Hi Lloyd,

Still haven't worked through it all as my daily life is taking it's toll. We actually had several tornados hit a few communities last night. One came close to my house and caused a lil leak in the roof. No major damage for me though other than having to be without power for a few more days.

Anyways, I haven't had time to research the specifics, but what I'm thinking is that to further unite RM and QM, we treat a linear absolute distance and time scale as the Bohr model of the atom, whereas each orbital has an energy level allowing the absorption of a photon or emission thereof to discretely alter the electrons orbital relationship. In my scenario, light sets the bar whereby each linear distance represented by a lower velocity ratio thereof has a discrete energy level of seperation. This would extend the EM spectrum to encompass massive systems in a sense, whereby the rest mass of a system is it's default velocity state and the gain or loss of relative mass which can transition a system along the scale is required to alter the energy level of the system as with absorption emission aspects thus allowing various rest mass systems to occupy an absolute energy level along the absolute scale as long as they satisify the energy level required to be there.

If we consider a photon to be a linear extension through time along the scale like a yard stick and a more massive system to be some temporal extension lesser ratio thereof ie shorter larger diameter rod, then we could perhaps account for the reciprocal conserved loss or gain of mass and velocity from system to system as being conserved by way of the extension aspect whereby all systems have a p=1 relationship through an absolute interval of time. The mass variations we find as being presently conserved within various systems ie e=mcc would be the reciprocal of the mass/energy relationship we found expended along the scale. I want to consider this relationship as with linearly extending an electron orbital and considering the various discrete energy level transitions, but haven't had time to do the research. I think you'll get my meaning though.

This would be taking QM aspects and encorporating them into RM aspects whereby establishing them both as fractal methodologies of absolute time and space mechanics. I like the idea of a motion spectrum with discrete energy level intervals as I've referenced similar aspects in the past. I just didn't know how to apply the mechanics. I'm considering the transition of a system in relation to it's rest mass vs relative mass along with the discrete force requirements to change it's linear relationship along the energy spectrum. I'll have to think more on this.

The Task of Science Is To Find The Laws of Facts… Helmholtz

Whoever in the pursuit of science, seeks after immediate practical utility may rest assured that he seeks in vain. --Academic Discourse (Heidelberg 1862)

Well Tim, I had a whole post ready to go, and my computer had one of those famous critical crashes, so I lost it__I just love these new operating systems__the bigger they get, the worse they are... Anyway, as you can see by the title and the notes posted below, I'm working in very similar areas as you... I've been playing with the c-velocity capacities of brain waves to process concepts at one time__and just how much information can be packed into our ideations__as per the frequency, amplitude and wavelenght mechanics involved, especially as relates to the real c-velocities, when constrained within our physiological brain systems, at the much reduced c-velocities. I been looking at this for about 6 months now, as to me, only a certain amount of information is possible of packing into a single concept, even with the help of the best compression algorithms, as even alrogithms have c-limits of compression capacity also. To me, much of what's mentioned in the notes below is related more to physical capacity of c-mental wave-capacity, within Planck lengths and or volumes, etc., than to any real 'Aporias', unknowabilities, incommensurabilities or indiscernibles__but it's up to us to find the newest 'Laws of Facts' that must be applied to this mechanics__to make it plainer to our understandings... All I'm talking about is looking at the facts of what can possibly be processed of all the systems we work with__and to me, this is where Peirce's categories, and Helmholtz's 'Laws of Facts' come into the picture... It's more complex than this, but I'm just putting forward my general ideas, right now, as over the next week, I've got to beat my way up through tornado alley, and back to Maine__Then I'll settle down and explain this all much clearer__but it's generally the same direction you seem to be traveling...

Later...

Absolute infinity is not a number__It’s a dialectic logic statement about an abstract image…

Dialectic logic goes to absolute infinity__Beyond number__‘Aporia…’

Mathematical infinity does not logically reach absolute infinity…

The Empty Set Paradox__Absolute Empty Sets Can’t Exist, Except Abstractly…

The First Number Has No Predecessor__Wrong__Images Precede Numbers…

Complexity is c-dependent unprovable__at certain limits…

Information is c-dependent concept mechanics’ knowable__Too much knowledge in one concept at a time, c-shorts out into ‘Aporia…’

‘Aporia’ is a physiological meta-physical state of imagination…

The Absolutely Physiological Mind, Perception, and Comprehension…

P.s.
Here's part of that original post, that did get saved as draft, I just noticed:

Hi Tim, below are some of the ideas I'm presently working with, that closely relates to your ideas also, as per the title of this post from Helmholtz. My ideas are trying to work out the wording for a c-conceptual system's capacity to process the maximum amount of information__and what may actually be needed for new algorithms, to possibly process more universal and particular information at once__without exceeding what light's motion is actually capable of at our brain constrained concept velocities...

We can only process what the speed of light in brain-matter allows of its mechanics__though this can be much extended with better 'Laws of Facts', better compression algorithms, and much better ordered category systems, imo...

That 'Laws of Facts' from Helmholtz, really rings a bell for me__as I stated earlier, he was Peirce's contemporary scientist, in Germany, and of course known as the true father of the 'Conservation Laws...'

Not much time to explain Lloyd, but I almost forgot about one of the aspects I was considering. Which was the conservation of momentum through space and time. Simply put, absolute distance and time perhaps allows us to study every system as being an extension thereof and throughout, whereby allowing the block universe type absolute observer position of treating every system as a conservation of mass and velocity thus momentum whereby the temporal extension of a massive body vs that of a high velocity less massive system would have absolute distances as adjusted by way of the relativistic factors, whereby we could acknowledge how a propagating electron through it's high velocity orbital motion is equivalent to the nucleus when plotted as an absolute extended system. I feel that we are often looking at the same system expressing itself differently through distance and time. The c conservation aspects we discuss often imply this if we really think about it. We merely need to consider the implications of the ability for this perspective to allow understanding of the equivalency of systems in some form or fashion. I'm working on a good example of what I mean and will post later.

Hi Lloyd, I'm trying out the text feature to post from my phone. Your wheel story reminds me of some of my stories when growing up. My curiosity often out weighed my common sense. Lol

I'm on nights so when I get home in the morning I'm gonna try to work up an animation whereby the absolute distance line is pulled across one side of the gear assembly whereby outputting a conserved work distance across the other gear in ratio. You can see the Relative implication of the greater the mass the less the interaction with space/distance and the more the interaction with time within the gear assembly and vice versa. What I'm looking for is an output mass relationship by using the gear assembly similar to block and tackle or a chainfall, thus having a classic mechanical analogy to RM and QM. Imagine using one set of gears and moving the absolute distance across one side as an input whereby the gear ratio outputs some mass value relationship whereby relating absolute distance and time with relative distance and time and a product relational to a mass value. With the high velocity ratio, you can imagine the distance having to be pulled across the small gear to generate a minimal mass value output across the large gear. This would relate relative time directly to mass but I'll have to consider such further.

Later,

Tim

The Electron and The Laughing Wheel...

