Philosphical TOE (draft notes)

[Jamesh]

The following is just some notes I've made about that which I visualise as being the ultimate cause of everything. These notes are very rough and disjointed. I'm afraid the content under the headings may not match the heading - parts were written at different times (the first part was a resposne to a question on another forum) and I haven't got around to editing it yet, and as a result it contains many inconsistencies. The latter half is a real mess.

If you are not a philosophical thinker, but a scholarly type who adheres to what science preaches then you won't get anything mcuh of it. Still I'd be awfully surprised if there were not at least one thing that grabs your imagination.

Non-Duality Verus Duality

The reason I do not support non-duality is that it doesn't make logical sense to me. To me non-duality would mean non-existence - some form of foundational unequalness must exist for causes to exist.

It is my belief that you could take any particular thing and learn all about The Totality from that one thing. The nature of things must also represent the nature of the totality. We are all limited by our observations and we can only observe things. Any theory about the totally must be backed up - historically within one's memory - by what is observable about things. Analytical thinking may then take a role and produce things not previously seen or imagined using the tools of generalisation, abstraction and parallel thinking (same thing) - but these tools are only available if your brain is constantly comparing and categorising things it encounters through experience with reality. Once analytical thinking has occurred then it becomes empirical in nature - it is stored in memory and becomes data available to be experienced - the two forms add value to each other, far more so if the persons mindset enjoy logic, or clear non-emotional thinking.

The rational concept of "force" comes from this empirical-analytical process (as does "God" in folks who do not think logically). Nobody I've read has ever really defined a force, they always describe it in terms of its affects on things, of its relationship between things. A force is the underlying reason we use the word cause - somehow one thing affects another. A force appears to make one thing bigger or while making another smaller; or many things into one thing and vice versa; forces change the shape or configuration of things; forces change the pressure relativities between things; forces move things, and so on. The existence of permanent gravity shows us that forces never lose their power, they never become not. The interconnectedness of all things, together with our observations of cause and effect processes, show us that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction, or perhaps a little more precisely, an equal positive/negative reaction on both sides of a point of force transferral. Generally we can only observe this on a large scale such as the equal and opposite reaction of snooker balls, but as everything is interconnected then it must apply to all things.

Therefore as I am reliant on the same empirical-analytical mental procedure for all things I think about, and as I know all things are caused then The Totality as a named thing "all there is" must also be caused - only a decision not to think about the totality can prevent one from seeking a cause of the totality and to me not thinking about it is an abandonment of one's desire to know reality - a resort to fundamentalism.

The conversion of matter to energy and the spectrum of electromagnetic "forces" (they are still things) show us that energy also can be converted from some thing else. It also shows us the simpler a thing is the larger spatial area it will take up, and the more complex (read mass) a thing is the smaller it will be. The destruction of "whatever-holds-a-thing" together causes it to expand.

Defined things could be considered as representations of non-dualism, namely a thing is that thing only and not another thing. If it is also another thing, such as its parts, then you have changed the definition or broken the non-duality of the thing. A strong non-duality will eventually be caused to cause a greater incidence of duality. For example, the thing defined as a red star is a thing, but it will be many other things once it explodes.

The totality must consist of two things, though those things are not really things.

I think all concepts could be linked to contraction and expansion of some physical thing, or in the case of social and emotional things, contraction and expansion of their egos. As an example of the later, then familiarly with other cultures lessens rejection when people observe that traits in common are greater than those that are not. Things that people find in common with each other expands their ego's, they feel they are part of something greater. It is no surprise we form groups.

In terms of non-duality I don't see the purpose in generalising everything into a one, then dismissing it out of existence, by defining it as just a constant streams of A=A's. That might be what consciousness does, or is, but it is not what reality is. I'm positive that real existence can be described down to a basic coherent duality. Unfortunately I am not there yet. I am unable to imagine a single self-causing cause that can then go on to be the cause of all, still I do feel many of the points I raise, even where logically contradictory to some other statement in this essay, can assist to give an inkling of something that can only be described abstractly. It is almost like binary level thinking.

The contracting force has the ability to be attracted to itself, while the expansionary force is repelled by itself. This is not surprising considering these actions are their essential nature. Within the spatial domain the "smaller" the contracting force is, relative to the surrounding expansionary force, the stronger its self-attractive force becomes.

How Does Consciousness Affect Our Perceptions

Consciousness is the means of placing oneself outside the universe. It is the segregation of the infinite into the finite. At the same time though you know that you are entirely inside the universe. Only when this segregation occurs is something created though, just as consciousness does not occur without this segregation, nor does anything else. Causes affecting a thing are always both finite and infinite. They are finite in the sense that say a star exploding in a distant galaxy is not directly and instantly capable of affecting earth, but causes are also infinite both due to gravity (at least if it is instantaneous) and in the sense that eventually the earth will be affected – it just takes time for the causes to work through the infinite chain of equal and opposite reactions or relativities to get through to the earth – in which case it will be a different casual set than would have applied if the earth was adjacent to the star. If Gravity is instantaneous this would make the contracting force a single thing and not something that is essentially divided in any way.

Noting the existence of the pinwheel itself requires one to notice a “thing” existing, which we know to be as false as it is true.

If the contracting force was a single unit within the totality, then I do not see how things could be created, there would only be the expansionary force around a single point of casual existence. Spatially both forces have to be able to provide for segregation, or at least the appearance of same.

To state a belief in non-duality is to state a belief in duality. To say something is one is to say that it has no parts, A=A not the sum of its parts, therefore if the totality is a one then it has no parts. To say there is two (fundamental forces) is to say that one can be formed, the totality can exist.

Cause and Effect

Lets look at the cause and effect concept.

Superficially, effects follow causes and in turn are new causes. Effects however do not really exist - an effect is simply an illusionary observation of causes. Effects are the illusion of static-ness, but they are only static in the eyes of an observer, and are only ever static in a relative sense. Effects are the illusion of a lack of constant holistic movement - internally and relative to others things that are seen to be moving. This illusion mentally equates to solidness, realness, fullness, completeness. However because all things are always moving there are only causes. Causes in turn are ultimately simply just another term for movement, for changes in configuration due to movement.

Forces cause is that "force" is the thing in its entirety.

A force can only do one thing - it has no parts, nothing to give it more than one property, but if there were only one force, one cause, as it would only do one thing then we would not be able to observe any duality anywhere, yet we observe it everywhere.

Any effect or thing is always the result of more than 1 direct cause. In the eyes of an observer, multiple causes combine to form one effect, but the reality is they are always causing multiple effects. We know this for some things, but in other things it is difficult to observe.

