Toronic Concepts

[G_burnett]

Hi G;
It’s difficult to place the fundamental substance into a frame of reference that it relates to our experiences. I think that’s why many prefer to call it energy. This is the stuff that vibrates in all directions producing chaotic constructive and destructive interference; there is not an entity called a wave, there is always a wave medium. When this stuff is producing constructive interference, it is condensing and when it is producing destructive interference, it is expanding. We give several names to these processes but the most common one is “forces”. Example: like particles produce destructive interference and thus repel; unlike particles produce constructive interference and thus attract. Gravity is a process that produces constructive interference but also has a destructive interference produced in space that expands the universe. The expanse of the area between galaxies can be viewed as the other part of gravity.

Wave symmetry is a bit more complex to explain except to say that the closer to perfect symmetry a unit of this stuff gets, the greater its condensing. Particle physics experiments indicate as this happens, this substance behaves like a supper fluid.

Thanks for the New Year wishes and the same to you and all other members.

BTW: The only thing that makes physics confusing is the non-science nonsense presented as science by reputable scientists that should know better. Their the one's that get on TV.

Thank you for the reply

Very interesting of ponder. I am now left with the egg coming first from creation of the energized bunny making sound and flapping its wings in such grand symetry the egg was created with a quanta vinegar based shell you could see drop through a needles eye given spinier motion and such exist.

I hereby appoint you to the Royal Island Order of Official Chicken Carvers, Chef extraordinary, master over the fowl with power to assign the detail of the day to any on the Island to any clean up needed.... this is a very prestigious position including beach rights next to Michael with your own lawn chair and personal cone of silence when you want to further ponder and aways a keg of Vo on ice.

If the fusion event in chaos be the constant to create the wave construct can we not then explain the egg as then created from the potential as random?

Then leads to "was there always potential" and in the nature or exist of potential do we have enough to postulate ~ potential exist and cycle?

i personally have not been able to find much on the quanta in any dimension review to denote other and will not make one up for the sake of en-trophic control or pleasantry of TV ratings.

...the super fluid condense sends anticipated shivers up my spine better then any program and near the unexpected touch of a womans fingers on your neck when one might be in a waltz with her. The sharp flash of atoms disappearing entering and not recovered measure when out of condense, just below the scale. (the new Arizona thing)

I do not watch TV much but will and love though to find the smile of Einstein and others, that special smile. It tells me so much more sometimes. You have to hear Hawking's but it is there too. .. maybe a filter can be patented? ... facial recognition software sort of thing? throw a subroutine into it for micro expression notation?

Don't forget me Robert when you give Carly her eyes ... !
(that seven hundred plus conversations thing she mentioned was doing is very impressive by the way)

~kind regards David, g.

[analog]

Hello Dave and all,

The best way to view “Absolute Motion” is to consider the absolute minimum quantity of substance capable of becoming autonomous. To become autonomous, it must acquire sufficient motion to brake the bonding property of the fundamental substance; that requires it to have angular motion. This autonomous unit becomes the fundamental unit of physical structure; it cannot exist with greater motion and it disengages into part of the Aether with less motion. We might give this unit a name and call it a quantum particle but I’m not sure what that would infer within the field of quantum physics; of course some have envisioned it to be a one dimensional object called a string but I don’t accept that a physical entity can exist in less than three dimension, so I just call it a Toron.

I'm still thinking on how after an internal (micro/quantum) volume becomes autonomous, how we could ever distinguish between its proportional scale internal interactions of constructive and destructive interference (due to its external interactions within its medium) with those of the larger universal (macro) system of which it is a part of and emerged from, whose internal constructive and destructive interactions provide for our reality. Our instruments have inherent limitations due to the dynamics of structure, so perhaps the only loophole provided that would ever allow us to truly understand such elementary scales (i.e., quantum volumes) ,despite our unavoidable handicaps, would be due to the elegant concept of the knowledge gathered about our macro world also having direct implications to, thus allowing the understanding of, our micro world due to the inherent symmetry of the substance of existence, whereby an autonomous volume is nothing more than an autonomous volume which internally exists the same no matter whether you are viewing it from without (i.e., micro) or from within (i.e., macro). Perhaps a better understanding of the large will ultimately lead to a more intimate knowledge of the small. Just my thoughts.

