Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[Graybeard]

Va=Vr can't be a default state under the current mechanics we discuss, because it is an end state which is unrecoverable after the disassembling of structured matter whereby it could be in such a state.

This does not prevent an hypothesis that Va = Vr was the initial state ??

Va=Vu is a plausible initial state

Agreed ... an hypothesis

Va=Vu+Vr is an assymetrical state as I would define it

Resulting from an initial symmetrical state ? (Vu) ... In which case your viewpoint would imply that Vr is asymmetric ?

but as I stated earlier, the act of balancing the system in this state between Va=Vu and Va=Vr eternally would require a different framework or mechanics than the ones we discuss here.

No .... I don't mean that the current state is eternal .... once the universe is created, or more correctly, manifested after the collision (If Vu) then GR and QM explain the rest .... and with entropy rising the universe will most possibly have an end. but this doesn't concern us in this thread ??

cool bananas ... greg

[analog]

My current hypothesis is similar to measuring distance with the propagation of light ie light-year. It's just measuring 4D intervals with the motions of a volume of FS. The complexity and diversity of these motions within the volume only point to different intervals within the 4D matrix, and not the inconsistency of its ability to be used as a dimension of measurement. If we reach an fundamental level to prove that such is necessary for the consistency of existence we recognize with our sciences, and we prove that only a deterministic system could provide such consistency whereby allowing for this needed function, then we have ruled out indeterminism as an option to the functioning of this motion model paradigm. This is the only way that such unanswerable questions can be answered, by defining the consequences of their absence within the system. Any indeterminism within the motions of fundamental matter and the system possibly collapses. IMHO, this requires thinking on the deepest of levels and asking one's self how much of their paradigm is taken for granted and undefined in the sense of implied concepts.

[analog]

This does not prevent an hypothesis that Va = Vr was the initial state ??

Under the mechanics here, the spatial density would be ever decreasing to the point that structured matter disolved back to the spatial Aether and even the inevitable constructive interference of random motion bringing about momentary uniformity wouldn't have the medium density to maintain any emergent structure for more than a minimal interval of time. This scenario would only worsen with time. A new catalyst would be required, which I'm sure is where you're headed....lol.

Resulting from an initial symmetrical state ? (Vu) ... In which case your viewpoint would imply that Vr is asymmetric ?

Vu=symmetry by my definition. Vr=could be seen as asymmetrical in one sense, but symmetrical in the sense of absolute chaos void of structure.

No .... I don't mean that the current state is eternal .... once the universe is created, or more correctly, manifested after the collision (If Vu) then GR and QM explain the rest .... and with entropy rising the universe will most possibly have an end. but this doesn't concern us in this thread ??

I know you weren't implying eternal. I was just making the statement in relation to my earlier post.

later,

Tim

[Graybeard]

My current hypothesis is similar to measuring distance with the propagation of light ie light-year.

It's just measuring 4D intervals with the motions of a volume of FS. The complexity and diversity of these motions within the volume only point to different intervals within the 4D matrix, and not the inconsistency of its ability to be used as a dimension of measurement. If we reach an fundamental level to prove that such is necessary for the consistency of existence we recognize with our sciences, and we prove that only a deterministic system could provide such consistency whereby allowing for this needed function, then we have ruled out indeterminism as an option to the functioning of this motion model paradigm.

This is the only way that such unanswerable questions can be answered, by defining the consequences of their absence within the system. Any indeterminism within the motions of fundamental matter and the system possibly collapses. IMHO, this requires thinking on the deepest of levels and asking one's self how much of their paradigm is taken for granted and undefined in the sense of implied concepts.

Phew .... I'm not sure that I am interpreting this correctly, or even that I can.

Interpretation: However, if Vr is now a part of the system .... then it is recognised ?? or is it recognised by our measurements, with the implicit 'given' that our measurements, which must include the effect of Vr, are only almost correct ? .... and that is why Vr shows up ??

If a more accurate way of measuring, currently unknown, shows up then Vr disappears ??

Is my above interpretation of your post correct ??

greg

[analog]

Vr is only considered random due to the micro scales and velocities at which it acts coupled with its destructive nature relative to structure. Dave once implied that if he had an instrument that measured at the velocity of absolute motion all uncertainty would disappear. I'm implying that what is random motion Vr to us with our limited abilities to observe is still deterministic, causal and purposeful relative to the entire volume which contains it, in the sense that all 4D points of separation require exact ratios of Vr to Vu evolving through elapsed motions to define the dimensional distance by which they are separated. You're measuring absolute spatial distances with matter, whereby the lack of this ability within the system may cause inconsistencies destructive to our ability to do such consistent things as imply a speed limit to light or view similarly formed galaxies separated by seemingly vast distances relative to us.