When a cue ball strikes another, one would say that the single direct cause of the hit ball moving, when it otherwise would not have, is that it was struck. Unfortunately this ignores the fact that the hit ball itself is an opposing cause. It acts against the ball striking it with its own forces. The ball moves because atoms are put out of alignment. You do not transfer some mysterious energy from one ball to another, you transfer physical instability. You move structures from the edge of one ball into the domain of another and some of the affected structures lose structural depth - complex compounds form into simpler compounds, solids into gases, gases into random elements, elements into molecules. When this deconstruction occurs the totality of the balls atomic and subatomic material takes up a larger spatial area and the resistance to this growing area, as caused by immediate presence of the other ball, pushes the ball away.

Force can be made to focus in a particular direction. When one draws back a bow string and releases an arrow, the arrow flies because the string moves rapidly back to a less stretched shape.

Even in this case are synergies of compounds and atomic structures are still gradually being demolished in the string and the bow, and thus are releasing the expansionary force. If you were to hold the arrow ready for release for a long enough period then the bow and string would no longer impart any force on the arrow, even should they be made of steel. In time, it will end up with a new structure relative to the forces acting upon it. Structures at higher levels, that is above atomic levels of existence, may appear to have some give and take, for instance the bow string might be useful a million times, but this is an illusion caused by our limited mental timeframe.

Nonetheless, at the point where the arrow and string met, the interaction of atoms and the subsequent disruption of force flows in each object, will be at higher levels of concentration or more significant as a cause for the destruction of balances, than in the rest of the bow and arrow. The degree of outward push must be greatest in this area.

Once the arrow is in flight it will only stop when it encounters enough opposing expansionary force, firstly in the air and then in the object it hits.

Under my TOE scenario, each and every cause that results in structural loss, in information loss, is an expansion of the universe, balanced out by gravity. Gravity causes things to form balances of opposing causes and these balances become a centre, which allows the formation of more complex balances. Gravity is a slow inwards contraction of things existing on the spatial universe. Gravity is the contracting force, slowly merging back into a single instance of force. Could a singularity be the contracting force undivided within a universe? It makes sense, because the instant that such an event may occur, then it would be totally surrounded by the contracting force and would be caused to create a new universe wide boundary at some 50/50% position of equalisation, between the centre to the edge of the universe. Intrusions from higher level universes would soon make the boundary an imperfect balance, allowing its division and the subsequent formation of things again within this universe. It is noted that this theory, an attempt to tie in singularities with the contracting force, falls down at the level of The Totality, which must contain some form of permanent imbalance. Somewhere along the line things must be able to form even without an intrusion from another universe, even if all things in our universe, except perhaps energy and black holes, are all combinations of lower level universes.

If the destruction of balances is sufficient then an explosion can occur, the structure of the entire object can break apart. If atoms can be made to explode and much larger things like stars can also be made to explode, and all things in between if the right sort of forces are applied, then it indicates that subatomic matter can also be made to explode.

If splitting an atom could cause an atomic explosion, then perhaps unbalancing the parts of a quark could cause the explosion of a sun. This would be why stars can only get so big, gravitational forces cause the destruction of a quark into something more basic and the constraints on the basic forces are significantly decreased causing a massive explosion. What then would occur if the balances that hold a string together within a quark were broken? A big bang I’d suggest. I imagine a singularity is created. The former is something a very intelligent life force could annihilate its solar system with, and the latter is something that could occur when the gravitational powers in a black hole become powerful enough. Either way the life force will never know about it, they'll be dead before they have an opportunity to understand what has happened.
It is very difficult to break sub-atomic things apart though, as they are portions of space where the contracting force is far closer to its maximum level, than at the rather large size of an atom. Even a sun does not break up a string.

The atoms - btw whenever I say atoms I also mean sub-atomic material - of one object breaks the balances of synergetic forces contained within the other, and when these synergies are broken then the forces are partially freed from their boundaries, some spatial area is expanded and some is contracted.

The importance of A=A or what you perceive as what is (the totality), is not related so much to things, but to the very core of physical reality.

Causes have the form of infiniteness. Effects have the form of finiteness.
Causes are always observable in the form of dynamicness
Effects are always in the form of staticness.
Causes cannot be calculated in an absolute sense.
Effects are definitions, they are the process of making the infinite into the finite via subtracting from reality.
A=A is Infinity/static consciousness over time. Which is sort of akin to E=MC2. E represents “this” and MC2 represents the same “this”. Infinity (=casual forces which equal energy), Static Consciousness(= defining by limiting, which is why mass is mass, the casual forces are held in balance a form of staticness occurs, otherwise we’d call mass energy), Over Time (speed = movement over time intervals).

3 constants – 100% Expansion, 100% contraction, 50/50. Three fundamental forces are required to form one thing, but one of the three things is created by the other two things – the balance between the two forces is caused.

For anything thing to form or cease to exist (a life for example) requires two external things and one internal thing. If requires something to be made larger and something to be made smaller. When a life form ejaculates it is made smaller, however the female with the egg is made larger when the sperm is in ejaculated into her vagina. A sperm from a fish and an egg from a women will not create a new thing (well it does, it creates chemicals, but not a life form), only where the sperm is able to match with the eggs shell, so as to get inside the egg will a new life have a chance to form. The sperm must be able to dissolve the egg shell because the chemicals must be able to form a match (called chemical bonding) that makes the shell more liquid a new thing is formed. One inside the egg then other chemicals or structures from the sperm must also be able to form new different balances with the chemical inside the egg. Without this opportunity for balances within imbalances (imbalance is required for the whole sperm structure to change, to grow in the first place). An imbalance is where something can be altered and such imbalances are contained within everything across multiple relative layers of balances. Whenever a thing gives an overall appearance of staticness, then the total quantity, force-wise, of imbalances is nearly equal* to it’s opposing balances – but they are along different planes (they must be in order for internal movement to occur), so every part of the thing is in constant movement. (* less the degree of change – they cannot be totally equal, there must be more contracting force overall so that the whole thing is held together as a “one”.

You cannot go from positive to negative without passing zero. Zero is nothingness, yet it is something. Zero is that point which on either side positive or negative comes into existence. Therefore the point of zero is the point of creation of something different. Taken a step further, nothingness is what allows for movement to occur, nothing exists without movement, so nothingness could be said to be the creator of the universe.

To believe in “one”, when a “one” can only exist to an outside observer, means to ignore the reality of the logical totality of all there is. Being a part, you cannot place yourself outside the whole to view the “one”.
When we see that 1’s do not independently exist, they require a duality, both consciously and in terms of reality…(finish)

In a way consciousness is the ultimate in finiteness, for if there were no consciousness then there would be no finiteness, there would only be bounded infiniteness.