“If we can use a linear system of light waves as an absolute ruler with wavelengths as discrete intervals along a distance whereby establishing the relational absolute motions of the angular confined systems (matter) thus uniting RM and QM, then we must also consider the manifestation of the light wave by way of these systems as with an electron emitting photons, radioactive decay, etc.” Tim

I hope you aren’t meaning here as first source of photons existing, as coming from electrons__as then__Where do the electrons come from…? I do agree part of radioactive decay is from electrons emitting photons, but it’s also from the proton emissions, and even possibly from its deeper innards__yet the first source of all Universal mechanics is the FS-Field of photons possibly later producing electrons__as to as far as I know, the FS-field is pure em-photons… I'm reading Hermann Helmholtz’s scientific work right now, on this very subject. It’s located at: http://www.archive.org/download/popularlectureso00helmrich/popularlectureso00helmrich.pdf As you may know, he worked in optics and light, and is also the physicist to have coined the wording for the ‘1st Law of Conservation…’ I’ve read some of his material before, but it’s now offered in detail, in his own hand… He was Germany’s premiere physicist-mathematician-chemist at the end of the 19th century… I also have Huygens’ paper on light, and it’s available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=Xq5EjjlgV6gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Huygen's,+Treatise+on+Light&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false I more prefer these older and more sound ideas about light, and Einstein relied heavily on both__they be accurate, imo...

“In a sense, the angular localized FS establishes by way of timing the non local linear expression (EM radiation) whereby it will later define distance against, which further defines the timing within the localized system, etc, etc. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but its the depths at which the human knowledge system can go IMHO, as not only understanding the mechanics of the system, but also understanding how the mechanics are crucial to the conservation of existence, and how the various aspects of the mechanics are played against each other where the system gives definition to itself. It's the simple old thought that you can't have a state without the opposing state defining it. In this case, it takes the many states of motion and their ability to produce the other states to create the encompassing self defining system, or at least that's where my mind is leading me.” Tim

Yes, I agree with this__but, the interpretations and meanings may still be different between us, I don’t really know yet__as you quite often start in the middle and work toward ends, whereas I start at the ends, and work toward the middle. By this I simply mean the Universe pre-existed our thinking about the Universe, and that mechanics is what our interpretations and meanings evolved within. Philosophically, we are ‘the ontology’, learning our ‘epistemology’, ‘teleology’, ‘mereology’ and ‘greater ontology’__all the while trying to interpret the meanings of our ‘cosmological ontology’, and possibly even its very ‘physiological meta-states’ of such meanings__by words and systems, that pertain to themselves__thus causing the confusions and conflations of these interpretations and meanings__if you can follow that load of horse-shit… Anyway, when ‘self’ tries to interpret ‘self’, it gets very complex__unless we allow the ‘self qua self’ to be a virtual absolute separate entity, expressing ‘itself’__that combinatorially produced our ‘ontology, etc.’, before we had any part of it… A bit tricky__Yes… (qua above simply meaning 'about')

“As to the not so deep applications, I think it would be beneficial to produce a unified objective Classic Mechanical treatment to all of the subjective and often misinterpreted aspects of QM and RM. This is why I am trying to relate the states of motion of both disciplines to mere gear analogies with work conservation and such as with the mechanical advantage aspects. Classical mechanics is a more natural system to our thought process, and I feel it does have the advantage over the others, if we merely find the applications which encompass them all within one methodology.” Tim

And this I couldn’t agree more about. Years ago when HBD was speaking to David and I, I suggested a spin experiment of my own, I’d experienced back in high school__when HBD was having trouble with analogies of relaying what he was trying to explain about the central electron mechanics__where I suggested seeing two same(or opposite, according to approach angle) spin electrons as a soap box derby wheel on an axle, and a side-grinder used to spin the wheel to break in the bearings. Well, I had an old set of wheels lying around, so one day I decided a new stunt__I’d get the wheel spinning as fast as possible from touching center of grinding wheel to surface of hand-wrag spun wheel, then slowly move grinder to tire contact to outer edge of grinding wheel__well this was pretty fast, but of course crazy me not satisfied__I started the grinding wheel down the side of the steel wheel, slowly toward its center__you can just imagine the virtual gear-ratio friction contact going on at 5,000 rpm, 8 inch grinding wheel, 12 inch derby wheel__and at a 2 inch circumference action near the wheels center__still not satisfied__I decided to push the massively over-spun wheel off the axle… Did I mention, I was in the cellar of my house…? You oughta see the number of double 2 by 10 floor beams it demolished, while making its 20 or so trips across the floor, up the concrete wall, across the ceiling joists/beams, down the other concrete wall, floor, wall, ceiling, etc., over and over__with me running for my life… Needless to say, dad weren’t too happy, I just destroyed half last months work__but, the analogy worked for HBD, and David followed it up with the same gear analogy, you’ve been drawing up, but referred to spinning electrons… It also played into my model analogies of electrons and uncertainty by way of c and true c analogies I’ve often used__so these classical analogies and models certainly do have great merit__to create the clarity, we need…

I’ll let you know if there’s anything worthwhile in Helmholtz’s newest released interpretations of his German to English work. I already know he was one of physics' true geniuses__from reading him years ago, and my physicist friend in Maine recommends him highly, and he was and really still is, even in retirement__one of America’s top corporate physicists__He’s also a major fan of Peirce, as America’s best scientist, intellect and logician-mathematician…

Hope you enjoyed laughing your ars off about my grinder-wheel story… I did the same experiment again outdoor across a hay-field of three feet tall hay__the damned wheel went about a half-mile, before hitting a tree and bouncing to a stop__and did it ever go some fast… That wheel musta been turning better an 10 grand__I could look right under the hard rubber tread, and see plenty of daylight, before push-releasing it off the axle…

Boy, that cellar one was an eye-popper__what I could see, with my ars, running away from it...

P.s.
Tim, I just noticed something interesting about my model, by interpreting your model__the distance and time is shrinking at 2c__between two directly approaching beams/waves of light... Wonder what this shows for absolute time and space...? Wonder what it portends for the mechanics' hydrodynamic energy values...? You see to me, this is the very engine of motion__as the same mechanics is absolutely Universal__2c --> c, in all directions... I gotta sleep on this one, to see where it goes...

Btw, that Helmholtz link is some excellent grounded mechanics of laws, geometries, logics and experiments__He's even more brilliant than I'd earlier realized...

"In Diagram 2, (lower diagram) the blue point represents the observer, and the arrow represents the observer's velocity vector. When the observer is stationary, the x,y-grid appears yellow and the y-axis appears as a black vertical line. Increasing the observer's velocity to the right shifts the colors and the aberration of light distorts the grid. When the observer looks forward (right on the grid), points appear green, blue, and violet (blueshift) and grid lines appear farther apart. If the observer looks backward (left on the grid), then points appear red (redshift) and lines appear closer together. Note, the grid itself has not changed, but its appearance for the observer has. The main point in the Doppler Effect is to individualize each wave out sourcing the central point and expanding the wave given do to circulatory vibrations at a certain focal point.

Understanding relativistic Doppler effect requires understanding the Doppler effect, time dilation, and the aberration of light. As a simple analogy, consider two people playing catch. Imagine that a stationary pitcher tosses one ball each second (1 Hz) at one meter per second to a catcher who is standing one meter away. The stationary catcher will receive one ball per second (1 Hz). Then the catcher walks away from the pitcher at 0.5 meters per second and catches a ball every 2 seconds (0.5 Hz). Finally, the catcher walks towards the pitcher at 0.5 meters per second and catches three balls every two seconds (1.5 Hz). The same would be true if the pitcher moved toward or away from the catcher. By analogy, the relativistic Doppler effect shifts the frequency of light as the emitter or observer moves toward or away from the other.

