Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I am unsure what you mean .... if we arbitrarily label one spring as 'left wound' then the other is 'right wound'. If we label one as wound 'up' then the other is wound 'down' ..... I don't get what you are saying .. ?? what am I missing ... there is no difference between these two and the two solenoid coils in my drawing attached ??

I am afraid that I only see a mirror image in your example ?? If you look at them from the top one appears as anti-clockwise thread and the other clockwise ... ??

Is it an Escher type drawing ?? ..... its not that I don't accept what your saying, but I am missing something in the graphic ... when I trace one against the other I just come up with a mirror image ?

I don't know how to get through to you Greg__You aren't yet seeing what you are looking at... Look at them end on end, tip em, flip em, turn em, mirror em__They will never mesh together__They be eternally asymmetrically opposite-chiral-handed... Bend two pieces of mechanics wire to resemble these springs, and play with em__try to thread them together, like a few normal left-handed or righ-handed pair__Then maybe you'll see how fundamental waves flow, and don't flow. These always knot... It's the simplest and most difficult idea to get through your head... I was shocked, when I figured it out... It was just too simple...

Also no offence ... but making claims like 'Feynman needed more schooling' ...... ???? No one believes this sort of remark ... I feel you only damage your own image by this.

cool bananas ... greg

People evolve in intelligence with time Greg. Feynman's not a god, besides he's the one who stated, "They've given me a Nobel Prize, for something I don't even understand..."(paraphrased...) 'Feynman needed more schooling...'

Btw, we're not saying the same thing, until you understand the non-mirror-symmetry of the springs, above...

[analog]

Hi Greg,

I never did get your definition of symmetry/asymmetry from a while back when we started that conversation, as that is a broad word which needs narrowing if we're to build logic from it else we find ourselves in hidden variable debate due to symmantics (lol...semantics) and definition rather than mechanics and such, which is the attempt being made by lloyd and I to bring ourselves to a ground state for further discussion.

later buddy,

Tim

[analog]

Hi lloyd,

I see clearly the problem we're having with mechanics. Most of it is based on the bonding/self-affinity property of matter (Dave's model) vs. underlying fundamental mechanics for the condensing/expanding dynamic (your model), as you see bonding as a process and Dave an intrinsic property. This would definately cause problems from one delivery to the other as you are correct in the eternal need for Vr as the membrane of structure for such mechanics to work with no allowance for one-degree of motion freedom of the whole, whereby Dave can compact matter to an absolute density with a finite volume and acknowledge one-degree of motion freedom through absolute linear velocity.

I respect your framework and acknowledge it's merit especially due to your attempts to escape initial cause with recycling mechanical function intrinsic to the system, you're trying to build in a trigger for the process allowing the model to be theoretically self contained and renewable. Such is good for learning as now one can take the two opposing models and make implications of the allowances and disallowances under the mechanics of both, as I have done above. Despite the differences, they're not crucial to my underlying hypothesis. I think it would be simpler to momentarilly do as I did with Dave and speak from within your paradigm as best I can. Let me see if I can re-gear my thoughts to allow for better communication by considering the dynamics of your model for a bit.

later,

Tim

[Graybeard]

I don't know how to get through to you Greg

I'm not even slightly surprised by this any more ....

You aren't yet seeing what you are looking at... Look at them end on end, tip em, flip em, turn em, mirror em__They will never mesh together

ummm ... Mirror images never mesh together .... if you attempt to shake hands with someone you will never shake the same hand as you present, you have to shake the opposite ??

I don't find this surprising .... I never thought it was of any remark, just that everybody understood that ??

Definition of Mirror Image: Reverse all spatial co-ordinates. In the graphic you offer you have the spatial co-ordinates reversed ?? The right is a mirror image of the left and the left is a mirror image of the right ... of course they won't mesh ??

What am I missing ??

Btw, we're not saying the same thing, until you understand the non-mirror-symmetry of the springs, above...

Dear Lloyd .... don't get angry with me .... but you need to 'reflect' on the laws of reflexion symmetry. The two springs are symmetrical according to the law of reflection symmetry that states you must reverse all spatial co-ordinates and flows .... (basically ... my translation)

Its possible that I am not seeing something in the drawing that I should be .... is it meant to be an illusion or similar to an Escher drawing ..... I iz lost buddy




In the graphic above the right hand can never appear in the same rotation as the left .... but this image displays reflexion symmetry ...... because the spatial co-ordinates are reversed +1 > -1

the following image is assymmetric ...




Your springs are symmetrical ... unless there is some hidden illusion in them that I am too dumb to comprehend ......


greg

[Graybeard]

Hi Greg,

I never did get your definition of symmetry/asymmetry from a while back when we started that conversation, as that is a broad word which needs narrowing if we're to build logic from it else we find ourselves in hidden variable debate due to symmantics (lol...semantics) and definition rather than mechanics and such, which is the attempt being made by lloyd and I to bring ourselves to a ground state for further discussion.

later buddy,

Tim

Basically .... when you have something and you do something to it ... it remains unchanged .... ie: turn a glass of water 90 degrees .... and you cannot tell it has been turned

cool bananas ... greg

btw .... wots yours ..... lmao

[analog]

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...

Just for clarification, I, as you, acknowledge only 3D EM field or material spatial aether as the membrane between all structured matter within our universal volume as matter is conserved through motion from the structured to unstructured state. My only inference to a void with no existence of field would be at the greater cosmic resolution if one should exist, which is the scale at which Dave suggested his spheres wizzing around within, thus the title. It's merely giving a defined domain to the volume within our universe and as with the one degree of freedom concept is intrinsic to his model but not to yours, due to the fact that his conservation of all motion to absolute linear velocity requires a place/void/larger field to propagate through, which in turn would require a second independent autonomous universal volume to establish motion against (else absolute linear motion=absolute stillness, which is where the collision aspect comes in as a potential to kenetic energy trigger also), or a 4D manifold of absolute position similar to that of General Relativity's plotting of the motions of massive objects. You should have conflict with such due to your paradigm requiring no linear motion of the whole for conservation purposes, thus needing not go past the universal realm into a hypothetical cosmic domain.

