[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steven, all of physics agrees that photons exist at all temperatures, therefore; if they exist at all temperatures, they must by the laws of physics exist at all velocities, as physics also knows temperature and velocity are equivalent___been this way since the early part of the last century, we must realize fire exists at all temperatures, light exists at all temperatures, heat exists at all temperatures___it's all photons... And, if all photons existed at absolute velocity, you'd have nothing but one infinite hot fireball, and no other reality possible. So there's a major problem with your logic, i.e., you can't have a fundamental substance, that everything evolves from, and into, if it's initially and always hot, because heat is impossible of producing cold, even if it cooled, it could never reach the fundamental level of 2.73K quick enough for proper universal functioning, of any kind. Furthermore, absolute velocity of photons ends in the foolish point particle model of standard model physics, we already, clearly, know is wrong. You have to realize photon on photon action can, will and did heat up the original PFS. This part of physics foundation is clearly correct, we see it___2.73k cold photons exist at cmbr, and in close earth space, at near zero K. Even the probe, Huygens, measured the methane on Saturn at -300F. The photon/energy/FS is capable of all temperatures, thus all velocities, no other logic is viable...

Here's another example I just thought of; cold readily produces heat by compression friction, even at the very bottom of miles thick glaciers, that glide to the oceans, on melted sheets of water, even in the coldest months of winter___any cold pressure produces heat___it's a fact of science. Just as you've admitted below, initial fundamental substance had no vacuum___it was pressurized and moved by cold___creating first velocity, and the friction/energy/heat/mass; thereof...

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Lloyd,

I can appreciate that my use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics may cause a little confusion.

Using a thermal law to define terms and then state that it has nothing to do with heat does sound strange. The use of the 2nd law is because it is a universally accepted law of physics. Whilst it deals primarily with temperature, what it is dealing with is energy. It doesn't matter if your dealing with temperature, fluids or any discipline, less will not run to more - FACT. [I agree less does not run to more, but you are forgetting that the infinite PFS motion/energy/matter is the greatest overall motion/energy/matter of the entire eternal universe, so, it's not less to more___it's the PFS's slow motions/energies/matter, to higher velocities/energies/matter/temps. Don't be fooled by the last century's foolish zero point particles, vacuums and energies___they are dead wrong___It's an infinite classical Newtonian space universe, with Einstein's GRT, and electrodynamics functioning inside it.]

So for energy to move from cold things to hot things would be a direct violation of the 2nd law. Violating laws is the quickest way to loose any credability one may have. [Photon on photon friction of cold to hot photons does not violate the 2nd law. As a matter of fact, it explains all the mysteries of motion/energy/heat/velocity, that's been argued about for centuries. And this gets us back to your fundamental photon on photon actions of your basic simple TOE. It's just simple friction of photon on photon actions.]

We have already established that heat is energy. We have also established that photons are energy. It is widely accepted that heat is transmitted by photons. [I totally agree.]
To try to address the movement of the FS by describing photons as heating up makes no sense at all and although mainstream physics may have a lot to answer in some respects, this would not appear to be one of them. [Of course mainstream physics has nothing to say about photons heating up___we're talking about new ground ideas, here. Forget the old, grab the new. How else are you going to explain dead 0k cold space, which I say is photonic FS, and fire hot stars and gamma rays, which are also of the PFS?]

To heat anything up you must add energy to it. If you could heat up a photon you woukd need to add energy to it. [I agree completely, but adding energy is just increasing velocity, from slow to fast. When the velocity increases, the photon in motion must take on mass, from the PFS, i.e., it's energy increase{forget about physics saying photons don't have mass, that's just more foolish physics___any moving substance is required by other laws of physics to increase in mass.}. The secret is in the fundamental velocity increase force, and of course, you know I say it's THD{thermo-hydro-dynamic} and I might add, hydrogolic. All it takes is motion and friction, which would be the hydrodynamics of fundamental motion.]

At the most basic level there is no such thing as heat or light or field.[I agree here.] All you have is the FS.[I agree here.] That's it, nothing else.[I disagree here.] There are no thermal currents.[This is one we could never agree on, as having no thermal currents, means having no motion, and we both know that's impossible. So, what's left? You say absolute velocity, and I say that's impossible, due to an eternally hot universe, and the infinitesimal point problem, and we know it's a more cold universe, than hot. It's a fact of physics that velocity, is and requires, heat to be produced, due to mass increase, which can also be stated as hydrodynamic pressure increase. We all know pressure increases heat, thus velocity/energy.]


