Toronic Concepts

[analog]

Hey Dave,

I haven't given this much thought, but being as you and I build systems with absolute motion, shouldn't we be able to fit everything into one spectrum of motion? It would be kinda like extending the current electromagnetic-spectrum model on both ends, whereby our whole system could possibly be conveyed.

Perhaps it would start with the single motions of one particle, in my system, giving rise to time and continue to the relative motions of groups and all of their phenomenon, etc, etc... I would assume on the farthest end of your wave motion spectrum would be where electromagnetism reverts the medium back to its random state.

It probably sounds retarded, but what do you think? I haven't yet thought it through enough. Perhaps, I speak to soon.

[dleviwing]

Hi Tim;
I don’t understand what you are referring to as “one spectrum of motion”. Our current conservation law work, though I do not believe it is due to the current interpretations made of the numbers, any theory we present therefore must account for the functionality of these laws of physics. Toronics accomplishes this by stating motion is absolute to all physical systems; nothing is exchanged between autonomous systems. The changes we proclaim as exchange of energy are the changes in how absolute motion is distributed within those observed systems; the conservation laws remain in tact.

The main point of Toronics is that one understands that literally everything physical is made of the single fundamental stuff of the universe. All the instrumentation we use to evaluate a phenomena is basically made of the same thing that the phenomena is made of; they WILL interact and thus the instrument will influence the phenomena. The double slit experiment is the most misunderstood in that the dimensional requirements of the slits have a significant effect on the results of the experiment; it is not a quantum phenomena, just interactions of fundamental matter in different states of distribution of absolute motion.

I’m going to take your advice and get off my ass to write the next phase of my blog. It might be better just to have Robert convert it into an article. With a minimum of understanding of wave mechanics, this next entry should clear up the duality confusion.

[analog]

Dave,

The spectrum I am referring to would be a guide to how the absolute motion of the particles/aether is distributed to form our reality. The way I explain conservation within my model is to say that all particles within the system are at constant and absolute velocity. Thus, the total amount of motion within the system is absolute along with the total amount of particles and the total amount of unoccupied space. Therefore we can't change the amount of motion within the system. We can only change the density of motion/particles within a given volume of space.

We don't change the quantity of anything. We merely hold witness to its density being rearranged to form our world. I will try to make an example to show the spectrum I am reffering to. I don't feel as though I am conveying my thoughts correctly.

Sorry,

Tim

[analog]

Dave,

I think I see where I might have caused confusion. I don't mean a spectrum of how the motion of one particle creates the whole system. I am trying to say lets just focus on a given volume of space and study how its motion/particle/aether density forms different phenomenon. The rest of the system is still intact and going on elsewhere. Does this make sense?

[dleviwing]

OK Tim; let’s try this:
Imagine a volume of space is fundamental matter in a totally randomized chaotic wave motion; now convert half that chaos motion into one of the forms of persistent uniform motion. This would double the spatial density and produce a refractive index of 1.5 which is about what glass does. Light travels through equal quantities of space (Aether) for a given increment of time; therefore the glass has twice the spatial density of a deep space between its atoms. Now create a Bose-Einstein condensate that reduces the speed of light to about 37 mph; what is the spatial density of the condensate and how much random motion has been converted to uniform motion? Now imagine that the volume of space becomes concentrated into a finite volume with uniform angular momentum that confines the equivalent of absolute motion within that volume of fundamental substance. We now have the first step to forming the structures of fields and particles. Without changing the quantity of substance, we can convert more of the random wave component of this structure and cause its mass to increase. There is a minimum quantity of fundamental substance that is capable of sustaining autonomously a quantity of absolute motion. This unit has been given many names but the one I think truly fits it best is the Higgs Boson; thus Boson space structure of interference domains can discribe space itself.

Would you rather wait for the movie?

[analog]

Copy that ghostrider (I see you're in stealth mode).

On a serious note, that is more along the lines of what I'm talking about. I will try to do that with my way of thinking and give you a look.

I need a little time to absorb what you've said as I am not used to your conversion math. I would like to try and pose an answer to your questions though, as long as you don't laugh at me when I get them wrong. Even if you do, that'll be alright.

Stricly guessing, but if a conversion of half the random motion doubles the spatial density, for the condensate to reduce the linear speed of light to only 37 mph, wouldn't the amount of random motion converted to uniform motion within the defined volume have to be around 98%, or atleast a high amount, whereby the spatial density would increase proportionally. I've done no actually figuring, just guessing. Or am I thinking wrong?

This also brings to mind my curiousity on your view of the structure of an atom. Being as we don't hold true to binding energy, how does this effect your views on the fundamentals of an atomic structure? Do you still invision a proton, electron, and nuetron? I wouldn't think so, but I am unsure.

[analog]

The whole essence of our individual systems are already doing what I was referring to. I just feel as though I can condense my thoughts into a spectrum from the motion of one particle, within a given volume of space, all the way out to the motion of many particles, within the same volume of space, whereby the elctromagnetic spectrum is just a portion of the full spectrum of motion attainable within a given spatial volume, within the system, along with the formation of massive objects, sound, etc, etc...

[dleviwing]

That OK Tim; it wasn’t a test. Your guess is close enough though.

If you review Milo Wolff’s web site you can get an idea of how particles form in an Aether fluid; just don’t take it too literal.
http://www.quantummatter.com/

[analog]

Dave,

Thanks for the link. It looks interesting.

In response to your statement, I do think turning your blog into an article would possibly represent it better. I like the format of the articles better personally. Perhaps, you could revise your blog to encompass, or highlight, your views on many topics. I started my own blog today and I've been going through my posts and copying and pasting the ones I like under different topics. This would make it easier for someone to get a good idea of your thoughts and where you stand on many things just by viewing your blog and if you paste the thread they were in, it might continue to bring attention to important threads even after they've been buried.

I'm sure a collection of your thoughts could go a long way in assisting those searching for answers, and they wouldn't have to go from thread to thread to find them. Just by looking under a topic such as Time, they could see some of the numerous informative posts you've made about it.

It's just a thought.

Tim

[analog]

hey Dave,

Sorry to keep bothering you today. I just had one more question and I'll leave you alone (for today anyways).

If the increased fundamental medium density can affect the angular momentum of structured matter, such as the center of black holes and stars, as it can form more dense formations; is the current state of that structured matter, which was formed, then at the complete mercy of the medium which formed it, within your framework?

I guess what I'm asking is: if a fundamental structure is formed at the center of a black hole or star and you remove it and place it within a less dense fundamental medium, does it maintain it's current state or does it's angular momentum change, as if its density is decaying?

Does this make sense?

I interpret my framework as though all formations (structured matter) are at the mercy of the medium from which they emerge. I was curious if this is how you interpret your framework.