To be the ultimate in finiteness means to be the most empty of properties, a void. Now it is not the universe that is void but its opposite – consciousness. Tell me where the consciousness you had 1 second ago is now!, if it were not void then cause and effect would make it tracable.

random notes
From an evolutionary point of view, this is rather interesting. The greater your observational powers, the more you appear to be of an increased level of consciousness, the less you are aware of reality. Consciousness is not so much a matter of awareness, but of memory.
E=Mc2 logically says
If energy can be converted into the speed of light or whatever,
§ The Reverse can happen – if the reverse could not happen how would anything change?
§ The less gravitational pull on matter the larger the space it will take up. Just like gravity it has its own “greatness, its own force, the force of expansion.
§ The more gravitational pull a thing has the greater its propensity for enlargement, when an opposing pattern of gravitational centricity breaks apart a structural constant.
§ All things are the same.
§ There are no universes totally separate from our own. There are different universes but they work in the same essential manner, and our universe is a part of them.
§ Time is not a property but part of the essential nature of existence. All our observations are observations of the same thing, regardless of form.

Describing the Two Forces

Such a solitary force cannot either be itself or opposite to itself at different times, such as in the manner we observe equal and opposite reactions, because that would mean there is some other external property that causes it to change form, so you'd have a duality anyway. If you have a second force that is different to the first, then as the first force only has one property, then the second force - which could also only have a single property - must be the opposite of the first.

Having only one property automatically means that the force will be of an infinite nature, nothing would be able to change that property.

To be forces they must do something. Without each other they could not exist in any observable way and they would have nothing to be opposite to and would appear do nothing. Being opposite there would be something in their nature that would cause attraction and repulsion, like magnetic poles, but as they only each have one property, then that property must in fact respectively be "attraction/compression/relative-non-existence" and "repulsion/expansion/relative-existence". The fact I'm using multiple adjectives here for these forces does not mean multiple properties, multiple properties appear only where they is layered complexity of form - patterns of existence.

Perhaps this whole theory will be completely flawed to others because I am using the terms contraction and expansion. Being things we take a positive view of expansion and a negative view of contraction - both values are false. The difficulty is that in trying to comprehend that which is most basic, one has to strip away the layers of properties of things, and in doing so we lose our ability to form concepts, they become too abstract and thus many adjectives can be applied to their definition. The only properties one can consider is what is common amongst all things and compare that with what is not.

When I use the terms bigger or smaller, one has to remember that these descriptions can only apply to things not to the process that causes the existence of things. The terms each require more property than one. Opposite forces is probably a better term than expansion and contraction. For one thing to be totally opposite to another means that they have not one property in common, they are infinitely opposite, though being opposites they are able to form absolute commonality in between. Being opposites they can form one, they need to be total opposites in order to occupy the same space, or non-space really considering they are the cause of space. If there was any commonality they could not join so utterly so as to create the prefect formations of space and time.


My forces could also be called the force of "one-becoming many" and "many becoming one".
The contractive force can only draw itself into itself, it cannot directly draw in the expansionary force, but does so by default. in a spatial sense these forces overlap, they are existent in all points in space in the same spot at the same time at all times, but as they are fundamental dimensions, then they are not constrained by the constraints of space - they are not constrained by time or the speed of light or having to move or being able to be divided. This is where that theory about photons I think that change poles when the other changes pole and there is no observable connection between the two. The two forces cannot be other than what they are, they cannot be made lesser as a totality. So a change in the boundary caused by some form of relativity in one spatial spot will cause an opposite reaction in some other spatial spot. The contracting force could be imagined as a randomly vibrating balloon that is getter smaller and colder floating inside the expansionary force that is a balloon that is getting larger and hotter. Perhaps the contracting force can only get smaller by dividing - so therefore the force is really the self-dividing force. The problem I have with this is that we still need some sort of direct element mixing interaction with the Expansionary force, otherwise the contracting force would need to have two properties - the ability to contract and the ability to divide without losing strength - with two properties it would actually be a thing and thus couldn't be a fundamental dimension, it would need two parts to have two effects that are so different. The creation of a boundary between the two forces makes more sense to me -something about the opportunity for finite amounts of perfect balance (and perhaps therefore permanency) between the two forces means that these finite occurrences may be permanently splitting off from the infinite and that in doing so they create both a spatial area and a form of nucleus, by forming an unbreakable presence inside a spatial domain.

While I’ve never studies the concept of wave function, for science to have the term itself would mean that they are describing the contracting and expansion forces. A wave shape is a fantastic symbol to describe the nature of nature at its most basic. Any curve symbolises the effect of competing and fundamentally unequal duality of expansion and contraction. The natural formation of all nature is one of curvature and it is only an observer that creates the delusion of a straight line. Einstein showed that space can be curved and this logically means that all space is curved – if one bit is it all is as what would cause any part of it to be straight?.

Do These Forces Come Into Existence Together

I cannot explain how something can come into existence without a cause, but nor can the Superior Conciliatory Principle or other forms of non-dualistic conceptualisation. Potentially though my theory can explain everything after that. The Superior Conciliatory Principle is actually something from 3 dimensions or things rather than one. In my view non-duality pre-supposes basic universal particles that just “are”.

The closest I can get is that nothingness is not logically possible, if there is something, as there is, then there simply cannot ever not be something, there cannot ever have been only nothing. As opposed to non-dualists I believe that Duality itself is the constant creator/destructor of the totality, not just of things. What I'm trying to say here is this. Although impossible, imagine there was nothing - no things, no forces, no space, no universe, then it is my opinion that this would create the paradox of the ultimate - a singularity type dualistic event. Now for this to make any sense at all, this logical requirement for duality, this "something from nothing", must be instantly occurring at all times, both everywhere and in those 'almost' instants of nowhere.

In terms of the totality and of things (in a causal sense), finiteness is also an impossibility. Finiteness in an ultimate sense would represent "nothingness", whereas infinity would represent somethingness (form is irrelevant). There is a constant dualistic duel between infinity and finiteness and this is both the first cause and all causes, and when observed all effects.

How is the Boundary Caused

The forces, being infinite, means they are boundless and timeless, except in relation to each other - but even so that relationship has a boundless form. In relation to each other they are infinitely relative while remaining never equal as "totalled" opposites - infinity has no total anyway. The effect of this infinite relativity is the reason why we have the word "spectrum" to describe "like" things - we observe patterns of slight changes in form, but what we are really seeing is slight changes in the relative percentage of one of the forces to the other, different relativities allow for different appearances in form.

At a certain point this tears the expansionary force apart and in the process creates another point of contraction. In tearing the fabric of space you are tearing apart the expansionary force, and this occurs because the strength of the expansionary force varies around the circular centre of the contracting force. The expansionary force is stronger than the contracting force by the degree that the outside circumference of a circle must be larger than the inside. This however is part of an infinitely sized aura of differing powers between the edge of the 100% expansionary space and the start of the 100% contracting space. It will freeze activity at the point of the 50% balance, a point which is ever moving inwards, but unnoticeably so because the outside is getting correspondingly larger. What this balance does however is form "instants", where the expanding force moves around the edge of the balanced force and then encircles it. As it does so the 50% portion of the balance is made stronger and stronger as it is encircled, for each subsequent instant it is no longer in balance and can thus draw more of the expansionary force into itself - each subsequent instant does no occur until a new force equalisation balance occurs. Our linear time is created by infinite-time being caused to stop for a continuously flowing instant. Our time is finite time, otherwise it would go both backwards and forwards, yet it only ever goes forward. Changes occur because of that which precedes it.

