[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

Thanks again for the reply. I see what you are saying in your post, but I still would like to go further. I am asking these questions because I like people who think beyond the norm, they are rare, and you are one.

I see form(higher density substance) moving past unformed(lowest of density substance), but the substance itself has to have a boundary, or at least the ability to create a boundary in order for form to slide past unformed. When we picture water or air moving we know that atoms are moving past each other. When we get down to core substance we must use our imagination to picture infinitesimal boundary, in order for there to be separation of the formed from the unformed.

Of course we could say that the continuous substance creates boundary when it needs to, in order to move freely within the continuum. But, we still need to ask what would the edge of that boundary look like. No matter how much I think about it, I still come up with the conclusion that the core substance has to have a boundary. And if it has boundary then it must have volume and size. It will also have to have the ability to bond with other units of core substance.

Now the continuous substance consisting of units, with boundary of volume and size, would not in my mind interfere with the dynamics of FET. Except that the units would have to be fluid in order for no space to be left between the boundaries. What do you think Jim?

[Jimbo]

Hi Allen;

When I first considered energy to be a real substance I wondered how it could be structured so as to build into what I then thought were the three constituents of atoms. I have always considered that nature has fabricated everything in the simplest way using the minimum number of rules and starting with the simplest building blocks, most likely a single and fundamental particle.

I considered possible structures for a fundamental particle if everything were made from the same thing, i.e. energy. My first instincts were that when you considered smaller and smaller particles the volume they occupied would gradually increase until with infinitesimal particles they would occupy all space and therefore would effectively become a continuous substance.

The only way though that particles could fill all space is if they were cube shaped as these can be fitted tightly together along all faces. But a particle could only adopt a cubic shape if it had some complicated structure within it. The simplest particle shape that could possibly exist is the sphere but if you tried to pack spheres together then the best you could achieve is to fill only just over half of all space.

A cube with sides 1 unit length has a volume of 1 cubic units and the biggest sphere to fit inside this must have a radius of half a unit length and therefore a volume of 0.5235987… cubic units, i.e. just under 52.36% of the space inside a cube can be occupied by a single sphere. If we now replaced the single sphere with 1,000 identical spheres with diameters of 0.1 unit length, they would still only occupy 52.36% of the space within the cube. The only way to fill the cube with spherical particles would be to fit smaller spheres in the spaces left by the larger spheres and the spaces between these spheres by even smaller spheres but then this would require an infinite number of spheres of decreasing size. This is how I came to the conclusion that the only way to fill all space would be to have a single particle of infinite size; one that filled the whole universe.

But if the universe originally consisted of just one particle then it would have no boundaries which begs the question, how did it ever develop a system of boundaries whereupon matter, radiation and forces could evolve? When we normally think of boundaries we imagine that there are two different substances that cannot mix on either side of it, such as oil and water. But even a single substance can have boundaries, for example water can be in the form of ice, liquid and vapour with distinct boundaries between them. The difference between these three phases is down to there having different densities. Hence this is how I came to regard energy as being the only substance and that it could take on different forms by having different densities. This implies that in order to vary its density, some of the substance must be moved from one place to another; hence motion must exist in order to move energy around. Once you have motion you also get forces, which do the moving. Time is then a measure of the rate at which forces move energy around.

So we can have boundaries within a single substance simply by having different densities. One way to see this is to consider an extended spring, as in figure 6a of book 1. The spring itself has the familiar boundary between itself and the surrounding air because they are different materials (but not different substances according to FET). Now when the spring is compressed by a sudden forward movement of the hand, a compression wave moves along the spring. At any instant we can see a boundary between the relaxed regions of the spring and the compression wave.

In this example there is no actual transfer of matter from one end of the spring to the other and therefore differs from a photon, which I believe does remain as a discrete packet of energy that moves through the continuum. But because I can see the boundary between the wave in the spring and the rest of it I see no reason why the continuum energy should not flow around the photon instead of becoming part of it and then leaving energy from the photon in its place.

So one type of boundary can occur in energy when some of it adopts the equivalent of the solid state (nucleons) and another type of boundary can occur as a compression wave (supernovae) and a third type of boundary can occur as a discrete package (photons). All of these boundaries are the result of different densities and are kept as discrete packages by motion and nothing else. The analogy of an FET photon to a longitudinal wave in a spring shows why wave mechanics, which describes longitudinal waves, is applicable to FET photons, even though they are more akin to particles.

I have no idea which came first, motion, which gave rise to forces, or forces, which gave rise to motion. Maybe there was no initial quiescent state and the universe has always been in its present state of dynamic equilibrium. This question, along with why is there space and why is it filled with energy may possibly never be answered and I am, for the moment at least, quite happy to accept this state of affairs and see how the universe could have evolved and why it works as it does. These are questions that can be answered so my first priority is to develop a thorough understanding of FET. I do not want to end up like Cantor who drove himself insane trying to understand the infinite.

