Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Though, perhaps you could better describe your model pictorially, as I have numerous times, to help me "wrap my head around" what you are getting at. [Just sensible evolution from the infinitely huge whole, yet infinitesimally small parts, into the first finite singularity, and on to the real substance world, we live in, nothing more.]
Please note that absolute variable is a contradiction in our contextual terms here, Lloyd. [Not in mine, Nobody.] If you say that c literally varies, it can't remain literally constant. [Sorry, yes it can___Matter density controls the whole universal picture, and density varies in different areas of our universe. That's measurable just by the known radiation, and different rates of expansion of older and newer galaxies.] Alternatively, zero-point position (absolute) is the only constant that makes certain the uncertain variables of zero-point energy (relative infinity). [I don't agree with this either. Zero-point position is meaningless in a dynamically changing universe, and zpe is always minimal, now, zue{zero universal energy} would have some power, but not zpe___far too weak.] Again, it's not a matter of reaching zero, but realizing that there is no freedom of motion (no give and no gaps) to your FS. [You should study low temperature physics more closely. The degree of freedom is always there, even at just billion'th's of a degree above absolute 0k. The fundamental substance, or very close to with he3 and he4, moves just fine within itself, one atom thick as it crawls out of its container. Low temperature physics is stranger than you may realize, but it does work.]
To wrap our heads around this, consider someone looking up at the south pole proclaiming that the earth is rotating clockwise; while someone else looking down at the north pole is proclaiming it is rotating counter-clockwise. Which way is it rotating? Both or neither? [Same as the question of galaxy rotation, doesn't matter, as it's just a matter of personal perspective, i.e., which side or end you're on, or at. The point is, it's only going one way, as thermodynamics' law requires.]
We require relative frames of reference and set laws that dictate rotation according to a flow from the poles. [I like knowing where I am___I prefer absolute frames of reference, i.e., from the absolute fundamental ground up. There is true un-moving ground, if you but realize it. It's the position, in our minds, of nearest absolute stillness, we witness all motion with___The truest absolute self.] Yet, for every force there is an opposite counter force, which at Planck reverses the direction of flow. [According to you and some others, but not myself___counter force, yes, but reverse the direction of flow, no.] Ultimately, fairly simple to realize that north becomes south, and south becomes north. [Only in alternating current. You're talking about earth's poles, are you not? I think they take some thousands of years to reverse polarities, though they do, over time___Possibly in 2012, as the Myan Calandar may predict...?]
This above is where you mistake my position, Lloyd, and continue to proclaim that motion is constant regardless of the perspective (one perspective). It is relatively accurate, and fair enough, but does not take into account both perspectives simultaneously which is what the absolute universe is forced to do. [Sorry, but yes it does, and I keep mentioning it. It's hidden in the linguistic entanglement of the one/many positions and motions, at once___always... I only have one tongue, to describe motion, so simple, yet so complex, it's most impossible, in linear words. The universe operates as a many scalar spheroidal mechanics, and no person's tongue and mind, can produce the accuracy of words necessary to describe this exact process mechanics. This is why I've stated, often, it requires new math, language and linguistics' systems, before we'll ever comprehend enough to effectively communicate about it.]
Further, another way to picture it might be considering the revolution of earth around the sun. Imagine it revolving the other way from another perspective, and consider the exact meeting point of both perspectives. What would be the result? [You see Nobody, the linguistics confuses again, as there are two perspectives of revolving the other way, i.e., real as the opposite exact path, and opposite, the exact opposite perspective. This keeps happening quite often___The Linguistics Problem.]
To me, it would be absolutely no motion at all without relative forces influencing the inertial frame. [Relative, i.e., abstract, influence not one damn thing. There are only real forces, or none at all___period.] The true "rest mass" remains zero, even if we include the "worlds within worlds" scenario, the membranes scenario, big-bang scenario, anti-universe scenario, or whatever scenario you feel toots your horn. |