Webo-Centric Light

[webolife]

SJW,
No, in this radically different view light IS the doing, it's not emitted matter or energy waves that have to be converted thermodynamically [1st law] to a different form. Light doesn't HIT anything! Our eye and the solar surface are connected as members of the same potential/pressure field. The same centropic pressure that makes the sun round is pressing against the back of our retina [in the direction of the sun]! When the excited electrons drop to a lower level [ie. toward the centroid/nucleus] the field potential shifts and that shift in PRESSURE is what we observe as light. The amount of electron shift as well as the total electronic configuration of the particular atoms/molecules of the "dye" determine the parts of the pressure field that are displayed by the object as we see it. It is important to keep in mind that color/vision is a complex process beginning with the electronic configuration of the source material; reflectional alterations of the field due to intervening materials [eg. the sunlight reflects on surface of the red farrari, the dye's electronic configuration reduces some of the green/blue portion of the original pressure gradient]; alignment with our retinal cones and rods, which are differentially resonant to different pressures in the light field; electrochemical "digestion" and storage of the resulting neurochemical stimulation by our brain's occipital region.

[webolife]

In response to Seasmith from the Extraordinary Light thread:

Two things:
Thing 1: Radiation, projection, longitudinal, transverse and reflection are all terms that can be used to describe optical geometry without the need for particulation or energy wave models. However WHATEVER the fundamental nature of light is, its effect is that of pressure, and the only way for it to be detected is when it's there at the detector, not along the way. So action at or from a distance is naturally observed right here at my retina or detector. This leads to . . .
Thing 2: Electrons [whatever they are] spin, bounce, revolve, jump, in accordance with the configuration of a particular atomic structure. I think of all these things [as well as geometric symmetry] as I think of "resonance", which is really just another name for discretization, or [not my favorite] quantization. Think pressure pulses instead of wave pulses. When I am looking at a light source, my retina is connected to that electronic configuration -- the vectors that caused the electron to drop are the same ones pushing toward the light source from behind my head -- and the moment an electron jumps to a lower level "there" my retina feels the pressure release/shift "here". The electronic action is resonant in it's own context, and marvelously my retina is configured anatatomically and physiologically to resonate with it. That's how I see it, double entendre intentional.

[Lloyd]

* Hey, Web, I haven't kept up with a lot of your postings, but I've seen enough of them to get the impression that you have very good theories. Media are hard to work with in ways that are convenient and well-organized, so I'm trying various ideas to improve on that. Would you be willing to try experimenting on a Google Document with me, in order to try to organize the main ideas of your theory? Google docs can be made to be edited by more than one person at a time, so it's kind of like in-person talk, but with the advantage of having a transcript, but also the advantage of being able to organize and edit the transcript at the same time. It just takes a brief discussion first to agree on a procedure whereby both or all parties can keep track of where each one is and to understand how to work together efficiently. The docs provide banners with members' names on them for each party, so each one can see where the other one or more are located. I've been doing this with a friend lately, and I find it very promising for effective communication. So I hope you have time and interest to try this with me. I hope to get several folks involved after trying it first in pairs. What do you say? And what do others here say too? I'll look here for your reply, but you can also reply by forwarded email, etc, if you prefer. Same applies to others reading this.

[webolife]

I'm open.
I'm not quick at typing or picking up technology, and I know I've given only fragmented snatches of this theory over the past few years here... anything that would make the communication clearer would be good. I've hesitated to fully plunge into this in hopes of getting permanent access to the unpublished manuscripts of the late Robert Archer Smith, the originator of most of these ideas, especially the unified field geometry. You'll have to guide me through the process.

[Lloyd]

* Thanks, Web. I'd like to use your first name, but I don't know if you want privacy.
* Here's where I started a document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h-k ... SrzFI/edit
* Anyone here can go there to leave comments. But I'll try to arrange it so you can help edit it. In the mean time, feel free to go there and leave comments. Same applies to others here.
* So far, all I've done is post some of your statements from your initial posts on this thread. But, as we discuss it there, it will be easy to re-organize and edit it.
* We'll just have to play around with it a bit.
* I think I have your email address somewhere, so I'll go ahead and share the doc with you and you'll be able to start editing too.
* When is a good time to meet you there?

[phyllotaxis]

I'm happy to see more formalization applied to web's ideas. They deserve to be presented in an apples-to-apples way so that comparison to other works and theory can be more effectively accomplished. Lloyd, here's a tool I found online that may assist you in collecting all the bits and pieces together- zotero
It's made for exactly the kind of collaborative research you and web are undertaking. Perhaps you will find it useful in your efforts.

[webolife]

Hey, thanks for your support.
Currently my ideas are spread across over 250 threads on this forum, and even I don't know what I've said!!!
Maybe this will be a more efficient format to get everything in one place.