However, if you are willing to devote more thought to the notion of boundaries and do manage to come up with a more plausible explanation of them then I would love to hear it.

Regards

Jim

[Yanborg]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Hi Allen;

A cube with sides 1 unit length has a volume of 1 cubic units and the biggest sphere to fit inside this must have a radius of half a unit length and therefore a volume of 0.5235987… cubic units, i.e. just under 52.36% of the space inside a cube can be occupied by a single sphere. If we now replaced the single sphere with 1,000 identical spheres with diameters of 0.1 unit length, they would still only occupy 52.36% of the space within the cube. The only way to fill the cube with spherical particles would be to fit smaller spheres in the spaces left by the larger spheres and the spaces between these spheres by even smaller spheres but then this would require an infinite number of spheres of decreasing size. This is how I came to the conclusion that the only way to fill all space would be to have a single particle of infinite size; one that filled the whole universe.

So the big question is, why did the universe adopt the sphere as natural expression, when in reality, the cube is far more efficient ? Perhaps the universe is just one big war between the cube and the sphere !

A serious question though. If the cube once had the upper hand with regards to efficiency, and the sphere, came (by infinitaly small spheres) to do the work of a cube, maybe there was a big bang afterall ? I'm just a poor old architect who knows that his cubes are made out of little spheres.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Time is then a measure of the rate at which forces move energy around.

I can agree with this. And yet, I have been arguing against time as the STUFF of the universe for a very long world line. After your theory, do we still need time, other than to make arbitrary, trivial sense of basic phenomena ?

Originally Posted by Jimbo

So we can have boundaries within a single substance simply by having different densities. One way to see this is to consider an extended spring, as in figure 6a of book 1. The spring itself has the familiar boundary between itself and the surrounding air because they are different materials (but not different substances according to FET). Now when the spring is compressed by a sudden forward movement of the hand, a compression wave moves along the spring. At any instant we can see a boundary between the relaxed regions of the spring and the compression wave.

Though, according to the caloric theory, and the friction caused by compressing the spring; wouldn't the spring be oozing an amazing massless substance ? I'm not messin with you. I'm on it. I love it mate!

Originally Posted by Jimbo

In this example there is no actual transfer of matter from one end of the spring to the other and therefore differs from a photon, which I believe does remain as a discrete packet of energy that moves through the continuum.

Yes! Where does the photon go ?

Surlely through all stages of the spring compression process, photons are being released. I wonder if the potential energy of the spring is proportional to the number of photon's released. I know I need new suspension in my car sometimes. Bloody entropy! How does your theory explain entropy ?

Originally Posted by Jimbo

But because I can see the boundary between the wave in the spring and the rest of it I see no reason why the continuum energy should not flow around the photon instead of becoming part of it and then leaving energy from the photon in its place.

So there would be photons emitted form the top and bottom of the spring where there is more friction occuring ?

Originally Posted by Jimbo

So one type of boundary can occur in energy when some of it adopts the equivalent of the solid state (nucleons) and another type of boundary can occur as a compression wave (supernovae) and a third type of boundary can occur as a discrete package (photons). All of these boundaries are the result of different densities and are kept as discrete packages by motion and nothing else. The analogy of an FET photon to a longitudinal wave in a spring shows why wave mechanics, which describes longitudinal waves, is applicable to FET photons, even though they are more akin to particles.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I have no idea which came first, motion, which gave rise to forces, or forces, which gave rise to motion. Maybe there was no initial quiescent state and the universe has always been in its present state of dynamic equilibrium.

Humans demand cause and effect. Yet they can't explain which came first, the chicken or the egg. I still think it was a war between cubes and spheres. Perhaps the quiescence is now ? That both cubes and shperes can do the work of eachother, a certain peace now exists. Really, my last name is Borg, and I am not a star trek fan. Logically, would I really want to have anything to do with an evil race of computer/slash bio organisms roaming around assimilating everything ? (unless of course they required matter to keep a record of time)

Originally Posted by Jimbo

This question, along with why is there space and why is it filled with energy may possibly never be answered and I am, for the moment at least, quite happy to accept this state of affairs and see how the universe could have evolved and why it works as it does. These are questions that can be answered so my first priority is to develop a thorough understanding of FET. I do not want to end up like Cantor who drove himself insane trying to understand the infinite.

You won't need to mate. There is no such thing as insanity, or infinity. Look, when infinity starts to get you down focus on something small. Something within our range of realisation.

google "range of realisation" and you'll find Y's

Originally Posted by Jimbo

However, if you are willing to devote more thought to the notion of boundaries and do manage to come up with a more plausible explanation of them then I would love to hear it.

