[dipayankar]

Hi Dave, I could not understand the phrase ' it cannot move in nay other direction...an absolute void.'

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Tim; I’ve moved JAK’s and your post from Antonio’s for you. Now to add to your reply to JAK, any uniform motion through space will only assist the condensing of FS at the core of a sun or BH. If an object is moving at a velocity of “absolute motion” it cannot move in any other direction even though it can occupy the 3 dimensions in space or in an absolute void. Even in my theory Tim, a particle condenses to wave symmetry (high frequency short wavelength) until it no longer has harmonics associated within it. This requires angular momentum to sustain it as a particle. I believe neutrinos are good examples of such particles. If you would like to get an idea of the math, just assume “Absolute Motion” is twice the speed of light and make a graph of motion changing from 2c linear to 2c angular or vibrational motion. Consider the area swept out by the change to represent energy; you’ll see why E=mc2 works. Energy is a measure of the change of the distrubution of absolute motion.

[analog]

There was some discussion here just a few posts back about absolute zero; so I decided to copy some of our conversation from the thread Heat Theorem to this one, being as it addresses that topic as it pertains to an absolute motion framework.

Originally Posted by dleviwing The thing is Antony, if something is still in a structured state (atom or subatomic particle) it cannot be at “ABSOLUTE ZERO”. True absolute zero would destroy all physical atomic structure resulting in no more than one degree of freedom. Fermi condensates suggest the same thing. Our interpretation of what is absolute zero is wrong.

Originally Posted by analog hey Dave, Within your framework, wouldn't this be related to the acceleration of a structured formation (massive body) as it neared light speed? And wouldn't the initial state of your fundamental substance been at absolute zero (before the initial collision)?

Originally Posted by dleviwing Tim; Yes, that’s how I interpret the math; of course you can also say it’s just my opinion but I think the math speaks for itself. (Relativity and QM both) BTW: much faster than light speed is required.

Originally Posted by analog hey Dave, I agree that the normal interpretation of absolute zero is wrong; and I agree with your interpretation. The fundamental structures within the center of massive bodies (stars), wouldn't they be closer to absolute zero than those without, or is that just my interpretation from my framework?

Originally Posted by analog I have a bad habit of referring to "light speed" as the max speed limit. Perhaps I should have said "as it neared absolute velocity".

Originally Posted by dleviwing Tim; That’s a good analogy but no matter how massive a star is, it cannot reduce structure to only one degree of freedom. The best you could have is a neutron cluster core or in the case of black-holes, symmetry particle clusters. (angular momentum rather than linear velocity absolute motion) Let’s not steal Antony’s thread.

Originally Posted by analog Hey Dave, I agree that, no matter how massive, it would never achieve the one degree of freedom veiwed as absolute linear velocity, I was just pointing out how weird it is to view the sun as having structured matter more near absolute zero at its center, more so than the rest of the structured matter within the solar system. I've stated this in a thread before, and I figured it sounded retarded to others. It would seem that an increased fundamental medium density lowers the needed linear velocity required, which would allow for absolute zero (one degree of freedom) to be obtained, but it doesn't help due to the complications of further accelerating a formation once it gets that massive. This should be related to a conservation law. Anyway, I'll post any further comments to your thread Dave; sorry Antonio.

[joshua]

Interesting question, is there such a thing as absolute rest. Can matter achieve absolute zero and have no movement? If it could, would it condense upon itself? I believe the answer is no, except maybe before the big bang but I think there was even movement then too. In my understanding, all matter continously decays from a charge independent electromagnetic field into a monopole gravitational field creating the enviorment of time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization for each reference frame. Time, and space are continuous actions of a continuous process of each discrete piece of matter and gravitational wave synchronization locally controls the laws of physics such as modulating the constant speed of radiation as it enters the density dependent reference frame. Universally, gravitational wave synchronization controls the continous actions of space itself which is an elongating and flattening of space. So in conclusion, there is no absolute rest both locally and universally.

[dipayankar]

In my opinion, if matter came to a standstill, it would explode because of the creation of some kind of a stock energy. This is probably what happened before the big bang.

Originally Posted by joshua Interesting question, is there such a thing as absolute rest. Can matter achieve absolute zero and have no movement? If it could, would it condense upon itself? I believe the answer is no, except maybe before the big bang but I think there was even movement then too. In my understanding, all matter continously decays from a charge independent electromagnetic field into a monopole gravitational field creating the enviorment of time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization for each reference frame. Time, and space are continuous actions of a continuous process of each discrete piece of matter and gravitational wave synchronization locally controls the laws of physics such as modulating the constant speed of radiation as it enters the density dependent reference frame. Universally, gravitational wave synchronization controls the continous actions of space itself which is an elongating and flattening of space. So in conclusion, there is no absolute rest both locally and universally.