[webolife]

Some of the fundamentals of the Centropic Pressure Field Theory are now available for consideration at the Google document link supplied above by Lloyd.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h-k ... rzFI/edit#

I'm thankful to Lloyd for getting this started. It seems like a good way to get lots of related ideas into a single place.
I don't know how secure a Google document is from malicious vandalism, but I would welcome questions to be posted there following the Q/A section at the beginning. If posting a question, I would ask that the questioner identify themselves in an appropriate manner and leave the date when they posted the question. This will help me organize my thinking and attempt to respond in a manner respectful to the interests of the reader.

Continue to post comments here at this thread. If a topic is relevant to questions being asked on the Google site, I'll cut and paste them there or include them in answers already being formulated.

[webolife]

The Google document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h-k ... SrzFI/edit
is now arranged with the main body, entitled "Centropic Pressure Field Theory", currently about six pages,
followed by a Question section, which I invite anyone to use to pose a question regarding the main ideas. This is followed by a Dialogue section, primarily an ongoing discussion between me and Lloyd who [thank you] started up the site. At the end are a few sections cut and pasted from the TB forum, out of context, but which contain some additional comments I've made in reply to various posts. The browsers I use in my home and work computers do not interface well with this format, but I'm making do. To help me to distinguish added questions and give more direct answers please indicate who you are, and which section you are questioning, and add a date, please.
W. indicates me, and...
K. indicates Lloyd

I also welcome continuing dialogue on this thread, and will transfer cogent questions and answers to the Google doc as appropriate.

[Michael V]

webolife,

(I am replying/continuing in this thread as the most appropriate)

Thank you very much for your reply concerning the nature/operation of light in the "speed of light is bollocks at cern" thread. I have a damning and insulting critique in preparation, which for now you may consider to be "a disagreement in some respects".

If you would kindly indulge my curiosity further, I seek an opinion from another portion of your brain. You have said previously, something along the lines of: "all motion is curved". Are you able and willing to provide more detail/evidence/line-of-reasoning with regard to this stance? This idea may or may not resonate with a proto-theory I am toying with.

Michael

[webolife]

Since all motion [momentum] has a "forward" vector, yet every object is operating under the gravitational influence of [er, more like with respect to] other objects, then all motion will be observed to be [or simply is] curved. There is nowhere in the universe where Newton's first [inertial] law can be observed to be anything other than a mathematical idealism. What cuases that gravitational influence is the subject of all our varied theories. Additionally, since I do not count light [nor gravitation] as a moving object, but as a pressure field, a single rectilinear vector is all that is needed to describe it. That vector may be influenced by the presence of an object, eg. the "refraction" of light about an ostensible edge of an object, or between objects of two differing densities; but it is observed otherwise as a straight "line" between my eye/detector and the source, and describable in an optical ray diagram, [or in the case of gravitation, an orbital vector diagram].

[Michael V]

webolife,

Thanks for the reply.

There is nowhere in the universe where Newton's first [inertial] law can be observed to be anything other than a mathematical idealism.

Two objections to this:

Firstly, I think you should perhaps have said "logical idealism", since mathematics has nothing to do with it.

Secondly, you say "observed", which choice of word kind of covers your ass, but at the same time misses the point. An object at rest or in uniform motion, with absolutely no forces acting on it whatsoever, will continue in that state unless an external force is applied. An inability to "observe" a place in the universe completely devoid of externally acting forces, does not in any way disprove or diminish the validity of the concept. Motion in straight lines is undefeatable as a logical premise.

Arguing that a logically perfect premise is invalid because it conflicts with observation or observational limitations should immediately tells us that there is an observational problem. Obviously, if the logic of the premise is not rigorously constructed, then we are potentially open to delusion, but trusting observation without understanding carries the same risk. After all, there is no such thing as empirical evidence, it is, almost by definition, empirical interpretation.

Dynamism vs Mechanism. There are those that say the purpose of science is to predict and make use of the world. I heartily disagree. The overriding purpose of science and specifically physics, is to understand the true fundamental nature of the universe to the greatest detail attainable. Prediction and technology are merely fringe benefits, the primary and ultimate goal, and the greatest reward, is understanding.

Michael

[webolife]

Michael V,

No argument. Your logical idealism is completely valid, as a logical idealism. If that helps you understand the universe better, that's good. Newton thought the same way, and do I appreciate Sir Isaac. I like all the old guys, Galileo, Kepler, DesCartes... I really like Pascal.

