Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Tim, and good to see our three views are converging__Dave, I and you. Dave and I collided most over his two spheres model, though to be fair, he never said it was the reality, just an abstract expression, of an area science has never yet gone. My point to him was__Where did the material and motion come from, to create the primordial spheres__and how does this deep mechanics work? He refused to take the subject to this deeper level, into a possible model I was offering, of figuring the entire Universal process__light cone forward__as I back in the `80's had rejected trying to figure the problem back in time, as my understanding had seen this impossible, due to the already existing bad models and maths(guage theories) which both of us rejected, as too full of holes and patches__But, this leaves the 'Absolute Model' ungrounded, as to any form of real world maths/arithmetics__thus, I suggested figuring the entire universe of matter and motion forward, through the known light cone's future expansion and the decay maths offered by Hawking and others__to fully ground with actual mathematical theory and possible absolutely necessary logic__linking the two models(Dave's and mine) to a completed Universal reality. Let me just enter my graphic to make this easier:

If we take the above light cone's present scientifically believed size(13.7bil. years of omnidirectional expansion), and figure it arithmetically forward, we only need to figure how far light can expand the Finite Universal light cone over the total entropy decay process life-span. All's needed is to multiply the distance light travels in one second, by minutes, hours, days and years__times the present accepted age of the Universe of 13.7 billion years(I originally figured both a 30bil. and a 15bil. year model, as both were accepted by different physicists/cosmologists at the time)__to figure a positive c size of the present Universe__Then multiply that number by 10^137 Hawking Decay years, to know theoretically, accurately as possible__how huge the Universal light and dark light cone decay size will possibly actually be... Now, as to the present size light cone, which I figured back in the `80's, I was able to use a 'virtual cyclotron' of my imagination, to actually step outside the existing Universal Light Cone, into what I thought then was an actual Void of nothing__But, later I had to accept the futility of my exaggerated imagination, as being entirely unprovable, due to the fact of it being an entirely scientifically unknown and unknowable proposition__and further, the future entropy decay light cone would surpass any state of space I imagined, even with all the arithmetic applied__Except a possibel final complete, or near as possible complete Finite Universal Decay, at the 10^137 year stage. I then realized the Universe would have to be re-cyclable, or it couldn't have existed at all, due to dis-appearing forever__yet the Universe is truly here, thus had to be recyclable due to being eternal(or an infinite regress exists in the logic, and that ain't possible), thus the arithmetically grounded logic requires a recycle...

Also, according to Dave's model positing a Void, my model can not say whether a Void exists beyong the 10^137 year stage of realizable light cone expansion, or not. So, either model conserves total Va of the FS by either Dave's Void, or my realization of the Light Cone's future edge becoming so sparsely populated by hot radiation particles, the Universe is forced to a Quantum Phase State Change(due to nearest absolute zero k possible__wave symmetry requires it, as wave density thins as approaching near infinite dispersion__and increases the hydrodynamic force to contract__the prime mover), possibly to a Bose-Einstein Condensate State(possible non-viscous fluid), to recycle__The same as Dave's Void(iff exists) would cause the same Motion__In this respect, the models' realities' posit the same phase state cause__But, mine uses c as c eternally, and Dave's uses a hyper-light c, as does much of QM, to square the distance/time anomalies in all existing models' measurements(I just use the real future arithmetic expansion figures, as generally accurate as science knowledge allows, and close the Universe hydrodynamically, to preserve the conservation laws of mass and motion). As to a future cosmic history, going forward from the future 10^137 year posit, the model could form into any one of the already presumed models__Black-Hole Singualrity and Big-Bang, Many Black-Hole Bangs and Galaxies, Bose-Einstein Condensation Models, Even some forms of Inflationary Processes__Yet both Dave and I agree, there absolutely has to be an initial huge 3D EM-Field, made of real FS going forward, to create any possible model of our real witnessed Universe...

Just realized a new thought__Black-Holes are possibly nearly entirely closed by a Vu hydrodynamics, except for the much smaller ratio of Vr escaping rads...

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.

The only trouble here is "Void with no existence of field" is the very problem I ran into back in the `80's as mentioned above. No Field would mean No FS__No Spheres Either__which is impossible__That's exactly why I abandoned it, for an eternally existing EM-FS-Field...

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.

