[dleviwing]

Mr nobody;
The true believer is convinced and the convinced are true believers.
Evaluate the difference of what you believe and what you know.

Until you stop believing and start knowing, confusion will continue to dictate your thoughts.

I know that expansion mathematical functions are true. The interpretation defining the cause is false.

QM and Relativity are theories developed for the physics of measurement. They require terms that denote quantitative measure such as energy, mass, volts, charge, distance, motion, and so on. We use the numbers that represent mass as being a quantity of matter. In reality this is not true; it is a measure of the potential energy of a quantity of matter and thus equivalent to the "E" term of the equation. We do not have a true measure of physical matter quantity.

I can only suggest that you continue on the path of wave functions; It will lead you to profound understanding that you have yet to realize.

[Mr. Nobody]

Dave;
The way you apply your knowledge intrigues me. After following some other threads you posted, specifically

The fundamental substance of the universe has only 2 properties: Motion and self bonding. The bonding property is at maximum when the motion property of matter is totally uniform motion. This property is at its weakest when motion of the matter is randomized into chaotic wave motions (vibrations). The total quantity of all motion types (uniform or random) must equate to the quantity of motion prior to the "Big Bang" event. This is "Absolute Motion".

I am interested to know how you arrived at your conclusions

I am attempting to fashion a concept of reality and tend to agree on some points with you. I view this realm as bound and shaped waves of energies (your fundamental matter)
Decoherance acts as the Darwinian selector of most successful information within the quantum world. It is necessary IMHO to have "instability" built in at the most fundamental level in order to make room for random mutations. This paves the way for a possible increase in order and may have led to conscious matter.
However, fundamentally, I view matter as solidified energy and QM as the doorway from the permeating background (ether)

[dleviwing]

Mr nobody;
How I came to my conclusions would require me to write my biography.

I came to my conclusions basically because I questioned everything I had been taught by the academic temples. That is also why I was asked to leave religious instruction class.

Many who are attempting to make sense of the mainstream models are still dragging the chains of academic dogma thinking all along that these are proven facts or axiomatic terms. You would be amazed at what happens when you try to think for yourself and provide a meaning for such terms as energy, mass, time, space, vacuum, and so on. If you don't make the connections that these are measured terms (dimensions), then you will become confused and overcome with complexity. The meaning of such terms have been exaggerated to such an extent that they have become almost pure nonsense.

Examples:
1..Time is not affected by the motions of objects; only the MEASURE of time is.
2..The speed of light is NOT a constant; only the MEASURMENT of it provides the same numerical value in all frames of reference. (that’s why relativity works)

I can only advise you that if you are going to use the term "energy" as an entity in you concept, you WILL be wrong. Energy is a measured term, not an entity like matter is.

Good luck;
Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Mr. Nobody,

You stated that bonding is strongest when motion of matter is totally uniform and the weakest when it is the most randomnized. Do you think that this suggests a certain order in the aether. And, that order could manifest itself as a force that the aether applies to the pieces of energy that make up matter, as the strong and weak electro forces. This force is the strongest, and the weak force would equal the strong force when energy is most organized in matter. And if matter is not in a perfect state of order, with the aether, could that disorder be transferred to a normally ordered aether, or space time continuum, and thus warping the continuum, giving us a gravitational field.

Brian

[Mr. Nobody]

Brian
I can not claim that quote. It was an excerpt from one of Dave's posts.
So, your question should be answered by dleviwing.

I am not convinced yet of motion and matter to be the answer to it all. I am pursuing my search for knowledge along the paths of quantum mechanics and its implications on the large scale. I am a strong believer in indeterminism and randomness in all systems from the fundamental level up and a Darwinian selector for the propagation of entropy.

Your line of reasoning seems appealing nevertheless

[dleviwing]

Hi Brian;
You should not view the ether as anything other than matter, the same stuff that subatomic particles are made of. If you like, you can look at it as being waves of electromagnet energy from all directions. Electromagnet energy are wave motions of the matter in an ether state. One of the greatest errors made is to interpret energy as an entity with its own attributes.

Particles are structures of matter having angular uniform motion. The angular momentum of these particles interact with the ether around them and impart uniform motion on this ether. This results in what we call charge. If like charged particles come close to each other the interaction results in randomizing the ether and causing it to expand and thus appear to repel.

Energy, force, mass, and so on, are terms we use as a measurement of matter and its interactions with matter.

The strong and weak forces are the same as gravity; A process of imparting uniform motion on unstructured matter (ether) and thus causing it to condense to a greater spatial density.

The random motion of the matter is what makes it expand and thus have lower spatial density. This is what we call a vacuum or space.

Best regards;
Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Mr. Nobody

I am glad you have a strong belief. But, a belief should always be leading you to a question or measurement with an observation that allows you to say I know.



I also believe that Darwinian evolution can logically be argued as a possibility with a slight, or some would consider major modification. Stephen Gould opened that door with his theory "Puncuated Equilibrium", which states evolution made dramatic jumps at certian times in the past. The problem is for those dramatic jumps to be statistically possible they would have needed some kind of intelligent guidance. I think it can logically be argued that the system or nature has evolved an underlying intelligence overtime to guide this evolution. This intelligence may only be detectable in the statistical analysis of the changes in genetic material as it evolves to higher life forms. It appears to me, statistical analysis demands that, without some sort of guidance the extreme variance and changes in the genetic code from lower to higher life forms, evolution is unattainable by chance. To me the argument should be, is what that intelligence is (an automated system like the innate behavior of animals or true intelligence making decisions like us humans.)

