East Meets West Logic...

[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd:
Please tell me what you think of this excerpt from Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of CC and Steady State Theories... It is a narrative circumspection of the information you responded to in missive 2247; the final result being an elaboration of the same question I asked previously.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...

It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1041 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.

The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1041 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...

Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).

The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.

When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...

Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...

Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).

The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.

When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.

There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.

Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.
The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.

Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.

The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.

The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.
This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.

This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.

It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.

Thanking you (in advance),
- RP

[MJA]

What time is it?
Having trouble measuring the universe RP?
You should, its only probable or uncertain at best.
Try life without measure,
with any luck you might find the absolute your looking for.
A clue: look where east meets west,

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi RP, and let me try to answer your query with reference to a clean slate model. Let's view the entire universe as a background independence of an infinite pure quantum space/field/substance, traveling at c, everywhere__no quantumized matter formation yet__just a bare quantum theoretical model. Let structured matter be called quantumized matter, as this model evolves/forms into structured matter. c, in this model, has three possible ground internal motion states, and one total random motion state__this would be__Linear right chiral motion__Linear left chiral notion__Linear opposite chiral motion. The model has three states of time__Linear__Angular__Spin, and also__Past_Present_Future__all within the eternal Now Time__So the model's a 4D Universe of Einstein's conception. Now, total universal motion at c, can not form into structured matter, unless it transfers some of its linear motion to, first angular motion, then spin motion. The law of action/reaction requires the amount of stored energy in the field substance's linear velocity, to be a shared total velocity, as a volume of space/field/substance is condensed to a volume of structured matter__this simply means that linear, must first turn angular, then into spin motion__to form structured matter in one particular place in infinite space, while, all the while, sharing total energy/substance/mass velocity. In other words, as linear velocity decreases, angular velocity increases, thus increasing still further into localized spin velocity, created by the inter-meshing mechanics of the three ground states of motion__right, left and opposite chirals. The opposite would be the key in structured matter formation, by creating the tightest motion entanglements, due to its drastic asymmetries, of knot tying abilities, of the condensing motions of fields/substances/masses/energies present. The trick is to see that we can never witness this directly, even in Lene Hau's experiment, because we can't directly measure light with our light speed limited tools__yet we can know its existence through modal logics necessities of physical actions. Since these motions only become measurable at far less than light speeds, we measure only part of the velocity spectrum, and must use modal probabilities for the full spectrum's measurements__though this is possible and known.

So, to answer your question, and I'm not sure the above model gives a clear enough picture, but anyway__If the structured matter were to be expanding at c, as I believe you suggest, it would be violating the laws of motion, which must share the total velocity of all motions present. By being required to share velocity, to form structured matter, and the fact c is always a constant, no matter how measured in vacuum, the only motion resevoir for structured matter's condensation formation to come from is the total unstructured fundamental substance field matter energy properties, of the fundamental random linear quantum velocity__which must be shared, not to violate the laws of motion. We have no logic available to us to state that there's always an excess of the infinite FS feeding into the 4D Universe we witness, as the fundamental mechanics and laws of, would still require the shared motion velocities mentioned. In order for FS matter/field/energy/mass to condense and form into initial structured matter__such transformation requires a geometric path of actual condensation, thus requiring the larger volume of FS space, to condense into the smaller, yet much tighter knotted and wound, standing wave-particle-object within space. The only path option open to scientific logic, is shared velocity of the total motion...

This isn't to say that it's a strictly set fixed matter state__It's simply showing the truth must lie between these perameters of motion's shared velocities__possibly varying one side or the other some__maybe... It could be slightly skewed toward an expanding matter, along with c, which would mean the total initial velocity would have to exceed our present measurement of light speed, but it would still be c in an altered state of c, but, when we do this, we are simply stepping into pure speculation, beyond all our scientific knowledge. Yet, there are alternative models of c, which do show slightly expanding matter, at very small increments, over each year, which does interpret through billions of years to massive expansions of structured matter over time__but again, pure speculation, as no sceintific measurement is possible, outside what science has already established__Yet__Einstein's c is absolute__just as he long ago stated, until science develops further, to more accurately find ways to measure all the universe's motion and velocity differences. We can build many models, but so far, there's only one correct one__Einstein's, and I don't see the real problem between his and QM__I think it's just the man-made gauge math that's the real problem, and I advocate building a new background independent asymmetric math, to better match the real world and Universal conditions__at both relative and quantum levels__which, imo, would unite the two...

Here's an innate perception model I use to see the internal continuum's comparison to the external continuum. If we picture any concept in our mind's eye, how and from where is it formed...? What is its true and full quantum path...? Kant long ago mentioned the fact, that we actually control inner space to form concepts__that would be quantum controlling our inner space to form any concept, then how do we unite concepts, when we form more than one__and choose to unite them...? What and from where is the mechanics sourced...? If we look at this as a united objective/subjective model, we can see a bit deeper into all quantum actions. The base subjective energies of our inner quantum continuum field/energy, would then be absolutely required, by all modal logic's possibilities, probabilities and necessities, to be the source of our objective concept/object mechanics. From my findings, the mind is impossibe of function, without the subjective continuum field/energy, supporting the objective concept/object world. The brain's perception apparatus is just a simple muscle, which we contract and expand at will, to perform all the 'ratiocinator mechanics' necessary for all intelligence functions, imso, when combined with the five senses, memory, and will, etc., of the rest of the epistemic agents... To me, this whole quantum and relative mechanics is not as complex as many have made it out to be__It's just seeing it anew, in a simpler light, that's the real trick to me... In this model, the internal actions and objects, can be transposed onto the external universal model, back and forth, as needed__It just enhances the overall vision and theoretic abilities... Just a model, so do with it what you want...

