Toronic Concepts

[dleviwing]

I disagree with your collision scenario, as I already tried that years ago, and realized its failure.

I really don’t believe you tried very hard at any such scenario Lloyd.
You have not defined your views as to the properties of fundamental matter other than to say you agree with me. In that case you should take some time the think how this fundamental stuff of the universe is going to react to a HV impact. In today’s model it is described as a conversion of potential energy to kinetic and radiant energy; otherwise just a change in the motion state of the matter.

The easiest rational scenario I know is my old high school debate about thermodynamics.

I’m afraid you will find that a high school level thermodynamic education is not sufficient for our discussions. Did your economics courses go into thermodynamics? I would find that unusual if it did. Your post do not support your claims Lloyd

I will try to show why such a scenario is voided by universal necessities of thermalicity.

thermalicity – Not even a word recognized by Webster.

We both agree absolute matter exists

however I say it is finite, and you say it is of an infinite quantity.

If matter is infinite, then the void does not exist. This conforms to concepts of our universe being a bubble in an infinite mass of substance. I don’t bye into this one either.

The absolute ground state of the universe is that which it has to be, and for no other reason___necessity.

An absolutely meaningless statement. I would suggest that you work with the proper use of “Ground-State”. Ground-state does not apply to my scenario since I am not expressing anything in electromagnetic terms.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ep/yskim/boston/tanatar.pdf

[Lloyd Gillespie]

David, if you would just try to start talking to me, instead of above me, when you are not, we may be able to get somewhere. Now, science and physics have for years, or even centuries tried to resolve the infinity problems and falsely seeming paradoxes. You say this is impossible, as have most. This is not true, and it's your own "All is matter in a void" post and your own four axioms which actually can and do prove the science and theory of the past wrong. If you would just take the time to apply as much ability of thought to relating your "All is matter in a void" and your four axioms, to infinity___first___before trying to jump to applying them to finiteness___you may find you have truly discovered something really big___the answer to history's greatest mystery___how absolute infinite changing state thermal matter motion produces the absolute center seeking motions creating the first absolute mass finite singularity, that just happens to quantumize and vacuumize finite space, at its infinite space void center___thus setting up a quantumized wall between infinity and finiteness___thus allowing the conservation laws of physics___and all other laws of physics to function properly and scientifically___while still maintaining the ground state___no electromagnetics yet involved___gravity and such are created inside the first finite singularity___the only scientifically sensible reality, when all the scientific facts and laws are truly respected. There's no sense continuing this I know more than you, because you don't___let's work together to show where each's thinking is right and wrong. You could do most for the ideas by just answering the question I asked you almost a year ago___if you believe so strongly in absolute motion, with no clear foundation, then just simply please explain where your high velocity motion comes from___what generates the high velocity in your Toronics Model? You think you're dissapointed in me? I've been trying to get you to face the realities of -c and true c, point and plus point, 0k and +0k for almost a year, and you keep interjecting these genesis ideas into most every explaination___there is no scientific ground___what-so-ever___for anything above c, below 0k, and less than point. Furthermore, there's absolutely no science to support absolute kinetic energy velocity beyond c, clumping of matter is directly against all known thermodynamic science, and there's absolutely no scientific evidence of any temps below 0k. So, as far as I can see, we only absolutely have c & -c, 0k & + 0k, and plus point to scientifically work with___all other exaggerated scenarios are nothing more than genesis mythologies___religions. So can we stick to the known scientific facts to truly explain the universe? Please...

