[analog]

If I understand right, wouldn't this definition you gave inevitably give rise to another absolute, which I feel you might be neglecting.

If percieved motion is entangled with a division of absolute rest into infinite numbers of points, there would be increments between those points as you have said. This brings time into the picture because of how you related it to space, but what of the other time this unwittingly creates.

If the divisions are incremental and they are happening throughout space, something must sink them together, else there would be no proof of action reaction, or what happened when. These divisions could be happening more frequently on one side of the galaxy than they are on the other. Without an ever present pulse rippling through the cosmos keeping all this in sync, the symetry of time would be broken.

Would this not be a representation of absolute time, then?

That was always my problem with answering the riddle of motion by viewing it as particles replicating from one point to the other. This would cause more problems than it solved to me, because then to have a chronological flow to anything, you would have to have a heartbeat across the vastness of space traveling at instantaneous speeds much faster than Einstein's light. Then, you would get into the headache of what we know as present reality riding that wave across space, whereby, in front of the wave was furture, and behind the wave past. I don't know. I never was drawn to this type of thought, not to say that you aren't right.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by analog If I understand right, wouldn't this definition you gave inevitably give rise to another absolute, which I feel you might be neglecting.

If you are referring to the relative absolutes of science, then I philosophically – logically – reject them because they don’t contextually apply to a single independent state. I don’t think it is possible to define relative as absolute, or vice-versa.

Originally Posted by analog If percieved motion is entangled with a division of absolute rest into infinite numbers of points, there would be increments between those points as you have said. This brings time into the picture because of how you related it to space, but what of the other time this unwittingly creates.

Like the saying, “There is no time like the present.” The only time created in the present can be a past time. You can say that the mind has a pastime of creating a history that no longer exists, and when we consider that each timeframe is dependent on past conditions that don’t exist, we can conclude that the immediate present and the conditions that create it lie within the absolute center of where you are right “now” - from a single point because even an infinite number of zero-dimensional points equal the same number of points, namely none.

Originally Posted by analog If the divisions are incremental and they are happening throughout space, something must sink them together, else there would be no proof of action reaction, or what happened when. These divisions could be happening more frequently on one side of the galaxy than they are on the other. Without an ever present pulse rippling through the cosmos keeping all this in sync, the symmetry of time would be broken.

That’s precisely the case imo, Analog. Time symmetry must be broken, divided, in order to allow for the differentials required for conscious observations. It’s like walking forward or backward, with each step being a break in symmetry. You can’t do both simultaneously, but the absolute universe must and therefore is always at rest – perfect symmetry.

Once the symmetry is broken, chaos ensues and an infinite number of random interactions occurs as a result of the abstract absolutes - the one and zero – from which I propose consciousness plays the ordering role as it is encoded in the DNA. It governs the brain and body, and all time-dependent conditions required for encoding because it is not “set” as pre-existent matter. It is a massive process, and not a material existence.

Originally Posted by analog Would this not be a representation of absolute time, then?

The way I consider it, absolute time doesn’t exist because it is the non-existent basis for what is referred to as existence. To understand time, perhaps, more easily as space – since both are synonymous – consider what is required for there to be a concept of up and down, or left and right; there needs to be the non-existent absolute divisor that is neither up nor down, nor right nor left. That absolute divisor, then, is the present “now” and absolute time.

Originally Posted by analog That was always my problem with answering the riddle of motion by viewing it as particles replicating from one point to the other. This would cause more problems than it solved to me, because then to have a chronological flow to anything, you would have to have a heartbeat across the vastness of space traveling at instantaneous speeds much faster than Einstein's light. Then, you would get into the headache of what we know as present reality riding that wave across space, whereby, in front of the wave was furture, and behind the wave past. I don't know. I never was drawn to this type of thought, not to say that you aren't right.

Like I always say to Dave, it’s about being right to you because others can be wrong. For me, the absolute universe can only have absolute density, space, time, mass, speed, etc.. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be absolute.

