Time Tubes and Cones

[Fredrick]

... an animation to Dave’s Toronics thread ...

I'll put my two cents in here, too, for I do not consider the visuals to portray reality. The first parts are not real. Only after the word 'bang' becomes visible does it have any realistic value (again, according to me, but also not completely correct). The scenario before 'bang' should explain the scenario after 'bang.' Right now that doesn't happen and it is like deus ex machina.

[analog]

I'll put my two cents in here, too, for I do not consider the visuals to portray reality. The first parts are not real. Only after the word 'bang' becomes visible does it have any realistic value (again, according to me, but also not completely correct). The scenario before 'bang' should explain the scenario after 'bang.' Right now that doesn't happen and it is like deus ex machina.

Hi Fredrick,

Nice to meet you. I've seen you around the forums, but we've never exchanged thoughts.

First let me say that there are only two catalyst in my interpretations and those are absolute motion, and direction, and they are both ever-present along with the other conserved entity of fundamental matter. It is the varying distribution of absolute motion within the Aether that causes the diversity within our world, which gives rise to temperature, time, gravity, electromagnetism, autonomous particles, etc, etc. and this is accomplished by the variance of direction whereby motion is either uniform or random within autonomous volumes of the Aether, or in transition from one to the other.

I originally had my own model I worked from which was similar to Dave's, but I've found that by using both I feel as though I have furthered my understanding, at least to my satisfaction even if it isn't to yours. I have adopted much of Dave's terminology whereby I can better communicate with him and because it was much better than mine. Our individual models represent a type of fundamental wave/particle duality (his being the wave and mine the particle) and often I can use one to answer questions about the other as both can mimic each other, in my opinion. Aether waves can act at a fundamental resolution and form autonomous particles and a void filled with fundamental particles can interact with waves of motion. Either one could potentially give rise in the belief of the existence of the other.

I'm not exactly sure of your stance on things and I will research your previous posts whereby I can better understand where your coming from before I make quick judgements as I feel you may have done, but I have read your introductory post from 2004 and it would seem that, you feel, you already have all of this figured out, and we are all playing catch-up. If so, then I congratulate you, but I will be the first to admit that I do not have it all figured out, but I do feel I understand more than I used to.

The scenario before "bang" does explain the scenario after "bang" if viewed from an absolute motion perspective. The scenario before "bang" had all of the conserved absolutes just as does the scenario after "bang" and no new laws were written at any point, nor was anything created or destroyed. Any stage of the process contains all of the potential necessary to explain any other stage, or to re-create them. I'm not debating a standard model singularity; I don't believe in them either. It's how the Aether propagates through the void that is the key, in my opinion, and any variance from uniform motion (one degree of directional freedom) in this propagation due to randomized motion (varying dergrees of freedom) can hypothetically give rise to all of our known phenomena; but that's just my opinion.

I don't feel as though I need a 'God out of this machine' to explain my views, and I used the word "bang" very loosely to explain the two extremes of the spectrum of motion; complete uniformity to complete randomness (both representing absolute symmetry); all of our visible world currently being somewhere in-between (asymmetrical). Dave's interpretation replaces the "bang" with a collision. I'm currently undecided about the initial event.

Thanks for your two cents and there's your change back.

Tim

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick,

Nice to meet you. I've seen you around the forums, but we've never exchanged thoughts.

Thanks for your two cents and there's your change back.

Tim

Hi Tim,

Very nice to meet you too, especially since you are giving me a lot of value for my two cents. Yes, I do claim to have the toe, but I do have a handicap as well, which becomes obvious when I state that I am not the first to have this toe. Those who conjured it first are long gone. Since the model is a pyramid, and the pyramid has been found in a large variety of spots on our globe, I belief this concept to be wide-spread in many old cultures. And here's the handicap: there are so many ways to deliver the pyramid that I cannot know all specific details in all different aspects. I bow my head to each and every specialist. Yet here lies some of the problems I have encountered in the past as well: to explain the obvious to specialists is quite difficult. All the pyramid requires is understanding of the concept, and that's what I am trying to do: provide information so others can understand the concept.

I am willing to read in your words that I need to be careful not to come across as a mister know it all.

As far as the ether goes, I have no problems seeing it there, but I also have no problems doing it without an ether. I consider it more difficult to explain (conceptually) with an ether, but it can be done. I consider this similar to the conceptual conflict of 3D and 2D+: reality is not in conflict about it, only the concepts are in (some) conflict because they are two different ways of explaining the same overall spatial information. Said differently: in 2D+ a view is found that supersedes (but includes) the aspects found with 3D, and in 3D one may ignore the importance/fail to notice 2D+.

