[joshua]

Hello there sir,
you have characterized my position falsely and then critized the false characteristic. In fact I do not disagree with your explainations of substance and motion. I do see the major differences with the understandings of the nature of motion. Simply stated, I see the universe as three dimensions aligning to one dimension. The nuts and bolts of how and why is directly the result of the nature of the fundamental understanding of the matter and the path matter decays into via least resistance, interference. Motion arises as a result of the process and is inseperatable from this process. Motion is the verb as we have understood the rules of the English language. Following these rules of the art of language, it is the nature of matter that causes motion and not motion that causes matter which I think Tim sees. I could be characterizing his position improperly also. I see the universe decaying from three to one dimension, lengthing and flattening as simply stated a particle decays into a wave. All the forces area result of actions of the nature of matters intermeditary steps, or in writing, the body of the story.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by joshua Following these rules of the art of language, it is the nature of matter that causes motion and not motion that causes matter which I think Tim sees.

This appears to be a misunderstanding of the discussion; “matter does not cause motion”; matter has the property of motion, in fact the property is “absolute” (as viewed by Tim and myself), meaning that no autonomous system of matter can have more motion or less motion than that fixed quantity. Systems do not exchange motion, they only interact such to change how the total quantity is distributed between different types of motion within the systems; that reduces to either uniform motions or random motions of a system. This means that there is no such thing as the “rest state” of matter.

You state that you believe that matter decays but that is a misconception; only a system or structure of matter can decay to another state or structure by changing the distribution of its motion. Of course this is referring to the “fundamental matter” that everything physical is made of.

BTW: IMO, matter cannot be reduced to less than 3 spatial dimensions.

[joshua]

Hello dleviwing,
You state a change in distribution of matter causing motion and you do not mention a reason. And that is not matter causing motion? Hey this is really somantics, is it not? I just believe, through observation and deduction the cause of energy, substance, distribution. The continously unbonding, monopole gravitational wave. This process, I call "gravitational wave synchronic motion" or gravitational wave synchronization ( GWS) for short. Distribution and motion alignment are all contained within this most basic process, and thus a particle becomes a wave. The fluid mosic process is the intermediate quantum mix but always influienced by this principle of motion.(in your terms so we are talking the same language).

[dleviwing]

joshua
You seem to have a mild case of dyslexia in that you restate my statements as just the opposite of which I made them. It would appear that you are only interested in promoting your own agenda on Tim’s thread; if you would rather discuss your concepts, I would suggest you start another thread for that purpose.

[joshua]

Hello again,
We are way off track and futile. First, you can review your own post and see the contradiction. Second, it is not relevant. Thirdly, Tim did peak my curiosity with his thought process, even though he is not the author. My curiosity was answered when I understood the limits and breakdowns of this theory with respect to experiments and observations. I do state my own understanding only to clearify the differences and to she'd light on how experiments and observations can align with hypothesis. Anotherwords, I was no longer intruding into Tim's theory until you started quoting me and I was notified. I understood Tim's concept, I understood what was wrong with it, I understood how it differed in respect to my own understanding and I had moved on, until you decided to restate everything.
Now for fun, I am working on the actual laws that govern instantaneous commnication independent of range. And I in fact understand them. And it is easy and mechanically straight forward. Yes it is obvious that communication is possible that happens in real time simultaneously. And it will blow your mind how easy it is to understand, Einstein coined the phrase, " Spooky action at a distance". My hypothesis and absolute motion do have this in common in an odd sort of way. That is why I finish here.

Thanks for your time and comments to all...

[Profpat]

I am working on the actual laws that govern instantaneous commnication independent of range. And I in fact understand them. And it is easy and mechanically straight forward. Yes it is obvious that communication is possible that happens in real time simultaneously. And it will blow your mind how easy it is to understand, Einstein coined the phrase, " Spooky action at a distance". My hypothesis and absolute motion do have this in common in an odd sort of way. That is why I finish here.

Hi joshua;,

It's not only possible but it's been done. Following Bell's theorem it is either moving much faster than light or as I believe the interconnectedness of the particles. Do you have a third possibilty for this phenomenom?

Best,

Pat

[analog]

Josh,

Originally Posted by joshua First, you can review your own post and see the contradiction.

I don't see where Dave nor I have contradicted ourselves.

Originally Posted by joshua Thirdly, Tim did peak my curiosity with his thought process, even though he is not the author.

I am not the original author of most of this work, nor am I the originator of most of my adopted terminology, but I did author my own work which unknowingly shared many of the same concepts (absolute motion, degrees of freedom, etc.); thus allowing me to use both views to further my knowledge. I recently came to many of the same conclusions as Dave did so long ago, before I even knew his views, and often I will discover a concept only to find that he has already discovered it and posted comments long ago, but that encourages me to keep going. I do often make my own interpretations and discuss them with Dave.

Originally Posted by joshua My curiosity was answered when I understood the limits and breakdowns of this theory with respect to experiments and observations. I do state my own understanding only to clearify the differences and to she'd light on how experiments and observations can align with hypothesis. Anotherwords, I was no longer intruding into Tim's theory until you started quoting me and I was notified. I understood Tim's concept, I understood what was wrong with it, I understood how it differed in respect to my own understanding and I had moved on, until you decided to restate everything.

Unlike you or I, Dave is retired from the field of science, and I'm sure that he is a much better authority on whose views contradict experiments and observations.

I don't claim to fully understand your views enough to totally dismiss them or declare how wrong they are as you have done with mine, and I haven't had much time lately to think on them or post here, which is why I've been quiet for the last couple of weeks, but I now have a little time on my hands and will surely give much thought to what you've said whereby perhaps I will discredit it as you so love to do my statements.

