[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Unlike time and space, matter does not have an intuitive axiomatic concept or definition. Matter is something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body or the universe as a whole. In physics it is an entity displaying gravitation and inertia when at rest as well as when in motion. This definition implies an intuitive understanding of our universe and infers that matter cannot exist without displaying gravitation and inertia at some condition of rest and motion. Let's provide an absolute definition for matter and state that "Matter is the fundamental substance of the universe". This doesn't seem to invoke awe and amazement, but it does invoke a vision of something that everything is made of and this is the only physical stuff of the universe. As such we must redefine our notions of mass and energy. Absolute Matter is the fundamental substance of which all physical entities acquire form and existence. Only the Void exists as a separate entity within an infinite cosmos.

Hi Dave, as you stated to Baud, "::What you state is simply a hypotheses or theory, NO FACT OR PROOF. Have we sent a craft far enough to test that concept? As I've stated many times: "any concept of a beginning is beyond proof". My concept is as good, and possibly better, than current concepts.::" the same statement also applies to your own statement, does it not?

Epistemologically, we can not know what or which is first and fundamental, matter or energy - OR? To me though, the only logic that makes sense is that the infinite energy singularity produced finite matter in the infinite space/void. This is simply my observation of the facts when I look up, and also of what I know of cosmology and physics histories, theories and maths. Can I prove any of it? No? Can anyone? I think not! Logical mathematical truth is the intuitive grand mystery - so far!

regards

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi Dave, as you stated to Baud, "::What you state is simply a hypotheses or theory, NO FACT OR PROOF. Have we sent a craft far enough to test that concept? As I've stated many times: "any concept of a beginning is beyond proof". My concept is as good, and possibly better, than current concepts.::" the same statement also applies to your own statement, does it not?

Quite true. I still think mine is better.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Epistemologically, we can not know what or which is first and fundamental, matter or energy

Here I must disagree. Matter is the entity; Energy is the quantitative measured phenomena of the motion of matter called a "dimension". Review my thread "Dimensions and Entities".

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Quite true. I still think mine is better. Here I must disagree. Matter is the entity; Energy is the quantitative measured phenomena of the motion of matter called a "dimension". Review my thread "Dimensions and Entities".

Just as I said; "Epistemologically, we can not know what or which is first and fundamental, matter or energy." Dave, I strongly disagree with your knowing of a fact that any sane mind knows can not yet be known. Logic looking at itself inside its own intellect is not truth. Epistemology is still king. We can not yet know much of what we think we know... Your "Dimensions and Entities" is just such a logical construct of your own ego-intellect. I wish we could know this much, but on the other hand, my self-egoist logic tells me matter production before energy is foolish, but I can not know this, and I know I can not know it. This is the trouble with particle first thinkers, I think we should all pay closer attention to Einstein's investigations over his entire life. He never could discover this central truth, and neither has anyone else, yet...!

So, think what you wish; I just see it as intellect inside intellect, worshipping itself, so far...!

regards

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Just as I said; "Epistemologically, we can not know what or which is first and fundamental, matter or energy."

Lloyd;
If you wish to discuss philosophy of knowledge, may I suggest you use the Philosophy Forum.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Your "Dimensions and Entities" is just such a logical construct of your own ego-intellect.

Oh you have shattered my ego; I don't know how I'll continue now that I know I cannot know. That sound like a paradox to me.
Sorry Lloyd but your claim of physics as one of you specialties is obviously FALSE. You may wish to do further study before making such a claim.
Don't worry Lloyd, I don't take offence by your comments; I've been called foolish and other things by better armatures than you.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry Dave, for you being so immature. You have proved my point of ego looking at itself, inside its own ego, thanks. You know, if you wanted anyone to believe in you, the number one quality is an understanding personality, not one of bulldozer confrontation. Oh BTW, meta-physics is a branch of physics. There is no way to understand it without such investigations, but since you don't want to learn such ideas, less power to you. Although, I would suggest you realize truth is larger than ego. The web is full of egoists getting angry like you. This proves nothing except the weakness of your ideas... There is no way to argue with science you don't have - period. And BTW, there are no paradoxes, only those foolish enough to state falsely, or cognize falsely... May I suggest you introduce yourself to anger management classes, or just paddle around in your false consciousness of self-exaggerated ego... Don't bother responding, even though I know you must; the insult game of egos is an infinite regression of utter childish foolishness...

"Anger can never make false ideas true." me

regards

[dleviwing]

Actually Lloyd; I am not angered. Quite the contrary, I am very amused at your posts and my response was one of sarcastic humor. It would appear that you however are taking all of this far too seriously. Lighten up Old Man.

[dleviwing]

You can't have "energy" unless you have motion.
You can't have motion unless you have something physical to move.
Since fundamental matter is the only physical substance, then only one of two things are possible:
1.. Motion has always been a property of matter (Absolute Motion) and thus both are simultaneous. However energy is not an entity, it is a measure of motion which is a property of matter. Motion state is mass, motion change is energy.
2.. Somehow motion was imposed on matter.

#1 would be my choice!
Hypothetically it is possible to have matter without energy, but you cannot have energy without matter.

[subversion]

I agree you cannot have energy without matter, but would it also mean that you can't have matter without energy? Indeed, isn't it true that matter without energy would be at absolute zero temperature, an impossibility? So how can you state that energy requires matter but matter does not require energy if matter always has energy?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing You can't have "energy" unless you have motion. You can't have motion unless you have something physical to move. Since fundamental matter is the only physical substance, then only one of two things are possible: 1.. Motion has always been a property of matter (Absolute Motion) and thus both are simultaneous. However energy is not an entity, it is a measure of motion which is a property of matter. Motion state is mass, motion change is energy. 2.. Somehow motion was imposed on matter. #1 would be my choice! Hypothetically it is possible to have matter without energy, but you cannot have energy without matte.

Dave, could you please re-define matter, even though you have, not thoroughly enough, I think. Is wave motion matter? Is the void matter? Is space matter? Also, would you please give the many deffinitions of energy, again? There seems to be much confusion in this area by all parties, especially since wave/motion into matter/particles/energy is matter to me. It's more a simultaneous process, than a discreet entity, to me. When you're at the singularity level, extreme discretion of deffinition is required not to creat multiple interpretations by others, than the speaker means. As I've quoted from someone else, "One can explain things to someone else, one can not understand for someone else."

Does infinite origin space require opposing energies? Are there two energies, at the origin, as verses one, i.e., the energy created by the natural state of zero temp, and the resultant of said process of naturally required compression? When the sattelite probe, "Huygens" touched down on the moon of Saturn, it broadcast for 158 minutes, some very interesting data, i.e., 300f degrees below zero and liquid methane rivers and lakes, filmed... Is there energy of motion? And, is there energy of pure space motion, created wave structured matter? Is there pure energy of pure space? Is the void the same as infinite space? Does the compression of zero temperature on infinite space create energy of and or in the void? We now know it turns methane to liquid on the solid matter moon of Saturn. What else is happening there, since it is the closest similarly known analogy we have to universal origin, and also life origin here on earth? I think there is still much more here to be explored, than has thus far been done by any of us...

And I have read just about everything you have published since joining. It's just I still feel more clarity is required of your universal origin theoretical observations, since I've mentioned, singularity discussion is so easily variably interpreted... I know you have stated you are putting it across as a theoretical possibility of SR, GR and QM in classical language, yet I still think it requires more explicit deffinitions of just the basic wording... We have all got to agree on a wording of deffinitions in the area of singularities, so we don't continue to make false understandings. The present state of dictionaries is inadequate for such singularity required universal deffinitions. Herein lies the problem... I have run into this already, just talking to a Buddhist friend of mine, probably some three years ago... Singularity communications is tricky, very tricky...

regards

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
The problem with putting things in threads and posts, is that they are scattered throughout the forums. I will attempt to place the basic concepts and definitions in my journal pages. It is rather extensive but it will bring most of the ideas of my posts into one location that you can cut and paste to read at your leisure. Once my son completes the artwork and illustrations for me, I will consider placing it in the ToeQuest articles.

I have placed the first two section in my journal. You will need to use your imagination for the missing illustrations figures.