[N0B0DY]

I always revert to the root or cause of concepts and theories, Dave, and the root of relativity and qm is the attempt to limit the speed and quantity of light and gravity, respectively; and I deduced such philosophically, Dip, which according to standard definition can be considered as "reasoning logically" in lieu of empirically.

If gravity is the result of mass and light is the result of decay, and both light creates mass and gravity creates decay; then light and gravity are already two sides of the same decaying coin, no?

[everymansmedium]

Hello Greg, David and all:
Sorry about the departure from the thread.
David sorry to hear the you did not stay with HAM. Many people that had the opportunity to use that arena to play in as a child see it as a play ground for children. You were lucky that you had that opportunity. At 14 I was busy trying to find a way to survive. I did not have much time to play as a child. I plan to make up for that by doing my play time now. I retired at 55 sold out up north and moved to SC. I just passed the tests for extra last year. I took all 3 and got only 4 answers wrong out of all 4 tests. (1 on tech)(2 on general)(one on extra)

I think it is overdue that I say what I feel about QM. Normally I just avoid the issue. You will not get much information from me relative to work in QM. My feeling about this is that it is nothing more than a method to answer a question that you must answer.
Nobody came the closest to what I feel is the reality of QM “philosophically-incremental steps.”

We live in an existence medium that appears as an analog reality. However we use a digital system of mathematics to find our way around in this analog medium.
My feeling is that the basis of everything will be found to be the result of a digital system.
The QM is the interim process between the analog and the digital. It is the point where things must be brought together into packets to become closer to the digital reality, or to look at it in the other direction it is the point that the digital reality is becoming the analog system that is its goal. Hence relativity is the goal system. QM does not need any more logic than that to unify it. It is an interim system between the digital and the analog. I see it as one more form of proof for intelligent design.
IMO We will find a digital system as the basis for all things.
John

[dipayankar]

Are you also implying that gravity creates light???

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I always revert to the root or cause of concepts and theories, Dave, and the root of relativity and qm is the attempt to limit the speed and quantity of light and gravity, respectively; and I deduced such philosophically, Dip, which according to standard definition can be considered as "reasoning logically" in lieu of empirically. If gravity is the result of mass and light is the result of decay, and both light creates mass and gravity creates decay; then light and gravity are already two sides of the same decaying coin, no?

[N0B0DY]

If we extend the implications of light creating mass from the standpoint of absolute time, then gravity or relativistic time must be the sole governing factor for creating light velocities. The only way I feel this can be understood is in terms of deceleration instead of acceleration of space, which determines light velocities, because we have to logically deduce that the universe doesn't have to move to reach any place in the universe. It is already "expanding" at the maximum rate of speed, which is zero...zero time to reach "everywhere."

So the above implies two abstract perspectives that allow for observable phenomena within these two perspectives by way of the pseudo force of gravity, which can be likened to a counter-active contraction from the fully-expanded towards the fully-contracted spacetime framework; we can call it warped space, gravity, or mass, and its opposite is light which propagates in the other direction as time - we need gravity/mass to have time, and we need light to observe time - a very much belated time.

[austintorn@aol.com]

[dipayankar]

Its a paradigm.. between light and time. I am of the opinion that motion creates time. Since light is the maxmum limit of motion, it is a suitable candidate for creating time.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY If we extend the implications of light creating mass from the standpoint of absolute time, then gravity or relativistic time must be the sole governing factor for creating light velocities. The only way I feel this can be understood is in terms of deceleration instead of acceleration of space, which determines light velocities, because we have to logically deduce that the universe doesn't have to move to reach any place in the universe. It is already "expanding" at the maximum rate of speed, which is zero...zero time to reach "everywhere." So the above implies two abstract perspectives that allow for observable phenomena within these two perspectives by way of the pseudo force of gravity, which can be likened to a counter-active contraction from the fully-expanded towards the fully-contracted spacetime framework; we can call it warped space, gravity, or mass, and its opposite is light which propagates in the other direction as time - we need gravity/mass to have time, and we need light to observe time - a very much belated time.

