Analog's Axioms

[baudrunner]

I feel skeptical today, so I celebrate my skepticism.

I found honorable member Analog's site, on which he has posted the seventeen axioms which represent his framework (presumably for his take on the TOE). I list them here, with appropriate skeptical commentary, just for fun.

1. Large formations of matter can be broken down into ever smaller formations until a fundamental Planck size of matter is reached.

An idea originally formulated in 450 BCE by Democritus, who conceived that the smallest constituents of matter are those which cannot be further divided.

2. Fundamental matter, though many in numbers, only comes in one form, statically equal in all aspects, and I refer to them as particles.

Pretty broad generalization of that which cannot be further tested, and this reeks of string theory and also of ring theory

3. The closer proximity of particles to other particles gives rise to larger more massive objects.

Well, duh. You could at least mention the Casimir Force. That would be how that is achieved, though, wouldn't it? Are you suggesting that all particles are equal, that this can be accomplished with any and all particles? Elucidation is required.

4. Matter is not created or destroyed. The same quantity has always existed and will always exist.

Actually, matter is a creation out of nothing, according to Big Bang Theorists. I hold that the total amount of mass in the Universe is constantly increasing because creation actually continues at the periphery, and this theory satisfies better the physics which scientists have unsuccessfully tried to apply to BBT.

5. All particles of matter are in absolute constant motion with absolute equal velocity.

In physics, the terms "particle" and "object" are interchangeable. The particles that comprise a bullet shot out of a gun travel faster than the particles that comprise a stone thrown by the hand.

6. All particles of matter are contained in a void of space that doesn't react to the motion of matter within it.

Space is not a void. Scientists are generally in agreement that space is something. An object travelling at 99.999% of light speed has a greatly increased mass. Mass warps space.

7. The void of space creates the outer boundary for particle motion, but it's dimensions are static and it is in no way expanding or retracting, which would allow more or less freedom for particle motion. Thus, the dimensions achieved by an equal spacing of all of the particles in existence, throughout the void of space, from boundary to boundary, could theoretically be achieved at any given time, and isn't at the mercy of the current dimensional state of an expanding or retracting space.

That’s a mouthful. Relativity theory states otherwise. Space is warped and has a mutable density. Time is a relative thing, and is dependent on motion, and on gravity as a function of the density of the warped space as a function of the proximity to the center of the mass which displaces it.

8. Space is full of particles with varying ranges of motion due to the varying proximity of other particles.

This appears to violate axioms 5 and 6.

9. Particles travel in straight trajectories. Meaning, two particles leaving a point in space, traveling with trajectories one-hundred and eighty degrees apart, will maintain that degree of trajectory, relative to each other, until acted upon by another particle.

I don’t see how that is important. That’s the basic premise of inertia, incidentally.

10. Particles do collide with each other, and upon collision they merely react in an equal and opposite trajectory with no loss of velocity or any other change of state.

Scattering diagrams suggest otherwise. So does the debris from an explosion. Remember, in physics, the terms “object” and “particle”, are interchangeable.

11. The motion of particles, within the void, do not effect the rest of the system, until the event of a collision of two particles. This is an inverted view of matter within a material aether, whereby, the smallest incremental Planck motion of matter produces a wave, which goes forth and immediately begins to effect the rest of the system. In this system, the proximity of matter is somewhat stabilized by collisions and it is a change of particle motion, thus change in collisions, that sends out a wave of disturbance, which forces the entire system to attempt to equalize.

That requires further elucidation.

12. The universal framework is a closed system.

True. The universe is at any point in time a finite and closed system which is always increasing in dimension and mass.

13. The amount of particles within the universal system is static, finite and absolute.

Absolutely wrong. For one thing, virtual particles are constantly popping into and out of existence. For another, the creation front at the periphery of the ever growing Universe continues to create new particles. And for yet another, matter particles are randomly being annihilated by anti-matter particles even as we read this.

14. The volume of space within the universal system is static, finite and absolute.

Wrong, as has already been explained.

15. The amount of particle motion within the universal system is static, finite and absolute.

Wrong, for the same reasons.

16. The arrangement of the two static, finite and absolute entities above, due to the static, finite and absolute motion of the universal system creates varying degrees of particle to spatial densities within different definable volumes of space, whereby our world is revealed.

So, it appears that our world and all its complexities is just a co-incidental hologram due to the constructive and destructive interference of wave functions created in this region of the cosmos. That’s pretty far-fetched.

17. Thermodynamics within this universal framework is actually spatialdynamics, whereby temperature is a measurement of the above mentioned particle to spatial density of a defined volume of space.

That’s a simple way of looking at it. One assumes that particle density in the sun gives rise to its heat. Not entirely wrong, but explain how even greater temperatures can be achieved in the laboratory using only a few particles, hmm?

