Hi-Ho guys and gals!
This thread is for discussing the nature etc. of Energy, Matter and Mass in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.
RealityCheck.
.
Please check everything - I make mistakes!
Units
Mass (kg) .. that which curves space .. there is a standard kilogram somewhere (Paris?)
Force (Newtons) .. 1 Newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 m s^-2 Dimensions m kg s^-2
Work (J) .. 1 Joule is the work done when a force of 1N is maintained for a distance of 1m Dimensions m^2 kg s^-2
Energy (J) also Joules .. that which is gained or lost when work is done
Dimensions m^2 kg s^-2 (same as work)
[Original.. 1 Joule is also the energy contained in 1/c^2 kg of any mass. .. 'contained in' is unhelpful]
Replace with
1 Joule is also the energy that would be liberated if 1/c^2 kg of any mass were converted entirely into energy.
(To be determined .. the energy may be 'stored' in the curvature of space or it may be in the mass itself - or somewhere else)
---------------------------------------------------------
The electron volt is a common unit of energy
1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules
Matter .. that which has mass
There is a problem with 'Dark matter' which needs to be resolved at some point
As many of the above are contraversial I would suggest picking one and sticking with the first post until Reality_Check moves us on - I hope that seems OK.
All comments/corrections/suggestions greatly appreciated. Please PM me with anything in the early stages - after that we're stuck with this for the benefit of newcomers...
Edit list..
24/01/06 Dimensions of force etc have been broken dow to fundamentals
24/01/06 Update to 1/(c^2) definition of Joule
-C2
Units
Mass (kg) .. that which curves space .. there is a standard kilogram somewhere (Paris?)
Force (Newtons) .. 1 Newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 m s^-2 Dimensions m kg s^-2
Work (J) .. 1 Joule is the work done when a force of 1N is maintained for a distance of 1m Dimensions m^2 kg s^-2
Energy (J) also Joules .. that which is gained or lost when work is done
Dimensions m^2 kg s^-2 (same as work)
[Original.. 1 Joule is also the energy contained in 1/c^2 kg of any mass. .. 'contained in' is unhelpful]
Replace with
1 Joule is also the energy that would be liberated if 1/c^2 kg of any mass were converted entirely into energy.
(To be determined .. the energy may be 'stored' in the curvature of space or it may be in the mass itself - or somewhere else)
---------------------------------------------------------
The electron volt is a common unit of energy
1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules
Matter .. that which has mass
There is a problem with 'Dark matter' which needs to be resolved at some point
As many of the above are contraversial I would suggest picking one and sticking with the first post until Reality_Check moves us on - I hope that seems OK.
All comments/corrections/suggestions greatly appreciated. Please PM me with anything in the early stages - after that we're stuck with this for the benefit of newcomers...
Edit list..
24/01/06 Dimensions of force etc have been broken dow to fundamentals
24/01/06 Update to 1/(c^2) definition of Joule
-C2
I hope my contributions aren't unwelcome here, and that I haven't misconstrued the purpose of this thread. But I thought some things I've been contemplating lately might be somewhat relevant.
We know by experiment that the Einstein (rest) mass and energy relation E = mc^2 is darn accurate. So while it may be "just" a mathematical model, whatever fundamental theories we develope should produce this relation. If we assume that it is not just an approximation of reality under special conditions, like Newton's gravity was, then I wonder if we may not be able to derive some insight by looking at the units involved in the relation.
I had some thoughts--actually they are more just questions and seeds of thoughts--on the matter that I will post if this is deemed a worthwhile exercise.
We know by experiment that the Einstein (rest) mass and energy relation E = mc^2 is darn accurate. So while it may be "just" a mathematical model, whatever fundamental theories we develope should produce this relation. If we assume that it is not just an approximation of reality under special conditions, like Newton's gravity was, then I wonder if we may not be able to derive some insight by looking at the units involved in the relation.
I had some thoughts--actually they are more just questions and seeds of thoughts--on the matter that I will post if this is deemed a worthwhile exercise.
Well, I got a request to post my thoughts/questions.... So here goes.
They were inspired partly by Confused2's discussion of units...
* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
Energy can be thought of as photons and mass particles. I view these two things like water and ice, two different states of the same thing.
Image mass is represented as a cube of ice...if this ice were to turn to water it would form a large puddle. What I've just stated is dimensional collapse of one thing into another.
WATER = ICE X AREA OF PUDDLE.
They were inspired partly by Confused2's discussion of units...
QUOTE (Confused2+ Posted on Jan 6 2006, 05:09 PM)
1 Joule is also the energy contained in 1/c^2 kg of any mass.
(To be determined .. the energy may be 'stored' in the curvature of space or it may be in the mass itself - or somewhere else)
I think the development of a fundamental theory of energy, mass, etc., would do well to consider the unit difference between mass and energy, and what it might imply.
The mass unit (kg) is the energy unit (J) multiplied by (s/m)^2. Or, alternatively, divided by (m/s)^2.
So I propose some things to ponder...
* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?
There may be other ways to break down this unit so that it has different meanings...
* Example: (m/s)^2 = m/(s^2) * m ... This seems to indicate an acceleration, spread across a linear distance. What would it mean, physically, to divide by such a unit? I suppose we could look at it from a propogation-delay standpoint...
* Example: (s/m)^2 = [(s / m) / m] * s ... A propogation delay, changing over a linear distance, spread across a period of time.
* Example: (m/s)^2 = [(m^2) / s] / s ... The m^2 term refers to an area. Dividing by time would indicate a change in area. Dividing by time again would refer to a changing change in area... Or an accelerated expansion or contraction of a 2D region.
Some of these interpretations deal with two dimensional surfaces, although space is three-dimensional. So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space. Just as a "for instance", my last example above could correspond to a "ball" of spacetime changing in volume over time. The 2D region could be the surface of that ball. Maybe the energy in a mass is wrapped up on the surface of a sphere, which is changing in size, at a changing rate. If the radius were oscillating between a min and max, periodically, there would be an acceleration associated with this changing rate of growth, which the (m/s)^2 might embody.... But again, why would we be dividing by such a unit?
Certainly there are more possible interpretations of these units. I would be curious to see what others can come up with if they take these ideas further than I have so far been able to. None of my points are necessarily meant to be formal suggestions. I'm just hoping to spur some new thought beyond my own.
(To be determined .. the energy may be 'stored' in the curvature of space or it may be in the mass itself - or somewhere else)
I think the development of a fundamental theory of energy, mass, etc., would do well to consider the unit difference between mass and energy, and what it might imply.
The mass unit (kg) is the energy unit (J) multiplied by (s/m)^2. Or, alternatively, divided by (m/s)^2.
So I propose some things to ponder...
* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?
There may be other ways to break down this unit so that it has different meanings...
* Example: (m/s)^2 = m/(s^2) * m ... This seems to indicate an acceleration, spread across a linear distance. What would it mean, physically, to divide by such a unit? I suppose we could look at it from a propogation-delay standpoint...
* Example: (s/m)^2 = [(s / m) / m] * s ... A propogation delay, changing over a linear distance, spread across a period of time.
* Example: (m/s)^2 = [(m^2) / s] / s ... The m^2 term refers to an area. Dividing by time would indicate a change in area. Dividing by time again would refer to a changing change in area... Or an accelerated expansion or contraction of a 2D region.
Some of these interpretations deal with two dimensional surfaces, although space is three-dimensional. So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space. Just as a "for instance", my last example above could correspond to a "ball" of spacetime changing in volume over time. The 2D region could be the surface of that ball. Maybe the energy in a mass is wrapped up on the surface of a sphere, which is changing in size, at a changing rate. If the radius were oscillating between a min and max, periodically, there would be an acceleration associated with this changing rate of growth, which the (m/s)^2 might embody.... But again, why would we be dividing by such a unit?
Certainly there are more possible interpretations of these units. I would be curious to see what others can come up with if they take these ideas further than I have so far been able to. None of my points are necessarily meant to be formal suggestions. I'm just hoping to spur some new thought beyond my own.
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Jan 7 2006, 08:49 PM)
* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
Energy can be thought of as photons and mass particles. I view these two things like water and ice, two different states of the same thing.
Image mass is represented as a cube of ice...if this ice were to turn to water it would form a large puddle. What I've just stated is dimensional collapse of one thing into another.
WATER = ICE X AREA OF PUDDLE.
Hi!...WaterBreath!
I hope you have read the following two threads because they both deal with what you are saying. Your approach is different and yet similar.
Inverse Square Law
and
Unified Geometry:Overlooked SymmetriesOf Spacetime
jal
I hope you have read the following two threads because they both deal with what you are saying. Your approach is different and yet similar.
Inverse Square Law
and
Unified Geometry:Overlooked SymmetriesOf Spacetime
jal
At every level of energy where negative and positive energy particles are present or exist neutral particles are needed to maintain order, organization, stability and leverage between the negatives and positives. And with certainty I can say this is true in atoms. In atoms electrons (the negatives), protons (the positives), and neutrons (the neutrals) all exist together and are maintained in the proper order and balance. Neutrons are needed in atoms to keep them stable, without the right amount of neutral the electrons and protons cannot work together and will not remain in the proper balance. If a positive or negative particle were removed from the atom, the atom would remain relatively the same. But if a neutral particle (a neutron) was removed from the atom the proper order could not be maintained and the entire atom could become disorganized and unstable and it will start to breakdown, splitting itself into pieces releasing an immense amount of energy until the pieces it has split into become stable again, with the proper balance between neutrons, protons and electrons. In an atom like a uranium atom the bonds within the atom between the electrons and protons would or could only remain together or in proper order in the presents of the right amount of neutrons. If a neutron is removed the bonds between the electrons and protons would become unstable and the atom would split releasing an immense amount of energy.
In the randomness of decay, of atoms or elements there is also evidence of the need for neutral particles in the atom. In an atom because the neutrons in the nucleus have no charge (they are neutral), nothing can prevent these uncharged or neutral particles from leaving the atom. So neutrons can leave the nucleus at random or at any time. And without the right balance of neutrons in the atom, order cannot be maintained between the electron and protons (negatively and positively charged particles). The atom will now start to breakdown, decay or disintegrate releasing energy or radiation in the form of alpha, beta and gamma rays, or in the form of free or loose, random moving and fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons. Thus effectively turning itself into another atom or element.
Back to the simple and pure energy, which were present in universe, these were the negative, positive and neutral energy particles that created the particles that will create the particle that make up neutrons and protons, and electrons. The high concentration of these simple and pure negative positive and neutral energy particles in the infinite universe over a period of time each type started colliding into each other and attaching to each other becoming permanently fused together and started to form more complex energy particles (those that make up protons and neutrons, and electrons).
Over a period of time the complex energy particles were in a higher concentration than the simple and pure energy particles and the complex one along with the simple ones started to attract each other, colliding and fusing together to create in a proportionally balance and organized way neutrons, electrons and protons and immediately after their creation the protons started to attract the electrons, but the bond would not and could not stay together until a neutron also took part in the bond. The bonding between the electrons, protons and neutrons in an organized 1:1:1 ratio all over the universe started to create simple atoms (that is hydrogen atoms: 1 neutron, 1 electron and 1 proton). The universe was now becoming filled with hydrogen atoms. Now with the proper balance between electrons, protons and neutrons the hydrogen atoms were now the largest, most organized and stable particles in the infinite universe.
With the creation of hydrogen atoms every where in the infinite universe the biggest and most important transition in the history of the endless universe was made pure energy (electrons, protons and neutrons) now started working together in an organized to create the simple atom / hydrogen atoms, thus giving rise to matter and mass and also giving rise to the very important force of gravity. And with the creation of atoms, energy and force such as light, heat, nuclear, sound, magnetic, frictional, electric, chemical, gravitational and mechanical started to immerge and becoming more active.
With the high concentration of hydrogen atoms now present in the universe and because of the presence of gravitational forces, the atoms started to attract each other, colliding and releasing large amounts of different forms of energy. The attracting atoms then started to create hydrogen cluster, the clusters then started to attract each other creating massive or extremely large hydrogen gas clouds. An infinite amount of these millions of light-years stretching hydrogen gas clouds then started popping up all over the infinite universe, revealing the vacuum of space between them.
These massive gas clouds with their high concentration of atoms and strong gravitational forces over a period of time continued to attract the atoms within it, thus contracting, becoming denser and more compacted revealing more of the vacuum of space between each of them. The massive gas clouds then started to become more organized, then started to have an energy and pressure build up in their innermost layer or massive tens of light-years in diameter atom fusing cores.
The cores of the massive clouds then started fusing hydrogen atoms to create heavier and more complex atoms, much like what our sun is doing right now but on a large scale. The massive clouds can now be called massive stars (massive energy releasing bodies with their individual radius about 200,800,000,000,000 km). Over a period of time the massive star continued to create and fuse heavy atoms, until a limit or point was reached where the energy being released in their core cause each of them to become highly unstable. The massive unstable stars then at different points in time and at different rates erupted in to a massive super supernova explosion releasing a burst of energy and matter in every direction out into the vacuum of space. The scattered matter and energy the formed massive clusters and fragments of star dust (all the elements in the periodic table) near the original location of each exploded massive star. The scattered matter and energy were now forming massive expanding galaxies. Depending on the rate, degree and size of the explosion of the massive stars the different galaxy, which were formed, had different shapes, shape such as spiral shapes, etc. over a period of time due to the high concentration of atoms and gravity within the expanding galaxies regular size stars (suns), planets, and solar system started to form in a deadly, high explosive but organized way within the galaxies, and even life was created in some of the galaxies.
The universe is now a endless/ infinite vacuum in every direction plane and dimension filled with an infinite amount of energy filled expanding galaxies. And with the galaxies within the universe expanding they will not remain organized forever.
In the randomness of decay, of atoms or elements there is also evidence of the need for neutral particles in the atom. In an atom because the neutrons in the nucleus have no charge (they are neutral), nothing can prevent these uncharged or neutral particles from leaving the atom. So neutrons can leave the nucleus at random or at any time. And without the right balance of neutrons in the atom, order cannot be maintained between the electron and protons (negatively and positively charged particles). The atom will now start to breakdown, decay or disintegrate releasing energy or radiation in the form of alpha, beta and gamma rays, or in the form of free or loose, random moving and fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons. Thus effectively turning itself into another atom or element.
Back to the simple and pure energy, which were present in universe, these were the negative, positive and neutral energy particles that created the particles that will create the particle that make up neutrons and protons, and electrons. The high concentration of these simple and pure negative positive and neutral energy particles in the infinite universe over a period of time each type started colliding into each other and attaching to each other becoming permanently fused together and started to form more complex energy particles (those that make up protons and neutrons, and electrons).
Over a period of time the complex energy particles were in a higher concentration than the simple and pure energy particles and the complex one along with the simple ones started to attract each other, colliding and fusing together to create in a proportionally balance and organized way neutrons, electrons and protons and immediately after their creation the protons started to attract the electrons, but the bond would not and could not stay together until a neutron also took part in the bond. The bonding between the electrons, protons and neutrons in an organized 1:1:1 ratio all over the universe started to create simple atoms (that is hydrogen atoms: 1 neutron, 1 electron and 1 proton). The universe was now becoming filled with hydrogen atoms. Now with the proper balance between electrons, protons and neutrons the hydrogen atoms were now the largest, most organized and stable particles in the infinite universe.
With the creation of hydrogen atoms every where in the infinite universe the biggest and most important transition in the history of the endless universe was made pure energy (electrons, protons and neutrons) now started working together in an organized to create the simple atom / hydrogen atoms, thus giving rise to matter and mass and also giving rise to the very important force of gravity. And with the creation of atoms, energy and force such as light, heat, nuclear, sound, magnetic, frictional, electric, chemical, gravitational and mechanical started to immerge and becoming more active.
With the high concentration of hydrogen atoms now present in the universe and because of the presence of gravitational forces, the atoms started to attract each other, colliding and releasing large amounts of different forms of energy. The attracting atoms then started to create hydrogen cluster, the clusters then started to attract each other creating massive or extremely large hydrogen gas clouds. An infinite amount of these millions of light-years stretching hydrogen gas clouds then started popping up all over the infinite universe, revealing the vacuum of space between them.
These massive gas clouds with their high concentration of atoms and strong gravitational forces over a period of time continued to attract the atoms within it, thus contracting, becoming denser and more compacted revealing more of the vacuum of space between each of them. The massive gas clouds then started to become more organized, then started to have an energy and pressure build up in their innermost layer or massive tens of light-years in diameter atom fusing cores.
The cores of the massive clouds then started fusing hydrogen atoms to create heavier and more complex atoms, much like what our sun is doing right now but on a large scale. The massive clouds can now be called massive stars (massive energy releasing bodies with their individual radius about 200,800,000,000,000 km). Over a period of time the massive star continued to create and fuse heavy atoms, until a limit or point was reached where the energy being released in their core cause each of them to become highly unstable. The massive unstable stars then at different points in time and at different rates erupted in to a massive super supernova explosion releasing a burst of energy and matter in every direction out into the vacuum of space. The scattered matter and energy the formed massive clusters and fragments of star dust (all the elements in the periodic table) near the original location of each exploded massive star. The scattered matter and energy were now forming massive expanding galaxies. Depending on the rate, degree and size of the explosion of the massive stars the different galaxy, which were formed, had different shapes, shape such as spiral shapes, etc. over a period of time due to the high concentration of atoms and gravity within the expanding galaxies regular size stars (suns), planets, and solar system started to form in a deadly, high explosive but organized way within the galaxies, and even life was created in some of the galaxies.
The universe is now a endless/ infinite vacuum in every direction plane and dimension filled with an infinite amount of energy filled expanding galaxies. And with the galaxies within the universe expanding they will not remain organized forever.
Antpin,
This quote has appeared on different forums and it has been reviewed and torne apart. Please consider these rejections
This quote has appeared on different forums and it has been reviewed and torne apart. Please consider these rejections
QUOTE ("WaterBreath"+)
I think the development of a fundamental theory of energy, mass, etc., would do well to consider the unit difference between mass and energy, and what it might imply.
The mass unit (kg) is the energy unit (J) multiplied by (s/m)^2. Or, alternatively, divided by (m/s)^2.
