altonhare

Before we can quantify some concept via some combination of theories and math, we first have to qualify this concept. i.e. define it and understand it. Otherwise all we have before us is a mathematical description. Distance is a static concept, we use this word as a noun. It indicates the separation between two objects: 0 0 Displace is a dynamic concept, a verb, which we would like to use as a noun in casual language for simplicity. So we made the word "displacement". It's obvious that, although the dictionary calls "displacement" a noun, the meaning of the word embodies the notion of a verb: dis⋅place⋅ment    /dɪsˈpleɪsmənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dis-pleys-muhnt] Show IPA –noun 1. the act of displacing. The act of displacing. These are both verbs. Displacement indicates an action, i.e. a motion. 3. Physics. a. the displacing in space of one mass by another. b. the weight or the volume of fluid displaced by a floating or submerged body. Compare Archimedes' principle. Displacing, displaced, etc. Displacement indicates TWO separations between objects: 0 0 ; 0 0 Displacement = distance-traveled = quantification of motion Since instantaneous embodies a single location one cannot logically talk about instantaneous displacement anymore than instantaneous motion, velocity, etc. These are qualitative, conceptual issues. Math, as a quantitative rational exercise, cannot resolve these issues. Every mathematical deduction is based on some premises. If you have not defined those premises rigorously and unambiguously your math is, at best, a correlative description with no concrete connection. Here, I am discussing the qualitative premises, what comes before the math. Before we can speak of vectors and scalars and quantities of velocity and fields etc. we need to unambiguously distinguish qualitatively between length, distance, distance-traveled, location, motion, etc. Length is a quality of a single object, specifically the quality of extent. Distance is a quality of two objects, specifically of separation. Location consists of the distance from an object to every other object. Motion is two or more locations. Instantaneous invokes a single location. We can write all the equations we want and match them up quantitatively with observations and it will not change this simple qualitative induction. So far everyone just wants to disagree, for reasons I can't fathom, and furthermore offers no alternative, which is even more unfathomable. Everyone just kinda disagrees, makes unjustified assertions, and finally invokes Newton's authority, as if it were impossible for him to make a mistake. In actuality it was inevitable that he would make some mistakes in tying his equations of motion to reality since he did not define motion in the first place.

Impossible, Newton did not even define "time, space, place, or motion". This statement simply asserts that what I say is not the case and further that feldblum learned something different than what I said in school. This is completely made up in the sense that it has nothing to do with anything I said. Another assertion that it is simply wrong, that the person can't imagine it, and it doesn't make sense to him. If it doesn't even make sense to you, then you can't even evaluate it as right or wrong. Imagining freezing the universe is easy. Imagine you are standing away from everything in the universe with a camera and are taking photographs. The camera is special in that it detects everything in the universe simultaneously. Each photograph is an example of what one sees if they "freeze the universe". The issue here is not whether this can be actualized by a human, but whether we can imagine it. Another assertion that it simply doesn't make sense to the poster. Still worse, feld misquotes me by using the word "displacement", which I have never actually used in this thread. He introduces this word into my definition of location for no known reason, then uses his own interpretation of this word to state that the definition doesn't make sense. This argument is a straw man because it simply asserts I'm wrong and becuase displacement != distance as far as I'm concerned, which renders his "quotation" of me irrelevant. SR is a theory dealing with what a person will actually measure. Here we are talking about imagining what is, irrespective of our ability to measure. At any instant every entity is at some distance from every other entity. I appreciate skepticism, but not for skepticism's sake. If you don't think motion is two or more locations of an object the onus is on you to pose your own definition of motion. The definition I gave does not depend on observers. Whether you're looking or not an entity has location. If it was at more than one location it moved, again whether you look at it or not. If you think "two locations of an object" is "merely how we observe it" then what is motion actually? Change? A rate? A rate of change? How are those better? More unjustified assertions that I'm wrong. Unjustified claim that I do not understand calculus. Then what IS instantaneous velocity? I've ventured a definition, though nobody else yet has. location: 1 2 4 8 16 "time": 0 1 2 3 4 5 Where's "instantaneous velocity"? Mine was not a mathematical definition, it's a physical one. Physics precedes mathematics. As far as a conceptual hierarchy, we present these concepts in the way it is easiest for a person to understand. Nature doesn't have to define this in terms of that, that's what humans do. It makes no sense to talk about location "preceding" distance in Nature. In any event, it's easiest to define distance, first, as the separation between two entities. Then location is simply the set of distances from one entity to every other entity. Sure sure. An object's location is in relation to every other object in the universe. Its distance from every other object.

From reading your posts, I can't help but wonder if you quite know what you're searching for. The mathematical field describes the motion of two hypothetical point particles with a given spatial arrangement. Whatever is between these two entities, its dynamic effect on the entity(ies) is described by a particular mathematical relationship. As far as developing a mathematical description of the motion and behavior of entities, the field concept has been enormously successful. You seem to be looking for "more", but the proposal of a physical connection between entities that mediates phenomena doesn't even phase you. I don't propose I am Right, of course, and you may disagree or see flaws but if this kind of idea is not what you were talking about, what exactly is it you're looking for? On the one hand we can describe the behavior of planets with an equation. The equation tells us, given a spatial relationship, how they will move. We can toss around the word "field" and, in the context of the mathematical description, it is obviously "real". We can point to this or that tensor and name it "field". As far as a physical explanation, this is not adequate because mathematics only describes relationships among entities, but does not necessarily care what those entities are. An easy example is the "point particle". This works very well for the purposes of mathematically describing the behavior of small entities but few rational-minded physicists would propose that an entity can actually have "0 size". Another example is "center of mass". We can model the earth and the sun as mathematical points fairly well because they are nearly spherical and have a small diameter relative to their separation. In terms of a physical explanation I propose the primary distinction here is visualization. In order to explain a phenomenon we should be able to imagine and visualize it. Of course a physical explanation is not valid simply because we can visualize it, that would be ludicrous. So, if not a precise mathematical description and not a visualizable explanation, what is it you're searching for? Agreed, with all of this, all that's left is to rigorously and unambiguously identify/define "entity". What is the foolproof test? While existence is axiomatic and self evident, entity is not. What is the criterion which clearly discriminates between an entity and an attribute, action, or relationship amongst entities? Is a chair an entity? I think we all agree yes. Is music an entity? We all agree that music is "real". But, is it a causal primary which exists independently? Does music exist independently of the entities: air, radio, tape, CD, ear, brain...? I can't imagine anyone arguing that we do not need, at a minimum, 3 entities to experience music: 1) Ourselves 2) Source 3) Transmission medium from source to you (like air). By engaging in this process we identified that music is not an independent entity but rather a complex relationship. "Exists independently" is a helpful criterion but I think it is only useful when dealing with existents with which we are all familiar. If someone proposes X is an entity and it is wholly unfamiliar to you, what is the essential quality that makes X an independent existent (entity) as opposed to a relationship or an action of entities? Aristotle tackled this idea and had this to say: from Aristotle's Metaphysics "Form" seems to be a synonym for "shape". Euclid seemed of similar mind: from Euclid's Elements Boundary, extremity, form, these are all expressing "finite" or "shape". To be something is to be finite, to be bounded. This is the most essential quality I have identified. While a chair has shape, music does not. The radio, my ear, and air molecules have shape. They exist independently. Shape is the most essential quality of all entities. What actually changed when people started uttering the word "field"? Faraday had no idea what was physically intervening, he invented the term "field" to refer to whatever magic was occurring in such and such particular region. Newton could have uttered the word "field" in reference to the gravitational potential. All that has changed is the precision of the mathematical description. Physicists have comforted each other by fooling themselves into thinking that bandying about the term "field" has changed anything. From Newton to Faraday to Maxwell to Einstein, the term "field" has always meant "whatever is there that makes what we observe happen, and what we observe looks like this: writes equation".

