[joshua]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Doc (Joshua); Good to see you’ve returned to us but you could have used your old account; it’s still active. You and Tim seem to actually be talking somewhat about the same thing but just using different terminologies. The best way to visualize space (Aether) is as a pure void filled with fundamental matter in a state of randomized EM waves; (chaotic motion of the fundamental substance). The process that causes expansion and condensation of the fundamental matter in this state of motion is the constructive and destructive wave interference. This results in destructive interference or expansion, and constructive interference or virtual particle. The wave functions of particles are less chaotic and thus form wave symmetry consisting of fundamental and harmonic waves that are locally confined by the angular momentum of the particles. We call the constructive and destructive interference of these waves, attraction and repulsion and the influence of these waves on the spatial environment as their charge. Wave symmetry is another type of uniform motion and thus it results in a condensing of the fundamental matter; the shorter the wavelength, the greater the condensing and stronger the bonding of the fundamental substance of the universe. The main thing to keep in mind is that uniform motion allows the fundamental bonding property of the fundamental substance to become more effective resulting in the condensing of the substance; another way to view it is that uniform motion is the cause of “mass” and thus mass is a measure of uniform motion of an object; rest mass and relative mass therefore are actually caused by the same thing; uniform motion. The matter of our universe cannot be at “absolute rest”; it can only be in a state of “absolute motion”; conservation laws rely on this fundamental concept even though science has yet to realize it. The terms “mass” and “energy” are both measures of matter in motion; only the types of motion are different.

Hi dleviwing,
Hey thanks, and if I wasn't so absent minded I would have come back as Doc but i have been so busy I sometimes don't know up from down. I guess you could say I am "dysspinlexic".
You are right and I am having a little fun just trying to understand the flaws in both understandings, mine too.
I really like free thinkers who have actually thought out the problems with their understanding ahead of time and have the ability to be cross examined and come away with knowing their own material better as I sometimes have.
The approaches that Analog and I take are intrigingly different and I am not sure we are completly on the same page. Simply stated I see the universe decreasing in dimensions from a three dimensionmal partical to a wave. I see that there is no void at all. I define nothing as non existence therefore since space exists it is something and cannot be a void. I define time as an energy process with a beginning, middle and end. Which could also be equally defined as a motion process with a beginning, middle and end.
The key difference is that I am taking the position of the noun and Analog is taking the position of the verb. I really like that ying and yang.
I am exploring the differences as long as Analog will have me or until I see something that doesn't make sense.
I define absolute and relative time and space as aspects of wave functions of all quanta of matter decaying from electromagnetic fields into a monopole gravitational field. I see field science as the answer to the more complex problems such as protective life supporting fields to block radiation in space from harming human life as we adventure out of our earthly womb. To a certain degree I understand the nature of strong bonds, weak bonds, and density dependent electromagnetic bonds which I understand from only my prespective. I do only see the universe in three dimensions and I consider time and space verbs, actions, motion of a process and not a demension as I do not consider the act of plotting a graph a seperate dimension, it too is the action of a process.
Since I have been gone I have deeply defined my lack of understanding of the nature of my own understanding of "Gravitational wave synchronization" and I have done so by exploring the Huygens' principle and its deficiencies as related to Newton's "for every action there is an..."
Anyhow, it is good to be back and who knows what my old password was anyhow but thank the ToeQuest emperor for letting me back on with a different name and password using the same email. I really am absent minded outside of my pillowy box.

[joshua]

I see the biggest difference between what I have come to understand and this theory is that I work from describing the noun. I believe the universe has a beginning, middle, and end, it tells a story. The mechanism that creates the fundamental reason for motion is that all matter is made up of one thing and that one thing started with maximum potential energy and critical mass of monopole bonds build up as the one thing was driven by its fundamental law, the spring was ready to be sprung, potential energy is driven to kinetic energy. Once the initial critical stage happened, rapid decay, the big bang, (no physical laws were violated, but they were being established) then matter as known bonded into multipoles the create mass and energy but the decay continued as now a slow decay. Fast decay created space via the gravitational wave and slow decay creates space and it is how we actually measure time. Space and time are functions of this continious process of matter decaying via the gravitational wave creating and adding to space itself. The creating to and adding to space itself, the gravitational wave is an orderly process and in itself is governed by synchronization of waves which creates such properties as gravity, the increase in acceleration of the universe, F=MxA where the force is constant and Mass is decreasing. Google black hole evaporation as an example. Time, and space are created and governed locally by each piece of matter which explains the constant speed of all radiation as it changes reference frames at different initial source speeds. Now this is over simplified, fifth grade, but it is the way I like it visualize. So I do agree with absolute motion, but i see the reason as the gravitational wave trying to escape being bound.