Realizing as Isaac Newton did that all objects at all scales in the universe are under this "gravitational" influence, but therefore not moving in straight lines, leads to a quest for a universal field theory which must take this into account as a principle agent. But what came first, the force that causes objects' motion, or moving objects imparting force? That is a philosophical question, not at all self-evident or obviated by a single answer. There is lots of room for different perspectives on this. You say the fundamental principle of the universe is moving objects, I ask what caused that motion, you say it doesn't matter... I say "Why?", and you say "I don't know"... Hello! Hello!

There is no point being vehement about one particular view... I think you have a well developed and interesting theory, but I don't believe colliding quantums are sufficient to explain the observed behavior of light, nor to fathom the universe of consciousness, relationship, and connection, the world I live in every day. My pressure field view also currently lacks answers to some questions, darn it! But the amazing thing is that we are here discussing these things in order to further our understanding... Hello

[Michael V]

webolife,

But what came first, the force that causes objects' motion, or moving objects imparting force?

I maintain that this has no relevance to the present universe.

You say the fundamental principle of the universe is moving objects, I ask what caused that motion, you say it doesn't matter... I say "Why?", and you say "I don't know"...

By any reasonable philosophical measure that is mediated by logic and absent of any terrestrial privilege, we must, that is MUST, assume that the universe in its present form and operational mode is very very very old - trillions and trillions and trillions of years old. Any remnant of clues that may have led us to hope for an answer to the question "How did the universe come to be and operate in the way that it presently does?" is long gone. Also, considering what little knowledge of the nature and workings of the universe that human civilisation has so far gleaned, we must also accept that any speculation at all about the origin of the universe is wasted effort and well down the scientific priority list.

I don't believe colliding quantums are sufficient to explain the observed behavior of light

Light is certainly a tricky problem. I confess I cannot yet "see" the answer.
Whilst on the subject, perhaps I can the this opportunity to offer my greatest objection to your theories, especially with respect to light. My grievance can be encapsulated by one word: "instantaneous".

I am looking toward a light source. The light source and I are separated by 1000 light-years. The light is switched on. The idea that anything capable of detecting light, anywhere in the universe, including myself, will instantaneously receive a light signal from the light-source, is quite beyond anything even remotely approaching plausible.

To say that the concept of instantaneous is risky from a theoretical model standpoint cannot be understated. Despite the obvious margin of doubt concerning the proposed distances of astronomical and cosmological objects, I think it safe to say, that the universe that we can observe with telescopes is very very big. There is nothing in our immediate experience that suggests the notion of instantaneous action or signal over distance. Certainly, it can solve some problems, but to me, the act of invoking instantaneous action is to concede theoretical defeat – it is not an answer, it is a total lack of an answer. You have my deepest respect, but I am bewildered how and why you have allowed yourself this theoretical comfort.

....nor to fathom the universe of consciousness, relationship, and connection, the world I live in every day.

You're not gonna go all spiritual are you?

Michael

[webolife]

Why not? You have put your entire kit and kaboodle on tiny little invisible and immeasurable objects that defy observation or experimentation. You think of this as "science" or a "theory" because you think it's so "logical." In reality, as you occasionally admit, you really don't know. But you believe VERRRRRY strongly in these imaginary quantums anyway. That seems like a lot of faith if you ask me. Can't I exercise a bit myself? A deep premise of mine is that all scientists [eg. yourself or I] operate from a fundamental set of presuppositions I normally refer to as their "faith base". You can deny this is true, but that doesn't change it. A better question for us to ask ourselves is, how can my theory be used to make further predictions and possibily benefit the human race? This seems to also be irrelevant to you. Well then maybe we can assume for a moment that we both are looking at the same universe, yet from different perspectives, and may have something to offer one another?

Your "instantaneous" objection is ill-founded and not logical. Not only is it precisely what we observe [when light happens to us, it is "already here"... it can't be "seen" otherwise], but it does answer a lot of questions. You started out your objection by using the term "light-years" --- well, of course "instantaneous" is a contradiction to "light-years" You also assume light "comes from the the light source" but I see light as happening right here at my eye, with a vector directed toward the source as a "sink", under universal pressure [analogous to gravitation]. Until you allow your mind to break free of your "emission" paradigm, you will not be able to understand this. I'm not saying you have to agree, just free your mind! Einstein's train gedanken and twin's paradox were equally illogical and contradictory. He assumed light had a finite speed [c], then assumed again it was that same limiting speed to all frames... people have flocked to his nonsensical theory for almost a century. Now there's "spirituality" for you!

I do not not assume anything about the age of the universe. It appears to be in a wondrous state of dynamic equilibrium. Has it always been this way? Was there no cause? And if you answer this with "yes", does this not fly in the face of the whole definition of "causality"? Defining "causality" as not having a "fundamental cause" is a philosophical faith leap, just as belief in a "fundamental cause" is considered to be a faith leap. And how is saying "Cause is irrelevant." any more scientific than saying "There was a cause for which the present universe is the effect."