I understand what you are saying, Dave, I really do, and I apologize for making things unclear. You have the added advantage of observation on your side, of which I have no qualms, whereas I am referring to the unobservable unification of motion as a synthesis, not necessarily a cancellation as you infer. Like a synthesis of all relative numbers is absolute zero.
We're talking about very basic stuff, and I am following your implications which is how I have to operate. The zero velocity is one step forward, one step back, which are relative changes in position to equal zero. The absolute speed is its equivalent, essentially stating that there is no such change in position possible for the FS unless it is broken into relative quanta of motion. The linear velocity would require there to be a definite direction of propagation, from pitcher to batter to the fans, but the FS (autonomous motion) is in all three "places" and all "places" in between propagating in all directions. So this latter point, especially, should allow me to infer that there can be no such thing as FS motion because there is no reason for it to have to move, it's already there.
As I would respond to Dip's correct assessment, time, mass, energy, motion, is quantifiable only incrementally - essentially recreated according to mass in motion over spatial quanta. I would ask here, if time is dependent upon motion, what is the cause for the motion if not our arbitrary measuring of measured quanta in motion? If then "force," what is the cause of the force if not our arbitrary measuring of differential forces?
Don't think I'm arguing with you, Dave. I agree with you in how you explain stuff, but understand that there are folks who infer one whole as a type of god and base it on science. So my basic premise is that the fundamental whole, FS, is unbreakable if it is to remain absolutely wholistic. Then god can be equated to zero, as well as science and religion, and the needless theological arguments can cease.
As I’ve stated many times before Pat; I am NOT a fan of string theory. To me the “M” in M-Theory stands for Moronic, not Membrane. The mathematics of strings are only useful when discussing gravity.
If you are one who buys into the hype of alternate dimensions of reality then you have not learned enough about physics but have learned too much about book selling.
If they keep it up though by changing the interpretations, it may eventually mean something. The concept of membranes is moving toward my Toronic concept though.
Nobody;
I think you comprehend what I’ve been saying but you seem to like imposing complexity where is it not needed.
The concept of a deity is only useful for those unable to understand the concepts of right and wrong behavior in a society of human beings. Please don’t bring this concept into the science forums or at least not into my threads again. If a deity exists, it to must be of FS and that is all we can say about it without evidence of the contrary.
[color=#484d53][font=Verdana]As I’ve stated many times before Pat; I am NOT a fan of string theory. To me the “M” in M-Theory stands for Moronic, not Membrane. The mathematics of strings are only useful when discussing gravity.
Actually, there's no general concensus in the stringy world as to what the M stands for. It could stand for membrane, but then in string theory these are more commonly called branes. The M most probably stands for master, or alternatively mystery. I prefer "mathematical," since firstly M theory is not a theory in the general sense of the word, and secondly it's more mathematical than physical!
That said, string theory is still the most popular approach to the search of a theory of quantum gravity; and it's well worth working on, until we have another plausible attempt.
That said, string theory is still the most popular approach to the search of a theory of quantum gravity;
Should science be based on consensus of a vote or popularity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutralino
and it's well worth working on, until we have another plausible attempt.
Having wasted money and time on the topic, I can say quite emphatically "it is NOT worth it!" It’s just another emporer's new cloths story that only the ignorant cannot see them theme. It’ only funny when your involved with the joke and not the one being had.
Should science be based on consensus of a vote or popularity?
Now, I never said that! All I said was that it is the most popular and currently the most worked on approach to quantum gravity. Admittedly, this should change, but do you really expect all this money to just leave the field and no research to continue? Lee Smolin has spoken at length on this. He is working on the LQG approach, and makes the observation that more money needs to be put into researching other approaches to quantum gravity. I agree with him, that more faculty should be appointed at universities to work on LQG, but even he does not say that string theory should be abandoned. Even if it does not prove to be the final theory, we are learning new techniques in approaching problems, and new mathematics that, who knows, may be very useful in finding this final theory.
Also, I believe that funding two different approaches pretty much equally will help advance the field. We should be encouraging collaboration between the two fields, and people passing from one to the other. Then perhaps we will have some healthy competition between the fields. Look at what's happened with Bojowald and Singh et al: both were working on this "loop quantum bounce," but now seem to have broken off into two factions in the same department. This looks to be providing healthy competition in that particular area, with one camp asking questions, and the other providing replies. The problem is, though, that noone wants to gamble their career on a theory that only a handful of researchers around the world is working on.
David while doing some research I came accross this;
Whole physical reality is a complete and continuous flux.”
To be more specific:
“All physical existence moves at the same speed, at the constant speed of light; however, final constituents of mass circulate at the constant speed of light in soft confinement volumes” (zitterbewegung).
According to this hypothesis, elementary particles with mass are circulating packages of energy, which are confined into local volumes within formations like knots or vortexes.
Light speed can be thought to be constant, but if superluminal velocities are allowable, such as spatial velocity, then light velocity is a vector and imo can't be considered absolute.
Two photons colliding could create a membrane with a material mass on one side and an antimaterial mass on the other, like two knots glued to a disc which is supposed to link general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Dave, I wouldn't bring deities into your thread, because I don't necessarily like it in mine. It was meant to discourage anthropomorphic tendencies by equating the absolute universe with zero. Just like it has aided mathematicians, the zero can aid in ridding the "one and many" argument for good.
Right, the clock is only a display devise. the main concept is 'time' generated out of motion. In fact I am reminded of the story of 'Rip Van Winkle' who slept for 20 years and when he got up, he had lost the concept of time, primarily because he was not part of any motion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing
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.
Linear Mode
