[dleviwing]

This thread is for the discussion of the “Toronic” theory. It is presented in the Blog forum and is based on 4 fundamental axioms that define fundamental matter and its attributes of bonding and Absolute Motion.

[dleviwing]

Do we know what fundamental matter is? This is like asking “who are you?” We respond by stating our name, age, and appearance. We may even continue by going into the history of our family. This simply means that we are to others the summation of our attributes. This is the fundamental methodology of science. To KNOW what something IS, we must state what the attributes of that something are in terms of observable phenomena.

Now; do we know what fundamental matter is? - NO, we only know what it does and how it behaves. These are the terms of scientific measurements. Energy, charge, gravity, atoms, spacetime, permeability, particles, and so on are only descriptors of fundamental matter that allows us to manipulate our environment.

Science is a ridged discipline of quantitative measurements (dimensions) used to define what we can know. Many confuse “Theoretical Science” as being science. These theories are the philosophies that interpret the numbers obtained from the observation and dimensions of science. This is where our current mainstream science has the greatest difficulty; how do we interpret the numbers?

To interpret the numbers, we need an absolute fundamental paradigm of reality. This is the premise of the Toronic paradigm. One substance and its attributes existing and interacting in a cosmological void.

[theunify]

Hi David I think I'm starting to understand how concrete your theory is, its not flawed, but it demands a few quanities be defined.

The problem I am having is Va is largly undefined. IF Vu and Vr happen to be opposites of each other then Va is clearly not a valid quanitity, and Vu would be opposite to Vr during the intial phases of the big bang where Vu would dominate and Vr would be undetectable or vice versa. If we can introduce a Constant, let's call this our Axiomatic constant of P.
Va-(Va*P)=Vb, where Vb=Vu+Vr, clearly Vr and Vu can then be defined as compliments, otherwise I do not know what they are.

Then if we look to go further and consider a normal version of the process are we not getting beyond what a physisist is looking for? Shouldn't we leave normalization up to the computer models?

Please comment on my idea that normalization is an aproximation and that Toronics should be consistant before it becomes imaginable.

[dleviwing]

Hi Jon D;
I’m not sure what you are attempting to state but, Va is a constant, so I don’t understand the need to produce another constant P unless you wish to reference all motion values to that P quantitative value. This would be a mathematical normalization such to say P=1/c. I guess this would be OK to determine the derivatives but it is not needed at this level of the discussion.

In most physics equations, Va would be equal to 2c
In quantum physics however, it would be equal to the expansion value of the universe. You can select either value unless you get into theoretical quantum processes.

Can I assume you have had calculus? If so, it might be better to express P as a derivative of Va to produce the normalization.

[theunify]

I think what I'm saying is your law doesn't hold up for a singularity because at that moment Vu, and Vr would merge. We could get around this by adding another constant, but the constant will have to satisfy a few contraints;
it will have to be able to produce motion, forever, therefore it has to be less than 1.
it will have to produce absolute motion, therefore the constant itself has to be an extreme value.
the third condition is that the constant has to be symetrical, or produce symetrical motion


because Va lacks a constant less than one it runs into the problem of not being able to produce absolute motion unless we say "let there be light."

I fear I am slowing indoctrinating you into my theory, however I am convinced we can use V values to at least prove toronics is possible.

My question is again, Do you think that once a TOE is invented, whether it be Toronics, Tornadics, that that theory will lend itself immediately to normalization?
Will a theorist be required to normalize it himself, or is it just his job to provide definable quantities from which to aproximate? such as Va=Vr+Vu after the singularity.

"reference all motion values to that P quantitative value. This would be a mathematical normalization such to say P=1/c." yes I believe this is the precise direction I am heading, that is to say if 1/c is the inverse of absolute motion, then you have found the constant I was implying.

[theunify]

We are missing something. Post you ideas.

theunify,

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by theunify We are missing something. Post you ideas.

My concepts are posted in my blog pages JonD.
It would be better to read my statements as literal and not try to read your own interpretations into them. I view Va as being a constant in any physical system so if you wish to use the reciprocal of Va to determine the relationships of the other types of motion, that is a valid normalizing method to represent proportional measurements.

Frankly I find no justification for the concepts of singularities. This is nothing more than tossing all the terminologies of physics into a pot and giving it a name. My view is that the forces of nature are nothing more than interactions of a fundamental substance of nature. You simply cannot say that they are independent entities coagulated in a package waiting to unravel into a universe.

If you intend to discuss mathematical methodology, it would help if you would be more specific as to the normalization methods you are referring to and why. If it is presented in your own article, then just refer to that section.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi David,

IMO, until you show a path from infinite absolute low entropy matter motion, to finite absolute high entropy matter motion, your entire Toronic model rests on a Genesis prediction of absolute motion, which is at present, unconnected to the ground state of the actual universal evolution. It is unscientific to just state that absolute matter and absolute motion are fixed finite quantities___you must scientifically prove a path to such conjectures___you must realize that absolute matter motion first existed in the infinite void___the conservation laws and universal evolution require this. This is where I see all classical, quantum and relative models breaking down. They all possess no scientific path from the universe's low entropy ground state to the high entropy model states___they all use Genesis axioms to achieve the un-achievable___unscientifically. My logic requires a scientifically sound path from the ground state of motion to the higher states of motion. Until this is done, I see nothing but Genesis. Please, don't take this over-critically, as I would like to see the ground state to present state models completely worked out, but we, IMO, must start from the absolute scientific knowledge workings of a true ground state of infinite absolute thermal matter motion. I see no other way. The science you have presented doesn't break down, it's just it doesn't start in science___IMO, it starts in Genesis. All the physics terms and maths presented will not remove the problem of its Genesis origins and related conjectures. There is science available, from the ground state forward, from infinity to finiteness___this is what we must use, to create a solid scientific foundation, away from any Genesis models.

