Philosophysics of a fundamental substance

[analog]

The following discussion is based on the concepts discussed in many threads here at Toequest and initially provided by Dave (dleviwing). Without a decent knowledge of which, much of what I say probably holds little meaning. With a knowledge of which, it may still hold little meaning due to the complexity of what I’m trying to address, but I’ll do my best at explaining my views. For a more in depth look at the mechanics of these concepts, a review of Dave’s blog or threads would be sufficient.

From a materialist’s perspective, I as many of us here am of the opinion that a complete unification theory is accomplished by acknowledging a fundamental substance (FS) with the properties (originated by Dave) of absolute motion (AM) and bonding. This seems to take care of the mechanics of the system whereby leaving the deeper, more complicated and possibly unanswerable questions of such things as origins, determinism vs. randomness, etc. Basically, the absolute states and essence of existence itself at the most fundamental resolution. The data collected from our instruments may have led us to acknowledge a FS and its mechanics to explain phenomena, but they soon begin to fail us in our attempts to follow the chronology of existence backwards or forwards much past our present moment. Its at this time that our best efforts of the methodology of science find themselves as merely a philosophy based on what we think we understand by way of our instruments.

As I’ve stated here before, I’m of the opinion that by our acknowledgment of such a substance with such properties which oversee its every interaction to the point where we find the consistencies for science to even exist at our scale, that we have effectively acknowledged a deterministic causal paradigm of cause and effect at every scale and resolution with no internal break in the internal causal symmetry of pure interaction. Similar to the concept of a material algorithm in its functioning and processing of interactions at the absolute scale.

I’m of the opinion that the constituents of existence must be defined for them to merely exist, else we have something which exists without purpose, whereby the conservation of existence itself is fallible and the system collapses. The only way to define purpose at such fundamental levels is by the existence of the other entities in existence setting up the need for each other, similar to implying that matter needs space to move which needs motion which needs the matter which is being moved whereby we find the absolute ingredients for such a dynamic universe. More so than this, there still remains more absolute concepts which need be defined through themselves in my opinion and I support a system of absolute determinism in favor of any degree of randomness due to my belief that a random system would fall short in the necessity of defining such absolutes. I’ll try to explain this statement as this is the essence of my logic. Even with a paradigm of FS with its properties, there’s still room for many varying concepts of its operation. I’ll simply explore one such concept as it best lends itself to my logic.

Not to get back too far into the mechanics of such a system, but at one degree of freedom the total absolute motion value of a volume of FS is conserved into absolute linear motion, whereby the entire structure finds itself in a state of finite volume and dimensions. This is the only instance in which this takes place as with greater degrees of internal freedom the relative states of time, temperature, mass, etc. are internally introduced as they separate from their absolute state of unification, whereby the entire structure is in a state of dimensional fluctuation as with our current universal arrangement. Such a state of one degree of freedom can be seen as an absolute matter particle. Once this state is reached there is no internal mechanism to alter such a state. It is for this reason that Dave hypothesized a collision of two such particles to set off the chain reaction of material interaction which would lead to the material evolution of a universe. The properties of such a substance would guarantee that the internal level of diversity and complexity would be a direct result of the parameters of the initial event itself as fundamental matter expressed through time the changes it underwent by way of transference of energy in terms of motion between the two constituents.

At this point, the system could either undergo transitions of macro expansion of the spatial aethereal state of matter vs. micro condensation through structured matter to a point of reconvergence to the initial state or eternal expansion to the point of the lowest spatial densities devoid of any structure depending upon the dynamics of the bonding property relative to the internal degree of uniform motion. Following the line of thought that uniform motion brings the system back to an initial state of an absolute matter particle then due to the deterministic nature of the system much can be hypothesized.