Since nobody has taken up the challenge of actually defining "instantaneous" and "velocity" such that they are not mutually exclusive, I can only conclude that the resistance to recognizing this simple observation is the inertia that comes from multi-generational habitual usage of the phrase. The objection that is routinely raised seems to be the issue of measurement. That, because I cannot measure an entity's location (location = set of distances from an entity to every other entity) this concept is rendered invalid (some seem to like to call it "absolute location"). It is quite easy to show why this is both arbitrary and illogical. Concepts are often defined in terms of what one could imagine doing, although it may be practically, physically, or theoretically impossible. In the case of absolute location we imagine freezing the universe. A person lays down bricks from an entity to every other entity. S/he now knows its location. Of course this is impossible, but nevertheless we can imagine it. Additionally, one argues that, just because this location is not measurable in practice, does not in fact mean the entity does not have this location. Why should Nature care what is practically measurable to Man? Does it make any sense to discard concepts because they are, for whatever reason, considered physically unrealizable? Theoretical physics constantly pushes the envelope in terms of defining concepts of dubious physicality. A primary difference is that, at least in the case I am describing, we can imagine it; while many concepts of theoretical physics (4D space-time, 10/11D entities, etc.) can't even be visualized. Imagine we all consider that it is impossible to jump over the Eiffel Tower. We come to this conclusion by simply looking, we conclude that it's practically impossible. A physicist, for whatever reason, decides to define 1 glerg as the force exerted by a 70 kg human on contact with the earth after jumping over the Eiffel Tower with minimum effort. Is a glerg of force physically unrealizable? Of course not. Suppose a team of biologists and physicists somehow "prove" that it is not only practically impossible, but beyond the bounds of any living entity to jump over the Eiffel Tower. Is a glerg now physically unrealizable? With this definition of location we define motion as simply 2 or more locations of an entity. Now it is actually impossible for an observer O to conclude that an entity A is motionless. "Instantaneous" means at an instant, a single moment, a single "time", i.e. a single location. Motion and velocity necessarily invoke two locations. These are mutually exclusive. Calculus is the mathematics of infinitesimals and uncountables, not of 0 and infinity. This is a crucial distinction. If there were true "instantaneous velocity" then the concept of limits would never have been necessary, we would simply calculate/measure an entity's velocity at a single location and be done with it. The elegance of the math of calculus allows one to calculate the velocity over an arbitrarily small interval, but never "no interval".

I made a mistake in my post when I said: "Half" should not be there. I don't see a reason for ad homs, personal stories, etc. They add nothing to a criticism. Even to someone who knows no physics at all Travis' opinion of the TEW is very clear from his critique alone. The introductory material can only serve to throw weight behind his criticism. One can decide if they will A) Read Little's book and decide for themselves, Believe what Travis says because of their own perception of his competence, or C) Refrain from taking a stance purely based on Travis' evaluation of the book and its contents. Additionally Travis urges everyone else to adopt the same stance. Again this only serves to throw weight behind his argument. In particular in this case he is throwing the weight of his own authority behind it. This is entirely unnecessary and uncalled for since individuals will decide for themselves how much they trust Travis' judgment based on his past actions. They may also choose to trust particular qualifications such as a Ph.D if they have decided that accredited Ph.D programs warrant such a stance. A declaration from Travis that he is to be trusted, or is competent, etc. is in question until the individual has decided for him/her self to accept Travis' judgment. Once they have decided this Travis' urging is redundant. It can only throw artificial weight behind his argument. With me, for whatever reason, Travis has decided I'm so incompetent as not to even warrant particular criticism. I don't know if he identified specifics in my posts or if my general language and style simply put him off. Again, simply stating his opinion,"altonhare I do not consider your thoughts worth my time and would appreciate you keeping them out of my threads" is fine. But he also throws his weight behind it in urging everyone else to adopt the same attitude. There is no reason for this other than to artificially push other people to adopt his stance. Other individuals can read my posts themselves and come to their own conclusions. If they do not consider themselves qualified enough, then Travis' opinion is clear without urging everyone else to adopt the same opinion. One can decide for themselves if they will defer to Travis' judgement or remain undecided, trusting neither their own judgement of what I write nor Travis' evaluation. He calls me a troll and crank, which basically expresses his opinion that what I write is unworthy of consideration. He then says it's meaningless, which adds nothing new. He calls me rationalistic for reasons I can't imagine since I have based much of what I wrote on observation. Finally, I didn't even know what numerology was until I looked it up after Travis' post. I have tried to integrate some basic empirical constants in a meaningful way. Wikipedia tries to sum it up: Perhaps he disagrees that it's meaningful, but occult? Astrology and divinatory? Unjustified and arguably dead wrong, Travis is using a term associated with mysticism to discredit me amongst an audience that stands against everything mysticism stands for. Edited for typos.

I would argue strongly that the distinction you are searching for here is "shape". The most essential quality of an entity, the quality that distinguishes entities from non-entities, is shape. Anything with shape is visualizable, i.e. we can point at it or at a model that captures the essential qualitative features. Exactly. Flowing does not have shape, and neither does music or spinning. However we think of these as "real". The justification is that we can illustrate what we're talking about by pointing to one or more entity(ies) and illustrating how it behaves to produced what we observe. Whether "X" is real or not is crucially dependent on this fundamental first step, pointing. We can correlate outputs on our gauges (such as the height of a column of mercury, the amount of water in the air, etc.) with when it rains, snows, etc. We know that when we get these outputs on our devices we tend to see X phenomena. You do not need to know the underlying causal influences involved to quantitatively describe these phenomena. But to explain, in terms of physical causation, the phenomena you have to point at the entity involved, in this case a molecule of air. Then you can illustrate aggregates of molecules moving from San Francisco to New York and call it "wind". The point is, all your conceptual abstractions are tied to a proposed entity, tied to something concrete. When one is unable to point at the entity which is acting the resulting concepts become quantitative correlations. They describe observations without explaining them. You can point to a modem. Arguably you can point to DNA under a microscope. You cannot point to an atom, therefore you must presuppose its structure and point to your model for the purposes of explaining some phenomenon. Whether another person believes your supposed structure depends on how easily and parsimoniously it explains observed phenomena.