What we consciously realize – when reality is subconsciously-created – is the time-dependent factors of Einstein’s Relativity that logically extend infinitely as space and eternally as time. Yet, what we can’t realize, directly, is that the absolute universe has no reality in such times, and therefore the container that contains dimensional reality must be abstract. There is no reason for the absolute universe to move or propagate through any medium, but like quantum jumping is already “there” because it is nowhere in particular; “in particular” as being prerequisite for describing and discerning concrete reality in particular places and at particular times.

The relative absolutes of science can be likened to fractions between one and zero, and counter-intuitively the one and zero are exactly the same because they meet like two ends looped in a circle where we can no longer tell where the ends are; the ends, the one and zero, no longer exist. Now when we put that in a perspective of density, absolute solidity and absolute vacuity disappear to form the basis for the infinite number of variable densities – mediums, field densities, etc. - all based on reducing the absolute time of the universe; again, zero time because it takes zero time to reach anywhere. I propose it is the long-sought-after cause.

[dleviwing]

analog;
You’ve chosen to start over from scratch rather than accept current interpretations; sometimes that is what it takes to actually comprehend current interpretations. The only difference between your view and mine is that mine is where your view will be in 33 more years. Maybe I can save you a few headaches.

You seem to be viewing “matter” as something that can be broken down into smaller and smaller pieces of itself. This leads to a dead-end; I know, I’ve been there. Rather than thinking of matter as fundamental particles, try to imagine a fundamental substance (FS) that can produce the observed phenomena (more like a fluid); then determine the minimum fundamental properties needed by that substance to explain all known phenomena. Once you’ve done this, you will find that a collision scenario of this FS rises to the most probable cause of our universe as we know it today.

Thermodynamics and wave mechanics will help you advance you concept. I have not expanded my blog into the more complex interactions of waves and their harmonics.

Originally Posted by analog If absolute particle motion exists, then, it is a property of the particle as we both agree, and no energy is needed. But, to admit to absolute motion with no variable energy would have to be admitting to absolute speed of particles. Therefore, if particles are identical in speed and size, what is your mechanism to apply to group (planetary) motion. By definition, the characteristics of a rotating sphere means that the particles near the center are covering less distance in the same amount of time as particles that maintain their relative position to them further out along the edges of the sphere. This would seem to imply different velocities between the two, but we said that couldn't be. I was just wondering would this effect the system you were describing and do you have a mechanism such as a change in resonate frequency to explain this. I have my own approach to it, but I was curious on your thoughts. Or have I gotten way off on your system?

The absolute motion of a particle system is made up of 3 fundamental types of motion: linear, angular, and randomized motion. It is how a particle distributes the quantity of these types of motion that produce both energy and mass. If you randomize all the uniform motion (mass) of a particle you convert the particle to electromagnetic radiant energy (expanding space). It would then be part of the universe system and no longer an autonomous unit or particle. What we call particles today are actually structures of harmonic fields (resonance) of FS. When you get to the quark level particle, the fields are controlled by the wave symmetry of the point source particle if its positive; negative particle structures do not have a point source particle core.

Let me know if I can help you avoid the many paths to obscurity on this trek you’ve started.

[analog]

dleviwing,

I am unsure if I should take that as a compliment, as if you are saying I am on the right track and in many more years of hard work I will attain your present position of total enlightenment, or if I should be offended by a percieved implication that it will take me thirty more years at the rate I am going to get where you are.

Either way, I thank you for taking the time to try and help what I feel you percieve as a less knowledgable person. And not that I am arguing that I am right, perhaps, my decision to view matter as something that can be broken down into smaller pieces, is in effect doing what you advised, and trying to invision a total system of the minimal fundamental properties needed and not just invision a substance with minimal properties. Perhaps, that seems to me, for what ever reason, the most efficient way to describe the interactions within my system, without having to use seemingly more complicated wave interactions and having to use three types of motion, whereby it takes me thirty pages to relay what I feel can be relayed in less.