David, my model shows all matter motion, low or high entropy, low or high velocity, to be center seeking, and caused by its source of origin in the infinite thermal matter space void, on into the first finite singularity, of first low entropy mass, and evolving over billions of trillions of years to a huge absolute mass and mammoth angular/linear quantumized explosion as absolute motion vacuumizing, electrifying, magnetizing, molecularizing, nuclearizing and gravitizing our idea of finite space___this, of course, is partly conjecture, but is the only model my model finds to be compliant with all the laws of physics and finiteness decay of matter motion, as its scientific predictor. It's all center seeking state changing motion, even as is clear from the paper you referenced above. The only state changing difference at high entropy, high velocity, inside the first finite singularity is instead of thermally cold center seeking motion, it's state changed thermally to hot center seeking motion, controlled by the many imploding, compressing, hydro-dynamic centripetal, centrifical, rotational, centrifugal, centrifissial and centrifusal forces of motion inside the singularity, set in play from the macro-dynamics of infinity, itself, i.e., the original eternal state changing thermal matter motions of low thermal entropy and velocities. Just as in economics, it's not the micro-economics that controls the entire global system of finance, it's the macro-economics that controls the micro world of economics and our very lives, and so is it true of macro-physics controlling the micro-world of quantum, relative and classical physics. It took me years to figure this out, but the tail doesn't wag the dog, the dog wags its own tail___the first infinite singularity of eternal state changing thermal matter motion is the dog wagging all tails___the cold quantum state of linear only motion is first, as both of us agree___we just must work out the total scientific details of this big dog___first...

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
I know the thinking process you are proposing and I refuse to be drawn into your enigma. Now, do you really want me to comment on how asinine your approach is? I know that, when you know that, we can talk science. Do not ask me dumb loaded questions and then claim I have not answered you; Who is more arrogant and pretentious Lloyd; the one with over 40 years in the profession of science, or the truck driver, cook, electrician, student, or economist who are telling us how stupid we’ve been?
-----------------------------------------------
To propose a solution to the before, it is best to know the science of the now. Scientist have no problems with the term “infinity” but, philosophers do. The axioms I’ve stated allows for many scenarios yet you insist on using the interpretation of “singularity”. This has already been expressed in the standard model that we both disagree with. If you wish to refer to Stephen Hawking in these regards, I would suggest you look up his 1968 paper on micro-singularities. If you wish to read more about absolute motion concepts and superluminal velocities, I would suggest you read the science papers of Professor Reginald T. Cahill of the FlindersUniversity. You shouldn’t base your knowledge of science on the best seller list. The real scientist do not make that list, nor do they try to.

The Toronic concept started by viewing all terminologies of “energy” as being nothing more the action or interaction of physical substance in motion. Eventually this lead to realizing that to conserve mass and energy, motion must be conserved and yet if motion could be exchanged, then potential energy could not exist. The result was to make an assumption that motion was a property that could not be exchanged nor could it be altered in its total quantity within any system. This lead to the comprehension that mass was also a function of motion and thus the concept of uniform motion as being the cause of mass resulted.

The state of the substance of the universe today is made up of various interactions of vibrating substance, thus we can describe many interactions in terms of wave mechanics but, particles require a means to confine these wave functions. This is done by angular momentum and thus “rest mass” is also caused by uniform motion. Now when you look at the mathematics, you can start to have a minds eye view of what is physically occurring and why scientist talk about dimensions outside our realm of measurement as being the wave symmetry of the particles. Both the volume and waves are beyond our current technologies of measure.

Once we expand our understanding of wave mechanics we also find that it explains why we do not have much anti-matter in our universe. Anti-matter is an odd harmonic function that becomes an even harmonics function upon most interactions within their environment; even if this interaction is destructive wave interference (total mass to energy conversion).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Toronic concept started by viewing all terminologies of “energy” as being nothing more the action or interaction of physical substance in motion.[Absolutely true] Eventually this lead to realizing that to conserve mass and energy, motion must be conserved and yet if motion could be exchanged, then potential energy could not exist.[Ah...I have to say, false.] The result was to make an assumption that motion was a property that could not be exchanged nor could it be altered in its total quantity within any system. This lead to the comprehension that mass was also a function of motion and thus the concept of uniform motion as being the cause of mass resulted.

