[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by 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?

I don't think all photons are the same size, and didn't state or imply that, PB did. I didn't say you said either one of those David. And I also said, take a look at my electron model, a few or more posts back. As I have previously stated, I consider the photon and photonic fundamental substance, of and being the same changed state entity, I just used your dimensions of the FS, as a supplement for the above. It is isomorphic but still different. And as far as taking credit for the wave/electron model, no-one in the world has offered a correct model___yet, except possibly mine___plain old hydro-kinetic mechanics of mass...

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

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.

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.

PB, this is just a simple type of Boolean logic. Boolean logic___a universe does not make, neither does it explain the empirical actions of photons, or anything else. We need clear classical empirical mechanics interpretations, of the physical mechanics of the universe, from the photon or FS on up, to define our ideas. More math models just adds to the already over-confused math models.

Lloyd

[dleviwing]

The “Wave/Electron” model was postulated in 1973 by Dr. Richard Feynman as stated in “The Feynman Lectures”. I believe Milo Wolff also presents a similar model as standing waves. It is MHO that all these models, yours included, are quite incomplete.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry, I thought there was enough informotion in this thread, which there probably isn't, and in what else I stated. You'll probably have to be more specific with your questions, for me to do justice to them, but I'll give it the old try...

1. Cold must always proceed heat...? [If heat preceeded cold, it would require high velocity, C velocity to be exact, as C velocity is the only velocity of self-sustaining ability, all other velocities slow or fade. If c velocity is everywhere, nothing can cool. This is a thermodynamic impossibility of the universal evolution. Only if cold exists first, can the universe warm, first with nearest 0K FS motion, then its heat, sound, and the shock waves, then set in play. This allows a slow motion flow of the early universe, on its long journey toward true c and its attendent mass velocities. If FS is allowed to be a stationary, and an absolutely transmutating substance, then it is allowed to be moved within itself with the prime mover of thermo-hydrodynamics, and later on into the first finite singularity's thermo-hydro-kinetic hydrogolics of true c mass motions. The opposite way around is an eternally hot non-evolving dead universe, of nothing but absolute motion, heat, sound, and velocity shock waves. Heat can come from cold by self-friction of the FS. I can see no way for cold to come from C velocity heat. The cold of the universe was always here, eternally. There is no creation of FS and cold, they both always were, and because they always were, so was motion, as minimal motion is an absolute requirement of near 0K cold, from infinitesimal stages and states, to today.]

2. The cold photon motion can exist all at once...? [In my mind and model of the fundamental universe, I see no way to separate these three substance function actions, and have any type of universe, at all. If you can describe another model, in simple physical mechanics, go ahead...]

3. The oneness of cold photon motion...? [This is what I mean, they are inseparable, at the prime mover model stage. Of course, we all know the universe has always been moving, it's just a question of was it moving slow, under the past hypothesis theory, or fast? I say slow, as the FS aether is still moving slow, in deep space, as many cosmology observations prove___Hubble distances and red-blue-shifts. And, I think I read somewhere, where you don't accept the aether facts, but MM didn't show anything, and there's no way for a universe to evolve from FS, without a bridge aether, between this sub-quantum level, and the quantum level. Welcome to the real universe. It must exist because observation of the universe's structure requires it to exist...]

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...? [4. and 5. really need to be answered together, as they are the answer to each. All I mean is by Hawking's figures, of 10^137 years, for his complete finiteness decay model, this would mean, after our finite universe travels its runtime cycle, it is going to be billions of times the size it is now, even by conservative black hole decay cycles of 10^69 years. Being this huge makes it impossible, within the laws of physics and the velocity of C, or even faster sensible velocities of C, to ever change the set in play thermodynamics, now, then, or any other cycle of the universe. And, when the universe's present cycle of runtime is over, in complete decay, that's complete decay of all hot motion, matter and velocities, back into the cold FS. And, the cycle must restart, as it has in cycles past, from dead cold fundamental substance motion. This is why it's a time/distance locked, cold first, universe.]