[dipayankar]

I have an idea that during Big Bang for a split second, motion came to a stop...

Originally Posted by joshua If you could image that the universe is running on the on a concept of bound matter decaying unbound matter, particle decaying into wave then the only instance that motion ceases is the beginning and the end. Now some people cannot acknowledge the strong possibility that the universe is increasing its accelerating expansion rate because that means to them the the universe cannot recycle. Unfortunately they do not understand the very nature of three concepts, energy, attraction and repulsion because if they did then they would understand why matter condenses and under what type of basic principles energy loss = attraction and underwhat principles energy loss = repulsion. It is when there is full attraction and full repulsion of matter, including space itself that motion stops. Unfortunately no one will be around as an observer.

[analog]

Originally Posted by joshua You make a lot of assumptions such as the existence of a void. Your are basically stating that motion changes dimension and therefore time and space. I don't buy it but okay let's say I am wrong. I do see simular aspects as I understand but I don't see others.

Show me a theory of our universe that makes no assumptions and I'll show you a theory that makes no explainations. It's the theory that makes the least amount of assumptions while agreeing with the maximum amount of observable data that I feel will be the closest to the truth that we will ever know.

The void is to allow for the initial state of absolute linear motion by giving the aether a medium to linearly move through, whereby allowing for the conservation of motion. The aether is allowed to move less linearly as it currently expands. It's a needed entity and it isn't just suggested for no apparent reason.

The dimensions that I am referring to are the three measurable proportions of matter/aether and I think that a change in these dimensions due to motion/acceleration (which would be a change from more random motion to more uniform linear motion) was first suggested by George FitzGerald, Hendrik Lorentz, and Einstein's Relativity.

Relativity suggests the dialation of mechanical relative time, but as Dave puts it so well; "It's the clock that dialates", which further relates our mechanical measurement of time to motion.

Another suggestion of Relativity is the curvature of space, and if the initial event/collision/bang caused an expansion from a planck diameter (smallest diameter allowable) leading edge of an absolutely linearly moving aether, due to absolute linear velocity causing a maximum condensation perpendicular to the linear direction of motion which also causes a trailing volume equivalent to the total universal amount of aether; and the universe/entire aether still maintains a degree of linear motion; then I could see an interpretation of curved space as central volumes, which maintained the initial direction, would lead other volumes, which spread increasingly perpendicular to the initial direction as the universe/aether expanded; and being as the amount of spatial curvature and the amount of external time/change converted to internal time/change as the universe linearly slowed is relative to, and manifested by, the current state of motion, then I could possibly understand a perception of space-time. I'm currently giving this further thought.

Originally Posted by joshua Since we know that gravitation can act as acceleration and acceleration act as gravitation.

The floor of Einstein's elevator is imposing direction on the fundamental constituents that form the objects within the elevator, whereby it is imposing uniform linear velocity/direction upon an object whose fundamental motions are more random. The cable that pulls the elevator does the same thing to it. This is the process of transferring direction which allows for an increase in uniform motion.

Electromagnetism takes place at the most fundamental resolution of the aether, by means of the constructive/destructive method Dave referred to, as attraction and repulsion are actually spatial changes within the aether between structured matter due to uniform and random (chaotic) motion. The intensity at which this occurs would be a measure of charge.

As the fundamentals form autonomous volumes, these volumes gather to form objects, which gather to form planets, stars, etc. As these autonomous volumes gather to form ever larger bodies as their proximity condenses, the seemingly small spatial/electromagnetic fluctuations of the individual seemingly autonomous constituents are amplified throughout the entire formation whereby a massive amount of spatial fluctuations take place due to the motion density of the massive body and its increasing ability to affect its proximity to other massive bodies as it increasingly draws in surrounding structured matter. A planet is a representation of linear reacceleration from random chaotic motion of the apparent surrounding "space" to a linearly uniform moving massive body as perceived "gravity" acts upon this larger scale as the randomly moving spatial density also increases around a massive object such as a planet.

Originally Posted by joshua Let me understand, say as a fifth grader would how you explain the fact that I would age slightly quicker on Mount Everest than I would in Death Valley?

I'll have to think about ageing as it relates to altitude. I would in-turn ask that you explain relativity, using your views, to the fifth grader's teacher, which should allow for a more in-depth explaination.

Originally Posted by joshua You are right and I am having a little fun just trying to understand the flaws in both understandings, mine too.

I am enjoying our conversations also.

Originally Posted by joshua I really like free thinkers who have actually thought out the problems with their understanding ahead of time and have the ability to be cross examined and come away with knowing their own material better as I sometimes have.

