Language, Meaning and the TOE

[Wick]

We have confused them because we extracted their effects and named their effects but forgot what they really were, namely SPACE in motion.

So what of MATTER. Well most matter would appear to have a triadic nature…but things are not always what they seem. If space is 4 dimensional in nature, then matter is, in all likelihood, also 4 dimensional in nature. We who live in three dimensions but under the influence of four dimensional effects (like light) have a hard time comprehending what a four-dimensional object might look like. I would argue that the most common four-dimensional object in the observable universe is the nucleus of hydrogen. It appears to us as three quarks—two up quarks and one down quark. We have never ACTUALLY observed these triadic quarks…but we have acquired volumes of circumstantial evidence which would seem to indicate, if not prove, that they exist. But do they exist as basic units or as manifestations of one unified thing.

The following diagrams suggest a model of something akin to a four-spatial loop (a sphere?) that intersects three-space in three places. The loop also moves in at least three ways—1) it spins through the surface of 3-space, 2) it twists through the surface of 3 space and 3) it rotates as a whole through the surface of three-space. These different motions passing through the surface of 3-space create what appear to be three particles held together by an invisible force—two of which bear a positive charge and spin in the same direction and one of which bears a negative charge and spins in a different direction (a proton). Furthermore, if this loop flips over on the surface of space all of its values reverse (a neutron). Yet while these three particles appear to be conjoined in a relationship…they are really one thing. They are a unity. They are not triadic, but monadic. There is no relationship…because “they” are really an “it”. As each loop moves through the surface of space, it “stirs” the space and may create a “wake” which we are currently in the habit of calling electrons or electron orbitals.

[Wick]

Two sides of the same nucleon. I think you'll have to click on the picture to enlarge it. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards!

[Wick]

Another interesting article:

http://www.physorg.com/news203275105.html

This part caught my attention:

"[The Cheerio Effect] isn't exclusive to breakfast cereals. It also reveals itself in the way particles move in the air, pollen floats on the surface of water and galaxies cluster throughout the universe....If you put Cheerios in a bowl, they aggregate," said Arshad Kudrolli, a physicist at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. 'Or if you look at foam floating on a beer, you get clumps. That's because of surface tension.'.....While the driving force is different, Berhanu said this same effect can also be seen in the cosmos. Large clusters of galaxies and stars cling closely to each other while leaving vast amounts of empty space between them."

If the driving force is different, what is the driving force? Might not the clustering of galaxies simply arise from the surface tension associated with the three dimensional surface of space?

Regards!

Wick

[Wick]

Not long ago I became slightly obsessed with Newton's bucket...the experiment in which a bucket filled with water, suspended by a twisted rope, begins to spin opposite the direction of the rope's twist. As the rope unwinds and the bucket begins to spin, the water in the bucket remain's placid at first, but in time the motion of the bucket is communicated to the water, and the water begins to spin with the bucket. What's more, the water's surface begins to move up the sides of the bucket (or in other words, what was two dimensional (the surface of the water) begins to bend along a third dimension). At some point the rope begins to twist in the opposite direction and when the tension becomes great enought the bucket slows, stops, then begins to spin in the opposite direction. Now the water, however, continues to spin in the direction opposite the spin of the bucket, until the motion of the bucket communicates its motion to the water. The water then slows, grows placid, then begins to spin with the bucket and creeps once again up the sides of the bucket.

Here a demonstration using Wolfram (thanks to U-Tube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5WBEDAL0k

Newton's question regarding the spinning bucket and water is this: Relative to what is the water spinning? It is not spinning relative to the bucket or the rope, because both of these objects are moving in their own way. Newton concludes that the water is spinning relative to absolute space.

This question has never really been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Even Mach and Einstein struggled with Newton's bucket. Mach would go so far as to say (in essence) that if the universe were to begin spinning around the stationary bucket, the water in the bucket would begin to spin with the universe and rise up the sides of the bucket. This interpretation appealed to Einstein, who was partial to the concept that all motion is relative, but he was never able to come to a firm conclusion regarding Newton's question. What he was able to ascertain was that the water is not moving relative to absolute space, as absolute space does not exist.

At the time Newton asked the question, there was no real sense among philosophers and physicists of his day that the water in the bucket was actually composed primarily of space--but it was. Consequently, to be linguistically precise when asking the question we have to take into account what Rutherford showed us at the beginning of the 20th century, namely that matter consists primarily of space.

So as the bucket spin, does the space which we consider to be part of the bucket spin with the bucket, or do the buckets atoms simply move through the space in their fixed configuration? Similarly, as the water spins, does the space which we consider to be part of the water spin with the water, or do the molecules of water simply move through the space in their fluid configuration?

