[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Tina

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.

Hi Tina;
As we already have anti-gravity machines called rockets, I’m assuming you are asking about machines capable of canceling the effects of gravity.

Before we can cancel it, we need to understand what it is and what causes it. Saying it is a force or a property of matter does not say much as to what it is. We can calculate its behavior in great detail but still not what it is.

Let’s assume I am right and mass is a function of the quantized amount of uniform motion in any autonomous system of fundamental matter (atomic and subatomic structures aka mass) and space is fundamental matter in a chaotic wave interference state (aka energy). The physical interaction of matter in the uniform motion state and matter in the spatial state will convert the wave chaos of space to condensed uniform motion producing relative mass. This is the simple process we view as converting energy (chaotic wave motion) to mass (uniform motion) and producing a flow or distortion of spatial matter. Aka gravity. If we can create a device to deflect this flow from passing through objects and thus interacting with atomic structure, then we can canceled the effects of gravity. It is quite likely that an electrical field will do the trick if it is high enough voltage (not quite that simple though); there are some fringe science projects that are experimenting in this direction now.

Your last paragraph is interesting when you state something is just re-arranged. If you read my blog you would notice that the something that is re-arranged is the Absolute Motion of the fundamental substance. We actually cannot change the quantity of motion of a system, we can only re-arrange it to different types of motion.

I find your rational thinking quite refreshing Tina.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Profpat

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.

Pat;
Unfortunately we do not have any experience reference to say what fundamental matter is other than stating it is the only physical entity of the universe. Our only method of knowing it is to know its properties and how its behavior is modified by these properties. The analysis of current terms of science defining properties results in realizing only motion and bonding is required to explain them all; including anti-matter.

The thermodynamic term “degrees of freedom” is the handle we have on motion. How this influences fundamental matter is what is in question.

The motions within the atomic structure and all the subatomic particles are more uniform motion than chaotic motion. You need to understand that when wave motions become harmonic motions then they too are a form of uniform motion. The greater the wave symmetry, the greater the mass of the particle; not the greater quantity of substance. The electron and quark may actually have the same quantity of substance. The only chaos motion of any significance is the spatial state of matter. The missing mass of the universe may be space itself.

[Profpat]

Hi David;

OK the internal movement could be and probably are harmonic motion.

A couple of questions if you don't mind. ( and they may be dumb, but as I tell my students there are no dumb questions ).

Is your fundamental substance like a particle, or more like the ether. And if not the ether any guesses what makes that up.

Is there any coorelation between " degree of freedom " and asymptotic freedom. ( thats the dumb question ). As I recall degree of freedom related to the uncertainty principle.

Best to you,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Is your fundamental substance like a particle, or more like the ether. And if not the ether any guesses what makes that up.

Both ether and particle are of the fundamental substance. This question is the one that does not make sense. We have no experience of anything that we can refer to that fundamental matter is like. Everything that produces a physical phenomena is of fundamental matter; no exceptions.

Originally Posted by Profpat

Is there any coorelation between " degree of freedom " and asymptotic freedom. ( thats the dumb question ). As I recall degree of freedom related to the uncertainty principle.

Though this is not a dumb question I do sense that someone has been browsing the internet without basic QM understanding. The only relation is that they can be viewed as opposites between unity as infinity and unity as zero. I don’t fully understand QED to that level.

Degree of freedom is the number of variables required to mathematically define something. Each variable is a quantitative measurement (dimension). Thus far science has estimated 27 dimensions to define reality but they have been hyped as being outside our universe; that’s science jargon for “they are beyond our ability to measure at this time”. There are 10 dimensions require to describe a moving object of atomic structure; it’s called M-theory and mathematically discribes gravity very well; nothing else though.

Matter in a state such that its Absolute Motion is all linear velocity, it has only 1 degree of freedom of motion; thus it is zero entropy, infinite mass, and the only true particle of fundamental matter.