Regards,
Lloyd

"The ground state of infinite absolute thermal matter motion, existed first in a state of perfect equilibriating motion___the law of all motion___Va=Vr+Vu."

[dleviwing]

Hi Lloyd;
The word “geneses” infers creationism or something from nothing scenarios; thus the current standard model of a singularity is a geneses model. Toronics is not a something from nothing view but, a view that everything has always existed. In short, no beginning. In your view I see only that you wish to separate the concepts of motion from the concepts of substance. The Toronic concept is a progressive deductive reasoning to determine the minimum requirements for the formation of a universe. One substance with properties needed to propagate form and interactions, one place for it all to happen, and one event (a collision) to start the process of the universe.

You seem to have an illogical view that matter is both infinite and finite. Only the place or void can be infinite, all else is finite. Also you wish to state that the motion of matter is infinite and finite. This too is irrational. Now if your interpretation of the universe is to say that it represents the place for matter, the infinite is appropriate and finite is not.

Regardless of any of our scenarios of a beginning, the fact is, they are beyond the reach of current scientific confirmation. I prefer deductive reasoning with known behavior of today’s observations to determine the most probable cause than I would to any concept based on belief. If you study the properties and behavior of fluidic Bose Einstein condensates and plasma type matter, you will begin to realize what is happening as matter is taken from one extreme of motion to the other extreme of motion. (randomized plasma to uniform fluidic) I have worked in both areas and designed the instruments used to study them. I hope you will understand that I’m not in agreement with your comments, but recognize you have the skills to understand the pure science of it all. I fine that you are making the scenario more complex than it needs to be. I’ve been there, done that.

BTW: The lowest entropy possible is a single degree of freedom of motion. As I told JonD, that is a velocity vector of absolute motion. That is also the highest bonding state of matter.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi David, let me address my concerns this way. First, let me state, I am not trying to separate the concepts of motion from the concepts of substance, and I agree there is no beginning. Both substance and motion are one and always have existed. I disagree with your collision scenario, as I already tried that years ago, and realized its failure. I will try to show why such a scenario is voided by universal necessities of thermalicity.

The Absolute Dynamics of Universal Thermodynamics

The absolute ground state of the universe is that which it has to be, and for no other reason___necessity. We both agree the absolute void exists forever. We both agree absolute matter exists, however I say it is infinite/finite, and you say it is of a finite quantity. We both agree absolute motion exists, however I say it is infinite/finite, and you say it is a finite quantity. We both seem to agree that self-affinity/bonding is a product of motion, however I say it is a product of the highest and lowest entropy motions, and you say the highest bonding is of the lowest entropy motions. I would further state the highest bonding is of the highest entropy motions, as my model sees it. This seems to be where we stand. Neither of these views are irrational, but one is based on science, and the other is not___let's find out which is which.

The easiest rational scenario I know is my old high school debate about thermodynamics. One takes the side of low entropy existing outside high entropy and the other takes the side of low entropy existing inside high entropy___which is correct___which is possible___why is one impossible? If the model of high entropy existing outside of low entropy existed as the real ground state, the universe would have a very short life, as low entropy is a center seeking matter motion, and the high entropy outside it would consume, with low entropy's help, such a universe, in a very short timespan. This is why low entropy absolutely must exist outside high entropy___all the way to the infinite void, and including the void, itself. Any other scenario, such as what you propose as a finite quantity state of matter/motion, would designate a void that need not conform to the low entropy necessary to contain the finite S2 high entropy matter motion universe, i.e., such a scenario could have a rising temperature outside the finite matter motion distance your scenario suggests, which is clearly impossible, due to the heat death of such a universe. We both know this is not the case, therefore, in order for the universe to exist in its logical state, the low entropy state must be maintained clear through the infinite void. In order to do this, the infinite void must consist of the near zero thermal temperature throughout itself. In order for this to be the reality, motion must exist in the entire infinite void as it is scientifically temperature required, and if motion exist, it must have matter to move, thus thermal matter motion is absolutely infinite. There is no way to avoid this thermodynamic necessity of the early universe___any other scenario is unscientific and irrational to the facts of thermodynamic necessities.

If you, as you state, try to take only part of the infinite void's absolute matter motion, and designate it as the finite quantity barrier, then you are just robbing Peter to pay Paul___It can't be done, because the absolute thermodynamic equilibrium of the entire universe is put on a collision course with heat death. The absolute universe must be maintained by the balance of low thermal entropy containing forever the high thermal entropy at its self-seeking center___no matter what shape the universe, square, rectangle, triangle, star, hex, or whatever___the story is the same___absolute matter motion is center seeking, and must be eternal, as its ground state home is the eternal void. In order for your Toronic model to make sense, it must incorporate the void space's infinite matter motion into its mechanics of operations___I'd say you have considerable more theorizing to do, unless you have invented a new way around thermodynamic necessities of universal evolution.

David, everything you've already written about particle or matter clumping collisions, I've already tried, and found them to fail miserably. Much of the rest of your physics is somewhere within the ballpark of possibilities, but you can't separate infinite space thermal matter motion into finite chunks without the true map of how. It remains a Genesis conjecture until you write the map of How.

Am I reading you right here David?

BTW: The lowest entropy possible is a single degree of freedom of motion. As I told JonD, that is a velocity vector of absolute motion. That is also the highest bonding state of matter.

Are you saying the lowest entropy motion is high velocity absolute motion?

Regards,
Lloyd