Reviewing the pictures, the differences between the three schematics of the H atom are too miniscule to be obvious, unfortunately. I wish I could edit it now. I hope the idea is not lost. The magnetic thread elongates, which torques the adjacent connection, causing a decrease in the number of turns per unit length. To explain magnetism we propose that the magnetic thread connecting two magnetic atoms, rather than being bound up in a rope, is "free" to spin around with the atoms, here clockwise: Several magnetically active atoms in series (such as in a wire) together would look something like this: This spinning is what we observe as current: If we place two wires with current flowing in the same direction we can easily see that the threads will interfere: A coiled wire, the beginnings of an inductor: Two wires conducting current in the same direction (threads are both spinning in the same direction) attract each other. To visualize this imagine two individuals jumping rope in the same direction too close together: When one comes down on the other they tend to wrap around each other and pull/tug. Alternatively if they are spinning in opposite directions (current flowing in two different directions) the threads will push against each other: In the photoelectric effect a torsion signal induces an atom to spinning, which induces the adjacent atoms to spinning, and so on and so forth. Current is more like a drill bit spinning in place. On the largest scales a simplified schematic of the sun and earth, their atoms all connected to each other, looks like this: A more complete view on a smaller scale, with two groups of a few atoms: Here we have 4 atoms in each group, 4*4 = 16 connections between an atom in group one to an atom in group 2 = m1*m2 in Newton's equation. The inverse square of the distance factor easier to see on the larger scale where immense distances cause individual connections to superimpose on each other and act as a single connection. This is consistent with the observation that light does not interact with light, i.e. that we characterize light as a boson and say it can occupy the same "state" as another. This phenomenon can be visualized: The # of effective ropes (at distance D) * G = Gravitational Potential ~ G*(m1*m2/d^2) The change in the # of effective ropes * m = Force = m*a Inertia is dynamic, i.e. a change in the number of connections, and equals acceleration. The measured acceleration of the body is used to determine the empirical parameter "mass", the relationship between connections and acceleration. Gravity is specific to a location and is equal to the # of effective (non superimposed) connections at a given distance. Empirically it is approximately equal to the inverse square of the distance times the inertial masses times some universal constant G. We now have to determine the physical significance of "Big G". Consider the simplest gravitational system we can imagine in which we are confident gravity plays a role, 2 H atoms (the only atoms in our hypothetical universe). Since there is no change in the # of effective connections there is no acceleration. The force is 0, but the gravitational potential is 1 connection x G = G. By considering this simple system we've isolated the constant G away from inertial mass (Force = 0). So there is no acceleration. It's reasonable to assume that this complex constant G may be a composite of other universal constants which are characteristic of the fundamental nature of the connection. One of these constants is c, signals propagate torsionally/helically at this velocity along this connection. Another constant is the mass of the H atom. Let's factor c^2 out of G, where c^2 physically means that the signal travels diametrically between two specific atoms. We should expect it to have a proportionality to gravitational potential because a torsional signal above c (in a hypothetical universe) would demand that the atoms compensate by pulling harder. This is analogous to if you put a few twists in a rubber band and pull it apart to its untwisted length. Then twist it as many times as you can, you will have to pull much harder to stretch it back to its original (untwisted) length. C represents the stiffness of the connecting entity. G ~ 6.67E-11 kg-m^3/kg^2-sec^2 = 0.74E-27 kg-m/kg^2 * c^2 If c^2 is a constant we can factor out, so should be the calculated "rest mass" of the H atom: G = 0.44 m/kg^2 * c^2 * 1.67E-27 kg = 0.44 m/kg^2 * c^2 * H The result, free of astronomical exponents, tempts one to conclude this is not a coincidence. If we consider that the two H atoms are rotating about each other. If neither atom actually moves toward or away from the other, neither "feels" inertia. In everyday life if we rotate a ball we feel it pull on us. But this is because we are acting contrary to the pull between the ball and i.e. the earth. If the length of the connection between these two H atoms doesn't change they should feel nothing different than if the two atoms were at rest. Nothing is acting on either one that is contrary to their mutual tug. There is no reason to feel the resistance "inertia" unless, as Mach surmised, you are actually pulled by every other atom in the U. If every atom in the U is interconnected and possesses a detectable property known as mass, the source of this empirical parameter should be the aggregate pull of matter *outside* our two-atom system, which is contrary to their mutual tug. As soon as we connect our two atom system to the rest of the U and one moves it necessarily feels the tug of every connection. If the mass of the H atom represents the linear/outward pull component associated with a single connection, the radial component (left/right and up/down) should be present as a squared quantity (two directions). This is the physical interpretation of Mach's principle, when you move your pinky every atom in the universe pulls radially. This is contrary to the linear tug between the two H atoms, which is why it's in the denominator. This is intuitive. Now we have: 0.44 m * c^2 * H/M = 0.44 * c^2 * Mach's Principle The meter factor could represent the amplitude of this helical/torsional entity. Essentially it is a weighted average of the amplitude of every connection between the atom under study and every other atom in the U. Amplitude should have proportionality to force because a greater pull is needed to counteract a wider or taller wavy entity at a given frequency. The meter factor could ultimately be a variable based on the current distribution of matter in the universe, but for a given short period in universal history considered constant. So in physics we draw the distinction between gravitational potential and inertia: F = Mach's Principle * change in # of effective connections GP = Mach's Principle * # of effective connections at a location

I'd like to propose a physical entity that mediates light and gravity. In this first post I am going to go over very broad strokes, so there will naturally be objections, questions, critiques, etc. I welcome commentary, criticism, and vigorous debate. Starting primarily with Young in 1801 and proceeding with Fresnel, Oersted, Faraday, and culminating with the mathematical synthesis of Maxwell in 1864 a coherent description of light's behavior was developed. The familiar 2D transverse plane waves of Maxwell's equations indicate an oscillatory behavior of two entities in an antiparallel arrangement around a common axis. This is often illustrated by superimposing perpendicular graphs of the magnitude of the observed behavior vs. distance from some source. Essentially the mathematical picture looks like this: If this is what is mathematically described, the question becomes what physical entity simply justifies the described behavior? This physical structure is consistent: Obviously atoms are not balls, herein I am neglecting detail in the physical structure of the atom in order to concentrate on the structure of the physical intermediary. Also this is a hypothetical 2 atom universe. Each atom is connected via this structure to every other atom. I also do not insinuate that the structure is actually colored blue and red, or that they have any quality of what we think of as "color". I merely distinguish them as red and blue in the illustration to make clear that there are two thread-like entities entwined corresponding to what is mathematically described as the electric and magnetic fields. At the outset, I argue that this entity intuitively justifies several observations of light: 1) Rectilinear propagation. A connection between atoms ensures that the signal is rectilinear, a torsion/transverse signal has no choice but to travel rectilinear along this taut medium. 2) Why light (transverse) is so much faster than sound (longitudinal). This structure is a continuous entity. Intuitively we would expect an entity which is not composed of smaller entities to transmit motion far faster than a discontinuous entity (air). 3) Oscillation of two effects at 90 degrees to each other. The configuration illustrated simulates this by its inherent nature. 4) Frequency/wavelength/color, the number of turns of the rope per unit length is the frequency and the length of a turn is the wavelength. It has no choice but to obey c=f*w. 5) The principle of ray reversibility. Whether reflecting or refracting light retraces its exact path. 6) Young's slit experiment: Remember, the source atoms are connected to all the atoms in the detector. A single excitation of the source transmits a torsion signal of a specific frequency to every atom of the detector. When two ropes converge on an atom of the detector and one is exactly lambda longer than the other it will transmit a torsion that is exactly out of phase in comparison to the other rope. The atom is being both excited and suppressed simultaneously. Those who are not intimately familiar with the behavior of light may be confused by this, and it may not make sense. Feel free to ask. I also argue that I will justify several other behaviors by integrating the proposed structure of light with a hypothesis of the atom's structure. For instance, "quantum jump" which, at present, is simplistically illustrated: In this simplistic view (without yet illustrating the structure of the atom and how it fits in) the transfer of "photons" between two atoms looks like the following process: The photoelectric effect: I have not justified the illustrated behavior. Particulate properties of light are intimately connected with the atom, as illustrated by history. The Maxwellian wave viewpoint of light was the Gold Standard until empirical observations by Perrin, Thomson, and others were explained in terms of a flow of particles called electrons. Once the electron was "discovered" and black body radiation cast classical EM in doubt, quantum began to rear its head. Experiments seemed to indicate that, contrary to the Maxwellian view, light was absorbed and emitted in discrete units rather than continuously. I will now pose a structure for the atom consistent with this behavior. First off, why not particles? Of course this could be a huge topic that would take up much time and space. However I will present at least an example of why I reject the particle model of the atom. An example of data from an accelerator looks as follows (this one is from Brookhaven): This is a 2D cross-section of the data that was taken, recorded, and produced from the collision of 2 gold ions. This is what the aftermath of a high E collision allegedly "looks like". The quark is the smallest "particle" which can be detected in this apparatus. Two gold atoms should have no more than 1400 quarks (more like 1352). But in merely this 2D cross section we see thousands upon thousands of traces. This image is, to my mind, more consistent with some kind of thread-like entity converging upon the atom from other atoms. The extra "particles" in the image are probably justified as "energy". This is reification. Energy is a concept, an observed *relationship*. Rather than a particle the electron looks more like a shell that encapsulates the atom. Up close it looks like a ball of yarn: The nucleus looks more like a dandelion: Taken together the H atom looks like: A more schematic view, naming the two threads for convenience: When the electron shell expands it does so only by torquing the rope at the expense of a certain number of links (shown here taking in one): And when it contracts it must release a link: The aggregate of links absorbed/released is what we call "energy". What about magnetism and current? How does the proposed entity physically justify magnetic attraction and current? How does gravity come in? I will finish this (admittedly) very broad-strokes story tomorrow by explaining how the entity proposed physically causes the phenomena known as magnetism, current, and gravity.

