"When I refer to absolute, I am only using it to infer solid absolute properties, as a verb, not a noun. You private linguistics was what Witgenstein warned the world about most 100 years ago. I prefer not to go there."
I really prefer not to go to the point where we use an adjective as a verb. Can you understand why that is?
"States of mind applied to scientific terms is just completely dis-functional usage, to me, sorry. Just as many of the world's greatest philosophers adherred to direct cognitive perception, of absolutely real matter and motion___So do I... The absolute universe can be known___Period... It's all we can Know...!!! All else is illusion..."
Many of the world's greatest philosophers and scientists adhered to logical deductions, leading to conclusions such as: "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Yet, you gloss over that because Einstein, so you say, wasn't feeling well that day.
No, Lloyd, what you think you know about the absolute universe is a mere gleam of the greater illusion until successfully proven otherwise by the scientific method. It is science that has the burden of empirical proof, not philosophy.
"The problem has always been one of the differences between physicists ideas about background-dependent theories, and background-independent theories, as I have already responded to you in other posts. If one can get their mind around the fact that space geometry is a two stage event, one we now live in called finiteness, and one the universe exists in called infinity, or unbounded finiteness, if you prefer, then we'd have a start."
Based on your own words: "No, they're just smart enough to know infinities are mathematically impossible to deal with. That's why it's best to use a-priori logic, empirical experiments and mathematical possibilities, like I have many times offered, in the decay models. You reject all extended logic, yet proclaim that extending logic is the meat of this thread. Which way is it Nobody...?"
Extended to the absolute level I repeatedly say, over and over, to the point that goes beyond your definition. That's the way, Lloyd. If you guys would spend half as much time paying attention to what you write and what I write, as you do trying to denigrate what is irrefutable, you might be able to grasp the topic of this thread and what it offers.
"Whether these waves are coming in at us, or out-going from our star/galaxy, they are fundamentally all out waves from the original source, as far as std. physics knows. Whereas, before the universal event, all waves would have to have been in-waves, to even form any type of universal event. So, much of our science is missing, in the two space geometries. We need to correct this..."
Yes, I have three major problems with it myself, Lloyd, as I repeated many many times. There is no such literal direction as in for your contraction to occur, especially as I picture your universal center of the big bang. I had made 3 long posts that were ignored regarding just this type of debate where you seem to get stuck in your randomly uniform motion mechanics. I had emailed Haselhurst regarding the source of the out waves, and the response was more references to in waves.
I really think Newton and Einstein can be mixed in a more logical fashion, consistent with observations, detectability, and the capacity to process information. The big bang and correlated inflationary era was invented by a christian scientist hardpressed to force-fit biblical renderings into cosmology and it has brainwashed people to the point where anything to do with the universe has to mention inflation and banging.
"As to what differentiates the FS, or divides it, as you stated, it's the random motion's friction, creating heat differences, thus sound and shockwave and hydrodynamic differences, from the base FS, which forces parts of it into linear motions."
Only linear, or helical, circular, spherical, and spheroidal as well? Why only linear, and where is there any evidence at all that there is such a motion as linear motion? The only possible similarity imo would be as Dave implies, which is a type of uniform absolute motion, which I remain to proclaim is no motion at all. All else is (illusory) non-linear motion.
"Simply put, the early universe, befor first star, had no quantumizer, of any sort. It takes first star/black hole, or whatever, to create first quantumizer..."
Is it fair to conclude that the central, "first," black hole requires no quantumizer? I find that is sort of magical, Lloyd.
"To me, science is overlooking its own obvious logic, math and evidence..."
I agree.
"And, if anyone says there's no friction of fundamental particles, they're crazy, because all known science knows there is equivalence between kinetic energy of systems and thermodynamics, i.e., spin, motion equals friction temperature rises, and these differences of wave temperature dynamics creates the divisions, at FS Source... This is why we witness all the different wave frequencies. Now, I'm well aware of the stationary, yet vibrating and harmonic, wave dynamic models, and I reject them by the very evidence existing, and their own lack of evidence of source motions, which in the models I look at, zero entropy thermal hydrodynamics is the source perpetual motion of all universal motion___It's scientific___It works. Wave dynamics, without source motion, is not scientific, and that is wave dynamics flaw, whether Haselhurst's, or David's and others'..."
