Absolute Fundamentals

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I came across this site during a browsing of various wave types. It seems there is a Frenchman with similar views to my own.

G.LaFreniere

Geoff Haselhurst

Milo Wolff

These are links to sites about the wave structure of matter, from the professional physicists view of 83 year old Milo Wolff, and friends. This is the theory I also have the most hope of being completed. Very sensible as it now stands.

Regards,
LLoyd

[dleviwing]

Thanks Lloyd;
I have been a supporter of Milo Wolff's concepts of standing waves for many years. He is the closest of anyone I've seen so far; He is only lacking the understanding of fundamental matter itself and how it is influenced by motion.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A Scenario of Absolute Fundamentals for the Creation of the Universe.

Let's try to create a new scenario to explain the observed expansion of the universe and maybe some of the other phenomena while we're at it.
Absolute motion and how it is distributed between wave and uniform motion is the key to understanding most all physical phenomena.

Areed!

regards

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
Expansion is the destructive wave interference that distributes matter over greater volumes; This accounts for all repulsive forces. Gravity like all the attractive forces is the process of constructive wave interference that imparts uniform motion on matter and condenses it to smaller volumes until it acquires wave symmetry to produce particle structure. This occurs in stages of odd and even harmonic waves similar to what Milo states for standing waves. The interference patterns form domains of matter that are often interpreted as "Photons", "Bosons", or some other "force particle" by the particle physicist.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Lloyd;
Expansion is the destructive wave interference that distributes matter over greater volumes; This accounts for all repulsive forces. Gravity like all the attractive forces is the process of constructive wave interference that imparts uniform motion on matter and condenses it to smaller volumes until it acquires wave symmetry to produce particle structure. This occurs in stages of odd and even harmonic waves similar to what Milo states for standing waves. The interference patterns form domains of matter that are often interpreted as "Photons", "Bosons", or some other "force particle" by the particle physicist.

This may be true Dave, but I am still sceptical of any theory that is yet unprovable with true testable mathematics... Also as I've posted elsewhere, expansion is not proven, yet, although I do think the universe is expanding by other forces, i.e., the births of many new galaxies throughout the coldest regions of infinite space. I think this in turn pushes the galaxies apart as they heat up that particular region of space, just theory though, but it makes perfect scientific sense, as space density warms, it must expand - Kelvin is a long way from the temp of suns. This is why I've mentioned elswhere to you, that temp is a key factor of the singularity's[infinite space's] growth. The physics conferences have been simply voting on expansion for years ... The jury is still out on gravity also, but I will consider thinking about this more carefully.

"We truly know so little, we all must keep an open mind." me

regards

[dleviwing]

Until you relate temperature to thermodynamics and the degree of freedom, it really has no relevance to the universe. If you wish to compare temperature to wave mechanics then the universe is cooling to longer wavelengths. In reference to my previous post, this is space made up of larger bosons and thus less spatial matter per volume.
Another problem with this concept is that it infers that solar objects are imparting substance into the universe to cause expansion while gravity infers objects are removing substance from the universe and should cause collapse. Personally I view gravity as removing substance from the universe to form particulate matter of short wavelength function and leaving only substance with longer wavelength functions as space and thus expansion.

I've stated many times that a beginning is not provable. So we agree on the need of experimentations and the math.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Until you relate temperature to thermodynamics and the degree of freedom, it really has no relevance to the universe.I've stated many times that a beginning is not provable.

Well Dave, I would relate temp to thermodynamics as you state, but we have no proven science about Kelvin, only differing arguments, so my idea, as yet, must remain idea. And as to beginning, I think you are misinterpreting me here, also. I only mean reducing the absolutes as far as is logically possible, and not necessarily creation, unless logical reduction accidently goes there... As a further extension of the idea, instead of the eternal existing space substance you conjecture, I have theorized much lesser reductions of space substance even to the single wave propagation of self-circuitry. Of course, it's only theorizing, but the doubt of the faithist's camel can stick his nose under the larger erected tent of your space substance. You may not care, but my greater agenda is communication solutions between the world's religions and sciences, i.e., a true union if possible. This requires the deeper investigation of absolutes, to the truest absolutes possible. If any absolute can be reduced, or converted by doubt of any kind, we still have work to do. Therefore I choose to keep investigating much, much deeper...

Just stating a beginning is not provable is just conjecture, so far...
"Logic grows every year. Where it ends, no one knows." me

regards

[dleviwing]

If you read my journal you will recall I view the first "wave propagation" as you put it, as the result of a collision of fundamental matter quantities with absolute linear velocity. Just as your first wave propagation infers a beginning so does the collision scenario and thus they are not provable.

"but we have no proven science about Kelvin"

What do you mean by this. Are you referring to the temperature scale, the man, or the absolute zero temperature point? The scale is a defined incremental temperature measurement and not subject to proof; its just a definition. Its accuracy as to what actually constitutes absolute zero however, is indeed questionable.

As far as achieving a union between science and religion; I think only an intervention of their god will accomplish that. There will be a god as long as there are fools to donate their money and those who fear death.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If you read my journal you will recall I view the first "wave propagation" as you put it, as the result of a collision of fundamental matter quantities with absolute linear velocity. Just as your first wave propagation infers a beginning so does the collision scenario and thus they are not provable.

All I mean Dave is that we do not yet know this, as I have learned through history that logic itself sometimes becomes its own proof, as an example many of the fundamental axioms of mathematics and philosophy. Many are just self-evident proofs. Future logical creations can also possess such character. Though I do admit it's rare today, but it does still happen, i.e., new ways discovered to use math and logic combos, and even entirely new math and logic systems, most likely will be invented. Then watch out world - here comes the real TOE...!

What do you mean by this. Are you referring to the temperature scale, the man, or the absolute zero temperature point? The scale is a defined incremental temperature measurement and not subject to proof; its just a definition. Its accuracy as to what actually constitutes absolute zero however, is indeed questionable.

That's all I meant. The accuracy of what actually constitutes absolute zero is indeed questionable.

As far as achieving a union between science and religion; I think only an intervention of their god will accomplish that. There will be a god as long as there are fools to donate their money and those who fear death.

Again as I said, none of us knows what new math and logic systems are in the making. Just as Guille has mentioned, he is working toward creating just such logic and math systems of philosophy, as in his case, a more metaphysical one. I, on the other hand, am working on both sides of the equation, logic and metaphysics.

Intervention of gods is VooDoo to me also, but I am much more lenient toward those who need belief systems of such, to fall back on when science takes all their natural beliefs away. The secular can be awful rude and powerful at destroying the natural mind's ability to survive in public. I don't think any of us should make the mistakes of Hegel and Wittgenstein, who both pushed it so far they have been laughed off the face of the earth by all sensible natural caring people. This is an area I respect the likes of Charles Sanders Peirce, who defended the god-fearing even though he personally was a non-god-fearing scientist. He was a truly wise man, and mathematical logical genius, to boot.

Have a good un,
Lloyd

[Eric]

Dave,

I keep noticing that thoughts regarding the big bang always include a pre-existent component.

But wouldn't it be logical to say that empty space (void), location within it, that which is located, and change of location (movement) are all equal and different components?

In other words, isn't it all about understanding the juncture of finite and infinite, with all things including time, being infinite on one side of the juncture and finite on the other?

Eric