CONTINUED BELOW

[analog]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

A deterministic system will always lend itself to investigation through pure logic and deduction more easily and thoroughly than a non-deterministic system, because now we can take what we presume and draw further conclusions merely by creative thinking. For example, if we were to acknowledge an absolute matter particle governed by its deterministic properties and apply the four dimensional concept of spacetime to the exterior void through which it propagates as it undergoes an event at some point in space and time, whereby setting into motion the transitional phases of the cycle through which it will go through after which reconverging at another spacetime point then much can be determined and explored, such as the concept that due to such algorithmic functioning of its mechanics, any two points of spacetime within the void are now separated by a material cycle of FS due to an event. This has some unique implications, IMHO.
　
Lets imagine the absolute matter particle undergoing an event at a given spacetime point whereby its linear motion is conserved into varying degrees of linear vs. random motion as the cycle progresses. Considering the arrow of time to be coupled to the progression of motion whereby all time is positive towards the future, then any positive spacetime point surrounding the spacetime point at which the event took place could be arrived at with the proper parameters having taken place at the event, which would result in a unique progression of fundamental matter undergoing its elapsed state changes through time to reach that specific point in space and time upon reconvergence to its initial state. In a sense, our universe would be a drawn out expression of the point in space and time to which it will someday reconverge to its initial state with all internal matter at every scale and resolution being in its specific and needed arrangement at every moment throughout the progression, thus allowing that particular point to be reached. This implies that the arrangement of everything from galaxies to atoms and the distances between have purpose and an underlying mechanism, thus also implying the mathematics by which they may be understood perhaps relative to an n-body problem.
　
So now at the absolute scale we have the three fundamental constituents ie fundamental substance, its position and an event or the lack thereof (in the sense of absolute linear propagation) which underlies existence as we know it with the four dimensional landscape of spacetime points having a value of separation established only by fundamental matter itself as matter has now went from entity status to a dimension between such points dependent upon the parameters of an event or the lack thereof. The closest of spacetime points in the direction of motion represent matter in absolute linear motion with one degree of freedom and the absence of an event, any other possible point corresponds to an exact event which corresponds to an exact elapsed arrangement as the material universe evolves as a whole. Spacetime points are defined and only measurable/relative to the elapsed state of the entire volume of fundamental matter whose state is determined by/relative to an event whose parameters are relative to the separation of spacetime points from start to finish of the cycle of fundamental matter. The extent at which matter has to work out such details through its algorithmic cycle sets the value by which each can be distinguished. The absolutes of existence define themselves by the existence of each giving rise to the necessity of the others and more importantly, each becoming the dimension by which the others are measured. This is possibly the symmetry of existence itself. If we want to know the absolute value of the distance between two separated spacetime points, the only absolute yardstick would be the elapsed motions of matter as a whole, which is indicative of the absolute value of an initial event or lack thereof, which is indicative of the absolute value of the separation of two spacetime points. It is my logic that a system with any degree of randomness within its mechanics couldn’t accomplish this as matter would lose its ability to go from entity status to become the dimension by which another absolute might find the measure which allows for its existence. 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.
　
Such concepts have some unique implications IMHO. Everything is where it is as it should be, and if this be the case then perhaps the motions of life itself aren’t a degree of randomness brought on by “free will“, but rather deterministic evidence of event and position being sorted out to the smallest integer ie us as we watch to the night sky and imagine the motions of all the solar systems and galaxies moving in unison as the conversion of aethereal matter into structured domains condensing the system combined with the displacement of the spatial medium as ever larger bodies move through it with varying degrees of linear motion to allow for gravity while smaller ones circle but never seem to catch up, with the combination of individual barycenters being materialy connected to all others as everything finds its proper place, motion and separation with the universal center of mass directing us towards the four dimensional point to which all matter may find itself condensed within in a place and time to come.