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 think I have a pretty good grasp of your model now, which should ease conversation.

True, until you come to bio-eras. The wild deer won't let us partially deterninistic hunters, walk up to him, konk him over the head, and take him home to fry and eat__He by indeterministic choice, chance and free-will, at his time of choosing__Runs away... Imo, you've got to keep the whole in context, or your definements drift too far into a science that can't be interpreted as scientific, by a universal community of viewers/interpreters/understanders... One must always realize, similar but different fundamental motions apply to both the geo and bio eras__and we are using bio-brains to interpret all the informations__thus distinguishments are always necessary...

I'm sure we'll be exploring this one in Greg's thread...lol.

I think you should be careful here Tim, in using ideas and theories that really have no grounded proofs yet. We yet have no evidence of any motions exceeding c, and neither do I think we ever will, and as to those great distances, they may also be tired light__We don't yet know. And especially since so many physicists have jumped on the newest craze of dark matter and dark energy, without realizing it was Fritz Zwicky, the tired light astromomer/cosmologist/physicist, who came up with all these theories, back in the `20's and `30's, as counter-ideas against Hubble...

The value of Va isn't critical to my hypothesis at this point, as it would only come into play if I were to construct a mathematical expression of such at which point it would be a critical component, which I lack the skills to do anyway. I would prefer Dave to explain the entirety of his use of greater than c velocities, as I can understand some need within his framework, but certainly not to the extent of his logic. I'm just following a hypothesis through until it justifies itself, or implodes. With such motion models, the introduction of new concepts often leads to viewpoints previously unaccessible before the realization of such, even if proven unnecessary.

later,

Tim

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi Tim,

It's Austin.

The fundamental substance may be quite penultimate, but then, afterward, it could be much as you, Dave, or Lloyd may have it.

See here, in Prof's 'Idea' thread:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post121973

And also slightly back in the thread there will be more on the absolute prime mover: the balance of nothing.

[labelwench]

My two cents on symmetric and asymmetric, as pertains to simple biology, as I observe it.

The pattern is not symmetric, near as I can tell, though it's close enough to fool the eye.

When one looks closely at anything in nature, though it seems to be modeled on symmetry, a closer examination will detect minute differences.

This 'uniqueness' in everything, of near, but not quite symmetrical form, may well prove consistent, from the smallest to the largest thing we may examine.

If energy follows the path of least resistance, then asymmetry is the only option available, in my simple view of things.

[Graybeard]

So Tim ..... do we have any tentative agreement towards the following:

1.. (Va = Vu) ... is symmetrical and is the state of the FS prior to all events (according to Dave's theory )

2.. (Va = (Vu + Vr)) ... is asymmetrical and is the current state of some small part of the FS, our Universe (according to Dave's theory ... which I agree with)

3.. (Va = Vr) ... is symmetrical and may have been the state of the FS prior to all events (deduction from your previous posts ... and also I think it is the most likely)

So when you say that we measure Vr as asymmetrical (undeterministic, acausal, and non-relative) and that these measurements are limited by our technological ability ... then the inescapable conclusion is that Vr is symmetrical ... but our measurements show asymmetry.

We are measuring an symmetrical substance with asymmetrical observations or instruments.

In other words if we had 'an instrument that measured at the velocity of absolute motion' all asymmetry would disappear.

To me this is the only conclusion that can be reached from your post ?? Otherwise determinism cannot exist.

cool bananas .... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Mirror images never mesh together...
... of course they won't mesh ?? What am I missing ??

Greg, throw away your reflexion symmetry, and just look at the direction of travel of the springs__Motion... They clash, just as two similar shaped opposing-handed chiral waves would, in the real universe... No Escher, or tricks__just plain facts... Point them toward each other__End to End, as real Universal waves would be traveling...

...but you need to 'reflect' on the laws of reflexion symmetry.

No, I don't accept reflexion symmetry as applying to reality__It's the Escher illusion... Symmetry is another story...

Its possible that I am not seeing something in the drawing that I should be .... is it meant to be an illusion or similar to an Escher drawing...

Greg, you're looking at a side by side, mirroring of the springs__but you're evidently not looking at the real springs not being able to fit together, without extreme conflict__asymmetry, in your choice of language use. I never use that language, as it's too conflationary... Look at the trouble you've had with it. It's far too loose a term, unless specifically and technically talked about__then it's still far too often conflating of the issues related to... Symmetry is Archimedes 'Center of Mass Formula' L1M1 = L2M2, or E = h/f, or E = MC^2, etc., on and on. The Universal formulas of the Universal states have symmetry__They isomorphically map all the way through... No isomorphic mapping exist between the opposing twist springs, except opposed mapping... Some waves shake hands Vu__Two lefts, Two rights__Some waves do not shake hands Vr__Two opposites__They collide, knot, radiate and pulse__Eternally Vr...

Your springs are symmetrical ... unless there is some hidden illusion in them that I am too dumb to comprehend...

No Greg, the springs are not symmetrical, the images look symmetrical to your definition, which is just a bad process to use__The springs are impossible of meshing. Lose the words symmetry and asymmetry, and all becomes clearer__Use isomorphic... Even in your definition of mirror symmetry, there are no single points maintained between the two springs' real world mappings, to even create your definition of mirror symmetry, when put in motion... Look at them in motion... All isomorphic mapping points are opposing, and non-complimentary...

greg