We do have different views on the overall concepts, Tim, but it is exciting to see how we are all working with similar and at times battling ideas. The battles may be more interesting, but we are all in this together. One battle: the pre-BB did contain the potential of our materialized universe, but is not equal to our materialized universe.

I'm hoping that a model of a constricting aether will work more cleanly and simply than the present "attraction" model. But I'm going to need lots of help to pull this off. And I certainly don't want to take full credit for this. You guys have helped me get here, and I will rely upon you henceforth. This will definitely be a team effort.

JAK, I like team efforts, and I will try to be of help. But this is what I bring:

The pyramid of forces. The gravitational cone has its place within the pyramid.
The 2D+ concept that places duality in most prominent position.
Mathematical information that our materialized universe came into being due to separation.
Empty Nest that states the Big Bang had initially a non-materializing center.
Understanding the phenomenon of nothing is key to understanding everything.

[analog]

Hello Fredrick,

As far as the ether goes, I have no problems seeing it there, but I also have no problems doing it without an ether. I consider it more difficult to explain (conceptually) with an ether, but it can be done.

The aether is fundamental to an absolute motion framework and represents the ability to explain action at a distance, electromagnatism, gravity, etc.. Even in my original views I use a fundamental particle structure, which interacts through vibration, that more less gave the Aether a quantum resolution, whereby I could better understand how it transfered motion in the form of waves.

Either way, by using an aether, every autonomous volume is connected to any and all others by a less condensed membrane of sorts that represents a level of more randomized motion, which also can be converted to more uniform motion, whereby causing the further condensation to structured matter. Structured matter can also be converted back to randomized unstructured matter, what some would call "space".

I consider this similar to the conceptual conflict of 3D and 2D+: reality is not in conflict about it, only the concepts are in (some) conflict because they are two different ways of explaining the same overall spatial information. Said differently: in 2D+ a view is found that supersedes (but includes) the aspects found with 3D, and in 3D one may ignore the importance/fail to notice 2D+.

My answer to this would be just like my answer to a traditional BB singularity. Unless the reduction to 2D presents a mechanism that continues to manipulate our obvious 3D world, then I see no need in reducing past a fundamental 3D resolution of the fundamental Aether.

We do have different views on the overall concepts, Tim, but it is exciting to see how we are all working with similar and at times battling ideas. The battles may be more interesting, but we are all in this together.

I'm here to battle along side of every one of you, and I see you all as friends. I have no books to sell and every idea I can possibly come up with is free to everyone if they are interested. If someone likes my ideas, then I will help as much as possible and I keep an open mind to everyone's thoughts, because often times even an unrelated question by another can cause someone to find a relative answer to further their views.

One battle: the pre-BB did contain the potential of our materialized universe, but is not equal to our materialized universe.

I believe in the conservation of everything, whereby nothing is created or destroyed, but fundamental matter can be arranged from a maximum condensed state of propagation perpendicular to the direction of travel, due to uniform one directional motion, all the way to a randomized expansion in seemingly all directions.

JAK, I like team efforts, and I will try to be of help.

I offer my total assistance also JAK, and would be honored to be part of the team.

But this is what I bring:

The pyramid of forces. The gravitational cone has its place within the pyramid.
The 2D+ concept that places duality in most prominent position.
Mathematical information that our materialized universe came into being due to separation.
Empty Nest that states the Big Bang had initially a non-materializing center.
Understanding the phenomenon of nothing is key to understanding everything.

I must still research your views before I comment on any of this, but currently the only duality I can admit to is the dualistic nature of fundamental matter within an absolute void, whereby the void is the closest to nothing that I hold to. Our entire observable world is somewhere mid stream of this spectrum from apparent nothing to apparent something as the randomized state of the aether could be viewed as reverting back to an apparent void, but could never thin to such a state.

regards,

Tim

[Fredrick]

The aether is fundamental to an absolute motion framework and represents the ability to explain action at a distance, electromagnatism, gravity, etc.. Even in my original views I use a fundamental particle structure, which interacts through vibration, that more less gave the Aether a quantum resolution, whereby I could better understand how it transfered motion in the form of waves.

Either way, by using an aether, every autonomous volume is connected to any and all others by a less condensed membrane of sorts that represents a level of more randomized motion, which also can be converted to more uniform motion, whereby causing the further condensation to structured matter. Structured matter can also be converted back to randomized unstructured matter, what some would call "space".

Good posting, Tim, and not only do I respect your ether delivery, I am also not going to provide further arguments for or against it either. I am neutral on the ether, except that I believe that once the toe is understood at all levels, we can deliver the same explanation without it as well.