Not that it's right, but how much more minimal can you get than one space, one type of matter, even if it is in peices, which gives a hopeful added yin yang elegance to the space which contains it, which is the fluid or wave, and one type of motion. Though our world could operate in a totally different manner, I feel as though the interactions I described are plausible and the ability for them to reproduce at least similar effects within their system as the ones within our world are a credit to the total simplicity of the system as a whole. I feel as though all phenomenon can be replicated by the framework I proposed. However, I am not arrogant enough to stand and say without a doubt that this is definately the way the world works. My intentions are merely to make the statement that from no more than what we know of the world, all of our observable phenomenon can possibly be reproduced by the interactions of a minimal few. However, there is always the possibility that for every ounce of elegance and symmetry we percieve within our world, there is a pound of chaos and bs that make it up. Neither you or I can honestly say.

[analog]

Nobody,

First let me thank you for allowing me to momentarily view the world through your eyes, even though mine are still a little out of focus to your visions, I am starting to understand what you are saying. It's taking some work though because I have to totally rework my thought process, due to the obvious differences between our approaches, and I am not just trying to interpret it. I am truly trying to understand it. To me interpreting would be to see all the gears and springs that make up your system, but understanding is when you hit the ON button in your mind and watch those things create a world.

I have been fascinated with such things since I was very young, and I would manufacture original concepts and try to build a working system around them. This would always lead to dead ends. Nevertheless, I would applaud myself for my creativity, even though my thinking was obviously flawed. I knew nothing then, and the only difference now is, I know a lot more about nothing. However, I realized that the best and most original concept in the world meant nothing if it didn't have total unity and it never contradicted itself. There couldn't be any unexplained phenomenon in my own mind or it would have to be wrong. This is the true underlying wisdom. It's not about creating original flashy solutions that do nothing more than blind us from truth. It's about creating a system that encompasses all things that are real. Which is to say, there is no wasted effort within the system. Wasted effort cannot exist in an eternal system, which is how I view our world. Thus, there must be 100% efficiency. Every action and state of being within it must be in existence to benefit the other actions and states of being. The existence of one would compliment the others. This would cause an eternal loop of form and function to the point where the progression of logic, of the inner workings, would always bring you back to where you started. I have not been able to do this yet, but I feel closer than I used to. Recognizing the need for such an elegance is the most intelligent thing that I have accomplished, because now I know to look for it and I will recognize it when I find it, or so I hope. I'm no longer trying to build a system around a concept. I now try to build a concept around elegance.

I applaud you, because I feel as though you have done this within your own mind, and though I choose to use a different approach, I can't argue yours. Correct me if I am wrong, but I feel the main difference between our approaches is that I have created a system using complete opposites to define each other, motion, stillness, matter, and space, thus stating the need that for something to exist it must have an opposite to define it. Would it be fair to say that you have taken this a step further and said that the existence of two opposites inevitably creates a neutral center between their two states, and where I built my system on the plain of the two, you build your's in between them? Would it also be fair to say your's is more of an attempt to incorporate consciousness or our own awareness within your system, while my system is independent of observation? The perceptions of your world is created by your awareness, but my perceptions of awareness is created by my world. If this is so, perhaps your theories are correct in explaining the middle, whereby mine don't apply, and mine are better suited for the realm in which they represent. I am unsure.

And to explain my usage of absolute as I perceive and apply it, it could also be called perpetual, constant or everlasting. It implies that the entity which it describes, such as time or motion, is fundamental for the system to work. When applied to an entity such as the motion of matter, I am saying that motion has went from being optional, which would give rise for the creation of energy, to explain one particle deciding to move while another chooses to rest, to it being a necessary characteristic of the matter itself. It has no option but to move. Just as stillness would define static space, motion would be the defining characteristic of matter. Thus, no need for the creation of such abstract inventions such as energy. There is a perceived ugliness to imagining fundamental matter as having to carry around a vast arsenal of weaponized energy, each specializing in only a predetermined range of space. Where is the elegance in that? If the distances between two particles aren't right, it's like some of them don't even exist. Is this 100% efficiency, having an entity who's appearance and influence upon the world is at the mercy of the things that we know are ever present. Energy is just a perception in my world. It is an illusion created by the interactions of matter in space, due to absolute (constant) motion.

[N0B0DY]

Your last statement brings to mind “The only constant is change.” And I see that as the basis for Einstein’s illusory reality, Analog.