CC, please ask more direct and specific questions, about even mass and gravity, if you would like my model's true predictions, descriptions and classical hydro-kinetic mechanics of, in plain language. If you have different mechanics, fine...

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

The “Wave/Electron” model was postulated in 1973 by Dr. Richard Feynman as stated in “The Feynman Lectures”. I believe Milo Wolff also presents a similar model as standing waves. It is MHO that all these models, yours included, are quite incomplete.

I haven't finished mine yet, David. Your's is a better description than Feynman's and Wolff's, from what I've pieced together in many of your older posts, yet quite severely incomplete, also. At least, we're both working from an absolute fundamental substance, "stuff", matter___they didn't and don't... So, what's new...?

Hold your horses,
Lloyd

[Infinite Consciousness]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

I haven't finished mine yet, David. Your's is a better description than Feynman's and Wolff's, from what I've pieced together in many of your older posts, yet quite severely incomplete, also. At least, we're both working from an absolute fundamental substance, "stuff", matter___they didn't and don't... So, what's new...?

Hold your horses,
Lloyd

LG, is it at all possible for you to define this absolute fundamental substance, "stuff", matter. If you cannot define it how on earth do you know that it is an absolute fundamental substance ? ? ?

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

PB, this is just a simple type of Boolean logic. Boolean logic___a universe does not make,

Lloyd,
On the contrary, if it is any more complex than this it would not be the basis of our Universe. You are expecting far too much from what must be the most fundemental set of instructions.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

neither does it explain the empirical actions of photons, or anything else. We need clear classical empirical mechanics interpretations, of the physical mechanics of the universe, from the photon or FS on up, to define our ideas.

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.

You want the answer to be 2 because you think it provides you with a handle into a world of physics that you already understand. The answer is not 2 and until you can grasp that, you will keep falling back on conventional physics - those bits that you think match what you're saying - and fail to comprehend something which is apparently too simple.

Good Luck

PB.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

There are photons, these represent 1's. What else is there, nothing - 0's

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

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.

There is great significance of moving beyond the base of the FS. The photons that make up the FS have no dimensions, so comparing different sizes of photons is not only irrelevant, but can't be done.
One of the basic properties of a photon is that it cannot occupy the same space as another photon. This means that the simple addition of two photons cannot occur in the same space, each photon must remain distinct.
If each photon is a point, a coordinate, then there must be a difference in the coordinates. This difference is the Mass.
Once the structure has Mass, then this also means that it has dimensions.

To measure velocity, you only need two things, distance and time. Taking the photons of the FS, one of the things they are lacking is any dimensions, so you cannot use them to measure distance.
The other missing part of the puzzle is time. The interaction of two photons is the yard stick to measure all other interactions, so the most logical approach to defining time would be to assign the duration of their interaction the value of 1 and build everything from there. After all, time is only a concept.

So this interaction between photons gives us time and dimensions. From here all else is possible.

This definition of Time ensures that no matter where in the Universe a process is taking place, it is completely compatible with the same process happening millions of light years away.

Photon on Photon action defines not only the dimensions of the Universe, but it is also the basic clock of the Universe.

This is why Photons do not heat up and why temperature and classical mechanics has nothing what so ever to do with the FS and how it works. The photon is the basic package of substance that our Universe is based upon, but it does'nt jump through hoops or stand on its head, in fact the photon does't do very much at all. It just minds its own business and occassionally bumps into other photons. That's it.

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You know PB, it occured to me last night, that we actually still know nothing of the actual photon, or if there actually is such a thing. We know quanta or quanti as energy/substance, and we know some sort of FS has to exist, as quanta/quanti heat emissions are visable on X-Ray Spectography, but as to any other description of photon, we really are still trapped in the uncertainty principle___we know it's there___we know it has to exist___but anything beyond this, I think, is pure speculation, without better modeling. I think there are plenty of universal facts to piece together for better models, and I think that's the direction we must take. IMHO, this quanta/quanti is the absolute fundamental stuff, and exists all the way to the infinitesimal/infinite levels. I think finiteness just borrows this FS, as mass fuel, and sends it back into the FS background field. I don't believe it's any building block of the universe___a great worker fuel and heat, yes, but block of any kind___no, except possibly___graviton emissions of critical mass combustion. I'll explain why, if you're interested.