I too, believe that everything we observe today on the fundamental level appears to be randomn. But, there are some things in quantum mechanics that demand some sort of initial order for us to even be able to measure and observe, such as Planck's constant, fine structure constant, and relativity. No matter how far back we look into the universe those basic parameters appeared to exist. This is another place where it appears statistically impossible to have happened by chance. I think there had to be an underlying intelligence that at least set up the basic parameters for energy to be placed into, to form the patterns in the standing waves of energy we observe today as matter, and the medium that carries all electromagnetic energy, known as the aether.

If your belief demands that the wrong questions be asked, or the right questions be ignored out of hand, how will you get the right answers?

-----------------------------------
Dave,

I agree with you that the aether is the same stuff sub-atomic particles are made of.

I think there are two ways for an energy pattern to exist in the universe, one as an ever expanding wave, such as a radiowave traveling across the universe, or a wave traveling across a pond after a stone is dropped into it, or as a standing wave, as energy is stored in the space filled by an atom.

Since every atom of an element is basically the same, and all elements are constructed following the same basic rules, this implies some amount, maybe even a large amount of order, in matter. I think this is also shown by the distinct patterns observed in the spin of sub-atomic particles ( ie,1/2 spin of matter particles and whole spin of force particles).

If matter containing such order is what makes up the aether, then I think this would explain why the aether appears as a flat, or ordered matrix in the vacuum of space, and is bent or disorder where it comes into contact with matter, as Einstien showed in his General Theory of Relativity.

I think this would agree with David Bohm's "Implicate Order", and Rod Johnson's and David Wilcox's "Sequential Perspective".

[dleviwing]

Brian;
To make the wave model of the surface of a pond more attune to the wave interactions within the spatial aether of the universe, take a pale of pebbles and toss them into the pond spreading them out as much as possible. The surface waves are quite chaotic; however the interior of the universe is not a surface and thus the chaos is the transverse compression waves of the aether (electromagnetic in nature).

Electromagnetic waves expand in wavelength due to the spatial density; though this is also interpreted as being caused by the expansion of the universe also. It is much the same since expansion of the universe reduces the spatial density (permeability).

In QM, spin dose not specify an actual angular velocity. Angular velocity is uniform motion and thus the bonding property of matter increases causing the matter to collapse to a finite physical dimension. If you consider the linear acceleration of an electron and the fact that its mass increases as it approaches the speed of light, then you can realize that it is the uniform motion that causes the increase in mass and not an increase in the quantity of matter.

Order come due to the fact that any system of matter (particles and structures) are the result of a single quantity of matter that becomes autonomous when it acquires "Absolute Motion". The universe itself can be viewed as a particle.

I consider David Bohm's books and papers excellent QM reference but find his ability to interpret the mathematical terms into reality, leaves much to be desired.
Mathematicians seem to think in the abstract nature of the math.

Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Dave, if spin doesn't specify an actual angular velocity, then what is it. I've read Hawking's explanation in "A Brief History of Time" and in the end an actual angular velocity is the picture I got. Is there a real picture of QM spin?

[Mr. Nobody]

Brian:
Follow the logic of the anthropic principle to its bitter conclusion:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520

The "Fined-Tuned Universe" argument. If certain physical constants were different, life would not exist, it is argued. For example:

If the strong nuclear force were to have been as little as 2% stronger (relative to the other forces), all hydrogen would have been converted into helium. If it were 5% weaker, no helium at all would have formed and there would be nothing but hydrogen. If the weak nuclear force were a little stronger, supernovas could not occur, and heavy elements could not have formed. If it were slightly weaker, only helium might have formed. If the electromagnetic forces were stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, and there would be no planets. If it were a little weaker, all stars would be very hot and short-lived. If the electron charge were ever so slightly different, there would be no chemistry as we know it. Carbon (12C) only just managed to form in the primal nucleosynthesis. And so on." (McMullin 37

If one were to go fishing and catch 50 fish, all of which were more than ten inches long, one might reasonably make the hypothesis that all of the fish in the lake are more than ten inches long. Someone else might make another hypothesis, that only half the fish in the lake are more than ten inches long. It seems obvious that the first hypothesis is more likely. But what if, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the net being used to catch the fish had holes that prevented it from catching fish smaller than ten inches, and that the fisherman left it in the water until it had caught 50 fish? This new information must now be incorporated into the hypothesis, causing both to have a likelihood of one, thus preventing one from being more likely than the other.

This situation can be directly applied to the fine-tuned universe argument. It may seem on the surface that the likelihood of a universe in which all of the constants are right for life given an intelligent designer is much higher than the likelihood that the constants are right given random chance. When we add in the fact that we are here to observe the universe, however, we find that the likelihood of a fine-tuned universe is one either way. If we are here we must be in a universe which is tuned to our existence. The likelihood of a fine-tuned universe given that there is an intelligent designer and that we live in a fine tuned universe is equal to the likelihood that we live in a fined tuned universe given that it was created by random chance and that we live in a fine-tuned universe.

Pr(Fine-Tuned Universe | Intelligent Design & Fine-Tuned Universe) = Pr(Fine-Tuned Universe | Chance & Fine-Tuned Universe) = 1

This is to say that since we are here we must live in a universe fine-tuned to our existence regardless of whether that universe was created by an intelligent designer or by random chance. Therefore, the fine-tuned universe argument does not, in the final analysis, promote either intelligent design or chance (Sober).
-----------------------------------

The Fine Structure Constant and Speed of Light are not so constant:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/4/9

"Puncuated Equilibrium", which states evolution made dramatic jumps at certian times in the past

Follow the evolution of "digital organisms." experiment (Lenski et al. 139) It showed that complex features evolve through the modification of existing simpler structures. Your "jumps" in evolution appear to be these transitions from simple to complex