Diagram 1 (upper diagram) shows an emitter traveling to the right, whereas Diagram 2 shows the observer traveling right. While the color shift appears similar, the aberration of light is opposite. To understand this effect, again imagine two people playing catch. If the pitcher is moving to the right and the catcher is standing still, then the pitcher must aim behind the catcher. Otherwise the ball will pass the catcher on the right. Also, the catcher must turn in front of the pitcher, or the ball will hit on the catcher's left. Conversely, if the pitcher is stationary and the catcher is moving to the right, then the pitcher must aim in front of the catcher. Otherwise, the ball will pass the catcher on the left. Also, the catcher must turn to the back of the pitcher, or the ball will hit on the catcher's right. The degree to which the pitcher and catcher must turn to the right or left depends on two things: 1) the instantaneous angle between the pitcher-catcher line and the runner's velocity vector, and 2) the pitcher-catcher velocity relative to the speed of the ball. By analogy, the aberration of light depends on: 1) the instantaneous angle between the emitter-observer line and the relative velocity vector, and 2) the emitter-observer velocity relative to the speed of light."

Hi Lloyd,

I brought this over from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_Effect . I was actually working on a similar baseball analogy when I saw that they had used one much the same the other day. The diagrams show the red and blue shifts per the degrees surrounding an emitter and receiver. The de Broglie wavelength of particles also undergoes shifts due to the Doppler Effect. There is also the matter of information being carried by way of EM radiation which should be considered, which is best explained by the differences of gravitational time dilation and acceleration time dilation. With time dilation due to gravitation, only the clock near the massive gravitational body appears to slow, as can be seen equally by two observers, one within the gravitational well, and one at a higher altitude. Unlike time dilation due to acceleration, the observer near the slower moving clock within the well does not see the higher altitude clock to be running slower also, but sees it to be faster as it is. This is seemingly due to the Doppler shift of information by way of EM radiation within an accelerated frame. The sequencing of information within various EM waves is also prone to red and blue shifts, which correspond to temporal dilation as with the fact that the accelerated clock is actually running slower, yet the clock at rest appears to run slower to the observer within the accelerated frame. This is due to the Doppler shift of the information whereby one observer sees another. I associate this effect similar to the frequency shift of a police radar gun as it catches me speeding all the time.....lmao. If the reflected information was critical to the sequencing of a clock within the visible range, and the velocity was great enough, then I assume there would be related effects by way of the change in position of the accelerated frame from the moment of the emitted radiation to the moment of reception. I think there's an animation on the net somewhere of cars and a light beam bouncing back and forth which goes into all this.

Where I see us heading is the deepest possible subject matter, Lloyd. I am working on my thoughts of how to approach such, but in short, it is how a system is set against itself to give internal definition to all. We take for granted the various forms of motion e.g. linear, angular, spin, vibration, etc, but from the philosophical perspective of a universe, I'm uncertain that any characteristic is wasted, as I would philosophically consider the system to collapse if not fully efficient. I see all things as necessary to something whereby the entire system is self sufficient. There seem to be prerequisites to existence, whereby the universe fills this efficiently. Not to go too deeply into the philosophical, but consider what we've been scientifically discussing. If we can use a linear system of light waves as an absolute ruler with wavelengths as discrete intervals along a distance whereby establishing the relational absolute motions of the angular confined systems (matter) thus uniting RM and QM, then we must also consider the manifestation of the light wave by way of these systems as with an electron emitting photons, radioactive decay, etc. In a sense, the angular localized FS establishes by way of timing the non local linear expression (EM radiation) whereby it will later define distance against, which further defines the timing within the localized system, etc, etc. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but its the depths at which the human knowledge system can go IMHO, as not only understanding the mechanics of the system, but also understanding how the mechanics are crucial to the conservation of existence, and how the various aspects of the mechanics are played against each other where the system gives definition to itself. It's the simple old thought that you can't have a state without the opposing state defining it. In this case, it takes the many states of motion and their ability to produce the other states to create the encompassing self defining system, or at least that's where my mind is leading me.

As to the not so deep applications, I think it would be beneficial to produce a unified objective Classic Mechanical treatment to all of the subjective and often misinterpreted aspects of QM and RM. This is why I am trying to relate the states of motion of both disciplines to mere gear analogies with work conservation and such as with the mechanical advantage aspects. Classical mechanics is a more natural system to our thought process, and I feel it does have the advantage over the others, if we merely find the applications which encompass them all within one methodology.

P.S. I had caught the comments, but it probably is more productive to post them in a post of their own as you did per others following the conversation. I also only work down south on occasion. I actually travel all over the U.S. and have been as far as the Virgin Islands working. I've worked in or traveled through the majority of the states. I'll be headed to Wyoming soon. I've made that trip probably ten times and hate it every time. The only trip I hate worse is California.....

Comment Re-Post...

Thought I'd repost this comment here, as I wasn't sure you were noticing my comments...

Hi Tim... Yeah, I agree with all this__but, what can it add to our knowledge base, about the greater Universal actions...? This is exactly what I meant about combining the QM and RM informations into a unified understanding__as this is exactly what my virtual cyclotron model showed, back in the early `80's__but, I've been asking myself ever since__What exactly does this tell me...? I know it tells me that if I'm virtually traveling at absolute true c__I can't see anything, because light can neither leave me or enter me__if it's traveling with my direction of travel__but, and I just now realized this__if it's traveling any other direction, at an angle of or directly toward me__What would I then see...? And, this is where the mechanics breaks down, and only becomes mere theory__me brain can't seem to process__as then it's the group c velocities of angular 1% to 100% 2c__and me brain breaks down at c__Unless maybe, I step completely outside the reference frames of both directions of light travel__completely into my absolute virtual observer position__But, then what do I see__Quantum phase state space-field changes__within the deepest quantum-well possible...?

This is what I've been toying with for almost 30 years now__and really haven't gone any further with it than back then__except for a wee bit more clarity in certain areas__but, it all seems to come through decay mechanics... Let me know what you have to add here, to the massive book of knowledge already assembled, by all the greats throughout history... I know there's more to this, but it's hard to plow on__when most every road is blocked by either paganism of beliefs, or the modern paganism of even science__in far too many fields...

To me, Ellman and Mathis are the furthest along this path, though there's much fault with both their ideas__at least both offer a possible mechanics insight into the group 2c functionings. Also, all those links I offered to the Learner site, with videos, offers much by way of the fermion and boson mechanics, within the quantum well theories and experiments...

http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/index.html

Tim, simply put__What do you think we can do with this information...? I see philosophical interpretation use advancement possibilities__but as to physical science__Idk...?

And:
Amazing what visions ya can achieve, when ya work from the absolutes...

And:
Yeah, following ya so far... In fact, it's making it easier to see QM's actual motion paths__The Prime Mover__Motion's Quantum Necessity_As fermions decay, bosons shrink quantum state change space to new centers of particle formations_in other words__QM's massive state changes, at decay limit, necessitates all motion and particle formations, through total field velocity changes... Standard present state field velocities, and quantum state changing field velocities__at decay limits... Repelling force fermions decay into naturally attracting force bosons__which necessitates the changed state field velocity mechanics' changes__Hydrodynamically__then the whole show starts all over again__producing new particles, from these many state space tornadic/chiralling motions and field-mass aggregations__From chaos, to randomness to uniformeity... The Uniformeity is the greatest Universal Necessity_as it's only a temporary chaos and randomness shorter term aggregate state... Motion forces itself to Uniformeity__Universally or particularly, here on Earth, etc...