All the photons in the FS whizz around at inifinite velocity unless they encounter another photon. [They are, in and of, the photonic fundamental substance___eternally and infinitely. They can't achieve any higher velocity than the PFS allows, due to mass limit, which we only know as C. In other words, C is limited by C, or photons limit the velocity of photons, just as you have earlier stated.] After the interaction, each photon heads off its way again. [Steven, you'd have to admit, at the individual photon level, physics has no idea what a photon does or looks like. We can only observe photon packets. We are, as of yet, blind to true photon size, mass, or directions. I just happen to believe, from gamma ray dynamics, they're so small, at this level, we'll never see them___we only see their light and wave spectrums and frequencies, but just think how small they'd have to be for a short gamma ray to have both magnetic and electric moments alternating at that high frequency rate. They would have to be immensely small, almost unimaginably small___super-sub-quantum, yet we do view their total energy and heat.] Both of them would have been travelling at the same velocity so there can be no heating up due to velocity differences because there are no velocity differences at the photon level. [I must state here Steven, that this is complete conjecture and false, as we already have scientifically measured the frequency and energy rates of everything from gamma rays to radio waves___they would all require differing size photons, by these simple dynamics. The wave spectrum wouldn't even exist if all photons were the same size___there'd be no difference in the color spectrum, as it's photon velocity, and thus, size dependent. Many falsely think all light travels at exactly the same C speed___it does not, as the Pauli principle clearly showed years ago, and has been many times confirmed. The velocity of photons is different, but very slightly different, all travel near C, but the wave spectrum is truly slower at the radio wave spectrum, than it is at the gamma ray spectrum, which is the closest we ever witness to true C velocity, as far as I know.]

Heat only becomes an issue with more complex particles. [Heat is an issue, the instant the first photon/particle/wave moved/moves, and takes on mass, even if it's only the minimal motion of one degree of cold freedom and its infinitesimal friction, thereof. That's science fact.]

PB.

Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Of course mainstream physics has nothing to say about photons heating up___we're talking about new ground ideas, here. Forget the old, grab the new. How else are you going to explain dead 0k cold space, which I say is photonic FS, and fire hot stars and gamma rays, which are also of the PFS?]

Lloyd,
you talk about grabbing the new, yet you keep referring to photons heating up.

To be able to distinguish whether a photon has heated up or not, you would have to be able to seperate the energy of the photon and the energy that is heating it up.
If you can split the two forms of energy, then you have a seperate form of energy, one of which is even more fundemental than that of the photon. If on the other hand you insist that it is down to velocity, then it is not heat.

What I've offered you is a very simple TOE, the clues in the title of the thread. What you've done is to add levels of complexity that do not exist.

Heat caused by Photon friction ? what is that. Friction is resistance. As for you glacier, the millions of tons on ice and the friction with the bed rock that it is sliding across is why the ice melts, not because of compression.

The FS is just that THE FENDEMENTAL SUBSTANCE. There is nothing more fundemental. It does not heat up or cool down. If does display properties of resistance. The differences in parts of the FS are probably best described as an idea, that way you don't have to deal with their dimensions or what they look like.

There is no need to describe part of the FS as being heated up because it isn't. The FS is THE source of pure energy in the Universe.

The principle of the FS whizzing about at infinite velocity is because it is not restricted by dimensions or controls. When it is not whizzing about at infinite velocity there is no reason to suggest that it isn't stationary.

You are suggesting that photons travel at varying velocities and that it is these velocities that determine how things move in the Universe.

Wrong.

If, as you suggest, photons travel at varying velocities, then the whole structure of the Universe as we know it would be unstable to the point of being unable to maintain any structure.
The structures that I have described, such as the electron, depend on the fact that each of its components, and the components of every other particle that it will come into contact with, is travelling at exactly the same speed.
This allows for the most amazing construction kit because all the parts are interchangeable, compatible and the results of any interaction are predictable.

The properties of the FS that you are suggesting would not be viable. You are relying on the addition of higher states of energy to explain how it works.
Stating that it must be thermal energy that is causing the movement in the FS ,means that you haven't understood the basic principle of something which underpins our physical universe.