Unless the reduction to 2D presents a mechanism that continues to manipulate our obvious 3D world, then I see no need in reducing past a fundamental 3D resolution of the fundamental Aether.

The only aspect that 2D+ makes clear immediately is that the in&out aspect of our universe is more important than any of the other pairs of left-right, top-bottom, and front-back. In & Out is the only spatial pair in which one aspect is limited and the other is not. The foremost important motion of our universe is outwardly.

I'm here to battle along side of every one of you, and I see you all as friends. I have no books to sell and every idea I can possibly come up with is free to everyone if they are interested. If someone likes my ideas, then I will help as much as possible and I keep an open mind to everyone's thoughts, because often times even an unrelated question by another can cause someone to find a relative answer to further their views.

Selling my book is a vehicle to promote the idea. We live in a variety of worlds, one of them being an economic world. I have no problems there, and you must have noticed how I, too, am providing various ideas (at no charge to anyone). But if you think I have garnered great wealth because of the book, then think again: it is obvious that the idea is both so simple and so wrought with complexity that my following is only one level deep. Though only as a collective, in my acknowledgments at http://www.pentapublishing.com/acknowledgements.html I mention the intellectual friends I have made at ToeQuest clearly; consider yourself part of that ToeQuest group. I have learned a lot here myself, yet — since I have known the pyramid since 1992 — I have benefited especially in learning how to communicate well/better by being part of this group. For me the how to deliver this view was most important, but you will hear me acknowledge immediately that we have a great groups of minds communicating here at ToeQuest, with great ideas and a good amount of exchange of ideas; we also have a great variety of skills amongst ourselves, just to mention Austin with his creative art, but many others as well. I benefit from that as well and though modestly provided my (more than) two cents to http://www.toequest.com/

I believe in the conservation of everything, whereby nothing is created or destroyed, but fundamental matter can be arranged from a maximum condensed state of propagation perpendicular to the direction of travel, due to uniform one directional motion, all the way to a randomized expansion in seemingly all directions.

I offer my total assistance also JAK, and would be honored to be part of the team.

The conservation law of mass/matter is quite important. I do not find any contention there, but the step from pre-BB to after-BB needs to be explainable in our after-BB state. The potential state allowed our current state to come about, and while the potential state may have been a whole lot more fantastic than our current state, we can at least find the aspects in the potential state that made our state possible, and that are therefore scientifically understandable for us on this side. The outward movement, for instance, needs to be explained by a situation within the potential state. The BB itself is the limit between before and after, and involves materialization. My suggestion is that the overall outward movement of our universe indicates the build-up of the opposite movement in the pre-BB state. The inward movement, as we all know, contains a natural limitation, potential state or not. That limitation was reached, and subsequently not followed by a relaxation towards a normal potential state, but followed by an incorporation of the experienced limitation at various incompatible levels. You will notice that JAK's delivery of Time Tubes and Cones (and therefore also your and Dave's delivery) is quite well applicable to some extent (though I'd phrase/construct it differently).

I must still research your views before I comment on any of this, but currently the only duality I can admit to is the dualistic nature of fundamental matter within an absolute void, whereby the void is the closest to nothing that I hold to. Our entire observable world is somewhere mid stream of this spectrum from apparent nothing to apparent something as the randomized state of the aether could be viewed as reverting back to an apparent void, but could never thin to such a state.

If you can admit to having two eyes that are each basically the same then that's all I need to hear.

[analog]

Hi Fredrick,

I respect your views also, and fully intend to better learn them whereby we can perhaps further our discussion. I like to know where another person is coming from, because it truly helps in relating to their views; thus allowing for better communication. I've read many arguments around here where I perceive both sides to sometimes be arguing the same point, not even realizing it, due to them both using different terminology to express similar ideas. Much can be lost through translation if both sides are expressing themselves differently.

regards,

Tim

[JAK]

... Much can be lost through translation if both sides are expressing themselves differently. ...

I believe this is the crucial issue. If any of us has the ToE in our heads (or written somewhere), but have difficulty getting agreement from others, then the issue is translating one set of concepts into the concepts of another.

My wife and I had a similar issue when I was theorize the workings of the brain/mind/emotion. I claimed that we seek an "opptimum distribution of energy within a life system." She said, "Huh?" After discussing it at length, she said, you'r talking about "balance". Why don't you say "balance". It wasn't technically correct to me, but it was close enough for others to understand, so I modified my 1997 version to present the ideas in terms of "balance" which essentially equals "homeostasis" (which is much closer to the systems term that I consider most correct). "Balance" is a much more accessible term to the masses.

What we are all seeking is not just a ToE, but a common language that we all have clear definitions for the words - a clear mechanism facilitating translation.

