Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[melanie]

And for you little one .........

and tanx for da quotes ....

CLICK

cool bananas ... greg

hahaha .....U wheely cwack me up Greg.

I love reading your posts, they're full of mystery and wonder and sense.

A sense, that even i can make sense of....

Tanks for da song, you lil devil you, i like to get naked Greg, but not that naked....lol

Kris & Rita are married to each other in real life aren't they? yeah, i tink they are.

Nice people they are too.

I love ya Greg, but Drifters still my best boy....so there!


BFN

[melanie]

If this is incorrect just flame me .... lloyd would ....lmao.

Lloyd age 6 months....rolflmao

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Conservation of Absolute Motion Law At Absolute c__All Is Symmetrically/Asymmetrically Conserved...

Hi Tim, and good explanation of the above title, as I see this is what we are truly discussing, though it's been somewhat referred to as the 'Conservation of Angular Momentum Law', by Dave and others__It's actually the 'Conservation Law of Absolute c Motion', and it seems best described by your, 'Falling FS/Bodies In FS-Field, Absolute Motion Dynamics Model', represented by Dave's 'Absolute Motion Formula of Va = Vu + Vr', and my model's 'Background Independent Hydrodynamic Symmetry Prime Mover...' All three give us all Universal Motion, Mass, Gravity and Forces of the entire 'Standard Model, RM and QM', imnsho...

It can also be stated as 'The Absolute Conservation Law of Electric Charge of FS-EM-Fields...' Though these may go to a high state of Vu and low Vr at the extreme edges of the 'Finite Dark-Light Cone's Expansion'__They be 'Eternally Conserved, By The Necessary Symmetric Self-Circuitry of its Hydrodynamic Re-Cycle Mechanics...'

I'm still reading all your, Dave's and my past posts, to see what other backup materials/facts I can gather, and will post the comparison of all three models' mechanics when finished...

Thanks,
Lloyd

P.s.
The Vu « Vr ® ∞, exchange of hydrodynamic momentum/inertia of Va, keeps the entire em-particle/field duality in Vu + Vr motion...

[analog]

Yea....I think you are correct in the contributions of each. I'm fully open to your more detailed veiws of hydrodynamics. Be careful with my old posts because my time here was a development process and I did have some concepts that I droped or altered. Yours and Dave's probably stayed much more on track through the years here. I'm glad to see your efforts in furthering our understanding. I don't have a lot of time right now to do much research myself, but I maintain my thought processing of our concepts as much as I can throughout the day.

Later,

Tim

[dleviwing]

Thank you all for the amusing reading.

Greg: You’re misinterpreting my concepts and Mel’s second comment has absolutely nothing to do with QM even though some religious whack-Os are attempting to make a connection!

Tim: Time is NOT an entity of the universe. It’s a measure that requires a reference motion and there are NO absolute motion references; that’s why Relativity works and that’s why Relativity is subjective even though the math can be used to explain observed physical phenomena!

Lloyd: You’re the only one I know on ToeQuest that can state things right for the wrong reason if you exclude sage!

Mel: I love your innocents.

[SteveA]

Tim: Time is NOT an entity of the universe. It’s a measure that requires a reference motion and there are NO absolute motion references; that’s why Relativity works and that’s why Relativity is subjective even though the math can be used to explain observed physical phenomena!

The fact that comparisons between various motions can exist indicates a common/absolute unit of time (or distance if you prefer).

If there was no such common/absolute unit of motion existing throughout the universe, we couldn't make comparisons between these - you can't compute a ratio between events unless there are common units. (2x/1y isn't computable unless you can make conversions between units of x and y, such as x=y, in which case 2x/1x=2.)

I believe the reason why time doesn't appear as a physically measurable entity is that it is not a specific finite object with endpoints that we can all see and it's also something that is observer dependent, hence not all things in time are seen in common between people. This makes it appear as something subjective/observer dependent/intangible etc., though it can still be an entirely real component/entity of experience (and a rather pervasive component of this as well).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

One more time__just for Dave...

Hi Tim & graham;
Let’s see if I can give you more to ponder about. The shell is a good analogy but I would add that you view the shells like you would a soap bubble (SB). Like a SB, when the shells contact each other in constructive interference they form a region like the SB that has its own wave function and is also weaker than the shell as a whole. This allows the sharing of the outer or covalence electrons of the elements or molecules. Now if the shells contact such to produce destructive interference, the shell will expand and basically allow the covalence electrons to wander or escape. We need to remember that this fundamental substance will attempt to stick to itself whenever motion between objects reduce their relative motions. Two shells with their angular momentum in the same spatial orientation will form destructive interference whereas when the angular momentum is opposite, they form constructive interference.

We also need to consider the axes of these spinning shells; they too are weaker and are easily opened causing the shell to collapse into a toroidal band like object; we call these objects “magnetic fields”. These objects quickly return to the shell structure if not sustained by some other motion of an object like an electrical current or synchronized electron orbitals. Well there goes another one of the forces.

