[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Lloyd;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 )Pat

Hi Pat, as David has explained, we truly have no experiencial knowledge of FS, except that we know it absolutely must exist, as our universe exists of it, and we all intuitively know it had to come from such a FS, of some fundamental type. I simply use photonic substance, as it's the smallest density substance thus far verrified. As to real or conceptual, it would be required by all the laws of physics to be real. As to FS less than photonic, we can't yet know...

Originally Posted by David

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.

David, IMO, there is also another catch 22 here. We can not know whether the fundamental matter motion was fast or slow. This would only be supposition, without proof. Even the concept of motion of the early FS, would be open to linguistic theory, as the mind's ability to do distances in an infinite void, become murky. But, IMO, it only makes sense that it was a slow, low entropy, as this is the only motion possible, again IMO, to avoid the three standard models' foolishness, of everything coming from a high mass point. I favor a high mass infinite zero entropy void, yet low distribution of FS and motion, that slowly over billions or trillions of years accelerated, by wave interactions of FS, that consisted of FS friction, heat, sound and shock waves, interferring and enhancing the initial one degree of freedom, yet still being quite random and or chaotic. IMO, the FS motion need not reach the speed of light, until quantumization processes, in the first particle generator, of say first star, black hole or whatever___Such a process would allow for a true thermodynamic consistancy. All it takes is a theoretical slowing of all the physics law systems, or light, to realize this scenario, even though it most likely will take rewriting the fundamental law systems, for complete understanding, which happens to be being done by those working on quantum gravity and hybrid special relativity___All it takes is rescaling the constants, gauge theories and scales, to truer values... And, a further problem is truly connecting wave motion to FS motion, as the real particles must be made of more than abstract wave motions. This is why I state, that at least part of the FS motion must be made of truly moving FS. You can't make particles from abstract wave motions, alone___they require real substance. But, as can be seen by what I've previously written, a photonic substance, if that's what may be possible, being scalable, would allow quite a quantity of the FS's zero entropy mass energy, to be concentrated in one place...

I think wave motion's connection to FS motion, must be looked at much deeper...

Lloyd

http://ivantic.apnoia.org/fizika/rad...no-Camelia.pdf

[Profpat]

Hi David, Lloyd and all;

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Hi Pat, as David has explained, we truly have no experiencial knowledge of FS, except that we know it absolutely must exist, as our universe exists of it, and we all intuitively know it had to come from such a FS, of some fundamental type. I simply use photonic substance, as it's the smallest density substance thus far verrified. As to real or conceptual, it would be required by all the laws of physics to be real. As to FS less than photonic, we can't yet know...

Lloyd, I asked David one time as to why this substance couldn't be strings. It really is conceptually, an elegant substance. I don't recall his answer.

Here you have "something" that may be viewed as a one dimensional planck's length string. What could be more fundamental. The missing link between something and nothing. Mathematically, right behind or maybe within the point.

I guess you can even view it as a brane.
IMO Occram's followers and reductionist would really like string theory.

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. Sorry David if this is a bit off the topic.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

IMO Pat, string theory has so far showed itself to be a flop, except as a possible better explanation of gravity, as David has pointed out, also. Lee Smolin is one of the leaders in quantum gravity research. Check out his ideas. It may help. Lee also has little faith in string theory. At the least, he points out its failures, over the years, in his newest book; "The Trouble With Physics..."

Lloyd

[Profpat]

OK Lloyd;

I liked my idea of a (3 ring circus, with sight and sound, complete with balloons, soap bubbles and silly string) universe.

OK David NOW you can bitch at me for being off the subject, SORRY

Best to all,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

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?.

No it does not equate to unknowing. If you know what void means and what infinite means; put them together.

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

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?

The concept of time can exist with or without bodies in motion; however without bodies in motion we would not have the reference to measure time.

Pat;
I agree with Lloyd's answer to you.