Motion is a self-quantum necessity of all existence, always existing__Its energy-engine is its limit-mechanics__spin and charge__from state change necessities, just(similar) as a fresh water lake turns over each summer, in the heat, when the bottom gasses explode...

Just a rough sketch to work on...

Don't you work down on the coast? Long drive...?

In this animation, an absolute distance has been observed within the lower velocity reference frame per the distance traveled by light within a relative time=1 e.g. lightyear. Thus, within the higher velocity reference frame traveling near .99216c the relative time from the lower velocity frame which established the absolute position of light is converted to a relative distance=1. This in turn establishes the relative time=1/8 within the higher velocity frame whereby it experiences 1/8 the time of the lower velocity frame to reach the absolute plotted position of the light from within the lower velocity frame of reference. If the higher velocity frame traveled to relative time=1, then it would have traveled eight times past the absolute position of the plotted light. Thus, the absolute light reference within the lower velocity frame only travels relative distance=1/8 of the higher velocity frame within its relative time=1, whereby light would have to be observed to travel for eight times the temporal interval to reach the absolute position of the higher velocity frame traveling relative time=1.

My interpretation of all of this is that if we observe an absolute distance established by a single light source from two opposing frames, then when observed from within a low velocity frame, the higher velocity frame has only observed it as propagating for 1/8 the temporal interval to reach an absolute position. If observed for a duration from the higher velocity frame, the lower velocity frame has observed it for eight times as long whereby establishing absolute distance and absolute time between the two opposing frames by way of the propagating light. Thus, if we wanted to know the elapsed time of a high velocity frame, we could establish an absolute temporal and spatial interval by way of the light beam, whereby during that interval we would know that the higher velocity frame had saw light to travel that distance showing only 1/8 the time, thus we know that in eight times that duration, the high velocity frame will show the same time as having elapsed whereby the light has now actually propagated eight times the absolute distance from the earlier moment we recoded its position. This gets a bit confusing, but the simplest way to imagine it is perhaps acknowledging that if we had a perfect clock which wasn't prone to dilation due to velocity fluctuations or had an internal apparatus which corrected for variances in velocity, then time becomes absolute as does distance due to us being able to establish absolute position relational to each other by way of mere velocity or absolute distance/absolute time. This also means that c is merely a speed limit for light, whereby various frames travel at various ratios of c, thus relativistic effects arise by way of our measurement of c within various frames despite the motion of the frame, but the speed of light isn't invariant within various reference frames, only the measurement thereof is due to the time dilation, length contraction and relative motion aspects which have been illustrated. An absolute time and distance measure would make the value of c within various frames to become variant, as a propagating photon is barely out running a frame traveling at .99c, yet the measurement is taking place over a longer absolute temporal and distance interval, whereby the photon appears to be covering the same distance within the same time though it is barely leading the frame.

In this animation, I'm merely trying to show a difference in velocity within the rate of the animation, and the count is just a cycle count of the gears. I'm still trying to consider all of the implications presented here, whereby allowing a simple classical mechanical analogy of RM and QM.

Being as c is constant with EM radiation in a vacuum, light actually provides a stable yardstick whereby all further relative measurements e.g. time, distance, mass, energy, etc, reduce to mere absolute distance/absolute time measure. Imagine the absolute distance a photon will travel within an absolute interval of time. Such temporal and distance intervals are absolute, as seen by being able to adjust our relative ruler or clock by Relativity whereby arriving at an absolute position. The wavelength and frequency aspects of an EM wave provide absolute intervals or rather an absolute ruler, whereby it is our relative measure of these intervals due to our velocity which is the aspect which hides the absolute objective universe from our comprehension due to further relativistic interpretation from the subjective aspects of the dilating clock and contracting ruler.

Imagine that the static scale in the above image is the absolute ruler provided by the wavelength/frequency aspects of an EM wave. Now imagine that to measure this distance (as with the old wheel type measuring devices), we must have two values of measure, to properly define distance i.e. distance/time. Now we know that distance and time have a reciprocal relationship as velocity increases to near c, thus we can possibly imagine them as two gears measuring the same aspect, i.e.absolute distance. The rate at which the two gear assemblies move down the scale is irrelevant, as both represent extremely different velocities of a relativistic factor of 8 which is somewhere around .99216c within the higher velocity reference frame. The point being, that due to the fact that we must have two gears to measure with, our velocity determines the ratio of these gears, whereby it isn't the rate of animated motion which represents the velocity being investigated within the two images, it is the ratio of the gears to each other. From this perspective, relative time and distance are measures of the same absolute aspect of absolute distance, whereby the velocity of the frame of reference establishes the gear ratio whereby the time dilation and length contraction we find is merely two values of the absolute distance we find due to the gear ratio by which we are measuring with. I still need to put more thought into this approach, but I feel as though Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be reduced to Classical Mechanics due to the proper application of absolute distance and time aspects. It is our relative ruler and clock which allows for every misunderstanding from the seeming lack of simultaneity all the way to the seeming necessity of uncertainty, however, to the universe simultaneity does exist amongst interactions with a proper cause and effect relationship, with no uncertainty of the relationship of all systems relational to all other systems by way of temporal and spatial intervals.

Notice how that with every absolute interval measured by way of the two animations within the above image, an absolute quantity was measured whereby that which wasn't recorded as distance was recorded as time in the lower velocity animation on the left, and that which wasn't recorded as time was recorded as distance in the higher velocity animation of the right. Thus, all absolute aspects were relatively conserved. This all gets into the relativistic blue shift mechanics due to increased velocity, which we discussed the other day, which I'll further elaborate on later.

Hi Lloyd,

Just thought I'd do a gif of the ruler/clock analogy. Here we can visualize that unlike gravity, whereby all bodies fall at the same velocity despite their mass, our relationship to light is that it is the frame of reference whereby all bodies actually fall relative to their mass. This seems to cause much problem when attempting to measure the rate at which the light is falling whereby confusing absolute distance and time. If you'll notice, the first pause stops at an absolute distance, whereby the moving clock is showing only an eighth of the time having elapsed to arrive at that position, but if we go by the same temporal interval as with the last pause, we have overshot the distance by eight times. It seems to be more natural to us to consider things as falling in relation to each other, so rather than making the animation horizontal, I decided to make it vertical thus hopefully allowing a better more natural mental relationship to the information we are attempting to extract. More in a bit.

later,
Tim Lester

The Beliefs-Facts Distinctions Within Decision Mechanics...

