[analog]

Dleviwing,

Well, I'm glad to see we've reached the point in our conversation where you typically offend someone and they get all mad, say some nasty things back to you, and seek conversation elsewhere. (I've seen some of your posts.)

However, I said that I would take any remarks with the utmost respect and humility, and that's what I intend to do. There is little doubt in my mind that within your field, I'll never win an argument with you, anyway. Even if I could produce a valid point to you, I feel as though it would only force you further into combat mode, and that's not what I want. I came here to share ideas and learn. Believe it or not, I've read many books and articles in relation to the link you provided for me. I apologize to you for not being able to converse on your level, but I think I understand your position.

You seem to be someone who has spent the majority of his life in sheer devotion to understanding, and through your determination you have reached a point of satisfaction in that you feel you've reached a point of enlightenment. It is only understandable that when an apparent novice like myself, who appears to have put no time to your passions, comes along with their own ideas of how things work, how you could easily have very little patients with them. I would and will probably be the same way someday. I'm sure you also see your bluntness as probably the truest form of help, in a tough love sort of way.

I'm not angry at all, and I can tell by your post that you have little interest in conferring with me anymore, due to my lack of ambition to learn the craft, which you hold so dear. I only hope you understand that my lack of ability to put my thoughts into acceptable words is no reflection on the amount of time or energy I've put into learning my world, and though I chose to put more of my time into learning through my own mind, rather than allowing others to tell me how things are according to them, I merely thought that to be the best way to further myself, because last I checked, no one had all the answers just yet.

Just to show I'm a good sport, I would like to make an attempt at humor and share an analogy of the way I see our three views on the interactions of matter at the fundamental level. The views being mine, yours, and current popular opinion. I hope you at least find it funny, but somehow I feel that it will only go further to annoy you. That is not my intentions I assure you. I honestly respect your views as I hope you do mine, not because of them being right or wrong, but because of the amount of effort I know we both must have in them, even if mine seems to show little effort to you. Sincerely, thanks for giving me your time and reading my ideas and giving me your honest opinion. I needed it. Here's my story. Don't take it seriously, cause I don't. I'm just using it to check your sense of humor.

Two aliens sat on their planet many light years away, looking through a very powerful telescope, trying to find life within the universe. They had nothing in their environment that resembled anything within our world except for the similar creation of a telescope. It wasn't long before they came across a dark spot blocking the light from a distant star, so they locked in on it and began to adjust the focus of their massive telescope further and further bringing their view through layers of darkness until they could start to see things apparently moving on the surface of the dark side of the planet.

“Jjlskdklaskdjldsa” said the one alien to the other.

Surely you didn't think an alien could talk English. Let me interpret. I speak fluent alien.

(Translation) “That definitely must be some form of life, the one alien said to the other as they viewed an apparent massive object moving across the surface of the planet. It was much longer than it was wide and was surrounded in a dim lit glow that faded as it extended out.”

As they watched, a smaller formation of apparent life, was following close behind the first with similar characteristics.

They continued to focus their telescope, until they could barely start to see that the objects were made up of what appeared to be ever smaller objects, and they could see divisions between them with some type of surface which they all seemed to travel on.

Being as these aliens where very intelligent, they began to ponder what properties that life formation must have to look and behave like it does, and it didn't take the first one long before he pronounced his conclusion.

“They must be sharing some type of bond between their units. How else would you explain their formation and the unison of their motion. This bond must be strong to hold them all together, but it must only work at short distances, else the other formation of life, traveling further back, would be pulled over there also to form a larger formation.”

“I don't think that's how it works.” said the other alien. “I've been noticing that surface which seems to divide them and gives them something to travel on. They must all be formed by some sort of interactions within that surface. Therefore, they too are a part of that surface. They are merely different densities of it or something. I think this would be a better explanation, because everywhere they are, you can also see that strange surface.”

It was at this very moment that they saw a relatively small object, about the size of one of the individual units that make up the larger formations of life, as it set relatively motionless to the others as they passed by. They continued to focus in on that object a little more and a little more, until they saw another smaller object moving around within.

That object was me, as I waited for two separate caravans of cars, one large and one small, each traveling near exact speeds relative to their group, to pass me by as I sat on the side of the road, before I got out to change my flat tire.

[mkirkpatrick]

Morning Analog,I have just had a long relative rest in bed,and am having a lazy breakfast
when I saw your thread loom up at me from out of nowhere.

So i thought to myself,why not post here before your next cup of tea!Well here goes.


Absolute rest is an absolute reality for the Absolute,however we mistakenly think that
we are relative and in so doing wrongly imagine that (movement)is a reality,which of
course it is NOT!