Later,

Tim

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Tim, and glad to see your interest is still alive and well. I think you've done a sufficient job of showing a possible mechanics of the necessary motions of the FS. The first thing I'd like to point out as to our understandings is that we must always view these fundamental ideas as 'abstract models of motion', and make very clear distinctions as to the necessarily eternally existing 'field realities'. Yes, tis true that in order to understand the fundamental volume of 'initial model motions', we must reduce the Universal constituencies to a minimal number, but we must always realize our model exists within a larger whole of the 'true fundamental volume', which science can not distinguish, as to whether it's a finite or infinite volume__Therefore, and due to combinatoric math's true and absolute unboundedness__I choose to model the Universe as an unbounded infinity__This is pure choice, as I have no proof, just the fact that there is no 'largest cardinal number'. In other words, were we to do numbers of just pure matter decayed into pure photons, we have no way of determining whether such photons exist as and to a finite volume, or as an infinite volume__due to the fact, science does not yet know whether the possible Higgs Field, if ever found, will be a finite field, or that it's actually infinite and eternal. We can model the Universe in either finite or infinite volumes__It's just in my opinion, much easier to model the Universe as an infinite model, due to the known 'Decay Model Mechanics' of being so large if we just simply use Hawking's decay numbers, from the `70's and `80's, of 10^137 years__and if one truly realizes the size of such a decay light/dark-light cone, one must realize the model is already approaching such a large finite size, we can almost call it an infinite volume, though it's truly not, we still have no way to scientifically know if the total universal FS is finite or infinite in volume. Hope I haven't confused the issue here, it's just I'd like to leave the FS Model open to what we do not and can not prove...

As far as to deterministic, yes the FS Model and Reality would be absolutely deterministic at its most fundamental modeling state/phase changes, but I must also warn that at the 'Bio-Evolutionary Phase State Changes', it must become non-deterministic or at least partially so, to accomodate free-will, choice and chance. Also, I can see no way for even the most fundamental FS Model not to have included more than one degree of freedom, as I've attempted to dis-assemble the FS every way under the sun of my logic, and have failed to be able to reduce it below the three basic degrees of freedom__Va, Vr and Vu__Due to the fact, the FS becomes less than what a scientific logical description of such a FS would require to have true definition. By this I mean, if we take away any one of the three degrees of freedom, we can't logically describe a real entity known as any form of FS. As an example; Take away motion, it has no em-structure to hold FS Matter together__Take away energy, it has no em-forces to define positions beyond a non-existing point__Take away matter, it has nothing of anything at all for logic to define. So to me, the least we can reduce the FS Model down to, even abstractly, and stay within our own scientifically established logical bounds, is a 'Triadic FS Model of Matter/Energy/Motion...' Charles Sanders Peirce, America's premiere 19th century government scientist/mathematician/physicist/chemist, and sound experimenter of em-fields interferrence on pendulums' gravity experiments, plus the first to suggest light be used at the U.S. Gov. office of Weights and Measures Standards__long ago stated the Universe could be mathematically reduced no lower than such a similar Triad in his extensive cosmological studies and writings... The maths all exist in the U.S. Coast Geodesic Survey archives, and in Peirce's private papers... So, in my opinion, though we can imagine a single degree of freedom FS Model, I have to ask the question; 'Is it logically viable to think such an abstract FS Model...???' Imo, it must be a FS Model of the three fundamental forces(Va/Vr/Vu) plus time, as its direction of travel. I have no problem discussing a single degree of deterministic freedom, directed forward in time model__but, I see no way for my logic to grab hold of any physical FS Reality, in doing so, as such a model is missing the necessary ingredients of a truly functional FS Model, imo... I think we have to be very careful at this level of theory, to make sure our logic is logic, and not just imagination lacking the necessary entities of the FS to create a Real Model, even abstractly...

I guess what I'm trying to say/ask is; 'What does a single degree of freedom really mean, outside the context of a 3D fundamental em-field?' I don't see as it has any meaning, as I see the Universe as Einstein stated, at its most fundamental level; 'Field is everywhere...' And, I see no way to escape this FS Model reality, and still have logically valid meaning, in describing any form of abstract or real models... And I should also mention that I see the FS Field as the absolute FS... Now, we can reduce it down as far as abstractly possible, but even Dave once mentioned to me to see the entire Universe as a 'Single Atom', and that's how I saw through what he was fundamentally saying__and from there I reduced out all the fields and particles of our knowable Universe... He and I saw differently as to his colliding spheres, as I didn't and couldn't accept that as fundamental enough to describe where and how these spheres were formed, and what the initial force/cause of fundamental motion was__that single degree of motion you may be referring to__where I suggested thermo-hydro-dynamic cause, he rejected as unknowable, but I've since converted such to his terminology of wave symmetry at limit, which causes hydrodynamic motion of the entire em-field of FS, by the future decay of hot stars, galaxies and black-holes into its, 'far into the future', state of super-cold(near zero k) wave symmetries__which would be forced into the known hydrodynamics we witness in all our low temperature zero k physics of Bose-Einstein Condensates, etc.__Here in our Earth-bound experiments, such as Lene Hau's, etc.__But there are thousands of low temperature physicists and chemists working in these experimental areas__with amazing results, I might mention...

