[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by MJA What a perfect word "inadequate" is to describe the current state or flaw of measure. Equate is measure's truth, unity, and our future! MJA

Dear MJA,

I agree with you that "inadequate" is a perfect word.

If so, my poor imagination, following your style, the opposites "adequate / equate" are also perfect words automatically.

Due to your assertion "Equate is measure's truth, unity, and our future!", perhaps Equate should be treated as a super perfect word.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by MJA Nice work everyone,

Originally Posted by MJA "... Instead, he attempted to unify nature using the inadequate tools of measure that existed in his day and still exist today. He tried to unify theories of energy built with the same inadequacies or uncertainties. ... " MJA

Dear MJA,

Your comments on measure are very relevant. The question comes down to whether or not a universal basis for measure is possible. Is there a universal standard from which all measurements can derive? Our measurements of time and space are quite arbitrary since they are derived a posteriori from physical observations in our solar system dating back some 5,000 years. Ancient systems of measurement were based on the numbers 6 and 10, such as the Mesopotamian “soss” (60) from which we inherit 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 6x60 degrees in a circle. The ancients very probably had some means of making at least some solar system measurements as evidenced by coincidences generally well within 0.5% error. For example the radius of the earth is 6x660 miles, the distance to the moon is 6x60x660 miles, the diameter of the moon is 6x6x60 miles, the diameter of the sun is 666.6x6x6x6x6 miles and the average orbital speed of the earth is 66,660 miles per hour. The resonances apparent in the heavens are thus reflected in the choice of units for measuring space and time. It is very likely that these spiritually motivated cultures looked to the heavens for their standards when permanent structured civilizations emerged that required record keeping, and measurements, and the English system has ancient roots. The ancient standing stones could have provided fixed reference points to observe relative solar and lunar movements with respect to one another and fixed stars over long periods of time. Nevertheless these standards of measure are related locally to our solar system.

Relativity Theory itself has nothing to say about universal standards of measure apart from reconciling the universal speed of light in the chosen units of a continuous spacetime field with curvatures conditioned by concentrations of gravitational mass. The so-called “natural” Planck units of measurement derive from assumptions associated with Big Bang Cosmology and are many orders of magnitude beyond the reach of any possible observations now or ever. For example the Planck length is 20 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton radius. Hypothetical calculations of this kind can never find confirmation in phenomenal experience. From any psychological or philosophical perspective they can not be regarded as real, but rather belong to realms of speculative fantasy.

The only truly universal standard of measurement consistent with direct experimental observation that presents itself to my mind is necessarily associated with a discontinuous universe where atoms are projected as a series of still space frames. The only motion in each space frame is light transmission which defines a primary interval of time consistent with Planck’s universal constant h. Since all light derives in some way from within atoms it has a universal relationship with each atom, accounting for its constant speed of transmission. The maximum possible atomic diameter is defined by the ionization limit of the primary hydrogen atom. It is also indicated by the quantum requirement that the angular momentum of the electron in the first hydrogen orbit must be zero. (See Atoms & Space-time at www.cosmic-mindreach.com .) This defines the spherical inner space of the atom with respect to linear external space defined by light transmission in a primary interval of time. These factors implicitly define external space proportional to the internal space of the atom by the ratio h/2pi. It is known that the angular momentum of an orbiting electron must be an integral multiple of h/2pi. Classical units of space and time may thus be applied to the same fixed proportional relationship which is universal. This means that space and time are quantized accordingly. A primary interval of time expressed in classical units is readily calculated as 1.519x10^-16 seconds. And light defines space, frame by fame, by the distance it transmits relative to each atom in each successive frame of that duration. This interpretation of a basis of measure has already been well confirmed by direct phenomenal observations.

If this is not so then general relativity, based as it is on a continuum, must explain either of two alternatives: Why did the internal space of atoms not expand with the Big Bang, a condition necessary to make the relative expansion knowable? Or, how there can be an eternally constant spacetime continuum in a steady-state universe that defies gravitational collapse and that still accounts for the red shift? It must also explain Planck’s constant which directly indicates a fundamental discontinuity in space and time. In a discontinuous universe light transmits in a series of quantized pulses each pulse having a quantum of energy proportional to its frequency.

Best regards,

Bob

[Bob Campbell]

Recognition of hiearchical inequalities are our only hope of any type of positive redemptive future existence... I think the world has had enough of "Wisdom in a coma, stupidity on a mike..."

Lloyd[/quote]

Hello Lloyd,

I am not sure what you mean exactly by hierarchical inequalities. The cosmic order must surely be hierarchical as opposed to random if we are to self consistently intuit any meaning at all to our existence. And one hierarchical level must meaningfully relate to other hierarchical levels consistent with the way experience presents itself. The levels are not identical of course or the hierarchy would have no meaning. Is that what you mean?