[labelwench]

Existence has consistency, and consistency is established not merely appointed. If a paradigm fails to establish the mechanics by which consistency can be accomplished, then its probably wrong.
Originally posted by Analog

'Existence has consistency'.

It has also been observed that, "The more things change, the more they remain the same," which would be a similar way of stating the above, to my way of thinking.

Have just started reading this thread, and the quote by Analog caught my interest.

[analog]

Vr will never disappear to us completely due to the limitations of our instruments, but if my hypothesis is correct, a mathematical formula could be implied to understand the overall function of Vr within an autonomous volume along with the much more observable and measurable function of Vu. Vr+Vu is the physical mathematics of 4D trajectory of fundamental matter in motion, IMHO, and the objective quantum physics of the spatial Aether along with the classical motions of structured matter both have a unified foundation within a 4D matrix as the combination of both are how this universal volume gets from here and now to there and then. That's the hypothesis anyways...lol.

[labelwench]

Philosophysics.

Have you coined a new word for the combined examination of Philosophy and Physics then?

Philosophysics of a fundamental substance is an excellent and unifying thread title for the undertaking at hand, IMO.

Later.......

[analog]

I thought I did a while back, but I found it in use on the net relating to the exact situation for which I had considered it, theories which address hypothetical models/paradigms of the universe.

philosophysics- The crossover between physics and philosophy, like around the origins of the universe. Closer to mathematics than either of these disciplines.

Stephen Hawking is a philosophysicist - he is involved with philosophysics.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

That's my point my friend. There is nothing to define absolute position against other than the elapsed motions of an autonomous volume of FS through time.

Ok then, let's call this background independence. But, I still see fundamental problems with definitions and pre-suppositional conjectures being involved in Dave's model. If we state Va__what precisely does this mean...? Let's try to take the three states of motion Dave's model has always used__Va, Vu and Vr__and fully define them, and see what the grounding and no-grounding problems may be...

Va__Dave stated this as an absolute velocity exceeding c. The problem is this definition of Va has no scientific ground. It's fine for Va to mean total velocity at c, as that's all science thus far knows__but to just flat state it to be a volume beyond c, is pure conjecture. The trouble with such a definition of Va is that it puts us in the same theoretical framework of the theories we already have many faults__no matter whether Big-Bang, Inflation, Small-Bangs, Strings, Emergence or whatever. When our theorizing exceeds the speed of light, it forces our thinking to an emergent point, which can not be squared with the conservational laws of motion, or mass and energy, or matter and energy__Nor with the conservation of Va, Vu and Vr. The existing volume can never be reduced to absolute Va, Va=Vu, or Va=Vr__The conservation of forces always requires some ratio of Va = Vu + Vr. These ratios can vary tremendously, as per the Pythagorean Theorem, a^2 + b^2 = c^2__but, can never go to absolute Va, as the motions to maintain the background field are destroyed, and that would be just an ego projection. The field must always have em-interaction to maintain Va = Vu + Vr, although the Vr can be very small, while the Vu goes to very great, within the total group Va... And the Universe we witness today, would be a larger volume of Vr to Vu, although Vu would still be the greater volume of and within Va...

Imo Va, interpreted as hyper-light, is a false assumption, and no science exists to ground such an egoic projection. This was the problem I always had with Dave's interpretation.

Vu__would be the uniform motions of the most basic field, within Va, but as stated above must always contain a ratio, even if minimal, of Vr. This is why I stated in my first post about not being able to break the mechanics below the Triad of Motions, without destroying the field mechanics. Even if the entire finite Universe be figured to Hawking's almost total decay time numbers of 10^137 years, there'd still be a minimal amount of Vr, within the Vu, within the Va__as total motion of the field's content is conserved by the laws of motion and FS(the final lowest decayed state possible, before hydrodynamic re-cycle__this can't be avoided, if we accept all of science's and everbody elses agreements to an eternal Universe__as it would have had to happen, over and over already, in the past...)

"As in the future__so must the past be..." me(and we can mathematically figure such a deterministic future decay and recycle path__as Vr ratios decaying to higher ratios of Vu require super-symmetries in such Universal mechanics__which are known in Experiments like Lene Hau's to produce hydrodynamic conditions, and through correspondence logic, would also produce the hydro-dynamic conditions of a Prime Mover__at decay limit__and since the laws of FS motion must be conserved__motion of the almost decayed FS must be Re-Cycled... We can figure the future determinism__we can't figure the ground of the past, as the false theories are in our way...)

