It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Fundamental Phenomena > Forces of Nature
Reload this Page Motion
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Re: Motion
Old
  (#21 (permalink))
6th degree Black Belt
Tina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura about
 
Tina's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Thanks Given: 69
Thanked 67x in 63 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Rep Power: 12
   
Re: Motion - 10-09-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing View Post
MJA;


Tina;
This is what I mean when I say I object to spiritually being presented on the science forums. One person disrupts a science thread with religious bull and another continues hijacking the thread taking it off topic. The theme is “MOTION”; if you wish to respond to the original violator of my thread please send him a PM.

Can we now get back to the theme of MOTION?????
Sorry - I did let it distract me
From now on: FOCUSED
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#22 (permalink))
The Observer
dleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nice
 
dleviwing's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,734
Thanks Given: 15
Thanked 130x in 111 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rep Power: 33
   
Re: Motion - 10-09-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA View Post
Dear David,
Again David you say nothing about your definition of motion.
Is it because you can't explain it yourself?

I"ll try again: What is your simple definition of universal motion?
MJA;
I was not aware that a new definition of motion was required. Most of us are able to do just fine with the one that has been used for many centuries. Do you have a dictionary? Though there are several definitions for motion, I think you should be able to figure out which one I’m referring to. Do you have any other intellectual questions for me? There are many sites on the internet designed to teach children your age the concepts of science; ToeQuest is not one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJA View Post
With regard to the knowledge of the complexities of science, I find complexity only hides the simple truth. And those who claim such superiority of complexity, only hide there themselves.
I have heard this lame response of stupidity before from other intellectually handicapped people. It would appear that I am significantly more intelligent than you; but that is not a forum topic you really should be asking to engage in unless you enjoy your own personal degradation on an open forum. Your post seem to be doing that job quite well without me.



David
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#23 (permalink))
6th degree Black Belt
Tina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura about
 
Tina's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Thanks Given: 69
Thanked 67x in 63 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Rep Power: 12
   
Re: Motion - 10-09-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing View Post
MJA;
I was not aware that a new definition of motion was required. Most of us are able to do just fine with the one that has been used for many centuries. Do you have a dictionary?

David consider the number line: How would you regard/explain the following -

motion in negative direction
motion in positive direction
motion at rest neutral position
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#24 (permalink))
The Observer
dleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nice
 
dleviwing's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,734
Thanks Given: 15
Thanked 130x in 111 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rep Power: 33
   
Re: Motion - 10-09-2007, 07:12 PM

Lloyd;
Sorry for the delay but I lost track due to attempts to convert the theme of the thread. It’s amazing how few take the time to look at the forum title!

I followed your directions but I don’t see any special significance in the figure. Would you care to explain further or attach an image in case I did it wrong? I am one who agrees with Dirac’s photon sea analysis but view it as a sea of wave interference of fundamental matter that are in constant chaos rather than individual photons units of matter.


David
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#25 (permalink))
The Observer
dleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nicedleviwing is just really nice
 
dleviwing's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,734
Thanks Given: 15
Thanked 130x in 111 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rep Power: 33
   
Re: Motion - 10-09-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina View Post
David consider the number line: How would you regard/explain the following -

motion in negative direction
motion in positive direction
motion at rest neutral position
Hi Tina;
Ultimately there are no states of negative or positive, forward or backward, up or down motions. Every motion is compared to a reference point that allows us to give mathematical sign to the action. If your reference is the absolute start of the universe, then nothing is negative; everything is moving positive to that reference. Ask yourself which way is up, down, forward, or backward in the space between the galaxies. Given that we are human and like to be at the center of things, we tend to view our place in the universe as the center of existence. See; we haven’t changed in over 2000 years! The only neutral reference for motion is what may have existed prior to the event that initiated our universe. Giving sign to the motion is more for mathematical convenience so we don’t have to explain a beginning.


Motion is always measured relative to a reference. There's that word again; Relative.


David
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#26 (permalink))
6th degree Black Belt
Tina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura aboutTina has a spectacular aura about
 
Tina's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Thanks Given: 69
Thanked 67x in 63 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Rep Power: 12
   
Re: Motion - 10-09-2007, 08:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing View Post
Hi Tina;
Ultimately there are no states of negative or positive, forward or backward, up or down motions.

...we tend to view our place in the universe as the center of existence.

Giving sign to the motion is more for mathematical convenience so we don’t have to explain a beginning.


Motion is always measured relative to a reference. There's that word again; Relative.
David - The above excerpts from your reply is where "I think" our thinking needs to change.

What do you think would be the conditions for anti-gravity if not founded in + - 0 motion?

Yes our view is ralative ...to what we know. We have to search further for what we don't know.

Mathematics has created potential infinity with the number line. But it so happens that infinity IS the best present explanation for constant matter rearranged in the universe - expressed in the idea that nothing can come from nothing - something - is not caused to exist - this is the illusion - something is just caused to be re-arranged etc.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#27 (permalink))
Grandmaster
Profpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to behold
 
Profpat's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,086
Thanks Given: 289
Thanked 507x in 466 Posts
Join Date: May 2007
Rep Power: 45
   
Re: Motion - 10-10-2007, 12:59 PM

David;

I think science has a real good handle on motion itself. I believe science has advanced to the level of asking the question as to where did motion come from?