Now, if you can think of a way for 'A Single Degree of Freedom Model' to have enough FS entity parts, motions and energies to represent an even 'Real Abstract FS Model', after what I've written__I'm all ears__But to me, there just aren't enough entities, forces and directions to represent a true logical and scientific model, containing no more than one degree of freedom__It's just pure absolute linear motion__but motion of what...??? It must represent, even abstractly, a Va/Vr and possibly even a Vu entity to be, even in this one degree of motion__which really would be more than the 'one degree'__or we're not talking a real model, imo__We're just talking pure imagination__and imagination and logic are close cousins, but even our 'Abstract FS Models' must have real entity basis, imo__No...???

Hope I haven't thrown you off too much,
Lloyd

P.s.
At limit of the FS phase state changes of near absolute zero, after all finite heat decay, we may be looking at a non-viscous super-fluid, as both Dave and I agree, which has been shown for helium, at both low and high temperature physics experiments, here on Earth__the high in the lasered accelerator experiments, with protons. We also know that both hydrogen and helium exist in space in phase state changed entities of 2H, 3H and possibly 4H as isotopes and plasmas, the same for Helium, as 2He, 3He and a possible 4He or more. The helium experiments to 3He have been performed by nearest absolute zero, here on Earth showing the changed phase state changes to a super-fluid, yet hydrogen freezes solid at higher temps above near absolute zero, yet star mechanics produces the phase state changes at high temps, to create the plasmas of H states to exist in space. They may also turn to super-fluids nearer to absolute zero, future decay time, as the Universe cools, below its present 2.7 degrees... Possible super-fluid H phase state plasmas, also...??? Unknown so far...

[analog]

Hi Lloyd,

Good to here from you. This conversation should do me some good as this is where I come to escape from reality....lol.

As far as to deterministic, yes the FS Model and Reality would be absolutely deterministic at its most fundamental modeling state/phase changes, but I must also warn that at the 'Bio-Evolutionary Phase State Changes', it must become non-deterministic or at least partially so, to accomodate free-will, choice and chance.

I respectfully disagree with this, but we might should leave this discussion for later as I feel it will distract too much from the topic at hand. It's also one of those topics that at our level of conversation needs its mechanics defined within those of the larger paradigm, whereby to understand one's views on such is only possible by understanding the complete complexity and mechanics of the entire paradigm through which they are drawing their conclusions. Mine will probably become apparent through our exchanges. Life can be accounted for by the mechanics of many paradigms both indeterminate or determinate, but its functions must comply to the rest of the system, Imho. Even though we have a lot in common with our acknowledgement of matter motion paradigms we still use different motion models and I don't understand enough of your personal paradigm to such a degree of complexity to allow me to understand your personal views on bio-life, but I look forward to doing so through further discussion.

Also, I can see no way for even the most fundamental FS Model not to have included more than one degree of freedom, as I've attempted to dis-assemble the FS every way under the sun of my logic, and have failed to be able to reduce it below the three basic degrees of freedom__Va, Vr and Vu_......
... I think we have to be very careful at this level of theory, to make sure our logic is logic, and not just imagination lacking the necessary entities of the FS to create a Real Model, even abstractly...