Vr is eternally required, at least at the minimum ratio, due to the fact, a three vector system is required to be maintained, to even begin to describe a fundamental 3D substance Field__Without the Vr harmonics, you can't have a FS-Field__It exists and is required to be eternal, to exist at all, or you're into the God-Creationist theories, of which all the present theories fall into if interpreted deep enough, because all those theories either rely on hyper-light non-sense, or sub-Planck impossibilities...

So imo, Va absolutely must be limited to group c velocities, or all ideas go to the infinite regress of the God-Ego Problem...

Perhaps it only makes sense to me, which is why I'm discussing it, but I'm hypothesizing that if you had two identical autonomous volumes within their background of a void/3D field or whatever and they were in the exact same internal ratio of Vu to Vr with exact motions and went through identical internal state transitions of rearranging the FS contained within their domain, that they would not only cover the same 3D spatial interval/distance but also the exact same 4D interval/distance and time.

Nothing wrong with that, as I agree...

The only thing we have to measure absolute position against is the elapsed motions of the FS.

You're making time absolutely fundamental, if you do that__and I don't see time separate from the FS-Field. Imo, it requires the EM-Field to have time measurement, otherwise what is Time measured against__That just takes it to another infinite regress to imagination, and imagination don't make a Universe...

Basically, the determinate motions of a volume are so precise that you could plot out an absolute 4D background of equal intervals by altering the internal interactions of the ratio Vu to Vr within a volume. Space, whether in void form or EM field form, allows for matter to have seperation between autonomous volumes. The exact amount of seperation in the form of intervals of absolute position are determined and find their consistency through the determinate interactions of matter. Space gives matter room to move, and matter gives space its required 4dimensional consistency. You basically measure one against the other. It's just a statement to the degree of synchronization of the analgous motions of two independent volumes. Am I making any sense yet? I'll try to work on some pics too.

Well, you seem to think some sort of absolute void space is required between autonomous volumes, and I and Dave have stated the entire Va field contains different densities of Vu + Vr, thus not requiring any separation of the Va field, or total field. Dave has mentioned many times about the field vibrating as its harmonics creates density of Vu + Vr, to form all of what we see within the Universal Field of View__No mystery there... The Va Field is the Whole FS in Motion... As one of Dave's threads was titled; Matter Is Everything In A Void. I know the language is confusing, but one must see all motions of the FS, as states within states of Total Motion...

In an overly simple example, I would imagine the degrees of freedom in the sense that if you imagine a volume of FS the introduction of more than one degree of freedom would allow for increased internal random motion at varying directions, thus expansion of the volume. As the ratio of random motion is conserved from uniform motion the volume could be said to be moving at increasingly more internal points, as though motion is acting upon the volume at increasingly more points thus smaller areas. As the ratio is conserved back to the uniform side from the random, then those points become increasingly less distiguishable and is seen to be acting upon increasingly larger areas. In this context, one degree of freedom would be when all the points have come together to where all motion of the volume is forward thus the volume is at its most condensed state and motion appears to be acting upon the whole equally as one all encompassing indistinguishable point.

I follow part of the above, but when you use the last word, point, I shy away from such descriptions, because it reminds me too much of the already failed present point models. I rather make clearer distinctions of the three phase changing states__Va, Vu and Vr...

I have no problem with this, as that's how I used to imagine the mechanics, but the distinction lies in my above statement in the sense that without the bonding property my before reference of one degree of freedom absolute linear motion of a universal volume would not bring it to its absolute condensed state of finite volume, as a larger field would always be required to allow for the external inward forces which compacted the matter together. If bonding is a property, then a volume could theoretically be isolated in a void and still accomplish the overall condensing and expanding of the entire volume needed to produce what we call a universe. If bonding is not an intrinsic property then the void must be replaced with a 3D EM field of randomly moving substance.

If bonding is not an intrinsic property then the void must be replaced with a 3D EM field of randomly moving substance. And precisely what is required. To me, you seem to be working within some sort of creation point theory, yet using much background independence, but one has to choose which model to select, as the two are incompatible. I choose the background independent model of an eternally existing 3D EM Field, and Close it Hydro-dynamically at Decay-Limit... It's easier, and gets rid of all the Boogie-men, plus offers a true Prime Mover, through the necessity of nearest possible Wave-Super-Symmetry...

I'm certain of that, but I don't mind if you don't my friend.

No I don't mind, this could be interesting, and Greg's input may add source material to the fire also...

I just think we've really got to thoroughly define the absolute fundamentals of motion better, first___They must be grounded in our known, and knowable, sciences...