[N0B0DY]

Essentially if we refuse to follow the concensus and differentiate between matter and mass, invariant mass can be considered relativistic mass @ relativistic velocities. Then finding the cause for mass (motion) becomes finding the cause for motion.

Then if we further the implications relative to rest mass (absolutely still matter), the stillness can be seen as carrying throughout incremental motion. Just like equating mass and energy, space and time, everything and nothing, stillness and motion are the same.

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
Mass is a “MEASUREMENT”; so is motion; so is energy; so is time. Matter is an “ENTITY”. The question is: “Does mass truly represent a measure of the physical quantity of something?” Once you establish the absolute fundamentals, no cause can be determined beyond that point; this is where we can only say that the fundamentals have always existed and still exist today; their total quantities are the same now as they were 15 billion years ago.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Mass is a “MEASUREMENT”; so is motion; so is energy; so is time. Matter is an “ENTITY”. The question is: “Does mass truly represent a measure of the physical quantity of something?” Once you establish the absolute fundamentals, no cause can be determined beyond that point; this is where we can only say that the fundamentals have always existed and still exist today; their total quantities are the same now as they were 15 billion years ago.

I've read your blog, Dave, and understand scientific absolutes. The point is, however, philosophy has a different interpretation of absolute that extends the limited definition of science to render a single quantity. So the First-Philosophy absolute is synonymous to absolute matter, space, time, mass, etc., and it renders the scientific interpretation as being relative. Science isn't wrong, it is just limited to measuring time-dependent quantities and for this reason most scientists have no time concerning themselves with the absolute entity you referred us to. Like you said, it is not a measurement - cannot be measured - and I propose it is the essential meeting point of absolute solidity and vacuity. At that point both seeming opposites are the identical impenetrable state of absolute space, similar to the zero-point energy at both ends of the Energy Spectrum.

When we use a little imagination, we can use t=0 as the carrier cause of measured forces, where time must then be the sole factor in creating the time-dependent quantities of relative motion, mass, energy, charges, etc.. The absolute - total of all relative quantities - is changless because it has no time, and this is where and why there is a problem with equating an eternal existence of relative fundamentals (time and time-dependent quantities continuing forever) with the absolute entity (timeless non existence). The inclusion of the mathematical zero was imo the greatest achievement in theoretical and philosophical science, because it can lead to the realization that this non number is representative of the absolute container of the universe - any and all quanta and qualia can be extracted without changing the absolute state; and in this way we can properly unify Newton's and Einstein's theories. QM and QG are merely infinitesimal extensions of this unification.

Explanations for the proclamation of existential space expanding into an absolute void that isn't there, or a void that is some unknown substance or dimension, have been unsatisfactory. The models are flawed, and the reason I propose is re: above, the absolute-zero point as the cause of the continual creation and annihilation - conversion - of mass and energy has always been neglected. It is an impossibility to quantitatively measure motion, mass, etc., without it being relative to non-existent boundaries; but it is equally impossible to make quantitative measurements relative to non-existent boundaries in the literal sense, and therefore we must use non-particulate abstract positions from zero-dimesnional point A radially-extended to an infinite number of other zero-dimensional positions, which produces by default an infinite number of relative velocities.

[dleviwing]

Hi Nobody;
The fundamental substance is indeed measurable and is measured quite often. We measure it as gravity, charge, mass, energy, magnetism, and so on. You must have misunderstood what I was saying. We can only know the FS by its attributes and behavior; like we know most anything or anyone.

I like the phrase out of Star Trek IV: “Nothing unreal exists”. A little imagination quite often leads to a lot of unreal interpretations of the numbers represented by empirical data.

I would reply to the rest of your post but I don’t know how to interpret your imagination into my reality.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dleviwing The fundamental substance is indeed measurable and is measured quite often. We measure it as gravity, charge, mass, energy, magnetism, and so on. You must have misunderstood what I was saying. We can only know the FS by its attributes and behavior; like we know most anything or anyone. I like the phrase out of Star Trek IV: “Nothing unreal exists”. A little imagination quite often leads to a lot of unreal interpretations of the numbers represented by empirical data. I would reply to the rest of your post but I don’t know how to interpret your imagination into my reality.

I thought you stressed the importance of knowing the difference between measurement and entity in your earlier message, Dave, and therefore implying that the fundamental measurements are different than the totality of the entity. Or did you edit it because they were not supposed to be stressed?