I do too, and I've learned far more about my views by trying to explain them to others than I have by trying to explain them to myself.

Originally Posted by joshua The approaches that Analog and I take are intrigingly different and I am not sure we are completly on the same page. Simply stated I see the universe decreasing in dimensions from a three dimensionmal partical to a wave. I see that there is no void at all......

Let me try to relate our views as I currently see them. I feel you see the universe as one-directional, as if it were in a constant state of decay or a constant irreversable decrease in entropy. This would possibly agree with thermodynamics, but would also cause the belief of an end to motion as you have suggested.

I recall you suggesting that this could possibly cause the condensation back to a singularity type beginning whereby this may happen all over again, if not then the remaining existence of our universe would be static to form.

You view structured matter as the mechanism for decay/destruction as your universe is unidirectional until it reaches the end, which you suggest it may could then miraculously have a property that never took part until the end.

Dave and I view structured matter as the mechanism for formation/construction. Our universe isn't unidirectional; it's bidirectional, in my opinion. The spatial aspect of the universe has been in a state of decay/destruction since the initial event/collision/bang, which instantaneously changed absolute uniform motion to random chaotic motion, but even random motion has varying levels of condensation, whereby perceived space can be more or less dense.

The self affinity Dave refers to is the mechanism which allows for the reversal of the perceived entropy which dooms your theory to a static end. If the aether decayed symmetrically from uniform to random motion, no volumes would become autonomous and no structured matter would be perceived, but due to constructive wave interference/uniform motion, whereby the self affinity property is allowed to increase, varying degrees of uniform motion emerges from the more randomly moving medium whereby seemingly autonomous structured matter is manifested, as the spatial medium surrounding it becomes proportionally dense.

I veiw galaxies as the change in the spatial medium density (varying degrees/densities of random motion) which allows for the formation of structured matter (varying degrees/densities of uniform motion). It takes an increasingly dense medium of random motion to reach the stage whereby motion eventually becomes uniform, allowing for the autonomous structured matter which forms elements, stars, planets, etc; the reacceleration of the entire universe as "space" represents the deceleration.

Originally Posted by joshua I am exploring the differences as long as Analog will have me or until I see something that doesn't make sense.

You're invited to stay and exchange ideas on this thread as long as you like. I don't mind debating varying opinions just as long as we both remain open minded. I truly am giving your ideas the attention I feel they deserve and I do respect them because of the obvious time you've spent learning our world.

Originally Posted by joshua I see the biggest difference between what I have come to understand and this theory is that I work from describing the noun....

I see the biggest difference as being; you hold to a unidirectional universal view where all things (matter) are decaying from a higher energy state with no mechanism to reverse this direction, which I feel could explain the expansion of space from structured matter, but wouldn't allow for certain explainations of observable phenomena such as: explaining both attraction and repulsion, the concepts of relativity as your matter can only decay and an increase in acceleration wouldn't allow it to condense whereby defining the mechanism for relativity, etc; and I hold to a bidirectional view whereby the expansion of space was caused by the initial event/collision/bang, but the formation of structured matter from unstructured "space" is the evidence of an attempt to regain the initial state of absolute uniform linear motion. Changes in acceleration by imposed direction allow for the expansion and contraction of the surrounding medium of structured and unstructured matter. I feel that this would allow for the conservation of all things, whereby there could never be "absolute rest", which is the prediction of your views.

regards,

Tim

[analog]

Hello Dave,

I'm glad to see you back with us and I hope you're feeling better. Feel free to jump in and give us more of your much appreciated insight.

regards,

Tim

[dleviwing]

Hi Tim;
The question Joshua posed about aging is quite simple to answer; just as linear velocity will slow down a physical clock it will also slow down the rate of chemical reactions and thus the process of aging.

Currently science tends to view the process of cooling as reducing the motion of an object and thus it is viewed as removing the energy from it. Heat is randomized motion and the process of cooling is simply converting random motion to uniform motion; most of this is simply synchronizing the vibrations of the atomic structures to form wave symmetry type uniform motion. In reality though, there is nothing removed from the object by cooling; it has exactly the same amount of energy and motion it had before it was cooled. Those who tend to point out thermodynamics should realize that all thermo processes must be reduced to motion or degree of freedom rather than an abstract scale of temperature.

[analog]

Hey Dave,

I was leaning towards a similar answer about ageing, but I haven't given much thought to what ageing actually is. I need to learn more about biology and chemistry, because I feel I would probably find some interesting knowledge as it related to my views about our universe.