Yes, I see what you are stating, but above you state 'void with no existence of field', then here you state 'place/void/larger field'__and that's the very logic inconsistency I saw in Dave's model__One can't have the cake and eat it too__Must choose one or the other, as absolute linear fields can't exist as 3D anything__There exist not enough vector motion to form or hold spheres, motion, FS or anything together to form and collide__The deep Quantum Well is tricky if not stretched out into a real future possible mathematical decay model__clearly showing the necessity of the Triad__Va, Vu and Vr__Eternally... Imo, no_completely_logically valid description is possible__otherwise...

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.

No, not really__because my model does have linear motion as its decay limit point is most all Vu linear motion, with the smaller ratio of Vr, and is closed by the hydrodynamic linear motion of contraction mechanics within the, infinite if possible__field__or Void as Dave's posit... But, one must realize Dave posited two models without clarifying between them__"Void"__and "All Is Matter Within A Void"... Now maybe he separates these two models somehow, but they be conflated to my understanding of his model/models...??? This is the very reason I figured the Universe forward, to escape the Deep Quantum-Well, Hole of too many Contradictions...

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

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

Hope this helps with a bit more clarity,
Lloyd

[analog]

Hi Lloyd,

I intended this thread to partially discuss my hypothesis, which I'm making headway with in my thoughts and will post more clarification later, but I more so wanted to provide a thread addressing the fact that even with the exact constituents of matter and motion, there are still many ways to formulate the mechanics of such into a motion model which accounts for the data or lack thereof which science has collected in its attempts to find unbiased truth. I knew our exchanges would go through several scenarios and models and address the pros and cons of each whereby those, who don't understand how we imply such concepts as we often speak from our paradigm view concerning much more abstract concepts such as social science, etc., can get a glimpse at the dynamics which must be considered in one's acceptance or formulation of such a universal framework. Although grounded concepts allow for better communication between those of us who already understand each other to a large degree, it often takes the conversation to a much more complex level for someone on the outside looking in, as we can exchange concepts with minimal explanation which often sounds alien to them as if trying to understand a foriegn language from scratch. Our working out of ideas will probably go far in that pivotal moment when something is said which ignites that spark of understanding for a curious mind struggling with such complicated concepts. You, I and Greg (and Dave if he ever decides to visit with his old friends), at the least, will have three varying views coming from different potential matter/motion models, which can be a good catalyst to stir a relaxed mind back into the chaos that are our thoughts......lol.....just as through our conversations you had new insight on black holes within your own paradigm, of which, I have always considered an extreme state of Vu within the field of extreme Vr. They are basically the physical manifestation of the complete motion spectrum existing at the same time rather than playing out through time, as one can easily visualize the progressive change of the near absolute Vr chaotic waves of the spatial Aether smoothing to the near absolute Vu towards the center of the black hole, as this would be the physical representation of the extreme distortion of GR's spacetime in its attempts to give an analgous setting by which to measure all motions against by correcting the variable frequency of our wristwatch....lmao.

I'm gonna try to capitalize on my feeling of clarity this morning and try to work on some thoughts and diagrams throughout the day, maybe even a little animation to post. I'll probably get back with some of my madness later on today.

Thanks for the conversation,

Tim

[analog]

Hi my friend,

Your avatar gave you away before I got to your introduction....lmao.

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.

I don't know if I can mentally digest all that right now, as I am by nature a night owl when not working; thus this afternoon is my eeeearly morning. I just got my lazy ass up....lol. I'll get back to ya on all that.

later,

Tim

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Lloyd,

I intended this thread to partially discuss my hypothesis, which I'm making headway with in my thoughts and will post more clarification later, but I more so wanted to provide a thread addressing the fact that even with the exact constituents of matter and motion, there are still many ways to formulate the mechanics of such into a motion model which accounts for the data or lack thereof which science has collected in its attempts to find unbiased truth. I knew our exchanges would go through several scenarios and models and address the pros and cons of each whereby those, who don't understand how we imply such concepts as we often speak from our paradigm view concerning much more abstract concepts such as social science, etc., can get a glimpse at the dynamics which must be considered in one's acceptance or formulation of such a universal framework. Although grounded concepts allow for better communication between those of us who already understand each other to a large degree, it often takes the conversation to a much more complex level for someone on the outside looking in, as we can exchange concepts with minimal explanation which often sounds alien to them as if trying to understand a foriegn language from scratch. Our working out of ideas will probably go far in that pivotal moment when something is said which ignites that spark of understanding for a curious mind struggling with such complicated concepts. You, I and Greg (and Dave if he ever decides to visit with his old friends), at the least, will have three varying views coming from different potential matter/motion models, which can be a good catalyst to stir a relaxed mind back into the chaos that are our thoughts......lol.....just as through our conversations you had new insight on black holes within your own paradigm, of which, I have always considered an extreme state of Vu within the field of extreme Vr. They are basically the physical manifestation of the complete motion spectrum existing at the same time rather than playing out through time, as one can easily visualize the progressive change of the near absolute Vr chaotic waves of the spatial Aether smoothing to the near absolute Vu towards the center of the black hole, as this would be the physical representation of the extreme distortion of GR's spacetime in its attempts to give an analgous setting by which to measure all motions against by correcting the variable frequency of our wristwatch....lmao.

