooking .................. heat from the stove
2- The animal vitality ................ heat produced in the combustion of food
3- The light of a bulb ................. electricity

In case 1 the food cooking depends on how long heat is applied. In case 2 the life of animals depends on the duration of production of heat due to food intake. In case 3 the bulb will emit light "while" It receives the flow of electric current.

The will and the subject's needs form the Third Cause of the Universe or CTU. Throughout time man has been building and developing different societies.
Another example of philochrony or CPU is the movement of the stars, where the CSU is gravity.

Conclusions:
1- From this point of view time is considered as a tangible magnitude taking into account the effects generated indirectly.

2- Multiplying the time times a form of energy is obtained a new magnitude: The philochrony, represented by the greek letter fi φ. Its main equation is φ = t.T (time times constant temperature or average). In the case of the light bulb the formula is φ = t.V (V = voltage).

3- The traditional time is the duration magnitude and It is intangible.

4- The philochron time or philochrony is the amount of change (movement and transformation) and It is tangible indirectly.

PS:
- CPU is Causa Primera del Universo
- CSU is Causa Segunda del Universo
- CTU is Causa Tercera del Universo

Elvis Sibilia

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2015

3. danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
Can you further demonstrate how φ = t.V (V = voltage) complements a knowledge of Ohm's Law (V,I,R)? I ask this because now you have defined voltage in terms of philochrony, but it contains no measure of electric charge. Unfortunate, because we were taught that a Volt was a Joule per Coulomb, and the units don't seem to match your units, which would be philochrony per second as a measure of electrical pressure. This is just nonsense, as far as I can tell.

If you can't explain this, you might as well be talking Earth, Water, Wind and Fire (ancient philosophical categories of elements).

By which I mean, these are nicely categorized, but it is an idea bereft of any depth of understanding of the sciences of geology, oceanography, meteorology, or chemistry. This is as kind an assessment of the idea of philochrony as you are likely to find anywhere.

The counting (Primero, Segundo, Tercera) is also good, but why only three? ¿No es possible contar mas? ¿Porque? Your other charts from other threads also seem to stop categorizing after only three categories. Physics also does this (kilograms, meters, seconds), but your categories are different. Why is that?

5. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
Hello

In the formula φ = t . V, I do not mean Ohm's Law (V = R . I), but the product of time times voltage.
My categories are different because I take a different point of view to the traditional. Besides, the 3 appears to be a fair amount to categorize some phenomena.

Gracias Danshawen por tu mensaje.

PS: My native language is Spanish.

7. DaeconKiwi fruitValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,133
Is doesn't matter what your "native" language is, you're still talking nonsense.

8. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
That's OFF TOPIC. "It doesn't matter ..."

9. DaeconKiwi fruitValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,133
Oh, so I made a typo.

It doesn't mean your "philocrony" idea isn't still stupid.

10. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
Relax, I do not need your approval.

11. CHRIS.QRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
147
ohhh, Super complex data

12. James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,189
Can you please explain why, in general, philocrony has units of Joule seconds per Coulomb?

Also, these units are not the same as Kelvin seconds, so one of your two definitions must be wrong.

13. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
EXPERIMENTS OF PHILOCHONY

I've been thinking about the units of measurement for the new magnitude of philochrony (fi) φ = t . ΔT. I've seen some videos about the operation of the microwaves, electric ovens and refrigerators to perform the experiments. The formula has changed from φ = t . T to φ = t . ΔT so to cover a larger amount of thermal phenomena including an increase or decrease of temperature.

Let's consider these examples:

1- Positive philochrony: increase of temperature
- A cup of water is taken with an ambient temperature of 26 'C.
- The water is introduced in the microwave for a time of 3 min.
- At the end of the 3 min is obtained a water temperature of 78 'C.
- Calculating: φ = 3 min (78-26 'C) = 3 min x 52 'C = 156 min x 'C. In this case the philochrony is 156 min x 'C (positive).

2- Negative philochorny: decrease of temperature
- A cup of water is taken with an ambient temperature of 27 'C.
- The water is introduced in the freezer for a time of 3 min.
- At the end of the 3 min is obtained a water temperature of 25 'C.
- Calculating: φ = 3 min (25-27 'C) = 3 min x -2 'C = -6 min x 'C. In this case the philochrony is -6 min x 'C (negative).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by James R:
"Can you please explain why, in general, philocrony has units of Joule seconds per Coulomb?
Also, these units are not the same as Kelvin seconds, so one of your two definitions must be wrong."

I had not thought about units for the formula φ = t . V (V = voltage). I'm still working on this equation and other cases.

Saludos de Elvis Sibilia

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2015
14. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
Is this correct Jame R?