When you say, “perpetual, constant or everlasting” it is suggestive of continuity, which understandably some equate with being absolute. Yet, contextually, the basis for change is differentiation, which requires a dualistic – relative – framework, and this is where I draw the imaginary line because relative and absolute are categorically opposite.

The best example to depict my premise has already be given – absolute velocity – which cannot be applied contextually to quantitative measurements. If we can wrap our heads around the fact that the absolute universe doesn’t require motion to reach any destination, it is then fairly simple to infer that all relative measurements don’t exist to the absolute universe. This message and that keyboard can’t exist to the absolute universe because the absolute universe can only have one undifferentiated absolute density, which is the impenetrable equivalent of the absolute void – changeless, and not constantly changing. This being synonymous to eternity, continual time; and absolute timelessness, without time. In this context, a concept of absolute time doesn’t make sense.

You know, I think it comes down to the pictures we have in our heads. When you say, “It is an illusion created by the interactions of matter in space...” it can’t fit into my picture because I view the two as being exactly the same. If there is no space, there is no matter; and vice-versa. Both are dependent upon Einstein’s Celeritas constant, in the observable non-absolute vacuum, and both are transcended in the absolute vacuum.

Of course many will argue that there is no such absolute vacuum “anywhere” and I would agree, precisely because it is nowhere. It is the above-mentioned imaginary connector that allows individuals to reach point B in a finite amount of time – the solution to all of Zeno’s seeming paradoxes. If it literally existed, reaching point B would be impossible if even by an illusory means because there is a dichotomy paradox attached to what is said to exist – as a next step – and that which doesn’t exist. Just like asking ourselves, “What exists on the outside of everything that exists in its entirety?” To which we reply, “Nothing.”

This latter point may seem silly, but it is the basis for how people have to think to function. Yet, when we rid our minds of the unobserved “eternal existence,” then the false dichotomy paradox disappears: we go from dualistic thinking of “everything and nothing” to the singular “nothing and nothing”; the absolute “one” becomes absolutely none.

From this point we may deduce – realize – that reality is an abstractive process based on conscious observation. Consciousness is then not the result of an unobservable a priori reality, deduced from what is consciously-observed, but rather that “other” reality (this one “here and now”) is the result of the time it takes for an individual to consciously observe his/her temporal persistence of existence.

So, ultimately, I don’t really have a system. I follow the implications of what is proposed to me and extend them to the absolute point using inverse laws, which to date has rendered all implications non-existent. There can then only be, in my mind, relativity and replication as the basis for evolutionary reality. Of which, change serves as the motional factor of any and all systems and models of those systems.

[mkirkpatrick]

The simple answer to the threads question is NO,qualified by saying YES there is absolute
rest within the Absolute that IS!However within the illusional and transitary relative universe there is no rest(and no real universe either,but thats another story)




regards michael.

[dleviwing]

analog;
It was meant as a compliment but you have the advantage of the internet; so your time should be much shorter; all I had were books along with the scientist and physicist I worked with. I totally agree that if it sounds like BS, it probably is, but check it out anyway; you may be surprised that most scientist hold that same view.

You are confusing a lack of knowledge as less intelligence; it’s not. That’s why your intelligence is questioning the knowledge being presented to you. Knowledge may take some time to acquire but let me assure you that you DO have the intelligence to chose the right path and know when you are being lead down the wrong one.

Now to explain why I feel the smaller and smaller particle concept is a dead end is that for it to work you must do as science is attempting to do now, assigning magical properties and dimensions to the particle or the matter its made of called strong force, weak force energy, gravity, charge, and so on. Interaction of substance must always be present for any of these to occur. If you wish to believe in the forces then you may as well believe in a god and forget about taking such an arduous path seeking truth.

BTW: don’t confuse arrogance for the self-confidence of knowledge. Arrogance is ALWAYS accompanied by stupidity.

[analog]

dleviwing,

I get the impression that you haven't read my theories, which I made a link to at the start of this thread "Creation by Collision". Within them, I totally reject any force whatsoever, and explain that in detail. Just because I admit to individual particles doesn't mean I am admitting to forces to bind them. I feel this is where you are misinterpreting. I think you have reached out and taken hold of the powerful tool of absolute motion and have not used it to it's fullest potential to allow it to cancel out alot of the other abstract idea's your theories hold on to.