Meaningless ad hom, insult, and dismissal. Although my posts have veered off the topic of TEW, I thought Thomas would appreciate another's thoughts on his comments.

In the end the test for object/physical (synonyms) is to point at it and name it. It is justifiable and, especially in physics, expected that you may not be able to point at the entity itself since invisible != unphysical. In this case the only test is to present a model of it that captures its features qualitatively. This is the only objective test of the claim "X is physical". On the other hand, for the purposes of physics, if X is physical and is involved in your theory we must assume it exists as part of the hypothesis. Unless you can point to "the real deal" we have no choice but to make an assumption that something qualitatively like what you have presented exists. Then, after the theory is presented with all the details and evidence, the audience can decide for themselves if they believe X exists based on the evidence. So the first test of "field" is to point at "field". From what I've seen it looks like a bunch of long thing objects connecting one entity to another. Until you have pointed at "field" this word is just a placeholder for something that causes the observed behavior. The equations are indeed a bookkeeping mechanism until the causal mechanism is illustrated. There is powerful evidence that something is a real physical object that we can't see. Again "field" is a placeholder term. Replace "field" with any word you want here. In the end, what is the structure of this entity and how does it justify the observed behavior? Because this is not an explanation, it's an observation. The job of physics is not to merely catalog/list observations but to explain them. Ultimately we'll have to posit one or more fundamental entity(ies) which are simply themselves, i.e. there's nothing smaller. We avoid infinite regress, we just point at it.

We can surely evaluate the validity of a statement, series of statements, or a theory by analyzing its internal consistency. It doesn't necessarily have to match up with my personal common sense or everyday experience, but it can't be inconsistent or contradictory. Posing 'a' wave as a fundamental "entity" is a false start. First one has to point at an entity, then illustrate what the entity does (such as waving). The wave theories I've read about either do not pose an entity or pose 'an' infinite entity (aether). Infinite entity is a contradiction, entities are finite, although one may travel incessantly along one without getting to an "end" (such as a mobius strip or a sphere). I agree with your points about Newton not positing a causal primary entity. Unfortunately his equations were so successful that the general trend in science from then on was the hunt for equations/relationships rather than a physical explanation. However Newton himself is an excellent example of why this is a bad path. His equation came from correlating observations, not from posing a physical mechanism. It was practically inevitable, then, that the equation would be overthrown by a new equation. Without a physical mechanism we are just throwing darts and hoping to get lucky enough to hit the right one, hoping our current set of observations are truly representative. Discovering equations and relationships in this way is good for technology and invention. In these areas you are primarily concerned with describing what happened (the apple fell this fast). You're not going to build any new gadgets by hypothesizing about what entity pulled the apple to the earth. Sure, *eventually* what you're hypothesizing *might* make it's way into a good mathematical model that leads to an invention, but someone will have already invented it by simply discovering the relationship itself by trial/error and mechanical tinkering. Imho the reification of space and time pulled physics away from, well, physics i.e. what is physical. Another step in the wrong direction, I think, was the rejection of de Broglie's hypothesis of a "kinked string" electron in favor of Born's "probability cloud". The latter is qualitatively no different than the planetary model. Whether the electron has a probability of being here or there is irrelevant, at one single instant we are staring at the planetary model. Ultimately the mathematics were no different, just as the mathematics were no different in relativity when space and time were reified. Physics just took another step away from the physical and another step toward the purely mathematical. In this sense I support the de Broglie/Bohm standpoint that Travis describes, but I can't help but think there is a way to do without the particles. Travis has more physics training than I, so perhaps he can explain the necessity of the particle. In the slit experiment, for example, if there is a continuous entity connecting the source atoms to every other atom on the screen, then an excitation of the source (a single photon) will excite all the connecting intermediaries. Each connection carries a signal a different distance depending on the angle. When the distance-traveled by two signals along this intermediary is equal to half the wavelength of the signal, the target atom is essentially both excited and unexcited. This gives us the observed diffraction lines. The particle is mainly used to justify quantization, but there's no reason to assume a structure for the intermediary that justifies quantization is impossible. Certainly the old "continuous luminiferous fluid aether" cannot physically justify quantization, however. Agreed, the issues you're raising echo my own thoughts. The physical mechanism by which I imagine gravity functioning is the physical connection between the atoms of the apple and the atoms of the earth. Each atom is connected to each other atom. When the apple is far away these connections all essentially superimpose and act like one connection (behaves like a boson). As the apple approaches earth the connections fan out, each one making an angle with each other, and they "un superimpose". In the former case we have a few number of effective connections and in the latter case we have a large number of effective connections. So when you said this: I would posit: The # of effective connections (at distance D) * G = Gravitational Potential ~ G*(m1*m2/d^2) And: The change in the # of effective connections * m = Force = m*a Inertia is dynamic, i.e. a change in the number of connections, and equals acceleration. The measured acceleration of the body is used to determine the empirical parameter "mass", the relationship between connections and acceleration. Gravity is specific to a location and is equal to the # of effective (non superimposed) connections at a given distance. Empirically it is approximately equal to the inverse square of the distance times the inertial masses times some universal constant G. We now have to determine the physical significance of "Big G". Consider the simplest gravitational system we can imagine in which we are confident gravity plays a role, 2 H atoms (the only atoms in our hypothetical universe). Since there is no change in the # of effective connections there is no acceleration. The force is 0, but the gravitational potential is 1 connection x G = G. By considering this simple system we've isolated the constant G away from inertial mass (Force = 0). So there is no acceleration. It's reasonable to assume that this complex constant G may be a composite of other universal constants which are characteristic of the fundamental nature of the connection. One of these constants is c, signals propagate torsionally/helically at this velocity along this connection. Another constant is the mass of the H atom. Let's factor c^2 out of G, where c^2 physically means that the signal travels diametrically between two specific atoms. We should expect it to have a proportionality to gravitational potential because a torsional signal above c (in a hypothetical universe) would demand that the atoms compensate by pulling harder. This is analogous to if you put a few twists in a rubber band and pull it apart to its untwisted length. Then twist it as many times as you can, you will have to pull much harder to stretch it back to its original (untwisted) length. C represents the stiffness of the connecting entity. G ~ 6.67E-11 kg-m^3/kg^2-sec^2 = 0.74E-27 kg-m/kg^2 * c^2 If c^2 is a constant we can factor out, so should be the calculated "rest mass" of the H atom: G = 0.44 m/kg^2 * c^2 * 1.67E-27 kg = 0.44 m/kg^2 * c^2 * H The result, free of astronomical exponents, tempts one to conclude this is not a coincidence. If we consider that the two H atoms are rotating about each other. If neither atom actually moves toward or away from the other, neither "feels" inertia. In everyday life if we rotate a ball we feel it pull on us. But this is because we are acting contrary to the pull between the ball and i.e. the earth. If the length of the connection between these two H atoms doesn't change they should feel nothing different than if the two atoms were at rest. Nothing is acting on either one that is contrary to their mutual tug. There is no reason to feel the resistance "inertia" unless, as Mach surmised, you are actually pulled by every other atom in the U. If every atom in the U is interconnected and possesses a detectable property known as mass, the source of this empirical parameter should be the aggregate pull of matter *outside* our two-atom system, which is contrary to their mutual tug. As soon as we connect our two atom system to the rest of the U and one moves it necessarily feels the tug of every connection. If the mass of the H atom represents the linear/outward pull component associated with a single connection, the radial component (left/right and up/down) should be present as a squared quantity (two directions). This is the physical interpretation of Mach's principle, when you move your pinky every atom in the universe pulls radially. This is contrary to the linear tug between the two H atoms, which is why it's in the denominator. This is intuitive. Now we have: 0.44 m * c^2 * H/M = 0.44 * c^2 * Mach's Principle The meter factor could represent the amplitude of this helical/torsional entity. Essentially it is a weighted average of the amplitude of every connection between the atom under study and every other atom in the U. Amplitude should have proportionality to force because a greater pull is needed to counteract a wider or taller wavy entity at a given frequency. The meter factor could ultimately be a variable based on the current distribution of matter in the universe, but for a given short period in universal history considered constant. So in physics we draw the distinction between gravitational potential and inertia: F = Mach's Principle * change in # of effective connections GP = Mach's Principle * # of effective connections at a location Energy is simply the aggregate of torsional signals traveling outward along each connection to every atom in the U. The mass of one atom times the aggregate of these signals = m*c^2. Under this model a "gravity shield" will never be produced because it will necessarily be connected to whatever it's shielding

