Time and Motion

[webolife]

Interesting use of the word "projected". You mean "emitted"? I would say that my light vectors, er...beams, are indeed projected radially to the source. I ask you, are your "ropes" physical entities? Just because something occupies space doesn't make it physical... or does it? How is your rope in any way more physical than my light beams? Whaddya have that I don't got? Do your ropes have mass? Are they composed of energy? I think I know the answer to these two questions, but how are you disallowing my vectors/beams, yet entertaining ropes with most of the same properties, as I see it?

The universal field [field is more than space, it is an interactive zone between all objects at any scale] holds all objects in the universe. I totally disallow any accelerating expansion, dark energy, or other bigbangisms in my UFT. The fundamental connectivity of the universe is manifest as centropic pressure... that pressure is responsible for gravity, ES/EM forces, nuclear/atomic forces/interactions, and light. That compression operates everywhere there are objects, at every scale, and we are observers of [interactors with] those objects from a peripheral position in any respective object's field. In this way, objects are connected by the fact that they exist in a universe that is held together... by what you ask? Sure that's a tautology, but give me a "valid" theory that doesn't depend on itself to prove itself. I think simply, and try to use words with simple meanings... symantics are important, but perhaps my theory is just "too" simple?

We detect changes in the field, because changes at the centroid/source affect the entire field in which we are peripheral participants. I asserted earlier that those changes, as I "get" it, are due to the compression of the field, therefore a collapse of electron shell, vs expansion, or perhaps better an oscillation of the energy level in which the "falling" is the phenomenal cause of the light action.

[seasmith]

altonhare wrote:

Any ' quantatized or rationalized' Unit is inherently an objective representation (observation)
of a subjective (if even collectively subjective) reality

-seasmith

What do you mean by "unit"? What does it mean for this "unit" to be quantized or rationalized?

I mean the same as Webster or the OED-
A unit is any arbitrary division of a grander whole. It needn't have a standard measurement associated with it. For our purposes here, a unit could be an inch of thread or an ounce of pain.

If it IS quantized and/or rationalized, then that is a further qualification of the "unit" being discussed ie: in the context of the encompassing "whole"

The words are just signposts or maybe GPS fixes. The context, determines meaning.
If that intersection (or coordinate) you're sitting at, is on a mountain top for example, there's a whole lot more perspective/scope of vision/meaning conduced by the word
than that same confluence of idea and concept [Word] than if sitting on the jungle floor.

Apologies for conflating a couple of your threads here, but they started, and seem to stand on semantics.

s

[altonhare]

Interesting use of the word "projected". You mean "emitted"?

-webolife

Yes that's what I meant.

I would say that my light vectors, er...beams, are indeed projected radially to the source.

-webolife

But...

I do not hold that light is "emitted" in any way shape or form.

-webolife

Light beams are projected but not emitted? How does this work?

I ask you, are your "ropes" physical entities? Just because something occupies space doesn't make it physical... or does it?

-webolife

I have defined physical entity a few times. Physical means shape. If it has a boundary it is physical. The rope is a physical hypothesis. Any theory of physics must rest upon a physical hypothesis, i.e. on an object with shape.

How is your rope in any way more physical than my light beams? Whaddya have that I don't got?

-webolife

You need to tell me exactly what a light beam IS. First, does it have shape? Can you make a model of one? Then, is it 3-dimensional (i.e. possesses extent in three orthogonal directions). Then, is it continuous or discontinuous? If it is discontinuous it is made of smaller objects, what do they look like? If it is continuous it is undeformable and unbreakable.

I don't want a description, I want to know what it actually is for the purposes of your theory. The rope theory is unambiguous. A three dimensional elongated object connects each atom (the two threads of which comprise the atom). When the thread around the nucleus expands it torques the adjacent rope. This torque propagates to the next atom and so forth. This is a causal physical explanation.

The universal field [field is more than space, it is an interactive zone between all objects at any scale] holds all objects in the universe.

-webolife

Field is "more than space" but it is also an "interactive zone *between* all objects. What lies between objects other than space? There are objects and there is space between the objects. You said field is "more than space" but then defined it as a "zone between objects" which is synonymous with space.

If your theory relies on the word "field" you will have to give a better definition than that. I still cannot see, physically, how the phenomenon of "light" occurs in your theory. You propose a field that is both more than nothing and also nothing at the same time.

[altonhare]

altonhare wrote:

Any ' quantatized or rationalized' Unit is inherently an objective representation (observation)
of a subjective (if even collectively subjective) reality

-seasmith

What do you mean by "unit"? What does it mean for this "unit" to be quantized or rationalized?