The particles within my system, I feel are necessary for the framework, because it is their proximity to each other that sets the stage for our reality. In my opinion, particles in constant motion with constant and equal velocity within space have all of the interactions required to produce all of our observed phenomenon, and when I say particles, I don't mean electrons, protons, nuetrons, or any of the other fabricated existences that are seemingly necessary to describe force. If there is no force, there is no need for these creations either. One particle will do and I'll even let you call it what ever you like.

That's the whole premise of my work. Individual particles of matter, exact in all deminsions even velocity, within a container of space have all of the properties needed to build a world, perhaps not our world, but a world of near equal interactions and phenomenon none the less.

What are we recognizing when we look at a large formation of matter. Being as all things are in motion, we are recognizing particles of matter with near equal trajectories through space and time. Their proximity makes them what they are. Thus, matter in motion has potiental for equal trajectories which can create the phenomenon of the formation of larger material objects. Where in that is there a need for a bonding agent such as force. They are just going down the same road of existence side by side.

I view space as full of these particles, and they are all colliding into each other at different distances, being as they are of equal mass and velocity, they merely rebound to collide with another. The result of all of this is a continual loss of the amount of space they are defending by their collisions. You could call this an orbit if you like, but they aren't running in circles. They are going in straight trajectories at continually different collision angles with other particles which creates an orbital effect. This is what we see when we view the planets, spheres. A sphere in my system is the framework of particles near the center having smaller orbits as they run into each other, than particles along the outer edges of the sphere. In other words, the more massive solids live at the center, just like Earth.

This sets up a frequency of sorts due to equal velocity and constant motion, whereby their orbital diameter is in direct relation to their collisions per unit of time. The more collisions per time, the smaller the orbit. The smaller the orbit, the more of them that can fit into a volume of space. Thus, the more massive the object.

Due to the only interaction being a one on one collision, mass would be a product of collisions per second within a massive object. It would take an object with equal collisions per second to move another object. The lower the frequency of the individuals in the group, the more of them needed to act upon the more compact higher frequency object to equal it's mass. It takes a bigger loaf of bread to move a smaller stone.

Due to all of this inward retraction of orbital loss within the sphere, a type of kenetic gravity is formed from the inward motion of all of the particles, and being as the particles are at tremendous maximum speeds in relation to the relatively slow changes of the sphere which they form, electromagnitism would be seemingly observable when there is a sudden change within the near equalibrium by a particle suddenly changing it's orbital diameter, whereby, every particle which would have collided with it and the ones that would have collided with them, are all effected at the speed of "light". They all shift their orbits to maintain collision, because the particles they would have collided with at the outer edges of their orbits have now beed allowed to move closer or further to the source of the disturbance.

I also explain my thought on percieved magnatism, within my theory, which is the source that would allow disturbances of orbits which allows a rift through the system at max speed, and I relate all of this to Einstein's relativity.

At this point I have explained the strong force, gravity, electromagnatism, and weak force, which could be any gradual change due to a drift in collision or trajectory of any sized group, and no magic was necessary.

To further allow me to try to persuade you to see the world through my eyes, I would only ask that you fully read my theory before you make suggestions to me on how much further I have to go with it. I don't feel a wave formation can describe what I just did as elegantly or simply in that few words. I'm not knocking them. I just feel that the "minimal fundamental properties" of a system with absolute motion isn't a wave of any kind. It's a particle.

I am only asking that you give my thoughts a chance. I am most positive that you will see problems with the system I've presented, but at least your judging me on the right system now. For you to accuse me of needing forces within my system assures me that you either haven't read it, or I didn't explain it well enough, and if that is the case I appologize. I will try to do better.

That being said, if you really choose to help me, please fully read and at least try to comprehend what I present, at which point, I will take any advice you offer with the utmost respect and humility, because I do feel as though you have much to offer. I just think you were a little quick to judge what I was presenting. If you find that the interactions I describe contradict in some way or are inadmissable, I would love to further this discussion with someone of your obvious intelligence.

[dleviwing]

1..