I'm gonna try to capitalize on my feeling of clarity this morning and try to work on some thoughts and diagrams throughout the day, maybe even a little animation to post. I'll probably get back with some of my madness later on today.

Thanks for the conversation,

Tim

Since once again you are promoting Dave's theory, I will post here where my Mind has taken me by contemplating on Dave's beginning, and trying to expand upon it over the last year or so.

First I take Dave's 'Infinite Void'. Then I take Dave's 'Fundamental Substance' and make it pliable, if it is not. Next I fill Dave's 'Infinite Void' with the now pliable 'Fundamental Substance'. I fill 'Infinity' so that there is no 'Void' left between the boundaries of his now pliable 'Fundamental Substance'. At this point Dave's 'Infinite Void' is filled with 'pliable Fundamental Substance', eliminating the 'Void', leaving only 'Infinite pliable substance'.

Now I take Dave's 'self-affinity' and make it a true 'self-affinity' by eliminating his boundaries. This leaves Dave's ideal of 'Infinite Void', 'Fundamental Substance with boundaries', and 'self-affinity', as 'Infinite self-affinity of Fundamental Substance'. Eliminating the 'Void' by filling, then removing 'Boundaries', simplifies 'self-affinity', and all the questions that Lloyd and others ask.

Now Dave would not care for my contemplation or changes to his theory, and that is OK. But Dave's, Jimbo's, Lloyd's and almost all theories leave to many questions about their Fundamentals. By contemplating on their Fundamentals I have come up with "Potential of Infinity for Eternity" or 'Fundamental Substance of Infinite Proportions for Continuous Existence'

All that is left is adding "Motion". Now one can except the many 'faith based' assumptions of how "Motion" started, including Dave's, but I prefer to use the simplistic Ideal that the 'Fundamental Substance' started moving by an "Act of Freedom". Freedom from just 'Being'! It takes less faith to see this beginning then other more exotic beginnings.

This is strictly my Philosophical view of the Ideal's of Knowledgeable Minds, hope it is not to cave mannish for you.

[analog]

Don't mind me being pedantic. But .........

According to Dave (Va = Vu) is symmetrical, (Va = Vr) is asymmetrical (and may not be possible) , and (Va = (Vu +Vr)) is asymmetrical

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.



Ques: Do you agree, therefore, that asymmetry does not exist ??


Sorry for the hard one .... greg

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)




cool bananas .... greg

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

Then we're talking geometric symmetry, therefore in my interpretation of Dave's model, which allows for the extreme states of Va, yes:

Va=Vu geometric symmetry as with an absolute solid relative to all distance scales and resolutions, but becomes asymmetrical over a large enough time scale, else we wouldn't be here.

Va=Vr depends on the distance and time scale/resolution from which its viewed in such motion models. geometrically symmetrical at the large macro scale view for a period of time, as we currently have instances of this extreme we call "space" and by your definition can't be distiguished if it were in a glass and we turned it 90 degrees, but if viewed at such a micro distance resolution to see the chaotic waves of matter interacting in destructive fashion with fleeting glimpses of momentary constructivity whereby virtual particles were formed with conflicting motions allowing them to be labeled structured matter/anti-matter pairs which annihilated each other to be disolved back into the EM field, then no it would be geometrically asymmetrical. its apparent smooth texture would be seen to be built upon a fabric which was a very rough terrain and would definately show distinction in a turning glass, correction, if we walked around the glass with a hypothetical microscope powerfull enough to see on the smallest of scales in existence with a built in hypothetical video recorder which had a hypothetical frame resolution fast enough to slow down the fastest interactions in existence for our viewing at our much larger and slower moving frame of reference, which gets us into our limitations of instrument building and the process of measure.