This is a very good observation. The kg is an arbitrary value that is based on a physical object kept in Paris. If the dimensions of mass are (s/m)^3, then the dimensions of energy are
E = mc^2 = (s/m)^3 x (m/s)^2 = s/m.
Thus, given that the dimensions of mass, energy and velocity are all expressable in units of time and length (space), this implies that the fundamental entities are time and space.
The unit s/m is called a propagation delay, because it is the inverse of velocity and can therefore express the conductivity, sigma, of a conductor, but as we see, s/m are also the dimensions of energy, so the significance of the squared velocity is that energy and velocity are inverses. Since rest, or inertial, mass is a 3D resistance to velocity, with dimensions, (s/m)^3, the square of velocity, with dimensions (m/s)^2, reduces these dimensions to the dimensions of energy, s/m.
However, the significance of this fact can only be truly appreciated, when it is realized that the velocity of light, c speed, is the datum of reference for these space/time magnitudes. In other words, since space is the reciprocal of time in the equation of motion, then the unit value, c = m/s = 1/1 is the pivot point between velocity, m/s = 1/n and energy, s/m = 1/n, just as 0 is the pivot point between -1 and +1.
The ratio equivalents to the integers -1, 0 and +1, are 1/2, 1/1 and 2/1. If we don't invert the dimensions of velocity to s/m, we can see that the dimensions of energy are equivalent to m/s = 2/1, from the point of view of velocity and vice-versa; that is, from the perspective of -1, + 1 is two units away and vice-versa. Therefore, to get from the energy side to the velocity side of 0 (which is not zero, but c-speed, 1/1) requires two multiplications: the first gets us to unity, the second to one unit away from unity. I'll try to illustrate what I mean to make it clearer:
We start with,
1/2, 1/1, 2/1 = -1, 0, +1,
to get from -1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of velocity,
(1/2) * (2/1) = 2/2 = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to +1, we multiply once more by the inverse of velocity,
(1/1) * (2/1) = 2/1, which takes us to the positive side of 0.
However, mass is the resistance to velocity and, thus, has the inverse dimensions of energy, so we need to go the other way:
to get from +1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of energy,
(2/1) * (1/2) = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to -1, we multiply once more by the inverse of energy,
(1/1) * (1/2) = 1/2, which takes us to the negative side, or velocity side, of the equation of motion. Hence, it takes a velocity times a velocity, (m/s)^2, or an energy times an energy, (s/m)^2, to convert from one side of c-speed speed to the reciprocal side. We see the same thing in the other energy conversion equation,
E = hv,
where h is Planck's constant, and v is nu, the frequency of radiation. Only, here, it's not generally recognized that nu, a frequency, expressed in terms of cycles per second, is actually a velocity as well, since the cycles are units tracking the traversing of the same unit of length repeatedly, a vibration. Therefore, the actual dimensions of the equation are,
s/m = h (m/s),
which means that the dimensions of h are really (s/m)^2, giving
s/m = (s/m)^2 * (m/s).
Showing, that all we are doing, with the square of velocity and the square of energy, is going from +1 to 0 to -1, or from -1 to 0 to +1, in the equation of motion, because, energy is the inverse of velocity.
Now, we are going to have someone cry foul because of the m/s = 2/1 aspect of this, but we have to remember that, once we cross 0, or unity 1/1 (c-speed), the equation is no longer expressing a velocity, but an energy, so we haven't broken the "speed limit" of the universe!
The unit s/m is called a propagation delay, because it is the inverse of velocity and can therefore express the conductivity, sigma, of a conductor, but as we see, s/m are also the dimensions of energy, so the significance of the squared velocity is that energy and velocity are inverses. Since rest, or inertial, mass is a 3D resistance to velocity, with dimensions, (s/m)^3, the square of velocity, with dimensions (m/s)^2, reduces these dimensions to the dimensions of energy, s/m.
However, the significance of this fact can only be truly appreciated, when it is realized that the velocity of light, c speed, is the datum of reference for these space/time magnitudes. In other words, since space is the reciprocal of time in the equation of motion, then the unit value, c = m/s = 1/1 is the pivot point between velocity, m/s = 1/n and energy, s/m = 1/n, just as 0 is the pivot point between -1 and +1.
The ratio equivalents to the integers -1, 0 and +1, are 1/2, 1/1 and 2/1. If we don't invert the dimensions of velocity to s/m, we can see that the dimensions of energy are equivalent to m/s = 2/1, from the point of view of velocity and vice-versa; that is, from the perspective of -1, + 1 is two units away and vice-versa. Therefore, to get from the energy side to the velocity side of 0 (which is not zero, but c-speed, 1/1) requires two multiplications: the first gets us to unity, the second to one unit away from unity. I'll try to illustrate what I mean to make it clearer:
We start with,
1/2, 1/1, 2/1 = -1, 0, +1,
to get from -1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of velocity,
(1/2) * (2/1) = 2/2 = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to +1, we multiply once more by the inverse of velocity,
(1/1) * (2/1) = 2/1, which takes us to the positive side of 0.
However, mass is the resistance to velocity and, thus, has the inverse dimensions of energy, so we need to go the other way:
to get from +1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of energy,
(2/1) * (1/2) = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to -1, we multiply once more by the inverse of energy,
(1/1) * (1/2) = 1/2, which takes us to the negative side, or velocity side, of the equation of motion. Hence, it takes a velocity times a velocity, (m/s)^2, or an energy times an energy, (s/m)^2, to convert from one side of c-speed speed to the reciprocal side. We see the same thing in the other energy conversion equation,
E = hv,
where h is Planck's constant, and v is nu, the frequency of radiation. Only, here, it's not generally recognized that nu, a frequency, expressed in terms of cycles per second, is actually a velocity as well, since the cycles are units tracking the traversing of the same unit of length repeatedly, a vibration. Therefore, the actual dimensions of the equation are,
s/m = h (m/s),
which means that the dimensions of h are really (s/m)^2, giving
s/m = (s/m)^2 * (m/s).
Showing, that all we are doing, with the square of velocity and the square of energy, is going from +1 to 0 to -1, or from -1 to 0 to +1, in the equation of motion, because, energy is the inverse of velocity.
Now, we are going to have someone cry foul because of the m/s = 2/1 aspect of this, but we have to remember that, once we cross 0, or unity 1/1 (c-speed), the equation is no longer expressing a velocity, but an energy, so we haven't broken the "speed limit" of the universe!
Some of these interpretations deal with two dimensional surfaces, although space is three-dimensional. So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space. Just as a "for instance", my last example above could correspond to a "ball" of spacetime changing in volume over time. The 2D region could be the surface of that ball. Maybe the energy in a mass is wrapped up on the surface of a sphere, which is changing in size, at a changing rate. If the radius were oscillating between a min and max, periodically, there would be an acceleration associated with this changing rate of growth, which the (m/s)^2 might embody.... But again, why would we be dividing by such a unit?
WaterBreath, you are a man after my own heart, in spite of that handle. I would like to know where you got those ideas, because they are right on in my opinion. The dimensions of a vibrating volume of space/time would be (m/s)^3. Resistance to this motion in any direction, would then have to be (s/m)^3, as any vacant dimension would offer no resistance.
Again, the only reason we divide by (m/s)^2 is to get to the other side of the equation. Remember, the quantum of energy, h, is the inverse of c^2. Thus c^2 and h (e^2) are the dimensions of the conversion constants to turn c^3 (which is the motion measured as mass) and e^3 (the inverse of c^3) into the dimensions of E and V:
E = s/m and V = m/s.
How and why these dimensions are of unit value equal to c is a wonderful mystery too, but I better stop for now.
Regards,
Excal
The mass unit (kg) is the energy unit (J) multiplied by (s/m)^2. Or, alternatively, divided by (m/s)^2.
This is a very good observation. The kg is an arbitrary value that is based on a physical object kept in Paris. If the dimensions of mass are (s/m)^3, then the dimensions of energy are
E = mc^2 = (s/m)^3 x (m/s)^2 = s/m.
Thus, given that the dimensions of mass, energy and velocity are all expressable in units of time and length (space), this implies that the fundamental entities are time and space.
QUOTE
So I propose some things to ponder...
* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?
* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?
The unit s/m is called a propagation delay, because it is the inverse of velocity and can therefore express the conductivity, sigma, of a conductor, but as we see, s/m are also the dimensions of energy, so the significance of the squared velocity is that energy and velocity are inverses. Since rest, or inertial, mass is a 3D resistance to velocity, with dimensions, (s/m)^3, the square of velocity, with dimensions (m/s)^2, reduces these dimensions to the dimensions of energy, s/m.
However, the significance of this fact can only be truly appreciated, when it is realized that the velocity of light, c speed, is the datum of reference for these space/time magnitudes. In other words, since space is the reciprocal of time in the equation of motion, then the unit value, c = m/s = 1/1 is the pivot point between velocity, m/s = 1/n and energy, s/m = 1/n, just as 0 is the pivot point between -1 and +1.
The ratio equivalents to the integers -1, 0 and +1, are 1/2, 1/1 and 2/1. If we don't invert the dimensions of velocity to s/m, we can see that the dimensions of energy are equivalent to m/s = 2/1, from the point of view of velocity and vice-versa; that is, from the perspective of -1, + 1 is two units away and vice-versa. Therefore, to get from the energy side to the velocity side of 0 (which is not zero, but c-speed, 1/1) requires two multiplications: the first gets us to unity, the second to one unit away from unity. I'll try to illustrate what I mean to make it clearer:
We start with,
1/2, 1/1, 2/1 = -1, 0, +1,
to get from -1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of velocity,
(1/2) * (2/1) = 2/2 = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to +1, we multiply once more by the inverse of velocity,
(1/1) * (2/1) = 2/1, which takes us to the positive side of 0.
However, mass is the resistance to velocity and, thus, has the inverse dimensions of energy, so we need to go the other way:
to get from +1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of energy,
(2/1) * (1/2) = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to -1, we multiply once more by the inverse of energy,
(1/1) * (1/2) = 1/2, which takes us to the negative side, or velocity side, of the equation of motion. Hence, it takes a velocity times a velocity, (m/s)^2, or an energy times an energy, (s/m)^2, to convert from one side of c-speed speed to the reciprocal side. We see the same thing in the other energy conversion equation,
E = hv,
where h is Planck's constant, and v is nu, the frequency of radiation. Only, here, it's not generally recognized that nu, a frequency, expressed in terms of cycles per second, is actually a velocity as well, since the cycles are units tracking the traversing of the same unit of length repeatedly, a vibration. Therefore, the actual dimensions of the equation are,
s/m = h (m/s),
which means that the dimensions of h are really (s/m)^2, giving
s/m = (s/m)^2 * (m/s).
Showing, that all we are doing, with the square of velocity and the square of energy, is going from +1 to 0 to -1, or from -1 to 0 to +1, in the equation of motion, because, energy is the inverse of velocity.
Now, we are going to have someone cry foul because of the m/s = 2/1 aspect of this, but we have to remember that, once we cross 0, or unity 1/1 (c-speed), the equation is no longer expressing a velocity, but an energy, so we haven't broken the "speed limit" of the universe!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So I propose some things to ponder... * What is the physical significance of a squared velocity? * What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity? * The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay? |
The unit s/m is called a propagation delay, because it is the inverse of velocity and can therefore express the conductivity, sigma, of a conductor, but as we see, s/m are also the dimensions of energy, so the significance of the squared velocity is that energy and velocity are inverses. Since rest, or inertial, mass is a 3D resistance to velocity, with dimensions, (s/m)^3, the square of velocity, with dimensions (m/s)^2, reduces these dimensions to the dimensions of energy, s/m.
However, the significance of this fact can only be truly appreciated, when it is realized that the velocity of light, c speed, is the datum of reference for these space/time magnitudes. In other words, since space is the reciprocal of time in the equation of motion, then the unit value, c = m/s = 1/1 is the pivot point between velocity, m/s = 1/n and energy, s/m = 1/n, just as 0 is the pivot point between -1 and +1.
The ratio equivalents to the integers -1, 0 and +1, are 1/2, 1/1 and 2/1. If we don't invert the dimensions of velocity to s/m, we can see that the dimensions of energy are equivalent to m/s = 2/1, from the point of view of velocity and vice-versa; that is, from the perspective of -1, + 1 is two units away and vice-versa. Therefore, to get from the energy side to the velocity side of 0 (which is not zero, but c-speed, 1/1) requires two multiplications: the first gets us to unity, the second to one unit away from unity. I'll try to illustrate what I mean to make it clearer:
We start with,
1/2, 1/1, 2/1 = -1, 0, +1,
to get from -1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of velocity,
(1/2) * (2/1) = 2/2 = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to +1, we multiply once more by the inverse of velocity,
(1/1) * (2/1) = 2/1, which takes us to the positive side of 0.
However, mass is the resistance to velocity and, thus, has the inverse dimensions of energy, so we need to go the other way:
to get from +1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of energy,
(2/1) * (1/2) = 1/1. Then,
to get from 0 to -1, we multiply once more by the inverse of energy,
(1/1) * (1/2) = 1/2, which takes us to the negative side, or velocity side, of the equation of motion. Hence, it takes a velocity times a velocity, (m/s)^2, or an energy times an energy, (s/m)^2, to convert from one side of c-speed speed to the reciprocal side. We see the same thing in the other energy conversion equation,
E = hv,
where h is Planck's constant, and v is nu, the frequency of radiation. Only, here, it's not generally recognized that nu, a frequency, expressed in terms of cycles per second, is actually a velocity as well, since the cycles are units tracking the traversing of the same unit of length repeatedly, a vibration. Therefore, the actual dimensions of the equation are,
s/m = h (m/s),
which means that the dimensions of h are really (s/m)^2, giving
s/m = (s/m)^2 * (m/s).
Showing, that all we are doing, with the square of velocity and the square of energy, is going from +1 to 0 to -1, or from -1 to 0 to +1, in the equation of motion, because, energy is the inverse of velocity.
Now, we are going to have someone cry foul because of the m/s = 2/1 aspect of this, but we have to remember that, once we cross 0, or unity 1/1 (c-speed), the equation is no longer expressing a velocity, but an energy, so we haven't broken the "speed limit" of the universe!
Some of these interpretations deal with two dimensional surfaces, although space is three-dimensional. So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space. Just as a "for instance", my last example above could correspond to a "ball" of spacetime changing in volume over time. The 2D region could be the surface of that ball. Maybe the energy in a mass is wrapped up on the surface of a sphere, which is changing in size, at a changing rate. If the radius were oscillating between a min and max, periodically, there would be an acceleration associated with this changing rate of growth, which the (m/s)^2 might embody.... But again, why would we be dividing by such a unit?
WaterBreath, you are a man after my own heart, in spite of that handle. I would like to know where you got those ideas, because they are right on in my opinion. The dimensions of a vibrating volume of space/time would be (m/s)^3. Resistance to this motion in any direction, would then have to be (s/m)^3, as any vacant dimension would offer no resistance.
Again, the only reason we divide by (m/s)^2 is to get to the other side of the equation. Remember, the quantum of energy, h, is the inverse of c^2. Thus c^2 and h (e^2) are the dimensions of the conversion constants to turn c^3 (which is the motion measured as mass) and e^3 (the inverse of c^3) into the dimensions of E and V:
E = s/m and V = m/s.
How and why these dimensions are of unit value equal to c is a wonderful mystery too, but I better stop for now.
Regards,
Excal
Excal, WaterBreath, 5d0nut, C2, ...
I finally understand your idea Excal (from our original talk in "philosophical implications..numbers..TOE). We were very close to the same wavelength after all !
You were using zero as the "equilibrium point", correct? (not as an ending measurement) In the sense of "energy" being no resistance to velocity, and mass being the opposite, I would certainly agree.
We seem to differ on the "fundamental entities"; Time and Space vs. Frequency and Wavelength. Some might say that it is splitting hairs, and I'm not sure the difference is that critical.
Your "set", layed out in mirror symmetry:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
also implies rotational symmetry.
The only problem in my thinking is that it is a "still frame" picture. If we allow a step by step process, the picture changes a little. Energy is made up of a dualistic coupling of E & M. They end up "in phase", at 90 deg, but they do not start out that way. First one, then the other. This implies that the "equilibrium point" is NOT symmetrically equal, but imbalanced.
I'm going to try to save a lot of words with a picture.
+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__
Does this make any sense? (I'm short on time!!)
I'd like to add a couple of questions to Waterbreaths' quote:
What is the significance of the square root of Velocity?
What is the significance of Pi x Wavelength?
TRoc
I finally understand your idea Excal (from our original talk in "philosophical implications..numbers..TOE). We were very close to the same wavelength after all !
You were using zero as the "equilibrium point", correct? (not as an ending measurement) In the sense of "energy" being no resistance to velocity, and mass being the opposite, I would certainly agree.
We seem to differ on the "fundamental entities"; Time and Space vs. Frequency and Wavelength. Some might say that it is splitting hairs, and I'm not sure the difference is that critical.
Your "set", layed out in mirror symmetry:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
also implies rotational symmetry.
The only problem in my thinking is that it is a "still frame" picture. If we allow a step by step process, the picture changes a little. Energy is made up of a dualistic coupling of E & M. They end up "in phase", at 90 deg, but they do not start out that way. First one, then the other. This implies that the "equilibrium point" is NOT symmetrically equal, but imbalanced.
I'm going to try to save a lot of words with a picture.
+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__
Does this make any sense? (I'm short on time!!)
I'd like to add a couple of questions to Waterbreaths' quote:
What is the significance of the square root of Velocity?
What is the significance of Pi x Wavelength?
TRoc
QUOTE (Excal+Jan 23 2006, 04:39 PM)
WaterBreath, you are a man after my own heart, in spite of that handle. I would like to know where you got those ideas, because they are right on in my opinion.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. The ideas I posted, I am proud to say, are some of the few that I have come to largely by my own ruminations.
I am not sure I understand all of your post, but I do find it intriguing, so I will try re-reading until it makes sense. I was especially intrigued by your proposal that mass have units of (s/m)^3 because it is a measurement of resistance to movement. I am not sure I agree at this point with the precise unit you've assigned to it, but I think that your inspiration for it is definitely worth pondering.
