
Originally Posted by
N0B0DY
I'm pretty sure I woulda been burned twice back in those days, Lloyd.
So scientific mythology then?
In simplified format, going back to the beginning proposition, you have photons creating electrons and positrons. What happens to the photons? The electrons and positrons are the photons. (You really are a light being, Lloyd.) When electrons and positrons annihilate they create photons.[You say annihilate. I don't agree with annihilation. I think science has over-used this principle far too often. I choose fuse and de-fuse, and increased states of entropy, due to velocity changes, just as we witness in the hydrogen atom's atomic and electron structure and dynamics___high and low orbits.] What happens to the electrons and positrons? The photons are the electrons and positrons.[All agreed, they interchange characteristics, and physical content.]
All the above are relative properties of the absolute that you attempt to dissect scientifically.[I can't accept relative as a valid scientific concept. It's too confusing, linguistically. Not that I don't realize the science community has been using this concept for over a century, it's still open to too many interpretations. I choose concrete motion of mass and matter densities. I understand what you mean, but it allows too much of the metaphysical understanding to enter the conversation. I'd rather see relativity and relative statements expressed in clear Newtonian classical mechanics, as can easily be done. It avoids the meta-confusions.] I propose that to do so, they have to be classified as abstractions because there is no direction to the absolute universe - no north or south, for example.[See what I mean. When the meta enters scientific discussion, such discussion is meaningless, to me.] Yet, if you wish to classify them as extractions from an existent absolute, we'll go with that one.[Preferably...] If you wish to omit the positrons, and refer to them as positively-charged electrons, that's fine too.[No, we have no disagreement, except as stated above.]
Imagine a universe filled to the brim with gamma-ray photons,[Absolutely agreed.] whereby they collide to produce electrons and immediately annihilate[I would interject___fuse and de-fuse to respect the conservation of energy laws.] to create more photons which collide with other photons, etc..[Agreed, of all different frequencies/velocities, yet so close in velocity, our instruments only register the velocity diffs as frequencies.] There is nothing to stop this process; no cooling factor allowed;[Sorry, you can never eliminate thermal dynamics___it's absolutely infinitely eternal.] and there is no time or space for photons because they propagate through empty volumetric space at top speed.[Sorry again, the fundamental photonic substance is also absolutely eternal, yet having the infinitesimally thinnest density possible, thus influencable by the universe's thermal dynamics.] Though the collisions would slow them down, but then we must invoke[No invokations allowed, they are just reactions of photonic collisions, fusions and de-fusions.] gravitons propagating opposite the photons or we could propose that the gravitons are the resultant electrons (more mass, more gravity) propagating at relative[Real defined velocities, due to FS densities and resultant frequencies. Friction and sound also play their roles.] velocities through the photons of which their interactions would be carried through space via photons.[Perfectly agreeable.]
It seems that the photons are just aching to be well-defined in lieu of virtual[Real] probability waves. Perhaps you will be able to define them, as you refer to them as real, and explain how they are different than space itself.[They are space itself, in its infinitesimally thinnest density absolutely possible. It's just like Dave and I have referenced many scientific experiments, and you yourself, with Hau's experiments, that it is a thin density non-viscous fluidic substance. I say these experiments are close to looking at space substance. In my book of knowledge speculation, space is absolute matter substance, just as Dave first described it in his "Matter is everything in a void" post___I concur, as it's the only way possible to make sense of the entire universe. It's just him and I have diffs about changing matter states of FS and motion.]
They say that you can learn what to do from a wiseman or what not to do from a fool, the result is the same.[Agreed.] So I'll be the fool, but in your explanation, avoid references to unmoving motion please.[See other post today about the unmovingness of motion. It explains why the semantics/linguistics is seemingly contradictory, when in fact, it's not. The unmoving virtual container of infinity moves within, while not moving without, as there is no without, thus moving the unmoving.] Your statement stands as being fubar, Lloyd.[It's just our linguistic ignorance, not to recognize this little trickster, at the very center of our feeble brains. I didn't put it there, the random uncertainty of the universal evolution did. I'll keep it though, as it explains not only the mechanics of the universe, but the mind as well. I discovered this dynamic fallacy of linguistics, back in 1972, and had to accept it after years of playing with false paradoxes, as they don't really exist. Finally I realized, just as Poincare' stated, that anytime a singularity is being discussed, it is required to exhibit seeming paradoxes, to the investigating mind, even though they are not there. The mind is many, trying to understand the one, when the one, in reality, is also the many parts and motions/frequencies/velocities.] If the infinite, let alone the absolute, is unmoving, don't proclaim that finite things move it.[They move parts of it at a time, do they not...? When matter covers all distances, and moves in all distances, it moves the unmoving overall infinity, just as the butterfly moves infinity, but in truth only part of infinity, or is our mind incapable of knowing this conceited difference...?]