[N0B0DY]

Another point taken about the motion within the atom, Dave, though is the motion actually random or just particular? If only in the analogous sense that "random" rolls of dice produce results based on particular conditions. If all conditions were to be exactly replicated, then the results would be the same.

I don't know if I can get my head around a constant linear velocity unless we're defining absolute differently. Is it possible that angular velocities are too short-lived to be detectible or that they are considered negligible? Otherwise, why would there be molecular decay?

The absolute motionlessness I'm referring to is like either two cars travelling side-by-side at exactly the same speed; or with regards to wave propagation, the fundamental medium that differentiates velocities in order to allow for motion. If in both cases it is considered that the medium must carry throughout all measurements, in order for there to possibly be measured incremental motion, all wave motion can be thought of as absolutely negated by the medium. The medium - time - is the sole factor for creating both space and matter/waves in motion.

I appreciate your sense of support, btw.

[everymansmedium]

Hello friends
I normally spend more time here reading than I do posting. But every now and again I feel compelled.
Most of this is on subject. Some I felt needed to be said, after reading the complete post.
IMO.
If we are disconnected from all of our senses that enable us to experience this world. What would we have left as real. Only what was real all along. The I AM. The being, the consciousness, and the TIME it takes to conceive that thought. The I AM is the being, is the consciousness, and it exists in time, it needs not space except for the space required to store the data that is the recording of the experience. That only requires a single dimensional strand of space formatted as to the events in time. This is the simplest form of possible existence. We are at least this.
The infinite void is an oxy moron.
The void is nothing = 0 Our thoughts that if there is nothing, then we might put something there, is a thought that is logically relative to existing in space. The void is not space, you can not put anything in it as it does not exist. If you were to walk into it. It would feel as a solid. Much in the same way as space without time is a solid. About motion and time, There has been much talk about relating time to motion and motion to time. You may say that motion can not exist without time. But you can not say the reverse of this. What you are leaving out of your resources to draw from is that which has been directly eliminated by the originator of this thread. Consciousness is a necessary part of the formulation of the concept of this existence medium that you have yet to define. You will never do so without the consideration of consciousness. Also sense you can not separate the idea of consciousness from spirit you can not leave that out either, or you end up with fewer tools than is necessary to complete your task. Leaving you to be, if you will excuse the pun “ a few French fry’s short of a happy meal.” Why must you consider consciousness? Because the being also exists in time and will continue to be as long as there is time to be in, without any regard to motion what so ever. No matter how hard you try, you can not forget the I AM. This is the beginning of all we are. No matter how hard the capital based education systems try to remove the idea of divinity, or anything that even remotely resembles same it will be necessary for them to face reality sooner or later. My goodness that seems to me, what they normally say to those that feel that there might be something of value in the idea of divinity. Well it seems that the statement can go both ways.

This is about motion, this is about time, this is also about consciousness that without which you would not be having this thread. If you leave out one of the variables your result will be wrong. Maybe this is why we never seem to find anything but complexities that take us nowhere.
It seems our foundation of science is beginning to take on the habits of our old religions. With the thought of reverence to its founders we must never let anyone have ideas that will cause us to examine our own reality to find that the faults may be within. Nothing is perfect, If you believe it to be you will never remove the faults that prevent progress.
Also remember those you have reverence for would be the first to abandon the system to find truth, this is why we hold them as givers of truth.
If any wish to respond to my statement you may do so here if it relates to time and motion. consciousness was only brought out here to show it as relative to time without the need to see motion. indicating that time is more basic than motion.
John..

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
Your example of absolute motionlessness is actually “relative motionlessness”.

Let’s assume that “Absolute Motion” is equal to 2c. This means if we take the sum of all the wave motions (random and uniform), all the angular motions, and all the linear motions of any autonomous system of FS it sums to the value of 2c. We cannot change this total value. If we look at the total motions of a proton system it is 2c. If we look only at a quark system the total motions are also equivalent to 2c. If we accelerate the proton to the speed of light then it only has 1c of motion to be distributed among the other forms of motion that sustain physical structure. Accelerate the proton to 2c and all its FS is condensed and it no longer has any structure; it is a particle of FS with infinite mass (mathematically only). We would need something that already has this absolute linear motion to be able to accelerate something else such as the proton or electron to 2c; that’s why we are limited to “c”. Linear velocity is only one type of uniform motion.

************************************************** *****
John;(everymansmedium)
I appreciate your post but I find no scientific relevance to you views. If you wish to discuss metaphysics or theology there are several forums provided for such discussions.

I have read your web site and I’m quite sure you DO NOT want to solicit neither my opinions nor my comments. I am not as tolerant of such nonsense as some others are! Please don’t take my frankness personally. There are many on ToeQuest that share you views; I’m just not one of them.

You are right that some view science as a religion but they are the one’s that get on TV. For example: M-theory originally was a joke for “Moronic-Theory” before it was restated as “membrain-theory”. If you know science then you tend to ignore all the jerks; both the educated and uneducated.


BTW: Your theory is not the oldest on record. Mine is 15 years before yours and Aristotle’s is several thousand years before either of us.

[everymansmedium]

Hello David:
This is your remark:

Originally Posted by dleviwing

I have read your web site and I’m quite sure you DO NOT want to solicit neither my opinions nor my comments. I am not as tolerant of such nonsense as some others are! Please don’t take my frankness personally. There are many on ToeQuest that share you views; I’m just not one of them.