Just to clarify and make sure we are on the same page, my reference to "degrees of freedom" is that related to the allowable direction of absolute motion. I'm simply referring to the scenario of Va (absolute motion)=linear Vu (uniform motion) as Dave and I have often discussed. We still have fundamental matter in motion whereby having the requirements for existence, as our perception of energy is defined by the scale and resolution at which we witness the motions of matter as all energy is a product of the same process of interaction of micro structural domains exchanging matter with the larger macro aethereal spatial domain in some form or fashion. Upon the introduction of Vr (random motion) the internal degrees of freedom for matter to propagate are increased which introduces the relative states of time, temperature, mass, kinetic energy, etc. As we both know, our current universal system is in some state of Va=Vu + Vr. What I am referring to is the conservation of motion from all random states into uniform linear motion. I don't see how we can deny the existence of such a state if we acknowledge our current condition of Va=Vu + Vr. As I implied earlier, we could also acknowledge a motionally conserved state of Va=Vr, all depending upon our acknowledment of the inner dynamics of the bonding property in relation to its increase due to uniform motion. For us to have these dynamics which move our system and form our world, implying that the scales wouldn't ultimately be tipped to where the motion entropy of the system wouldn't eventually head in one direction or the other would be the impossibility IMHO, as this would have to be explained as the universe being in an eternal state of limbo between two powerful dynamics with neither ever tipping the scales, or an infinite volume of matter from the universal domain whereby condensation into structured matter never consumes the entire quantity and we are eternally in such a process, which I don't consider the case.

I guess what I'm trying to say/ask is; 'What does a single degree of freedom really mean, outside the context of a 3D fundamental em-field?'....
....... And I should also mention that I see the FS Field as the absolute FS...

With our paradigm views aside, I have no problem trying to explain my concept in the sense of a structured atomic autonomous domain ie the most fundamental state of material structure with Va=angular and linear Vu + Vr in some ratio or another within the larger universal aethereal spatial domain providing the 3D EM field as we currently both acknowledge. We can leave the debate of initial state Va=whatever for later as it's not critical just yet to my ideas. For the record, within such a state, I don't think its possible for an internal autonomous volume to reach the extremes of Va=absolute linear or angular Vu due to how I invision such a state applying only to a finite volume as a whole and otherwise not being attainable to a smaller internal volume as that would take the entire "energy"/motion of the system similar to the concept of the inability to accelerate a massive body to the speed of light due to requiring infinite energy. With such a motion paradigm, you have to ask yourself what moves what as you think of stars and planets and such going round and round. Imho, internally, it's the conversion and conservation of Vr to Vu and vise versa which changes the orientation (ie motion) and dimensions of structured matter relative to other internal structures as the universal picture changes from frame to frame, thus the process of reaching the speed of absolute linear motion would be a process of the entire volume as one structure was pushed around through the conversion of all random motion allowing for its internal acceleration as its mass increased with the increased intertia along with its physical dimensions due to the condensation created through the bonding property relative to the increase in uniform motion. This would be heading back towards the scenario of Va=Vu as the whole system comes back together from any ratio of Vu+Vr state. This can wait for later though.

Now, if you can think of a way for 'A Single Degree of Freedom Model' to have enough FS entity parts, motions and energies to represent an even 'Real Abstract FS Model', after what I've written__I'm all ears__But to me, there just aren't enough entities, forces and directions to represent a true logical and scientific model, containing no more than one degree of freedom__It's just pure absolute linear motion__but motion of what...??? It must represent, even abstractly, a Va/Vr and possibly even a Vu entity to be, even in this one degree of motion__which really would be more than the 'one degree'__or we're not talking a real model, imo__We're just talking pure imagination__and imagination and logic are close cousins, but even our 'Abstract FS Models' must have real entity basis, imo__No...???

I hope I've accomplished this through clarification, but either way as I said, the concept I'm toying with can be imagined starting at an internal autonomous volume with angular momentum encompassing a domain of randomized motion and any degree of linear motion. It would be in a state of Va=Vu+Vr in some ratio or another. My theory is suggesting that the ration of Vu to Vr within a mechanically determinate structure is related to its four dimensional trajectory from point to point and more so, even the varying internal arrangements which accomplish the ratio of Vu to Vr is related to such. The same ratio could hold many different configurations of internal structure, but the same ration vs the 4D trajectory would require a specific configuration of internal structure. It's like saying that configuration to the smallest degree is how matter moves through space and time, but inverting the idea that rather than look at it as though all progessive arrangements and their motions will inevitably bring the whole to some arbitrary point, that each organized point holds the key to how every arrangement and motion must interact for it to be reached.