[Graybeard]

Nob and Dip .... You seem to be referring to Light in a way I don't understand. Are you referring to the EM force ??

cool bananas ... greg


Hi John ... You obviously know what your talking about. Sorry for the brash presumption.

Originally Posted by EveryMansMedium Hi Greg: Have you ever used Prolog? It has a relational database at the core of the system. Even Turbo Prolog by Borland had a relational database. I wrote a 6800 microprocessor simulator using TP in 1989. It could run 6800 machine code on an IBM AT. This might have been one of the first across platform code systems ever built. I did not know the value of what I had done until many years later. I did it because I was taking a course in the 6800 micro and learning TP at the same time. The 2 went together like ice cream and hot fudge. It is however a lot different from the systems that you find elsewhere. The Prolog system is a declarative programming system. However I am quite able to use it as a procedure as well. The entire system is based on predicate calculus including the knowledgebase. The dB predicates work a bit different than a standard predicate, but they can be fed one into the other to result with what ever you can conceive of.

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

It's the same light, Greg, massless bosons of which at high enough energies create massive fermions. But the new spinless spin put on it equates light and gravity with a spacetime that is unobstructed by the false virtual vacuum. Gravity creates the velocities of the false vacuum which are unstable and decay into the true vacuum at variable rates according to the vacuum density. I think the difference in understanding might be due to my concluding the absolute density of the universe must always equal zero. Like Dip mentioned, "it's a paradigm" based on motion where if continual it is eternal, relative to non-inertial frames of reference; but if absolute it is timeless, without frames of reference - or only the absolute frame of reference.

Similar to Dirac's argument against renormalization, the neglected carriage of the absolute frame throughout all accelerated and "inertial" frames results in the adherence to such concepts as absolute motion instead of the absolute cessation of all motion at the conversion point of mass and energy. The relevant factor is not the eventual time, which must be arbitrary, but the point of origin which is never arbitrary. And since any and all events have a t-zero point of origin, the sense of continuity must be illusory.

Ultimately, gravity and light are two sides of the same coin - mass and energy - according to observed relative laws, but the absolute perspective is not an observer's and the absolute universe doesn't conform to such laws.

[everymansmedium]

Hi Greg:
I use a system that is all but unknown in the country where I live. I am very familiar with people thinking that I am a bit lacking. When they discover that I do produce results. Then I get the results of people that decide whether I keep my job or not deciding that they would feel more secure if I was gone. It is technology that I use but sometimes I get treated like it was actually magic or should I say magik. I worked for Gillette in S Boston in the development group. (They create many kinds of robots and mobiles) I was told that if I was ever caught with a copy of the Prolog system inside their walls I would be fired on the spot. It is not a good thing when they decide that they are going to fear you instead of embracing your abilities. I am going to start a thread in AI - software discussion. I will talk about whatever you wish there.
John.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by everymansmedium Then I get the results of people that decide whether I keep my job or not deciding that they would feel more secure if I was gone. It is technology that I use but sometimes I get treated like it was actually magic or should I say magik. I worked for Gillette in S Boston in the development group. (They create many kinds of robots and mobiles) I was told that if I was ever caught with a copy of the Prolog system inside their walls I would be fired on the spot. It is not a good thing when they decide that they are going to fear you instead of embracing your abilities.

I have worked in similar situations. However, my experience is that the employer has many reasons for what you describe.

Security of their own software, viruses, time spent not on their product. I work for Honeywell and the rule is simple. Whatever you develop, however you develop, while you are in their employ .... it belongs to them.

If you wish to work on your own project, in your own time, you must notify them of this prior to commencement, and it must not contain any conflict of interest. Otherwise they can say that they have as much legal right to it as you.

If you think about it, this is not so unfair. How else to protect copyright and ensure that the labourer is worhty of his hire. While you may think your own project is yours, how often do you think about it while you are at work ? How often do we use their ideas that we have learnt while gainfully employed, to test our own ideas ?

will check the new thread

cool bananas ... greg