[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
If you wish to allow yourself to be limited by the intellectual academic dogma, then you're right, you will never know.

EM waves travel through equal quantities of matter for a given time increment. This means we will measure the same velocity in a vacuum regardless of the spatial density of our reference frame. All instruments are affected proportionally to the spatial density. The speed of light is only a MEASUREMENT limitation imposed by the nature of matter and its properties.

Just follow the fundamentals I've stated that matter condenses due to its bonding property as uniform motion increases, and you should realize the true simplicity of it all.

Take a chance Lloyd, and think it through. I was where you are with academic dogma 30 years ago. At that time I would have agreed with you; now I can't; I know better.

BTW Planet_bob; Photons do not travel.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Lloyd;
If you wish to allow yourself to be limited by the intellectual academic dogma, then you're right, you will never know.

Dave, could you please get out of the rabbit hole, and say something different than I am saying. BTW, I left the rabbit hole of academic fallacy over thirty years ago. You have also, but I don't see what you see is so different than what I am saying. Like I said, you'll have to inform me. I've read your entire fundamentals, and they lack only in one area, the connection to the true ground of being, as Guille has pointed out about most all scientific thinking, and you've even admitted something very similar about the TOE having to be more than a physics explanation, to classify as a real TOE. There's much more to the singularity than merely stating one's base ego. Please extend your ideas beyond something other than self-construction, of pieces that have been around for years...

The absolute of the singularity, or absolute space and absolute motion as you call it, is much deeper than you have gone. It doesn't all start with David Levi Wing stating a construction of ego,[mostly science based, I must admit] to make it so! For example, simple logic looked at more deeply, is capable of greater vision. Just use Cartesian reduction to the point of removing all mathematical logic and emotional reasoning, completely from the mind and what do you have Left? Voila...! Intuition - The pure intuition of the real ground of being, that just happens to link physics[science] and our true spirit of human nature. If you're not interested in your wife's and children's true connection to your real self, that's up to you. But,I choose to join science and spirit with my natural intuitive logic. When the left and right brain are truly connected by the intuitive imaginal, we are truly at peace with ourselves, and that in turn puts us a peace with others. All the ideas in the world are then secondary, to how we treat others in our public and private discourse. Thanks anyway for your advise...

regards

p.s.

EM waves travel through equal quantities of matter for a given time increment. This means we will measure the same velocity in a vacuum regardless of the spatial density of our reference frame. All instruments are affected proportionally to the spatial density. The speed of light is only a MEASUREMENT limitation imposed by the nature of matter and its properties.

You know Dave, if you want to write like the above, that's up to you, but, I would suggest you deliniate your subject/predicate logic, i.e., sentential logic, into truly digestable meaning. The above definitely means something to you, I would guess. It means nothing specific to me, and I imagine many others... 1.First sentence has no meaning. 2.Second sentence has no reference or true inference to first sentence. 3.Second sentence is identical to what I said with obscure language, due to the fact spatial density has nothing to do with reference frames, since all reference frames are percieved by humans as identical, as to light speed.[non-present-academic classical Netonian deffinition - non space-time] 4.Third sentence is straight space-time nonsense. 5.Fourth sentence is total semantical intrigue, and not very intriguing at that. Now, correct all five statements with sensible ideas of true subject/predicate logic. Please...!

[dleviwing]

Amusing Lloyd; but it does not improve your understanding. You are confusing ego with confidence, experience, and knowledge. I have no delusions of grandeur and do not feed those of others. What is your real purpose for posting on ToeQuest? Are you looking for friends, admirers, or followers? How many physicist have you worked for or with?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Presently working with two, grew up with four. Now just answer the simple questions, if you please, in sensible language... My true reason for posting is simply learning and teaching inter-disciplinary communication to truly solve the real world problems staring us so glaringly in the face. As I've stated elsewhere, there is a major problem of people not being able to relate to each other, not only in their own fields of study, but also across all areas of study. It's clearly the same on this BB. No TOE is going to be found until we learn to relate clearly, concisely, and respectfully to each and every one, whether you think you are smarter or knot! You're Knot!

As I remember, you insulted first, so grin and bear it... Or be confident, as you say you are, and stop insulting. As I said before, only the weak insult. You don't have to offensively correct people, you only need simply state your own ideas, without malice, if you please...

"You get more bears with honey, than with big guns." me
"Hey Dave, did you ever get going backwards, ahead of yourself, and outsmart yourself?" me

thanks

[dleviwing]

Lloyd
When you present a journal or web site of your concepts we will be able to compare intrinsic value of our logic and scientific know how. Check posts 36 and 37 for starting points. I like sarcasm even when directed toward me. It may not accomplish much, but it can be fun at times. Face it Lloyd; we are a couple of old farts that are old enough to speak our minds and not give a rat's behind what people think. Welcome to the seniors club Lloyd.