It is worthwhile to note that the General Relativity equations can be greatly simplified by unit-manipulation such as what we are playing with. This is done by assuming that time and space should be measured by the same unit, and that "c" is just a conversion factor between them. "G" is decalared a similar conversion factor, and those two constants are taken to be the fundamental units of the theory.
Details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_unit_system
I would really love to learn some abstract algebra and differential geometry. I think I would then be much better equipped to think about these things. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any books on these subjects that lend themselves well to self-teaching.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. The ideas I posted, I am proud to say, are some of the few that I have come to largely by my own ruminations.
I am not sure I understand all of your post, but I do find it intriguing, so I will try re-reading until it makes sense. I was especially intrigued by your proposal that mass have units of (s/m)^3 because it is a measurement of resistance to movement. I am not sure I agree at this point with the precise unit you've assigned to it, but I think that your inspiration for it is definitely worth pondering.
It is worthwhile to note that the General Relativity equations can be greatly simplified by unit-manipulation such as what we are playing with. This is done by assuming that time and space should be measured by the same unit, and that "c" is just a conversion factor between them. "G" is decalared a similar conversion factor, and those two constants are taken to be the fundamental units of the theory.
Details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_unit_system
I would really love to learn some abstract algebra and differential geometry. I think I would then be much better equipped to think about these things. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any books on these subjects that lend themselves well to self-teaching.
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 23 2006, 08:59 PM)
I'd like to add a couple of questions to Waterbreaths' quote:
What is the significance of the square root of Velocity?
What is the significance of Pi x Wavelength?
Those do seem quite interesting... I don't think I know of any places where those arise in equations, however. Can you cite some examples of where we see those?
I have one thought on the pi * wavelength one.... Since a wavelength is sort of a "diameter" of a sine wave, pi*wavelength would be pi*d, or the "circumference": the actual distance travelled along the curve of the wave. Not sure how this would be significant though. It would depend on the equation it appears in.
What is the significance of the square root of Velocity?
What is the significance of Pi x Wavelength?
Those do seem quite interesting... I don't think I know of any places where those arise in equations, however. Can you cite some examples of where we see those?
I have one thought on the pi * wavelength one.... Since a wavelength is sort of a "diameter" of a sine wave, pi*wavelength would be pi*d, or the "circumference": the actual distance travelled along the curve of the wave. Not sure how this would be significant though. It would depend on the equation it appears in.
Excal, WaterBreath, et al..
Let me further explain my last post.
This "model":
+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__
becomes this on reflection:
+1..__..__...| >..-1..__..__
__..__..00...| >..__..00..__
__..-1..__...| >..__..__..+1
Which is the same as:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
spread out over time, incrementally. (a quantum measurement)
The "steady state" would be:
+1..__..__+1..__...__+1..__..__+1..__..__+1..__..__
__..__..00__...__..00__..__..00__..__..00__..__..00
__..-1...____..-1..____...-1..____..-1..____..-1..___
basically, a sine wave.
What I want to point out is that, if we take the sq.rt. of velocity, © in this case, we get the value of 17314.515817660047983788339758548 ; that represents the "equilibrium" of the velocity.
We have a wavelength of 17314.515817660047983788339758548 m,
and a frequency of the same quantity in Hz. Their product is 299,792,458 and is completely symmetrical.
Now let's bring in the final number in the set, 2.
If we take a wavelength of 5.1595270633697509765625e-7
its' frequency = 5.8104639110895919133574007220217e+14
and their product = 2.99792458e+8
Let's find the equilibrium, based on the 2/1 .. 1/2 relationship:
5.1595270633697509765625e-7 * 2^35 = 17728
5.8104639110895919133574007220217e+14 /2^35 = 16910.6756543321299
A clear case of broken symmetry, and showing that IMBALANCE is, indeed, the true seed of symmetrical waveforms. In my opinion, in relativistic / Lorentzian terms, the "mass" of the "photon" does change with frequency, as is implied by E=mc^2. Since we can find no mass in the "photon", we must conclude that the velocities of these photoelectron waves change with frequency. They can not change in any logarithmic fashion, however, because that would result in an obvious significant velocity change in lower energy quantities such as 17314.5 .
The fact that this goes unrecognized in current Scientific theory leads to the philosophical breakdown of the Copenhagen Interpretation: Unconditional surrender of the Scientific Method: we know all that can be known, yet we are not finished! This is the human Ego that is out of control, and throwing a tantrum.
I have devised a system that draws a bigger picture. It allows the mirror / rotational symmetry to exist, and does not change any "fundamental" parts of existing theory - save one: the speed of light IS consistently at 299.7e+8 upon the integral measurement / collapse; but WHILE "in flight" (which we have never seen), travels at doppler shifted velocities ranging from 2.96 to 2.97e+8 m/s. These velocities are consistent with "contraction" based on "mass potential" / kinetic energy. A little Doppler 'll do ya!
In my system, if you start with a single point, or quantity, the mirror symmetry shows itself upon collapse. In this sense, it is predictive, rather than empirical, as the "fixed" equations that we have now are.
The wavelength of 5.1595270633697509765625e-7 would have the frequency of 5.76144092954624e+14, and a velocity of 2.97263104e+8. (in my harmonic system)
These two "inverse", but rotationally symmetrical quantities would meet at the "singularity" of 17728, which is the closest naturally harmonic number to the sq.rt. of ©. A more "intuitive" picture can be seen with my "matrix". LINK
TRoc
Let me further explain my last post.
This "model":
+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__
becomes this on reflection:
+1..__..__...| >..-1..__..__
__..__..00...| >..__..00..__
__..-1..__...| >..__..__..+1
Which is the same as:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
spread out over time, incrementally. (a quantum measurement)
The "steady state" would be:
+1..__..__+1..__...__+1..__..__+1..__..__+1..__..__
__..__..00__...__..00__..__..00__..__..00__..__..00
__..-1...____..-1..____...-1..____..-1..____..-1..___
basically, a sine wave.
What I want to point out is that, if we take the sq.rt. of velocity, © in this case, we get the value of 17314.515817660047983788339758548 ; that represents the "equilibrium" of the velocity.
We have a wavelength of 17314.515817660047983788339758548 m,
and a frequency of the same quantity in Hz. Their product is 299,792,458 and is completely symmetrical.
Now let's bring in the final number in the set, 2.
If we take a wavelength of 5.1595270633697509765625e-7
its' frequency = 5.8104639110895919133574007220217e+14
and their product = 2.99792458e+8
Let's find the equilibrium, based on the 2/1 .. 1/2 relationship:
5.1595270633697509765625e-7 * 2^35 = 17728
5.8104639110895919133574007220217e+14 /2^35 = 16910.6756543321299
A clear case of broken symmetry, and showing that IMBALANCE is, indeed, the true seed of symmetrical waveforms. In my opinion, in relativistic / Lorentzian terms, the "mass" of the "photon" does change with frequency, as is implied by E=mc^2. Since we can find no mass in the "photon", we must conclude that the velocities of these photoelectron waves change with frequency. They can not change in any logarithmic fashion, however, because that would result in an obvious significant velocity change in lower energy quantities such as 17314.5 .
The fact that this goes unrecognized in current Scientific theory leads to the philosophical breakdown of the Copenhagen Interpretation: Unconditional surrender of the Scientific Method: we know all that can be known, yet we are not finished! This is the human Ego that is out of control, and throwing a tantrum.
I have devised a system that draws a bigger picture. It allows the mirror / rotational symmetry to exist, and does not change any "fundamental" parts of existing theory - save one: the speed of light IS consistently at 299.7e+8 upon the integral measurement / collapse; but WHILE "in flight" (which we have never seen), travels at doppler shifted velocities ranging from 2.96 to 2.97e+8 m/s. These velocities are consistent with "contraction" based on "mass potential" / kinetic energy. A little Doppler 'll do ya!
In my system, if you start with a single point, or quantity, the mirror symmetry shows itself upon collapse. In this sense, it is predictive, rather than empirical, as the "fixed" equations that we have now are.
The wavelength of 5.1595270633697509765625e-7 would have the frequency of 5.76144092954624e+14, and a velocity of 2.97263104e+8. (in my harmonic system)
These two "inverse", but rotationally symmetrical quantities would meet at the "singularity" of 17728, which is the closest naturally harmonic number to the sq.rt. of ©. A more "intuitive" picture can be seen with my "matrix". LINK
TRoc
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
You were using zero as the "equilibrium point", correct? (not as an ending measurement) In the sense of "energy" being no resistance to velocity, and mass being the opposite, I would certainly agree.
We seem to differ on the "fundamental entities"; Time and Space vs. Frequency and Wavelength. Some might say that it is splitting hairs, and I'm not sure the difference is that critical.
Your "set", layed out in mirror symmetry:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
also implies rotational symmetry.
The only problem in my thinking is that it is a "still frame" picture. If we allow a step by step process, the picture changes a little. Energy is made up of a dualistic coupling of E & M. They end up "in phase", at 90 deg, but they do not start out that way. First one, then the other. This implies that the "equilibrium point" is NOT symmetrically equal, but imbalanced.
I'm going to try to save a lot of words with a picture.
+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__
Does this make any sense? (I'm short on time!!)
What's difficult to grasp is a frame of reference. In a universe of space/time as motion, there is no frame of reference to define a change of space or a change in time. This is a good thing. In fact it's a primary goal of modern physics, but it's difficult to not think that space isn't a container of matter, where time marches on relentlessly, and motion doesn't exist unless something moves relative to the container of space. The traditional notion of motion is what forces us to think of space as something real that can be measured, warped, etc.
However, things change radically, if we assume that space, like time, marches on relentlessly too. We can actually see this in the recession of the distant galaxies, but we don't obsserve it locally. Why is this? Well, to answer this question, we need to begin at the beginning and assume that it does for a moment, but that means giving up the idea of a reference frame of space and time momentarily.
When we do that we have only a motion - nothing else - with two reciprocal quanities, space and time. Quantities are real numbers, with no negatives, but since these two numbers are reciprocally related, there is also a number that is the relation between the two, and it does have negatives. So, if the number of space quantity is continuously increasing, and the number of time quantity is continuously increasing,
space = 1, 2, 3, ...n and time = 1, 2, 3, ...n,
then, the ratio of this INCREASE is 1:1; that is, space increases as time increases on a 1 for 1 basis. We can see that this progression of these two numbers constitutes motion, since the ratio of changing space to changing time is motion. Clearly, in doing this, we have defined a starting point with this 1:1 space/time progression that involves no external frame of reference.
Next, suppose that instead of continuously increasing, the space number at a given number in the endless progression, decreases, so that at number n, instead of increasing to number n + 1, it decreases to n - 1. Then, at n -1, it increases to n again, and it repeats this reversal pattern endlessly at the location n. What happens at location n?
Well, some interesting things. First, the space aspect of the motion at that location is confined to one unit of space that is constantly increasing and decreasing between n and n-1, while time continues to increase. The effect on the space time ratio at that location is to reduce the number of space increases by half relative to the number of time increases, because every other time the space number decreases instead of increasing. Thus, the space/time ratio is changed from 1/1 to 1/2 at that location.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander too, so we can say the same for the time numbers; that is, at a given location, the time numbers could decrease from n to n - 1, instead of increasing from n to n + 1, and follow the same pattern as the space progression; that is, it continuously reverses, decreasing/increasing from n to n-1 and back to n, while the space numbers, at that location, continue to increase normally. This again affects the space/time progression ratio at that location, changing it in the other "direction" from 1:1 to 2:1, because now the time numbers only increase every other time, while the space numbers continue to increase uniformly at this location of time.
The result is that we have now defined three states of motion, which are related. The first is the initial condition of a unit progression ratio, where the ratio of increasing space to increaseing time is 1/1. The second is the state where the progression of the space numbers has been altered by the change in the pattern from continuous increase to alternating increase/decrease, resulting in a ratio of increasing space to increasing time that is 1/2, and a third state where a similar change in the reciprocal numbers of time results in a space/time progression ratio of 2/1.
However, these three ratios, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, correspond to three integers, -1, 0, +1, when the 1/1 is viewed as a balanced state, and the 1/2 and 2/1 ratios are viewed as the two possible imbalances of the balanced state, of unit magnitude, caused by the "direction" reversals in the progression of the space or time numbers.
Well, we might ask, what does this buy us? The answer: almost everything we want, since now, if we assign values of magnitude to the space and time numbers, such that the 1/1 progression ratio is c-speed, then the 1/2 progression is a c-speed space vibration, while the 2/1 progression is a c-speed time vibration. The space vibration is not able to progress in total numbers of space magnitude, while the time vibration is unable to progress in time magnitude, because of the vibrations. It's as if one is marching in place space-wise, while the other is marching in place time-wise, but relative to one another they are moving at unit speed; that is, since one is progressing space-wise, and the other is progressing time-wise, relatively they are progessing space/time-wise, at c-speed.
This was a lengthy explanation to answer your questions TRoc, but I hope you can see how this is not a "still-frame" picture! Far from it, it is incredibly dynamic. The difference in this approach is that the symmetry is broken in discrete units; that is, the space/time progression ratios exists as discrete units of space/time, so that the -1s are independent units relative to the +1s, but they are derived from the same symmetrical state. In other words, the -1s are units of broken symmetry in one "direction" from the point of symmetry, or balance, the zero balance we might say, while the +1s are units of broken symmetry in the opposite "direction."
This means that these units can be combined in various ways. For instance two -1s, or two +1s, or a -1 and a +1, or two -1s and two +1s, etc. It gives us a two-bit information system of immense power.
Excal
We seem to differ on the "fundamental entities"; Time and Space vs. Frequency and Wavelength. Some might say that it is splitting hairs, and I'm not sure the difference is that critical.
Your "set", layed out in mirror symmetry:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
also implies rotational symmetry.
The only problem in my thinking is that it is a "still frame" picture. If we allow a step by step process, the picture changes a little. Energy is made up of a dualistic coupling of E & M. They end up "in phase", at 90 deg, but they do not start out that way. First one, then the other. This implies that the "equilibrium point" is NOT symmetrically equal, but imbalanced.
I'm going to try to save a lot of words with a picture.
+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__
Does this make any sense? (I'm short on time!!)
What's difficult to grasp is a frame of reference. In a universe of space/time as motion, there is no frame of reference to define a change of space or a change in time. This is a good thing. In fact it's a primary goal of modern physics, but it's difficult to not think that space isn't a container of matter, where time marches on relentlessly, and motion doesn't exist unless something moves relative to the container of space. The traditional notion of motion is what forces us to think of space as something real that can be measured, warped, etc.
However, things change radically, if we assume that space, like time, marches on relentlessly too. We can actually see this in the recession of the distant galaxies, but we don't obsserve it locally. Why is this? Well, to answer this question, we need to begin at the beginning and assume that it does for a moment, but that means giving up the idea of a reference frame of space and time momentarily.
When we do that we have only a motion - nothing else - with two reciprocal quanities, space and time. Quantities are real numbers, with no negatives, but since these two numbers are reciprocally related, there is also a number that is the relation between the two, and it does have negatives. So, if the number of space quantity is continuously increasing, and the number of time quantity is continuously increasing,
space = 1, 2, 3, ...n and time = 1, 2, 3, ...n,
then, the ratio of this INCREASE is 1:1; that is, space increases as time increases on a 1 for 1 basis. We can see that this progression of these two numbers constitutes motion, since the ratio of changing space to changing time is motion. Clearly, in doing this, we have defined a starting point with this 1:1 space/time progression that involves no external frame of reference.
Next, suppose that instead of continuously increasing, the space number at a given number in the endless progression, decreases, so that at number n, instead of increasing to number n + 1, it decreases to n - 1. Then, at n -1, it increases to n again, and it repeats this reversal pattern endlessly at the location n. What happens at location n?
Well, some interesting things. First, the space aspect of the motion at that location is confined to one unit of space that is constantly increasing and decreasing between n and n-1, while time continues to increase. The effect on the space time ratio at that location is to reduce the number of space increases by half relative to the number of time increases, because every other time the space number decreases instead of increasing. Thus, the space/time ratio is changed from 1/1 to 1/2 at that location.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander too, so we can say the same for the time numbers; that is, at a given location, the time numbers could decrease from n to n - 1, instead of increasing from n to n + 1, and follow the same pattern as the space progression; that is, it continuously reverses, decreasing/increasing from n to n-1 and back to n, while the space numbers, at that location, continue to increase normally. This again affects the space/time progression ratio at that location, changing it in the other "direction" from 1:1 to 2:1, because now the time numbers only increase every other time, while the space numbers continue to increase uniformly at this location of time.
The result is that we have now defined three states of motion, which are related. The first is the initial condition of a unit progression ratio, where the ratio of increasing space to increaseing time is 1/1. The second is the state where the progression of the space numbers has been altered by the change in the pattern from continuous increase to alternating increase/decrease, resulting in a ratio of increasing space to increasing time that is 1/2, and a third state where a similar change in the reciprocal numbers of time results in a space/time progression ratio of 2/1.
However, these three ratios, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, correspond to three integers, -1, 0, +1, when the 1/1 is viewed as a balanced state, and the 1/2 and 2/1 ratios are viewed as the two possible imbalances of the balanced state, of unit magnitude, caused by the "direction" reversals in the progression of the space or time numbers.
Well, we might ask, what does this buy us? The answer: almost everything we want, since now, if we assign values of magnitude to the space and time numbers, such that the 1/1 progression ratio is c-speed, then the 1/2 progression is a c-speed space vibration, while the 2/1 progression is a c-speed time vibration. The space vibration is not able to progress in total numbers of space magnitude, while the time vibration is unable to progress in time magnitude, because of the vibrations. It's as if one is marching in place space-wise, while the other is marching in place time-wise, but relative to one another they are moving at unit speed; that is, since one is progressing space-wise, and the other is progressing time-wise, relatively they are progessing space/time-wise, at c-speed.