David, would you like to continue trying to sort out our differences? I think we should, since the meta-heads are trying to dominate the forum, most likely due to our disagreements about fundamental substance motions. May I point out above, that you are making an assumption of an assumption, thus creating our different views of motion. You are defining motion as a property, when in fact it's only our "I" cognition of universal events. Motion is not a fundametal property, it is the fundamental result of thermalizing substance. Herein lies the fundamental problem with your above statement about motion being a property that could not be exchanged, nor could it be altered in its total quantity within any system, which is a false interpretation of substance's thermodynamics. We cognize substance moving, but the fundamental is thermal___the result is motion___action/reation. Motion is not any such fundamental property___it is clearly a secondary function/reaction of the thermodynamics/action of absolute fundamental substance. When you see this fact, you will see that it's not motion being exchanged, but substance temperatures only, that actually produces and exchange all absolute infinite substance motions___so it's temperature variances that are actually the exchanging principles of the laws of thermodynamics, and motion is no more than another of physics' metaphysical alligators, the same as time___improperly metaphysically interpreted. Temperature produces all prime motion, motion initially produces absolutely nothing, it's a boogey-man that doesn't exist___in the absolute, except as a secondary of our cognition, and thermodynamics. When you understand this, you actually understand how the universe truly works. This allows absolute fundamental thermal substance to be infinite, and fill the infinite space/void, without running afoul of the entire symmetry of the laws of physics. Temperature allows the absolute fundamental substance to set up the real quantum wall between the fundamental universal ground state, and the quantum ground state___the first thinner density linear substance temperature, can not overcome the second more dense quantumized substance temperatures, thus allowing the thermal balance of all universal therms, what you have mis-construed/assumed/conjectured as fundamental motion___when in fact, it is a secondary reaction___to fundamental thermdynamics___the uncreated self-creator of all universal actions___the prime mover...

Thermodynamics of any system is, as I'm sure you are aware of, equivalent to the total kinetic energy of the same system___the equivalence principle of total kinetic energy and total thermodynamic temperature. I hope the above has shown why your thinking has used an unnecessary assumption, that actually invalidates your absolute motion, as an impossibility, as explained by you. Yes, absolute motion exists, as the overall motion of the total infinite universal system of thermal substance, true enough, but is in no way, the prime mover___thermo-hydro-dynamics[temperature] alone, is the prime mover. We cognizantly illusion motion into the prime mover, when it is truly the outcome/reaction, just as is time. Mass is the third process of the initial substance therms, as the secondary force of thermal motion advances toward its real substance singularity, heated in size and power, through thermodynamic compression, as it proceeded toward the universe's highest entropy ever to have happened___real substance hot big bang. Temperature can only exist in two states; toward hot and toward cold___both produce absolute motion, all the way into the infinite void___unless you believe in nothing's void possibility...

"Nothing can be created from nothing." Early Greek ?

Regards,
Lloyd

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
As long as you continue to view motion as being exchanged between objects or systems of fundamental substance (matter), you will encounter the same dilemma that has befuddled mainstream science. Until you get out of your thermodynamic quagmire, how do you expect to comprehend the wave nature of the physical structures of fundamental substance? Thermodynamics is useful but not if you’re going to misinterpret it to support your dilemma.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi David, there's a misinterpretation going on here, between our reading of each's material. I do not view motion as being exchanged between objects or systems of fundamental substance (matter), what-so-ever. I have not stated that. Motion is never exchanged, it's just our measurement of fundamental and real world substances and masses___nothing more. I do not see why you would interpret what I wrote as such. I simply view temperature as pushing/squeezing substance in all directions, inward toward a center, due to hydrodynamics, as mentioned by many from Boltzmann to Wheeler and Feynmann. This only happens at the sub-quantum level of substance, your say 10^-69^3cm, which is your own size of fundamental matter, which would be sub-quantum in size, thus allowing temperature to act over such thinned fundamental substance, as it would over any non-viscous fluid or gas. The thinner the density of the fundamental substance, the easier for fundamental thermo-hydro-dynamic priority over it...