In electricity the philochrony is equivalent to work: W = P . t (power per time). Then you change φ = t . V for φ = P . t

15. James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,189
Then how is philochrony different from work? Why do we need two names for one thing?

16. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
The work and the philochrony differ in the perspective. For Physics work relates two magnitudes and the philochrony relates the first cause of the universe (time) with a second cause (a form of energy).

17. wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
Another approach is to consider the analogy of the fabric of space-time. If we separated the fabric of space-time, into separated threads of space and separate threads of time, one could follow a thread of space and move in space without time. Or one could follow a thread of time to move through time without space.

Moving in space, in zero time, is analogous to quantum jumping. While moving in time without space requirements, is analogous to the universe being integrated in time, over vast distances; the constant microwave background radiation. The rotation of a milky way galaxy, which is 100,000 light years across, is not out of step, in its parts, in spite of the distance; time threads.

The original cause of the universe, in space-time, is when a thread of time, without space limitations, and a thread of space without time limitations, cross to begin the weave of space-time. The crossing ends up with a coordinated worm hole, that becomes more bound to the limits of the speed of light, via energy.

Since we live in a quantum universe, it makes sense the original universe singularity; cross, would initially expand in a quantum way. This is because the weave of space-time, begins as a point; singularity, with loose threads of time and space, not yet woven, that allow quantum jumps coordinated in time. The threads of time and space, are the leading edge of space-time, as the universe begins to expand.

A quantum expansion of the early universe would look loosely analogous to a fertilized ovum dividing; below. The leading edge of time without space and space without time, explains how galaxies could from so fast in the early universe, already coordinated to make stars.

18. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
Actually, space and time are separated, but closely related in the movement. It was the Einstein's imagination that saw them inseparably linked.

I think there are two universes: the macrocosm and microcosm, each one with its own laws and principles.

19. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
THERMAL FORMULA OF PHILOCHRONY

φ = time per the increase of temperature. The philochrony is positive if the temperature increases and negative if the temperature decreases.

20. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
MEASUREMENTS OF BECOMING

Measurements of becoming* are time and duration. These measurements respond to the questions: How long does/did It last? and When did It happen? respectively.

Time is the chronological measurement of becoming. In the time we determine the moment in what a fact occurs within an ordered series of events. Examples of time are the time (clock) and date (calendar).

The duration is the not chronological measurement of becoming. In the duration we determine the permanence of beings and phenomena in reality. We also determine how long an event takes to occur. Examples of duration are timers and the age of a person.

Time and duration are typical of the macrocosm. As the quantum becoming is governed by chance, duration and time are not valid in the microcosm.

* Becoming is the inherent property of matter and bodies to experience sequential changes.

Sibilia

21. wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
In my opinion, the discovery of a quantum universe implied an ordered universe. Before modern science and the age of enlightenment, a random universe theory was in vogue, due the action of the whims of the gods and spirits. Alchemists assumed they could change lead into gold by throwing dice or life could spontaneously appear. The age of reason changed this ancient perception of random, into a rational universe; one assumed a logical explanation was possible fi we investigate this with science. In the 20th century, the logical universe regressed backwards, into the random universe perception of the dark and middle ages.

If you look at a quantum universe, compared to a continuos universe; continuous math functions, a quantum universe places limits on a continuous universe. For example, in the diagram below, the hydrogen atom has only certain distinct energy states. These is not continuous or random. Quantum loaded the dice of the universe, so only certain sides of the dice can ever fall. It makes the universe less random, than based on the assumptions of a universe defined by continuous functions.

I often wondered why science chose the illogical and regressive path of random as the modern foundation of the universe? It is possible, the basic logic, that a quantum universe loads the dice, was not noticed. Loading the dice save time in terms of the progressive of the universe.

Another explanation was the Manhattan project. This military imperitive gave the new science of physics more access to resources than all the rest of science combined. Since the military need was based on R&D, that was unprecedented, atomic bombs, the logic and math was not yet there. The random assumption may have been used to buy time. This approach allows one to use of black boxes, until the ignorance could be overcome via experience. This approach, was practical and useful for applied science and sort of stuck because it could buffer ignorance from management. Now when they make bombs it is not about rolling dice and black boxes; the loaded dice finally fell.

If you look ay hydrogen below, which 98% of the universe's material, these transitions are well ordered and a function of energy quanta, yet we assume a random universe.

22. AsexperiaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,677
OK wellwisher

What do you think about the uncertainty principle?

23. kx000Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,073
How is there a cause to the universe if the initial fact is all? The initial fact is rationality and logic it doesn't necisraly need to be caused there. Does one learn knowledge, or is it just there? As long as I can remember I have known and that's all. I just don't know if I have I always been like this.

Last edited: Apr 21, 2015