Regards, Bob

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Bob Campbell The only truly universal standard of measurement consistent with direct experimental observation that presents itself to my mind is necessarily associated with a discontinuous universe where atoms are projected as a series of still space frames. It must also explain Planck’s constant which directly indicates a fundamental discontinuity in space and time. In a discontinuous universe light transmits in a series of quantized pulses each pulse having a quantum of energy proportional to its frequency. Best regards, Bob

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your kind words regarding my questioning of measure itself. In general, I have met much resistance from the science community, from the same community whose purpose it is to measure nature. Science has built a fortress around itself, or walls of complexity, for fear that their theories hold no truth. Perhaps their is reason for such insecurity, for if theory were true, they would call theory truth. I also believe complexity itself is in many ways the guardian of the gate, for which many are afraid to pass. Questioning measure, not the uncertain theories that uncertain measure has created, is the path and foundation to truth. I have found by working in this direction that measure has no certainty or truth. And that without the uncertainty of measure, the truth of all is equal, united or one. TOE..

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was only the tip of the measure problem. Your ideas on measure being seen as "quantized pulses" parallels his doubt. Although I admit I do not fully understand your ideas on a true constant of measure, I think your direction is right.

I found this quote this morning and thought it related perfectly to your writting. If so, then east meets west and the goal of unification is one step closer to unity, reality, and truth.

The human being may be no more real than is a cinematograph film. When the projected light is switched off all that remains is a blank screen. That which has been projected by light was a series of 'stills'. Such also is what is beng projected by 'life'. The more you consider the analogy the more perfect it seems to be: it could help us to understand. - Wei Wu Wei

Perhaps the stills of light we see, rather than measures of uncertain differences, are nature's truth or certainty of equality. The truth that will set us free!

Have an equal day,

MJA

[MJA]

Originally Posted by bottomlander Dear MJA, I agree with you that "inadequate" is a perfect word. If so, my poor imagination, following your style, the opposites "adequate / equate" are also perfect words automatically. Due to your assertion "Equate is measure's truth, unity, and our future!", perhaps Equate should be treated as a super perfect word. Best Regards. Bottomlander

Thanks Bottomlander,

Equate is the path to equal or the truth!

Have an equal day,

MJA

[Bob Campbell]

Originally Posted by MJA Dear Bob,

Originally Posted by MJA Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was only the tip of the measure problem. Your ideas on measure being seen as "quantized pulses" parallels his doubt. Although I admit I do not fully understand your ideas on a true constant of measure, I think your direction is right. I found this quote this morning and thought it related perfectly to your writting. If so, then east meets west and the goal of unification is one step closer to unity, reality, and truth. The human being may be no more real than is a cinematograph film. When the projected light is switched off all that remains is a blank screen. That which has been projected by light was a series of 'stills'. Such also is what is beng projected by 'life'. The more you consider the analogy the more perfect it seems to be: it could help us to understand. - Wei Wu Wei Perhaps the stills of light we see, rather than measures of uncertain differences, are nature's truth or certainty of equality. The truth that will set us free! Have an equal day, MJA

Dear MJA,

Thank you for your interesting comments. It is strange that theories like the Big Bang and an extreme Darwinian view of evolution are promoted as gospel even though they contain many contradictions. Let me try to clarify a bit.

There are measurable relationships that relate to this physical world that we are obliged to make some degree of sense of in order to cope in a practical manner during our brief sojourn here. Some of these have universal characteristics with reference to the physical world, such as the universal speed of light transmission and Planck’s constant. Although these universals are well established in physical terms this does not necessarily mean they have absolute significance to all possible realms of experience. It only means that while we are here they apply in a limited physical context. Note that I am not using the word measure here in the sense of values.

Space and time are derived concepts from this physical creation without reference to an absolute clock or a celestial yardstick. In current physical theories standards of measure are arbitrarily chosen from the macroscopic environment. In a continuous universe they can not be defined as universal properties implicit in the very nature of how the physical creation is projected at an atomic level. Units of physical measure can only be arbitrary.

In a discontinuous universe the transmission of light in a primary interval of time associated with one integrated space frame of the cosmic movie physically defines external space with respect to the internal spatial dimensions of a primary atom. Light issues from within atoms that are discontinuous. Light and matter occur together as a sequence of movie frames. The measure of external space thus relates to the inner space of a physical atom and this has universal significance in the physical universe. Because this ratio must be constant there can be no expansion of an assumed spacetime continuum distinct from mass and therefore no Big Bang.

Space and time are not a priori absolutes. Since light in transmission exhibits a continuous spectrum of frequencies over an electromagnetic rainbow, the primary interval of time for each space frame can be measured in relation to it. Max Planck found that light energy and its frequency have a fixed relationship to his universal constant of action “h”. This constant directly suggests a discontinuous universe. So both space and time have a fundamental datum of reference implicit in atomic structure. It takes a while for all this to sink in. It has been a century sinking in to the physics community but it must one day come to this conclusion.

The uncertainty principle simply follows as an obvious and necessary consequence. Since all relative particulate motion occurs as a series of quantum jumps in position between still frames, position and momentum can not be known simultaneously. The more you know one the less you can know the other.

The quote by Wei Wu Wei is very relevant. (I have lived in the East for many years.) Perhaps it is redundant to point out that our personal phenomenal experience is a property of mind spanning our evolutionary history and that we can learn to transcend this physical class room. I see it as learning a good degree of positive intuitive “balance” with the cosmic order and this concerns values. But the difference between balance and “equal” is just a matter of semantics.

Best regards,
Bob