Hot or cold are nothing more than relative energy levels.

Try describing how things work without the use of terms such as thermal , velocity and other accepted physics terms. If you can do that then maybe there's a chance that this thread will continue.
None of our physics exists without the FS and how it works, so try doing without it, maybe then you will appreciate at what a simplistic level this must be viewed for it to work.


PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Steven, though I think we are very close in perspectives, we are still far apart on the simplest fundamental mechanics of temperature. You would have to answer what does cause hot and cold?___since you have practically elliminated any possibility of temperature with this post___so what causes temperature mechanics? What causes motion mechanics? What causes velocity mechanics? What causes mass mechanics? What causes heat mechanics? What causes cold mechanics? Things do heat up and cool down... Let me try again to go through your post, point and see if we can get closer on our ideas, as the mechanics of the FS is the most important subject, in the world, leading to solution of TOE mechanics.

First, just let me point out a simple example___a campfire. Now, I do believe you admit it's hot. I would guess you'd say it radiates heat and light energy, would you not? I also would guess you'd admit it cools off proportional to distance from the flame, of course, the light carries as far as our eyes can perceive it, and the light itself, most likely goes to infinity. But what of the heat? Are they not energy, and you've admitted energy is photons? Do these heat/energy photons cool with distance from the campfire? So, do you see my simple point___photons exist in all states of motion and temperature___it's factual simple logic...


Lloyd

p.s.
Cold and heat are photonic FS motions producing each other, all velocities, and other matter in our universe___How do you draw an absolute fundamental, out of the oneness, of cold/heat/photon/motion, other than absolute observation? Do we listen to and know our fundamental feelings, or believe and know our fundamental eyesight? This is the FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION!!!

IMHO, the order must be: 1.Cold Photon 2.Motion 3.Heat... What's your order...? Or, is it truly all at once...? IMO, cold must always preceed heat... The cold photon motion can exist all at once... The oneness of cold photon motion... 99% of the universe is still cold, so my logic says, it's first, before heat, as it's foremost, still, by such an unbelievable amount, it would be impossible for it to be any other way... Light speed does not allow it to be any other way___A time/distance locked, cold first, universe...

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

(...)

IMHO, the order must be: 1.Cold Photon 2.Motion 3.Heat... What's your order...? Or, is it truly all at once...? IMO, cold must always preceed heat... The cold photon motion can exist all at once... The oneness of cold photon motion... 99% of the universe is still cold, so my logic says, it's first, before heat, as it's foremost, still, by such an unbelievable amount, it would be impossible for it to be any other way... Light speed does not allow it to be any other way___A time/distance locked, cold first, universe...

Very interesting gentleman.

I will read more of your posts before I dive into the conversation here, but so far, from what I have read, and especially the part quoted above, it looks as you boys (girls?) are right up my alley.

Lloyd, would you mind elaborating on the above. What do you mean by:

1. Cold must always preceed heat...

2. The cold photon motion can exist all at once...

3. The oneness of cold photon motion...

4. 99% of the universe is still cold, so my logic says, it's first, before heat, as it's foremost, still, by such an unbelievable amount, it would be impossible for it to be any other way...

5. Light speed does not allow it to be any other way___A time/distance locked, cold first, universe...


Thanks in advance for your response.

Coldcreation




.

[dleviwing]

Let’s assume that a photon is a real unit or particle. If we do that, then we can state that a wavelength represents a physical dimension of a photon such as its diameter, radius, or circumference. This would then mean that since radiant energy is E=hf that all photons regardless of their wavelength are equal to Planck’s constant “h”. So, are our text books wrong in saying that shorter wavelengths have greater energy? I would say that shorter wavelengths only allow more energy to be concentrated into a smaller volume; that’s why the formula is “hf” and not just E=h.

This can also be expressed in terms of “Electrodynamics” Lloyd if you would like it in a more formalized complex interpretation.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi CC, thanks for the interest in my earnest speculations. I'd first like to post one of your posts:

You're right. In almost every natural phenomenon, there is a competition between order and disorder. The tendency is towards equilibrium. We happen to be far-from-equilibrium systems and so our thoughts diverge often towards the complex, but we are more of an exception than the rule. Most observable things in the universe are simple in comparison: stars, galaxies, atoms, etc. The laws of nature are basic, simple, fundamental.