Really what we are asking here is whether the space IS something. Does space have properties. A fish for instance is made up mostly of water and as it swims through the water, it carries its water with it. We are sure of this fact. We know for instance that water does not flow through the fish (except for the gills perhaps) as the fish moves from point a to point b.

But when it comes to space, we are less sure. Or else we choose not to think about it.

So the bucket is still spinning and so is the water. But what about the space? Does the space stay put and remain motionless with regards to matter? Or, does the space in matter move with the matter? If the space in matter moves with the matter, we can no longer talk about space in the ways we are accustomed. If the bucket carries its space with it--there are likely properties of space that we currently attribute to matter. What's more, if space moves we have to allow that space can move relative to itself--it can be in motion and stationary at the same time. The space in the bucket and water are moving, but the space outside of the bucket and water are not moving.

Except for the effect of gravitation...

When matter moves it does drag some space (some "outside" space) along with it. And when a very large amount of matter is accumulated, as demonstrated in General Relativity, space can be dragged about and bent in remarkable ways.

So when I see the spin of a galaxy, I sometimes like to think of it as the surface of water in a great bucket. Sort of like this:



In this case, the galaxy is swirling in the bucket in place of the water and space is moving with the galaxy. As the galaxy swirls it moves with the matter that composes the matter of the galaxy. But the space itself swirls. It moves. It rises up the sides of the bucket--a motion that we have a hard time accounting for...and we have to insert dark matter to make the universe work....but really, we just need to break space free and let it move a little--to move in ways that extend beyond the bending permitted by general relativity.

Regards!

Wick

[labelwench]

After reading that post, it would be a good time to sit and contemplate a campfire for a considerable length.

As one watches the wood being consumed by flames, one may observe the various colors and motion of the transition and watch as the heat of the fire begins to demonstrate the ability to create it's own current in the air, as the smoke begins to spiral on a calm night.

The space within the solid that is wood, released to join again with the space that is our atmosphere, with all of the attendant light show and sound effects, enjoying the warmth as we toast a marshmallow, before we ingest the motion and space of the toasted confection.

All is space in motion within mass, and that mass within motion in space.

(When you're done spinning that bucket of water, keep it handy for putting out the fire afterward.)

An interesting post, Wick.

[austintorn@aol.com]

For space to exist, it must have a quantity; no quantity, no existence.

Space's quantity is volume. It may also have deflections, warps, and curves (all the same thing), granting what we consider "material" or mass-energy. As these forms move, time is generated, for time is the difference of space; conversely, space is the difference of time (distance). So, we see that there is nothing but space and curved space. The finite speed of light is the existential ratio of space to energy—its curves. The converse, finite energy density, is the ratio of energy to space; since it varies, it is circumstantial.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Mass never goes to zero__Conservation of Mass/Energy__To eternity...

Space of all volumes is Mass/Energy__Eternally__The Conservation Laws Require It...

The Ultimate Universal Law__As finiteness' structured mass/gravity volumes decay/decrease over time, the unstructured em-field infinitesimal volumes' mass/gravity increases over the same time... Phase transitions of motion between unstructured and structured volumes is time's key... The cosmological constant is absolute c... The mass/gravity equivalence principle...

Conservation laws require mass/gravity to never go to zero__even at infinity(although infinity is a conjecture, infinitesimal masses are not...)

Any other logic is invalid, as tis not quantifiable, yet this logic is__by simple arithmetic...

[Wick]

The article on the cheerio effect describes various substances floating in a medium as having a -phobic or -phyllic relationship toward the medium in which they are suspended. Cheerios, for instance are milk-phyllic as are the sides of the bowl. Consequently, the cheerios become attracted to one another and to the sides of the bowl. Milk-phobic substances would also be attracted to one another, but they would repel milk-phyllic substances (like the sides of the bowl. The relationship between the subject substances and the medium is consequently an either/or relationship. Either it is -phyllic toward the medium or it is -phobic. The one other option is a completely neutral relationship in which the substance shows no -phyllic or -phobic properties.

The -phyllic and -phobic properties result in BENDING of the surface upon which they float; -phyllic substances BEND the medium "downward" causing a kind of depression in the medium, while -phobic substances BEND the medium "upward" causing the medium to mound up slightly. Neutral substances have no effect upon the medium--it remains flat.

To me, this relationship sounds curiously like charge.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Perhaps matter can be spaciophyllic, spaciophobic or neutral. Spaciophyllic matter bends space "upward" in a direction spatially extended along a 4th spatial axis (NOT TIME). We might call this "upward" bending a negative charge. Spaciophobic matter bends space "downward", also in a direction spatially extended along a 4th spatial axis (NOT TIME). We might call this "downward" bending of space a negative charge. But ultimately, what we are talking about is not charge at all. What we are talking about is space bending.