The whole expansion contraction process is limited by the areas that are in balance, otherwise the universe would just have a linear flow and no things could form, the points of balance are required to create relativity.

In our dimension the collapse of the contracting infinity is limited by the speed of light. Space could be considered to be solid as it is formed from instant after instant layer upon layer of balanced contract/expanding forces, which themselves are only "balanced" because they contain within themselves, an infinity of similarly encircled instances of balance. This would create an infinity, a solid that is infinity flexible, limited only by the speed of the contracting force. This is the ether that provides for spatial movement, while the things within the dimensions it allows for, are older space, portions of space where the layers have formed greater relativities and have been drawn together as a result of the outside always being larger than the inside for the whole thing and all of its parts.

What is the Form of the Boundary

The existence of this caused boundary causes Form - namely space, time, energy, matter.
The basic forces are infinite otherwise, so this would mean that the boundary is also infinite, with boundaries boundary only being that which it cannot change - and each force cannot change the action of the other force. The boundary is not self-caused, and doesn't exist as an actual separate thing to the two forces, it is an effect, a result of other non-things that exist, the forces. The boundary causes infinite material form, the boundary is finite relative to that which is truly infinite, the non-spatial forces - but it is infinite relative to things, which have even more layers of boundaries.

Russian wooden dolls are symbolic of the true nature of the dimensional-infinity of the totality.

We live in this caused boundary, this meeting place between the two infinities. All things are both infinite and finite, depending on how you wish to perceive existence. All things consist of both balanced forces and non-balanced forces. Without balances of forces there would not even be temporariness.

The relative equality/non-equality of these opposites is the reason why differences between things exist, and also why such differences are both of a quantum and non-quantum nature, depending on the perspective of an observer. Non-quantum differences are what one would expect to observe, when there exists only two forces in absolute opposition, yet we also see quantum differences in things, and there must be an explanation for this.

How Does the Boundary Become Divisible - Two Alternatives

Perfect equality between the two forces would mean perfect permanent balance, and thus only one "thing" could be caused. Perfect inequality would mean there would be no interaction possible and therefore would provide no opportunity for balances to ever occur. Therefore these two forces must be both equal to each other and not-equal to each other, and the only way I can envisage this occurring is for them to be infinity relative. The action of one, its property of either expansion or contraction, must cause the existence of a form of boundary relative to the other. To be both equal and not-equal, this boundary must be caused to 'consist of' an infinite range of degrees of potency or strength from ultimate contractiveness to ultimate expansiveness, and including within this range a 'flowing instant' of perfect equality where the boundary is precisely 50% expansion and 50% contraction - resulting in a point of net zero action and thus zero change for that 'point'.

One simply cannot understand the nature of the universe until you know where its fundamental imperfections stem from. Imperfection is required for the contents of one spatial area to give a different appearance to another.

The universe has to have some form of fault line, the standard operations of expansion and contraction would only provide for the same thing everywhere - not that there would be anywhere - without its propensity to form breaks in patterns. A single "flaw" would be sufficient. This basic flaw is the cause of relativity and the universal constants.

I can only guess that the "flaw" occurs due to some fundamental unequalness between the two forces, so that what is created by their force, their essential action, is not consistent over time. Time would uhh begin - without ever actually beginning, the infinite cannot begin - if ever there was interaction between the two forces. Time is the invisible boundary I have been speaking about.

Flaw, break or whatever word I use will be the wrong word, the universe as a totality can have no fault or flaw. A break is not separation as such, but the formation of a pattern of activity that has a spectrum within itself, but its spectrum is significantly different to the flow of the pattern on either side of it. The cause of differentiation I think has to have something to do with that what occurred before is somehow different to the present. In other words it has to do with time itself, which makes sense as time is what would come into existence merely by the existence of a duality of forces.

We can just as easily call the two forces "base causes" if one wishes to use a more general term, though if one takes A and Not-A and to make this into a generic example - imagine a loose band placed on a white frame (not-A), now imagine this band as only a shape, not a real thing.

You push the imaginary band with your imaginary finger to change its shape. The inside of the shape is completely liquid, in area it must always be equal, this represent the infinite. Any change to the inside which is A, will result is in a change to the outside which is Not-A. The imaginary band is the boundary where the inside and outside meet. It is the effect. When you use your imaginary finger to alter the shape you are taking the role or action of either of the forces, compressing a certain area by pushing it towards the centre creates an opposite reaction elsewhere to both A and Not-A and to the perceived boundary in between. Now imagine A and Not-A as opposing forces. The each are the cause of changes in the other while retaining the ability to be the same, if you now drop form from the scenario.

When a 50/50 balance occurs between the two forces, and staticness ensues, then a form of fault line occurs, a differentiation between inside that fault line, or boundary, and outside of it.

On the outside of the fault line there still exists the contracting force doing what it does, contracting, but at the very moment the fault line comes into existence, it is weaker than its full casual potential. Now when I say weaker, I only mean that it is starting from a lower base, it is still as powerful as it ever was, but it takes longer to mix in with the expansionary force and thus takes longer to form a new balance of 50/50 strength than the balance last formed. The same applies to the expansionary force on the inside, the expansionary force takes a lot longer to expand inward, it's lower relative strength means it does not expand faster than the contracting force contracts. It remains as it is for ever perhaps, or until something from outside breaks the balanced outer circle of staticness apart.

The external contracting force creates a different effect on the outside of the balanced circle. It stays adjacent to the circle all around the circumference and acts as an attractive force, gravity in its most basic form and atomic and elemental bonding as the dominant force in a set of structural balances. It's power is not as weak as the internal expansionary force because over time it gets relatively stronger compared to that which surrounds it.

To form a new balance it takes 100% longer to achieve equally of strength with its surrounding expansionary force. Here we have the creation of a constant, the creation of differentiation. If this is the case it would indicate that the level above the true fundamental dimensions is in fact a particle. Wait no, it is the third layer. Firstly the mere existence of the two planes or dimensions creates space, secondly the boundary between the two creates time, and now particles can be formed with a slight time delay. Space is a solid, space is non-divisible, things do not travel through space pushing its aside or compressing it, nor does matter occupy space, but matter rests upon it or overlays it as another dimension, as a caused existence or form. Space itself is a boundary upon the action of the two forces between them and the caused particles. This boundary upon the two forces is what causes the need for ordinary causes we observe to only be passed on through matter, otherwise all causes would all happen to everything else at the same time, spatial distance would mean nought - nothing would happen. The speed of light is an indication the speed of things is limited, even if something turns out to be faster than the speed of light. It would also place a speed limit on the creation of particles, as they occur only when space exists. Of course these actions all happen at the same time everywhere, so there is no first cause.