I mean the same as Webster or the OED-
A unit is any arbitrary division of a grander whole. It needn't have a standard measurement associated with it. For our purposes here, a unit could be an inch of thread or an ounce of pain.

If it IS quantized and/or rationalized, then that is a further qualification of the "unit" being discussed ie: in the context of the encompassing "whole"

The words are just signposts or maybe GPS fixes. The context, determines meaning.
If that intersection (or coordinate) you're sitting at, is on a mountain top for example, there's a whole lot more perspective/scope of vision/meaning conduced by the word
than that same confluence of idea and concept [Word] than if sitting on the jungle floor.

Apologies for conflating a couple of your threads here, but they started, and seem to stand on semantics.

s

It's okay. What I'm asking is, is the neutrino a continuous object or is it made of smaller parts? Is it three dimension i.e. does it have shape? Is it a billiard ball? Is it a cone? A cylindrical solid?

[altonhare]

webolife:

Like I said, I think we need to take this one step at a time to avoid wasting more of your time. First question/

What is physics the study of?

My answer: Objects, i.e. shapes, meaning they are finite. They have a border.

If you disagree then tell me what physics is really the study of. If you agree then simply state the shape(s) of the object(s) involved in your theory. Cones? Balls? Chains? Poles? If you do this I think your theory will be infinitely clearer.

[altonhare]

webolife:

Like I said, I think we need to take this one step at a time to avoid wasting more of your time. First question/

What is physics the study of?

My answer: Objects, i.e. shapes, meaning they are finite. They have a border.

If you disagree then tell me what physics is really the study of. If you agree then simply state the shape(s) of the object(s) involved in your theory. Cones? Balls? Chains? Poles? If you do this I think your theory will be infinitely clearer.

In light of what I said in the cult of the big bang thread, web and I need to clear up 3 issues.

Is A A?

What is an object?

What is Physics the study of?

I say: "Yes", "that which has shape, a border, is finite", and "objects"

We can't discuss your theory of physics Web until we agree on these fundamental premises.

[webolife]

[quote="altonhare"]In light of what I said in the cult of the big bang thread, web and I need to clear up 3 issues.

Is A A?

What is an object?

What is Physics the study of?

I say: "Yes", "that which has shape, a border, is finite", and "objects"

We can't discuss your theory of physics Web until we agree on these fundamental premises.
[quote="altonhare"]

Is A A? Are you asking if I have an "identity property" for physics? OK, yes.

I'll go with your definition of "object... " by which you mean a physical "noun" vs a "verb"?
So for you, atoms, electrons, planets, etc. are objects, but their orbits are not? Assuming I'm on the right track...
But you still have to use other verbs to describe what is happening between the objects at some point.
If I am understanding you, you would say that words like wave, force, energy, and vector are "verbs" in physics, what objects DO, rather than objects themselves... is that correct? When I think "material" however, I am thinking matter, that which has mass and volume, and not everything in physics has mass; so that leaves shape... not everything in physics has a definite shape, it will operate in its particular field based on the other properties of the field, such as the presence of other matter... this presence produces other effects, such as charge, gravity, and light, and while these are real effects, and observable and measurable, albeit mostly invisible, these are also part of physics, though not perhaps "objects"? If I'm on the right track to understanding you, I would say then that "gravity" and "light" are verbs, rather than objects. Are you requiring that verbs also have shape, boundaries, etc.? Or will you admit the presence of verbs in physics as well as nouns?

[altonhare]

Is A A? Are you asking if I have an "identity property" for physics? OK, yes.

-web

Great

I'll go with your definition of "object... " by which you mean a physical "noun" vs a "verb"?

-web

Yes, objects are exclusively nouns.

So for you, atoms, electrons, planets, etc. are objects, but their orbits are not? Assuming I'm on the right track...

-web

Correct, an orbit is an itinerary, it shows you a series of locations the object occupied.

If I am understanding you, you would say that words like wave, force, energy, and vector are "verbs" in physics, what objects DO, rather than objects themselves... is that correct?

-web

Absolutely! I have defined many of these.

Motion: Two or more locations of an object

If you list two locations occupied by a planet, the planet moved! It had to.

not everything in physics has a definite shape

-Web

Okay pause here. Explain to me how an object has "indefinite shape". How is that different from "no shape"?

This we will have to clear up before we can get to "fields" and such.