This was a lengthy explanation to answer your questions TRoc, but I hope you can see how this is not a "still-frame" picture! Far from it, it is incredibly dynamic. The difference in this approach is that the symmetry is broken in discrete units; that is, the space/time progression ratios exists as discrete units of space/time, so that the -1s are independent units relative to the +1s, but they are derived from the same symmetrical state. In other words, the -1s are units of broken symmetry in one "direction" from the point of symmetry, or balance, the zero balance we might say, while the +1s are units of broken symmetry in the opposite "direction."
This means that these units can be combined in various ways. For instance two -1s, or two +1s, or a -1 and a +1, or two -1s and two +1s, etc. It gives us a two-bit information system of immense power.
Excal
Excal....
Keep going don't let this post interrupt.
I just want to say that I feel that you have described in a beautiful way how I see spacetime (my spot) behaving (2d or 3d).
You helped.
My presentations
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
jal
Keep going don't let this post interrupt.
I just want to say that I feel that you have described in a beautiful way how I see spacetime (my spot) behaving (2d or 3d).
You helped.
QUOTE
It's as if one is marching in place space-wise, while the other is marching in place time-wise, but relative to one another they are moving at unit speed; that is, since one is progressing space-wise, and the other is progressing time-wise, relatively they are progessing space/time-wise, at c-speed.
My presentations
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
jal
I would just like to point out how important it is to understand that the mathematical negative, which was so hard to accept for many (except for the accountants who always understood it, even from the days when the ancients used a pan balance to weigh things, including money), is not something imaginary, but real.
If we measure an object by balancing it with another, standard, object, it doesn't matter which side of the balance we place the standard and which side the object. The effect of one on the balance point is simply the inverse of the effect of the other. We can call one "direction" positive and the other negative, if we wish, but both of these "directions" are real. There is nothing imaginary about either one.
The mathematicians thought that they needed to square a positive number to get a negative number, so they invented an imaginary positive number that they could square to do it. The scientists thought that they needed to keep energy positive, so they invented an imaginary field to do it. However, the accountants have known all along that negative balances are just as real as positive balances, and that we need both to track finances properly.
Well, it turns out that we need both to do physics properly too, but because the idea of a negative object, or negative mass, or negative energy was too hard to cope with, physicists have not accepted it. The confusion we see today in modern physics is due more to this one fact, than any other.
If the ratios of 1/2, 1/1, and 2/1 are equivalent to the scalars -1, 0 and +1, then the motions of 1/2, 1/1, and 2/1 are too. Likewise, it doesn't matter if the ratios are multi-dimensional, the same scalar relation between them holds. We just need pseudoscalars like tensors or octonions to express them. Thus, (1/2)^n, (1/1)^n, and (2/1)^n are equivalent to the scalars -1, 0, and +1 as well. The exponentiation of the ratios does not change this fact. We can see this in the binomial expansion (binomial because there are two "directions") of the Clifford algebras or Pascal's triangle:
2^0 = 1 = 1
2^1 = 11 = 2
2^3 = 121 = 4
2^4 = 1331 = 8
...
We see that the unit scalars on the left of the triangle are balanced by the unit pseudoscalars on the right, ad infinitum. Thus, regardless of the number of dimensions, and the degrees of freedom of a number, there is always a scalar balanced by a corresponding pseudoscalar in the algebra.
So, it turns out that energy, with dimensions of time over space, or t/s, is just the inverse of velocity, with dimensions of space over time, or s/t. This means that there are two, reciprocal sectors of the universe. One wherein the equations of energy are the inverse of the equations of energy in the other. We can call one positive and one negative, just as we can call the two "directions" of a pan balance negative and positive, but, in reality, one "direction" is just the inverse of the other "direction."
With this much understood, we can see that, because
1) E = mc^2,
says that inverse velocity is equal to inverse velocity cubed (recall that mass is just the resistance, or inverse, of motion in three dimensions) times velocity squared, or
t/s = (t/s)^3 * (s/t)^2,
then the equation for velocity V is the inverse of this, or
s/t = (s/t)^3 * (t/s)^2,
which is saying that
2) V = (im)e^2,
where V is the inverse of E, im is the inverse of mass, and e is the inverse of c (that is, e = t/s = c = s/t = 1/1). Putting this in so many words, we may say that, in our sector of the universe,
1) Inverse velocity is equal to inverse velocity cubed times velocity squared, and, in the inverse sector of the universe,
2) Velocity is equal to velocity cubed time inverse velocity squared.
This is huge, because it defines the energy equation for the "negative" half of the universe where the energy equation of the positive half is the inverse of the negative half. Mathematics is telling us the same thing: the positive half of the integer system is really only the inverse of the negative half of the integer system, PROVIDED that we understand that scalars are really only the value of two real numbers, reciprocally related, in a rational number. Negative scalars are really only the inverses of positive scalars, as represented by rational numbers.
Consequently, there is no need for imaginary numbers, imaginary dimensions, or imaginary universes. There is just a need to recognize the reality of inverse "directions," or negative and positive numbers, for what they are: ratios.
Excal
If we measure an object by balancing it with another, standard, object, it doesn't matter which side of the balance we place the standard and which side the object. The effect of one on the balance point is simply the inverse of the effect of the other. We can call one "direction" positive and the other negative, if we wish, but both of these "directions" are real. There is nothing imaginary about either one.
The mathematicians thought that they needed to square a positive number to get a negative number, so they invented an imaginary positive number that they could square to do it. The scientists thought that they needed to keep energy positive, so they invented an imaginary field to do it. However, the accountants have known all along that negative balances are just as real as positive balances, and that we need both to track finances properly.
Well, it turns out that we need both to do physics properly too, but because the idea of a negative object, or negative mass, or negative energy was too hard to cope with, physicists have not accepted it. The confusion we see today in modern physics is due more to this one fact, than any other.
If the ratios of 1/2, 1/1, and 2/1 are equivalent to the scalars -1, 0 and +1, then the motions of 1/2, 1/1, and 2/1 are too. Likewise, it doesn't matter if the ratios are multi-dimensional, the same scalar relation between them holds. We just need pseudoscalars like tensors or octonions to express them. Thus, (1/2)^n, (1/1)^n, and (2/1)^n are equivalent to the scalars -1, 0, and +1 as well. The exponentiation of the ratios does not change this fact. We can see this in the binomial expansion (binomial because there are two "directions") of the Clifford algebras or Pascal's triangle:
2^0 = 1 = 1
2^1 = 11 = 2
2^3 = 121 = 4
2^4 = 1331 = 8
...
We see that the unit scalars on the left of the triangle are balanced by the unit pseudoscalars on the right, ad infinitum. Thus, regardless of the number of dimensions, and the degrees of freedom of a number, there is always a scalar balanced by a corresponding pseudoscalar in the algebra.
So, it turns out that energy, with dimensions of time over space, or t/s, is just the inverse of velocity, with dimensions of space over time, or s/t. This means that there are two, reciprocal sectors of the universe. One wherein the equations of energy are the inverse of the equations of energy in the other. We can call one positive and one negative, just as we can call the two "directions" of a pan balance negative and positive, but, in reality, one "direction" is just the inverse of the other "direction."
With this much understood, we can see that, because
1) E = mc^2,
says that inverse velocity is equal to inverse velocity cubed (recall that mass is just the resistance, or inverse, of motion in three dimensions) times velocity squared, or
t/s = (t/s)^3 * (s/t)^2,
then the equation for velocity V is the inverse of this, or
s/t = (s/t)^3 * (t/s)^2,
which is saying that
2) V = (im)e^2,
where V is the inverse of E, im is the inverse of mass, and e is the inverse of c (that is, e = t/s = c = s/t = 1/1). Putting this in so many words, we may say that, in our sector of the universe,
1) Inverse velocity is equal to inverse velocity cubed times velocity squared, and, in the inverse sector of the universe,
2) Velocity is equal to velocity cubed time inverse velocity squared.
This is huge, because it defines the energy equation for the "negative" half of the universe where the energy equation of the positive half is the inverse of the negative half. Mathematics is telling us the same thing: the positive half of the integer system is really only the inverse of the negative half of the integer system, PROVIDED that we understand that scalars are really only the value of two real numbers, reciprocally related, in a rational number. Negative scalars are really only the inverses of positive scalars, as represented by rational numbers.
Consequently, there is no need for imaginary numbers, imaginary dimensions, or imaginary universes. There is just a need to recognize the reality of inverse "directions," or negative and positive numbers, for what they are: ratios.
Excal
.
Excellent!
Excellent!
Excal,
Very well put. I was leery of using your "set" in my explanation, and now I see why. Even though we are saying the same thing, our models are somewhat different. The set '+1,0,-1' , has not been used in mine. Essentially, we are at qualitative and quantitative differences. Let's not get bogged down by that.
In the great sphere of the Universe, there is a "line" between halves, and, as you said, they can be expressed in terms of positive and negative. There is no frame of reference, other than the sphere as a whole, itself. There are no other Universes, or dimensions. There are inverses of directions (3) mis-leading some to compute for 6 ~ 12 dimensions. The Hebrew language sums up that fact well; it is the only surviving system that displays this ancient knowledge. It is a completely harmonically engineered language, and contains more knowledge than the sum of its parts. That is not meant to be a religious statement, or supportive of their cause. Just a historical / symmetrical / harmonic note. (incidental pun)
The reason I brought out the square root of ©, was to show the mirror symmetry that lies at the boundary of the 2 halves of the Universe. It is false to assume that the center of the Universe lies at the value of 17314, for that would not allow the duality of the opposing halves to exist. That number is the product of 2 dualistic measurements, and if 2 people started out from each side, at the respective symmetrical components (the 5.159e-7 and 5.76e14 from my previous post) they would not meet. In fact, they could not arrive at a further distance from each other; they would each be at the tail of the opposing yin and yangs. Even at the other dimensional center, beginning from points of 7.30e-7 and 4.06e14, they would not meet; at least they would be "in sight" though, at the symbolic "mouths" of yin and yang.
The mathematical "map" that describes this is my "resonance matrix"; actually, it is not mine, it is "ours", I just have been allowed to open the gate, that has been locked to all. Much akin to the sword you have pulled from the rock; the power that it wields must be used for the greater good.
I use the "old school" terminology; I call those "pseudo scalars"that you mentioned - "harmonic columns". Reducing the "equations" from the ratios to the irrationals is all that I have done to Pythagoras' earlier work. There is much to glean from just this alone, as you have pointed out. As there is no "stillness", there is no infinite mass, and therefore no infinite energy; just eternal balance. The balance will always produce "velocity" of ©. The decimal numbers substitute well for the negatives, producing the quantitative results that match the empirical data. In this way, you do not have to compute the entire chart as I have, you can clearly see the mirror symmetry begin with the directional change as you cross over to the "sub pseudo-scalars"; the positive values move from left to right, and the "negative" or decimals, move from right to left. The "thirteenth column" is for illustrative purposes only, to create the dualistic symmetry that our ordered minds prefer.
This is a philosophical marriage of Eastern and Western approaches, as well as a mathematical one. Zero never appears as a real quantity; it is a "historical" term to define what "was" and never what "IS". Conservation of mass, energy, etc, is the result of our definitive labels for the apparent motion of the eternal scales; the duality of the counter-balance.
To bring this back down to everyday "science", the harmonic column, or pseudo-scalars that you mentioned, (1,2,4,8..) can be expressed in eV, which can easily transformed into "mass" quantity symbols. Thus, from "First Principles", there should be a predictive pattern for the masses that we find in our "standard particle" line-up. I have only talked about frequency and wavelength of the massless ("photons"), but any dualistic quantity, that equates to © velocity, can be derived from this matrix. (ie. de Broglie waves, and their mass or energy equivalents)
TRoc
Very well put. I was leery of using your "set" in my explanation, and now I see why. Even though we are saying the same thing, our models are somewhat different. The set '+1,0,-1' , has not been used in mine. Essentially, we are at qualitative and quantitative differences. Let's not get bogged down by that.
In the great sphere of the Universe, there is a "line" between halves, and, as you said, they can be expressed in terms of positive and negative. There is no frame of reference, other than the sphere as a whole, itself. There are no other Universes, or dimensions. There are inverses of directions (3) mis-leading some to compute for 6 ~ 12 dimensions. The Hebrew language sums up that fact well; it is the only surviving system that displays this ancient knowledge. It is a completely harmonically engineered language, and contains more knowledge than the sum of its parts. That is not meant to be a religious statement, or supportive of their cause. Just a historical / symmetrical / harmonic note. (incidental pun)
The reason I brought out the square root of ©, was to show the mirror symmetry that lies at the boundary of the 2 halves of the Universe. It is false to assume that the center of the Universe lies at the value of 17314, for that would not allow the duality of the opposing halves to exist. That number is the product of 2 dualistic measurements, and if 2 people started out from each side, at the respective symmetrical components (the 5.159e-7 and 5.76e14 from my previous post) they would not meet. In fact, they could not arrive at a further distance from each other; they would each be at the tail of the opposing yin and yangs. Even at the other dimensional center, beginning from points of 7.30e-7 and 4.06e14, they would not meet; at least they would be "in sight" though, at the symbolic "mouths" of yin and yang.
The mathematical "map" that describes this is my "resonance matrix"; actually, it is not mine, it is "ours", I just have been allowed to open the gate, that has been locked to all. Much akin to the sword you have pulled from the rock; the power that it wields must be used for the greater good.
I use the "old school" terminology; I call those "pseudo scalars"that you mentioned - "harmonic columns". Reducing the "equations" from the ratios to the irrationals is all that I have done to Pythagoras' earlier work. There is much to glean from just this alone, as you have pointed out. As there is no "stillness", there is no infinite mass, and therefore no infinite energy; just eternal balance. The balance will always produce "velocity" of ©. The decimal numbers substitute well for the negatives, producing the quantitative results that match the empirical data. In this way, you do not have to compute the entire chart as I have, you can clearly see the mirror symmetry begin with the directional change as you cross over to the "sub pseudo-scalars"; the positive values move from left to right, and the "negative" or decimals, move from right to left. The "thirteenth column" is for illustrative purposes only, to create the dualistic symmetry that our ordered minds prefer.
This is a philosophical marriage of Eastern and Western approaches, as well as a mathematical one. Zero never appears as a real quantity; it is a "historical" term to define what "was" and never what "IS". Conservation of mass, energy, etc, is the result of our definitive labels for the apparent motion of the eternal scales; the duality of the counter-balance.
To bring this back down to everyday "science", the harmonic column, or pseudo-scalars that you mentioned, (1,2,4,8..) can be expressed in eV, which can easily transformed into "mass" quantity symbols. Thus, from "First Principles", there should be a predictive pattern for the masses that we find in our "standard particle" line-up. I have only talked about frequency and wavelength of the massless ("photons"), but any dualistic quantity, that equates to © velocity, can be derived from this matrix. (ie. de Broglie waves, and their mass or energy equivalents)
TRoc
I'd just like to draw attention to the way rather horrible things happen if you take mass (m) and muddle it up with metres (m) .. I feel mildly guilty here for not using something like M for mass but you never know what is going to happen until after it's happened. -Confused2
Hi all!
I want to meet and compare notes in my thread. I don't want to litter this thread with another discussion.
Yin_Yang of spacetime
I want to meet and compare notes in my thread. I don't want to litter this thread with another discussion.
Yin_Yang of spacetime
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
Very well put. I was leery of using your "set" in my explanation, and now I see why. Even though we are saying the same thing, our models are somewhat different. The set '+1,0,-1' , has not been used in mine. Essentially, we are at qualitative and quantitative differences. Let's not get bogged down by that.
Yes, and let me point out that, though it's not very evident from what I've explained to this point, the limit to one unit pertains to a discrete unit of motion. However, the fact that these units are discrete leads to the possible combinations of units that then extend the number of units to higher quantities in each "direction;" that is,
n..., -1, 0, +1, ...n
is the actual series of the system, which is the integer number system. In the case of radiation, n extends to infinity, but, in the case of matter, n is limited.
Yes, and let me point out that, though it's not very evident from what I've explained to this point, the limit to one unit pertains to a discrete unit of motion. However, the fact that these units are discrete leads to the possible combinations of units that then extend the number of units to higher quantities in each "direction;" that is,
n..., -1, 0, +1, ...n
is the actual series of the system, which is the integer number system. In the case of radiation, n extends to infinity, but, in the case of matter, n is limited.
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
In the great sphere of the Universe, there is a "line" between halves, and, as you said, they can be expressed in terms of positive and negative. There is no frame of reference, other than the sphere as a whole, itself. There are no other Universes, or dimensions. There are inverses of directions (3) mis-leading some to compute for 6 ~ 12 dimensions. The Hebrew language sums up that fact well; it is the only surviving system that displays this ancient knowledge. It is a completely harmonically engineered language, and contains more knowledge than the sum of its parts. That is not meant to be a religious statement, or supportive of their cause. Just a historical / symmetrical / harmonic note. (incidental pun)
That's interesting. I didn't know that about Hebrew, but I know that the ancient Greeks and Hebrews shared the same sacred regard for the first four numbers, 1-4, which, as it turns out, form the ancient tetractys of the Phythagoreans. However, while through the centuries these things got encrusted with obscure cultic meanings, for the Phythagoreans, the "Harmonia of the Sirens" held the "Fount and Root of everflowing Nature."
Today, we can see, in Dirac's equation, that there are four solutions at the heart of nature's secrets and these four solutions are four harmonies! When we look at mathematics the way the Pythagoreans looked at it, we see a system of mathematics that included four fields:
1) The arithmetic of numbers (magnitudes)
2) The Harmony of ratios (directed magnitudes)
3) Physics (directed magnitudes of space and time)
4) Geometry (magnitudes and directions of space)
Which makes a lot of sense. Today, we know that the two "directions" of positive and negative magnitudes, when expanded from 1 to 3 dimensions, forms the only normed division algebras, and that these, mysteriously (through Bott periodicity), correspond to an underlying pattern seen not only in mathematics, but in the most advanced physics as well.
What we want to do, then, is to take this idea of space and time as the reciprocal aspects of motion and consider discrete units of it as these basic ratios of harmony that form the basic building blocks of physical structure. It would be hard to do better, since it conforms so well to the fundamentals of mathematics, physics, geometry, and (surprise, surprise) music!