The above passages show why there is a limitation on speed, and this could provide for a single set of uniform particles throughout the universe, whether these particles be strings or something smaller - but it still doesn't explain the size constants.

You do need to note the progressive build up of levels of finiteness above.

The larger a thing is the more finite it is. A string may last a trillion years. A quark 100 billion. A thing will only last less than 100 billion years, except perhaps for black holes.

So there we have increased finiteness of time, but really finiteness can only ever really mean a limitation of upon that which is infinite.

[Jamesh]

Why Do Constants Exist

Concerning Hawkins and his self-discounted theory that black holes cause a loss of information.

I am starting to think that information is lost between different levels of universal constants. Just lately I have come to the conclusion that each change in a universal size constant, ie string-quark-atom-thing-universe is actually a *different* universe. By a universal constant I am referring to the maximum size that a thing can be - there are no 1 sq metre atoms for instance.

When an atom is split information is gained because the number of relationships the parts of a thing has to the rest of the universe is increased, but when something is drawn into a black hole, that is a dominantly contractive action, and many become one, information is lost, in the sense of it being transferred from one universe to another as per Hawkins, as the number of relativities is decreased in the universe that we are capable of observing.

E=MC2 Energy equates to force, which when mass is converted to energy, equates to the total potential of movement at the speed of light within a 3 dimensional spatial area. Mass equals gravitational pull. Mass equals a greater degree of the contractual force within a spatial domain. Things with an atomic structure, are in fact things at a different universal constant than lower level energy waves.

In physics information is never destroyed. If the universe was to lose information this would break the concept of “everything is caused and interconnected” or everything has an equal and opposite reaction. IF Hawkins maths do correctly show that black holes destroy information, then the information is not lost but transferred into a different universal domain – universal size constants are different universes – these different universes have different time scales.

Within the totality there is also probably an infinity of these flowing equalities, not just one. If there are multiple universes they would be the ultimate centre of gravity of each universe. Importantly though the centre of every individually-appearing thing would also consist of a less perfectly equal version of this "instant" within the boundary, less perfectly equal because of it being relative to everything else as a result of there now being more "existence". Within the realm of infinite space, the markedly different size of the an atom and a universe is of no importance, it is simply not relevant - to think of absolute infinity try to set no boundaries. This however does not preclude their being non-absolute forms of infinity, infinity caused by something, but through the act of being caused then certain limitations are also formed.

These points of zero activity are of vital importance as it is what allows for the existence of constants. In a sense, though not literally, the Expansionary force is a kind of space creating agent and the Contracting force is a space devouring agent - they only have this capability if both exist.

Because the full boundary between the two forces is mostly "not-equal" this causes things to swirl around a centre (well except if there really was a first cause which non-duality almost presupposes). Things such as galaxies or atoms consist of outer parts, where relative to the central parts, the expansionary force is dominant and thus creates a larger spatial area. The contracting force contracts space formed by the expansionary force, so the centre is spatially smaller, but contains more gravity, or mass or contracting force, than do spatial areas where the expansionary force is dominant.

Imagine the galaxy is the only one and it only consisted of one type of element - say hydrogen and was perfectly circular and had perfectly equal gas density throughout. What would occur? Well it would still have gravitational centre. To be a circle there would be need to be an infinitesimally small occurrence of complete balance in the centre. For convenience sake lets imagine this central point as an string within a quark within an atom. We are calling this point a thing so it is a level above that of the boundary between the two opposite forces. It is a thing because it surrounded in all directions by instances of the boundary. The purpose of this exercise is to work out how the infinite boundary between the two forces could be "separated" so as to allow the formation of things, and how things obtain multiple properties that are different from one spatial area and another. In scientific terms it would be "What causes Constants". Without constants groupings of like could not occur and thus there would be no things. One sees these breaks in the consistency of changes in form in light and other electromagnetic forms (Red shift, Doppler effect), as well as limitations such as an atom or star can only be so big before it breaks apart.

Constants must be structural breaks in the infinity of the boundary, but in the context of infinity there can be no such breaks. So how could this occur?

The boundary must be limited, as well as being infinite. If it were not limited, then how could anything move, nothing would have any lee-way, any give. There would always be an exact 50/50 ratio of balance between the two forces - remember they are infinite so they cannot be altered, they cannot truly permanently mix together to form a single "one", nor can their power be depleted. They can "mix" to form things but they will always remain divisible down to what they truly are. Their power does not decrease, though spatial form can give the appearance of the forces being lessened. The total amount of power in any one spatial territory can be observed to be different (ie as in say empty space, air or a diamond), but the problem with this is that such observations all come from a finite perspective, our perspectives are think in terms of a certain set of spatial sizes that are most relevant to our total size. Our observation is always from outside, even why trying to imagine the size of the solar system we place ourselves outside of it - it is the only way to make it into a thing.

The boundary would always be the sum of two parts/causes, it would be a single thing, a one.

The business previously mentioned, about the smaller a thing is, then the potentially greater expansionary force that will be released is rather interesting. This because the smaller a thing is, if it is a thing that is a different level within the range of constants within the universe, then the more tension it is applying to the surrounding/overlaying expansionary force, the more contractive it is. The strength of its self-bounded-ness in relation to any change in form, including shape, depends on the strength of its own contractiveness.

It (what it) also shows us that the boundary between the two forces can be broken, however this does not mean that the two forces are ever really divided. They are the real two underlying dimensions of reality, and they are of a lower level than the 4 commonly referred to dimensions that are used to describe reality. You cannot logically create 4 from 1, but you can create 4 from two different 1's, namely +1 and -1. The 4 sets or things are "+1", "-1", "+1,-1" and "-1,+1". The 4th set is not the same as the 3rd. As the four dimensions are really just appearances, and appearances are knowable through perspective, then the 3rd and the 4th sets are really the equivalent of the 3 standard dimensions of up/down, left/right, and forward/backward working as one dimension – turn your perception around and one becomes the other. If the power of E1 and C1 is infinity, as it is, but the forces of each one can be altered in intensity by the other, then the sets would also include the infinite arrays of differing percentages of power in the ranges “<E1 >+E0.5” and “<C1 > C0.5”.