Let's say between any two 4D points established within/relative to the larger external EM field the autonomous volume will go through a change of ratio of Vu to Vr to accomplish going from one to the other. I'm suggesting that not only is there a change of ratio established by these two points, but also a determination of the exacts to how this ratio will be changed at every progressive moment in terms of placement of all densities, structures or whatever the volume will internally manifest.

Our current universal volume is in a state of Va=Vu + Vr in some ratio along with a specific arrangement of internal matter from moment to moment which accomplishes this ratio, as we acknowledge gravity and such moving the stars and planets through the galaxies. I'm suggesting that every aspect of this is determined by/ relative to its exact 4D trajectory. Magically (just for the sake of my point) change any aspect of the internal arrangement in some means other than the system itself and a new trajectory is enforced along with the arrival at a precise new 4D location. If we can't imagine the universal volume having any degree of linear motion or outer domain of angular momentum creating the domain of Vu + Vr then the particle view is best to grasp my concept as if such is the case, it too would have to conform and be governed by the same dynamics. This is similar to Relativities implication of space telling matter how to move and matter telling space how to bend, but I'm just using a rigid 4D spatial matrix to direct the absolute motions of matter implying the relativity between "absolute position" and the motions of fundamental matter. This would simply be adding a new absolute concept to Dave's paradigm of absolutes.

later buddy,

Tim

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Tim, what are you defining absolute position against__in reference to...? Everything in the universe is in absolute conserved motion__No...? Total motion is absolute c, which is simply stating Vr + Vu = Va... Nothing I know of is sitting still, to define absolute position against... What's your meaning...?

I guess what I'm stating, is I don't understand why you've stated this...

And as far as my model, it's the same as Dave's as to the laws of motion, and I've posted many of Dave's posts in my blog, that I do agree with, so you can reference that if you wish... http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/lloyd-gillespie/

Really, most of our thinking is similar, except to bio, free-will, first cause, and final decay, and recycle__and the single degree of freedom definition, must have more distinctions, for my understanding... It's not a simple single degree of freedom, to me, it's quite complex as to what parts are assigned to abstraction, and what the real universe always consists of... Without making these distinctions, I can't follow the ground-thinking of what you refer to, as the whole Va is too vague a concept, without stipulating more defining motions and characteristics, than Vr and Vu, which I fully understand__but, exactly what shape, spin, direction and inter-actions are specifically taking place, of the FS...? One degree of freedom can be quite complex, just stated as Va + angular, i.e., 1,2,3, n motions within motions, or a single motion phase changing into more motions, or always the n motions__or whatever...???

I don't know how to make descriptions clear, unless we use induction, and travel forward in time entropy, to the recycle point and return, so there's solid ground under our feet... It's just a recycle model to establish a Universal grounding for ideas to grow from... To me, it's just ego projections back-deduced, without enough information, if we go back in time, because we make mistakes in our assumptions that way, imo...

Oh, and another point I have a problem with is bonding. I only accept the Va, Vr, Vu and the four forces already established by physics, but I see all motion as force, lacking any bonding, and gravity and particle formations only appearing to be bonded. To me it's all velocity forced formations__that would be all the geo-spheres and objects we know of in the Universe, and here on Earth... I don't see as any force can pull__they all push and knot, i.e., extension and entanglement...

The bio is simple splitting, as in cell division, or the Non-Archimedean Tree, which can explain quantum free-will, chance and choice...



We're probably going to go past each other's ideas a few times, before hitting a home run...

[Graybeard]

As we both know, our current universal system is in some state of Va=Vu + Vr. What I am referring to is the conservation of motion from all random states into uniform linear motion. I don't see how we can deny the existence of such a state if we acknowledge our current condition of Va=Vu + Vr. As I implied earlier, we could also acknowledge a motionally conserved state of Va=Vr, all depending upon our acknowledment of the inner dynamics of the bonding property in relation to its increase due to uniform motion.