This latter connection is most clearly seen in the fact that the frequency of the +1 vibration is twice that of the -1 vibration, the distance of one octave. Within that one octave are those sacred ratios of the Pythagoreans, the perfect fifth, 3/2, and the fourth, 4/3, which is really the inverse of the perfect fifth, 2/3, when viewed from the opposite "direction."
There is so much to say about all this that is almost overwhelming in its intellectual impact, but since it is off-topic in this thread, I'll forbear for now, but maybe will take it up in a more appropriate thread. However, it has a direct bearing on the concepts of matter, mass and energy that I'm sorely tempted to point out, when the opportunity arises, but it's premature at this point I think.
That's interesting. I didn't know that about Hebrew, but I know that the ancient Greeks and Hebrews shared the same sacred regard for the first four numbers, 1-4, which, as it turns out, form the ancient tetractys of the Phythagoreans. However, while through the centuries these things got encrusted with obscure cultic meanings, for the Phythagoreans, the "Harmonia of the Sirens" held the "Fount and Root of everflowing Nature."
Today, we can see, in Dirac's equation, that there are four solutions at the heart of nature's secrets and these four solutions are four harmonies! When we look at mathematics the way the Pythagoreans looked at it, we see a system of mathematics that included four fields:
1) The arithmetic of numbers (magnitudes)
2) The Harmony of ratios (directed magnitudes)
3) Physics (directed magnitudes of space and time)
4) Geometry (magnitudes and directions of space)
Which makes a lot of sense. Today, we know that the two "directions" of positive and negative magnitudes, when expanded from 1 to 3 dimensions, forms the only normed division algebras, and that these, mysteriously (through Bott periodicity), correspond to an underlying pattern seen not only in mathematics, but in the most advanced physics as well.
What we want to do, then, is to take this idea of space and time as the reciprocal aspects of motion and consider discrete units of it as these basic ratios of harmony that form the basic building blocks of physical structure. It would be hard to do better, since it conforms so well to the fundamentals of mathematics, physics, geometry, and (surprise, surprise) music!
This latter connection is most clearly seen in the fact that the frequency of the +1 vibration is twice that of the -1 vibration, the distance of one octave. Within that one octave are those sacred ratios of the Pythagoreans, the perfect fifth, 3/2, and the fourth, 4/3, which is really the inverse of the perfect fifth, 2/3, when viewed from the opposite "direction."
There is so much to say about all this that is almost overwhelming in its intellectual impact, but since it is off-topic in this thread, I'll forbear for now, but maybe will take it up in a more appropriate thread. However, it has a direct bearing on the concepts of matter, mass and energy that I'm sorely tempted to point out, when the opportunity arises, but it's premature at this point I think.
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
The reason I brought out the square root of ©, was to show the mirror symmetry that lies at the boundary of the 2 halves of the Universe. It is false to assume that the center of the Universe lies at the value of 17314, for that would not allow the duality of the opposing halves to exist. That number is the product of 2 dualistic measurements, and if 2 people started out from each side, at the respective symmetrical components (the 5.159e-7 and 5.76e14 from my previous post) they would not meet. In fact, they could not arrive at a further distance from each other; they would each be at the tail of the opposing yin and yangs. Even at the other dimensional center, beginning from points of 7.30e-7 and 4.06e14, they would not meet; at least they would be "in sight" though, at the symbolic "mouths" of yin and yang.
Yes, but while the square root of c, as a velocity, has two solutions, there is really no reason to construe this to mean that the nonlinear ratio of these solutions must be taken to be fundamental, leading to the result you point out. The fact is, the square root of the underlying fundamental relation of c, when it is taken as the natural datum of nature, becomes the square root of one, 1/1 = 1, with two roots, -1 and +1, which IS linear and delineates the boundary of the duality of the opposing halves perfectly.
It was the unsuspected quantum aspect of the structure of physical reality that did in the Pythagoreans, and it is the unsuspected quantum aspect of nature that is dogging modern physics. On the one hand, we've learned to deal with it on the basis of probability amplitudes, just as the Pythogoreans dealt with the square root of 2 with the irrationals, but, on the other hand, in doing so, we destroy the beauty of our relativistic world, just as the Pythagoreans destroyed their cherished and adored integer world, and we are just as desperate to reconcile them as they were!
Yes, but while the square root of c, as a velocity, has two solutions, there is really no reason to construe this to mean that the nonlinear ratio of these solutions must be taken to be fundamental, leading to the result you point out. The fact is, the square root of the underlying fundamental relation of c, when it is taken as the natural datum of nature, becomes the square root of one, 1/1 = 1, with two roots, -1 and +1, which IS linear and delineates the boundary of the duality of the opposing halves perfectly.
It was the unsuspected quantum aspect of the structure of physical reality that did in the Pythagoreans, and it is the unsuspected quantum aspect of nature that is dogging modern physics. On the one hand, we've learned to deal with it on the basis of probability amplitudes, just as the Pythogoreans dealt with the square root of 2 with the irrationals, but, on the other hand, in doing so, we destroy the beauty of our relativistic world, just as the Pythagoreans destroyed their cherished and adored integer world, and we are just as desperate to reconcile them as they were!
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
I use the "old school" terminology; I call those "pseudo scalars"that you mentioned - "harmonic columns". Reducing the "equations" from the ratios to the irrationals is all that I have done to Pythagoras' earlier work. There is much to glean from just this alone, as you have pointed out. As there is no "stillness", there is no infinite mass, and therefore no infinite energy; just eternal balance. The balance will always produce "velocity" of ©. The decimal numbers substitute well for the negatives, producing the quantitative results that match the empirical data. In this way, you do not have to compute the entire chart as I have, you can clearly see the mirror symmetry begin with the directional change as you cross over to the "sub pseudo-scalars"; the positive values move from left to right, and the "negative" or decimals, move from right to left. The "thirteenth column" is for illustrative purposes only, to create the dualistic symmetry that our ordered minds prefer.
You are so right. However, we have to move from the qualitative descriptions that we see can be "gleaned" from this, to the quantitative calculations of the masses, spins, and charges, of the subatoms, the periodic arrangement of the atomic elements, the atomic spectra, the Zeeman effect, the Lamb shift, the g factor, and the fine structure constant, etc, of radiation, and the relation of it's frequency, propagation, spin and chirality to Planck's constant h, in order to substantiate our ideas.
You are so right. However, we have to move from the qualitative descriptions that we see can be "gleaned" from this, to the quantitative calculations of the masses, spins, and charges, of the subatoms, the periodic arrangement of the atomic elements, the atomic spectra, the Zeeman effect, the Lamb shift, the g factor, and the fine structure constant, etc, of radiation, and the relation of it's frequency, propagation, spin and chirality to Planck's constant h, in order to substantiate our ideas.
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
This is a philosophical marriage of Eastern and Western approaches, as well as a mathematical one. Zero never appears as a real quantity; it is a "historical" term to define what "was" and never what "IS". Conservation of mass, energy, etc, is the result of our definitive labels for the apparent motion of the eternal scales; the duality of the counter-balance.
I agree.
I agree.
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
To bring this back down to everyday "science", the harmonic column, or pseudo-scalars that you mentioned, (1,2,4,8..) can be expressed in eV, which can easily transformed into "mass" quantity symbols. Thus, from "First Principles", there should be a predictive pattern for the masses that we find in our "standard particle" line-up. I have only talked about frequency and wavelength of the massless ("photons"), but any dualistic quantity, that equates to © velocity, can be derived from this matrix. (ie. de Broglie waves, and their mass or energy equivalents)
Right on TRoc. As I wrote above, this is where the proof of the pudding lies. Until we can do these calculations, to the accuracy of QM calculations, all our ideas are just blowing in the wind.
Excal
Right on TRoc. As I wrote above, this is where the proof of the pudding lies. Until we can do these calculations, to the accuracy of QM calculations, all our ideas are just blowing in the wind.
Excal
Excal,
I am back after a few days away from the computer. I thought for sure someone else would have picked up this topic with you, but I see that didn't happen.
Excal
I certainly agree; you are showing more restraint than I usually do. I have left many people scratching their heads wondering exactly what I am talking about. This subject needs to be addressed from the beginning, and work its' way up. That was the seed for my initial interest in this "TOE" project: that it would be a logical progression from the ground up, and tabula rasa.
It (the TOE project) does not seem to be getting "off the ground" though; we can continue this conversation as it pertains to "energy/matter/mass", but perhaps, as you mentioned, we should start another thread under a more "general" title?
TRoc
I am back after a few days away from the computer. I thought for sure someone else would have picked up this topic with you, but I see that didn't happen.
Excal
QUOTE
There is so much to say about all this that is almost overwhelming in its intellectual impact, but since it is off-topic in this thread, I'll forbear for now, but maybe will take it up in a more appropriate thread. However, it has a direct bearing on the concepts of matter, mass and energy that I'm sorely tempted to point out, when the opportunity arises, but it's premature at this point I think.
I certainly agree; you are showing more restraint than I usually do. I have left many people scratching their heads wondering exactly what I am talking about. This subject needs to be addressed from the beginning, and work its' way up. That was the seed for my initial interest in this "TOE" project: that it would be a logical progression from the ground up, and tabula rasa.
It (the TOE project) does not seem to be getting "off the ground" though; we can continue this conversation as it pertains to "energy/matter/mass", but perhaps, as you mentioned, we should start another thread under a more "general" title?
TRoc
QUOTE (TRoc+Feb 7 2006, 07:34 PM)
That was the seed for my initial interest in this "TOE" project: that it would be a logical progression from the ground up, and tabula rasa.
We are not born blank.....natural pre-designated neural pathways will always influence a model...even a composite model of many minds.......forgive me the thought.
We are not born blank.....natural pre-designated neural pathways will always influence a model...even a composite model of many minds.......forgive me the thought.
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
It (the TOE project) does not seem to be getting "off the ground" though; we can continue this conversation as it pertains to "energy/matter/mass", but perhaps, as you mentioned, we should start another thread under a more "general" title?
I hate to start another thread. We already have so many unused ones. I wonder why RC has disappeared? We're waiting on him to move the TOE thread forward as promised, but nothing's happening.
I hope he's ok.
Excal
I hate to start another thread. We already have so many unused ones. I wonder why RC has disappeared? We're waiting on him to move the TOE thread forward as promised, but nothing's happening.
I hope he's ok.
Excal
fivedoughnut,
Exactly. We are not born blank, we are a continuation and extension of the underlying pattern. Essentially, whatever "master pattern" that can be derived in one branch of Science, should be able to be applied to any other. This is what has not been done yet, and what we are seeking.
Excal,
Yes, I hope that RC is doing well. He has "popped in" recently in other threads, so I think he is ok.
We could continue with the specific topics of "ENERGY/MATTER/MASS" here, and take any of the "resonant patterns" back to "MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project", or even the "PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS of TOE project".
TRoc
Exactly. We are not born blank, we are a continuation and extension of the underlying pattern. Essentially, whatever "master pattern" that can be derived in one branch of Science, should be able to be applied to any other. This is what has not been done yet, and what we are seeking.
Excal,
Yes, I hope that RC is doing well. He has "popped in" recently in other threads, so I think he is ok.
We could continue with the specific topics of "ENERGY/MATTER/MASS" here, and take any of the "resonant patterns" back to "MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project", or even the "PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS of TOE project".
TRoc
QUOTE (TRoc+Feb 8 2006, 01:55 AM)
fivedoughnut,
Exactly. We are not born blank, we are a continuation and extension of the underlying pattern. Essentially, whatever "master pattern" that can be derived in one branch of Science, should be able to be applied to any other. This is what has not been done yet, and what we are seeking.
Quite,
The ancients just called it art. Physics is a mere facet of the aforementioned, and should now utilise new concepts derived from the consolidation of all other spheres.
A holistic approach is a damn good idea Troc.
Exactly. We are not born blank, we are a continuation and extension of the underlying pattern. Essentially, whatever "master pattern" that can be derived in one branch of Science, should be able to be applied to any other. This is what has not been done yet, and what we are seeking.
Quite,
The ancients just called it art. Physics is a mere facet of the aforementioned, and should now utilise new concepts derived from the consolidation of all other spheres.
A holistic approach is a damn good idea Troc.
Hello 5..nuts, Excal, et al
I need no longer to be frustrated in trying to convey the geometry of my "resonance matrix"; I have found a Builder/Philosopher who has done it! At the "1/2 spin collapse", the movement manifests the duality. Rotational symmetry of resonant, discreet steps encompasses Pythagoras's ratios, seeding the plane right triangle, and in turn, incorporates the manifestation of all forms.
Go to spiralgeometricsystem and select "my documents", and read the 5 parts. James R. Jacobs has done a wonderful thing with a physical geometrical model, and the Philosophy behind it. I think we can use this for the "building" of a better understanding of Physics -- the way it should be.
TRoc
I need no longer to be frustrated in trying to convey the geometry of my "resonance matrix"; I have found a Builder/Philosopher who has done it! At the "1/2 spin collapse", the movement manifests the duality. Rotational symmetry of resonant, discreet steps encompasses Pythagoras's ratios, seeding the plane right triangle, and in turn, incorporates the manifestation of all forms.
Go to spiralgeometricsystem and select "my documents", and read the 5 parts. James R. Jacobs has done a wonderful thing with a physical geometrical model, and the Philosophy behind it. I think we can use this for the "building" of a better understanding of Physics -- the way it should be.
TRoc
TRoc,
I think you've said in three lines what it took me 30 pages to say. Beautiful!
I've just begun reading up on Complexity Theory and Self-Organizing Systems for an article. It seems to me that the twist or rotation of the SGS elements could be called a 'self-organizing geometric property' of the system. For example, the model of molecular structure (Part 4) is self-generated by simply matching the left-hand twisting and right-hand twisting edges of the 'geometric field' representing the Cosine 45 degrees (x,y distance = .7071 and twist = 45 degrees). Since the SGS is scalar invariant there would seem to be an infinite variety of potential compositions that would result from this 'self-organizing geometric property'. In any case, there seem to be a lot of terms and concepts relating to Self-Organizing Systems and Complexity Theory that speak to the geometric properties of the SGS??
jjac
I think you've said in three lines what it took me 30 pages to say.
Beautiful!I've just begun reading up on Complexity Theory and Self-Organizing Systems for an article. It seems to me that the twist or rotation of the SGS elements could be called a 'self-organizing geometric property' of the system. For example, the model of molecular structure (Part 4) is self-generated by simply matching the left-hand twisting and right-hand twisting edges of the 'geometric field' representing the Cosine 45 degrees (x,y distance = .7071 and twist = 45 degrees). Since the SGS is scalar invariant there would seem to be an infinite variety of potential compositions that would result from this 'self-organizing geometric property'. In any case, there seem to be a lot of terms and concepts relating to Self-Organizing Systems and Complexity Theory that speak to the geometric properties of the SGS??
jjac
jjac,
You were just fortunate enough to catch me at this point; there are many who have had to read much more than 30 pages of my attempts at explanation, and not been able to see what you have a real picture of.
I have imagined "my numbers" floating around, in their discreet, and resonant way, in the form you have made, for a few years now. I did not want to take the time to make my "matrix" 3D, even though I knew that it could be done, and probably a great "intuitive" tool to use to explain the inherent properties. One of the "catches" is that in can be interpreted in other forms simultaneously. I also have not "solved" the "top end"; though that won't mean much to anyone until I can.
At any rate, we should let this thread go back to the topic of the title. ENERGY/MATTER/MASS. Do you have any input there? Also, the "self organization" part is CRUCIAL to my theory. An inherent "code" of self replication that is simple, efficient, and produces logical (and not AD HOC) measurements and constants.
T.Roc
ps. I am hoping that Excal will be back soon
You were just fortunate enough to catch me at this point; there are many who have had to read much more than 30 pages of my attempts at explanation, and not been able to see what you have a real picture of.
I have imagined "my numbers" floating around, in their discreet, and resonant way, in the form you have made, for a few years now. I did not want to take the time to make my "matrix" 3D, even though I knew that it could be done, and probably a great "intuitive" tool to use to explain the inherent properties. One of the "catches" is that in can be interpreted in other forms simultaneously. I also have not "solved" the "top end"; though that won't mean much to anyone until I can.
At any rate, we should let this thread go back to the topic of the title. ENERGY/MATTER/MASS. Do you have any input there? Also, the "self organization" part is CRUCIAL to my theory. An inherent "code" of self replication that is simple, efficient, and produces logical (and not AD HOC) measurements and constants.
T.Roc
ps. I am hoping that Excal will be back soon
T.Roc,
Spent the evening reading your past posts. You seem to have taken a qualitative approach, (sound forms, light/color forms) to your inquiry as well, and, related your concepts to numerical values. Very, very interesting. I must ask, do you see that the SGS phases or states between the plane and the vertical to the plane correspond with all possible frequencies and wavelengths. Sort of like each scale (size)of the system, from the smallest possible to the largest, is a set that corresponds with an octave?
jjac
Spent the evening reading your past posts. You seem to have taken a qualitative approach, (sound forms, light/color forms) to your inquiry as well, and, related your concepts to numerical values. Very, very interesting. I must ask, do you see that the SGS phases or states between the plane and the vertical to the plane correspond with all possible frequencies and wavelengths. Sort of like each scale (size)of the system, from the smallest possible to the largest, is a set that corresponds with an octave?
jjac
May I say an Interesting thread...
My reasoning is the following...
Lets imply we are capable of detaching one self from the Universe and all Time and we are able to observe the single force that defines its current state..
Hmmm
but before we can apply a definition to such a force we need to know what FORCE?
How does this force function?
Obviously the single force currently functions at many levels dependent on definitions, so at what level do we concentrate on first? Inward or better known as Positive charge and or the outward or better known as the Negative charge? velocity? or acceleration? how have they all come about? what force/s defines a single mass or particle?
So lets go back to the basics and back to even before singularity existed.
or better understood "our universe existing as a single mass or force".
A singular definition or force.
So how can a force exist or have definition?
If nothing or no force existed Somewhere ANYWHERE!... AND if anything or a definition did exist - the definition or something must tend towards "accelerate to" nothing in order to take up the area of nothing so it can exist there, as its an area of less definition of force or least Resistance! " the result being an inward force to nothing so that nothing can never exist.