These forces have a maximum level of force potential because they are bounded by each other. We can see however that the force potential is very great. The whole big bang theory and the observed universe all moving apart or outward is a sign the full potential is more or less unlimited, particularly seeing as we are observing these forces in action from a perspective that comes from within a heavily bounded section (from within a galaxy) in the universe. We have no way of knowing whether our observed universe is merely part of an atom in an even larger universe. A size constant could and would exist at the size of a whole universe and so on ad infinitum. If one were a god wouldn’t it make sense to make small the same as large.

Nothing can exist without a boundary – actually nothing can exist without at least two boundaries. The universe we observe is finite – it is bounded in all dimensions by the universal constants.

As something more fundamental than the known dimensions exists, then at some stage their must be something that, as a cause, is non-divisible by external causes – all the dimensions we are aware of are divisible – they are not true reflections of infinity.

The forces have a secondary limitation, they are not infinite in the sense that they can be more than what they are. Even without any interaction between the two, and where the forces are in their infinite state, the two forces can never have say 350% force action – at least that is not within a domain that works at the level above that of atoms. If forces are released from a lower domain, they will form other constants, and these constants will cause them to form into atomic structures.

How is Space Caused

I picture travelling through space as moving infinitely into contraction and while doing so moving infinitely outwards, the end result being that everything remains the same. Only because space is so perfect, so lacking in properties, can this occur. One needs to ignore the things that are contained in space, because really they are always resting on top of space.

As the occupation of the two forces within a non-spatial totality as no boundary, other than each other, space also has no other boundary, except perhaps time and matter. When a dualistic infinity exists then a property will be created, that property is space. We can use all the possible dimensions of this universe, except for two, we cannot add or subtract form the totality of matter. The universe is knowable as an effect, through matter. As an effect this means it is caused by some form of action that is opposite to what exists. That which caused it must be able to add to and subtract from the totality of matter.


Even though space is created by the action of the two forces this would leave a universe with nothing in it. The trick is that the two forces are still expanding and contracting and they are now doing so relative to space, space is no longer simply an effect it now becomes a cause. There are no final causes where the cause and effect process stops, the process of the universe never stops so space, together with the expansion and contraction forces must be a cause of other effects. Expansion and contraction forces are the content and cause of every other cause, apart from themselves.

Space becomes overlayed by the continuation of the combined creative process. If it didn't then there would be no flow-on cause and cause and effect would fall apart, as it would mean a fundamental effect would not also be a cause. It would disprove cause and effect.

How is Time Caused

Time is the ratio between the Expansion and contraction forces. If you think about it, time cannot be otherwise. A year is a year because of some defined set of movements. If that is so then any amount of time is related to movement. So while things are capable of change, and do not change instantly, it takes time to change, then therefore time must exist - time cannot be something separate to the universe. There is no reason to make time an exception to the cause and effect rule.

Time must be caused, and it must be caused by the forces behind movement, namely expansion and contraction. Expansion and contraction viewed as a single thing, as a whole, IS simply another name for movement.

Universal constants are finite time scales, within the infinity.
Scientists often say there is something instantaneous property required for the existence of certain effects such as gravity, and the structure of the universe generally.

For cause and effect to be a flowing process then there can be no gaps either in time or in thingness, there cannot be any spatial areas that are truly empty of everything. Time and the properties of things might be different but there can be no separation, no dimensions of nothingness. An underlying instantaneousness must hold this non-separation in place. Gravity is the best example of instantaneous reaction in all directions.

You couldn't have slowing or speeding of time that would show any predictability without it being dependant on something which was never slowed down or speed up - our time would have to always be relative to some unchanging absolute timeframe, and theses absolutes must have two forms that are opposite. One of the poles would have a form akin to staticness and the other instantaneousness, and in the middle the balance between the two, the ever present present. Things move because the present is always a fleeting moment, while relativities cause things with properties to flow through to either pole, at which point they will have become so property-less as to appear to cease to exist, when in fact they are just segregating towards their pure states as infinitely unequal opposite forces.

How are Things Caused

Everything that is near perfectly formed like an atom or planet or sun is so because of some lack of relativity with other similarly strong gravitational objects. Overtime the more relative space between like objects the more circular will be its form. For instance the components of an atom are likely to be relative because of the huge spaces relatively speaking between each component.

Groups of such orbs create gaps, when (near) perfectly balanced create a gap in the centre, and it is equal and opposite gravitational pulls that allow such a formation. The set of perfectly balanced orbs become units, which then go on to form other larger sets of balances in the same fashion. The difference though is that the larger sets are less perfectly formed as there will be larger gaps around the outside allowing for more opportunities for other things to break apart the balanced structures. Over time these sets will form a nucleus in the centre of the structure. The nucleus is formed by smaller particles being ejected from the semi-balanced sets from within the structure itself and from external intrusions. Once this nucleus gets large enough by forming like sets, it will begin to weaken the balances that keep the whole structure together. It can even cause a structure to explode. This explosion can occur at any physical level, including our universe, but not the totality.

When the black hole at the centre of our universe (which current science knowledge is pointing to) gets large enough our universe will explode and become part of a universe that is even larger, just as matter contained within an atom becomes part of our universe, eg light from the atomic explosions in the sun for instance. Until it explodes or destructs the matter is contained wholly within the atom. No thing of matter is different to anything else in terms of its basic structural formation and destruction process. There are no truly separated universes, only separate dimensions, caused by layered universes, all formed from the same process.

The only way to see into an atom, it being a lower level universe push something into it and see what ejects, which may destroy the atom, depending on its structure.

If expansion and contraction exist now, as it does, we can see it in things, then it has always existed. Apart from space and time you cannot say the same for any thing or force, at least considering that many scientists are suggesting that different universe may have different sets of constants (they do of course but not in the lateral universe way that I think most imagine, but in the layered way that I am suggesting).

A TOE formula should be able to be produced simply be reference to the relationship between constants.
Having only one property these two forces are each 1 dimensional. Space is 1 dimensional - without anything in it then how would it appear, it would appear as nothingness. True nothingness, where even space is absent, would also be one dimensional. The two are opposites and if A exists then Not-A must also exist.

Within the non-spatial totality there can be no separation of that which is fundamental, but nor can they change from what they are, however they can still change what they are not.

If matter comes from space itself then Hydrogen may be the only elemental atom formed by the least relativity to other matter as the lower formation levels formed (of which there may be an infinity), which would create the simplest and most common atom. It requires that the most balanced manner in which quarks should form are not broken apart or made into a different structure due to the pull of close by matter of any sort. Where a number of the simplest atoms, Hydrogen, break apart in close proximity then different elements can be formed, as some of the pieces (sets of lower level patterns) of the broken atoms are likely to retain some balanced form, which then allows for new formations or types of atom to occur.