Our main problem is one of FALSE INDENTIFCATON,we falsely think we are relative,then,
we invent equations relating to this illusion and then WONDER why we become confused!!!!!


We need to re evaluate our indentifcations,realise that we are all absolute being,then when this Dawns upon our weary brains we will then "Know Absolute rest"?

regards michael.

[analog]

Good morning to you too, Michael

Thanks for giving me your opinions. How would your ideas relate to the obvious changes in proximity we call motion, such as our movements on Earth and it's movements in relation to the sun.

You seem to hold similar views as Nobody, and for some reason I have the most trouble understanding the logic, which you follow. That isn't to say, I think it's wrong. On the contrary, unlike some, I don't think I hold a monopoly on how this all works.

Would this imply that you believe reality is made up of absolute motionless frames and our interpretations of motion are a product of time passing from frame to frame? This would be sort of like a cartoon is made, as the pages flip from one still frame to the other. Perhaps, time being the hand that flips the pages?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by analog Good morning to you too, Michael Thanks for giving me your opinions. How would your ideas relate to the obvious changes in proximity we call motion, such as our movements on Earth and it's movements in relation to the sun. You seem to hold similar views as Nobody, and for some reason I have the most trouble understanding the logic, which you follow. That isn't to say, I think it's wrong. On the contrary, unlike some, I don't think I hold a monopoly on how this all works. Would this imply that you believe reality is made up of absolute motionless frames and our interpretations of motion are a product of time passing from frame to frame? This would be sort of like a cartoon is made, as the pages flip from one still frame to the other. Perhaps, time being the hand that flips the pages?

That is a most novel and excellent way of putting it Analog,I could well go along
with that.


regards michael.

[analog]

If this is the case, we have two options for time. It is either universal or local. If it is local to a system, such as a galaxy, time could loose it's symmetry, because the rate at which the pages flipped in one galaxy would be independent of the rate at which they flipped in another galaxy, as if their separate still frames were drawn on two separate sheets of paper and flipped independently.

If time must show symmetry between the two, their still frames and all of the still frames within existence must be drawn on the same page. This would allow one flip to change all of their frames instantaneously.

But what is the catalyst that causes them to be drawn ever so slightly different from frame to frame, whereby motion is thus percieved by our conscious mind?

Just to show that I am still trying to learn the views of others, I would be tempted to say that our friend Nobody would infer that there are many different pages and they are flipped out of sync, thus a break in symmetry. Therefore, this in itself is the catalyst for percieved motion. This would possibly allow them to not even necessarily be drawn ever so slightly different, their just flipped ever so slightly different. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't try to guess at what others would think. I'll just mess it up.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by analog If this is the case, we have two options for time. It is either universal or local. If it is local to a system, such as a galaxy, time could loose it's symmetry, because the rate at which the pages flipped in one galaxy would be independent of the rate at which they flipped in another galaxy, as if their separate still frames were drawn on two separate sheets of paper and flipped independently. If time must show symmetry between the two, their still frames and all of the still frames within existence must be drawn on the same page. This would allow one flip to change all of their frames instantaneously. But what is the catalyst that causes them to be drawn ever so slightly different from frame to frame, whereby motion is thus percieved by our conscious mind? Just to show that I am still trying to learn the views of others, I would be tempted to say that our friend Nobody would infer that there are many different pages and they are flipped out of sync, thus a break in symmetry. Therefore, this in itself is the catalyst for percieved motion. This would possibly allow them to not even necessarily be drawn ever so slightly different, their just flipped ever so slightly different. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't try to guess at what others would think. I'll just mess it up.

Not wanting to speak for Nobody,Hell i will just this once,yes I think he would say that
a break in symmetry would enable a re-shuffle so to speak to occur.

regards michael.

[dipayankar]

Good thread starter. For me if motion stops, then everything will disintegrate...

Originally Posted by analog is there such a thing as absolute rest in space, whereby matter or energy doesn't change it's absolute position in space/time? or are all things in perpetual motion in space, whereby they constantly change their absolute position in space/time and therefore would be impossible to hold in one space/time position over a universal maximum amount of time? i have my own opinions, just curious of others.

[dleviwing]

Sorry if you feel offended Tim but I see you understand that if you are going to play in someone else’s sandbox, you should at least be courteous enough to learn the rules; I’m sure you would expect no less of those who play in your sandbox. I think you would feel more offended if I were to suggest you use inferior cheap materials in your construction project as if they were superior to what you currently know and use.

Newton, Hertz, Faraday, Michelson, Galileo, Planck, Einstein, and many others are who you should be apologizing to; not me. The one thing I’ve found that virtually all scientist agree upon is: “The greater your knowledge, the more you realize how truly ignorant you are.” That’s why I wish I were still a teenager that knows everything.