You may be interpreting what I say about thermodynamics, as acting in the quantumized universe, since big bang, which is not what I am referring to, at all. I am only referring to initial eternal linear conditions before the big-bang. IMO, thermodynamics of quantumized matter only happens to gasses and other extremely light slow moving substances. So, please try to see what I am referring to, as hardly no other physicists, as you have mentioned above of mainstream ideas, have even talked about the sub-quantum pre-big-bang realities, except for passing glances___a little by John Wheeler, etc... As another example of our differences, just take your Wingit model___you have two already quantumized spheres colliding to create quantumization___where's the initial linear to quantum quantumizer of these initial absolute velocity spheres? Where is all the motions creator, required to travel from 10^-69^3 to h+ of these spheres? So far, you've only explained it with ungrounded circular tautologies... Don't you see, I'm only trying to point out the major holes in your Wingit model, so we can fill these holes with real and possible absolutely true physics, of real and possible substance motions, and the real thermal self-creations of ground state fundamental substance motions___to state otherwise, such as absolute velocity existed, is simply another genesis model___and we are looking for a geneses model. Like I posted in the shout box___The highest probability of the highest possibility___is the only possibility. Don't you agree...?

Lloyd

[dleviwing]

Hi Lloyd;
Thermodynamic is a useful concept for expressing the dynamics of temperature of a system. Temperature is fundamentally expressed with 6 vectors that represent degree of freedom, 2 vectors of motion (linear and angular) and 1 vector of time. (In string theory a tenth vector is added to represent a mysterious 1 dimensional entity called a string or loop.)

Thermo hydrodynamics do not apply until you achieve quantum lattice structure as expressed by Compton wave analysis. If you are applying this concept to the singularity concept of matter, then I will agree that it is appropriate. It would define the wave symmetry of any physical unit of matter except for the fundamental unit of matter that has only a linear vector and thus zero degree of freedom. This should not be interpreted as “absolute zero temperature”. Temperature is meaningless at this level of existence. I have only encountered applications of thermo hydrodynamics in the semiconductor industry.

To be frank, much of what you express seems to be nothing more than gibberish. Maybe you should try to make your comments clearer.

BTW: I'm a Segrem's VO man.

[analog]

hello Dave,

I figured I would breath some life back into this great thread, whereby, others may get exposure to a theory that could possibly help them with that which they so eagerly search for.

I feel at the very least you have a solid theory that represents many of the attributes that I am trying so desperately to find within my own work. I also feel that you have one of the most complete theories within this site, in its ability to replicate our world and provide a measurable framework. The simplicity it represents in building an ever changing world from absolute entities is a credit to it's elegance, and reflects my own views of how easily a seemingly complex world can be constructed and understood, if we merely have an understanding of the fundamentally simple.

For some reason, most people believe, that only by the fabrication of complicated fundamentals, can a seemingly complex world be built, but perhaps the biggest hurdle we must face, if we are to ever reach a correct physical unification model, or especially a TOE, is the realization that the simplest of seeds, if given time, can blossom into the most complex and beautiful flowers.

My goal here is to learn from your views, which I hope may help me with my own. I try to learn from everyone at this site, and have been doing that very thing since I arrived. I have little to teach, but a world to learn. I only wish I had more to give.

So, do you feel up to furthering the knowledge of someone as lost as I? I will do my best to pose educated questions within your framework, in hopes that, at the least, others striken with the same infectious curiousity as I, may find relief by medicating themselves with knowledge.

To keep the following commentary as lighthearted as possible, and in honor of our new found friendship, I have temporarily changed my avatar to that of a young jedi, who is trying to find his place in the "Force". Humor is so hard to pull off in the impersonal cyber world which we use to communicate. I figured it was my best shot. I'll change it back in a day or so.