What are Heat and Light

Perhaps the forces are the same thing. Lets say the contracts until it reaches a point where it can contract no more (why/how?), at which point it reverse and becomes the expansionary force. This would explain why things have gravity, and would also explain why mass emits light, as light would be the expansionary force not long after the reversal from contracting to expansion. Light does appear to be a thing with a higher content of expansionary force – it is the great destructor of things in the universe – over time it breaks apart things larger than atoms, it breaks apart patterns of chemical bonding, and the more light the faster such things are broken apart (lasers, colours fading in the sun and so on). In breaking part chemical structures it causes the totality of that structure to encompass a larger area – the structure expands in parts and molecules are pushed out of the object, and into others such as the air, by this expansion, more so when combined with oxygen. Heat coming from the chemical reactions that light causes would be a release of the expansionary force. Heat causes feelings in us because it destroys patterns of existence that have evolved to hold together for a longer period within a lower range of temperatures than that provided by direct sunlight or other sources of heat. Cold however is not the contracting force – to a point at least. Cold is generally the absence of the release of the expanding force. Absolute zero however is a different matter, as that is the point in which the contracting force becomes dominant, where it exceeds the power of the expansionary force in that spatial area. Absolute zero is the point in which the expansionary force is drawn out from an object into the spatial area once occupied by the contracting force as it gets smaller and smaller. On any one dimensional plane, the contracting force is increasing the size of the expansionary force and the combined Expansion/contraction offshoot “space”, at an ever decreasing rate – in relative terms only. Relative to the expansionary force the contracting force gets smaller, but to itself or within itself it always stays the same. The expansionary force cannot do anything without this occurring.

Yet again though we need the Contracting force to be divisible. This is a real sticking point in relation to this theory and points to a fundamental error in logic somewhere along the line. I imagine that at the very centre of each atom there exists a force that is making space appear smaller, something that twists space so as to bring objects into it, something that creates the effect of gravity - when in reality it is expanding only because something else is contracting into itself and “pulling” everything else that surrounds it into it.

All material things emit can light to some degree, otherwise they could not be observable. If light is a thing this would mean that light itself emits light but the emitted light is of another form, something else lower down on the complexity chart, other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Also if things emit light then all of its content must be moving at the speed of light, except that content that is perfectly balanced to form a static presence, notwithstanding that they are only balanced because of they are constantly reforming balances inside the balance, perhaps at the speed of light.

If something that was moving at the speed of light was inside of something that wasn't then it would instantly break though causing an instant collapse/expansion of the thing. This means that light is contained within a shell that it does not penetrate until that shell is broken - that things do emit light shows us that such shells do get broken over time. The internal balances never remain perfectly balanced, though they might do so for longer where external relativities are less intrusive.

Perhaps light is one of the first particles of the universe. I f we only see light when it hits something, then space will appear dark. When Light hits something it ricochets off it, usually at a different angle. It is this different angle which cause light to become visible. Where the light comes straight at you then you would not see it, your eye would not have time to respond to something coming at you at the speed of light. When light reflects at an angle of any degree from something then it travels a longer path because of the angle. Colours are light at an angle. It is the zillions of light rays all coming off different parts of things at different angles that allows us to see a spectrum of light all taking slightly longer to travel a distance (a longer distance relative that is to the observer).

Light may also slow down, it is a thing with multiple properties (otherwise no light spectrum). In fact in order to reflect off something it has to slow down - otherwise it would go straight through the thing. Alternatively if it does not slow down and thus does not reflect, then it must have the power, using the newly released power of the thing that it is striking, to break holes in the shell that releases some of the expansionary force from its constraint inside the shell.

Any slowing in the speed of light would mean the instant creation of a new thing, something else in the domain of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The light that hits an object, including the atmosphere, must be different in some fashion than before it hit it, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see things. When we see light we are not seeing light but the effect of light on things. This means there is something faster than the speed of light. If there is something faster than the speed of light then there is something infinitely fast, something instantaneous.

What is Motion

Zeno's paradoxes exist because people do not understand the utter interconnectedness of all things. The only thing that still needs to be resolved is Why constants exist.

My definition of Matter is anything that gives an appearance, anything with multiple properties. So this definition includes all forms of matter including energy (light etc) - but does not actually include the ultimate content of such matter - the existence of such ultimate content can only be known through observing the action of matter as it relates to other matter.

Existence, or Space-Time-Matter-Movement, is one entity, of a sort. Well actually, it is two permanent infinite entities that create one permanent entity, The Totality, which in turn provides for multiple entities depending on what an observer is capable of observing. To be honest though they are not really entities but Effects – Space-Time-Matter are appearances, forms of illusionary static-ness within the universe, they not actually causes. The only things that can be fundamental causes are things that are not caused by other things, things whose entire nature is that of a cause and not of an effect. There must be two fundamental causes however, as a single cause would mean everything would be the same – you need duality to have things.

What motion really is, is changes in differing percentages of the “boundary” between the fundamental Expansionary force and the Contracting force. Such changes are caused by all things being relative to everything else. Movement is caused when one of the forces has less constraint upon the other force, and thus all things that we observe are in fact ALWAYS MOVING relative to something else or not. Within an object though there must be points that are not moving relative to the object itself, though not relative to other objects. The expansionary force is a kind of space creating force, the contracting force is the space condensing force. Because they are necessarily infinite, except in relation to each other, then there must form a boundary between the two where the casual action of the fundamental force is hampered by the opposing infinity. Only such forces could possibly be infinite – nothing else can - and for this reason I consider such forces as not being things.

Everything is relative to everything else because everything is interconnected with everything. Because of the flow on effect of equal and opposite reactions this interconnectedness does not have to be direct (namely within the near vicinity of a changing object or spatial area) - over enough time all movements directly affect everything else. Because everything is interconnected with everything else, this means that everything can be categorised as part of one thing.

It is because everything is directly interconnected that the percentages of the fundamental forces can vary within different spatial areas. Space could be considered as non-separate domains within the universe where the expansionary force is more dominantly active than the contracting force. Once something exists, as the meeting place or boundary between the two opposing forces will always exist, then relativity will also exist.

If the forces are infinite, then the boundary that is formed simply by the action of their very existence as opposites, then this boundary must also be infinite. If the boundary is infinite then this means it is infinitely variable – meaning that within a spatial area both 100% expansion and contraction forces are existent as poles together with all degrees in between, including an instance where there is a perfect force balance between the two forces - which creates the opportunity for the concept of “centre”.

Like a self-powered propeller driven by a perpetual motion machine, the infinitely variable percentages of positive/negative percentages of forces on either side of the perfect balance will cause curvature or twisting of that spatial area. This twisting is occurring at all times, it is not an initial or First Cause, but a permanent primary cause. As one spatial area is interconnected with another partial area the spectrum of force percentages are ALSO relative to other spatial areas, so therefore the curvature within one spatial area will affect the curvature in another. Movement is the flow of this casual effect throughout the universe.