In case you're wondering where I am Tim__I'm just taking the time to turn all this complexity into simplicity... The way I see it, from the aggregation of all my studies, is; "Complexity is carrying away more facts into error, than simplicity can process into truth..." This; the 'Too good to be good factor', that's ruling all of present-day academics__and by this I simply mean the world has developed its intelligence to the limit-edge of sufficient and efficient complexity use__and now needs to return to its base simplicities of seeing the world far more fundamentally, since this over-complexity only breeds more extreme over-complexity, conflation and confusion__producing so many computational and logical errors, all the dump-trucks on Earth couldn't carry them away__or screen out the sands of truth from the useless boulders of lies. Academics has reached the 'Aporia Apex of Knowledge-Limits'__and must recognize this fact; that only knowledge turned against this wall of complexity blindness can now solve the problems of where the Earth is headed__intellectually, socially, experientially and physically. I simply mean, we must look at the mind, experience, logic and math simply from our base feelings and fundamental modal decision levels, while realizing just how simple this 'gray ball of mush' on our shoulders really and truly is(as to clear thinking, anyway)__and see these simple base feelings, as no more than a 'simple thinker' sitting attop these 'uncertainty feelings', and having massive 'memory storage' for both base feelings and the thinker's more sophistocated 'intellectual processing facts'__and no more complexity than that, is generally required__then just maybe, we can rediscover our base fundamental modal 1st state decision logics__possibility_impossibility_necessity... There's only two choices in these areas__'beliefs'_or__'facts', and to know that the 'beliefs never become facts', and the 'facts never were or become beliefs'__This is the fundamental distinction between beliefs and facts, which eternally applies to all minds on Earth__no matter what anyone thinks. No-one can derive a fact from a belief, and no-one can derive a belief from a fact. Facts remain facts, and beliefs remain beliefs__all our lives__and to think otherwise, is to confuse and conflate the fundamental mechanics of nature__These are 'truth-maker necessities...' We just learn to shift states back and forth, as the social conditions may warrant, if we wish to get along...

So really, all I'm doing is fully processing 'The Beliefs-Facts Distinctions', as they apply to our reasonings and logics__into much simpler word formations__so's I can better explain what we've thus far discovered__since further complexity only takes us over the edge, into unnecessary confusion and conflation__The state of; 'Too good to be good factor...' The world already has enough of this state, it's facing right now__So, I'm just gonna take my time and let all the ideas settle, and see what comes out... Some visions are already becoming clearer logic...

Lloyd

P.s.
A little help here:
Something I recently realized is the fact that an opposing dialectical logic, or opposing positive and negative dialectics or analogies, can be used to breach and bridge the 'Aporia(the stumped state of mind) Apex of Complexity'__or simply put, running positive and negative analogies against one another, as I think you already often do__as this is a method I've also used all my life__'Exaggerations against exaggerations', to find the greater mean truths of systems... Of course, in the end, all the exaggerations' logics, dialectics(logical arguments) and analogies, etc., must be corrected into final truths__But, it's a simple method of getting around the complexities__in general, anyway...

Macro and Micro Conservation Mechanics, cont....

Exactly Lloyd,

When you change your velocity relative to c, you still get a value of c per the quantum ruler/clock analogy within your frame, thus you can't determine that you're in an inertial reference frame or your velocity within such by way of measuring the velocity of light. At much slower velocities, sound and other such waves do allow for this. However, it is the frequency and wavelength which dopler shift as with universal expansion observations of stars, whereby the visible light spectrum to an observer on Earth at it's velocity increases in frequency and decreases in wavelength due to your relational motions whereby such light becomes gamma rays relative to you at near c velocities. This energy is relational to the concentration of motion within an absolute position within an absolute time. The lower frequency light waves weren't delivering harmful radiation until you accelerated your frame which compresses more total motion within your moving temporal and spatial co-ordinates. Your frames wavelengths reciprocally get increasingly longer thus lowering in frequency within the various combined motion axes of the composite structures as could be ploted by a graph of x,y axis. Thus, we have spatially and temporally homogeneous conservation motion mechanics due to absolute time and space, whereby the mass and time values are determined by c velocity ratios and the total position values are determined against all internal constituent systems thus all internal states are found relational to all others.
Within an accelerated frame, the rate at which such EM frequencies change are relational to acceleration.

If you would, just go through and add my comments to the blog as you see fit to keep the flow of the conversation. I'm emailing by phone and haven't had time to get familiar with the blog yet, which I would rather do on my home computer. I'm not concerned about who we share our ideas with cause if we are right then such truths should be shared, though I would like for us to get credit for our efforts as would anyone. Some of what I realized actually came by way of Dave's interpretation of internal relative to rest mass, but I didn't get a chance to take it further with him, but I must acknowledge his contribution to my thought process. I just couldn't get him to see the inverse external conservation which we're exploring and now see.

Tim Lester

Macro and Micro Conservation Mechanics, cont...

Yea...I think the extreme ends of Relativistic effects are potentially
unattainable, but I think the mechanics are important. I think I may
have had a breakthrough which can be mathematically modeled and this
is an example of how I would apply RM to QM. I'll need your help
though. It has to do with the rad decay mechanics, photon modeling and
the conservation aspects I've been discussing. Let me get it worked up
better, but basically it's modeling all photons as linear with no
divergence or lateral motion which is counter intuitive to them being
modeled as a sine wave. The frequency/wavelength thus energy is in the
frequency of generation as with the electron being somewhat analogous
to an AC generator and the sine wave produced by an electrical AC
generator being translated as mere oscillations within the electrons
of the wire whereby they don't go through the circuit as does DC but
rather oscillate in sync with the changing magnetic field with a
limited range of motion. I'm still speaking from FS terms and not
going into the PSF so we can consider volumes to move within volumes
per structured matter and 3d wave motions with EM radiation. The
frequency of AC is relation to the RPM's of the generator.

Tesla had the advantage over Edison per electrical transmission as AC
propagates with far less losses and is much easier to step up and
down. With DC electrons move through the circuit from negative to
positive. With AC they just form an Aether type medium which
oscillates. Applying such to EM radiation means that all energy level
photons can have the same velocity and can be modeled with zero
divergence along a graph axis corresponding to c which equates to
minimal mass and time. Thus if we treat the nucleus of an atom as a
mass system with a velocity of some ratio of c then it'll have a
corresponding amplitude or lateral divergence which can be treated as
mass and time phenomena in RM. Now the constituents of the nucleus
would have there own graph lines, but we can treat them as a unified
mass object whereby exploring this recursive relationship at the
electron resolution. Do the same graphing for the electron whereby
deriving its later frequency thus mass value and then curl the
electrons line around the nucleus and calculate the effects of
acceleration of the atom as a whole by way of each constituents graph
line. The electron would be going through two axis of motion while the
nucleus just goes through one. Thus, the electron would have to
satisfy the same amplitude relationship along the nucleus axis as the
nucleus, while reciprocally effecting its orbital axis. This means
that rest mass can stay equal due to any increase in the relative mass
and energy along the nucleus axis causing a reciprocal decrease in
amplitude along the electron axis due to conserved c, with rest mass
equaling the sum of both axis whereby staying consistent through
various velocities. We must consider that rest mass is a positive
effect of divergence whereby relative mass increase due to velocity is
a negative back pressure effect of the FS field required for any
further acceleration throughout/within thus effecting the energy
required to do so. This could be graphed as a function of changing
from the collective mass graph of one velocity to a change in velocity
of the same system. I'll be more clear shortly but the conservation
aspect is there. The photons just need to be pulses whereby we can
graph the rest per lateral divergence due to velocity being conserved
laterally when not used linearly, which sets up the rest of the
relationships as per energy being a value of the quantity of motion
imposed upon a region within an absolute time per the mass, momentum
and frequency relationships to energy. With the photon, planks
constant is the ratio due to the pulses, but with structured mass, cc
is the ratio due to all the curled up trajectories whereby mcc is a
measure of volume ie LWH or the one for a sphere or whatever. I'll get
it straight.