For some starting, simple questions, I would merely ask, how complete do you feel your own theory is? How much of our world can you create with it, within your own mind? Just as you told me the other day, sometimes, the hardest task before us is trying to get that, which is so graceful, as it swims the pristine waters of our own mind, out into the murky intelectually flooded world we live in, in a way that it does not drown. Do you feel you've done that, or do you feel there is a universe churning in the depths of your mind that looses much of it's beauty and elegance through translation? Is there currently anything that your theory unsatisfactorally explains to you, in your own opinion?

Thanks for any response.

Your friend,

Tim

[dleviwing]

You’re spreading it a bit thick aren’t you Tim OK! OK!; you’ve got the job; you can be my press agent.

To answer your question: My concept provides the interpretations of current science terminology needed to allow most everyone to comprehend and understand everything in the physical universe with only one exception; life. Though knowing how physical phenomena works will help us understand how life works to some degree, it does not help us understand what life is. To me this comes down to the same fundamental question as to “What is the fundamental substance?”; we know what it does but cannot know what it is; the same is true for life; we can only know what it is by knowing what it does; its behavior and its properties. Maybe this should be enough to allow us to have the peace of mind that we truly exist and what we are made of will exist for eternity.

PS: I’ll attempt to give a simplified concept of wave mechanics that will help complete these interpretations.

[analog]

Hey Dave,

I’m glad to see my humorous side came through in my writing. There’s nothing like a good lighthearted ego boost to kick off, what I hope will be a productive friendship for us both, even though I know your ego was big enough already. LOL!!! Just kidding.

On a serious note, I’ve been thinking of what you said about life. It’s not my intentions to stray from the purpose of this thread, and get all into philosophy, but I would like to share some thoughts I recently had.

I, too, find life/consciousness to be the hardest concept to understand, or be explained by a physical framework, whereby a GUT would take its first steps to becoming a TOE, in my opinion. I feel this is the real hurdle most GUTs face, if they ever are intended to become the foundation of a TOE, but even though it would appear that a GUT has no need for life/consciousness to define the laws that govern motion, and that an entire universe can seemingly be built without any implication of life/consciousness, I’m not sure it can.

It would seem that our “free will” and the laws that govern the planets and stars are in no way related, but I can’t help but feel as though they are. Is not consciousness merely an entities awareness of what to do if? The fundamental particles within my world know how to react to each and every collision no matter where in space it takes place, as the same effect is produced each time, and there isn’t any definable volume of your fundamental substance that doesn’t know how it must interact and transmit the waves that build your universe. Are not even the most fundamental substances conscious of what they must do if acted upon? Is not life merely the same game of cause and effect, just a better hidden and more complex version?

Just as the density of your wave interactions and my particle collisions increases to form biological formations such as ourselves, so, too, wouldn’t the density of the consciousness held by the many fundamental units that make them up increase? I guess what I’m trying to say is, isn’t life/consciousness just a more complex version, due to increased density, of the same cause and effect that tells our material world how to act and react, whereby it’s greatest compliment is its ability to create the illusion of “free will”, even though life is essentially the same cosmic action and reaction?

Would this not give us a measurable definition of consciousness, as it would now be relative to the same particle/wave density that forms our world? Perhaps the total amount of consciousness within a closed universal system is also static, finite, and absolute, and can’t be created or destroyed. This would be the Law of Conservation of Consciousness. Perhaps, it can only be redistributed, and the measure of its density within a given volume of space could also be measured in units of complexity/intelligence, as the interactions that make it up become more frequent, thus complex. Complex consciousness is where complex motion interaction is, and where is there more complex motion interaction than biological life?

Perhaps the greatest life lesson of a true TOE will be, rather than viewing life as a mind dictating to a body where to go and what to do, the mind is merely acknowledging where the body went and what it just did, due to being governed by the same laws of action and reaction as the rest of our wonderful world. Perhaps, we misinterpret our ability to be aware as an ability to control, thus causing our complications in understanding the true essence of life.

Does this even make any sense? Probably not. Anyway, that’s enough abstract thought for a while. I’ll get back to the purpose of your thread. I should have some good ideas to exchange with you about your framework soon.