Your story is charming but I like the one about the 4 blind scientist who are asked to describe an elephant; one by touching its trunk, one by touching its ear, one by touching its tail, and one by touching its leg. The one touching the trunk said it was like a large snake; the one touching the ear said it was like a large leaf; the one touching the leg said it was like a pillar; the one touching the tail said it was like a rope hanging down from heaven and when you pull on it the heavens open up and flood the earth with waste.

[analog]

Hello Dave,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you were the first to imply that your project was made of superior materials when you stated

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sure that Newton, Hertz, Faraday, Michelson, Galileo, Planck, Einstein, and many others would be pleased to know that they have a gate keeper such as yourself systematically ridding the world of nonconformist, and I'm sure that their life work was to form a system of proper terminology and communication etiquette, rather than trying to make since of the sandbox we all find ourselves in. I may not know the “rules”, but at least I don't piss in the sand.

To return the courtesy, I just got through reading all of your blog. I commend you on your attempts to bring understanding to the masses, and believe it or not I don't recall any terminology that I didn't understand. Even though I'm sure you could have tossed around abstract expressions that would have bewildered my simple mind, you chose to express yourself in the way you thought would convey the maximum amount of understand to those courteous enough to try to see the world through your eyes. That's all I was trying to do.

I would have at least thought that with all of your knowledge you would have, at the least, pointed out the one obvious fact about our separate works. They are polar opposites. We both admitted to the necessity for motion and used it to build a framework which would explain the apparent misconception of energy. It was at this point that we made the one choose that led us down the separate paths of logic we followed. We had two options. We either follow the logic of an aether or we follow the logic of a “void”.

Neither of these are an admittance to magic. When viewed in a system with no energy and absolute motion, they are in essence the answer to the question, does the smallest incremental motion of the most fundamental particle show it's effects immediately by creating a wave, or does it have a limited range of incremental motions that seemingly go unrecorded until contact is made. Whereby, the way I arranged my framework, the entire system is still effected, the effects are merely allowed to be out of phase rather than in all directions instantaneously.

We both started at a point and followed the path of logic wherever it took us. It is the foundations of our starting point that set us in different directions. You hold true to the common conception that there is no such thing as a “void”. Therefore, an aether of matter in randomized motion is the only acceptable solution, and where you have an aether, you have wave disturbances. This leads to questions of, how does ever more massive objects form within this “fluid”? The only logical conclusions would then be those you've described. We could change the motions which would allow for the apparent creation of matter from nothing, but it didn't come from nothing it merely started to move in unison. Thus, perceived electromagnetism is when the motions become randomized again. This implies that the aether expands and contracts in relation to the current state of matter. This would set up a calculable framework of how wave motions form ever larger formations. I'm sure your work on this must be exhausting as I can imagine the variables presented by wave interactions to form our world.

With this way of thinking, any implication that there is a void between units of matter would definitely represent “magic”. However, I have chosen to take this uphill battle, despite it being an unpopular approach to solving our current problems with modern interpretations.

I can understand your reluctance to encourage my approach, but I would hope that you would understand my path of logic. Asking someone to imagine particles of matter surrounded by a void is no more magical than asking them to imagine a "fluid" that fills all voids. It's the interactions these frameworks represent that prove or disprove them, not our idea of what seems magical and what doesn't. The proof is in the pudding.

We both share the same views on energy, so this leads me in one direction, just as your path of logic led you. If a void surrounds fundamental particles of matter, and there is no magical energy to pass back and forth between them, which would allow for them to effect each other, they would presumably have to remain in motion, and the only way for them to effect each other would be contact. Just as your waves transmits your disturbances, my collisions give rise to larger formations within my system. With my interpretations of the effects of these collisions aside, I feel my logic is intact so far.

You're approach could very well be the more revealing and I do commend you on your representation of it. I learned a lot about how such a system would work by reading your blog, and I like to think that, had I chosen that path, I would have at least come up with similar conclusions, but your implications that it would have taken me thirty years to come to your conclusions is a little offensive. You merely followed a proper path of logic by starting at a foundation and working your way out. That's exactly how my mind works.

I am curious about your representation of magnetism within your system. If it was in your blog, just direct me to it and I'll look again, but I don't recall seeing it. I am also curious of the more inner workings of larger formations of matter, such as galaxies, stars, and planets. I do recall you stating that you hadn't updated your blog to the more complex wave interactions that would allow for this, so I guess I'm asking if that is in the works, because I do think it would make for good reading.

[dipayankar]

Thats healthy competition...