"Also radioactive particles such as muons formed in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays bite the big one up there somehow manage to last long enough to get to the surface. At rest their half lives aren't nearly long enough." -- Steve'D Until physicists can actually point at a model of the muon and explain the physical process that causes it to decay, they cannot use this as evidence because they don't even know what they're talking about. The fact that radioactivity is considered a "random" process alone indicates they do not really know what's going on, they have just mathematically modeled a fundamental behavior of Nature without understanding the physical process. "On a side note, it is pretty easy to travel into the Earth's future. You could go up on a plane, fly around for a few hours/days/weeks, come back down, and you would be in everyone else's future - only by a tiny fraction of a second, however." --brian This is reification of the concept "future". You cannot be "in the future" like one is "in a box" or "in a room". Future is not an entity which can contain another entity. Besides that, if you really believe in this "time travel" business because of relativity, you must also believe that progeria victims are caught in local time warps. If an entity's internal processes move slower, such as the orbiting of an electron, then its internal processes move slower. Making the leap to "time travel" is scientifically unjustified and arguably philosophically unsound. Entities exist in the present.

A major issue with the pertinence of Einsteinian rel to reality is the reification of space and time. It treats these as fundamental entities. What it ends up doing is simply deriving a mathematical construct describing the relationship of entities without saying anything about what they are. The only logical (and Objectivist-consistent) interpretation is that the entities which we have dealt with so far interact with themselves and/or with other entities and/or with unseen entities in such a way that their motion affects these internal processes so that they slow down. The ubiquity of the precise amount by which this occurs merely indicates a fundamental mechanism of Nature that is not yet perfectly understood. The geometric interpretation of gravity under GR is, once you remove all the exciting language, saying no more than that entities take curvilinear trajectories and that the degree of curvature is dependent upon the empirical parameter "mass" and relative motion. There are classical models which take Newton's equation and modifies it by accounting for velocity (relative motion) and find very good agreement with measurements. "Laughable. If you are using a cell phone or a GPS device, you believe in that crap." -- brian Flandern, who worked at the U.S. Naval Observatory for 21 years and became Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office and retired to serve as a Research Associate at the University of Maryland Physics Department, and as a Global Positioning System (GPS) consultant to the Army Research Laboratory on Relativity/GPS/etc.: Flandern - GPS "However, because this gravitational attraction also moves at the speed of light, object A at time t is actually attracted by the position of object B in the past (object B's past, that is). How far in the past? Well, some amount related to the distance between A and B." This kind of behavior, where an entity has an effect that depends on its previous position because this causal influence is propagated at a finite speed, is termed "retardation" in physics. Flandern also on the propagation speed of gravity: Flandern - speed of gravity "My understanding of the concern with relativity is it's rationalistic start at assuming c constant." -- KendallJ c is a consistent empirical observation, which makes it at least not entirely arbitrary. The question is whether it is a constant of nature or a constant of measurement. "From my understanding physics is concerned with establishing theory which can predict observed phenomena accurately. It does not attempt to prescribe any kind of ultimate truth. Relativity is just that - a theory which describes various observed phenomena from relative viewpoints; it says nothing about the true nature of the world." Absolutely not. Physics does not strictly concern itself with correlating the inputs and outputs of instruments. Physics is about discerning the fundamental structure and properties of entities. "Does Red Daves complaint from 2004 have merit? " -- Kevin Absolutely not. In addition to the other arguments presented, observers can reconcile their different observations by considering their position from the other observer's perspective. If an entity appears differently it's because you looked at it differently and, if you stand in your friend's position, it will look like s/he described it.

We avoid this kind of absurdity and circularity by fundamentally defining thing/entity as: shape. Then we don't have to engage in endless circular definitions, we just point at the shape. If I pose that God exists I just point at God or a model of God. There is no ambiguity about what we're talking about now. If I point at something and say "God" there is no doubt that God exists, it is plainly before us. If you point at something and say it's a model of God, that you can't produce the genuine God because it is beyond your capacity, then the other person can decide for themselves if they believe what you are modeling exists.

Bertlmann's Socks is certainly the minimum required familiarity one should have before considering any opinion on the matter of EPR. As far as physicists who can explain things simply and plainly, it doesn't get much better than Bell. I think the language upon which quantum tends to be predicated, the particle, has led to a lot of the pain in interpreting EPR type behavior. If no particle/entity is actually transferred from the source to the polarizers, but rather an action/signal along a 2 strand entwined intermediary, there is no problem with superliminal causation. Indeed the intermediary would look something like what's illustrated in this paper: http://pages.unibas.ch/phys-meso/Research/...hysics_full.pdf A torsional motion along this seems the most likely candidate for what we call "light". Again, if this intermediary is continuous there is no reason for actions at one end not to be felt at the other. There is simply no call for such "explanations" as MWI or Copenhagen. The issue left is whether to believe the quantitative prediction of standard quantum, which compels us to accept that what happens at each detector is a causal influence on the other. If we believe it, then there must be interdependence between the two measurements "instantaneously". If we choose to disbelieve it we have to explain the empirical success of the mathematics. The latter is not completely lost, there have been notable deviations from the quantum mechanical correlation in certain experimental situations: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607172 I couldn't hunt down the reference, but I also read a while back that deviations occurred when polarizers/detectors reach a certain degree of efficiency, which is difficult to explain.