I'm not smarter than my auto mechanic when it comes to repairing my car but, I sure can design a spectrometer better than he can. There have been truck drivers, students, dentist, electricians, plumbers and many others who have proclaimed themselves more knowledgeable in physics than myself; I still find that absolutely amusing and quite unbelievable. Should I proclaim myself an expert economist?

I cannot out-do you in your profession and you will not out-do me in mine. It's that simple.

One bright day in the middle of the night
two dead boys got up to fight
Back to Back they faced each other
drew their swords and shot each other.
a deaf cop heard the noise and came an shot the two dead boys.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Lloyd
Face it Lloyd; we are a couple of old farts that are old enough to speak our minds and not give a rat's behind what people think. Welcome to the seniors club Lloyd.

One bright day in the middle of the night
two dead boys got up to fight
Back to Back they faced each other
drew their swords and shot each other.
a deaf cop heard the noise and came an shot the two dead boys. [/font][/color]

I like it. You're catching on...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Dave, do you realize what you wrote about "The Mystery of Mass" is actually the discovery of Einstein's subtle mistake that has existed in his original work since day one, with no-one catching it, until now? I have entered your idea, which I thoroughly agree with, so others may know what we are discussing. Your idea corresponds almost identically to mine, as to the fact Ol' Uncle Einstein incorrectly united co-ordinate systems of abstract observers of pseudo-abstract frames of reference, and no-one has caught this until now. You have caught it, but I don't believe even you are aware of it, are you? I knew he was wrong over thirty years ago, but it would have just been my word against his, and I didn't think I had a chance, until I recently rediscovered additional and extensional proofs of, and now I see you have also discovered a similar analogy of the turn of the last century's confusions, into unvarifiable guage theories. I think if you re-read Einstein's original SRT and GRT, you will discover the same mistakes I'm referring to, and how it relates to this;

The Mystery of Mass:
Mass is a term that all of us believe we have some degree of understanding. The fact is however, we use the numbers and follow the procedures without a true understanding of inertia and the term we've come to know as "Rest Mass". Many have come to visualize mass as a physical quantity of nature and that this quantity can be converted to a non-physical quantity of nature called "Energy". Richard Feynman, though not the first to note this mystery, stated in his book, "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter":
"Throughout this entire story there remains one especially unsatisfactory feature - the observed masses of the particles, "m". There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we don’t understand them – what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem."
One of the surprising and unexpected consequences of the Toronic concept was a solution of the term "m" (mass) in both the general equation for energy of particles (Rest mass) and that of Einstein's equations for radiant energy (Relativistic mass). Though the solution is extremely simple, it reaches into every aspect of Quantum and Relativity theories. It also poses a disturbing consequence; We may be using a term that is not truly representing physical quantities of a physical substance of nature, but only providing a comparison of structured fundamental particle units of matter; though, even this, is without a true reference.
The Toronic approach realized a fundamental redundancy in the mathematics that needed to be addressed.

For the conservation laws of physics to hold true, no isolated physical system may loose any quantity of motion regardless of the interactive events of collision or any other process.

This preordains "energy" and "mass" not only to be interchangeable, but also to be identical in nature. Mass is not a true physical measure of the quantity of a fundamental substance; it is more indicative of a measure of the "Potential Energy" of structured systems of matter;. Thus both are mathematical terms for energy and thus motion is "ABSOLUTE". Electrons have "Absolute motion"; Protons have "Absolute motion"; Neutrons have "Absolute motion", and the Universe has "Absolute motion". The motion quantity of any system equates to "Absolute motion". For all our conservation laws to work, only motion and the finite quantity of matter needs to be conserved; Energy is a measure of matter in its various states of interactions and its motions; To be more precise, it is the change in, or state of, the distribution of motion of a physical entity. We are able to make an object redistribute its motion within the system, however we are not allowed to cause an object to increase or decrease its quantity of motion - only its quantity of substance can be altered.

Absolute (adj) Perfect in quality or nature; complete.