[Fluent Piffle]

If you know what void means and what infinite means; put them together.

I do not know what you infer as 'void', which is why I ask. Do you have a scientific link you could refer me to?

The concept of time can exist with or without bodies in motion; however without bodies in motion we would not have the reference to measure time.

Ok. As it is only un-real motion -the 'concept' thereof- which does not move, how about the REALITY of 'time'? According to your quote above, "the reference to measure time" is the concept, while the "bodies in motion" would be the physical Reality? - So the Reality would be the Motion, and the method of description would be the concept of 'time'.


pif.

[Graybeard]

If matter in motion is the fundamental substance, how do we account for this information?

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.

What is it (we) actually KNOW about motion; as you are aware, my concept is that motion is absolute and has existed for eternity; no god or creator needed!

In my opinion, and I hope I am not off the thread here, is that better understanding and knowing equates to information. As some of us would say .... it EQUALS =

Can information be considered as a by product of matter and motion? It's true that matter or energy in motion can carry information, but are they the same as information itself or is information independent of it's carriers.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Is the stuff that has motion alive or conscious? - that's not a debate ready for any science forum yet.(no data)

Information is not alive or conscious but it exists... or does it? Does better understanding mean that science has found a new algorithim which better decompresses the information contained in matter in motion but which exists nonetheless. Or is it simply something inherent to the human psych which we continually add to, and by repetition confirm our beliefs?

The laws of physics describe our universe but who describes the laws of physics, is it just us, or is this information encoded in the fundamental substance?

Is Information an entity or a measurement?

puzzled .. greg

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

In my opinion, and I hope I am not off the thread here, is that better understanding and knowing equates to information. As some of us would say .... it EQUALS =

Can information be considered as a by product of matter and motion? It's true that matter or energy in motion can carry information, but are they the same as information itself or is information independent of it's carriers.



Information is not alive or conscious but it exists... or does it? The laws of physics describe our universe but who describes the laws of physics, is it just us, or is this information encoded in the fundamental substance?

Is Information an entity or a measurement?

puzzled .. greg

Greg please accept my thoughts on the questions you ask;

1) Knowledge (organised, systematised ideas) equate with information - but if information incorrect then knowledge is incorrect. eg Heliocentric universe.

2) Never forget the body's immense engery requirements involved in the production of neuronal activity - begin with the need for a beating heart. Then specific "ideas" are not contained in the brain - the energy of an idea is released whether vocalised or not. So information is a PRODUCT of matter and motion - and becomes matter in motion.






ask youself - "Why can a hatefull look break your heart?"

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Tina

Then specific "ideas" are not contained in the brain - the energy of an idea is released whether vocalised or not.

So information is a PRODUCT of matter and motion - and becomes matter in motion.

Tina ... The Universe is a product of Matter in Motion. So if information is also a product of Matter in Motion which is the entity and which the measurement ?

For an event to become information does it require a biological observer?

Once observed it can be recorded in a book, or CD or DVD etc, and it then exists independently. But was the original observation a measurement?

cool bananas ... greg

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Tina ... The Universe is a product of Matter in Motion. So if information is also a product of Matter in Motion which is the entity and which the measurement ?

For an event to become information does it require a biological observer?

Once observed it can be recorded in a book, or CD or DVD etc, and it then exists independently. But was the original observation a measurement?

cool bananas ... greg

This is higly abstract stuff!

The entity is matter - the measurement is found in the ensuing re-arrangement of matter.

Event > > > acts on the organic and in-organic. eg the gravitational effect of moon on tides.

It is only the human observer that can mis-interpret an event with so called information. All other matter simply responds accordingly instinct, laws of nature etc. Pole shift is good example of earth's complex response to interferance in magnetic fields (event). Inteferance > earthquake > pole shift to accomondate gravitational interferance.

Information (correct and incorrect) is not a seperate entity in the universe that can have independant existance apart from all other matter. But it could be harmful if incorrect.