I think Prosp is supporting what I said in pointing out that Goblins/God/X exists is an arbitrary assertion and is "neither true nor false". If an entity is asserted to exist then one must explain some phenomenon with it, or how it came to be, etc. Based on the logic and reasoning of this explanation one decides if they will believe X exists or not. So whether "God exists" or not depends solely on who's asking you and how they define "God". "God is a man who lives in my house". I have no reason to believe a man doesn't live in your house, and it seems reasonable, so I'll believe it until I have reason not to. "God exists" or "Does God exist?" are, as Prosp pointed out, arbitrary. The person has just uttered sounds without connecting them to reality. These sounds are not right or wrong, they're just sounds (or symbols). An individual may decide that this arbitrary symbol "God" points to a supernatural, impossible entity and decide God can't exist. That's just because they have rendered it not arbitrary by assigning their own personal context. You can insert anything you want for "God" in "Does God exist?" and the statement or question does not change at all. Only when the statement is given context is it meaningful to talk about what you or I believe.

"You missed the meaning of my statement, entirely. The meaning was: "location" cannot in an absolute sense be defined. The word has no meaning. The word certainly has meaning when describing the displacement of one entity with respect to another entity." -y_feld You mean it can't, in an absolute sense, be measured/quantified. It absolutely has meaning, simply "the set of distances from an entity to every other entity". The entity doesn't care if you took a measurement or if a consciousness is alive. The fact that it is a distance from every other entity is not dependent upon human intervention. "Displacement" is an action, a verb. It deals with motion. Distance-traveled has meaning when describing the displacement of one entity with respect to another. Distance is a static concept. "Shape is a primary of sense-perception. Location with respect to oneself is also a primary of sense-perception. But location in an absolute sense is not. You cannot observe location in an absolute sense. You have no way to define it. The entirety of the field of physics has no way to define it. Newtonian physics rests on the demolition of the idea of absolute location." Shape means finite, i.e. has a border. Shape is also a static concept. It does not depend on human intervention either or on motion. Humans may describe shapes in terms of their sense perceptions, but entities have shape regardless of this sense perception. Location is the set of distances from an entity to every other entity. Again it is not dependent upon human intervention. Hopefully an entity was finite and at some location whether we ever did or are capable of measuring or sensing it. I never said I could "observe location in an absolute sense". I am *defining* the words entity, shape, location, and motion so that I can use these terms consistently and unambiguously. You and I may measure different distances-traveled and come to different conclusions about location or distance, but by definition the distance/location of an entity was specific. Measurement and observation may be dependent upon the observer and his/her perspective, but the actual primary qualities of an entity are not. We can resolve our different conclusions through reason and logic, i.e. by discovering that differences in perspective are a result of different assumptions (am I stationary or are you stationary, and is the speed of light constant or not?). But hopefully the entity itself didn't care what our assumptions, premises, measurements, or calculations were. It was just at a specific location. So, physics does indeed have a way to define location, it's in mathematics/measurement which we cannot. In physics we first define our terms objectively, in a way that does not depend on testimonials from individuals. Then we can proceed to test ideas empirically. If we find empirically that we can only measure relative motion, so be it. Nature does not bend to our wishes or our limitations. Nature laughs at our insistence that She conform only to our ability to measure while discarding our ability to think, imagine, and reason. "That is not the meaning of "absolute location." So you've spent all this time arguing against your own definition of absolute location instead of the one I presented? What's wrong with the one I have been repeating over and over? Besides the unfortunate aspect that a human cannot quantify it? "The concept of "absolute location" rests upon the concept of some primary entity which is by its nature absolutely still." You mean your definition of absolute location. All this time I thought you were disagreeing with me, when you were really just disagreeing with your own definition of absolute location. "Distance, and distance-traveled are identical in meaning, when the journey is along a geodesic (which, in a non-curved space, is a straight line). This is incorrect, and the source of a lot of misintegration. Distance: ---------- 0 0 ---------- Distance-traveled: ---------- 0 0 ---------- ---------- 0 0 ---------- Distance is merely the separation between two objects. Distance-traveled is the distance between an object and a now imaginary version of that object. The latter is dynamic, it requires at least two locations of an entity. The former is static, each entity is at a location. An observer moving to the side will infer a diagonal distance-traveled, which will necessarily be a larger quantity. Does this mean the actual separation between A and B expanded? No, it means the observer is moving away (or the objects are moving away from the observer) which means there is an observed horizontal component of the velocity. The distance-traveled relative to the observer is greater because s/he is in relative motion, of course. But the static separation between A and B does not spontaneously fluctuate depending on who decides to take a measurement. This is the difference between distance-traveled and distance. "A photon travels along a geodesic. In fact, relativity argues that all objects not under the influence of a force (where gravity is not a force) travel along geodesics and cannot do otherwise, light included." Indeed they do, relativity's empirical success indicates objects traverse curvilinear paths and that the degree of curvature is dependent upon the empirical parameter "mass" and their relative velocity. This has nothing to do with distance. It has solely to do with motion. Another equivocation that is often made is between length and distance. Length is a quality of ONE object, its extent in a direction. Distance is a quality of TWO objects, their separation. "Distance lies between lengths" is a general rule. Length is to 1 as distance is to 2.

I agree with the general sentiment that labeling something via a negative is unproductive. However, it is just as illogical for the theist to say s/he believes in God as it is for the atheist to say s/he doesn't believe in God. This is because there is no provision for belief in existence. God either exists or it doesn't, irregardless of your belief. If I become a born again Christian, does God suddenly exist? If I forget I own a gold watch, does it suddenly not exist? It's also illogical to prove or disprove existence. This is the result of existence being axiomatic. It makes no sense to believe/prove or disbelieve/disprove axioms. By the way http://www.evilbible.com