I forgot who said it (George Bataille perhaps) but it was something like: 'It is far more difficult to write one coherent sentence than it is to write an entire paragraph.'

But at the same time history has taught us it is essential we remain on guard against over-simplifications and dubious interpretations.

Most great ideas, though, have united two previously independent concepts, which is in effect a simplification, a unification.

It was Einstein that stressed the importance of the geometrical relations between things. It was also he who fused the prior notion of an object as an independent concept into a system together with the proper spatiotemporal structure.

It was he too who noted the general view that geometry together with the totality of the physical laws can predicate the behavior of real things.

And the existence of spacetime in the real world is not independent of matter (energy) and field. The field is a structural quality of space. The field does not claim existence on its own. And so, we have a setting within which all events, happenings, fields (electromagnetic, gravitational), ponderable bodies (both animate and inanimate) along with their spatiotemporal surroundings can be described by the same natural laws.

Not bad for starters. Though for some reason, I think there is still simplification and unification to be made on the horizon.

coldcreation

I enjoyed this post, especially the bolded sentence, above. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Very interesting gentleman.
I will read more of your posts before I dive into the conversation here, but so far, from what I have read, and especially the part quoted above, it looks as you boys (girls?) are right up my alley.
Lloyd, would you mind elaborating on the above. What do you mean by:

1. Cold must always proceed heat...

2. The cold photon motion can exist all at once...

3. The oneness of cold photon motion...

4. 99% of the universe is still cold, so my logic says, it's first, before heat, as it's foremost, still, by such an unbelievable amount, it would be impossible for it to be any other way...

5. Light speed does not allow it to be any other way___A time/distance locked, cold first, universe...
Thanks in advance for your response.
Coldcreation

Hope that helps,
Lloyd

p.s.
I'd also like to include this from Stephen:

You state that, “Are you saying the Earth has an emission as does the sun only weaker?”

Yes. Everything, including sub-atomic particles have emission fields and are subject to attraction through the absorption of emission vis their emission fields.

Emission is an inherent aspect of everything and although it’s specified by the materialist paradigm there is no explanation of “why” everything has an emission field.

Gravitational fields are emission fields and everything, including pulsar’s white dwarfs, the moon, Pluto, and red giants, have emission fields.

Any explanation of gravity needs to deal with the following things.

1. Gravity is associated with mass, in the sense of the amount of matter.

2. The gravity of an object falls off with the distance from an object of matter.

3. The attraction towards an object of matter involves acceleration and not simply uniform motion.

4. Objects of difference amounts of matter (weight) accelerate towards the source of attraction with equal rates of acceleration.

Gravity as caused by the absorption of emission via the emission field of objects, explains all of the above matters.

It also explains how the Earth retains its atmosphere and is the mechanism that underpins the greenhouse effect.

See http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/essay.pdf

Stephen

This has a lot of value, also, in answering our quest.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

David, I agree that E=hf gives us the energy of the photon packet's release of waves and electrons, but it doesn't give us the true size of photons, which would have to be much, much smaller to merge with the FS photonic "stuff", as you like to call it, and it certainly doesn't even come close to your speculated number of 10^-69^3cm. And I'd speculate even much smaller than that, but that's only speculation. I say the textbooks are correct in saying shorter wavelengths have greater energy, and the Planck h can only be used to describe the packet of photon emissions, not the actual photon size, itself. This would also allow for the complex mechanics of the electron, I described several posts ago.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Let’s assume that a photon is a real unit or particle. If we do that, then we can state that a wavelength represents a physical dimension of a photon such as its diameter, radius, or circumference. This would then mean that since radiant energy is E=hf that all photons regardless of their wavelength are equal to Planck’s constant “h”. So, are our text books wrong in saying that shorter wavelengths have greater energy? I would say that shorter wavelengths only allow more energy to be concentrated into a smaller volume; that’s why the formula is “hf” and not just E=h.

This can also be expressed in terms of “Electrodynamics” Lloyd if you would like it in a more formalized complex interpretation.
.

You can post it if you want to David, then I can see how it fits with my wave and electron model, a few posts ago. Please do, I'd like to see your views, at this level. I think I've already read them, and agree with them, but refresh my mind...