[dipayankar]

Is there any realm of science where motion has stopped?? Or is there any direction / dimension that does not support any form of motion? That would be interesting to know...

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Throughout the history of science the major breakthroughs have come with the better understanding of one of the main properties of matter; that is the property of motion. From falling bodies of Galileo, gravity and forces of Newton’s laws of motion, the space-time continuum of Einstein, to today’s understanding quantum physics and the vibrations of atoms and their particle structures as wave symmetry. The key is in the understanding of motion and the interactions of fundamental matter that sustains that motion; thus preserving the conservation laws that physics is based on.

[Profpat]

Hi David;

So does fundamental substance have a form on its own? Or is it the substance within the form? I'm sorry I am still a bit confused about FS.

Really my biggest question on motion deals with the theory of spatial inflation which happened Between 10 (-35) to 10(-33) second from the big bang.

Something ( maybe your FS ) was going a lot faster than light, and it's my understanding, that any matter attached to it also went faster than light.

Now this something can't be matter, because it's going faster than light. If it's a brane or the ether, and it can't be matter, could it be a 2 dimensional surface?

Of course if you don't believe in the big bang theory, then no problems.

Best to all,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Is there any realm of science where motion has stopped??...

Unknown! We don’t have infinite vision or knowledge of the total realm of existence.

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Or is there any direction / dimension that does not support any form of motion? That would be interesting to know...

Your use of the word “dimension” suggests you are thinking of something outside our realm of existence. NO SUCH THING; Dimension means a quantitative measurement. Don’t be misled by the jargon of those selling books.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Profpat

So does fundamental substance have a form on its own? Or is it the substance within the form? I'm sorry I am still a bit confused about FS.

Yes; in fact many of them! It’s energy, it’s space, it’s weak force, it’s strong force, it’s gravity, it’s fields, it’s stars, it’s black holes, it’s your and it’s me; it is also every physical phenomena not mentioned. If dark matter and dark energy exists, they are of this stuff. If antimatter exists, it is of this stuff, if ghosts exist they are of this stuff and if god exists it is of this stuff. Anything with form or shape is fundamental matter. The only something that does not have form or shape is the infinite void; the place of everything.

Originally Posted by Profpat

Really my biggest question on motion deals with the theory of spatial inflation which happened Between 10 (-35) to 10(-33) second from the big bang.

Check the “Genesis Hypothesis” section in my blog.

Originally Posted by Profpat

Something ( maybe your FS ) was going a lot faster than light, and it's my understanding, that any matter attached to it also went faster than light.

That indeed was the fundamental matter and it still has motion greater than the speed of light. We just can’t measure it yet. You can only measure fundamental matter with other forms of fundamental matter; catch 22.

Originally Posted by Profpat

Now this something can't be matter, because it's going faster than light. If it's a brane or the ether, and it can't be matter, could it be a 2 dimensional surface?

Refer to the answer to your first question!

[Fluent Piffle]

We don’t have infinite vision or knowledge of the total realm of existence.

The only something that does not have form or shape is the infinite void; the place of everything.

David, I thanked you for an earlier post which was spot-on, IMO, but can you now explain 'infinite void', if you previously have claimed that 'we don't have infinite vision'? Does 'void' equate to unknowing?

Also, do you think that motion, we have attempted to measure with our concept of 'time'? This being so, is not 'eternal' also a 'time' concept?


pif.

[dipayankar]

Dimension would be more directional than quantitative. Though I am not a very big fan of String theory, however the thought of some possible extra dimensions does seem to make sense.

Sticking to the concept of motion, I would say that the concept of time is dependant on motion as without motion, time becomes redundant.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Unknown! We don’t have infinite vision or knowledge of the total realm of existence.Your use of the word “dimension” suggests you are thinking of something outside our realm of existence. NO SUCH THING; Dimension means a quantitative measurement. Don’t be misled by the jargon of those selling books.