Being as you have stated that you fully understand my views and how they contradict experiments and observations, then I have a scientific experiment for you to explain, first by using my views, and then by using your views.

Dave posed this question on another thread:

Originally Posted by dleviwing Originally Posted by G_burnett This is an interesting little clip as light is tunneling through space the ponder http://www.hno.harvard.edu/multimedi...id_hau2001.swf http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...stoplight.html Has anyone asked themselves why a laser can be used to cool a sodium atom to near absolute zero? Answer that and you’ll understand what’s going on. Excellent link G_burnett! David

If all things are part of a continuous decay process of matter....

Originally Posted by joshua My theory is simply stated, "all matter decays naturally from E-M radiation into a monopole gravitational wave. Time, space and gravitational wave synchronization are wave functions of this action".

....then would this experiment be possible? Does your theory allow for light to be slowed down? Does it allow a laser to cool a sodium atom to near absolute zero?

Originally Posted by joshua Now for fun, I am working on the actual laws that govern instantaneous commnication independent of range. And I in fact understand them. And it is easy and mechanically straight forward. Yes it is obvious that communication is possible that happens in real time simultaneously. And it will blow your mind how easy it is to understand, Einstein coined the phrase, " Spooky action at a distance".

Do tell.

[analog]

Hello Dave,

I'm glad to see you getting around on the forum again. I think that most of us here (that know you) would agree that your experience and devotion to understanding our world is a great resource to all of us who have taken up the same quest. We are very fortunate to have you.

I don't mind Josh posting from his views, I wouldn't ask that he do anything less, because those are the views he understands. I am often guilty of the same offense on other members threads. Our current level of conversation requires him to define his framework. I'm not intimidated by the views of others, even though I admittingly still have a long way to go with my own. Like you said; "The greater your knowledge, the more you realize how truly ignorant you are". Remember?

I feel pretty ignorant lately, so I must be getting really smart.To rephrase your statement; It takes a really smart person to realize how truly dumb they are.

At the least, Josh's theory allows for discussion, whereby he seems to be one of the few who are even interested in the views you and I share. Many people here have their own agendas and close their minds to the views of others as they are always looking for the differences between them even before they fully understand the concepts. I try to first find the similarities between my views and those of others, which I feel allows for true communication and exchange of ideas. If differences inevitably arise, then a little debate could therefore be healthy for furthering the knowledge of us all.

I do feel this forum/community currently contains the collective knowledge capable of revealing a true ToE, but I'm not sure that any of us can do it alone and I feel it would come from more of a collective effort of the contributions of many members if we could merely agree on the proper framework to project our concentrated thoughts upon, whereby there would be no secret left hidden from our eyes.

If it is never meant for us to understand a ToE, then the mechanism which governs this would be our inability to work together, because if we were merely more naturally inclined to do so, I don't think there would be anything we couldn't accomplish. Just look at the world we've built, not from the sweat of one, but from the labor and sacrifice of many.

Speaking of labor and sacrifice; I must be getting home now. I haven't seen it for a while. I'll have a couple of weeks to get back into my thoughts; my job often demands me to momentarily abandon them to focus on other things which require my total attention.

I'm going to try to further my thoughts which I left on your Toronics thread and I'll post them there as they reveal themselves to me.


later,

Tim

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Tim;

I woke up in the middle of the night, thinking of a post similar to the one you just wrote here, that I was going to post here in your thread when I got up. I got to busy and you beat me to it.

I was going to write, how I also see the TOE being developed in here through the combined effort of many. For me right now, I am reading all the posts I can of yours, Dave's, Vincent's and Jim's. I am personally trying to combine the efforts of you guys into a theme that could be put forward in a thread, that the five of us and others can react to. Right now there is little interaction between the five of us because of the differences in the way each of us see things. But, at the core of what we see in our mind's eye, I see very important similarities.

I had a very good post in my mind during the night, explaining the similarities, but it is lost within the jumbled thoughts going on right now in my mind because of a day filled with business problems. Its taken me a hour to write this little post with all the distractions going on with me right now.

I enjoy how you are expressing your ideas, and enjoy how they are evolving. I hope this winter I can get better involved with what is transpiring in this forum.

[analog]

Hello Allen,

Thanks for the kind words, and it's good to here from you again. I think you have a good idea and I would be honored to participate. I think if we all layed our differences aside and focused on the similarities of our ideas (which I often see many), it would do much to further our quest.

This forum allows us to have a wonderful opportunity to further our knowledge with the help of people we otherwise would have never met, and certainly would have never held such discussions with. It is my opinion that we don't use this great resource to its fullest advantage. Most people stop in, throw out a portion of an incomplete General Unification Theory (which they've labled a ToE), and go about their business. Very few of us here actually swallow our pride and try to work with others to further our ideas even if we must admit to being wrong from time to time, but I do see some doing this on other threads, and I admire them for it.

I'm from an extremely small town and I can assure you that there is no one for many miles that I could have these types of conversations with. My whole life, I was plagued with thoughts and ideas that had no outlet. I had no one to challenge my conversations, and formal education wasn't an option. Thus, I am happy to have finally found a place where I can get some feedback on the many questions and ideas that have been with me for so long now.

I feel fortunate to have you all as friends, because the friends around my house are good beer drinking buddies, but you throw some quantum physics in the conversation (which usually pertains to: work, women, hunting, etc.) after about a twelve-pack and you might get roughed-up.

Some are content living in a world they know nothing about; I am not.

Thanks again,

Tim