Toronic Concepts

[dleviwing]

Two of science’s most plaguing questions can be answered quite simply using simple classical Newtonian physics and the Toronic concept.

The oldest one, “What is the origin of mass?” is nothing more than the quantitative measure of uniform motion of an object or system; this translates to “potential energy”.

The second question “What is causing the universe to accelerate?” is a bit more involved and relates to Newton’s action/reaction law. For this we need to understand the dynamics of a moving luminous body and the propagation of radiant energy. To propagate in the direction of travel requires a greater energy and would produce a shorter wavelength. To propagate in the opposite direction of travel would require less energy and produce longer wavelengths. Thus propagation would occur more frequently in the opposite direction of travel producing a type of EM thrust on the luminous object; the thrust may be extremely small but over several billion years it accumulates. There is no need to change the cosmological constant or actually to even have one.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi David;

I have been thinking lately about, how if each new evolved "Entity" of the Micro/Macro Universe adds to the total overall "Motion" of the Universe, thus acceleration.

If we consider the motion of all the atoms in a Galaxy as one total. Then we now add the new "Motion" of the Galaxy caused by the centripetal effect. Does the centripetal effect add to the overall "Motion" of the Universe? Can this constant adding of "Motion", be considered "Acceleration?

[PoPpAScience]

David;

I don't know if you have seen this video yet: a video image of an electron

I like Vincent's thoughts on it here:post # 419

What are your opinions on this great video?

[dleviwing]

Hi Allen;
My view is that the total quantity of motion of any physical system is constant (absolute motion) and therefore motion cannot be altered by any form of interaction between systems. If we observe a phenomena of less than absolute motion, then we are only observing a fractional part of a system and thus it is not an autonomous object. We can add the quantity of substance but not the quantity of motion of two autonomous systems.

Every system has absolute motion that is made up of both random motion and uniform motion. The reality of our dilemma is that we do not have a true quantitative measure of the fundamental substance of the universe and thus we make the poor assumption that inertia defines quantitative units of fundamental substance. In my view, inertia is a property that can only be applied to uniform motion. If an object (system) only has a randomize wave function of motion, its inertia, and thus rest mass, is zero. (its inertia can’t be measured)

Your scenario can only be valid for particles of fundamental matter in an absolute solid state form of which all motion of these particles are either linear motion with one degree of freedom or absolutely no motion; both conditions produce infinite mass. These type of objects can have any total value of linear motion but only if the interaction of such objects produce absolute motion in one of them, can the object acquire the multiple degrees of freedom needed to produce structure; all autonomous structures with more than one degree of freedom must also sustain that same quantitative value of motion or their substance will disperse as part of the universe system. That would increase spatial density of the Aether of the universe much like the matter / antimatter scenario and promote expansion or inflation if you prefer. The thing to keep in mind is that we can only alter how motion is distributed within a system, not its total quantity.

BTW: Vincent’s model is valid for all atomic particles as long as one realizes they must be viewed as three dimensional vortices; that’s how they interact with the spatial Aether, but that’s another story.

[Profpat]

[quote=dleviwing;63073]Two of science’s most plaguing questions can be answered quite simply using simple classical Newtonian physics and the Toronic concept.

The oldest one, “What is the origin of mass?” is nothing more than the quantitative measure of uniform motion of an object or system; this translates to “potential energy”.

Hi David;

Aren't you describing kinetic energy, and not potential energy? As I recall kinetic energy is the energy of motion and potential energy is the energy of position.

Best,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Hi Pat;
Actually all energy is a measure of “matter in a state of motion”. Energy is a rather abused term in our world of science terminology. In thermodynamics all energy is translated to degree of freedom with motion vectors. When you get down to the fundamental absolutes, the term "energy" becomes useless.

[Profpat]

Hi again David;

Antonio once defined a string as a linear vibrating energy mode, which reduces my fundamental substance back to energy. Perhaps not that too dissimilar from your theory.

Also do you know how many degrees of freedom there is in 4th dimensional space/time?

Thanks,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Infinite is the answer but only 9 dimensions are required to do the math for any of them and those 9 dimensions only reference 3 dimensional space! That’s why string theory is bogus.

BTW: that use of the term energy is just another name for the fundamental substance; it's still the same stuff.

[Profpat]

Infinite is the answer but only 9 dimensions are required to do the math for any of them and those 9 dimensions only reference 3 dimensional space! That’s why string theory is bogus.

BTW: that use of the term energy is just another name for the fundamental substance; it's still the same stuff.

Thank you David;

I don't understand why a 1 dimensional entity would require an additional 6 or 7 dimensions? And I am able to visualize formations of energy strings.

If it was a 3 dimensional string I would have no problem segmenting it into 8 dynamic domains, the octants, which I like to refer to as being dimensional, using the physics term for dimension.

Well thanks again. Also do degrees of freedom equate to dimensions?

Best,

Pat

[dleviwing]

No physical entity can exist that has less than 3 spatial dimensions nor does any physical entity exist that has more than 3 spatial dimensions; so you shouldn’t be confused; no such thing as a 1 dimensional string or a 4 dimensional object when referring to spatial dimensions. If the object is moving and you want to quantify that movement, you require a reference motion that translates to “time”. The object now has 4 quantitative dimensions but still only 3 spatial dimensions. To answer your question; degrees of freedom only have dimensions if you measure them and thus you get into quantum physics that you don’t know until you measure it or observe it. Physics like all science is based on our ability to produce quantitative measure.