Let me know if this helps or blunts your understanding...

Dear Lloyd:
Please tell me what you think of this excerpt from Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of CC and Steady State Theories... It is a narrative circumspection of the information you responded to in missive 2247; the final result being an elaboration of the same question I asked previously.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’
Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.
Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’. [Imo, this is where asymmetric chirality comes in, and does the heavy lifting__and no-one has explored this mechanics far enough__Yet. It's the asymmetric chiral-knot theory, I've mentioned elswhere...]

In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...

To me, it's all one simple system of FS motion and velocity variations of... Yet__It may take more science than we have to prove it...

[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd:
Much thanks for your invested and far reaching thoughts on the issued subject. Much of your perception far surpasses mine on these considerations. I am already referencing several of your related dissertations contingent to this subject and certainly will henceforth concentrate on the import of what you've most recently offered in direct response to my questions.

We are apparently in agreement that the subject at hand introduces many alternative interpretations, some of which may be - until further notice - incalculable.

Please allow this opportunity on my part to compliment you on your multifaceted and meaningful capacity to accomodate a wide variety of issues.

- I am gratefully wishing you best regards,
- RP

[labelwench]

If we picture any concept in our mind's eye, how and from where is it formed...? What is its true and full quantum path...? Kant long ago mentioned the fact, that we actually control inner space to form concepts__that would be quantum controlling our inner space to form any concept, then how do we unite concepts, when we form more than one__and choose to unite them...? What and from where is the mechanics sourced...?
Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Infinite space and perpetual motion, would seem to describe the inner workings of the mind, to me.

We can examine the brain (engine) and the body (running gear) and understand to some fairly fine degree how the electro-mechanical interactions come about.

Yet, we realize, that we are not even coming close to attaining the full potential of our being, despite we stand so close....

Where the without interfaces upon the within.....the point where all of our senses meet and build the model from the data that each has reported individually, and then the over sense or common sense that double checks and verifies the data and the model as it has been 'reported', to whom?

Who or What, am I, or any of us, for that matter? An observatory; reporting sensory input models, attempting to maintain the integrity of the operating machinery for as long a duration as possible....

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Where the without interfaces upon the within.....the point where all of our senses meet and build the model from the data that each has reported individually, and then the over sense or common sense that double checks and verifies the data and the model as it has been 'reported', to whom?

Imo, right hemisphere self reports to left hemisphere self, and left hemisphere self reports to right hemisphere self__Then finds another like self__and we go get a bottle of Tequila and party, to some good tunes...

Miley Sirus...

Rihanna__a bit naughty video tune__More to entertain the boys/men at the party...

[labelwench]

Imo, right hemisphere self reports to left hemisphere self, and left hemisphere self reports to right hemisphere self__Then finds another like self__and we go get a bottle of Tequila and party, to some good tunes...

Miley Sirus...

Rihanna__a bit naughty video tune__More to entertain the boys/men at the party...

I'll be hard to handle........though I'm sure you would anticipate that....lol.....

These two make me howl in this clip, in light of the afternoon's entertainment on the other thread as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnUfY-URXzA

[leskey]

This party's a bit dull...c'mon, outta the rocking chairs - let's dance! A little something to liven things up... it's a game, anyone can play?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

One of the original American Idiots... Alice Cooper__School's Out...

Black Oak Arkansas (Lord Have Mercy On My Soul)



Welcome to the party, Lesk...

[gunnar]

hi labelwench,

"an infinite number of subjective realities; only one observable objective reality?"

this point was attempting to be communicated with the concept of a 3D foundation.

it is important; this concept has no weakness in appliction to reality.

what is actually physically possible is founded in 3D energy and as such other dinensional recognition represents with distinction the resulting simplicities and complexities of it.


hi lloyd,

some thoughts:

human beings are sensitive to the foundation of energy that governs all existence with the basic principle of freedom; action-reaction.

with basically all forms of made up (artificial) societies already having a degree of existence it is clear that for any system to work almost all, willing or forced have to participate.

imperialism... while there are all kinds of isms, all tend to hide behind capitalism, socialism or communism fronts today.

platos ant farm idea where there is a perfect place for everyone in society seems to be a popular one, however it does not provide equality involving a higher archy and potential exploitation.

because of possible greed and disrespect there is no such thing as a morally good economic system.

humans can have the cake of material possessions and eat it too, but as a way of life this system will not last because life has limits on being taxed.

while the lessons of life can be easy or difficult, some can not be completely understood without a degree of experience. in reality with the possibilities of experience human beings tend to do things just because they can or do not understand.

a principle understanding of life recognized as common sense seems to be the only way to equality, individual freedom and sustainibility with dignity and respect for whole existence.

a natural immune system.

gunnar