[Graybeard]

Dear Dave & Guille

I have no education in physics ... not even hi-school..
What i know (right or wrong) i have read in books. if it seems that i quote textbooks as tho i understand the full depth of their meaning ... then i have given the wrong impression.

i am simply trying to find out more ..... its only by comparing what i know to what others know that i learn ....

I am only new to this forum and i don't know all the etiquette yet.

Ta! greg

[Guille]

Greybeard,

I didn't mean it to you exactly. I was taking on general terms, that I don't inmediatelly belief what I read either ina book or an article. It needs to have empirical truth, reasoning, concordance with the overall view of everything, simple-logic, minimum subjective writting, validity of who wrote it, gives ability to predict, helps to understand.....and there is a long long list of things. It's not bad to accept what you read, but jsut I say that you must be carefull with all of the points that you have as criteria to judge/grade a work.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Graybeard My question is this, if you combine all 3, Space, Matter, and Motion would this lead to a definition of Space-Time.

Excellent Greg. Now do you see why I object to those who proclaim "spacetime as an entity? Space time is the measure of 2 states of matter (spatial and structured) and one property of matter (motion).
Spatial matter is in a state of near total random motion. (chaotic wave function)
Structured matter has a great deal more uniform motion in the form of angular momenta.

If so, would this mean that our own perception of the Universe is unique in relation to: 1.. Our perception of where we are in space

Yes, but the real laws of physics will remain the same.

2.. Our perception of rate at which time passes

The rate of change as measured by a physical device (clock) and the perception of our physical senses will perceive motion change differently. Absolute time the concept as envisioned by Newton is constant.

3.. our rate of acceleration in Space-Time (assuming gravity and acceleration are the same)

Gravity and acceleration are not the same, only produce the same effect.
"Acceleration" is imposing uniform motion on an object and thus converting some of its random wave function motion to uniform motion that result in the object's spatial density to increase.
"Gravity" is the result of structured matter (mass) imposing uniform motion on spatial matter (ether) causing the random wave function motion of spatial matter to condense. This changes the spatial density environment of the object and also includes the object's spatial density.

We should note that fundamental matter has a natural bonding property (it sticks to itself). Uniform motion allows matter to increase the period of contact interaction and thus increases the bonding property. This is why uniform motion causes matter to condense, not some mysterious force of nature.

PS: Your questions indicate you not only can quote the text books, but you also have the skills to recognize and comprehend the topic.

[Graybeard]

Dave ... your answer at first seemed simple... but the more times i read it the less simple it became....

I see a dim light where you obviously see a bright one ... I looked up books that i had read and thought that i had understood ... only to find that i didn't. I am on late shift tonite (mon .. 23:00) and in a control room for 8 hrs. I am re-reading Einsteins 'Special relativity' and 'General relativity'

In the light of your reply: (and broadly speaking)

1.. It seems that Einsteins' Special-Relativity used Space-Time as the absolute backdrop for accelerated motion.
ie: space & time are relative but in their union fill out absolute spacetime.

2.. In General-Relativity Einstein was forced to change this statement to include gravity which made spacetime no longer an absolute but dynamic.
ie: Space & Time are dynamic, they are plastic and respond to the presence of mass & energy.

3.. General Relativity did not refute Special Relativity. Special Relativity was declared to be the same as General Relativity but in the presence of a ZERO gravitational field. (I'm sure this saved many egos)

4.. Finally ... Spacetime, with its warps & curves is an embodiment of the gravitational field. Acceleration relative to General-Relativity's Spacetime is relational ...
ie: It is not acceleration relative to material objects like stones & stars, but it is acceleration relative to something just as real and tangible .. the Gravitational field!

[my apologies to all authors whom i have plagiarised here ]

Dave ... do you agree with this so far ... because i am having difficulty with the terms structured matter, spatial matter, uniform motion

Gravity and acceleration are not the same, only produce the same effect. "Acceleration" is imposing uniform motion on an object and thus converting some of its random wave function motion to uniform motion that result in the object's spatial density to increase. "Gravity" is the result of structured matter (mass) imposing uniform motion on spatial matter (ether) causing the random wave function motion of spatial matter to condense.

This quote, and the sentence after it, seem to point at a more technical explanation of point 4 in my reply ???

Do you agree ???

Awaiting your reply

Also Guille ... if you read this .. in some forum the other day i used the absolute spacetime of special relativity in reply to something you had said earlier .. I was wrong. It now appears I should have used the spacetime of General relativity ..

TA! GREG

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Also Guille ... if you read this .. in some forum the other day i used the absolute spacetime of special relativity in reply to something you had said earlier .. I was wrong. It now appears I should have used the spacetime of General relativity ..

I think it doesn't seem to matter that much. Isn't anyway the spacetime of general relativity just a derivation, an enhacement, of the spacetime in special relativity? It's physical existence is equal, right, jsut that the general one could have curves?

Maybe Antonio can help us to determine it: it might depend all in if the maths is the same or not?

[dleviwing]

Greg;
Basically you are right. Einstein did not take into account gravitational effect with special relativity. He was only interested in the 4D spacetime geometry (x,y,z,t). In general relativity you might say he went to 5D spacetime geometry and added the effects of mass.

To help you understand my perceptual views of motion, I need to explain a few fundamental ideas.