Hence an inward force to accelerate to the core can exist and or it can even eventually creep outward pushing against the weakened areas of inward force, and in doing so, be defined as an outward force to where eventually it can even infringe and accelerate past the inward force and as more of the inward force collapses and follows the outward path it weakens more of the inward force further in an ever increasing accelerating huge BOOM! "The Big bang" thats still ongoing today..
Out of this one single force or change we get to define all our known forces, if you don't understand it I suggest you get a piece of paper..
Draw a circle and depict lines of equal inward forces or movement to the centre so that you may get the gist of how a single force can be an inward force, now lets draw a path from the edge of the circle past the core or centre avoiding the inward lines of forces to eventually the other side of circle.. now if we observe the last line of force we should see at some point an inward force is actually an outward force..
Its as simple as that! 
Now where was I? 
Arghhhhhhhhhhh!
I cunt tek no more!
My reasoning is the following...
Lets imply we are capable of detaching one self from the Universe and all Time and we are able to observe the single force that defines its current state..
Hmmm
but before we can apply a definition to such a force we need to know what FORCE? How does this force function?
Obviously the single force currently functions at many levels dependent on definitions, so at what level do we concentrate on first? Inward or better known as Positive charge and or the outward or better known as the Negative charge? velocity? or acceleration? how have they all come about? what force/s defines a single mass or particle?
So lets go back to the basics and back to even before singularity existed.
or better understood "our universe existing as a single mass or force". A singular definition or force.
So how can a force exist or have definition?
If nothing or no force existed Somewhere ANYWHERE!... AND if anything or a definition did exist - the definition or something must tend towards "accelerate to" nothing in order to take up the area of nothing so it can exist there, as its an area of less definition of force or least Resistance! " the result being an inward force to nothing so that nothing can never exist.
Hence an inward force to accelerate to the core can exist and or it can even eventually creep outward pushing against the weakened areas of inward force, and in doing so, be defined as an outward force to where eventually it can even infringe and accelerate past the inward force and as more of the inward force collapses and follows the outward path it weakens more of the inward force further in an ever increasing accelerating huge BOOM! "The Big bang" thats still ongoing today..
Out of this one single force or change we get to define all our known forces, if you don't understand it I suggest you get a piece of paper..
Draw a circle and depict lines of equal inward forces or movement to the centre so that you may get the gist of how a single force can be an inward force, now lets draw a path from the edge of the circle past the core or centre avoiding the inward lines of forces to eventually the other side of circle.. now if we observe the last line of force we should see at some point an inward force is actually an outward force..
Its as simple as that!
Now where was I?
Arghhhhhhhhhhh!
I cunt tek no more!
Laidback,
It's been a long time LB, how are you?
You have said a pretty good analogy for DUALITY.
It can be "kicked up a notch" by rotating your circle at a steady rate.
Now, the ratio of the rotational frequency to the frequency of this "flipping" of dualistic force (push to pull, etc.) will create a second set of dualistic measurements, with a harmonic relation to the first.
A simple division into 4 parts leads to a pair of dualities, ie. N/S & E/W. (or an orthogonal physics relationship of Magnetic +/- & Electric +/-).
This version excludes the 45 deg empirical "phenomena".
Doubling this version to 8 parts does not change that.
1.5 times the 8 part (3 x basic) version works the best, while remaining the most simple.
The entry angles can be described by the "pieces" (like a pie) that they fall into. These angles must find symmetry at the CENTER of the circle. Forces are measured/calculated from there.
It will take "a few" rotations for this 12 part necessity to become apparent. The internal geometry of the Force within the rotating circle (or sphere) will become maximally dense in this time.
ciao!
T.Roc
It's been a long time LB, how are you?
You have said a pretty good analogy for DUALITY.
It can be "kicked up a notch" by rotating your circle at a steady rate.
Now, the ratio of the rotational frequency to the frequency of this "flipping" of dualistic force (push to pull, etc.) will create a second set of dualistic measurements, with a harmonic relation to the first.
A simple division into 4 parts leads to a pair of dualities, ie. N/S & E/W. (or an orthogonal physics relationship of Magnetic +/- & Electric +/-).
This version excludes the 45 deg empirical "phenomena".
Doubling this version to 8 parts does not change that.
1.5 times the 8 part (3 x basic) version works the best, while remaining the most simple.
The entry angles can be described by the "pieces" (like a pie) that they fall into. These angles must find symmetry at the CENTER of the circle. Forces are measured/calculated from there.
It will take "a few" rotations for this 12 part necessity to become apparent. The internal geometry of the Force within the rotating circle (or sphere) will become maximally dense in this time.
ciao!
T.Roc
Been skimming all of the "threads" related to RC's TOE project. A bit confusing, but here I was impressed by Waterbreaths review of "units". One unit I have played with that seems to be involved (somehow) but not apparent in all the gibberish is a distance "r" which can be defined as the volume to surface ratio of the region of "spacetime?" being considered.
Content to boundary ratio (V/S) certainly controls the rate of any "system to environment" interactions. A system has two "rates" to consider, internal and external which must balance for equilibrium. However any change in "shape" (e.g., spherical or tetrahedral, say) or size (a radius or apothem) will be a determining factor on equilibrium upset, i.e.,it may "grow"and/or "decay", exhibiting "mass or energy changes" internally and externally.
So if a system has a external "velocity" with its environment and an internal "velocity" internally (which may or may not be at "c") an experimental observer might be confused on reality because of the "r" effect..
I have some insight but thought I'd drop the idea here to see if someone has info about it..??
Anyone? Waterbreath?
Content to boundary ratio (V/S) certainly controls the rate of any "system to environment" interactions. A system has two "rates" to consider, internal and external which must balance for equilibrium. However any change in "shape" (e.g., spherical or tetrahedral, say) or size (a radius or apothem) will be a determining factor on equilibrium upset, i.e.,it may "grow"and/or "decay", exhibiting "mass or energy changes" internally and externally.
So if a system has a external "velocity" with its environment and an internal "velocity" internally (which may or may not be at "c") an experimental observer might be confused on reality because of the "r" effect..
I have some insight but thought I'd drop the idea here to see if someone has info about it..??
Anyone? Waterbreath?
sdogv... I'm liking what you are observing in this VS/r more and more. Not that I'm going to speak to it in the way you are asking someone to, necessarily, but I'm trying to toss in a "generalist's" point of view into each of these sub threads, while doing it in a way that seems applicable to the subject of the thread.
Mass (matter/energy) is considered a "volumetric", whether it is seen has having a theoretically concise surface (matter) or a theoretically in-concise surface (energy). Neither matter or energy have yet to be shown, to be of "substance".
Space is also considered a "volumetric" and the same principle applies to it. In theory, space has not been defined as either concise or in-concise. Where does mass stop and space begin, and vice versa? I.e. the infamous "dark matter", "aether", etc.
Time is also a "volumetric", although I can't say it is commonly considered as such. Isn't it the expression of a "volume of velocity" (amount) using the speed of light as the theoretical maximum? But again, the reference point, just like with mass and space, is still in question.
So in all three cases, a ratio of volume to surface area, can not be established concisely, if one is thinking in terms of a "TOE". We apply in-concise determinations that work concisely, but only in so far as they seem able to. Beyond that, theory breaks down and leaves us wondering about all of it.
"Area is a quantity expressing the size of a figure in the Euclidean plane or on a 2-dimensional surface. Points and lines have zero area. Depending on the particular definition taken, a figure may have INFINITE area, for example the entire Euclidean plane." – Wikispeedia
A "TOE" can not be found, unless infinite is established as > finite (> infinite is another story). A finite point of mass, space, and time (beginning and end) will never be found.
Mass (matter/energy) is considered a "volumetric", whether it is seen has having a theoretically concise surface (matter) or a theoretically in-concise surface (energy). Neither matter or energy have yet to be shown, to be of "substance".
Space is also considered a "volumetric" and the same principle applies to it. In theory, space has not been defined as either concise or in-concise. Where does mass stop and space begin, and vice versa? I.e. the infamous "dark matter", "aether", etc.
Time is also a "volumetric", although I can't say it is commonly considered as such. Isn't it the expression of a "volume of velocity" (amount) using the speed of light as the theoretical maximum? But again, the reference point, just like with mass and space, is still in question.
So in all three cases, a ratio of volume to surface area, can not be established concisely, if one is thinking in terms of a "TOE". We apply in-concise determinations that work concisely, but only in so far as they seem able to. Beyond that, theory breaks down and leaves us wondering about all of it.
"Area is a quantity expressing the size of a figure in the Euclidean plane or on a 2-dimensional surface. Points and lines have zero area. Depending on the particular definition taken, a figure may have INFINITE area, for example the entire Euclidean plane." – Wikispeedia
A "TOE" can not be found, unless infinite is established as > finite (> infinite is another story). A finite point of mass, space, and time (beginning and end) will never be found.
OK, LaidBAck, Troc, & England...FORCE and Duality.
Two pointsL (1) B. Fullers Tetrahedron (insteadof a sphere) suggests three dualities...without "harmonics", 3 pairs of 6 edges. So let's say they represent space, time, and mass where any shifts are "energy"...I'm not going any farther here because I studied this experimentally.
(2) I have many many magnetic marbles (promo for SdogV). Turns out there are at least 3 ways that they can be stacked such that all are in contact with each other in ways that N/N and S/S "repulsive" fields and N/S and S/N "attractive" fields hold the structure surprizingly stable, i.e. can be moved across a surface. With larger marbles, the same configuration can be established. So England, I presume that this could be done at all sizes >finite and approach infinite....?
I am not that adept with a mathematical description of the configuration(s) that consider the field interactions, but I would love if someone would describe the 3 (at least) field interactions to make "stable configurations". Marbles have N/S markings so I can see it and feel it, but....
If anyone would like a set of 4 marbles to look (and try to do it...it's not easy, although a 12 year old was able to establish it with intuitive placement, noting N/S, of the 4th three times in a row!!) e-mail me direct with your address and if you are curious I will send my "package" with a bit of ad copy for www.SdogV.com
If someone would tell me how to post a pic here, I could post a pic of final config. (I've copied and tried to paste...but..it's on word doc on desktop and I don't know it's URL..? local?
Two pointsL (1) B. Fullers Tetrahedron (insteadof a sphere) suggests three dualities...without "harmonics", 3 pairs of 6 edges. So let's say they represent space, time, and mass where any shifts are "energy"...I'm not going any farther here because I studied this experimentally.
(2) I have many many magnetic marbles (promo for SdogV). Turns out there are at least 3 ways that they can be stacked such that all are in contact with each other in ways that N/N and S/S "repulsive" fields and N/S and S/N "attractive" fields hold the structure surprizingly stable, i.e. can be moved across a surface. With larger marbles, the same configuration can be established. So England, I presume that this could be done at all sizes >finite and approach infinite....?
I am not that adept with a mathematical description of the configuration(s) that consider the field interactions, but I would love if someone would describe the 3 (at least) field interactions to make "stable configurations". Marbles have N/S markings so I can see it and feel it, but....
If anyone would like a set of 4 marbles to look (and try to do it...it's not easy, although a 12 year old was able to establish it with intuitive placement, noting N/S, of the 4th three times in a row!!) e-mail me direct with your address and if you are curious I will send my "package" with a bit of ad copy for www.SdogV.com
If someone would tell me how to post a pic here, I could post a pic of final config. (I've copied and tried to paste...but..it's on word doc on desktop and I don't know it's URL..? local?
Hi!
I guess that this is a good place to repeat this post.
It's fine to have a concept..... HOWEVER, after comes a model. By that I mean that it should represent reality. If it does .... then a mathematical formulation should be able to determine if there are hidden faults.
Here is what I have found to be the downfall of all models.
Problems with Quantum Box and Model Building
The solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf
1) Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
2) Quantum_mechanics
3) The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
We are sitting at a table.
On your side of the table you have a cube made up of small Planck size boxes (10^-33) or other dimensions. All of your boxes have something in them. On my side of the table I have a cube made up of boxes that contain the known quantum world (10^11). There are 10^ 80 of those boxes containing something but most of them are empty.
The table top is free of any objects that would interfere with what we are about to do.
1. As long as my boxes are together/touching, I can communicate anything from one box to another box without anything interrupting or scrambling the messages.
2. You want to put your boxes with my boxes so that what is in your boxes can communicate their content/information to every one of my boxes and you want all of my boxes to communicate with your boxes.
3. In order to have symmetry, it will be necessary that all of your boxes are surrounded by my boxes, which of course means that my boxes will be surrounded by your boxes.
Simple. Go ahead and do it.
4. Oppsss! All of your boxes contain huge amount of gravity. They are all stuck together and making a black hole. Therefore, what kind of force/energy will you use to separate a box from the cube?
5. Oppss! Since all your boxes have been radiating gravity for 14 B. years, haven’t you asked yourself where the reservoir happens to be? You could reduce the amount of energy by 6X because each of my boxes that have a particle are surrounded by 6 of your boxes. How did you manage to break the symmetry and have only those boxes transmit gravity to my boxes that contain only particles? What about all of my other empty boxes? WHAT! YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU WERE SUPPLYING 6X TOO MUCH ENERGY? YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO CUT YOUR ENERGY OUTPUT BY 6X? CAN YOU FIX YOUR MODEL?
Do you have any other energy coming from the Planck size boxes? ( or curled up dimensions) The ones that are depending on having an existing reservoir of energy. The ones that obey 1/r^2 . Explain that too? Don’t forget virtual particles.
6. Oppss! All your boxes have a higher dimension that contain a complexity of interacting energy waves. How are you going to separate a box from the cube without distorting the complex interactions going on in the cube?
7. Now that you have answered/solved those problems, how are you going to get your boxes across the empty desert (the table top). I said that it was empty. However, if you want to litter the table to with boxes containing SS particles, then you will need to explain how you negotiate your boxes to my boxes/cube without encountering any interference from those new boxes which do not exist in the known quantum world (10^11).
8. Let’s say that you have answered (mathematically of course) those questions,
next, it will be necessary to explain how you have enhance and not confused or scrabbled my ability to communicate from one box to another box. It appears to me that you have forced all communication through your boxes. AND PLEASE REMEMBER NO COMMUNICATION OR MOVEMENT CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Must read.
The following is a representative of the 6X error that all models suffer.
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
June 5, 2005 SLAC-PUB-7769
SU-ITP-98/13
Nima Arkani–Hamed∗, Savas Dimopoulos∗∗ and Gia Dvali†
∗ SLAC, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, USA
∗∗ Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
† ICTP, Trieste, 34100, Italy
We propose a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem which does not rely on either supersymmetry or technicolor. In this framework, the gravitational and gauge interactions become united at the weak scale, which we take as the only fundamental short distance scale in nature. The observed weakness of gravity on distances gsim 1 mm is due to the existence of n ≥ 2 new compact spatial dimensions large compared to the weak scale. The Planck scale MPl ∼ GN-1/2 is not a fundamental scale; its enormity is simply a consequence of the large size of the new dimensions. While gravitons can freely propagate in the new dimensions, at sub-weak energies the Standard Model (SM) fields must be localized to a 4-dimensional manifold of weak scale "thickness" in the extra dimensions. This picture leads to a number of striking signals for accelerator and laboratory experiments. For the case of n=2 new dimensions, planned sub-millimeter measurements of gravity may observe the transition from 1/r2 → 1/r4 Newtonian gravitation. For any number of new dimensions, the LHC and NLC could observe strong quantum gravitational interactions. Furthermore, SM particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold into the new dimensions, carrying away energy, and leading to an abrupt decrease in events with high transverse momentum pT gsim TeV. For certain compact manifolds, such particles will keep circling in the extra dimensions, periodically returning, colliding with and depositing energy to our four dimensional vacuum with frequencies of ∼ 1012 Hz or larger. As a concrete illustration, we construct a model with SM fields localised on the 4-dimensional throat of a vortex in 6 dimensions, with a Pati-Salam gauge symmetry SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2) in the bulk.
This is induced by not considering Packing. Secondly, they refer to higher dimensions when they should be referring to an imbedded 2 dimension.
Although I have not done anywhere as good a presentation, what I have presented has more merit and is simpler. I can be excused for my presentation...... I don’t have the background of the “math kids” …. I don't have a model.... all that I have is an applicable concept with indications that it could be turned into a working model.
I have found a lot of published material that has a lot less support than my presentation.
I have not found anything that contradicts my presentation.
WILL THE TOE PROJECT BE ABLE TO GET PASS THE CONCEPT.... INTO "A WORKING MODEL"...????
PRETTY PICTURES WITH A CONCEPT WILL NOT BE USEFULL UNLESS THEY CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO WORKING TOOLS AND APPLIED TO REAL PROBLEMS.
JAL
I guess that this is a good place to repeat this post.
It's fine to have a concept..... HOWEVER, after comes a model. By that I mean that it should represent reality. If it does .... then a mathematical formulation should be able to determine if there are hidden faults.
Here is what I have found to be the downfall of all models.
Problems with Quantum Box and Model Building
The solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf
1) Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
2) Quantum_mechanics
3) The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
We are sitting at a table.
On your side of the table you have a cube made up of small Planck size boxes (10^-33) or other dimensions. All of your boxes have something in them. On my side of the table I have a cube made up of boxes that contain the known quantum world (10^11). There are 10^ 80 of those boxes containing something but most of them are empty.
The table top is free of any objects that would interfere with what we are about to do.
1. As long as my boxes are together/touching, I can communicate anything from one box to another box without anything interrupting or scrambling the messages.
2. You want to put your boxes with my boxes so that what is in your boxes can communicate their content/information to every one of my boxes and you want all of my boxes to communicate with your boxes.
3. In order to have symmetry, it will be necessary that all of your boxes are surrounded by my boxes, which of course means that my boxes will be surrounded by your boxes.
Simple. Go ahead and do it.
4. Oppsss! All of your boxes contain huge amount of gravity. They are all stuck together and making a black hole. Therefore, what kind of force/energy will you use to separate a box from the cube?