Va=Vu+Vr geometrically asymmetrical at the largest scale/resolution, but can be found to have large expanses of Vr which would show geometric symmetry if viewed from the proper distance and time scale/resolution and back to asymmetry if such a scale/resolution was passed up to be viewed from the micro as discussed above.

Geometric symmetry merely relates to motion in such a paradigm. Its determined by the time scale factor when in Vu as a change in distance scale would still show uniform motion for an extended period of time thus uniform arrangement of FS. When in Vr, the motions are taking place at such micro distances and times that they are very asymmetrical through some degree of a time scale but can create the geometric illusion of symmetry if viewed from the proper distance and time scale/resolution, similar to our inability to distinguish individual pixels in a photo. Vu+Vr contains distance and times relative to both scenarios but with no presence of absolute geometric symmetry as with absolute Vu.

This is similar to my hypothesis as it would pertain to Dave's model, as the universal volume as a whole would be interacting with the spatial dimensions more/faster when in Va=Vu and traveling less/slower through the temporal dimension as motion was conserved from the internal wave mechanics of the Vu+Vr state as they approached absolute Vu witnessed by the changing internal wave symmetries interacting uniformly upon increasingly larger volumes of matter for longer synchronizations of time as the volume accelerated linearly through the 4d matrix until the point of absolute Vu when the volume moved forward through the spatial dimension as a uniform whole with no internal wave symmetries. It went from ac to dc...lmao, as jokingly ac would be Vu+Vr as it alternated itself both spatially and temporally....lol. If allowed to be in Va=Vr then the universal volume would interact less/slower with the spatial dimension and increasingly more/faster with the temporal dimension as changing to such from a state of Vu+Vr as the internal wave mechanics became increasingly complex. Linear acceleration of the whole would thus represent a curved trajectory through the 4d matrix. This would be an absolute manifold, whereby upon transition from abbsolute Vu to some ratio of Vu+Vr the internal manifold of GR takes over as an internal subset to allow for the internal measurements of FS and its motions with analgous cyclical arrangements of FS in motion allowing for the frequency required to predict spatial position for varying structures at a unified temporal position between moving frames which effect the ability to maintain synchronized frequency.

I like picturing the FS as a material 3d fabric whereby while in any state of Vr the only thing that is transfered/propagates from position to position is the motion itself as fundamental matter takes on the role of merely a conductor for motion and has no mechanism for internal lateral motion relative to itself only expansion and contraction depending upon the quantity of motion within a given area of its fabric. This way you can invision motion dancing within the volume as it is translated from position to position in varying quantities relative to its internal wave dynamics. The conservation of motion from internal waves of the Vr state to linear motion of the whole of the Vu state would be a state of condensing and internal stillness of the fabric itself as linear motion would be the conserved interaction of the entire fabric with its spatial containment, whether viewed as a larger 3d field or void which establishes the 4d manifold by which all motion is plotted. On the deepest of thoughts, within this particular motion model, the impossibility of absolute Vu or absolute Vr might be coupled to the state of each representing the extreme direction through the 4d matrix, whereby absolute Vu can't be reached due to its relation with spatial acceleration and the universal volume having to have some degree of propagation through the temporal direction whereby absolute spatial propagation isn't possible, and absolute Vr can't be reached due to its relation with temporal acceleration and the universal volume having to have some degree of propagation through the spatial direction, whereby if such a volume were condensed or expanded near either extreme a trigger mechanism of the necessity to maintain the constituents of existence could theoretically tip the scales of motion entropy back to a recycle state constantly converging from one extreme state with the entropy of motion always directing the volume towards the other extreme, similar to Lloyds recycle model. I bet that's confusing as hell. So much for that clarity I proclaimed today....lmao.

[analog]

Since once again you are promoting Dave's theory, I will post here where my Mind has taken me by contemplating on Dave's beginning, and trying to expand upon it over the last year or so.

First I take Dave's 'Infinite Void'. Then I take Dave's 'Fundamental Substance' and make it pliable, if it is not. Next I fill Dave's 'Infinite Void' with the now pliable 'Fundamental Substance'. I fill 'Infinity' so that there is no 'Void' left between the boundaries of his now pliable 'Fundamental Substance'. At this point Dave's 'Infinite Void' is filled with 'pliable Fundamental Substance', eliminating the 'Void', leaving only 'Infinite pliable substance'.