Regards

Jim

I don't think it is required. I think a level of embracement by others should be undertaken to determine the limits of your theory.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Jim;

I see we have both gone through the same thought processes when thinking about boundary. I also went from cube to sphere. Cube was to restrictive, and sphere would not fill all area.

I understand that you do not need to go any further in the thought process about boundary, for you have enough on your plate with FET. I also see no need for you to do so, because the work you are doing with FET outweighs the need to explain boundary.
Boundary is my calling, and by asking people like yourself, I learn from your opinions on boundary. This helps me to stretch my mind to new levels on the concept of boundary at the infinitesimal of size. I feel this has to be contemplated at a philosophical level, then given a mathematical geometric foundation.

Where I am right now on boundary of the core substance is, along the lines of what you mentioned in your post about water and its three phases. Of course when we mention water we know that it has boundaries at the atomic level and thus is only good for analogy purposes. But! What if the continuous substance could exist in two phases.

Phase one: Would have boundary and exist as a distinct infinitesimal unit. It could be solid, or pliable, but indestructible.

Phase two: Would exist outside of boundary and be fluid. Not space(void), but fluid substance without boundary.

The two combined would be the continuous substance(Aether).

Just a small part of the thoughts I'm having right now on the creation of boundary, and motion.

Don't worry about me driving myself crazy trying to think of "infinity" like Cantor. I'm using philosophical thought to contemplate with, while he was using math. We only need to look at string theories to see how infinitely insane math can take one. lol.

[Jimbo]

Bit of a disaster three weeks ago when an update from Microsoft resulted in the computer failing to boot up. I eventually had to use the recovery program but this reset everything back to the day I bought it. Consequently, all data files became unavailable. Luckily my son managed to salvage the files but it has taken me three weeks to get everything sorted out again.
I am off to the USA in a few days for a month and so it will be around five weeks before I get back here again. Progress on book 2 is starting to race ahead as I now know what to include and what to leave for book 3. While on holiday I will be starting the reorganisation of book 2 and then the main problem will be the preparation of the diagrams.
Hopefully the Hadron Collider will not destroy the planet before then but as FET predicts that black holes do not exist I believe there is no chance of that happening. However, if particle collisions result in stopping nucleons from spinning then some could revert back to fluid energy and that could cause a serious explosion.
I will address the issues raised by Yanborg when I return.
Jim.

[Robert "Bob" Shriner]