MOST scientist of course believe in a big bang.
Prior to that there was no time, space, motion, only a dimensionless point.

The other question that science is addressing is the end. If there is one.

Best to all,

Pat
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#28 (permalink))
9th degree Black Belt
Lloyd Gillespie has a spectacular aura aboutLloyd Gillespie has a spectacular aura aboutLloyd Gillespie has a spectacular aura aboutLloyd Gillespie has a spectacular aura aboutLloyd Gillespie has a spectacular aura aboutLloyd Gillespie has a spectacular aura about
 
Lloyd Gillespie's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,579
Thanks Given: 114
Thanked 44x in 42 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rep Power: 25
   
Re: Motion - 10-10-2007, 02:02 PM

David, all I was doing with the drawing was to lay out a possible model of what we may be able to theorize of the early universe. I do agree also with Dirac's fundamental sea of substance. I also agree that it can be a sea of wave interfenences of fundamental matter, and in constant chaos, or random motions. As to individual photons as units of matter/energy/waves, I'm not yet willing to seriously define any difference between individual and sea, as a totally scalable fundamental substance, no matter what name we give it, would serve the same function. If the one fundamental substance be absolutely scalable, as we would know it must be, as we see the results, that would solve quite a quagmire in everyone's thinking, by realizing frequency of waves divides the FS, into its many, almost infinite or infinite and almost infinitesimal parts. So, an absolutely scalable photon, would also be the absolute fundamental scalable one substance. I think this solves a major problem of the one and the many.

As to all the agruments over fundamental motion, and the prime mover___Zero entropy, the principle of least thermo-hydro-dynamic action/motion, is the absolute eternal prime mover, IMO, as either fundamental photonic particles or as one substance, they are either particles of units of matter/energy, or single scalable whole, with matter/waves and matter/frequencies/energies. IMO, being absolutely scalable, they are in our logic minds, un-differientiable. One fundamental substance in this universe, has to possess something similar, if not exactly, what I have stated, to create the real waves into particle universe, we know exists___Some part of the particle substance, absolutely must move, to create the waves.

As to the waves of the FS, which both of us interpret as random linear motion, they have to run from randomness, most likely rotation, to some type of uniformity, even at the fundamental level. The randomness to uniformity path, IMO, requires randomness into uniform rotation, and velocity increasing to a meeting point, such as a soccer ball, and the white and black areas representing rotation areas of the FS, spiraling to a center point, or at least a meeting point. Once reaching such a point, there must be point duration of motions, as necessary containment moment. Any randomnesses into any uniformity of directional motion or rotations, must meet with opposing and same rotations, or chirality and achirality. This is the only way I can see a containment of point growth, in an open universe of a Dirac sea. All Dirac and Schrodenger equations, taken all the way back to Gibbs and Maxwell, have vector and polar attributes of chiral motions, when totally interpreted___The physics literature is quite clear on this point. Such a point containment, would be set up by the mismatches set in play by the pass-throughs of meeting samehandedness motions, and the interferences of oppositehandedness, as both always exist as randomness eternal origins. This would create the symmetries and asymmetries necessary for containment, much the same as in a nuclear weapon of the hydrogen class. This is the 1/4" circle in the center of the drawing. The entire Dirac sea would be a further circle of say two or three feet of FS Zero Entropy Motion and Real Energy Matter...

Maybe that will help,
Lloyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing View Post
Lloyd;
Sorry for the delay but I lost track due to attempts to convert the theme of the thread. It’s amazing how few take the time to look at the forum title!

I followed your directions but I don’t see any special significance in the figure. Would you care to explain further or attach an image in case I did it wrong? I am one who agrees with Dirac’s photon sea analysis but view it as a sea of wave interference of fundamental matter that are in constant chaos rather than individual photons units of matter.


"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein
"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
"The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#29 (permalink))
Grandmaster
Profpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to behold
 
Profpat's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,086
Thanks Given: 289
Thanked 507x in 466 Posts
Join Date: May 2007
Rep Power: 45
   
Re: Motion - 10-10-2007, 02:33 PM

Hi Lloyd;

You prove my point that we have a good handle on understanding motion.

I have some questions regarding your statement:


"As to the waves of the FS, which both of us interpret as random linear
motion, they have to run from randomness, most likely rotation, to some
type of uniformity, even at the fundamental level."


What do you and David view as the Fundamental Substance? Is it real or conceptual? If real, is it a point, string, quark, electron, photon, proton, atom?
( virtual substance )

I think your random LINEAR motion, would conform to the laws of probability theory. Within the proton, you have the confinement and the asymptotic freedom of the 3 quarks, whose INTERNAL motion I believe would be more like true randomness or chaos.

Best to all,

Pat
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Re: Motion
Old
  (#30 (permalink))
Grandmaster
Profpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to beholdProfpat is a splendid one to behold
 
Profpat's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,086
Thanks Given: 289
Thanked 507x in 466 Posts
Join Date: May 2007
Rep Power: 45
   
Re: Motion - 10-10-2007, 02:42 PM

The picture of Chaos;


IT DIDN"T POST THE PICTURE SORRY


Best,

Pat

Last edited by Profpat : 10-10-2007 at 02:44 PM. Reason: correction
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump