[dipayankar]

Dave's views is making sense now. Void as we consider it would be filled with EM radiation and since energy and matter are interconvertable, it could 'create' matter. However it would be interesting to see how a void devoid of any EM radiation would behave..

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I can see your point about using absolute as an adjective, Dave. Very clearly actually, because when I usually use the term it pertains to non-existence.

Though it could also be used to separate substrata, like a room for example being flooded with water (electromagnetic radiation) would have the room itself as its substratum or more specifically the air in the room. I know you meant that the radiation would pertain more to a state of the water, but I just wanted to give an example of more refined layers that have been proposed to me in the past. Layers that can be refined - H2O, O, H... - where we could say that hydrogen exists within all atoms. Further, could less massive atoms exist within hydrogen? Why not?

Even if that were possible, the bottom line is that there has to be a motionless medium for any sensory motion to be possible. Otherwise, if someone were to stand in front of you and attempt to push you, you would move before you were even touched. And my point here, Dave, is relatively simple: if every point in space must be motionless, all observations of motion must be incremental re-creations. Wavelengths included, must be recreated measurements between two abstract points. Abstract, because the points must be non-dimensional.

I couldn't tell by your response, though, if the EM-filled void you mentioned is the same as the void in your thread title. I'm assuming they are different.

Just one more thing, if I may, the point you made about the "short increment of time" can express my point even clearer actually. If short-lived particles are a necessary factor of longer-living particles, is it fair to say that no particles is a necessay factor in creating time-dependent particles? Or, put another way, what would be a fair estimate of the shortest-living particles?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

First of all Nobody, unless you are creating your own definitions, “absolute” cannot apply as an adjective to either space nor vacuum. Both are inundated with electromagnetic radiation (a state of fundamental matter) and thus both have the raw material to form what we know of as particles; even if it is for a short increment of time to call them virtual. An absolute void would not even have this state of the fundamental substance of the universe. It is the PLACE where a vacuum, space, and everything else occupies a tinny volume.

Ah David, your religion of knowing the unknown far exceeds your thread's title. To state electromagnetic radiation is a state of fundamental matter, steps a bit beyond the pale of present scientific knowledge___heat radiation, possible, yes___but, electromagnetic radiation as a fundamental state of matter, is IMO, where you continue to violate the present possession of human knowledge facts. You must show scientifically/mechanically how the universe's first required heat/velocity, which must precede electromagnetism, creates the very electromagnetism, you suggest/suppose, is a fundamental state of matter... And, to state an absolute void would occupy a tinny volume is the same mistake science has been making for about the last 100 years. Remember absolute void must also be made of something to exist, and must also be infinite to exist. When you can fit this into your model, it will start to make more sense, and not until...

The absolute fundamentals are far more tricky, than you have thus far, surmised...

Lloyd

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

The absolute fundamentals are far more tricky, than you have thus far, surmised...

Lloyd;
The absolute fundamentals are actually quite simple; it’s natures smoke and mirrors that make them appear tricky. Maybe I should say it’s the terms we give to the measurements that make it appear tricky. Once you know the trick, the magic disappears. You need to stop using the magic as an explanation of natural phenomena. You are still giving explanations using science terminology you only think you understand.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Lloyd;
The absolute fundamentals are actually quite simple; it’s natures smoke and mirrors that make them appear tricky. Maybe I should say it’s the terms we give to the measurements that make it appear tricky. Once you know the trick, the magic disappears. You need to stop using the magic as an explanation of natural phenomena. You are still giving explanations using science terminology you only think you understand.

We see the universe linguistically different, David. And it is mainly linguistics that separates most of our science. I say the fundamental linguistics must be dealt with first, but you have never wanted too. I think you see absolute motion as velocity/speed, and I see it as quantity/light velocity everywhere, from low entropy/slow speed, to high entropy/high speed, to low entropy/low speed again, yet existing in its changing velocity states throughout the entire universe. If I'm not mistaken, you see it as a fixed amount of high velocity motion/energy, and I can not support such an unknowable conclusion. The entire macro-logical history of matter decay time/distances/velocities/mass does not support such correspondence science, which I know to be scientifically true, by the correspondence facts of micro-state physics, to macro-state physics comparisons. If you'd ever take the time to see there's much more to matter density facts, than thus far you are willing to admit, you'd quite easily see it offers much to explain, and further prove, the micro-state facts, through the macro-state facts. It also successfully unites classical, quantum and relative physics models.