Travis, Everything I've read by you so far indicates a great deal of agreement between us. The conclusion of superliminal deterministic causation seems the most philosophically and scientifically sound with regards to EPRB-type experiments. All the other interpretations I know of either fall apart logically under real scrutiny. Measurement axioms, many worlds, etc. seem like a way to rationalize and blow off a thorough, critical analysis of the underlying physics. Consider a "toy" EPR experiment in which Alice is at one end and Bob at the other. When the experiment is started a continuous rod extending from an equidistant machinery spins the rod. This machinery is different from the machinery we normally encounter. This machinery was not designed by Alice and Bob, and neither knows anything about how it works, only that it spins a rod which they can stick their arm out and "feel" or "detect". This is analogous to using a sample of cesium or some other material to produce "photons". We do not have full knowledge or understanding of the precise state and construction of the internal machinery of that which produces the photons/spins the rod. This is why we don't know the precise final state beforehand. Bob wishes to know which way the rod is spinning, i.e. its angular momentum. He sticks his arm out, stopping it, and determines it's spinning "up" (p = +1). Alice instantly knows the other side was spinning "down" (p=-1) because the rod is continuous. A continuous entity is capable of being perfectly rigid, i.e. an action at one end is instantaneously "felt" at the other end. The classic example is a continuous rod from here to Andromeda, if one were to push it they could instantly influence a planet in Andromeda. This is just a toy model, of course, but it captures the qualitative idea. The point is that a continuous intermediary is capable of "perfectly rigid" behavior, which allows superliminal causation without violating locality or causality. Perhaps this intermediary is perfectly "rigid" in one direction but flexible in another. Indeed, if light is a torsional/transverse mechanism along this medium then we see why its propagation is finite while the propagation of other causal influences does not have to be. Perhaps influences that are directed "straight" along this intermediary are superliminal because of its perfect rigidity in this direction, but influences that are transverse are limited by the fundamental transverse flexibility of the intermediary. I also think terms like "signal" and "information" are abused and that many people do not know precisely, in essential language, what they're trying to say when they use them. In general signals, information, patterns, etc. are what we understand from something as humans, not a fundamental aspect of Nature. I think "information" is a bit abused in the mainstream literature especially in regards to "hologram" theories. In general reification of abstract concepts is an issue imho. "Just one quick comment. There's a dangerous large-scale sort of circularity in the idea that the real external physical world is radically different than how it "appears" to us in consciousness. (Indeed, there are fatal philosophical mistakes built into even that way of talking about the relationship of consciousness to reality, but I want to leave those aside for now and just make a mostly-physics point.)" -- ttn From what I've read and deduced, falling into this trap amounts to accepting (at least in part or in some form) a Kantian philosophy. On GR and the pseudo tensor, from what I've learned formally and informally, the "search is still on" so to speak for finding a direct physical link between the pseudo tensor and existent(s). Crothers raises valid issues but none, I think, that the scientific community is not already generally aware of. Since this is also partly a rel thread, what do you think of GR's compatibility with Objectivism? Also what do you think of alternative relativity theories (not just Lorentz's original formulation) that do not set a c "speed limit"? In particular I've read some fascinating new material in the area of special/uniform relativity: http://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Reta..._pr_product_top If you haven't read it, I recommend it. Particularly the section where he analyzes, in detail, a few "toy clock" models composed of moving charges in various arrangements and deduces their associated relativistic equations via classical EM. And Flandern, who unfortunately died recently, has done some significant work in this area. His significant role in implementing the GPS system places him in a unique position to comment on relativity: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/grav...speed_limit.asp

"Every object is at all locations, all the time." -- y_feldblum This is nonsense. An object cannot be both here and there. This is simple locality. "You need to invoke reference frames in order to measure an object's position with respect to your own or with respect to another object's position. The same applies to velocity." -y_feldblum But I am not measuring, I am defining the word "motion". Certainly objects move even when nobody's taking a measurement. On its own (when we're not looking and thinking) an object just has shape and location. These are the two most essential qualities of existent entities and have nothing to do with measurement. At any given instant an object is at a specific location, i.e. the set of distances from it to every other object. An object does not have to engage in a measurement, it has shape and location all on its own. "It seems to me that location has no meaning apart from distance, and distance is a relationship between two entities. This means that absolute location (i.e. the location of an entity without reference to other entities) is meaningless." -- Jake Of course, location is the set of distances from an object to every other object. Of course it's a relationship between entities. Where location and distance differ is that distance is a relationship between TWO entities and location is a relationship between an entity and every other entity. ' Of course the object has an "absolute location". There is a specific distance from it to every other entity in the universe. "I suppose one could define absolute location as the location of an entity relative to some primary entity, but I defy anyone to justify the selection of some entity as the primary entity." -- Jake Nope, we just need the definition of location. Distance is a static concept. At an instant there is a specific distance between two entities and, by extension, a specific location. This doesn't involve a measurement. Often the equivocation is made, because of loose language in relativity, between distance and distance-traveled. The latter is a dynamic concept. In relativity the latter is what changes in different measurements. Relativity claims that, because I measure a different distance-traveled by a photon from A to B, that the physical distance between A and B actually changed. This is the conceptual error. Relativity only shows that *distance-traveled* is based on perspective. This dynamic concept has nothing to do with the incident issue we are discussing, which involves the static concepts of location and distance.

"Fundamental entities (there, I'm not giving them a specific name, don't complain) are not visible. They are too small to see." -- Malkuth They may be unseeable but, if they have shape, they are visualizable. So what are we visualizing when we utter the word "atom" or "light"? A little bead? A wave of some medium? " There's no way to picture them geometrically in a way that's entirely accurate. It's the limits of the way we're constructed by humans. " -- Malkuth If they have shape, they can be visualized just fine. There is no reason to believe, either empirically or within the philosophy of objectivism, that humans are somehow prohibited from imagining the structure of fundamental objects. This is the stance only a Kantian would assume. Incidentally, geometry is the study of shape. So we better be able to visualize the shapes in this discipline or the entire discipline disappears. "The only way that we have to describe them is with our mathematics." --Malkuth Mathematics has nothing to do with shape/structure. It exclusively studies dynamic concepts such as motion. A simple equation is the itinerary of an object, for instance. Objects themselves are the study of geometry and physics (idealized and real respectively). In mathematics a "circle" is obtained by tracing the itinerary of an object that remains equidistant from a specified point. Volumes are obtained by laying down a bunch of points, sweeping them to the side, and then extruding them all upward. In physics and geometry, we point to objects instead of building them up with itineraries. Additionally, mathematics is an exercise in pure rationalism. For the conclusions of it to be meaningful one must have a clear unambiguous premise, a hypothesis. In science we point to a model of our hypothesis and illustrate the theory with it. "And these things that we call particles--which are NOT particles in the classical sense; the equivocation is yours, not mine--are also called waves because they obey wave motion. Things that obey wave motion are called that" -Malkuth Great, so they are most definitely, unequivocally, NOT discrete chunks. They obey wave type motion, but what are they? What's waving? Physics studies objects first, then describes their behavior. In order to discuss the motion/behavior of an object, one must first point to that which is waving. Just because, in casual conversation, we say "I jumped over the wave" doesn't make it scientifically, grammatically, or logically correct! Just because the other person "knows what you mean" doesn't mean you have communicated scientifically. Scientific communication is more rigorous and demanding than everyday casual conversation. " When people see waves in the ocean, they say "let's jump over the waves!", not "let's jump over the heaps of water that are caused by the propagation of energy through water via wave motion!" - Malkuth In science, we absolutely do say the latter (just "let's jump over these heaps of water"), and avoid the former. We only say the former when we have pointed at the entity "water" and illustrated the motion "wave" so that now we may communicate our ideas clearly and unambiguously. We may now say the former with the critical caveat that is not technically correct, but is rather a useful shorthand that conveys the correct meaning because we have clearly illustrated the situation we are discussing ahead of time.