Dave has very few flaws imo, except the moot void, as do you. I pretty much reject those models too, ironically because strict background-independent relational theories cannot include the concept of particles existing, or even waves, and the universe can't be stationary and vibrating. So, to me, the options are extremely limited - hair-fine narrow line, Lloyd. Only one theory, not many plausible hypotheses, and then equate that with none in order to forget about finding the absolute theory for no good reason.
"CAN BE A-PRIORI LOGICALLY, EMPIRICALLY & MATHEMATICALLY EXTENDED, WITH DECAY MECHANICS, INTO ITS TRUE BACKGROUND-INDEPENDENCE FIELD, OF RANDOM LINEAR FS MOTIONS...The background-independence rules."
Does the bolding mean you are serious, Lloyd? Because I really think if we are going to discover the true meaning of independent field, we can forget about Einstein's field entirely. If not, we need it to depict our notions of motion.
Einstein gave up, imo, because he realized that without the absolute background of Newton, perceptions of reality are an impossibility.
_______________________________
As usual, Nobody, you're reading fiyev by fiyev, bumper to bumper and side by side.
On the other hand I wish to qualify your closing statement:
"Einstein gave up....."
As a matter of fact, Einstein had readdressed himself to his formerly abandoned Unified Field Theory, in his final year, 1955 - was working on it to the time of his perishment.
Best regards,
- RP
__________________ (George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Is it fair to conclude that the central, "first," black hole requires no quantumizer? I find that is sort of magical, Lloyd.
Wake up Nobody, the first black hole/first star/universal cosmological event, or whatever you wish to call it, was the quantumizer, of what we know as em waves...
Lloyd
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
Point noted, Rascal, but the field is unnecessary when it comes to the notion of non-motion, only motion.
In the first message, the wording is faulty in that it implies an opposition to the TOE, when it actually is based on unification only with a different interpretation of the result, as is the case with your UFT. When the field is absolutely unfiied, it disappears to give us the unified TOE which doesn't require a field because the waves don't really exist the way they are commonly thought to exist when gravity and light are unified, which is what I feel Einstein was aiming for before he died.
As you point out very clearly on your site, feel free to post it anytime in this thread, if even to disqualify my statements, there is much complexity in standard physics and mechanics, and I aim to simplify all the stuff to the form that is observed all the way to the absolute point.
The root is the massless creating mass in the form of charges. If it doesn't have a charge, then it doesn't have mass, and this is inclusive of the neutral "particles." Like evaporating black holes, with no center/singularity, that form galaxies, the laws don't change when extended to "particles" and/or "waves" - the galaxies being synonymous to the elementary charges. Of which, when annihilated take the form of no-charge/-mass which obviously (unless you're Lloyd) carry the event from horizon to eyeball in no time - leaving only the nervous system to process the info as time.
The point being, the all-important center seems to be the cause of both motion and field, yet can't exist because "what goes in, must come out" at v0 = t0 (Kirchoff's Law) rendering warpable spacetime illusory - or dependent, not upon background, but processing speed of mass/energy transfers.
"Wake up Nobody, the first black hole/first star/universal cosmological event, or whatever you wish to call it, was the quantumizer, of what we know as em waves..."
The problem is that the claim is that it is still quantumizing.
"Wake up Nobody, the first black hole/first star/universal cosmological event, or whatever you wish to call it, was the quantumizer, of what we know as em waves..."
The problem is that the claim is that it is still quantumizing.
Well of course it is___New stars and new black holes are still forming, are they not...? Recent cosmology says so...
BTW, I earlier meant adjective, where I stated verb, but verb also, where that applies...
Lloyd
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
Linear Mode