[kevin]

Alton hare,
When You say" the planet moved, it had to"
I would offer an alternative to that, in so much as it appeared to move to the observer, but what actually moved was the flows of STUFF that create and maintain creation.
You DEMAND that things are concrete objects, what others are saying upon here is that things are not concrete objects.
That everything is ONE, a coalesced grouping of that one into a myriad of geometric wave forms that create all of your supposed concrete objects, and because you demand that they are concrete , we have this never ending battle akin to a game of ping pong.
The "Time and motion " are not of the supposed concrete objects, they are mere accumulations of the one in precise position of a matrix, and flowing about that matrix is the basis of time and motion.
This is why nothing stays the same, all things change constantly, the only things that stay almost stable are those things that closely mimick the whole system, and gold will show that best, I suspect that the barriers of universes are gold, like a honeycomb, and we are similer to bee's in that honeycomb.
You perfectly represent the accepted, You have obviously absorbed the accepted and fully accept the accepted, but because you are really bright, SOMETHING is plucking at the accepted and not ringing true.
This means you are searching, and trying to defend your base of reality, which you perform very well, like a knight on your steed.
We have such a lot to re-learn, and I applaud You sir for sticking to your guns, and not buckling under critism, hence I really like You .
Kevin

[altonhare]

You DEMAND that things are concrete objects, what others are saying upon here is that things are not concrete objects.

Objects have shape. You are arguing that they do not. If you offer even a single definition of the word "object" come back and argue. Until then the people with the definitions win because their words mean something.

That everything is ONE, a coalesced grouping of that one into a myriad of geometric wave forms that create all of your supposed concrete objects, and because you demand that they are concrete , we have this never ending battle akin to a game of ping pong.

The "battle" is because of your (and others') refusal to actually make your words mean something.

The "Time and motion " are not of the supposed concrete objects, they are mere accumulations of the one in precise position of a matrix, and flowing about that matrix is the basis of time and motion.

No, they are just measurements. I lay down my ruler and the ant is at 1 inch. I look later and he is at 2 inches. The ant moved one inch.

I set up a contraption that drops rocks from a specific height. When a rock falls it hits a lever that triggers the next rock to fall. It also triggers a mechanism that records the ant's position on the ruler. If 5 rocks fall as the ant goes from 1 inch to 2 inches the ant took 5 rock-falls to move 1 inch. Its velocity is .2 inches/rock-fall. These are measurements, not things. The ant is a thing. Time is what I infer from my measurement. I have defined these words. I've seen nobody else even try. In a debate if one side can state explicitly what they mean and the other side cannot state explicitly what they mean then the former wins the debate.

You perfectly represent the accepted, You have obviously absorbed the accepted and fully accept the accepted, but because you are really bright, SOMETHING is plucking at the accepted and not ringing true.
This means you are searching, and trying to defend your base of reality, which you perform very well, like a knight on your steed.
We have such a lot to re-learn, and I applaud You sir for sticking to your guns, and not buckling under critism, hence I really like You .
Kevin

Actually Kevin, you perfectly represent the accepted. Reification is the status quo these days. All the mainstream physicists grant magical properties to their particles to avoid the question "What IS light?". Scientists stopped asking this question 100 years ago. Since then they just model it with equations and give it whatever fantastical, supernatural properties they like. The scientific method is completely disregarded.

What I stand for is extremely rare. It is not accepted. Just look at this forum. It consists of individuals who are generally open-minded and ready to go against the status quo but I have met a great deal of resistance. Every mainstream physicist would mock and deride me. I would be tarred and feathered at CERN. They would call me all sorts of names, the mildest of which would be childish, picky, and semantic.

No Kevin, it is you who go along with what is popular and conventional. Religion, mysticism, superstition, and supernatural phenomena are far far far more popular than science these days.

I'm glad you like me.

[kevin]

Alton hare,
I do not go along with any other thing except what I find myself.
I do search about and compare and marvel at all upon here.
many would class me as talking of the paranormal, I view the majority as paranormal.
I am sane , and they are all bonkers?
It's always teatime down here in wonderland?
The trick is to do as Alice did, and step through the looking glass, remember Charles Lutwidge dodgson was a mathmatician par excellence, with a liking for a magic mushroom , or two.
Kevin

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare wrote:

If you offer even a single definition of the word "object" come back and argue.

Anything I can conceive of with my mind e.g. a unicorn.

I lay down my ruler and the ant is at 1 inch. I look later and he is at 2 inches. The ant moved one inch.

Or the ruler moved relative to the ant.

"What IS light?".

Light is creation in action; dark is creation in potential.

Religion, mysticism, superstition, and supernatural phenomena are far far far more popular than science these days

There you go with the weasel words again. And not a definition in sight, shame on you.

[Grey Cloud]

Kevin wrote:

This means you are searching, and trying to defend your base of reality, which you perform very well, like a knight on your steed.

Don Quixote springs to mind.

[kevin]

Alon hare,
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... dgson.html
especially the last one?
Kevin

[altonhare]

Just one question GC:

Is A A?