Now I take Dave's 'self-affinity' and make it a true 'self-affinity' by eliminating his boundaries. This leaves Dave's ideal of 'Infinite Void', 'Fundamental Substance with boundaries', and 'self-affinity', as 'Infinite self-affinity of Fundamental Substance'. Eliminating the 'Void' by filling, then removing 'Boundaries', simplifies 'self-affinity', and all the questions that Lloyd and others ask.

Now Dave would not care for my contemplation or changes to his theory, and that is OK. But Dave's, Jimbo's, Lloyd's and almost all theories leave to many questions about their Fundamentals. By contemplating on their Fundamentals I have come up with "Potential of Infinity for Eternity" or 'Fundamental Substance of Infinite Proportions for Continuous Existence'

All that is left is adding "Motion". Now one can except the many 'faith based' assumptions of how "Motion" started, including Dave's, but I prefer to use the simplistic Ideal that the 'Fundamental Substance' started moving by an "Act of Freedom". Freedom from just 'Being'! It takes less faith to see this beginning then other more exotic beginnings.

This is strictly my Philosophical view of the Ideal's of Knowledgeable Minds, hope it is not to cave mannish for you.

Hi pop,

You're welcome to post here anytime you want and I encourage you to take part in the discussion. I know the complexity of what you're trying to express and admire your determination to do so.

Dave probably doesn't appreciate some of the BS I come up with concerning his model to tell the truth, but being as I value him with helping in my education and all of our correspondence was based on his terminololgy then I would consider it a bigger insult to him if I didn't acknowledge his concept in my further examinations. I always try to seperate his base model from my ideas and additions to it with an IMHO or direct statement of such being a hypothesis to distinguish that it wasn't he who implied it. His framework has all of the critical elements to express the constituents of existence to the point that it would be nearly impossible from my views to not encorporate most all of his concepts when trying to express how I now see the dynamics of this world. I just enjoy thinking on such things, and it provides a base matter motion model for proper communication such as Lloyd and I have been able to accomplish. Due to my understanding of the foundations in Dave's model, I can now see a glimpse at how Lloyd sees things, and also Greg, though his has always been a bit more vague to me.....lmao...couldn't resist ole buddy.

I hope you enjoy your time at this thread, and I hope you find some ideas to help you further express what you see.

later,

Tim

[Graybeard]

.
Dear Tim .... tho I did give you a basic explanation for symmetry it was meant to be generic (cover all). There are many, many forms of symmetry. Some are 'loose' symmetries such as the symmetries we observe and intuitively like. Others are extremely precise symmetries with no room for error.

This article describes these notions of symmetry from four perspectives.

The first is that of symmetry in geometry, which is the most familiar type of symmetry for many people.
The second perspective is the more general meaning of symmetry in mathematics as a whole.
The third perspective describes symmetry as it relates to science and technology.
.......... In this context, symmetries underlie some of the most profound results found in modern physics, including aspects of space and time.

Nearly all symmetries are approximations, to a greater or lesser degree. But there is one form of symmetry that is not an approximation, but has a definite connection to the quantum Laws of conservation.

That is for every symmetry observed in QM there is a definite and precise relationship to that law of conservation.

Quantum objects

Remarkably, there exists a realm of physics for which mathematical assertions of simple symmetries in real objects cease to be approximations. That is the domain of quantum physics, which for the most part is the physics of very small, very simple objects such as electrons, protons, light, and atoms.

Unlike everyday objects, objects such as electrons have very limited numbers of configurations, called states, in which they can exist. This means that when symmetry operations such as exchanging the positions of components are applied to them, the resulting new configurations often cannot be distinguished from the originals no matter how diligent an observer is. Consequently, for sufficiently small and simple objects the generic mathematical symmetry assertion F(x) = x ceases to be approximate, and instead becomes an experimentally precise and accurate description of the situation in the real world.

Consequences of quantum symmetry

While it makes sense that symmetries could become exact when applied to very simple objects, the immediate intuition is that such a detail should not affect the physics of such objects in any significant way. This is in part because it is very difficult to view the concept of exact similarity as physically meaningful. Our mental picture of such situations is invariably the same one we use for large objects: We picture objects or configurations that are very, very similar, but for which if we could "look closer" we would still be able to tell the difference.

