Hello Dave,
How about a chat on emergence? I’m not talking about a philosophical debate about what consciousness may or may not be. I’m talking about the mechanism within our individual frameworks that allow for the formation of the physical biological bodies of life; the function and the form.
Many theorist get so caught up on focusing on their microcosmic mechanisms (atomic structures), they often neglect the need for the mechanism which builds the obviously needed varying medium densities surrounding the massive bodies/objects such as the galaxies, stars and planets. It is this increased medium density which allows for percieved "energy, gravity, action at a distance" and the next stage of form to develop and propagate. Each massive body provides the environment for the next stage of formation to exist. I like to think of the entire universal framework as an emergent system, whereby the formation of the largest (galaxy) creates the varying medium density surrounding it, from which the next larger formation (stars) emerges within the supplied medium. This continues to create not just more dense formations at the center of the medium, but also the required increasing medium density for the next stage of formation to develop within. In my opinion, without a proper mechanism to describe how this takes place, a framework is destined to failure, because it will never be able to account for the chronology of manifestation. Just as fish wouldn’t be fish without the medium of the ocean to swim in; so to do all more massive bodies require their own relatively dense medium of the fundamentals to exist within, and to emerge from. There is an essential chronological sequence in which our universe was formed, and I feel that the mechanism for life is also explained within this sequence.
This is what I like about our individual frameworks. They don’t just build objects which can theoretically manifest anywhere. They address the medium density needed to manifest the next stage of objects. The fundamentally small comes together to form the largest first; which creates the proper medium density to form the next largest formation; which sets the stage for the next, etc, etc. It is at the stage of our planet that this would seem to reverse, whereby it, and our bodies, seemingly begin to develop in the opposite direction, as is seen by an encapsulating formation of a denser solid to start containing the less dense mediums within it. Generally, the less dense medium contains the denser solid, but the planets would appear to begin the first stages whereby this is reverted to a denser solid vessel (a planet) to start containing the less dense mediums (natural gas, oil, etc.); by which we too eventually appear, through the process of evolution, as our bodies contain the less dense mediums of blood, water, air, etc. We have now taken the emergence of evolution and related it to the more understandable cosmic emergence of our universe.
This is all related to my explanation of relative time, whereby the velocity of the more massive formation moving through the less dense medium determines it’s dimensions, thus emerges relative mechanical time.
Quote:
|
Relative time/motion comes into play as these fundamentals build more massive objects, whereby the object moves with a fraction of the absolute velocity available to it. The fundamental constituents are at absolute velocity, with random direction, within their own space, as they create frequency, but the massive object they form is moving linearly in one direction at a fraction of the available absolute velocity. The increasing ratio of linear forward velocity of the massive object to the absolute velocity of the fundamentals that form it causes for the retraction of the size of the object, due to decreasing the frequency of random directional motion. This gives rise to the relativity of mechanical time. As the acceleration of a massive object nears the speed of light, it is actually causing the fundamentals that form it to move more linearly as a whole, whereby the frequency at which they are traveling at other random directions is reduced, and the whole massive formation reaches closer to the available absolute velocity. Light speed is reached when fundamental particle frequency becomes zero (thus one degree of freedom) and all the fundamentals are continuously moving in the same linear direction, but there's more to the acceleration of a massive object, which I won't bore you with.
|
I realize the importance of motion and its obvious absolute state within our universe, and in doing so I realize that there is an underlying fundamental entity which is just as important; that entity is
direction. The dynamics of one massive object moving another, then becomes one massive object transferring the directional linear motions of the fundamentals that form it onto the object which it is moving. The prime mover within our increasingly equalizing universe isn’t the absolute motions of the fundamentals; it’s the transference of direction which brings order to this chaos, as random motions become organized linear motions, which forms more massive formations, which can be further directionally imposed upon to accelerate through the medium which they would often otherwise find relative rest within. Direction within our individual frameworks of absolute motion is the entropy of classical thermodynamics. I assume the direction of your framework comes from the initial collision, as all transferences of direction, from that point on, are in accordance with bringing the fundamental aether back to its original state of uniform linear motion (one degree of freedom).
My search for direction within my framework is what prompts me to explore this emergence topic. Are we a part of transferring this cosmic direction, whereby we become the carrier particles to help this planet where it’s headed? How much impact are we having on our whole universal system, not just our planet? Could we be the apex formation where a steady state type framework is allowed to eternally cycle? Do the fundamentals come together through random motions individually inward towards the center of galaxies; thus they gather within that medium as massive formations whereby, as a collective unit, they can slowly propagate back outward, through the incoming medium of the less dense, in the stages of stars and planets; allowing for cycles rather than an eventual static equilibrium; life being the formation which aids the massive formations (planets) in redispersing its fundamental constituents back without, as we remove the needed internal substances from their trapped position within the center, which allows for the apparent progression of decay of a planet? Is this why the planets appear to be progressively decaying as they reside further from the sun?
Perhaps when we stop trying to make the sun go around the earth; thus forcing existence to orbit around life; we will open our eyes to the realization that we are merely an equal part of the mechanism, which allows for everything (not just us) to be, and our task here isn’t functionless; we must actually do and be doing our job.
If we are ever to explain the emergence of life within a universe, we must first acknowledge the universal framework which defines its function; the mechanism for the arrangement of its form should then be obvious.
What's your take?
regards,
Tim
P.S. Merry birthday, Dave. I hope your ever increasing age doesn’t hinder your desperately needed ability to keep us all in-line here, whereby not letting this entire forum slip further into the realm of abstract obscurity.