Now if you envision this unit as being the fundamental unit of all other systems, then all systems (electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, mesons, pions, and so-on’s)will have “Absolute Motion”.

How many of these systems could be viewed as merely a product of the gravitational transition of a volume to autonomous status, compared to more of a structural product of an accumulation of interacting fundamental units? What's the product of an evolving volume, compared to products of emerging structures?

Anyone seeking understanding must question why we think that nature is made up of more than one physical entity or multiple types entities. Why is matter, anti-matter? Why positive matter and negative matter? Why is there an entity of matter and an entity of energy?. Eventually you will realize that everything reduces to fundamental substance and its properties of bonding and motion.

.....and once we have come to that assumption we must also ask ourselves how many tricks one substance can actually do with itself to create such a world; not that many, IMHO.

The only thing that makes physics confusing is the non-science nonsense presented as science by reputable scientists that should know better. Their the one's that get on TV.

I can't blame it all on them.....I tend to have the unenviable inherent ability to confuse the hell out of myself lately!


later,

Tim

[dleviwing]

Hi Tim;
Always good to hear from you.

How many of these systems could be viewed as merely a product of the gravitational transition of a volume to autonomous status, compared to more of a structural product of an accumulation of interacting fundamental units? What's the product of an evolving volume, compared to products of emerging structures?

Maybe all of them are the product of gravitational transitions; maybe they are the units that are evaporating from black holes. I don’t have any way of knowing but it would be nice if this concept could get the same attention that string theory has gotten over the past 20 years. Maybe physics would have advanced as much as biology.

.....and once we have come to that assumption we must also ask ourselves how many tricks one substance can actually do with itself to create such a world; not that many, IMHO.

That’s probably a pretty solid HO.

I can't blame it all on them.....I tend to have the unenviable inherent ability to confuse the hell out of myself lately!

Me too but I don’t lose sleep over it anymore.

[G_burnett]

Originally Posted by analog
How many of these systems could be viewed as merely a product of the gravitational transition of a volume to autonomous status, compared to more of a structural product of an accumulation of interacting fundamental units? What's the product of an evolving volume, compared to products of emerging structures? unquote

the product of of an evote of volume difference to emerging structures has to be the state of exist after event. quanta purity may be your answer an route of ponder as one may review the crystallization habit in the latter event.

again as we go down the path we get to gravitational transitions ... of which i have posted other to add that when we are still in the Planck range of gravitational transitions the filling is such compared to the empty having some magical energy appearing out of nowhere just does not suit my ponder as the filling is more practical a thought the event.

the further loss of substance in clumped form from the arms of galaxies abet not maybe not more then such a stranger of mass getting a slingshot effect from the entry and then leaving still leaves room for examination that not all is going in. Either case scenario would indicate there are limits and more important where they are and what cause then .. a self FS generating push in effect has the better platform to stand on. IMHO

Would entry into the range of effect of the containment Dave, open the containment?

In some case of fission event I would say yes but in the other, one sees both yea and nay .. in wave, .. inversion .. so much energy involved ... and not so much mass but through the medium state.

...confusing to me without the state of exist primordial a more exact state defined. Where is the beat if from quanta one the begin? A whole lot of one? Yes I hear that chaotic noise ... Feel free to enlighten me in my ponders.

~Kind regards ... g.

[analog]

Hello G,

How's Sage and Wolf doing?

My statement was in contemplation that from such a materialistic perspective governed by the mechanics (properties) we so often discuss, the only few tricks that such a substance would have was the ability to condense or expand volumes of itself as we've so often considered. When this is done at the micro/quantum level whereby such volumes become autonomous then the translation from the concepts of current particle physics to this concept would be done by relating current scientific concepts with either the state of one volume condensing, expanding, or emitting excess substance with varying degrees of density through its rotational axis due to the dynamics of angular momentum and perhaps the accumulation threshold established by its surrounding less dense medium; or relating them to the effects of the before mentioned dynamic motions as a gathering of these fundamental volumes interact in such ways in close proximity to each other. Some concepts would perhaps be better suited to the transitional stages of a single volume, while others would perhaps be better established as the effects of a few volumes coming together to create a larger system.