5. Oppss! Since all your boxes have been radiating gravity for 14 B. years, haven’t you asked yourself where the reservoir happens to be? You could reduce the amount of energy by 6X because each of my boxes that have a particle are surrounded by 6 of your boxes. How did you manage to break the symmetry and have only those boxes transmit gravity to my boxes that contain only particles? What about all of my other empty boxes? WHAT! YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU WERE SUPPLYING 6X TOO MUCH ENERGY? YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO CUT YOUR ENERGY OUTPUT BY 6X? CAN YOU FIX YOUR MODEL?
Do you have any other energy coming from the Planck size boxes? ( or curled up dimensions) The ones that are depending on having an existing reservoir of energy. The ones that obey 1/r^2 . Explain that too? Don’t forget virtual particles.
6. Oppss! All your boxes have a higher dimension that contain a complexity of interacting energy waves. How are you going to separate a box from the cube without distorting the complex interactions going on in the cube?
7. Now that you have answered/solved those problems, how are you going to get your boxes across the empty desert (the table top). I said that it was empty. However, if you want to litter the table to with boxes containing SS particles, then you will need to explain how you negotiate your boxes to my boxes/cube without encountering any interference from those new boxes which do not exist in the known quantum world (10^11).
8. Let’s say that you have answered (mathematically of course) those questions,
next, it will be necessary to explain how you have enhance and not confused or scrabbled my ability to communicate from one box to another box. It appears to me that you have forced all communication through your boxes. AND PLEASE REMEMBER NO COMMUNICATION OR MOVEMENT CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
Must read.
The following is a representative of the 6X error that all models suffer.
The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
June 5, 2005 SLAC-PUB-7769
SU-ITP-98/13
Nima Arkani–Hamed∗, Savas Dimopoulos∗∗ and Gia Dvali†
∗ SLAC, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, USA
∗∗ Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
† ICTP, Trieste, 34100, Italy
QUOTE
We propose a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem which does not rely on either supersymmetry or technicolor. In this framework, the gravitational and gauge interactions become united at the weak scale, which we take as the only fundamental short distance scale in nature. The observed weakness of gravity on distances gsim 1 mm is due to the existence of n ≥ 2 new compact spatial dimensions large compared to the weak scale. The Planck scale MPl ∼ GN-1/2 is not a fundamental scale; its enormity is simply a consequence of the large size of the new dimensions. While gravitons can freely propagate in the new dimensions, at sub-weak energies the Standard Model (SM) fields must be localized to a 4-dimensional manifold of weak scale "thickness" in the extra dimensions. This picture leads to a number of striking signals for accelerator and laboratory experiments. For the case of n=2 new dimensions, planned sub-millimeter measurements of gravity may observe the transition from 1/r2 → 1/r4 Newtonian gravitation. For any number of new dimensions, the LHC and NLC could observe strong quantum gravitational interactions. Furthermore, SM particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold into the new dimensions, carrying away energy, and leading to an abrupt decrease in events with high transverse momentum pT gsim TeV. For certain compact manifolds, such particles will keep circling in the extra dimensions, periodically returning, colliding with and depositing energy to our four dimensional vacuum with frequencies of ∼ 1012 Hz or larger. As a concrete illustration, we construct a model with SM fields localised on the 4-dimensional throat of a vortex in 6 dimensions, with a Pati-Salam gauge symmetry SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2) in the bulk.
This is induced by not considering Packing. Secondly, they refer to higher dimensions when they should be referring to an imbedded 2 dimension.
Although I have not done anywhere as good a presentation, what I have presented has more merit and is simpler. I can be excused for my presentation...... I don’t have the background of the “math kids” …. I don't have a model.... all that I have is an applicable concept with indications that it could be turned into a working model.
I have found a lot of published material that has a lot less support than my presentation.
I have not found anything that contradicts my presentation.
WILL THE TOE PROJECT BE ABLE TO GET PASS THE CONCEPT.... INTO "A WORKING MODEL"...????
PRETTY PICTURES WITH A CONCEPT WILL NOT BE USEFULL UNLESS THEY CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO WORKING TOOLS AND APPLIED TO REAL PROBLEMS.
JAL
I think observations should be made from a stationary point with local interactions. We create space mentally but it seems only necessary to explain how interactions within a network can give a general phase shift or delay (and possibly on macroscales only as mass might be an "emergent" property not associated with individual particles but relationships between them or how our view of space is distorted).
For example, if some local property is altered that generates a shift in a reference signal for space, when comparisons are made against it (and we can only make relative measurements ... the view of everything moving through 3-D space is difficult to actually detect physically because we can't actually see in 3 dimensions at once and this isn't simply a human limit either, you can trade off 2-D resolution for adding some planes of 3-D observations in equipment but we truly don't have any way of seeing in 3-D. Even an MRI is limited and takes a long time to develop a lot of 2-D scans as the interior of it is still making observations from a surface in a 2-D fashion).
For example, say three planes are sweeping cyclically throughout this system that determine a relative reference for space by using a "window" of time, the length of the universe in each axis.
Whenever one of these planes crosses by your coordinate in that dimension, you detect a "ping" and from there you make relative measurements of distances by detecting when something else interacts with you and you see these events ordered along the X axis, or whatever axis that plane defines. If similar planes exist for other dimensions, you can effectively "ping" like sonar or radar the relative distances to other objects (or maybe more accurate the ordering, if not the actual distances).
Now if we assume all measurements are made locally, then these global references wouldn't actually exist, but instead a local model of space, creating an artificial reference would be used. Because this isn't actually tied to the universe, the phase and frequency of these could be altered and create the appear of a location (phase shift) or velocity and inertia, with compression in the direction of motion (frequency shift). So you could have a local 3 dimensional oscillator (I guess similar to the brain) that creates a reference for spacial dimensions in a local manner.
The reason why I think could be very is important is because we can't actually see a 3-D space and only local interactions are available, which can create an obvious distortion in how 3-D space is interpreted, but also you have much more flexability available when you consider that things only need to appear macroscopically as a Euclidean 3-D space from local interactions with a possibly stationary observer.
BTW, I enjoyed the images you posted, jal.
For example, if some local property is altered that generates a shift in a reference signal for space, when comparisons are made against it (and we can only make relative measurements ... the view of everything moving through 3-D space is difficult to actually detect physically because we can't actually see in 3 dimensions at once and this isn't simply a human limit either, you can trade off 2-D resolution for adding some planes of 3-D observations in equipment but we truly don't have any way of seeing in 3-D. Even an MRI is limited and takes a long time to develop a lot of 2-D scans as the interior of it is still making observations from a surface in a 2-D fashion).
For example, say three planes are sweeping cyclically throughout this system that determine a relative reference for space by using a "window" of time, the length of the universe in each axis.
Whenever one of these planes crosses by your coordinate in that dimension, you detect a "ping" and from there you make relative measurements of distances by detecting when something else interacts with you and you see these events ordered along the X axis, or whatever axis that plane defines. If similar planes exist for other dimensions, you can effectively "ping" like sonar or radar the relative distances to other objects (or maybe more accurate the ordering, if not the actual distances).
Now if we assume all measurements are made locally, then these global references wouldn't actually exist, but instead a local model of space, creating an artificial reference would be used. Because this isn't actually tied to the universe, the phase and frequency of these could be altered and create the appear of a location (phase shift) or velocity and inertia, with compression in the direction of motion (frequency shift). So you could have a local 3 dimensional oscillator (I guess similar to the brain) that creates a reference for spacial dimensions in a local manner.
The reason why I think could be very is important is because we can't actually see a 3-D space and only local interactions are available, which can create an obvious distortion in how 3-D space is interpreted, but also you have much more flexability available when you consider that things only need to appear macroscopically as a Euclidean 3-D space from local interactions with a possibly stationary observer.
BTW, I enjoyed the images you posted, jal.
StevenA
It sure is hard to make physic interesting. Thanks.
Can I count your presentation as another "problem" that the TOE PROJECT must overcome?
As you read in my presentation, "undebated/unrecognized problems". I stayed away from the obvious and normal problems which are being constantly debated on the forum.
Comments please.
jal
It sure is hard to make physic interesting. Thanks.
Can I count your presentation as another "problem" that the TOE PROJECT must overcome?
QUOTE
... how interactions within a network can give a general phase shift or delay (and possibly on macroscales only as mass might be an "emergent" property not associated with individual particles but relationships between them or how our view of space is distorted).
As you read in my presentation, "undebated/unrecognized problems". I stayed away from the obvious and normal problems which are being constantly debated on the forum.
Comments please.
jal
QUOTE (jal+)
StevenA
It sure is hard to make physic interesting. Thanks.
I should pull my weight more on supplying images but I have a hard time linking them now (it keeps complaining about dynamic images) and I still have never made a website to post my own content.
Well I don't necessarily think it's a problem, really. It's a legitimate option. I believe it's actually harder to attempt to explain what's going on in a 3-D simultaneously from all vantage points than it is to get a model that can predict observations from a single vantage point. If you can get everything correct from one viewpoint, you'll likely find other viewpoints naturally arise from this.
Also, in the end it does need to be able to predict observations from a single stationary reference anyway. I believe by focusing on just that limited view and getting that to work, the mutual views will tend to arise naturally. So in many ways it's simpler to just describe what one "observer" (or particle) will encounter and once a model describes that well, if the observations are mutual, then you're practically guaranteed to be able to describe what things look like from another perspective.
Relativity, though a step in the right direction, attempted to take a third person view of space as well and this has lead to many confusions over what actual observations are made from within the system. By instead just taking a couple types of events (for example explaining a first person perspective, using quantum units of information, how someone can witness a circular planetary orbital using light, and observe the necessary periodic or velocity to distance relationship). You don't need to really worry about actually having a planet move through 3-D Euclidean space etc. but simply find a relationship that gives the correct periodic relationship. If this extends to show gravity, in general, then the mutual interaction of light seems to almost automatically guarantee other observers will see the same thing.
Your images reminded me of some thoughts along these lines and I think that instead of the boxes being merged algorithmically, gravity occurs via them diffusing into each other. Scales of time and distances are relative. If each of these boxes, on a macroscopic level, has a large number of uncorrelated activities effectively moving each square around, instead of them remaining as fixed boxes in space, then you'll see them blur and become spherical and merge into each other. Each collection of unit boxes itself wouldn't notice this expansion because it, itself is increasing in size. Instead relative measurements could appear different in scales, but consider that neither box can immediately see the other, they can only see whatever diffuses into each other and if the rates of interactions match gravity closely then this would explain gravity as the macroscopic observation of incoherent diffusion of space and mass into each other. Consider that also rates of times are relative, and densities within an area can determine the local subjective rate of time passing. If one type of interaction can't be detected, then it doesn't create a unit of time in that location.
I had a thread along these ideas: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8249
It sure is hard to make physic interesting. Thanks.
I should pull my weight more on supplying images but I have a hard time linking them now (it keeps complaining about dynamic images) and I still have never made a website to post my own content.
QUOTE
Can I count your presentation as another "problem" that the TOE PROJECT must overcome?
As you read in my presentation, "undebated/unrecognized problems". I stayed away from the obvious and normal problems which are being constantly debated on the forum.
Comments please.
jal
As you read in my presentation, "undebated/unrecognized problems". I stayed away from the obvious and normal problems which are being constantly debated on the forum.
Comments please.
jal
Well I don't necessarily think it's a problem, really. It's a legitimate option. I believe it's actually harder to attempt to explain what's going on in a 3-D simultaneously from all vantage points than it is to get a model that can predict observations from a single vantage point. If you can get everything correct from one viewpoint, you'll likely find other viewpoints naturally arise from this.
Also, in the end it does need to be able to predict observations from a single stationary reference anyway. I believe by focusing on just that limited view and getting that to work, the mutual views will tend to arise naturally. So in many ways it's simpler to just describe what one "observer" (or particle) will encounter and once a model describes that well, if the observations are mutual, then you're practically guaranteed to be able to describe what things look like from another perspective.
Relativity, though a step in the right direction, attempted to take a third person view of space as well and this has lead to many confusions over what actual observations are made from within the system. By instead just taking a couple types of events (for example explaining a first person perspective, using quantum units of information, how someone can witness a circular planetary orbital using light, and observe the necessary periodic or velocity to distance relationship). You don't need to really worry about actually having a planet move through 3-D Euclidean space etc. but simply find a relationship that gives the correct periodic relationship. If this extends to show gravity, in general, then the mutual interaction of light seems to almost automatically guarantee other observers will see the same thing.
Your images reminded me of some thoughts along these lines and I think that instead of the boxes being merged algorithmically, gravity occurs via them diffusing into each other. Scales of time and distances are relative. If each of these boxes, on a macroscopic level, has a large number of uncorrelated activities effectively moving each square around, instead of them remaining as fixed boxes in space, then you'll see them blur and become spherical and merge into each other. Each collection of unit boxes itself wouldn't notice this expansion because it, itself is increasing in size. Instead relative measurements could appear different in scales, but consider that neither box can immediately see the other, they can only see whatever diffuses into each other and if the rates of interactions match gravity closely then this would explain gravity as the macroscopic observation of incoherent diffusion of space and mass into each other. Consider that also rates of times are relative, and densities within an area can determine the local subjective rate of time passing. If one type of interaction can't be detected, then it doesn't create a unit of time in that location.
I had a thread along these ideas: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8249
You can read more of it ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8249&hl= )
But I just posted another comment there (shameless bumpage) and I'll copy it here:
"Look at how gravity operates and the ideas of a curved spacetime - the event horizon of a black hole is actually seen as what? It's a boundary racing out at light speed, though you could also view this as a bidirectional diffusion of mass outward at light speed, and a complimentary diffusion space into a mass at light speed - it's not a static boundary.
So let's say mass grows exponentially in size over time period of time - what happened during this period of time? It diffused over a volume of space proportional to its mass or gravitational force and you could see this as a flow of space into a mass with a rate proportional to it's mass.
Now if that flow is also diffused into a 3-D space, then this flow is dispered and would follow a gradient 1/d^2 (imagine sucking air out of some point in space - the flow of the remaining air is inward with the highest differential pressure being in the middle whether the acceleration is greatest).
But space itself is diffusing into the vaccum (and you need a minimum of 3 different components anyway to create the appearance of spacetime), so it also is encompassing more volume (imagine adding air to this space equally everywhere, while it's flowing into the "hole" where mass sucks the air out). So you have an expansion of space as well as mass.
If you look at the gravitational force (ignoring the scaling), it's:
g=m/d^2
So the mass creates a flow of space inward (or complimentarily mass expands outward as it's bidirectional) proportional to itself with a rate of flow that's diffused along any distance proportional to the surface area of a spherical shell through which it passes (the area of this spherical shell would be d^2 so 1/d^2 would be the flow).
There you go, gravity and it doesn't require a bunch of invisible particles but a much simpler point to point diffusion of space and mass by forces that are inherently largely chaotic for macroscale levels from a quantized and latticelike quantum space."
----------------------------
Actually the above isn't exactly correct, the mass should correlate to the total pressure drop and the pressure drop should be diffused 1/d^2 so as to generate a 1/d^2 force and not a 1/d^2 flow but considering space is expanding as well and local rates of time can vary it gets a bit more complicated, but it still seems like this stuff could work in extracting macroscale observations from discrete networks of quantized systems when you consider the Brownian characteristics of the chaotic elements on larger scales from relative viewpoints of scales of distances, velocities and times.
But I just posted another comment there (shameless bumpage
) and I'll copy it here:"Look at how gravity operates and the ideas of a curved spacetime - the event horizon of a black hole is actually seen as what? It's a boundary racing out at light speed, though you could also view this as a bidirectional diffusion of mass outward at light speed, and a complimentary diffusion space into a mass at light speed - it's not a static boundary.
So let's say mass grows exponentially in size over time period of time - what happened during this period of time? It diffused over a volume of space proportional to its mass or gravitational force and you could see this as a flow of space into a mass with a rate proportional to it's mass.
Now if that flow is also diffused into a 3-D space, then this flow is dispered and would follow a gradient 1/d^2 (imagine sucking air out of some point in space - the flow of the remaining air is inward with the highest differential pressure being in the middle whether the acceleration is greatest).
But space itself is diffusing into the vaccum (and you need a minimum of 3 different components anyway to create the appearance of spacetime), so it also is encompassing more volume (imagine adding air to this space equally everywhere, while it's flowing into the "hole" where mass sucks the air out). So you have an expansion of space as well as mass.
If you look at the gravitational force (ignoring the scaling), it's:
g=m/d^2
So the mass creates a flow of space inward (or complimentarily mass expands outward as it's bidirectional) proportional to itself with a rate of flow that's diffused along any distance proportional to the surface area of a spherical shell through which it passes (the area of this spherical shell would be d^2 so 1/d^2 would be the flow).
There you go, gravity and it doesn't require a bunch of invisible particles but a much simpler point to point diffusion of space and mass by forces that are inherently largely chaotic for macroscale levels from a quantized and latticelike quantum space."
----------------------------
Actually the above isn't exactly correct, the mass should correlate to the total pressure drop and the pressure drop should be diffused 1/d^2 so as to generate a 1/d^2 force and not a 1/d^2 flow but considering space is expanding as well and local rates of time can vary it gets a bit more complicated, but it still seems like this stuff could work in extracting macroscale observations from discrete networks of quantized systems when you consider the Brownian characteristics of the chaotic elements on larger scales from relative viewpoints of scales of distances, velocities and times.
The concept has been refined and is now ready, and the refined concept will not be ripped apart
THE “A” CONCEPT OF EVERYTHING
THE UNIVERSE IS ENERGY, TIME AND CREATION ITSELF.
There is no limit to how long the universe has existed and there is no limit to how long it will exist. That is the universe has always existed and it will always exist. The universe has no beginning and it has no end. It was always here and it will always be here and thus its age is infinite.
The universe is time itself, it is creation itself, the space it has and the energy within it is limitless. The universe, the vacuum and the energy particles at the simplest levels making it up were not created, have always and will always exist. The vacuum of space and energy within it can never be lost or destroyed it can only be change from one form to another or from one type of energy particle to another. The universe’s size is infinite, that is the size of the vacuum of space and quantity of matter or mass and energy within it is infinite. I will later explain in this paper why I think the universe, all these thing within it and about it are infinite.