This is the first definition in The American Heritage Dictionary for the word absolute. In mathematics we reduce equations until no further reduction is possible; we have reached the absolute simplest form of the equation possible. In physics, it is desirable to reduce phenomena to pure cause-and-effect explanations through an understanding of fundamental absolutes.
Many believe that anything that is "absolute" is also axiomatic; if this were so, we would be traveling between the stars and exploring the Milkyway. Unfortunately nature has a magic act of smoke and mirrors that exceeds David Copperfield's best performances. Each time we think we know the trick, it seems the rules of nature change to hide the truth from us. Some believe this is just our inability to observe nature close enough to see her slight-of-hand or hidden mirrors. Others simply believe our brains are incapable of comprehending something so complex as the universe from the macro-world of cosmology to the micro-world of subatomic particles. This latter group may be disappointed and amazed.

p.s.
If you re-read Einstein,[also, you may have to research several versions of, due to editing through the years. best to find the oldest and original manuscripts] pay especially close attention to how he builds his corrupted abstract analogies, and pseudo-constructs of observer reference frames.[some are correct, some aren't] Then just simply realize he united co-ordinate systems of classical, his relative views, and Lorentz's true relativity math, in ways that are not logically permissable. His ideas further state axioms of co-ordinate systems that are neither true nor possible. He left out the extensions that would have been required of Lorentz's formulas' math to absolute mass states[nuclear explosion], on into mass decay to zero mass states, at (absolute motion) light velocity, to really be entirely true to create such ideas as SRT and GRT {realities?}... I suppose this may have been so because no-one really knew about such math requirements until the years of creating the bomb. The thing is it's amazing this subtle mistake has taken so long to surface, but I guess stranger things have happened...

regards

[dleviwing]

I have realized many of Einstein's mistakes and those of others, though I'm not quite sure which one you may be referring to. I have translations of his original papers and lectures if you can be more precise to what ones you are referencing.

Frankly Lloyd, I found Einstein to be a rather mediocre scientist and even a worse mathematician. He didn't even know how to interpret his math and thus was successful in placing science into 100 years of confusion like the dark ages of superstition. We now have several generations of Einstein Relativity and QM peacocks.

SRT is a mathematical geometry defining subjective observations of physical motion. GR is this geometry as it is influence by the presence of physical objects of mass. These equations eliminate the need for an ether theory by scaling its properties into the equations and calling it time dilation and spacetime.

Understanding "mass" is an important key to understanding the functions and nature of our universe. Understanding ourselves may take another millennium.

[baudrunner]

Obviously, we must avail ourselves of the simplistic and the practical in order to illustrate Einstein's genius by way of example and by way of thought experiment. There is of course a reason that the gist of his theories prevail even after one hundred years and we would be better served to open our minds and attempt to understand that Einstein once said; "I value my gift of imagination more than I value my gift for acquiring new knowledge." We must take this approach because I don't expect anyone here to post the corrections to Einstein's math, and discourse of the type that has gone before this post eventually becomes boring while continuing to not explain anything at all.

Let us attempt to describe relativity as it is manifest for our subjective approval at the colossal scale by first invoking a couple of useful thought experiments...

1. Imagine yourself so large that you can hold the Universe in the palm of your hand. Then the creation of a star as we witness in that magnificent Hubble photo of the Horsehead Nebula, birthplace of the stars, becomes no more than an instantaneous spark. But to we on planet earth that photo will not change very much when we take it again a hundred years from now.

2. Similarly, if you shrunk yourself down from that size to where you are only large enough to use stars for stepping stones then in the taking of a single step across space to the next star you would, if you could, see the passing of a part of an era of human history on a planet orbiting that star and if those humans were able to look up into space and see you they would see a figure almost frozen in time.

Notwithstanding that these are ridiculous scenarios created by a vivid imagination, they are representative of what would really be the case.

Now bring yourself back to reality and imagine what might have been the thinking that led Werner Von Heisenberg to unravelling the basis for his uncertainty principle, which is relativity after all. Could he have imagined shrinking to the size of a sub nuclear particle and attempting to visualize how the atom must then appear to the observer, not at all how it appears to we who exist on the macro level?

I have not lost touch with the intent of this discussion, which concerns FTL or superuminal phenomenon. I will only say that observation of the propagation and expansion of the bow waves caused by catastrophic events of a colossal nature such as massive supernovae of far greater scale than mere exploding stars indicate extreme superluminal behaviour. Explanations furnished by scientists who are locked into the thinking of the status quo read like a cheap excuse, that the effect is only "apparent". Well, to them I say, B.S., it is very real.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

Obviously, we must avail ourselves of the simplistic and the practical in order to illustrate Einstein's genius by way of example and by way of thought experiment. There is of course a reason that the gist of his theories prevail even after one hundred years and we would be better served to open our minds and attempt to understand that Einstein once said; "I value my gift of imagination more than I value my gift for acquiring new knowledge." We must take this approach because I don't expect anyone here to post the corrections to Einstein's math, and discourse of the type that has gone before this post eventually becomes boring while continuing to not explain anything at all...

Baud, please... I would suggest you read something truly pertaining to the real world, and real light theory...

http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...e/heisenb3.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...e/heisenb2.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...e/heisenb5.htm

A few short and sensible articles for ya...

"Join us; stop fighting us." me

regards