[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd:

MetaPhysics.

May we find a common ground on 'HypoTheory'?

(Something like 'scientific Tao'? - Earth, Air, Water & Fire?)

They symbiotically go together while remaining antithetically apart, no?

Best regards, Maestro.

- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Rascal, I'll try to address the concerns I have with the ideas of your last two posts below... I'll try to be less condescending, as I usually only do that when I see too much mixed content between meta and science... Excuse me... I too am violently defensive/reactionary, at times...

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

He proved - as others have - that corporeal matter is an omnidirectionally accelerating field, then declined (recoiled away from - as others have) to follow through enough with that (formidably astonishing) discovery: that it is not as 'incredible' or untenable as it appears: at first consideration.[As far as his ideas evolved, in this respect I agree, but not with his fact that all is the type of field he describes. I contend there is a pre-evolutionary process to the field actions, described by Einstein. I have written about it often, but never have worked it into a formal post, as I'm still learning about my own ideas, through editing my notes, and talking/posting to others.]

On the contrary (until further notice), it resolves more problems than it presents... [This may be true for some, but does still present many problems for others. This is why we are all still evolving.]

This is not only the reinstatement of the 'disposed' ('ridiculous') proposition that matter is (electromagnetic, and therefore, unsurprisingly) omnidirectionally accelerating (finding near and far gravity to be the renowned 4 <5 & 6>-D space-time continuum), it also reinstates the Steady State theory - finding what would be the thinning out of ('static') space, not to be (static, or) thinning out, after all.[Rascal, this I can't accept, as I know by just looking at one galaxy, that as more stars are born within it, the aether density increases, thus requiring the slowing of light traveling within that galaxy, and the resulting science would apply to the entire universe. Matter density increase requires the law of density decreasing the velocity of the particles traveling through all such aethers. We can't witness it, as all is happening at once, and our matter density observations control the velocity of such observations, within our own galaxy position, just as Einstein alluded to. And, all incoming light from other galaxies is slowed or accelerated within our frames of references, by our own galaxy's ever changing aether density, as the galaxy evolves over time, through the up and down sides of evolution and decay of. Though its many billions/trillions of years of total evolution and total decay, it's still true. Hope that may clear my position, as to static states.]

You seem preoccupied with the origin of a 'Prime Causative Mover'.
There are some questions for which there may not be any (mortal) answer...[And here is where I say the answers lie. IMO, the pre-evolution of the field is the most important aspect to investigate, to understand what physics already thinks true. Such investigation of pre-field mechanics can open our observational a-priori logic, to understand much deeper than we now do, about, not beginnings of motion, but at best, its earliest thinnest matter/mass density motions and inertias, and I say such a prime mover can a-priori logically be induced, deduced, and abducted. The only scientific proof is going to be the known rate of atomic decay, as I've often mentioned. We do the overall universal math, and we are able to deduce the answers___Huygen's probability math.]

For my part, like matter, the accelerating expansion is inherent to the ground of existentiality (Existential: 'as is').[I would state "as was."] Instilling a posture of seeing matter - and it's inherently accompanying electromagnetic, omnidirectional acceleration - as having always been here (approximately 'as is'; w'out contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy), is no less grounded (and no more or less mysterious) than a posturing of efforts to determine where it 'originated' ('Nothing begets nothing'); ergo, it's here (qua status quo), and always been here (Steady State) and there is no - anthropomorphicaly imposed - 'beginning'.[I am not anthropomorphically imposing original motion/prime mover, but instead suggesting earlier states of field and motion differences of densities/motion requirements, by the already proven laws and clearer fundamental maths of known and probable decay rates, and lesser states of fields, and entropy states, in the long distant past, and the long distant future, where they should meet in the absolute state of entropy, and recycle.]

Your active disfavor - and functional rejection - of the metaphysical school:
handicaps your imagination.[I used to think that same way RP, but after spending almost two years on this board, I've come to realize, all the confusions are between these two fundamental thought processes of meta and science, and chosen to accept both as real, but unfunctionable when united in false resolutions. I now try to use science fundamentals for scinece, though I full well realize, meta has its due, where its due belongs, and IMO, away from science.]

An absolutely established scientifically empirical fact:
begins with 'mere consciousness'.[And you see, I don't even accept consciousness as a valid reality. For somebody to be cognitively conscious of facts through direct perception, is much more a valid scientific foundational process, to me.]
(I think: therefore I am capable of learning and knowing <sequentially>...)[Most of the confusion comes from this very philosophy of DesCartes. I cognize or cognizantly perceive directly, therefore I am capable of learning and knowing, which, to me, is far more scientific. We only know by seeing scientific evidence. To me, it's an evidentiary universe___only.]

Imagination precedes knowledge, by definition...[Of course it does, but that's when we have to make the choice of myth or evidence.]
As sure as the arrow of time, and the transcient dispersal of energy.[And again, but science requires evidence.]

Regarding considerations of 'no motion'.
Until further notice there is no motionless platform from which to deliver this timeless premise.[I have never advocated a state of no motion. I have always stated a state of eternal motion, but, ever-changing rates of motion.]
'The void' is a thickly and thinly fortified storm of extremely dynamic fields and waves.
('There is no space empty of field'. - Einstein)[Today, totally agreed, but in the future, when all totally decays, field also must decay, though trillions of trillions of years, in the future, it still must atomically decay. When the matter decays, the field decays___a fact of science.]

Although time and space appear to be endless ('The universe is finite, but unbounded' - Einstein, and, I would add, 'finite in space, but unbounded in time),[And here, you and Einstein, and I differ. As Dave and I have both tried endlessly to show, time is only matter in motion or distance. I say finite in visible matter, and unbounded in invisible matter.] the capacity of this post (70,000 characters?) is not. There is much to talk about, no?[It will take us all a few years to settle our diffs.]

I look forward to further studies of your work, hoping that we may find and share more common grounds, or, better understand our differences.[I also...]

Best regards,
- RP

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

MetaPhysics.

May we find a common ground on 'HypoTheory'?

(Something like 'scientific Tao'? - Earth, Air, Water & Fire?)

They symbiotically go together while remaining antithetically apart, no?[I agree, but common ground is a ways off, I think...]

Lloyd