Below, in your post, I'll share some more of my differences with you...

There is great significance of moving beyond the base of the FS. The photons that make up the FS have no dimensions, so comparing different sizes of photons is not only irrelevant, but can't be done. [I fully agree.]
One of the basic properties of a photon is that it cannot occupy the same space as another photon. This means that the simple addition of two photons cannot occur in the same space, each photon must remain distinct. [Here you are using the Pauli exclusion principle, which he only applied to electrons, I believe, if he applied it to photons, I think he was wrong. Like you said, we don't have the scientific facts about any type of photon, except heat signatures of X-Rays, or any idea what it's known actions are, other than energy/substance actions. If it is the FS we are mistaking for what we call photons, we are making a fundamental mistake to think we know any of its true properties, yet, except it acts as heat/energy/substance. IMO, if it is the FS, then it must have fusion properties___cold and hot, or the universe couldn't exist. And realize, at least one fundamental is absolutely required, even by the laws of common sense, to have fusion abilities, or there's no universe possible.]
If each photon is a point, a coordinate, then there must be a difference in the coordinates. This difference is the Mass. [I fully agree.]
Once the structure has Mass, then this also means that it has dimensions. [I fully agree. But one must also realize, the FS is required to develop mass, as it's rather obvious it already did___the universe exists.]

To measure velocity, you only need two things, distance and time. Taking the photons of the FS, one of the things they are lacking is any dimensions, so you cannot use them to measure distance. [I fully agree. But we can use their total heat/energy/substance to measure distance, though rather complicated.]
The other missing part of the puzzle is time. The interaction of two photons is the yard stick to measure all other interactions, so the most logical approach to defining time would be to assign the duration of their interaction the value of 1 and build everything from there. After all, time is only a concept. [We can't know if the photon is a building block, or just plain old universal fuel, and possible gravitons. It will take the absolute centainty principle, to advance beyond the existing uncertainty. I'll explain my ideas on this also, if you like?]

So this interaction between photons gives us time and dimensions. From here all else is possible. [Not if the quanti are not a permanent citizen of finiteness. If they be only borrowed decaying heat fuel, and borrowed decaying gravitons, they can't be used as building blocks___at all. They would be only temporary interaction pieces in the puzzle.]

This definition of Time ensures that no matter where in the Universe a process is taking place, it is completely compatible with the same process happening millions of light years away. [I don't agree with this, as we know other galaxies are traveling different velocities than ours. Also, there are well known galaxie anomalies, that have been, so far, unexplainable. There is also the problem of universal and galaxie expansion rates.]

Photon on Photon action defines not only the dimensions of the Universe, but it is also the basic clock of the Universe. [I can't agree with this either, as we yet know nothing of P on P action, only it's quanti heat/energy/substance signatures, and we know nothing of the true dimensions of the universe, since it's expanding, and we have no place to positivley measure true size from, especially your photon, as we can't measure it, or its action, because we don't know it, photon, yet. As to clock, I would have to say absolutely not, as quanti of frequencies exhibit your photon action at far too many different rates. The cesium atom, blowing off quanti/photons at some 9bil cycles/sec yes, but photon itself___definitely not. I'll fully explain if you are interested.]

This is why Photons do not heat up and why temperature and classical mechanics has nothing what so ever to do with the FS and how it works. [Then what mechanics would you use on your photons. You've capitalized them, so they're not metaphysical magic, are they?] The photon is the basic package of substance that our Universe is based upon, but it does'nt jump through hoops or stand on its head, in fact the photon does't do very much at all. It just minds its own business and occassionally bumps into other photons. That's it. [I thought you said they traveled at absolute velocity, for short distances, anyway. What would this fundamental force of motion BE?]

Steven, I think you should put FF, for fundamental force, into the empty corner of your triangle, and see if it can answer the absolute fundamental force of source motion of the universe. What say...?

Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Lloyd,
I decided that I wasn't going to get drawn into another of your posts, but , here goes.