__________________________________________________

Frederick, I too have an affinity for enigmas from the past. Just as we sent a space probe to our neighbors with a gold record for others to understand who and where we are, perhaps long ago, a visitor left a "calling card" for us, too. It was the yin/yang idea of the ancients that nudges me toward a dual neutrino in a photon. Your 2D+ discussion, with A/non-A rods, provided a spark to further point to a core within photons. It seems to facilitate the conversion of photons into particles and back again.

Analog, I too would like to reduce everything into motion and aether. My time cones must deal with chemical bonds and EM, as Profpat pointed out. For my approach, I must transfer by attractive force into the aether since I yanked it from the particles. Your assistance in this regard would be especially beneficial. I need to show attraction in the aether as Felix noted (Casimir effect). Stretching of the aether may help pull time cones together.

Thank you both for your insightfulness and curiosity. We grow together - which I find fulfilling.

[analog]

Hi Jak,

I believe that it is the responsibility of the person making the claims of enlightenment to be able to relay his/her thoughts, whereby others who often think differently may understand what he/she is trying to say. This often requires that person to learn the views of others whereby he/she can speak in the terms that they are already accustom to using. If an English speaking person goes to another country, which uses a different language, is it easier to teach the people there, who they are trying to communicate with, English, or is it easier to learn the language those people already are so familiar with, and find their native words which best translates your meaning, whereby they can recieve much more meaning than if they were having to learn a new language and having to hear someone overwhelming them with unfamiliar words. I feel a person will identify more with my views if I find aspects of their's which better relates what I am trying to say.

Here's an excerpt from my blog: "Sometimes, the hardest task before us is trying to get those ideas, which are so graceful as they swim within the pristine waters of our own mind, out into the murky intelectually flooded world we live in, in a manner in which they do not drown."

Just as there is no void within the aether, and even perceived "space" between autonomous structured matter (uniform motion) is filled with a fabric of unstructured randomly moving aether, it is this unstructured aether that gives apparent seperation to autonomous structured matter, and being as structured matter can be formed from the condensation of unstructured volumes of aether (space), and unstructured volumes of aether (space) can expand from structured matter, perceived attraction and repulsion can thus be viewed as an integral part of this transformation, whereby the apparent change in proximity is due to the conversion of the apparent "space" which gave the perceived seperation to begin with; thus you find your electromagnetism, along with some other perceived "forces".

I hope this helps.

regards,

Tim

[Fredrick]

I believe that it is the responsibility of the person making the claims of enlightenment to be able to relay his/her thoughts, whereby others who often think differently may understand what he/she is trying to say. This often requires that person to learn the views of others whereby he/she can speak in the terms that they are already accustom to using.

This is correct, Tim.

Though in my case I would say that it is the responsibility of both the speaker and the listener to comprehend the complex nature of the message. I do not need to learn the complex intricacies of English if a drawing can explain something better, especially so when the drawing does not contain fallacies that are inherent to the English language. Still, common language/communications is most desired, and with a bit of patience from both sides I think we can both comprehend a completed view together in whichever idiom.

[JAK]

Hi JAK;

It's an interesting theory, which needs to be explored further.

A couple of questions: I didn't see where you addressed the electro/magnetic force. Also it seems the more messive particles exhibit the greater possibility of the alpha particle decay ( the weak force ) i.e uranium. With your theory the more massive the further in the pits and less the likelyhood of the alpha decay. Could you clarify?

Best to you and your theory,

Pat

My earlier reply and explanation for alpha decay is still the best I've got so far. But I'm going places with the electro/magnetic force. I'm postulating that the "stretchy" aether that Felix talks about is the true home of gluons/gravitons (GG) which I hope can be reduced into being one-in-the same. In other words, the "fabric" of the aether is made up of threads of gluons/gravitons (GG). (Which leads me to my next idea ...)

Magnetic lines of force to not seem consistent with the spherical cloud-like particles which do not have any clear-cut features. Meanwhile, it appears that all magnetic fields have "north" and "south" poles:

Monopoles would carry "magnetic charge" analogous to electric charge. Despite systematic searches since 1931, as of 2006, they have never been observed, and could very well not exist. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism.

I am leaning toward magnetic lines of force directly correlating to gridlines of the aether. Further, the "north" and "south" factors relate to the direction that the aether is being stretched. In other words, the time cone/mass cone (whatever you want to call it) is conical in 2 directions which causes the stretching and the ensuing attraction between opposite and corresponding magnetic lines of force (north to south). In other words, any object with mass creates a bulge in the aether in 2 directions - "north" and "south". And magnetic lines of force are actually "threads" of gluons/gravitons, the fabric of the aether, being stretched.

(Am I a loonie or what?)