So Tim .... a third state must be implicit

State 1 .... Va = Vu
State 2 .... Va = (Vu + Vr)
State 3 .... Va = Vr

Good to see ya back ...... greg

[analog]

Tim, what are you defining absolute position against__in reference to...? Everything in the universe is in absolute conserved motion__No...? Total motion is absolute c, which is simply stating Vr + Vu = Va... Nothing I know of is sitting still, to define absolute position against... What's your meaning...?

I guess what I'm stating, is I don't understand why you've stated this...

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

Really, most of our thinking is similar, except to bio, free-will, first cause, and final decay, and recycle__and the single degree of freedom definition, must have more distinctions, for my understanding... It's not a simple single degree of freedom, to me, it's quite complex as to what parts are assigned to abstraction, and what the real universe always consists of... Without making these distinctions, I can't follow the ground-thinking of what you refer to, as the whole Va is too vague a concept, without stipulating more defining motions and characteristics, than Vr and Vu, which I fully understand__but, exactly what shape, spin, direction and inter-actions are specifically taking place, of the FS...? One degree of freedom can be quite complex, just stated as Va + angular, i.e., 1,2,3, n motions within motions, or a single motion phase changing into more motions, or always the n motions__or whatever...???

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.

Oh, and another point I have a problem with is bonding. I only accept the Va, Vr, Vu and the four forces already established by physics, but I see all motion as force, lacking any bonding, and gravity and particle formations only appearing to be bonded. To me it's all velocity forced formations__that would be all the geo-spheres and objects we know of in the Universe, and here on Earth... I don't see as any force can pull__they all push and knot, i.e., extension and entanglement...

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.

We're probably going to go past each other's ideas a few times, before hitting a home run...

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

[analog]

Hey old buddy,

So Tim .... a third state must be implicit

State 1 .... Va = Vu
State 2 .... Va = (Vu + Vr)
State 3 .... Va = Vr

Good to see ya back ...... greg

It's a plausible state, IMHO. An all expanding field of randomly moving matter and no internal structure.

Either the aethereal spatial medium breaks down all structure Va=Vr, or structure condenses all space Va=Vu, or some ratio of the processing balance of the two as we have now Va=Vu+Vr.

[Graybeard]

... All autonomous systems that are not Va=Vu are Va=Vu+Vr.

My concept states that it was a collision that broke the symmetry of the FS in the Va=Vu state. We currently enjoy that broken symmetry for it resulted in the evolution of the universe.

Hi Dave .... Yes, I agree ... we currently measure asymmetry ... which is responsible for the Universe we see around us.

I'll try a different tack ....

All our measurements show a 'difference' or 'change'. If we take a 300mmm school kids ruler and measure a distance of 300mm .... then we acknowledge some difference between the two points, the starting point (zero), and the end point (zero + 300mm) .... doesn't this indicate that our ruler is detecting Vu (angular or linear) ?

If it was measuring Vr then the measurement would equal zero ? There would be no detectable difference between the two points ? If the FS is not quantifiable we also measure zero ?

The fact that we measure Vu and not Vr would seem to indicate that the FS is in a state of Va = Vr ..... and our Universe is an asymmetric bubble (Vu) or droplet within it ... ?

If you take a symmetric substance and break it down step by step so that it becomes more and more asymmetric ... then the first and smallest possible (least asymmetric, but discrete) step would be to give some part of it (perhaps only the smallest allowable part) the property of spin. Once you have spin you can place a polar axis ... and from there its simple to construct 3D ... a universe ??

QM points to an underlying symmetry.

Tim ..... Do you see the FS (prior to current events) as Va = Vu or Va = Vr ??

..... and do you see (current events) Va = ( Vr + Vu ) as asymmetric ??

cool bananas ... greg

[analog]

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. No catalyst to bring the system back together. Thus, Va=Vu is a plausible initial state under these mechanics because it has potential energy in the form of motion which turns kenetic with the introduction of Vr, but this state admittingly needs a catalyst in the form of an initial event or else it remains in such a state. Va=Vu+Vr is an assymetrical state as I would define it, 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.