[analog]

I've learned a lot since I've been here, mainly from Dave (dleviwing). Out of respect for him, I haven't updated my site or article since we've started our discussions, due to my changes only reflecting what he already knew.

You can join in the conversation at Absolute Rest? thread if you like.

Otherwise, Thanks for being a Dickhead.

[baudrunner]

You're welcome.

[analog]

Despite my seemingly simple descriptions, my attempts where still pertaining to the absolute scale (which you're obviously not familiar with) whereby applying Dave's already concieved concepts (which I didn't know about at the time) of 'Absolute motion'.

Dave's spent a lot of time helping me to further my thoughts, whereby I now just view the system in terms of an Aether which has the properties of 'absolute motion' and 'self-affinity'.

[dleviwing]

Sorry Tim, but Steven has presented valid statements. Consider it a discussion rather than a denigration. If they're old ides of yours, just say so and please move on.

[dleviwing]

Steven;
If you’re going to make comments on a member’s article, it is more appropriate to do so in the comments of that article and not to create a thread for your own agenda.

[Graybeard]

I feel skeptical today, so I celebrate my skepticism.

17. Thermodynamics within this universal framework is actually spatialdynamics, whereby temperature is a measurement of the above mentioned particle to spatial density of a defined volume of space.

That’s a simple way of looking at it. One assumes that particle density in the sun gives rise to its heat. Not entirely wrong, but explain how even greater temperatures can be achieved in the laboratory using only a few particles, hmm?

In a closed system, pressure and temperature would be analogous. Therefore it could be considered spatialdynamics. This would be true even for a campfire.

A momentarily closed system would include any system where the time taken to vacate it is longer than the time taken for the reaction. This is how its done using only a few particles ??

cool bananas ... greg

[baudrunner]

Okay, everyone. I've settled down. Sorry, Analog, I just felt like it at the time - re: just thought that your comments concerning our new friend's Ring theory were uncalled for. I was helping him out. You're right, of course, Dave, agenda wise, but my thread was original because I was commenting on Analog's web site. I'm not aware that he ever posted it in the ToeQuest forums.

A momentarily closed system would include any system where the time taken to vacate it is longer than the time taken for the reaction. This is how its done using only a few particles ??

That's very interesting analogy Graybeard, but it could be applied to what happens in any explosion. The constant references in the axioms to absolutes imply some kind of standard mass/space reaction relationship incompatible with what happens during those particle collision experiments where temperatures hotter than the center of the sun are routinely achieved.

The "closed" system inside the sun producing those hot temperatures is under such intense gravitic stress that it takes about ten million years for light that originates at the center to reach the surface. A very different scenario from what happens in a particle accelerator.

[analog]

Baud,

As I stated there, from what I could tell in his introduction post, he was trying to post as an author in the library, which requires permission. I was merely letting him know his alternatives, after which he was merely following what I said to him.

The only reason I said anything to you was because his actions were at my suggestion, and I didn't want him to feel like he had done anything wrong. He merely posted an introduction, an article containing the bulk of his theory, and a thread discussing his article. Seems like a good strategy for conversation to me, being as you and I both know that true ToE discussions are sometimes hard to come by around here.

I'm not sure how you would have gotten offended by my initial post, but either way, it wasn't meant that way.

Every idea I've ever had is at this site. Even if I had any worth putting in books, (which I don't) I would still share them here freely instead. After your post though, I've erased my article here and my website, so as not to cause anymore confusion.

You can review my recent posts to get an idea of my current thoughts, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't have that much to offer.

I'm just a construction worker. That's all.

[Graybeard]

That's very interesting analogy Graybeard, but it could be applied to what happens in any explosion.

I was applying it to all and any interaction, including the Big Bang, where temperatures were routinely hotter than "with what happens during those particle collision experiments where temperatures hotter than the center of the sun are routinely achieved."

The "closed" system inside the sun producing those hot temperatures is under such intense gravitic stress that it takes about ten million years for light that originates at the center to reach the surface. A very different scenario from what happens in a particle accelerator.

I would have said around 2 million years, but whose counting ... I could be wrong, I hate looking up the Wiki for everything. I'm just saying that any event that does not take place instantly, but over time, owing to resistance, can be considered a 'controlled burn'. The Sun, or even a supernova, takes time to burn. The boundary of the 'closed system' is whatever is offering the resistance. In the suns case, gravity.

You can consider whatever is on the inside to be very hot, or just as truthfully, to be compressed, or more dense, or more energetic.

Why isn't this a truthful axiom of everything we have just said ?

17. Thermodynamics within this universal framework is actually spatialdynamics, whereby temperature is a measurement of the above mentioned particle to spatial density of a defined volume of space.

cool bananas .... greg