Now if we can realize that all these objects ungulate in some way and at some rate of vibration we can see why each shell fluctuates its physical dimensions proportionally to their wave functions. The shorter the wavelength (higher frequency) the smaller the spatial volume. Now imagine a collection of these shells or fields one inside the other like layers of an onion each at a different frequency of oscillation; this forms Tim’s hollow negative particles. What if some of the internal shells collapsed to a very short wave function such that it appeared as if it were solid; we might call that a positron; since now it would interact with normal electrons such to disrupt the wave functions to the point of complete annihilation (randomization of all uniform motions) of the structures. Let’s take this a step further and imagine that the internal shells interact with such violence that they form two independent structures inside what once was the hollow core of an electron; these units are spinning so fast that their uniform motion produces a mass value several thousand times the original structure; might we call that a proton? Now imagine that same unit converting the chaotic wave functions within the Aether until the outer shells, along with a few more layers formed by the Aether matter, collapses the outer shells; this eliminates the wave function interaction with the surrounding Aether and thus makes the structure electrically neutral; might we call this a neutron.

Why have we never detected the decay of a proton? Well, they don’t decay; they simple collect enough matter to form neutrons. Neutrons keep collapsing the Aether wave functions until they become unstable and revert back to an electron, proton, and gets rid of the excess substance as a neutrino. This whole process of collapsing the randomized wave functions of the Aether results in a basic flow of fundamental substance from the space environment of the universe into the particle structures of the universe; we call it gravity.

If you can keep track of all the conversions of one type of motion of matter to another, the whole system becomes quite simple. The details of these conversions are in the numbers and equations that describe mass and energy. Understand “Absolute Motion” and “Self-affinity” and the GUT picture is complete.

Now what do we do about “LIFE”?

And this one...

Hi Allen;
To complete your vision you simply need to realize that to form the minimum unit of structured matter or field (shell) angular momentum must be present and the unit must have the value of motion equivalent to “Absolute Motion”; anything less simply distributed the substance as spatial Aether randomized vibration and you can’t get any motion greater than Absolute Motion.

Originally when the universe was young the spatial density of the Aether was extremely high and these domains were formed out of the constructive interference of a violently osculating universe. Today we can only find that spatial density level at the core of stars, black holes, and at the very core of the most massive base particles; angular momentum is the uniform motion that initiates the formation of individual units of the fundamental substance and the greater the uniform motion the shorter the wavelength function becomes.

All particles are structures of these fundamental units in some form of assembly; we usually brake this unit down to a point that becomes equal to Planck’s constant and thus we call it the quanta. This is what QED, QFT, and most all quantum mechanics is based on; they only lack the application of the “Absolute Motion” concept to complete their physical interpretations rather than viewing the fundamental substance as different entities of matter and energy or entities from other spatial dimensions. If you stick to a fundamental paradigm you can call particles structures of Quantum Fields or even Quantum Energy levels and you will always be able to explain them in simple terms of quantitative units of motion and substance.

I don’t dismiss Jimbo’s approach; it’s just that I’ve already done most of the wrong things already so I tend not to spend my time reviewing them with others. It is fun however to watch others trek the same pathways though; it tells me I’m not alone in the quagmire of thinking outside the academic box. I also like the company!

[analog]

Tim: Time is NOT an entity of the universe. It’s a measure that requires a reference motion and there are NO absolute motion references; that’s why Relativity works and that’s why Relativity is subjective even though the math can be used to explain observed physical phenomena!

Hi Dave,

Thanks for all your responses both on the forum and through PM. Glad to see you're well and still around. I'm not too much concerned about the entity argument as I think we could agree that the absolute conserved nature of motion allows for an absolute state of time or perhaps a better word would be timing of interactions. Just as your statement of the velocity of light propagating through the same quantity of fundamental substance per an absolute unit of time. I'm just choosing to model the overall interactions of the universal volume as a photon now rather than an autonomous fundamental structured volume or atomic structure. Thus, I think we would better understand the inner dynamics of the photon due to what we are internally observing on the larger universal scale whereby understanding its cycle more completely by what we outwardly observe of the photon.

What do you think? I'll try to refrain from my usual long windedness as we probably don't need much explanation between us due to all of our conversations.

Thanks,

Tim

[analog]

P.S. I should've said we rather than I. I can't leave Lloyd out of this due to our shared views. It was a slip cause I'm not used to having a partner in crime. Lol.

[Graybeard]

Thank you all for the amusing reading.

No problems at all .....

Greg: You’re misinterpreting my concepts

Can you point out which quote/s ??

and Mel’s second comment has absolutely nothing to do with QM even though some religious whack-Os are attempting to make a connection!

The translation was meant to be poetic licence . .....

Nice to see you ..... greg