I view the definition of "matter" as the single fundamental substance of the universe. Objects such as atomic particles and the atoms themselves are structures of this substance and thus "Structured Matter". Structured matter has uniform motion in the form of angular motion (spin)
The environment often referred to as "Ether" or "Aether" is this same substance but without a localized center of structure unless you view the universe as a whole.

The properties of matter are motion and bonding. Random motion is a randomized chaotic wave function or vibration. This prevents the bonding property of matter from strengthening and thus produces expansion of matter. This is the state of the matter that forms our space or vacuums. Ether, Aether, quantum foam, vacuum energy, and so on, are some of the many names for this state of matter. General Relativity spacetime defines mathematically the behavior of matter composed of mainly randomized motion when it is interacting with structured matter with mainly uniform motion.

When matter acquires uniform motion as part of its total quantity of motion, the uniform motion allows the bonding property to increase and thus causes matter to condense.

The best way to view this concept is to think of totally randomized matter as being the gaseous state of matter and totally uniform motion matter as being the solid state of matter. All matter we know of, lie somewhere in between these extremes.

This concept is quite extensive to be placed in a post.

I hope this helps you understand how I view things and why I say understanding reality is simple and only measuring it is complex.

Best regards;
Dave

[subversion]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Guille; many people quote text book answers as if they truly comprehended it and apply these false understandings to create new ideas. This only leads to greater complexity and false knowledge.

A saying my grandpa once told me relates to what you're saying:
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
And drinking largely sobers us again"

the Pierian spring was a spring in Macedonia, according to ancient Greek mythology, which was a source of inspiration sacred to the Muses. The idea is that if we know a little bit we often think we know everything, and this is what modern scientific dogma falls victim to. It is for this reason, that in my own musings, I have tried to avoid becoming locked into a prestanding paradigm which would only blind my view. As such, I have refused to take quantum mechanics at face value, for I believe it is an unuseful interpretation, and that it should make way for a more classical explanation as Einstein thought.

Regarding your theory Dave, are you suggesting that an accelerating object should have a lower temperature, since the random motion is being reduced?

[dleviwing]

Sub;
I admire the wisdom of your grandfather and I admire you for listening to his words.
You have also just stated the primary cause of so many intellectual teenagers.

Originally Posted by subversion Regarding your theory Dave, are you suggesting that an accelerating object should have a lower temperature, since the random motion is being reduced?

This is not really a suggestion of mine, but a consequence of thermodynamics in that the degree of freedom is reduced as an object is accelerated and thus its temperature would be considered to be lower. When you apply heat to an object, you are in effect randomizing the spatial density environment of that object .

Though we can use temperature as a way to explain the interactions based on motion, it is not really an ideal method of understanding these interaction.
It is like trying to apply the concept of pressure to a volume of outer space.

I have noticed the wisdom of many of your posts.
Best regards;
Dave

[Graybeard]

I view the definition of "matter" as the single fundamental substance of the universe. Objects such as atomic particles and the atoms themselves are structures of this substance and thus "Structured Matter". Structured matter has uniform motion in the form of angular motion (spin) The environment often referred to as "Ether" or "Aether" is this same substance but without a localized center of structure unless you view the universe as a whole.

Dave .. I agree, it is too extensive to place in a post .. But i think i am following your drift now. Matter is the fundamental esse. if we think in terms of left and right ... to the left is chaos ... to the right structure. The left and the right is defined by the bonding and motion.

when we come to measure what is left and what is right, we drag out the toolbox of the 4 known forces, classical maths and quantum mechanics. (and all the variables and parameters they require.

if i am interpreting you correctly, then what you have is the framework for the TOE.

As I find it easier to picture this, than to describe it i have drawn a small jpg which i will send to you ... i don't know how to include small sketches in my post ... for me, it would make life a lot easier

Ta! GREG

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Dave .. I agree, it is too extensive to place in a post .. But i think i am following your drift now. Matter is the fundamental esse. if we think in terms of left and right ... to the left is chaos ... to the right structure. The left and the right is defined by the bonding and motion.

Greg;
You have "to the left, chaos" correct but the "to the right, structure" I think you misunderstand this.

"To the right" the bonding property of matter overwhelms any structure causing matter to collapse to a state of ultimate solidity. All its motion is uniform. This is the state I view matter to have been in just before the "Big Bang" that caused the chaos of wave function vibration of this matter to expand.

Structured matter (particles and atoms) falls between these two extremes having both random motion and uniform motion. The difference in how much of their motion is random and how much is uniform will determine how we view the nature of their properties.

QM estimated that the big bang expansion had a velocity of about 6* 10^11 times the speed of light. This quantity of motion is still present in every structure of matter. Relativity only accounts for the quantity of 2c uniform motion; where is the rest of the motion? We cannot change the quantity of motion possessed by matter, we can only cause it to be redistributed between random and uniform motion of any matter system.

This is "Absolute Motion" and all structured systems of matter has this value of motion.

The quantity of uniform motion determines "mass" value not matter quantity.

if i am interpreting you correctly, then what you have is the framework for the TOE.

This concept is the TOE framework I've been using to understand the mathematical gauge theories for the past 35 years. I just never expected to share it as a possible solution for explaining the terms of these gauge theories. I always considered it to be too simple to be true. Maybe it is just that simple!!
Best regards;
Dave