My first instinct would be that a higher altitude along a similar latitude would define an increase in linear velocity due to being further from the center of the rotational axis, but an accelerated linear velocity would be a slowing in apparent ageing relative to a person more near the center of the rotational axis (an extremely small scale twin paradox of relativity).

Thus, I guess we are disagreeing with Josh's question as he views an accelerated ageing caused by an obvious linear acceleration due to moving further from the center of the rotational axis, but this would be in conflict with Relativity.

[joshua]

“The Scientific Method
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory.
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.” - Google

I assume that you understand time dilation as explained by Einstein’s relativity. Lightly stated, an oscillating clock would have two times, absolute to the person (A) that never left the clocks side, and relative to anyone observing person (B) because the speed of light is constant so the variable that changes to the observer person (B) is time, the reason is that the oscillations per unit distance traveled or generated frequency is the essence of measurable time in each reference.


Now, to make a long story short, with this understanding of time being a function of a generated wave frequency, and here is where I could babble forever with scientific method as previously stated in “Solving the puzzle pieces”. The only way time can actually dilate is if it is a function of a generated wave of person (a) relative to the observer person (b). Now this is also directly related to difference in amount of generated wave frequency too. In other words, if two twin observers traveled away from each other at a combined speed of c, neither would see an age change because there masses are identical. So their amount of generated gravitational waves and their wave synchronizations are equal.

If time and space are actually functions of a generated wave, as sound is a function of a generated wave, then time and space should change similar to how sound waves change when similar situations are shown.


For example, if I can travel at the speed of generated sound at the starting point of the Boston Symphony Orchestra as they start to play, I would never here their music; to me it is as if they never started. I could record what I heard and when I compared with them as I traveled at the Orchestra’s speed of music creation.

Now applying this concept to relativity, If I travel at the speed of the gravitational wave being emitted from the Earth and the frequency of emitted wave is the essence of time as the frequency of emitted wave is the essence of sound in the previous paragraph then on the trip away from the earth, in a straight line I have not aged relative to the Earth because I am traveling at the Earth’s speed of time creation.

It is truly a simple deduction to relate time and sound to commonalities, they both have points of origin, potential to kinetic energy transfers, and they both come in a generated wave form.

This is but one tidbit of the reasoning I whittled away to understand that all matter, mass and energy, bound generates its own ether, space and time, and ether (gravitational wave) synchronization (constructive wave interference) is the reason for the reference frame controlling the constant speed of light and gravity and inertia, etc…..

[joshua]

Originally Posted by analog Hey Dave, I was leaning towards a similar answer about ageing, but I haven't given much thought to what ageing actually is. I need to learn more about biology and chemistry, because I feel I would probably find some interesting knowledge as it related to my views about our universe. My first instinct would be that a higher altitude along a similar latitude would define an increase in linear velocity due to being further from the center of the rotational axis, but an accelerated linear velocity would be a slowing in apparent ageing relative to a person more near the center of the rotational axis (an extremely small scale twin paradox of relativity). Thus, I guess we are disagreeing with Josh's question as he views an accelerated ageing caused by an obvious linear acceleration due to moving further from the center of the rotational axis, but this would be in conflict with Relativity.

Well yes and no, it agrees with the observable conclusion, mathmatically, of relativity, but it does explain the true mechanism behind why the mathmatics work. So I guess, as Einstein saw how the math worked and put everything together, conceptually, he just wasn't in true form. He says Matter warps time and space, I say matter, each discrete quanta of matter, creates its own time and space, via the gravitational wave and gravitation and relativity are all about constructive and destructive density dependent wave interferences as they relate to overall "Gravitational wave Synchronization".

Where is John William's when I could use a Orchastral finish? (Ha, Ha)

[analog]

I say the warpage/density increase/condensation of space (unstructured randomly moving EM waves of aether) by means of time (transpired/elapsed motion), as the destructive interference becomes constructive, gives rise to the formation/condensation of matter (structured uniformly moving autonomous volumes of aether); thus, any loss of uniform motion once matter becomes autonomously structured causes the process to reverse; whereby emitting unstructured EM waves as space once again expands.

I think you would view this as gravitational waves which give rise to time, and if you were to surf uniformly to one as it left the Earth, then you wouldn't catch the one in front of you and no other one emitted by the Earth would pass you by; you wouldn't receive informational change by means of EM waves.

I see no problem with this thought experiment, but, in my opinion, absolute time is still a product of absolute motion, and the linear acceleration of a massive object to such a velocity as to surf an EM wave would cause the further condensation of that object due to uniform linear motion as it neared the velocity of the EM wave, which is why the clock dilates along with its increments of measure (relative time).