Mainly, just consider the most constituent systems as being graphed in
a linear manner with equivalent amplitudes, frequencies and
wavelengths representing energy, mass, etc. Now curl those
relationships into structures with various axes of motion whereby
allowing the constituent relationships to be localized in an orbital
region whereby having an added conservation effect of conserving
another axis of motion while also conserving the constituent axis.
Consider the changes required along the various axes required to
conserve changes along others. I'll work on this further but I hope
you get my general intent.

Tim Lester

"The Scientific Method Is Modality Decided By The Proper Goal Logics..."

Yeah, I get what you are saying Tim, as I awoke this morning with the very similar idea. I named it; "The Non-Einsteinean Time and Motion Logic"__or; "A Proper Modal Time Logic..." You've explained it from the micro perspective, and I'll explain it from the macro perspective. We've all known much of Einstein's work is correct, as much is proven, but many of us have surmised there's been mistakes ingrained in the total package, especially since QM and RM have been un-unitable for over a century, now. I discovered one of the problems in the Lorentz transformations years ago, but never was able to put the math, laws and models into clear focus, until last night and this morning... Let's take my titanium baseball model I've mentioned often, before__Iff we use a rocket virtually capable of light speed__yet just view what physically happens to our titanium baseball as it's accelerated to c, aboard this rocket. The ball is accelerating in an em-field of certain frequencies, amplitudes and wavelengths. This means, as the ball increases velocity through the field__all these em-field waves' frequencies, amplitudes and wavelengths must increase as to frequencies and amplitudes and decrease as to wavelengths(and vice-versa within the ball, as they inverse to rads)__hydrodynamically hitting the titanium ball. This is the identical process as the photo-electric effect__where light waves above the visible light spectrum knock electrons out of orbits, within our ball(thus reducing its structured state mechanics)__and more, the more it accelerates toward c. This means, the Lorentz-Einstein transformation is actually required to shed mass, volume and ordered structure by way of hydrodynamic heat and radiation losses__Which fully accounts for our nearest zero mass values of photons at c, of all fully radiated structures...

This new view of the Lorentz-Einstein radiation mechanics, fully visible to common sense(no axioms required), means that Einstein's time, motion and space models are not as he stated them__but quite opposite, as to time and motion, thus as to space-time. If we replace the titanium ball on our virtual rocket, with a standard man-made clock__the clock does not slow down, thus slowing real time__it dis-integrates, by hydrodynamic radiation of structured matter being sped into the unstructured em-matter's real infinitesimal mass effects(also applies to any structured system approaching c)__the more it approaches 'the c limit' of Universal velocity. Just think about it__As the ball accelerates, the incoming frequencies and amplitudes are massively increasing in rad-pulse__thus bumping up the em-spectrum from least non-destructive visible light waves, etc., to very destructive higher frequency and amplitude waves of shorter and shorter wavelengths, until ultra-violet, x-ray and finally gamma rays__that can be nothing but de-constructing to the ball, etc., the more it approaches the c Universal limit. So, the fact is that the Einstein-Lorentz math does not blow up to the infinities 'they thought', as they were using Minkowski-Einstein's wrong modal model__it is actually fully figurable by true mass and radiation mechanics maths__just by using this new modal model of proper methodology and fully scientific logic__a proper goal oriented model, of the real ideas involved... This is why I've written so much about; "The Scientific Method Is Modality Decided By The Proper Goal Logics..."

These problems of not recognizing the proper logical modal goals, to start with, goes back over 130 years to Frege, then Russell, Einstein and Quine's eliminations of the 'proper modal logics' from their fundamental thinkings(and much of the modern world, followed this false path of ill-logics). Modal logics are the fundamentals of the fundamentals, or 'fundamentals qua fundamentals' and can not be ignored, as these are our "first decision actions of pure thought"__within any thought system, modality or sceintific methology's choice of goal's logics__to be used... This has further led to all the false and ill-mathematical and theoretical models being falsely touted__No wonder there's so much confusion and conflation between CM, QM and RM... Let's fix it...

Now, if we put these two methods together__your micro model__my macro model__we should be able to work out the entire picture__internally and externally__thus, uniting CM, QM and RM, as a straight classical mechanics_with 'relational' extensions__not relative...

A few ideas to start out with...

Hi Tim, I just wanted to tell you I liked the clarity of your newest analogies, as I think the path of new discovery is best made possible by such analogies. I'm still thinking about the rope or chain falls analogy. Edit: Tim, on thinking further on your rope falls analogy, I think this makes perfect sense also as a limiter of mass, as per the analogy of 32 parts tying up the lift ratio advantage of the falls analogy, much the same way mass can only compact to a certain maximum__also a friction loss could represent those excess rads__just a few quick thoughts, so far, as I'm still pretty burnt from recent research. Hey, the advantage with this blog is, we can always go back in and re-edit or expand our ideas__and there's no limit to the length of our posts... Now, back to the regular programming: This particular exposition of your's says the most to me:

If a photon traveling at c were to collide with a bowling ball traveling at some relatively low velocity in space lets say one mile per second, an absolute second before the collision the photon was perhaps 186,000 miles away while the bowling ball was merely one mile away from the absolute point of collision. The obvious differences in mass are perhaps the reciprocal values of the differences in these distances, whereby at the exact instant of collision the photon had a much less internal mass, momentum, thus also energy value, yet when factoring in the total energy value expressed by way of its external distance traveled, the total internal + external energy values are found to be equal. The bowling ball was merely expressing the true conservation of energy in a different more localized manner than was the photon, but both were expressing equal energy within equal time if considering the dynamics of distance/time. Lets say when a system becomes autonomous, it has only an exact amount of energy to spend within an absolute time interval, thus various systems ration it out in various ratios of the above mentioned constituent values whereby we might observe a photon, an atom, a planet, etc. acting over various reciprocal distances. Change the velocity of a composite structured system, and the effects are reverberated throughout the constituent internal structures by way of momentum conservation etc, which equates to Lorentz contractions, relative time dilation, etc. Energy isn't just about the product of what we find within a system. It's also about how we externally find a system where it is, and how it got there. This relationship isn't clear if just considering the internal values as separate from the external values as does most of the standard model equations. There is simply a relationship between these various equations whereby we always produce the same energy value relative to all systems if factored properly with absolute time taken into account.