You seem to think electro-magnetism is a universal fundamental, and I certainly do not___Neither did Wheeler, as he continued to question the universal circuitry to his dying day. I continue to state that, the matter density model of finite universal decay physics, clearly shows the requirement of a real physical sized singularity/big bang or small bangs reality, to create the fundamental forces of motion, except kinetic energy, to begin any real visible universe. Without such a singularity, or set of singularities, there's only dark thermo-hydro-dynamic-kinetic matter/energy, before first light and em-rads. This is exactly and all the macro-model of the total universal evolution shows...

BTW, "Matter is everything in a void___Absolutely." Also, measurement can be most accurately grounded in a new gauge theory of universal decay, with its "set" being that of a variable speed of light over universal evolution___All the most accepted laws and math of standard and quantum physics applies. A variable c model allows proofs of all physics' anomalies, once and for all. The tick-tick-tick of the cesium clock, still has the most to offer to science proofs___Matter density controls the tick-velocity...

Lloyd

p.s.
I have all the proofs in my notes David, but they are still too scattered for me to put it all in a single post. In about two to three months time, I should have all my notes edited, and a statement of facts will then be available for posting. Sorry for only the partial story, but my mind can not possibly sort all the notes at this time, into more sensible posts. I do realize the proofs exist in my notes, as I've re-edited them about three times now, but can't quite remember the important points and laws, from some 500 pages of mixed notes. I experienced the same thing while editing my economic and philosophical ideas, until I had reduced the notes to bare essentials, that are more easily decipherable, so for now that's it...

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

BTW, "Matter is everything in a void___Absolutely." Also, measurement can be most accurately grounded in a new gauge theory of universal decay, with its "set" being that of a variable speed of light over universal evolution___All the most accepted laws and math of standard and quantum physics applies. A variable c model allows proofs of all physics' anomalies, once and for all. The tick-tick-tick of the cesium clock, still has the most to offer to science proofs___Matter density controls the tick-velocity...

Lloyd

Good morning Lloyd,

I am trying to understand your belief in measure, and am having some difficulty moving beyond what I have found as truth, the certainty of equality. If you might clarify or tidy up a couple of questions for me, it might help me move on to a world of certain divided difference, a place of inequity, where you think.

Are you saying in the above quote you believe the absolute certainty of measured differences in nature can be achieved by the use of all the measuring tools that you list? That measure is absolute using gauge theory, universal decay, set, variable speed of light, universal evolution, most laws of math, standard and quantum mechanics? That a varible c, and the noise of a clock, is the proof or truth that we are looking for?

WOW!

Do I have that right?

If not, perhaps you could help me understand. I simply believe measure has no certainty, and knows with certainty, that there inlies the flaw. That all the measuring tools that you list and any others you haven't, only take you with obscuring complexity, futher from the truth.

Thanks for your help,

MJA

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
What I’ve been trying to get across is that when we talk about terminology of measurement such as temperature, voltage, flux, pressure, and so on, we are talking about a specific distribution of absolute motion within a system. Though I suppose all motion can be viewed as velocity if you make the time increment short enough, Absolute motion in most systems is a distribution consisting of various types of motion. Wave motion is the predominant type of motion but linear and angular are also types of motion. The primary thing to remember is that uniform motion results in the property of matter we call inertia and thus it is this motion that gives us our concept of MASS. Wave symmetry is a type of uniform motion and it is this type that produces our concepts of point particles.

Those who understand wave mechanics quickly grasp the interactions of fundamental matter when the concept of absolute motion and self-affinity properties are applied. Attempting to discuss wave mechanic with novice members has proven to be far to difficult, so I have kept the discussions more simplified. Temperature and pressure have no relevance when we view reality at its most fundamental levels, just as computer programming languages have no relevance when you discuss the bits and bytes level of machine code. You seem to be the one who wishes to discuss fundamentals using the higher level terminology, not me. At this fundamental level you can only view motion and bonding properties as being significant.

[dipayankar]

Electromagnetism has to be a fundamental force in the Universe else the atoms would break down. And no atom means no matter...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

We see the universe linguistically different, David. And it is mainly linguistics that separates most of our science. I say the fundamental linguistics must be dealt with first, but you have never wanted too. I think you see absolute motion as velocity/speed, and I see it as quantity/light velocity everywhere, from low entropy/slow speed, to high entropy/high speed, to low entropy/low speed again, yet existing in its changing velocity states throughout the entire universe. If I'm not mistaken, you see it as a fixed amount of high velocity motion/energy, and I can not support such an unknowable conclusion. The entire macro-logical history of matter decay time/distances/velocities/mass does not support such correspondence science, which I know to be scientifically true, by the correspondence facts of micro-state physics, to macro-state physics comparisons. If you'd ever take the time to see there's much more to matter density facts, than thus far you are willing to admit, you'd quite easily see it offers much to explain, and further prove, the micro-state facts, through the macro-state facts. It also successfully unites classical, quantum and relative physics models.