There is great significance of moving beyond the base of the FS. The photons that make up the FS have no dimensions, so comparing different sizes of photons is not only irrelevant, but can't be done

One of the basic properties of a photon is that it cannot occupy the same space as another photon. This means that the simple addition of two photons cannot occur in the same space, each photon must remain distinct

Fusion : Definition : A nuclear reaction in which nuclei combine to form more massive nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy.
Complex particles doing, something, complex.

If each photon is a point, a coordinate, then there must be a difference in the coordinates. This difference is the Mass.

Once the structure has Mass, then this also means that it has dimensions.

One of the mysteries of modern physics is how Energy becomes Mass. There are theories involving exotic Higgs particles, although there is no direct experimental evidence for its existence. What I've presented is an alternative to what defines Mass, which it would seem, at first, that you agree with, but you then add another of your throw away statements implying that producing Mass from FS was a given. That the Universe wouldn't exist if it didn't.

To measure velocity, you only need two things, distance and time. Taking the photons of the FS, one of the things they are lacking is any dimensions, so you cannot use them to measure distance.

No you can't.
You agreed at the top of the post that photons have no dimensions and that comparing sizes was irrelevant. If a photon consists of heat/energy/substance and has no dimensions how are you going to measure it, rather complicated as it may be or not.

The other missing part of the puzzle is time. The interaction of two photons is the yard stick to measure all other interactions, so the most logical approach to defining time would be to assign the duration of their interaction the value of 1 and build everything from there. After all, time is only a concept.

This theory proposes that the photon is the basic building block. The fact that we can't know for sure is what theorising is all about.

So this interaction between photons gives us time and dimensions. From here all else is possible.

Wrong again.
The duration of the interaction between photons far from eliminating them as building blocks, allows whatever structure they are a component of to be free to move.
If as you would suggests they need to be permanent pieces of the puzzle, then there would be no movement in the Universe, no light, no heat. The moment a photon was absorbed into an electron, it would become a permanent piece of the electron puzzle and could not be emitted at some time later.

This definition of Time ensures that no matter where in the Universe a process is taking place, it is completely compatible with the same process happening millions of light years away.

An aquaintance of mine has a car that runs on the same type of fuel as mine does. Mine gets me from A to B in a great deal of comfort, where as his is an Aston Martin DB9.
If I really have to explain why you previous answer makes absolutely no sense, then I suspect that you are simply Googling key words and creating posts from whatever answers you find.

Photon on Photon action defines not only the dimensions of the Universe, but it is also the basic clock of the Universe.

Again another Googled answer.
A cesium clock uses two energy states of the cesium-133 atom. It is the standard by which we measure time because it is invariant. There are other elements that produce faster beats, but cesium-133 is preferred because it is invariant.
This is like you saying your car can go 120 miles per hour, while I'm talking about a single stroke of the piston.

This is why Photons do not heat up and why temperature and classical mechanics has nothing what so ever to do with the FS and how it works.

The photon is the basic package of substance that our Universe is based upon, but it does'nt jump through hoops or stand on its head, in fact the photon does't do very much at all. It just minds its own business and occassionally bumps into other photons. That's it.

Where have I said that they do not travel at inifinite velocity ? Does minding its own business mean less than inifinite velocity ?

Steven, I think you should put FF, for fundamental force, into the empty corner of your triangle, and see if it can answer the absolute fundamental force of source motion of the universe. What say...?

Here you are just guessing because you really don't have a clue what is being put in front of you. If you had read all the previous posts and, instead of trying to hijack this thread with unintelligable junk, tried to comprehend what was being presented, then you would understand what that angle was, but obviously you don't.

I thought at first that your post were interesting, the hydrodynamic nature of the FS especially between galaxies provided a different prospective, but I think as David has said previously, you really are obsessed with Hydrodynamics and are desperate to make it fit any way you can.

What I have presented is not something that has been thought up over the past four weeks, unlike some posts, but is a long term collaboration that I thought you might be interested in and that maybe additional pieces of the jigsaw could be put in place.



PB.