Consequently, we tend to assign charge to a particle, when in fact what the property of charge is more related to the shape of space. True the particle is what shapes space in this way...so while the particle may be the cause of charge...the charge is a property arising from the shape of space in the vicinity of a particle...not a property arising from the particle itself.

In this sense, charge is akin to gravity. Charge is a bending of space...just a very minute bending of space.

[Wick]

That the relationship I describe should be a discription of charge may not seem intuitive. Afterall, we teach and observe that particles of OPPOSITE charge attract and particles of LIKE charge repel. But the relationship I'm describing is not a relationship between electrons and quarks composing a proton. Instead it dscribes a whole particle that appears to be a composite of particles but which is not. Let me show the proton model again in order to explain:



The actual particle is the black strand that intersects the gray oval area and the gray oval area represents the range of motion for the particle (like a dog on a chain). The strand intersects the area in gray in three places, vertically rotating up through the oval twice and down through the oval once. The particle moves in other ways as represented by the arrows. As the particle moves up through the surface of the oval, it causes the space in the vicinity of the intersection to bend upward in the direction of the strand. As it moves down through the surface of the oval it causes the space at the point of intersection to bend downward. The three intersections together represent three quarks (two up quarks and a down quark). It is only a coincident that the terms up and down are used. The motion is not really upward and downward, but instead a bending along a fourth axis (the W axis, which is in NO WAY related to time). This bending of space represents the property we call charge.

The question then why the up quarks and down quark remain bound in the nucleus despite their opposite charge has nothing to do with gluons (which, opposed to popular opinion have never been directly observed but have been postulated based on interpretations of particle spray data during relativistic particle collisions). Instead, the three intersections (quarks) stay together because they are one thing. Gluons are not needed to keep them together. The intersections are part of a whole. Their composite charge is positive.

If one flips the paricle upside down (in relation to the W axis), all of the values are switched and you have a neutron which looks like this:



The electron arises as the shape of space changes in other ways based upon other motions of the nuclear components. As the components of the nucleus rotate horizontally through the surface of the oval and twist at the point of intersection, they cause a characteristic wave pattern on the surface of space. We call this wave pattern the electron cloud or electron orbitals...but really they are just the way the shape of space in the vicinity of the moving neucleus. In a sense the nucleus acts as a kind of whisk upon the surface of space.
Each atom ends up forming a neutral atom or an ion of some kind based upon the way it shapes its space. The motion of these nuclear components must be very orderly (as demonstrated by the recent study of nucleons in platinum (see the article previously referred to).

Bottom line: To name an electron is premature. There is no particle. There is only an change in the shape of space. Likewise charge is a property that arises when the shape of space changes in a characteristic way.

We should not be surprised by this kind of interpretation. Einstein helped us to see that space can bend along another axis. He opined that the axis was time. Perhaps it was really just another axis of space...one we don't find obvious. But observation would seem to indicate that this axis is really there. Gravity would appear to bend along this axis and light would appear to move along that same axis. Something is there....but perhaps we failed to properly name it.

Perhaps time is just change. Perhaps yesterday does not exist. Perhaps tomorrow doesn't exist either. Perhaps everything is in the present. Physicist have believed in the ontological existence of time for so long they can hardly think otherwise. But there is no real evidence that the past or the future are real. The only hard evidence is that the present is real...and far too often we are inclined to disregard the present in favor of ALLTIME or spacetime or the block universe...which also can't be proven. Let's stick with what we see. What we see is the present.

Wick

[SteveA]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4]Perhaps time is just change. Perhaps yesterday does not exist. Perhaps tomorrow doesn't exist either. Perhaps everything is in the present. Physicist have believed in the ontological existence of time for so long they can hardly think otherwise. But there is no real evidence that the past or the future are real. The only hard evidence is that the present is real...and far too often we are inclined to disregard the present in favor of ALLTIME or spacetime or the block universe...which also can't be proven. Let's stick with what we see. What we see is the present.

Wick

It could be that both the past as well as future are just possibilities.

For example, the experiencing of deja vu implies that the mind is capable of believing that a past exists that need not have existed. The reason why deja vu is not believed to represent a real memory is because other components of experience disagree with it, but if other components of experience changed along with that sense of deja vu then it would appear we'd believe something had already happened and would not have reason to disbelieve the experiencing of it as familiar as not reflective of past memories.

When the influence of the past and memories are considered in how large a scope they define how things are believed to be now, there's little in experience that couldn't be subjected to alteration via. a change in what is believed to be a memory and the same would appear true for expectations of a future.

In that case, it does appear a strong argument that the experiecing of "Now" is all that is real with respect to time and the past and future are potentially malleable, or both are continually generated possibilities arising from what exists in the ever present moment.