To the contrary David. I have been listening to that cop out for years. People learn from the critique of others. It is not an emotional issue. I do not take your answer personally, how could I you have no idea who I am, beyond what you find here on the web. I also have no idea who you are, nor does it make any difference to me. If you can say something constructive be my guest. That is why I am here in hopes of finding people who are intelligent enough to improve my thoughts and theory. Can you be constructive or are you always just aggressive. I am both.
John

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium

To the contrary David. I have been listening to that cop out for years.

Too much listening and not enough learning then.


John;
To improve your thoughts, I can only suggest you stop believing in magic and start understanding what it is you really know; the things that can be tested and measured. Once you achieve this then you can go on with an understanding of physical reality and advance into the contemplation of the validity of all the belief systems of theology. All you need to learn is the difference between those who feed you facts and those who feed you BS; regardless of their book sales.

I have 21 thread designed to help the novice understand complex terminology in everyday common English. You should start with this one and review the others as you have time. Reading my Toronic blog may also help.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-phenomena/908-dimensions-entities-8.html

[N0B0DY]

"If we accelerate the proton to the speed of light then it only has 1c of motion to be distributed among the other forms of motion that sustain physical structure."

If we assume that absolute motion is 2c, and the proton is part of the absolute universe, wouldn't the sum total of all protonic, photonic and spatial motion equal 2c?

I think you're right about the example, but I don't believe in relativistic absolutes as such. Zeno's examples are along those lines, and there is a fine line dividing them, but I was trying to convey how particles are their own antiparticles, photons especially, how space can serve as both wave and medium, and how the absolute 2c or absolute speed carries throughout all relative measurements of velocity in order for there to be such a possibility as measurement. Both the cars and the medium would be likened to the FS particle, at the absolute 2c, and any reduction creates relativistic mass and velocities - to infinity, but not absolute where everything ceases.

I attempt to equate what is thought to be opposite, which is the reason I was drawn to your statement about the positron and electron - which would equate to the photon. I attempt to equate the 1 and 0, thought motion and body motion, and in this case to equate the exterior of the largest system with the total of the inner systems, as you have.

Eventhough we are assuming that the absolute speed is 2c, I think we can agree that it is zero to match the universe in its entirety. Any relativistic velocity of a system inside would I think be negated by its antivelocity - +-1/2 - to equal zero velocity or absolute speed, no?

[dipayankar]

I prefer it the other way. Time is dependant on motion. Time starts the moment motion begins. If no motion, time is irrelevant...

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

If we assume that absolute motion is 2c, and the proton is part of the absolute universe, wouldn't the sum total of all protonic, photonic and spatial motion equal 2c? ?

Nobody;
You are assuming that each part of FS has a different quantity of motion; that’s not true. Every part of FS has “Absolute Motion”; the sum of the parts do not sum the motion; it only sums the quantity of the substance. Only the types of motion of a unit part sums to the value of AM. Though this is a very simple concept, it becomes confused with our everyday senses that tell us motion varies from one object to another. When we hit a ball with a bat we assume that we impart greater motion onto the ball; we don’t. We simply convert other types of motion imbedded in the atomic structure of the ball to linear velocity. The ball has exactly the same quantity of motion it had while setting in the pitcher’s hand. We say we convert potential energy to kinetic energy or we convert energy to mass; we do not change the quantity of motion possessed by the ball; we have only changed how it is distributed among the types of motion of the ball.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I think you're right about the example, but I don't believe in relativistic absolutes as such. Zeno's examples are along those lines, and there is a fine line dividing them, but I was trying to convey how particles are their own antiparticles, photons especially, how space can serve as both wave and medium, and how the absolute 2c or absolute speed carries throughout all relative measurements of velocity in order for there to be such a possibility as measurement. Both the cars and the medium would be likened to the FS particle, at the absolute 2c, and any reduction creates relativistic mass and velocities - to infinity, but not absolute where everything ceases.

When we separate all the parts of a system we eventually reach a point that the FS cannot be separated any further; this is the fundamental unit of FS that sustains the Absolute Motion; I suspect it has been called a photon, a string, a field, a quark, an electron, and many other names. How many are actually the fundamental unit is not known. Plank’s constant seems to define this final unit of FS at this time.

Electrons, protons, neutrons, and all the other on’s are particle systems, not individual autonomous units of FS.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I attempt to equate what is thought to be opposite, which is the reason I was drawn to your statement about the positron and electron - which would equate to the photon. I attempt to equate the 1 and 0, thought motion and body motion, and in this case to equate the exterior of the largest system with the total of the inner systems, as you have.

Eventhough we are assuming that the absolute speed is 2c, I think we can agree that it is zero to match the universe in its entirety. Any relativistic velocity of a system inside would I think be negated by its antivelocity - +-1/2 - to equal zero velocity or absolute speed, no?

Speed and linear velocity are the same type of motion; stop saying that 2c absolute motion is “SPEED”. No we cannot agree that absolute motion is zero! You are assuming that there exists a positive and negative motion that can cancel each other out. NOT TRUE; nor is there matter and anti-matter that can cancel each other out. Converting FS that is in the state of particles to the state of energy does not cancel the existence of the FS.

************************************************** *****
John;
I have removed your posts since they are not related to the thread theme motion. If you wish to discuss your own concept, please do so on your own thread and I’ll be clad to debate your point of view of consciousness.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

I prefer it the other way. Time is dependant on motion. Time starts the moment motion begins. If no motion, time is irrelevant...

Dip;
Quite correct except time is only a concept used to communicate the action of motion and a clock referenced to the motions of our planet is the device used to measure time to compare motions. A clock can speed up or slow down; the concept can't.

[Profpat]

Hi David;

"Electrons, protons, neutrons, and all the other on’s are particle systems, not individual autonomous units of FS"

I agree with you but strings don't end with on.

Best to you,

Pat