However, the assumption that exact symmetries in very small objects should not make any difference in their physics was discovered in the early 1900s to be spectacularly incorrect. The situation was succinctly summarized by Richard Feynman in the direct transcripts of his Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume III, Section 3.4, Identical particles. (Unfortunately, the quote was edited out of the printed version of the same lecture.)

"... if there is a physical situation in which it is impossible to tell which way it happened, it always interferes; it never fails."

The word "interferes" in this context is a quick way of saying that such objects fall under the rules of quantum mechanics, in which they behave more like waves that interfere than like everyday large objects.

When we are talking about symmetry of the Fundamental Substance it cannot just be defined as Geometric Symmetry ??

(symmetry) 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

eg: f(x) = x

So 'f' is the function, 'x' is the value of the input and 'f(x)' is the output value.

If we let a glass of water equal 'x'. Now, under observation the glass of water has a value of 'x'

We introduce our function of 'f' ..... this is the same as turning (a function) the glass 90 or 180 degrees ... so now the new value of the glass of water is f(x)

When we compare 'x' to 'f(x)' we find that nothing has changed ergo: f(x) = x

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.

Now as Lorrina has said, if we examine it minutely we will notice that some change has occurred .... but if we are carrying it out in the Quantum world .... then literally, no change has occurred. Exchange one proton in the water for another ... no change has occurred, no record can record this. The thing is the same as before literally .... equally no particular viewpoint is favoured .... and so on for all its attributes

In short, when an object becomes so simple that a symmetry assertion of the form f(x) = x becomes an exact statement of experimentally verifiable sameness, x ceases to follow the rules of classical physics and must instead be modeled using the more complex—and often far less intuitive—rules of quantum physics.

This transition also provides an important insight into why the mathematics of symmetry are so deeply intertwined with those of quantum mechanics. When physical systems make the transition from symmetries that are approximate to ones that are exact, the mathematical expressions of those symmetries cease to be approximations and are transformed into precise definitions of the underlying nature of the objects. From that point on, the correlation of such objects to their mathematical descriptions becomes so close that it is difficult to separate the two.

This is the symmetry I am referring to .... and in particular the symmetry of the primeval (for want of a better word) state of the Fundamental Substance.

Absolute Motion:
There is only one pseudo new concept in the Toronic hypothesis that allows everything to function in harmony and makes all of nature’s magic tricks visible for all to see and understand. This is "Absolute Motion". This is not the absolute motion referred to when Einstein stated "Absolute Motion cannot be determined"; even though this too may be true of it. A form of Absolute Motion is expressed in many equations including Einstein's energy equation. Without this property of matter, all the conservation laws of physics that we have place so much faith in, would collapse and chaos would rein as ruler of the universe.

So what is nature’s big illusion of smoke and mirrors? Other than volume and self-affinity, Absolute Motion (Va) is the only other property of matter. It is a fixed quantity that defines the sum quantity of all motion types of a physical system or structure of matter. This motion consists of "Random Motion (Vr)” and “Uniform Motion (Vu)". Linear velocity and spin velocity are types of uniform motion whereas chaotic wave vibration interference is the random motion component and the nature of matter that is illusive to our senses and to our instrumentation. We have come to know this state of matter as a vacuum, space, or spacetime.

When we establish the product of uniform motion and the mass value of a body or object, we define the results as "Momentum". Since we do not have a means to detect Random Motion of matter to any degree of accuracy, we are unable to measure a mass value for quantities of matter in this state of randomized motion. There have been many attempts to define matter with only this form of motion; Vacuum energy, dark energy, and zero point energy are just a few of the more popular concepts.

The motion quantity of any system equates to "Absolute motion".
Va = Vr + Vu

According to Dave's theory, Vu is total symmetry.

My argument, or alternative, is that Vr may also be seen as total symmetry. And if this so .... then Inflation theory is a more viable alternative theory. (ooops ... a more viable explanation for the starting conditions ... I agree with Dave's theory in the main)

Am I on track in this thread, or do you not wish to go down this road ?? Its all cool and no problems.