Thanks,
Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

I agree all the parts are interchangeable, just not in the same way as you, Steven. You see, IMV, photons of every size, shape, velocity, mass, and description possible, make your amazing construction kit even easier. If not of all the varriations, you'd have trouble fitting electron photons inside the much faster acting gamma ray frequencies

When an electron and a positron annihilate each other, a gamma ray photon IS EXACTLY what you get. Far from our higher energy photons travelling at different velocities, there is accepted proof that they do in fact travel at exactly the same velocity.

As for making the construction kit easier, it wouldn't, it would make each and every structure, from the electron upwards, non-uniform. One thing that is very important in science is the ability to repeat experiments. The lack of uniformity would result in unpredictable events, due to the fact that you would never know quite what type of particle you were dealing with.

Reduce your infinite velocity to C, as C can never exceed itself, C, no matter what velocity, it's still C, and then we are in absolute agreement, here.

You missed the point completely.
If C is the maximum velocity then you must provide the mechanism that controls it. Saying that C can never exceed itself is not a controlling mechanism and means nothing. It is a throw away statement with no substance.

No, I am stating photons travel at varying velocities, but not that this determines how things move in the universe, some things, yes, but not all things.

For a Simple mechansim to how the Universe works, there should be clear unambiguous rules. Moving some things, but not others implies that there is another underlying rule.

You keep jumping from micro to macro and mixing the two of them together. You talk about the movement of the FS and then mention what happens to galaxies as if the two of them work in exactly the same way.

What do I work with___magic? Now, I'm not really trying to be funny, as I realize you've put considerable time into your efforts. I just think they need to be tweaked a bit more. I'm certainly willing to help, as your efforts are greatly helping me. What do you say? This FS One thing is a bit more complicated, understanding its simplicity than first meets the eye.

What I have been trying to describe is the very fundementals. Let me try to describe this another way which I hope will allow you to understand its simplicity at little better.
I said that the FS is virtually taking the Universe and splitting it into basic states of TRUE or FALSE. We have a very useful piece of kit that you're using right this moment that is built from almost the same thing. Your Computer.

What I'm describing is more or less a Binary Universe.
There are photons, these represent 1's. What else is there, nothing - 0's

If a photon encounters nothing, then it is straight math 1 + 0 = 1
The photon is still itself and the nothing it has encountered has had no effect on it.

If a photon encounters another photon, then again it's straight math 1 + 1 = 10

This is the point at which I think I'm loosing you, because from your posts, you would see the answer as 2. Taking it from binary into another base, and although the answer is similar, it's not the same.

The 10 does not just denote a larger photon and nothing, it denotes something that has moved beyond its base (binary) and is now a more complex structure.

It is a bit more complex than this, but at its most basic level, there are no thermal currents, no velocities, just 1's and 0's
The complexity comes in the fact that binary is a 1 dimensional numbering system and the photons require a 3 dimensional system, but still using same principle.

What do I work with___magic?

If your computer can figure out your typing using nothing more than 1's and 0's, then I'm sure you don't need magic.

PB.

[dleviwing]

Hi Lloyd;
Why do you think all photons are the same size? I don’t believe that is what I stated and I do not recall saying that 10^-69 cm^3 was the dimension of a photon. Are you taking credit for the “wave/electron model” now?

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Hi CC, thanks for the interest in my earnest speculations. I'd first like to post one of your posts:

I enjoyed this post, especially the bolded sentence, above. Thanks.

Hope that helps,
Lloyd

Thanks Lloyd.

The phrase you highlighted was pure Einstein: something I too appreciate and agree with entirely. I thus do not take credit.

I noticed that you avoided answering my questions. Was there areason for that? You wrote "Hope that helps" without even writing anything. Perhaps you deleted something by accident. Could you please explain, even in one sentence, each of the phrases I quoted from you and reproduced here below (I numbered then 1-5):

1. Cold must always proceed heat...

2. The cold photon motion can exist all at once...

3. The oneness of cold photon motion...

4. 99% of the universe is still cold, so my logic says, it's first, before heat, as it's foremost, still, by such an unbelievable amount, it would be impossible for it to be any other way...

5. Light speed does not allow it to be any other way___A time/distance locked, cold first, universe...

Thanks

CC