[analog]

Originally Posted by joshua Interesting question, is there such a thing as absolute rest. Can matter achieve absolute zero and have no movement? If it could, would it condense upon itself? I believe the answer is no, except maybe before the big bang but I think there was even movement then too. In my understanding, all matter continously decays from a charge independent electromagnetic field into a monopole gravitational field creating the enviorment of time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization for each reference frame. Time, and space are continuous actions of a continuous process of each discrete piece of matter and gravitational wave synchronization locally controls the laws of physics such as modulating the constant speed of radiation as it enters the density dependent reference frame. Universally, gravitational wave synchronization controls the continous actions of space itself which is an elongating and flattening of space. So in conclusion, there is no absolute rest both locally and universally.

Hello Dr. Josh,

I'm glad to here more from you. I am very interested in seeing more of your entire theory and look forward to discussing it with you.

I don't keep this thread up much, and most of my views are scattered out across this forum, and some have even slightly changed from time to time, but my blog (analog's blog), condenses most of my thoughts under certain topics and gives a link to my original framework, which I haven't updated lately.

Dave and I use the term absolute zero very untraditionally due to our absolute motion perspectives, whereby it represents a maximum linear velocity of the fundamental Aether through the void (absolute uniform one degree of freedom motion). I'm currently discussing with him the possibility that this could be also viewed as the maximum condensed state of the Aether perpedicular to the direction of travel, whereby our seemingly current state of expansion originated, now that randomized motion (varying degrees of freedom) has begun.

The spectrum created from absolute uniform motion (pre bang/collision event) to absolute random motion, has the potential to explain all of our observable phenomena such as: time, temperature, gravity, electromagnetism, autonomous structured matter, action at a distance, etc.

I agree, motion is absolute, and it is the disribution of which that gives rise to our visible world.

Here are some threads I would recommend for further explaination, none of which are very long.

Dave's (dleviwing) Toronic Concepts Blog

Dave's Toronic Concepts Thread

Time Tubes and Cones

regards,

Tim

[analog]

Originally Posted by dipayankar In my opinion, if matter came to a standstill, it would explode because of the creation of some kind of a stock energy. This is probably what happened before the big bang.

Hey Dip,

I don't think it's possible for motion to cease. It is the randomized direction of the absolute motion that causes the fundamental Aether to increase expansion in seemingly all directions and to decrease in linear uniform motion and velocity. The fundamental Aether will move, it is how and where (direction) autonomous volumes of it moves that is the key.

regards,

Tim

[joshua]

Originally Posted by analog Hey Dip, I don't think it's possible for motion to cease. It is the randomized direction of the absolute motion that causes the fundamental Aether to increase expansion in seemingly all directions and to decrease in linear uniform motion and velocity. The fundamental Aether will move, it is how and where (direction) autonomous volumes of it moves that is the key. regards, Tim

first you have to understand the mechanism and the physical laws, parameters, of the system, in this case the universe. Can motion completely stop? What causes it in the first place? What happens when energy is completely used up? What is left? If you can answer these questions then you know the answer.

When motion stops only space is left, one dimensional space, and the real question is, "Does one dimensional space, space with out energy, collapse into a bound particle and start the process of gravitational wave decay all over again?

[mkirkpatrick]

Absolute rest (motionlessness) lies within the Absolute and is absolute,motion can only
exist within a relative universe,never in the absolute.The very implication of "motion"
(that there is somewhere to move to)Is seen as absurd when understood as being
ominipresent,when you are wholly present "everywhere" at the same instant,then
where the hell could you move to where you were not already occupying?????




regards michael.

[joshua]

The universe is like a ball of string unwinding, mass and energy are the balls of string and space is the unwinding string. Now since two or more objects cannot occupy the same point with in an area, unwinding of string synchronization takes place. With radiation, frequency and wavelenght do not change so the change is a zipper like effect which results in the bending of matter to join other matter along a plane. This is the nature of the process of matter decaying via the gravitational wave. It is the fundemental nature of the universe itself, that all matter decays into the gravitational wave and all waves synchronize via constructive wave interference into a plane. Since the gravitational wave is a monopole, non binding wave ( this concept is for Dip) then only wave interference applies and not any interaction with mass or energy) so no reflection, refraction, absorbtion only synchronization. Each piece of mass or energy is its own time/ space generating reference frame. So motion cannot stop until all the potential energy is convereted to kinetic energy.

[joshua]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Absolute rest (motionlessness) lies within the Absolute and is absolute,motion can only exist within a relative universe,never in the absolute.The very implication of "motion" (that there is somewhere to move to)Is seen as absurd when understood as being ominipresent,when you are wholly present "everywhere" at the same instant,then where the hell could you move to where you were not already occupying????? regards michael.

i am defining movement as change in form, potential to kinetic energy transfer. You hinted on another point too. I see space as finite but expanding and flattening. You might say that it has to expand into something? I say no, and this no relates to the defination of nothing. I believe the concept of nothing means non existent. Since then nothing doesn't exist, there can't be a void of nothing. There is nothing outside of space, and space is the unwinding gravitational wave which is synchronizing from three dimensional matter to a one dimensional line. Time and space are wave functions of this process and wave synchronization is both local, gravity, and long distance, the change in the shape of space itself, elongating and flattening. Well good luck with the adjustment to change in every defination. If it is any consellation the amount of over matter doesn't change. Mass and energy become space as a puddle of water becomes humidity.