The above sounds much like what I've been working with__as to the internal relationships to the external relationships. This is exactly the relational logic Peirce was working in back as far as the late 1860's, with his relational logics__external to internal__and, internal to external actions__or his extentions of Boolean and De Morgan logics, and Clifford Algebras. Remember I mentioned Peirce was the first scientist to suggest setting the measurement standard on a wavelength of light, of the sodium atom__as far back as the 1870's__when he was working as head scientist of the U.S. Gov. Geodesic Dept., and the Weights and Measures Dept. This guy was a major physicist/scientist/chemist/logician__working with all the 19th century's best scientific minds, all over the world. I mention this as Augustus De Morgan's student was one William Clifford__the major inventor of Clifford Algebras, which integrated Hamilton's quaternions into the math__which is used today in all of QM and Std. Model maths. Peirce was the major logician, mathematician and algebraist working directly with all these guys, and many more, at the time__and many of these greatest foundational minds considered Peirce the world's greatest logician, ever to live. Many of them premised their published papers and books with references to Peirce, or even headings addressing Peirce's genius, especially to internal algebras, as relates to external algebras__which is exactly what you are addressing. My additions here will be to offer further analogies to hold it all together in even simpler forms, if possible. I've been looking at all these same mechanics from the conceptual and symbolic levels of interpretations and representations. All you and I are addressing can be represented by a symbolic logic of, loosely speaking, 'universal parentheses and dot logics'. One of the three major Polish logicians of the Tarski group used an old symbol logic that was never adopted, yet it clearly represents the most complex of analogies in logic, I've ever seen, simply. I think I posted a link to his logic notation to you before__I think it was Leśniewski... Anyway, it allows a quick and easy way of representing all the complexities in simple format__and I mean as many as hundreds of constants and variables on either or both sides of the equation's equality, etc., symbols. It's an isomorphic and non-isomorphic mapping capability of all the concepts possible to think of, from one state to another, without losing track of the model's true motion content__though your analogies do this quite well, we still need a simple symbolic logic to process the complexities__so's we can clearly represent it to others. I'm really just thinking ahead here, but I thought you should know, there is a method to my madness. Imo so far, most thinkers__due to academics over history, have chased most new model and thinking into the narrow models of extreme deductive logics, that simply end in useless circular reasoning. I'm talking about a way to represent the more Universal inductive and abductive logics__where Universal concepts and models can be represented on both sides of the symbolic logic equations__Universally and Particularly__It's a 'wholes to wholes' symbolic logic processing system, while not losing the particular internal structures of the models we are trying to represent__In other words, this logic maps both the external and internal structures of physical motion systems__at the same time. So, it's not the old narrow-minded logics and maths of the past, but a much more robust open-minded system of symbolic logic and algebra, to handle massive modelings, while maintaining contact with all the variables and constants__At Once...! The above can be easily seen in our minds by realizing the necessary state of logical ideation, between concepts, to process any two concepts into a third, while maintaining track of all the exiting radiating variables, and maintaining all the necessary constants and variables, while adding the newer ideation variables and constants needed, to make the new concepts/model/s function as we are describing. It's simply a logical ideation of concepts(two to hundreds of at once), and can be added to, subtracted from or multiplied and divided as needed__to process all the descriptions you and I are relating to... It's just a better way of using the absolute fundamental mechanics of our given minds, to process the complex into the simple, which you seem to be doing, anyway... If we can see it, in our perception/conceptions/ideas, we can ideate 'Universals to Universals', 'Particulars to Particulars', 'Variables to Variables', 'Constants to Constants', 'Irrationals to Irrationals', or any combination of__from both sides of any equation we choose to build, as this newest ideation of logical concepts allows full control of the Universes actual motion and total mechanics__even through all state change mechanics motions and measurements... Maybe, I'm exaggerating a little here, but so far as I'm using it, it seems to work as described... So far, I'm only mentally toying with all the newest aspects of the logic and maths, as I really just put this together over the last week or so. I'll graph it out after I get the blog set up__so's you can see how simple the ( . ) symbol logic works... I think I'll nick-name it 'curve and dot logic...'

(________________.)
( . (___________....) . )
( . ( . (_______.....) . ) . )
( . ( . ( . ( ... = ... ) . ) . ) . )
( . ( . (_______.....) . ) . )
( . (___________....) . )
(________________.)

It's something like the above(without the straight separation lines, or go here, 2nd page LINK...), where the parentheses represent concepts, and the dots represent constants and variables of changes, between concepts of any models/concepts one chooses to work with__and I think you can easily see the clear universal and particular representations, by way of its largeness to smallness, and back to largeness__This also represents full 'Breadth(scope) and Depth(complexity)'. Of course there's letters and numbers to represent all the relationships also, in the full-sized model, and the size of the parentheses is really large to small(in the real graphic) to represent the necessary classes and categories. It's also much more stretched across the page, as the number of models/concepts and model relationships(internal and external) are entered in. As I mentioned above, this symbolic logic allows a larger model and concept representation of present modeling capacities, as the mappings from one side of the equation can be clearly isomorphically and non-isomorphically mapped to the other, without having to lose much information to the deduction dot products of many existing symbolic logic systems. This is just a crude example relay of what I'm working on, but it seems the most promising of isomorphically mapping the constants, and non-isomorphically mapping the variables, i.e., the decay functions, etc.__without losing any of the external or internal functions' and functors' informations, while holding all the inductive, abductive and deductive functions and functors in a 'Universal Picture of Particulars'__at all levels of motion's possible actions... Or, as you may say__It's a symbolic logic method for a true representation of all the conservation motions__So, I do know what you are stating Tim__We are still on track... I'll set up a blog today and send you the username and password, then we can easily both post back and forth in private, more easily__as a blog offeres much the same capabilities as TQ. Later, Lloyd

Just A Note...

"All motion is cyclic. It circulates to the limits of its possibilities and then returns to its starting point.” R. Collier
"I have lived in this world just long enough to look carefully the second time into things that I am most certain of the first time." J. Billings

No, not at all Tim. It's just I came across so much interesting information on logic by Leśniewski’s 'characteristica universalis' LINK: http://axiom.vu.nl/cmsone/Betti.pdf that I couldn't stop reading it. He's the father of the famous trio of Polish logicians much of modern algebraic logic centers around. I'd read much on the other two Tarski and Lukasiewicz, but I'd always been meaning to study Lesniewski, yet just stumbled across him last night, and realized he'd written his logic based on Leibniz's 'characteristica universalis', and was also much influenced by Peirce's logic and existential graph logic. I'm still processing all I've read today, so my mind's not real clear tonight, so I'll have to answer your other posts and questions tomorrow...

Just take a look at page 2 of the Betti.pdf and see the resemblance of say Planckian bits to larger wholes represented by his parentheses marks symbolisms, and the opposite direction also. His logical ideas flow the same, from the most fundamental first/base logics to the composite systems__most interesting... You don't need to, and probably won't understand it all, but it's quite a sound system of reasoning at the deepest concept and inference levels of the mind possible... His first axiom uses the double implication symbol: <--> meaning a fundamental unification background independent randomness(similar to abduction/induction) in his first logic, and many interesting perspectives I'd not seen elsewhere... This will take some explaining later... I also spent time reading other pdf's on Lesniewski, by several bad authors, and one other good one, I'm still reading__128 pages...

And Tim's/Lloyd's preceding notes...

I'm working on the idea of all measurements such as e, m, p, etc, being reduced to distance being as velocity is absolute distance/ absolute time and time is held as a constant and the distance not covered within an absolute interval is conserved to mass and such. Dave made a similar oneliner statement a while back but I think we can take it further.