Long before galaxies, solar system, stars (suns), planets, organisms, organic and inorganic substances and molecules, even before ions, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, even before the extremely small energy particles which make up electrons, protons, neutrons and photons the universe existed as a endless or infinite vacuum in every direction in time and in space. And this infinite vacuum was filled to its entirety in every direction with energy in a very simple and pure form, in the form of extremely small energy particles. I will call these very simple and pure particles A, B and C particles. These simple and pure energy particles, which were present in universe at this point in time, were the A particles which were negative, the B particles which were positive and the C particles which were neutral energy particles.
These A, B and C energy particles with different yet similar behaviors and through different yet similar processes, combined together throughout the universe to create new and larger particles. These new particles then combined with each other and other particles of different sizes and energy levels to create even larger and more complex particles. With the high concentration of these large and even more complex negative, positive and neutral energy particles throughout the infinite universe, over a period of time each type of complex particle started attaching and colliding with each other and other simple energy particles and through very complex and energetic processes became fused together due to the complex reactions which took place between them, to create larger and even more complex particles. These complex energy particles are present today in the form of neutrons, protons, electrons, and high-speed nucleons and photons, etc. All these energy particles from the very small and pure ones which make up the A, B and C particles, up to the more complex ones such as the particles within an atom, would all be responsible for the emergence of many different forms and types of energy and forces throughout the universe, due to the energy which they have between each other and how they move and the energy levels which they have relative to each other. Forces and forms of energy such as sound, electromagnetic waves, heat, magnetic, nuclear, mechanical, chemical, electrical, frictional, gravitational, and attracting, repelling, pushing and pulling forces between particles.
Immediately after their creation the protons started to attract the electrons, but the new and larger particles formed from the two would not and could not become stable. That is they would not combine in a stable manner until neutrons or neutral particles also took part in the formation of the new and much larger particles. The electrons, protons and neutrons, then started combining in organized 1:1:1 ratios all over the universe and started to create the simplest yet one of the strangest atoms (that is hydrogen atoms: 1 neutron, 1 electron and 1 proton). The universe was now becoming filled with hydrogen atoms. Now with the proper balance between electrons, protons and neutrons the hydrogen atoms were now the largest, most organized and most stable particles in the infinite universe at this point in time.
At every level of energy where negative and positive energy particles are present or exist, neutral particles are needed to maintain order, organization, stability and leverage between the negatives and positives.
And with certainty I can say this is true in atoms. In most atoms electrons (the negatives), protons (the positives), and neutrons (the neutrals) all exist together and are maintained in the correct proportion and proper order and thus the atom remain stable and balance. Neutrons are needed in atoms to keep them stable, without the right amount of neutral particles the electrons and protons could not work together and would not remain in the proper balance. If a positive or negative particle were removed from an atom, the atom would remain relatively the same and relatively stable or even more stable; that is the atom could form ions or another atom. But if a neutral particle (a neutron) was removed from the atom, the proper order could not be maintained and if too much neutrons were removed the entire atom could become disorganized and unstable and it would start to breakdown, splitting itself into pieces releasing an immense amount of energy until the pieces it has split into became stable again.
In an atom like a uranium atom the relationships within the atom between the electrons and protons would or could only remain together or in proper order in the presents of the right amount of neutrons. If a neutron is removed the relationship between the electrons and protons would become unstable and violent, and the atom would split, releasing large amounts of energy to the surroundings.
In the randomness of decay or radioactive decay of atoms or elements there is also evidence that there is a need for the right amount of neutral particles within an atom’s nucleus. In an atom because the neutrons in the nucleus have no charge (they are neutral), nothing much can prevent these uncharged or neutral particles from leaving the nucleus of the atom. So neutrons can leave the nucleus almost at random. And without the right balance or amount of neutrons within an atom, order cannot be maintained between the electron and protons (negatively and positively charged particles). The atom will then start to breakdown, decay or disintegrate releasing energy or radiation in the form of alpha, beta and gamma rays and other electromagnetic waves, or in the form of free or loose, random moving and fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons. Thus the atom would effectively turning itself into another atom or element when the energy is released from its structure. This is especially true in radioactive atoms and isotopes.
Now back to what was being discussed at first. With the creation of stable hydrogen atoms every where in the infinite universe the biggest and most important transition had now taken place when pure and complex energy particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) were now working together in an organized way to create the simple atoms, hydrogen atoms, thus giving rise to matter and mass and also giving rise to the very important force of gravity and other such forms of forces and energy. That is with the creation of atoms, energy and force such as light, heat, nuclear, sound, magnetic, frictional, electric, chemical, gravitational and mechanical started to immerge and became important to the universe and how it would now be structured.
With the high concentration of hydrogen atoms present in the universe at that point in time and because of the presence of gravitational forces and the other forces, the atoms started to attract each other, colliding and releasing large amounts of different forms of energy. The attracting atoms then started to create giant hydrogen cluster or clouds, the clusters then started to attract each other creating massive or extremely large hydrogen gas clouds (with individual cloud’s diameter in the region of millions of light-years). An infinite amount of these “millions of light-years stretching” hydrogen gas clouds then started popping up all over the infinite universe, and in the process started revealing the vacuum of space between them.
These massive gas clouds with their high concentration of atoms and strong gravitational forces over a period of time continued to apply force and supply energy to the atoms within them, they then started to contract, becoming denser and more compacted revealing more of the vacuum of space between each other and also putting greater distances between each other. In other words the large gas clouds started to become more organized and took more regular shape because of the large amount of forces and energy within them, and in the same process started putting extremely large distances between each other. The large compact gas clouds would also start to rotate on their rotational axis, this would also cause the production of even more forces and releasing of more energy.
With an energy and pressure build up in the innermost layers (the core) of the clouds, the cores of the massive clouds then started fusing hydrogen atoms to create heavier and more complex atoms, much like what our sun is doing right now but on a much large scale, and in the process the cores of the massive clouds would be set into motion which would cause each massive cloud to start to speed up their rotate on the individual rotational axis. The massive clouds could now be called massive stars (massive rotating energy releasing bodies with their individual radius about 50,000,800,000,000,000 km) and because the size of these massive stars cores are very large (each star’s core measured in diameter in light years), the cores would fuse hydrogen atoms extremely fast and on a very large scale. These massive stars would be very different from normal stars in that they would have the ability to pass the point when most of the hydrogen atoms have run out but still remain very stable stars that is they have the ability to fuse many other atom other than hydrogen and they also have the ability to have a high percentage of their structure made of heavy and metallic elements. For example if there is a very high percentage of helium atoms within a massive star (star content: helium 90% and hyrogen10%) the star would fuse helium atom in preference to hydrogen, this is because the star is extremely large and its gravitational field is extremely strong so when energy is released by the thermonuclear fusion of helium the energy could not and would not be enough to cause the star to become unstable.
Over a period of time the rotating massive stars would continue to create and fuse heavy atoms, until a limit or point was reached where the energy being released in their cores and the massive forces generated by their rotation would cause each of them to become highly unstable. The massive unstable stars then at different points in time and at different rates erupted in to massive super supernova explosion releasing a burst of energy and matter in every direction out into the vacuum of space.
The scattered matter and energy from each of the massive stars’ super supernova explosions would then start to form large dense clusters or clouds of stardust (all the elements in the periodic table) near the original location of each exploded massive star. The scattered matter and energy from each massive star would now start to form massive expanding galaxies, in other words each “millions of light-years stretching” hydrogen gas cloud which turned into a massive star was a extremely large body that contained as much matter, mass and energy as a galaxy.
Depending on the rate, degree and size of the explosion of the massive unstable stars the different galaxy, which were formed, had different shapes; shape such as spiral shapes, etc. Over a period of time due to the high concentration of atoms, energy and gravity within the expanding galaxies regular size stars (suns), planets, and solar system started to form in deadly, high explosive, violent, high energy, yet organized way within the expanding galaxies. If a super supernova explosion did not completely break down a massive unstable star, large fractions of the star could remain in the original location of the massive star at the center of the forming galaxy. These large fractions could form very stable, very energetic and very large body and massive dust clouds at the center of the newly formed galaxy, these bodies could stop producing large amounts of energy after a period of time and these bodies could have other large bodies such as large suns in orbit around them or because each of these bodies would have large gravitational field they could share mutual gravitational pull on each other and could rotate and orbit about a single central location, these suns in orbit could be moving at very high speed (small whole number percentage values of the speed of light for the suns that are very close to the center of the galaxy).
The relationship between rotational and orbital motion of and within different objects:
From the smallest to the largest:
In atoms the electrons orbit the nucleus in electronic shells. Large amounts of atoms then come together to form large rotating objects such as moons, planets, suns and massive stars. Moons orbit planets; the rotating planets and their moons in turn orbit a sun. The moons, planets and suns, which are in motion then come together
THE “A” CONCEPT OF EVERYTHING
THE UNIVERSE IS ENERGY, TIME AND CREATION ITSELF.
There is no limit to how long the universe has existed and there is no limit to how long it will exist. That is the universe has always existed and it will always exist. The universe has no beginning and it has no end. It was always here and it will always be here and thus its age is infinite.
The universe is time itself, it is creation itself, the space it has and the energy within it is limitless. The universe, the vacuum and the energy particles at the simplest levels making it up were not created, have always and will always exist. The vacuum of space and energy within it can never be lost or destroyed it can only be change from one form to another or from one type of energy particle to another. The universe’s size is infinite, that is the size of the vacuum of space and quantity of matter or mass and energy within it is infinite. I will later explain in this paper why I think the universe, all these thing within it and about it are infinite.
Long before galaxies, solar system, stars (suns), planets, organisms, organic and inorganic substances and molecules, even before ions, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, even before the extremely small energy particles which make up electrons, protons, neutrons and photons the universe existed as a endless or infinite vacuum in every direction in time and in space. And this infinite vacuum was filled to its entirety in every direction with energy in a very simple and pure form, in the form of extremely small energy particles. I will call these very simple and pure particles A, B and C particles. These simple and pure energy particles, which were present in universe at this point in time, were the A particles which were negative, the B particles which were positive and the C particles which were neutral energy particles.
These A, B and C energy particles with different yet similar behaviors and through different yet similar processes, combined together throughout the universe to create new and larger particles. These new particles then combined with each other and other particles of different sizes and energy levels to create even larger and more complex particles. With the high concentration of these large and even more complex negative, positive and neutral energy particles throughout the infinite universe, over a period of time each type of complex particle started attaching and colliding with each other and other simple energy particles and through very complex and energetic processes became fused together due to the complex reactions which took place between them, to create larger and even more complex particles. These complex energy particles are present today in the form of neutrons, protons, electrons, and high-speed nucleons and photons, etc. All these energy particles from the very small and pure ones which make up the A, B and C particles, up to the more complex ones such as the particles within an atom, would all be responsible for the emergence of many different forms and types of energy and forces throughout the universe, due to the energy which they have between each other and how they move and the energy levels which they have relative to each other. Forces and forms of energy such as sound, electromagnetic waves, heat, magnetic, nuclear, mechanical, chemical, electrical, frictional, gravitational, and attracting, repelling, pushing and pulling forces between particles.
Immediately after their creation the protons started to attract the electrons, but the new and larger particles formed from the two would not and could not become stable. That is they would not combine in a stable manner until neutrons or neutral particles also took part in the formation of the new and much larger particles. The electrons, protons and neutrons, then started combining in organized 1:1:1 ratios all over the universe and started to create the simplest yet one of the strangest atoms (that is hydrogen atoms: 1 neutron, 1 electron and 1 proton). The universe was now becoming filled with hydrogen atoms. Now with the proper balance between electrons, protons and neutrons the hydrogen atoms were now the largest, most organized and most stable particles in the infinite universe at this point in time.
At every level of energy where negative and positive energy particles are present or exist, neutral particles are needed to maintain order, organization, stability and leverage between the negatives and positives.
And with certainty I can say this is true in atoms. In most atoms electrons (the negatives), protons (the positives), and neutrons (the neutrals) all exist together and are maintained in the correct proportion and proper order and thus the atom remain stable and balance. Neutrons are needed in atoms to keep them stable, without the right amount of neutral particles the electrons and protons could not work together and would not remain in the proper balance. If a positive or negative particle were removed from an atom, the atom would remain relatively the same and relatively stable or even more stable; that is the atom could form ions or another atom. But if a neutral particle (a neutron) was removed from the atom, the proper order could not be maintained and if too much neutrons were removed the entire atom could become disorganized and unstable and it would start to breakdown, splitting itself into pieces releasing an immense amount of energy until the pieces it has split into became stable again.
In an atom like a uranium atom the relationships within the atom between the electrons and protons would or could only remain together or in proper order in the presents of the right amount of neutrons. If a neutron is removed the relationship between the electrons and protons would become unstable and violent, and the atom would split, releasing large amounts of energy to the surroundings.
In the randomness of decay or radioactive decay of atoms or elements there is also evidence that there is a need for the right amount of neutral particles within an atom’s nucleus. In an atom because the neutrons in the nucleus have no charge (they are neutral), nothing much can prevent these uncharged or neutral particles from leaving the nucleus of the atom. So neutrons can leave the nucleus almost at random. And without the right balance or amount of neutrons within an atom, order cannot be maintained between the electron and protons (negatively and positively charged particles). The atom will then start to breakdown, decay or disintegrate releasing energy or radiation in the form of alpha, beta and gamma rays and other electromagnetic waves, or in the form of free or loose, random moving and fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons. Thus the atom would effectively turning itself into another atom or element when the energy is released from its structure. This is especially true in radioactive atoms and isotopes.
Now back to what was being discussed at first. With the creation of stable hydrogen atoms every where in the infinite universe the biggest and most important transition had now taken place when pure and complex energy particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) were now working together in an organized way to create the simple atoms, hydrogen atoms, thus giving rise to matter and mass and also giving rise to the very important force of gravity and other such forms of forces and energy. That is with the creation of atoms, energy and force such as light, heat, nuclear, sound, magnetic, frictional, electric, chemical, gravitational and mechanical started to immerge and became important to the universe and how it would now be structured.
With the high concentration of hydrogen atoms present in the universe at that point in time and because of the presence of gravitational forces and the other forces, the atoms started to attract each other, colliding and releasing large amounts of different forms of energy. The attracting atoms then started to create giant hydrogen cluster or clouds, the clusters then started to attract each other creating massive or extremely large hydrogen gas clouds (with individual cloud’s diameter in the region of millions of light-years). An infinite amount of these “millions of light-years stretching” hydrogen gas clouds then started popping up all over the infinite universe, and in the process started revealing the vacuum of space between them.
These massive gas clouds with their high concentration of atoms and strong gravitational forces over a period of time continued to apply force and supply energy to the atoms within them, they then started to contract, becoming denser and more compacted revealing more of the vacuum of space between each other and also putting greater distances between each other. In other words the large gas clouds started to become more organized and took more regular shape because of the large amount of forces and energy within them, and in the same process started putting extremely large distances between each other. The large compact gas clouds would also start to rotate on their rotational axis, this would also cause the production of even more forces and releasing of more energy.
With an energy and pressure build up in the innermost layers (the core) of the clouds, the cores of the massive clouds then started fusing hydrogen atoms to create heavier and more complex atoms, much like what our sun is doing right now but on a much large scale, and in the process the cores of the massive clouds would be set into motion which would cause each massive cloud to start to speed up their rotate on the individual rotational axis. The massive clouds could now be called massive stars (massive rotating energy releasing bodies with their individual radius about 50,000,800,000,000,000 km) and because the size of these massive stars cores are very large (each star’s core measured in diameter in light years), the cores would fuse hydrogen atoms extremely fast and on a very large scale. These massive stars would be very different from normal stars in that they would have the ability to pass the point when most of the hydrogen atoms have run out but still remain very stable stars that is they have the ability to fuse many other atom other than hydrogen and they also have the ability to have a high percentage of their structure made of heavy and metallic elements. For example if there is a very high percentage of helium atoms within a massive star (star content: helium 90% and hyrogen10%) the star would fuse helium atom in preference to hydrogen, this is because the star is extremely large and its gravitational field is extremely strong so when energy is released by the thermonuclear fusion of helium the energy could not and would not be enough to cause the star to become unstable.
Over a period of time the rotating massive stars would continue to create and fuse heavy atoms, until a limit or point was reached where the energy being released in their cores and the massive forces generated by their rotation would cause each of them to become highly unstable. The massive unstable stars then at different points in time and at different rates erupted in to massive super supernova explosion releasing a burst of energy and matter in every direction out into the vacuum of space.
The scattered matter and energy from each of the massive stars’ super supernova explosions would then start to form large dense clusters or clouds of stardust (all the elements in the periodic table) near the original location of each exploded massive star. The scattered matter and energy from each massive star would now start to form massive expanding galaxies, in other words each “millions of light-years stretching” hydrogen gas cloud which turned into a massive star was a extremely large body that contained as much matter, mass and energy as a galaxy.
Depending on the rate, degree and size of the explosion of the massive unstable stars the different galaxy, which were formed, had different shapes; shape such as spiral shapes, etc. Over a period of time due to the high concentration of atoms, energy and gravity within the expanding galaxies regular size stars (suns), planets, and solar system started to form in deadly, high explosive, violent, high energy, yet organized way within the expanding galaxies. If a super supernova explosion did not completely break down a massive unstable star, large fractions of the star could remain in the original location of the massive star at the center of the forming galaxy. These large fractions could form very stable, very energetic and very large body and massive dust clouds at the center of the newly formed galaxy, these bodies could stop producing large amounts of energy after a period of time and these bodies could have other large bodies such as large suns in orbit around them or because each of these bodies would have large gravitational field they could share mutual gravitational pull on each other and could rotate and orbit about a single central location, these suns in orbit could be moving at very high speed (small whole number percentage values of the speed of light for the suns that are very close to the center of the galaxy).
The relationship between rotational and orbital motion of and within different objects:
From the smallest to the largest:
In atoms the electrons orbit the nucleus in electronic shells. Large amounts of atoms then come together to form large rotating objects such as moons, planets, suns and massive stars. Moons orbit planets; the rotating planets and their moons in turn orbit a sun. The moons, planets and suns, which are in motion then come together