[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.

[mkirkpatrick]

Interesting thread starter Dave,what in your opinion began this motion?What caused the
primary move?



regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Interesting thread starter Dave,what in your opinion began this motion?What caused the primary move?

Michael;
You believe there was a beginning? I don’t. imo - There was only an event within what already existed. Don’t worry though, your view is popular with scientist as well as laymen; after all, the current BB model is a genesis philosophy of something from nothing. Spiritual people tend to cling to an assumption that the lack of proof is proof of a god or deity; it’s not. It is just a lack of knowing and does not prove anything. Now; what is it you 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! Is the stuff that has motion alive or conscious? - that's not a debate ready for any science forum yet.(no data)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

"My concept is that motion is absolute and has existed for eternity." Most certainly true, Dave. I just add, it's also absolutely infinite, which I know you don't agree with___Do you yet...?

Lloyd

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie "My concept is that motion is absolute and has existed for eternity." Most certainly true, Dave. I just add, it's also absolutely infinite, which I know you don't agree with___Do you yet...?

That is a possibility Lloyd but as yet there is no data or evidence to indicate matter’s absolute motion is infinite. Current evidence indicates its value at about 6x10^11 times the speed of light. Any uniform motion beyond the speed of light causes the measure of the mass property of matter to decrease. At 2c uniform motion, the value of mass is not measurable by our current methods. That's why the neutrino appears as massless.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing That is a possibility Lloyd but as yet there is no data or evidence to indicate matter’s absolute motion is infinite. Current evidence indicates its value at about 6x10^11 times the speed of light. Any uniform motion beyond the speed of light causes the measure of the mass property of matter to decrease. At 2c uniform motion, the value of mass is not measurable by our current methods. That's why the neutrino appears as massless.

Sorry David, about not being clear enough. I only meant infinitely existing, not infinite velocity. As to velocity, I think we can limit the speed, at present, to c, but in the very distant past, we may approach the velocity you mention, though it does seem rather high. If it's set too high in fundamental theory models, it approaches the problems science has been locked in for the last 75 years, of coming from the impossible infinite mass singularity point black hole, which we both know is foolish non-science... That's why I'm always leary of too high a light speed, in any past, of any models. Just as you mentioned, any uniform motion beyond the speed of light causes the measure of the mass property of matter to decrease, and just this very fact is what landed all three standard models of physics, i.e., relative, quantum, and cosmological, in the pin-hole impossibility dependent background they're in... We need new models based on background independence, i.e., that the background of true universal evolution mechanics of visible matter, is unaffected by what is beyond the visible working matter universe, as far as we yet know... What I'm saying is the void of absolute fundamental substance motion is there to infinity, eternally, yet is not affecting this side of our universe's space mechanics, other than being the initial mother of our visible universe, long, long ago... What we know of space is operating independently of the void, but they do possibly merge as the light cone expands... 13.7 billion years at C, is a long ways out into the void, that light has possibly traveled, unless one accepts some other models of curving the light back in on itself... But still, IMO, it's fundamental substance motion, all the way to infinity...

Lloyd

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie 13.7 billion years at C, is a long ways out into the void, that light has possibly traveled, unless one accepts some other models of curving the light back in on itself... But still, IMO, it's fundamental substance motion, all the way to infinity... Lloyd

Lloyd ... not quite sure if I understand you here. Are you saying that Light's 'perihelion' in relation to the 'centre' of the Universe is 13.7 billion years time C? In other words is this the limit you place on the expansion of the Universe ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Lloyd ... not quite sure if I understand you here. Are you saying that Light's 'perihelion' in relation to the 'centre' of the Universe is 13.7 billion years time C? In other words is this the limit you place on the expansion of the Universe ? cool bananas ... greg

No Greg, I'm only speaking from our thus far realizations of light/time/distance parameters, at present c values. The universe and light were most likely expanding much faster in the past, allowing a much larger overall light cone, and also allowing for the guessed at overall dimensions of the existing universe at some 150 billion light years across. We don't really know, it's just what some models predict...

Lloyd

[dleviwing]

13.7 billion years is only our current best guess based on what we know about the evolution of star formation and fusion technology; who knows how long it took for the universe to start producing stars? The thing we should acknowledge now is that the background radiation is in the inferred wavelengths (1cm range) and almost uniform. This indicates that the universe has a boundary that reflects the waves back into the universe and thus a surface boundary just like atomic particles. It would appear that the universe went through a very long period of extremely high spatial density before matter was able to actually form atomic structures.

The velocity of a wave is usually referred to as the phase velocity. Angular phase velocity produces the magnetic effect while the spatial differentials produce the electrical amplitudes; now try to apply these concepts of motion and density to the concept that uniform motion condenses fundamental matter. Let me know what you envision.

[MJA]

Gravity is nature's motion of equilibrium. The energy or motion uniting action and reaction; the balancing or equating motion of nature itself.

Energy = Motion is nature's equality.


=
MJA