This process is what allows for Form, which is a kind of overlapping or layering of space as an end result of this twisting. Although there is only one boundary between Expansion and Contraction - that boundary is infinite, and thus in a sense it is more than “one”. The infinity of differing percentages of force content from the perfect balance (we’ll call it a centre) exist in every direction from that balance point, so the curvature in reality is occurring non-linearly, ie it is not an linear arc but a non-linear funnel shape made up of an infinity of arcs (Cubed Twisties perhaps!), hence this provides for the three dimensions (and of course appearances such as tornadoes and gas jets often found on either side of newly forming galaxies, or energy bursts from neutron stars, or a whirlpool etc). Such a shape is the natural formation of things, and why the Fibonacci phenomena exists, but it appears rarely due to the form of all things constantly being altered by that which surrounds the things.

Alternative: I wonder if things move because the total net time set of the thing is caused to slow down. An arrow flies not across the air, but its time frame is slowed down by the intervention its molecules with those of air, while everything else, except what it interacts with, goes at its normal speed of time. As the time frame of the orbiting earth remains the same, but the arrows moves more slowly, then the arrow will move without ever actually changing its location, it will just change relative time location.

Any cause and effect process always creates at least two things, so when space is created so is time and only the combination of the two create observable space. If matter is then created from expansion, contraction, space and time then it too will have relative time as one of its properties. Relative-time would allow for different time frames or speeds and gravity would actually be sections of the universe where time had been made slower by something else interfering with it. I've heard it said that as one enters a black hole's event horizon then one's perception of the universe would remain the same, however to an observer outside of the black hole it would appear as if the person was being stretched around and around the black hole trailing off into a point. A change in time frame would produce this. It would also explain why no one has ever explained motion and why a fast travelling object appears to shrink in size. If time is going slower relatively for that object, then there is a mismatch between the speed of our vision and spread of the object. We would see less in a millisecond of our time, because our light would be faster than the objects. If we were travelling fast, say we are looking out a train window and seeing things close by blur, this would be because the air around the train is being caused to travel at a lot of different speeds, which makes the light coming from objects stretch out.

[dleviwing]

Hi Jamish;
Welcome to ToeQuest. I copied your 2 posts to my word processor to read latter. It translates to 17 pages of text. I hope your future posts are not as extensive.

If you are not a philosophical thinker, but a scholarly type who adheres to what science preaches then you won't get anything much out of it. Still I'd be awfully surprised if there were not at least one thing that grabs your imagination.

Sorry but I am one of those type that follow the objectives of science. The philosophical thinking part of science is called “Theoretical Physics”. In this sense I agree with you that we need better science paradigms or theories. I do however feel you have not paid your dues or earned the right to make such a statement. Science is based on the process of experimentation to attempt to provide evidences to support the “Philosophical Thinkers” who believe science is performed with a pencel.
From what I’ve read so far, you’ve done a good job of thinking.

[Jamesh]

Will reply later. Having post formatting problems at present.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Jamesh, excellent job of presenting your ideas. You make straight and honest sense of much that is confusing in physics. I was extremely taken by this statement; "Mass equals gravitational pull." It makes perfect sense. From this statement, since I agree with it, I would have to think gravity is proportional to the speed of light of matter, and the amounts of matter spinning at its angular velocity, in place, i.e., planets, etc.. This may be the beginnings of a true deffinition and explanation of gravity. Dave, what do you think the implications are?

As to your contraction/expansion ideas, they are in absolute agreement with my ideas about the thermo-hydro-dynamic contraction, being the cause of[or just plain being] infinite motion, and its associated explosion[expansion] into a big bang, finite motion.[opposite and equal actions and reactions] Does that explain your special condition of universal change of force and forces? Does it explain the dis-equilibriums and equilibriums of the universe? Other discrepancies?[cold creating hot, expansion within contraction, finite space-time within infinite void-time, the one stationary point of change anomally into duality, linear waves into linear and angular waves, etc., on and on...] I think most of your and my ideas mesh almost perfectly...

regards,
Lloyd

[dleviwing]

Dave, what do you think the implications are?

Lloyd;
I think “gravitational pull” is just another way of saying “gravitational force”; both are meaningless until you can show the CAUSE. The other problem is that people, including scientist, continually state that mass and matter are the same thing. Until this simple error is corrected, I do not expect any real solutions other than those we have already discussed. Many of us have stated the same thing using different terms and visualizations. I see nothing new yet in Jamesh’s interpretations except new ways to confuse the issue. He is another one of us who recognize the problems and is trying to provide solutions.
It is also important to recognize the subjective aspects of Relativity caused by measurement methodology and the real objective physical variances to matter caused by motion.

[bottomlander]

The other problem is that people, including scientist, continually state that mass and matter are the same thing. Until this simple error is corrected, I do not expect any real solutions other than those we have already discussed. Many of us have stated the same thing using different terms and visualizations.

Dear dleviwing,

Yes, textbooks make only something like grammatical differences between mass and maater. For example, using terms like rest mass & kinetic mass (cannot be rest matter and kinetic matter); mass as a unit, matter as a form of physical existence. Their differences in textbooks are really minor.

What are your findings to "this simple error"? What is your solution? It seems that you already got a theory upon this. May the community knows about it?

Regards. bottomlander

[bottomlander]

It is also important to recognize the subjective aspects of Relativity caused by measurement methodology and the real objective physical variances to matter caused by motion.

Dear dleviwing,

I agree with your point very much.

I think the difference between Poincare Relativity and Einstein Relativity is their measurement methodologies based on Poincare's Classical Worldview (space & time as different entities) and Einstein's Modern Physics Worldview (spacetime as one entity; space & time co-exist and convertable).

These made different interpretations on "the real objective physical variances to matter caused by motion".
And everyone knows, Einstein's interpretation is now overwhelming.

Regards. bottomlander

[dleviwing]

Hi bottomlander;
Like Lorentz and Fitzgerald, Poincare attempts to maintain the physical interpretational views to explain the observed variances due to motion. Einstein simply stated it did not matter and presented a purely literal translation of the mathematical equations resulting in time dilation rather than physical dilation of matter. My personal view is that Lorentz and Fitzgerald were correct physically and Einstein was correct subjectively.

My concept of mass is that it is a number that represents the quantitative amount of uniform motion within a system of matter. We can only KNOW the fundamental substance of the universe by its behavior and interactions with itself. My ToeQuest BLOG provides more information as to my views if you would care to read them. The notion of “Absolute Motion” is the only new original idea in my concept.

It is good to see that you are not allowing yourself to be awed by ambiguous and often meaningless terminology. Now days it is difficult to distinguish the difference between science and science fiction.

BTW: Welcome to ToeQuest.

[theunify]

Your claiming originality for a concept with no defined mathematics to describe it? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just being a bit false in your interpretation of your theories? By pure chance the conscience is capable or revealing poetic truths, however I see the "repeatability" of these theories quite flawed.