Could we view the deuterium atom as the progression continued from a single fundamental autonomous volume as it evolved in some way, or would it be better explained as an emergent structure due to the interactions of many fundamental autonomous volumes which were really its underlying constituents?

Hi Tim;
Always good to hear from you.

Same here.

I don’t have any way of knowing but it would be nice if this concept could get the same attention that string theory has gotten over the past 20 years. Maybe physics would have advanced as much as biology.

In 20 years time, I'm sure that Wing Theory could definitely produce more results than String Theory. Biology seems to be just sitting there waiting on physics to tell the first part of the story correctly, whereby we may find our true place in the ToE, having emerged somewhere through the many years of universal evolution. I guess there is no true 'emergence' though, only evolution at increasingly grander scales.

Would you say we could consider the universal system as having three different scales at which we could acknowledge an autonomous volume; the entire system, the fundamental/quantum systems, and perhaps the black hole systems? Did I miss any?

later,

Tim

[G_burnett]

Hi Tim

I agree of qualification needed to point of view and possibly we can discuss the (pr.Lee)Lie Group or no Lie Group determination of the 2H atom below the create and after(if) ... sage wants to go one way on this and I the other with wolf hard to understand till she puts her feet in the air and moans her conclusive in a beat to the wave of her tail thumping the carpet.. some times that takes a while. So far she has been looking at the most debunked capillary action theorem in varied plant and tree root systems for vacuum the push in and up effect she states and sniffing near every tree and bush quite intently every chance she gets to the way when dry the process is stopped. I think through the hundreds recent days of interest will result in some varied viewpoint for sure. Due to the language translations needed its very time consuming for me to post all her findings.

I would venture to say the N in the stable proton electron 2H compared to the 1H Neutron free reeks of entropy other then excitement the other way. Considering the electron this view falls to the wayside as irrelevant as ion enrichment takes place ... to some certain symmetry considered and wave platforms. ... nonsenses aside feel free to enlighten your ponder and I will try to follow where you are going with it if the terms are not to hard to understand?

Sage would like to find a copy of the Theorie der Transformationsgruppen, published in 1888, 1890, and 1893 root in English possibly the version but having a hard time finding it other then more in Engel translations and work noted by him and Lie so far found not just Lie.... any reference to a PDF version off his papers from 1860 on would be greatly appreciated as Lie would seem the root of interest. I really wonder what the Net would have done for science back then.

It just be the translation an citation factors I am not comfortable with in versions now .. nothing unethical or the such implied.

Time for a power nap.

Kind regards G.

[G_burnett]

.....My statement was in contemplation that from such a materialistic perspective governed by the mechanics (properties) we so often discuss, the only few tricks that such a substance would have was the ability to condense or expand volumes of itself as we've so often considered.

When this is done at the micro/quantum level whereby such volumes become autonomous then the translation from the concepts of current particle physics to this concept would be done by relating current scientific concepts with either the state of one volume condensing, expanding, or emitting excess substance with varying degrees of density through its rotational axis due to the dynamics of angular momentum….

On this understanding I see wave creation…. Not so much substance release as the momentum is constant in the transient particle fluid form in sync for the example … not going to string as others do but more into looking at tunnelling of the electron, not fully explained but can be keeping in mind the medium or varied medium in wave transference.

.....and perhaps the accumulation threshold established by its surrounding less dense medium; ....

yes you have to consider the boundaries in play but as not a push through but in conjoin or emergence with the medium, going through the water as salt more then sand …maintaining integrity into event end and beyond, then look at the boundaries constitute of shape or purity factor, smoothness or sharpness of state to varied measure of condense state ..

.....or relating them to the effects of the before mentioned dynamic motions as a gathering of these fundamental volumes interact in such ways in close proximity to each other. Some concepts would perhaps be better suited to the transitional stages of a single volume,......

yes the concept of a single volume in transitional stages leaves little room for other then instantaneity of event, no point zero. Can you get through that? …

....while others would perhaps be better established as the effects of a few volumes coming together to create a larger system.

This is not where we get point zero platform?

....Could we view the deuterium atom as the progression continued from a single fundamental autonomous volume as it evolved in some way, ...

As postulated yes I think we can do this

......or would it be better explained as an emergent structure due to the interactions of many fundamental autonomous volumes which were really its underlying constituents?....