I like picturing the FS as a material 3d fabric whereby while in any state of Vr the only thing that is transfered/propagates from position to position is the motion itself as fundamental matter takes on the role of merely a conductor for motion and has no mechanism for internal lateral motion relative to itself only expansion and contraction depending upon the quantity of motion within a given area of its fabric.

cool bananas buddy ... greg

[G_burnett]

I do not believe there was a conscious determinate of being to the begin of all but a failure of asymmetry to alignment in symmetry an expand in the freedom of no containment ... was it all that was free? ... no as it is an inversion event we observe in all models of inversion where containment is a state once more. The release of wave potential to effect in condense of all to that point of measure, prior to inversion event effected naught or there was naught there in the infinity ... such foolishness to think it was all one inversion and not of many that has happened to varied degree ... for if not the case of a multi universe and multi time of event the state of the all then there would not be even the one we are in. It was cyclic. Who then created the cycle?

Such query leads to if there is a designer up there or in there ... to ever percieve us or us it.

In the believe that all energy split in different direction of it motion through space and time is connected in the spookiness effect back and forward through time measure out of relativity boundaries we have ... we would be better off to say you the individual persona is the universe being the sage.

That is about all i can contribute to symmetry and asymmetry ... Lloyd you have the right view of a define Greg will eventually come to grips with as we all do in this search. ... he is just stubborn ... oh sorry Greg forgot you were there lol ..

Kind regards, graham

[Graybeard]

If we take the above light cone's present scientifically believed size(13.7bil. years of omnidirectional expansion), and figure it arithmetically forward, we only need to figure how far light can expand the Finite Universal light cone over the total entropy decay process life-span. All's needed is to multiply the distance light travels in one second, by minutes, hours, days and years__times the present accepted age of the Universe of 13.7 billion years(I originally figured both a 30bil. and a 15bil. year model, as both were accepted by different physicists/cosmologists at the time)__to figure a positive c size of the present Universe__Then multiply that number by 10^137 Hawking Decay years, to know theoretically, accurately as possible__how huge the Universal light and dark light cone decay size will possibly actually be...

Still with ya up to here .....

Now, as to the present size light cone, which I figured back in the `80's, I was able to use a 'virtual cyclotron' of my imagination, to actually step outside the existing Universal Light Cone, into what I thought then was an actual Void of nothing__But, later I had to accept the futility of my exaggerated imagination, as being entirely unprovable, due to the fact of it being an entirely scientifically unknown and unknowable proposition__and further, the future entropy decay light cone would surpass any state of space I imagined, even with all the arithmetic applied__Except a possibel final complete, or near as possible complete Finite Universal Decay, at the 10^137 year stage. I then realized the Universe would have to be re-cyclable, or it couldn't have existed at all, due to dis-appearing forever__yet the Universe is truly here, thus had to be recyclable due to being eternal(or an infinite regress exists in the logic, and that ain't possible), thus the arithmetically grounded logic requires a recycle...

Still hangin in .....

Also, according to Dave's model positing a Void, my model can not say whether a Void exists beyong the 10^137 year stage of realizable light cone expansion, or not. So, either model conserves total Va of the FS by either Dave's Void, or my realization of the Light Cone's future edge becoming so sparsely populated by hot radiation particles, the Universe is forced to a Quantum Phase State Change(due to nearest absolute zero k possible__wave symmetry requires it, as wave density thins as approaching near infinite dispersion__and increases the hydrodynamic force to contract__the prime mover), possibly to a Bose-Einstein Condensate State(possible non-viscous fluid), to recycle__

Are you describing a heat death here ?

No, not really__because my model does have linear motion as its decay limit point is most all Vu linear motion, with the smaller ratio of Vr, and is closed by the hydrodynamic linear motion of contraction mechanics within the, infinite if possible

Ok ... good, very good

Ques: you see the end of the light cone ...or end of the Universe as Va = Vu + (tiny bit of Vr)

How do you see the start ... or the FS prior to the events that lead to the Universe ??

greg

[Graybeard]

Such query leads to if there is a designer up there or in there ... to ever percieve us or us it.

That is about all i can contribute to symmetry and asymmetry ... Lloyd you have the right view of a define Greg will eventually come to grips with as we all do in this search. ... he is just stubborn ... oh sorry Greg forgot you were there lol ..

Kind regards, graham

Hi Graham ... I'm not quite sure where you read in my post that I promote a designer ?? If so, I have been remiss in my explanation .... In my view chaos reigned ... order arose from a random fluctuation

cool bananas .... greg