You seem to think electro-magnetism is a universal fundamental, and I certainly do not___Neither did Wheeler, as he continued to question the universal circuitry to his dying day. I continue to state that, the matter density model of finite universal decay physics, clearly shows the requirement of a real physical sized singularity/big bang or small bangs reality, to create the fundamental forces of motion, except kinetic energy, to begin any real visible universe. Without such a singularity, or set of singularities, there's only dark thermo-hydro-dynamic-kinetic matter/energy, before first light and em-rads. This is exactly and all the macro-model of the total universal evolution shows...

BTW, "Matter is everything in a void___Absolutely." Also, measurement can be most accurately grounded in a new gauge theory of universal decay, with its "set" being that of a variable speed of light over universal evolution___All the most accepted laws and math of standard and quantum physics applies. A variable c model allows proofs of all physics' anomalies, once and for all. The tick-tick-tick of the cesium clock, still has the most to offer to science proofs___Matter density controls the tick-velocity...

Lloyd

p.s.
I have all the proofs in my notes David, but they are still too scattered for me to put it all in a single post. In about two to three months time, I should have all my notes edited, and a statement of facts will then be available for posting. Sorry for only the partial story, but my mind can not possibly sort all the notes at this time, into more sensible posts. I do realize the proofs exist in my notes, as I've re-edited them about three times now, but can't quite remember the important points and laws, from some 500 pages of mixed notes. I experienced the same thing while editing my economic and philosophical ideas, until I had reduced the notes to bare essentials, that are more easily decipherable, so for now that's it...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Electromagnetism has to be a fundamental force in the Universe else the atoms would break down. And no atom means no matter...

Dip, I have to disagree with you on this one. Since the photon has never truly been identified, specifically, it may exist as the absolute fundamental non-electromagnetic substance, and this is the foundation of my whole thought processes. Since uncertainty still holds the photon's exact description blind to us, I state such a fundamental substance absolutely must exist, to found and ground all physical theories of matter.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And David, you are just trying to shunt everything out into QM, again. You accept QM as your fundamental method of seeing the universe, and I use CM(celestial mechanics) as my preferred method of fundamental understanding of seeing the universe. Your statement, "Temperature and pressure have no relevance when we view reality at its most fundamental levels...", is wrong and has no relavance to my way of seeing the most fundamental level. According to your way of looking at the universe, temperatures and pressures would have no affect on gasses,{ridiculous} which are most likely the most fundamental of substances, and I mean what helium and hydrogen may possibly break down too, he4-7 and h3-4 etc. Physics is only on the cutting edge of such scientific breakthroughs, and as you yourself have admitted, the FS you talk about may be a non-viscous fluid. Well, what to hell is a gas, if not a non-viscous fluid, and they've already been discovered in four areas of solid physics experiments? David, your non-viscous fluid FS may even be a photonic gas or yet undiscovered plasma??? This is what we need be looking at, then you may understand why temperature and pressure are so important to fundamental levels of any sound first physics theory or fact...

The fundamental is a minimum of two sources, maybe more___My choice remains, Thermal, A FS, and their motion dynamics. Thermal absolutely must be one first, as it's verifiable by decay mechanics science, math and facts. And, You have no other science possible to produce Cold, since your absolute motion is always heat, by scientific necessity???

Lloyd

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Lloyd;
What I’ve been trying to get across is that when we talk about terminology of measurement such as temperature, voltage, flux, pressure, and so on, we are talking about a specific distribution of absolute motion within a system. Though I suppose all motion can be viewed as velocity if you make the time increment short enough, Absolute motion in most systems is a distribution consisting of various types of motion. Wave motion is the predominant type of motion but linear and angular are also types of motion. The primary thing to remember is that uniform motion results in the property of matter we call inertia and thus it is this motion that gives us our concept of MASS. Wave symmetry is a type of uniform motion and it is this type that produces our concepts of point particles.

Those who understand wave mechanics quickly grasp the interactions of fundamental matter when the concept of absolute motion and self-affinity properties are applied. Attempting to discuss wave mechanic with novice members has proven to be far to difficult, so I have kept the discussions more simplified. Temperature and pressure have no relevance when we view reality at its most fundamental levels, just as computer programming languages have no relevance when you discuss the bits and bytes level of machine code. You seem to be the one who wishes to discuss fundamentals using the higher level terminology, not me. At this fundamental level you can only view motion and bonding properties as being significant.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Though I suppose all motion can be viewed as velocity if you make the time increment short enough,

Dave ... could you expand on this a bit more ??

greg