Or how about consideration of the cause of emergence?
There is little or not more then two real breach of containment state possible in the forum shape for emergence that must have the consideration of why containment took place and if so the cycle being a repetitive circumstance … not the in the box view of such repetition so complete as we know now it is not.

The two form are debateable only on the dimensions of time given to the event and or where we are in the event by relativity of view platform to place not time or direction and it is hard to get a fix as by the point we acquire, we have moved in a vortex to a new location hence the view must be from the possible here and now as center of it all and translated to other. (the world not really flat sort of thing) (wolfs view)

~Kind regard g.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi PoPpA:
The best way to view “Absolute Motion” is to consider the absolute minimum quantity of substance capable of becoming autonomous. To become autonomous, it must acquire sufficient motion to brake the bonding property of the fundamental substance; that requires it to have angular motion. This autonomous unit becomes the fundamental unit of physical structure; it cannot exist with greater motion and it disengages into part of the Aether with less motion. We might give this unit a name and call it a quantum particle but I’m not sure what that would infer within the field of quantum physics; of course some have envisioned it to be a one dimensional object called a string but I don’t accept that a physical entity can exist in less than three dimension, so I just call it a Toron. Now if you envision this unit as being the fundamental unit of all other systems, then all systems (electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, mesons, pions, and so-on’s)will have “Absolute Motion”.

Since these units cannot have greater or less motion, all construct systems are in a state of “Absolute Motion” that is distributed as uniform motion or wave function motion within each Toron; therefore we can only influence the distribution of “Absolute Motion” between uniform motion and wave function motion. When the wave function is chaotic, it is not detectable as mass (no inertia property).

The Aether is the substance that is in a chaotic wave function state and thus not autonomous as a unit but only as part of the universal system itself. This is the state we tend to call the electromagnetic forces and gravity.

Anyone seeking understanding must question why we think that nature is made up of more than one physical entity or multiple types entities. Why is matter, anti-matter? Why positive matter and negative matter? Why is there an entity of matter and an entity of energy?. Eventually you will realize that everything reduces to fundamental substance and its properties of bonding and motion.

Hi Dave;

Thanks for this explanation on "Absolute Motion" Dave, it is the centre of all my thoughts right now on the workability of the "Aether". Right now work is only allowing me time to think, and drop by here to see what new has been written.

If I understand "Absolute Motion" now, I see "Substance" becoming 'autonomous' from its environment(Aether), because of a unique rate of 'angular Motion'. Thus, this unique rate of 'angular motion', gives this created 'fundamental building block'(Toron) freedom from the 'self-affinity' of its environment.

Now, because this 'FBB'(Toron) is at the heart of all higher levels of creativity, this gives these created entities "Absolute Motion" within their environment. If these 'entities' lose their "Absolute Motion", they will dissipate back into the "Aether".

Being rushed for time right now, the above was off the top of my head.


I am still contemplating if an 'autonomous' 'entity' of "Substance" can 'Be', because of "Absolute Motion". Just like when thinking about Jimbo's "Fluid Energy", I am trying to come to a conclusion about whether the "Aether" can have a 'finite boundary' that allows separation into 'autonomous' entities, or is it "Infinite" in nature, 'seamless'? I contemplate how the "Aether"(Infinity) can never be divided, only moved because of "Absolute Motion".

Right now I am thinking, that if the "Aether/Infinity/Substance" can be compressed by "Centripetal Force", maybe the "Aether" can be "Attenuated" 'infinitely'?

Maybe even when a "Toron" has become 'autonomous' because of "Absolute Motion", it still is 'one' with the "Aether"?

Maybe the "Aether" can be 'infinitely' "Attenuated"?

Maybe there can never be an 'absolute vacuum', only "Attenuated Aether".

[G_burnett]

the boundary is one of the hardest of ponder for me. The reason being is it is not smooth or absolute defined. it becomes an approximation as a set of variables but a need of dimension to understand containment/even un-containment, fluidity event. IMHO

kind regards g.

[dleviwing]

An autonomous unit does not infer it to be independent of its surrounding environmental entity; it still will interact with the Aether. The angular motion is not at the value of AM; that would produce a micro black hole that would not interact with any other form of the substance.