At any rate, I can understand your scientific predicament, but empirical and theoretical science must be considered limited and as such unable to fully describe the above totality. For instance, studying – and knowing – what your toe nail is won't lead to more than a limited understanding of what and who you are in your enitirety. Yet, the simplicity of understanding the process of which observations are made possible, by using inverse laws to understand the totality of such a process can lead us to ascertaining what the entity is and isn't without using empirical science.

When energy increases infinitely toward singularities, we have an almost perfect conversion of mass to energy; the absolute conversion then must equal the singularities at the absolute-zero point; and because these zero-dimensional points are at t=0, the totality of all singularities equals one zero-dimensional singularity (the changeless “entity” that just can't change, or contain any hitherto literal universes).

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” (What Life Means to Einstein, 1929)

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
What I stress about “dimension” and “entity” is that we need to understand exactly what we are measuring when we measure charge, mass, energy, and so on. The other is not to treat the dimension as an entity.

Like many other imaginative interpretations and explanations of the numbers, the rest of your post is meaningless BS that relates to nothing; it’s all in your imagination and that’s not science nor is it useful to anyone other than SciFi writers and those who are attempting to impress the ignorant. This is a science forum; there are other forums more suited to the concepts of your imagination.

Imagination is worthless without creativity and creativity requires knowledge of reality. (dleviwing..2008)

BTW: don’t quote Einstein to me; he was just an idea man with little experience in real science.

[N0B0DY]

I conceded that knowledge is scientific, Dave, but it is forever limited by empirical and theoretical standards. Einstein's ideas were just that until his hypotheses were empirically supported years later, e=mc^2 was just an idea, and they are now the basis of modern science and ironically of this science-oriented “Spacetime” forum. .


The point in question remains, in the back of many scientist's minds, if nature abhors a vacuum why is the presently-accepted model of nature based on nature expanding into a vacuum? Or is the incremental evolution of universal time synonymous to electron jumps which lack transitional phases?


If the latter, then what exactly lies between incremental timeframes that would essentially constitute an entity? Iow, if the measurements are dimensional, and is different than an entity, what exactly do you propose is an entity?

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
I’m afraid you do not have your facts right.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I conceded that knowledge is scientific, Dave, but it is forever limited by empirical and theoretical standards. Einstein's ideas were just that until his hypotheses were empirically supported years later, e=mc^2 was just an idea, and they are now the basis of modern science and ironically of this science-oriented “Spacetime” forum. .

E=mc^2 was derived using already existing equations for mass and energy.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY The point in question remains, in the back of many scientist's minds, if nature abhors a vacuum why is the presently-accepted model of nature based on nature expanding into a vacuum? Or is the incremental evolution of universal time synonymous to electron jumps which lack transitional phases?

You’re using the statement “OUT OF CONTEXT”. You only appear foolish when you make such statements. “Nature abhors a vacuum” does not apply to cosmological science, it applies only where atmospheric pressure or similar conditions are present; vacuum is synonymous to “SPACE” in this context.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY If the latter, then what exactly lies between incremental timeframes that would essentially constitute an entity? Iow, if the measurements are dimensional, and is different than an entity, what exactly do you propose is an entity?

Your question is meaningless; “dimension” means “a quantitative measurement”.

[RascalPuff]

"According to General Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field."
- Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dleviwing E=mc^2 was derived using already existing equations for mass and energy. “Nature abhors a vacuum” does not apply to cosmological science, it applies only where atmospheric pressure or similar conditions are present; vacuum is synonymous to “SPACE” in this context. Your question is meaningless; “dimension” means “a quantitative measurement”.

All ideas are based on the empirical and theoretical sciences, Dave, but the empirical and theoretical science are in turn based on ideas. You can't imagine anything that is not based on what has been observed, but you can imagine these things in different ways to create new things to be observed; like observing a bird and a car can lead you to imagine a plane. Like you said, Einstein was an idea man, and his greatest idea led to one of the most-famous equations of all time based on the symmetry of spacetime and inertia.

If you would be willing to further the limitations of science, you might be able to realize that the lack of pressure of the absolute void is the equivalent of absolute velocity (the velocity that was abolished due in-part to Einstein's ideas). What is between Casimir's plates?

We can put together both Newton's and Einstein's ideas in a different fashion that can explain how your “Matter is Everything in a Void” can be feasible, and imo RP's rendition of their work is the only means by which it can be done.

The absolute void is absolutely-full; immeasurably-full because it is the immeasurable entity; and only "fools" rush in because the wisemen tell them to.