"The system as a whole happens to be in one state or another, and as a whole is irreducible to the two separate particles." -- Malkuth Right, it's time to stop thinking in terms of discrete particles. The only way to explain the vast majority of experiments is by posing a continuous entity that interconnects everything. "Waves" consist of the torsion/stretching/etc. of this entity. By itself, "wave" is just a description, a concept divorced from entities. *True* randomness demands a lack of causality and identity. "Quantum physics, with its random, non-deterministic results, and its relativistic (with local causation) version, quantum field theory, work just fine." -- Malkuth Identity assures an entity behaves in a specific way in any given instance. An entity cannot, in state A, do B but then later in state A do C. This is inconsistent behavior. Also QFT has still failed to incorporate gravity. The fundamental failing of particle physics is that, as I've said, its basis on particles as the fundamental entities. There's no reason that there cannot be propagation of a signal faster than c along a *continuous* intermediary. The propagation speed is a function of the intermediate entity's shape, flexibility, and compressibility. A hypothetical perfectly rigid (continuous) body is easily capable of explicitly violating c. Gravity certainly appears, empirically, to "act" far faster than c. See: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp and "The Role of Gravity in Quantum Mechanics", D.M. Greenberger and A.W. Overhauser, Sci.Amer. 242, May, pp. 66-76 (1980).] This article and its references cite recent empirical evidence that suggests c may not be a fundamental limit. This of course has huge implications for EPR/Bell experiments. "A wave is something that propagates as a wave, can be built from sine/cosine functions, and experiences constructive/destructive interference." --Malkuth Something that propagates as a wave, what's the "something", a particle? Things are built out of mathematical functions? Interference is just an observation, a description of an experiment. What is interfering? Particles? "The fundamental particles satisfy this. They do, in fact, propagate as waves." -- Malkuth They're discrete little beads that move up and down or side to side? Why would they do that? Or is the "particle" just a useful thing to plug into the equations? "Each packet of E in the wave is called a photon. And the packets we observe in real life tend to be localized in space--something localized in space with a set energy." -- Malkuth Just because we tend to see localized phenomena, does that mean it is actually localized? " It's convenient to think of it as a particle. (Though I should also say that since it's localized in space, it's really made up of waves of multiple frequencies. But is still only a single packet/particle." --Malkuth So it's really made up of some entity(ies) that is/are oscillating at different frequencies. It's not a particle. It's a continuous entity connected to every other entity. " So rather than have a set energy, it's A% a wave with one such energy, B% with another energy, etc., and has those probabilities of interacting with a charged particle as though it definitely had that energy.) And this is what they're typically called: "particles"." - Malkuth No matter what, though, you never actually localize the particle. No matter how many terms you superimpose in the linear sum to generate the wave function. The "particle" is just a useful term thrown around, there's not a single discrete, disconnected particle in the entire universe. "On the large scale, we observe waves that are due to the dynamics of particles." -Malkuth But you just talked about a superposition of waves... you mean we observe waving motions that are due to the dynamics of smaller waving motions of some entity right? "That doesn't mean the wave motion in quantum physics is due to smaller component particles" -Malkuth But you just said wave motion WAS due to the dynamics of particles. You go back and forth a lot here Malkuth, and it at least sounds very much like you contradict yourself. We cannot have both particle and wave, something is what it is. All the evidence thus far, that I know of, points at a continuous interconnection between every entity in the universe. Maxwellian EM indicates that, at least between atoms, it looks like a 2 strand entwined rope which is torqued by the expansion and contraction of the electron shell. Indeed, very few (if any) natural phenomena can be explained with discrete, separate particles.

One reason is symmetry. A lot of the conversions/transforms are symmetric for all six sides, making it essentially one set of possibilities instead of six. Roughly you can reduce the total combinations by 1/6. Then there are smaller symmetries for rows/columns that reduce the total number. This is how a well programmed computer/machine would approach the problem at least initially.

y_feldblum: IIf an object was at more than one location it moved by definition, and so did every other object in the universe, by definition. We don't need to invoke reference frames or observers to define motion this way. Velocity and time are relative to a specific "frame". Time/velocity = motion + observer. Motion = 2 or more locations of an object. Motionless = 1 location of an object.

Flagg, Interesting, thought-provoking stuff. There are currently many cosmological theories of the universe's history, of which the big bang singularity is but one. See: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidT...eABeginning.asp http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp And the myriad associated references. I point these out because you seem to regard singularities and big bangs as "proven". They are not, but we can simply accept, for the sake of discussion now, that this theory has some empirical evidence and instead talk about its logical validity. By the way, could you link me to where it has been shown, philosophically, that there must be a "First Cause"? First off, you state that all the universe's constituents are compressed into an infinitesimal (not zero) region, by which you mean there is 0 distance between all constituents. Each constituent is pressed right up against each other one. Fine, additionally you emphasize that "time" is relational, it's more or less "in our heads". Objectively there are only objects, the motions of objects, and causation. Also agreed. The concept "absolute time" is a misnomer/floating concept analogous to "absolute velocity". These concepts, time and velocity, are always relational. We only quantify them by comparing at least two objects and their motions. On the other hand, "object" is not relational, it exists independent of identification or comparison. Time, velocity, music, etc. exist only by virtue of an identified comparison and relationship. There is no "God clock". You say that the singularity "did not exist for any duration of time". Nothing exists for a duration of time! They simply exist. Exist is static, it is independent of motion. This ball exists whether it ever moves. You assign the singularity "t=0". I don't know if you mean this literally or not. I can assign any instant t=0 if I want, and let relative motion progress from there. What I mean is that any "instant" or "cross section" of time is of course motionless, by definition. There is, by definition no "time" that the universe or any system is in a single specific state at some instant. In this regard the instant you have described as "singularity" is no different than any other instant. The only distinctive characteristic is that it is "distanceless". So it's as dense as it can get, but of course the constituents had to move toward each other to become that dense. So there's nothing special about this singularity, it's just another instant. If we look at the next instant nothing is moving either, each object is simply at a new location. And so and and so forth for each instant we care to visualize/imagine.Your insistence that this instant is somehow special and absolutely must be the "first" is weird. I haven't seen a justification of this beyond stating that it is "mathematically proven". "At the "t=0" Cosmic Singularity State, in short, the Universe simply was. Just as it simply is today. Only, no motion marked any internal time." -Flagg The universe is just as time-less today as it has ever been. You're trying to say that there was no motion, then there was motion. But that doesn't make any sense. What is "motionless" but "one instant of time"? At the next instant we see new locations. There is never any "internal time" at any instant, not today or yesterday, until consciousness comes about with the ability to record and remember previous locations. Of course objects move in the absence of conscious entities' observations. Time is essentially motion+observer. So the only distinction I'm seeing is that this singularity is as dense as possible and contains no conscious observers. You go on to discuss instability and how the necessary effect/result of this state was that the entities would move outward/apart from each other. But why do you demand that this be the "first state"? Surely the entities had to be brought together in order to achieve this state. You talk about it "birthing space and time" by which you mean it "created motion". This seems to mean that we got motion from motionless, a contradiction. It makes much more sense to simply say that the universe is eternal and has always been in motion. There is no "First Cause" by definition because every cause has a cause and every effect has an effect. If observation indicates that the universe was previously more dense the logical conclusion is that it expanded from that and, before that, it contracted, etc. In your second post you bring up some interesting ideas, namely that there is no separation between entities so they all affect each other in accordance with their identities simultaneously. That's fine, but why insist that this is the "first state"? Such a "first state" would have no cause and seem to violate causality. It's more likely that the constituents actually collapsed inward then exploded outward. Your justification is that this singularity "exists outside of time". By which, from everything you've said, you're saying there was no motion. So we have motion from no motion, how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction? There's no motion, then suddenly there is. One justification you give is that all the constituents are "not spatially separated" and thus *interact* simultaneously in accordance with their identities. But "interact" is a verb, it invokes motion! But you're saying this state is motionless/timeless. How can we have an interaction in a timeless/motionless state? You have missed this key aspect, that interaction/influence itself is dynamic and, as such, cannot occur "outside of time".