Jimbo I have just revisited disqualifications that forced me into submission some 35 years ago. I developed the concept of the Prime Wave then from the same type of foundation that your ideas evolved from. A dynamic Aether, Substantive Energy or S'energy definition evolved into 4 fundamental qualities as: Real-it exists in a volume of space, Density-with upper and lower limits, Entropy-on achievement of a maximum density a rapid expansion occurs, and Viscosity-the seeking to maintain continuity. Much like a visualization of a Big Bang, but rather a point like maximum density achievement creates a new Prime Wave of S'energy and in S'energy. This smallest event creates a single, simple compressional wave form that is an expanding spherical wave with a constant duration and that decreases in density as the surface area of the wave front. The Entropic quality begins the process and the Viscous quality maintains the continuity of the wave in progression (as opposed to a rapid random or chaotic expansion)until a lower density limit is achieved. The single Prime Wave is the simple to complex beginning of a definition of level 2. There are seven simple to complex levels of a single process defined. At level three there are sets of sets of Prime Wave in convergence to new threshold density achievements in harmonic balance. This is a packet or quantum that has the quality of being a throughput engine and stability that progresses forward toward its own leading edge input at the speed of light. There are three forms of displacement bonding (input output of one packet to another) being linear, latteral, and opposed directional. Linear sets up the photospectrum, latteral sets up the ray spectrum and opposed sets up the particle spectrum. (to be clear displacement bonding is when a packet is established it is in harminic and an input from a given direction distorts the harmonic into the direction of that input) Photonic packets bound in a particle, can be reduced in prime number sets, form the combinations called quarks. Thus six units bound into a particle core would be a combination of prime number sets of 2ea 3's and 3ea 2's. The particle bound packets are progressing around an empty (structure) core and produce lost to the particle Prime Wave portions that establish a specific pattern to the geomety of the particle made up of two forms or patterns of convergences. (vibrate two rods in a pan of water and you see two forms of convergences as tangent to and between the two rods and a convergence of the individual waves beyond the end of an emagined line passing through each rod and beyond. One form is an expanding ring and the other is an expanding conical area (57 deg.) Each of the Packets in the particle are progressing forward in a spinning three dimensional vortex as the packets are displaced forward and are turned by the input output of each of the lost to the packet Prime Wave portions of the throughput engine.
Sorry for having to take you so far into a much larger presentation but I believe that your evaluation is nearly dead on. I offer up several conditions worth consideration. Pi is founded from a spherical interaction or a square!? Physical time is consistent comparable change, of what? S'energy changes to produce all forms of Force and structure through the repeated formation and progression of a single Prime Wave form of S'energy in S'energy. One Prime Wave created by the convergences from sets of Prime Waves is identical to its parents except where and when. The geometry of a particle establishes its rest mass and its charge field configuration. All Constents of Nature are consistently reproduced in equivilant geometries. To establish another condition when the particle geometry is large enough =>6 then the lost to each packet Prime Waves going into the central core area achieve an additional nodal harmonic of Prime Wave creation. This condition is a time delay of throughput that seeks to return the packet back to the place where the packet once was. This is the Higgs' particle. Beyond the charge field which is limited in distance as a definable field as the sets of lost to the Particle Prime Waves decrease in density as a whole to a net value below a mean high density of the volume that surrounds, is a condition of high density nodes that achieve a value greater than the mean high density and these nodes, when alighned form the specific of a magnetic line of force. (this again defined through the geometry of the particles, atoms, and molecules) If the particles are in motion you have the electro magnetic wave. At level 4 the Particle, level 5 the Atom, and level 6 the Molecule these nodes exist and become the lock and key mechanism for molecular orientation and selection and is commonly thought of as a Aura.
One more comment is specific to Gravity. Lost Prime Waves created in a stable particle structure is an output engine with a consistent output and thus a consistent output source. Recall the three forms of displacement bonding mentioned above where an input distorts the harmonic and causes the net direction of a packet to change directly as the net value and directional source of the input. The stable output/input modified my density, distance, direction, duration, dillution and diffusion sets up the virtual condition of net values of the gravitational force or the condition known as the distortion of space surrounding a mass. The Graviton is the virtual specific exchange of the same input/output. String theory is the attempted detais of each set of convergences.
The perspective of importance is one that was expressed by the late Dr. J.A> Wheeler when he spoke of the successes of mathmatics in Science yet "something is missing" The something that has been missing is a clear and inclusive perceived physical process. Energy is a term once defined by K. Quigg for me as a catchall term without physical counterpart that means "all not otherwise defined" S'energy or substantive energy is Energy and still fills up the idea of "all not otherwise defined"

Your concept of Fluid Energy is closer than any other to what I believe and developed and sent off to those idiots who could not see past their own egos so many years ago, I see that they are still around. My compliments to you and those who have an open mind and a willingness to seek answers where none have existed before. I have left so much out that I am sure I have disqualified my input to this forum but I tried
Bob

[Jimbo]

Hi Bob,
Welcome to the FET thread,

It is not easy to understand your theory from your brief reply but at least you too have realised that there should be limits upon systems rather than letting them go to infinities. Once you understand FET you realise that if energy could be compressed without limit then the universe could only have progressed from an initial state of uniform low energy density to one where all the energy was concentrated into singularities with the rest of space devoid of everything. The only reason that black holes are thought to exist is because no one had placed a limit to the compressibility of energy.

Apart from this similarity it appears that FET is very different to your theory. FET predicts that there is only one substance, one particle and one type of force; in other words it could not be any simpler. In FET there are no waves except perhaps when a photon, which is a pulse of energy rather than a true particle, encounters a number of atoms forcing it to squeeze between them causing it to initially contract and then expand before returning to its original size.

All forces arise from the flow of fluid energy and FET is the only theory that shows why and how the gravitational force is 10^39 times smaller than the electromagnetic force. The only other force that exists is the centripetal force that changed the initial state of the uniform universe into one with energy concentrated into particles of solid energy that form the nuclei of atoms and pulses of fluid energy known as photons. This force is also responsible for star and galaxy formation and replaces the need for dark matter. In FET there are neither Higgs particles nor mass. The quantity of a substance can be ascertained by the amount of energy, which may be in the solid and fluid forms that constitute atoms, plus extra energy that gives them motion. The concept of weight though is important as it is a measure of the rate at which continuum energy is absorbed by atoms.

FET even calculates the exact rate of energy loss for photons showing that the universe is not expanding but is now in an equilibrium state. In fact I have not come across a single experiment or observation that cannot be explained in a logical way by FET, and I have been looking for many years now. At the moment I am content to let things move along slowly but when book 2 is published, early next year I hope, then I will make far more effort to publicise FET. By then I hope that I can count upon a few converts to FET to help me in this venture.

Sorry for this short reply but I am now packing for my holiday but I look forward to further discussions next month.

Jim.