Tim Lester

Hi Lloyd,

I think that I can explain relativity without using relativity but rather using objective QM. I'm waiting on Dave to reply to some key questions before I post but imagine a hypothetical ruler made of ceasium atoms and the atomic motions within this ruler also provide a frequency reference whereby it is also a clock. Now consider this ruler having a linear motion value in through space and we make it's length proportional to the distance traveled by light within a certain frequency of the electron motions. We might call it 186000 miles long per the frequency of a second worth of atomic motions. Now consider the effects that as we accelerate the ruler the conservation mechanics require the electron frequencies to slow due to an increased linear value towards c proportionally decreasing any angular or vibration value establishing or frequency reference due to conserving c and c equaling the value at which all motion is linearly forward and the ruler/clock decays to radiation. Now if we consider that these same frequncy motions establish a proportional length value, then as they slow so too does the ruler contract proportionally. Couple this with the fact that if we emitted light at from one end towards the direction of travel we will be traveling at a rate of some fraction of c whereby all of these dynamics mean that light is moving slower relative to us due to our motions thus effecting the time it takes to travel the length of the ruler, but the ruler is contracting along with the frequency dilating whereby we recieve the same value for c no matter how fast we speed up the ruler. It will always take the light the same quantity of dilating cycles to propagate the simultaneously contracting length of the ruler. Absolute time to me is a distance measure of light because it always travels at the same velocity whereby we don't. Any frequency we use is proportional to velocity thus only a linear pulse of light is untamperable. If the frequency and length never get out of sync by way of dilation and contraction, then the ruler and clock are always measuring some ratio value of c thus absolute time, but various velocities mean that this value merely changes proportionally. The key is perhaps relating that atomic motions establish both frequency and length by way of conservation mechanics and the rest of RM becomes a matter of our motions relative to the light by way of which we reicive information about other reference frames traveling at relative velocities. I'll try to work this out better.

Tim Lester

P.S. Oh yea...we can slow light as we know, but the main point being that in such a scenario, relativity becomes a quantum mechanical measurement system of the conservation mechanics I'm theorizing on.

Tim Lester

Yeah Tim, I see you are seeing it the same way I see it, now__good__excellent, el' supremo... I originally thought you may be describing it differently, but this is exactly how I've seen it since `82, when I first dreamed up my virtual abstract/psychological/logical cyclotron__when I asked the question; "What happens as to photons/electrons approach each other at their group 2c velocities...?" Few people have ever understood this concept when I'd described it to them before, so I'm glad to see you are describing it precisely as do I. And I also did the same ruler analogy in my own models back then, and further suggested to myself of establishing the speed of light as/at 1, but not then realizing many, or most, physicists/mathematicians already did. Still, when we take the absolute reference frame of c, we clearly see deeper into this mechanics__and I think we can go much further, now that I realize you do see it the same as I do. You may not be aware of it, but this puzzle actually goes clear back to Aristotle, as an ontological puzzle about 'being' and 'qua being'__or the state at which the most minimal of thought seeing itself, asks the question; "Which thought is the true 'I State of Being...?'" Well of course since then, I've realized it has to be a composite system of both our biology and em-frequency thoughts and memory states acting together(nature and us), that really makes up the 'true being' asking the question__even though it's really a constantly changing composite state of em-waves and particles, constantly trading places__just as in your 'ruler analogy' or Hau's light stopping experiments, etc.__So, when we look into the micro for the absolute mechanics, we really need look no further than the em-frequencies__and when we hit the brick wall of unknowing there__we need only to simply realize to shift the focus back away from the individual em-frequencies of 'thought to thought'__to the greater composite structure of our natural given biological body and all its internal mental agent states and apparati__then all becomes clear and simple, as 'a composite bio-thought non-body-mind problem__but, the actual solution, so simple we've not seen it before. So, the simple composite ruler analogy of motions, really solves the contemptuous historical mind-body arguments...

Tim, I just yesterday also came across another logician/ontologist who wrote 4 volumes on the above quantum mind-body problems, back in the `30's, who was very popular then, but mostly ignored since. That was Nicolai Hartmann, who's actually listed on that graphic at the head of our new blog. Many of the others are useless(except of course for John Sowa, of IBM, and Kit Fine...), but Hartmann was a very deep thinker, in the Peircean vein. Reading him was just a joy-ride through the deep quantum frequency world, even though his language is couched in logico-philosophical terms__but, scientific logical-philosophy, and not the practically useless psychological irrational philosophies... I've been doing these quantum conversions of many scientific philosopher-logicians ever since I recognized it in Peirce__and it's quite handy in the world of creating powerful analogies...

Just thought I'd mention, many of the philosopher-logicians I study, were deeply steeped in CM, QM and RM__which gives me the ability to see and unite a larger picture, of many schools of thought, through my recognition of interdisciplinarity of ideas...

Anyway, some glad to see how you interpreted my relativity to absolute logic and motion question. That makes me think we may be able to really expand these analogies and logics much more__but, at the same time to say, Hartmann being another offering great simplifying analogies also, offers the heart of the incommensurability, indiscernibility, unknowability and aporia problems at the same time. By this I simply mean, he greatly exposed the limits to which knowledge can approach the ultimate answers of substance, objects and motions__though I'm not sure these limits can not be breached__as we seem to be breaking down many motion and substance walls that have stood for millennia...

My brain is coming back on line a little better, but still needs considerable rest away from these damn computer screens, for a while__but don't let that slow you down, as "Clear Ideas of Motion", as below, helps me recover faster...

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd,

I'm back to work and will check out the links. A blog sounds good. Just let me know what I need to do to help. I'm not ready to give up on our efforts or my own thoughts just yet. I couldn't turn my mind off if I wanted too, and in the absence of you and Dave, I would have no outlet. I've struggled all my life to establish my intelligence vs my insanity and without someone who understands what I'm saying, I'm back to just being potentially insane....lol.

I've always had problems with Dave's assertion of an autonomous system establishing absolute motion, but I think I finally have a better idea of how to define such. The question is, what does VA actually mean? I'm working on the ratio logic of e=1 and the many ways to arrive at 'e' by way of the many other values. I'm establishing within my mind the actual aspects being measured by such equations as e=mcc, f=ma, e=hf, etc, and the ratio logic whereby such values are merely ratios of e=1, including the constant internal ratios of c, h, etc, as with their relationship of the ratio of mass to energy and frequency to energy. I actually gave 'e' an arbitrary value of 200 with:

c=10
m=2
h=40
f=5
λ=2

This merely allowed me to follow the many relationships around by way of all of the derivations you can make from common standard model formulas. This is perhaps unimportant, but what I realized is that 'e' and 'p' are conserved values not only by way of state transitions, but throughout absolute distance and time. Here's a couple of recent posts I made concerning where I'm headed.

"Alright.....what did y'all do with my buddy Lloyd? It's not like him to be gone this many days.

Lloyd,

If you're still around, I'm wanting to explore the relationship of a photon to a massive body using the mechanical advantage relationship of a block and tackle system of pulleys. The conservation mechanics we're exploring should allow such a technique as with: force x distance = force x distance with total work conservation being seen due to a lesser force acting over a greater distance being able to pick up a greater force/wieght through a reduced distance with the mechanical advantage being a ratio of such as with a chainfall or crane block.

If considering a photon whereby: e=pc and a body whereby e=mcc then there should be some relationship to the photon acting over a greater distance with a lesser mass within an absolute time interval being equal to a greater mass acting over a lesser distance similar to P=mv thus with a photon Pc=mvc. We're dealing with absolute time, thus I feel there is a definate relationship which can be found whereby when factoring in the distance acted upon over a period of time, the mass of a photon is the mechanical advantage version acting over a greater distance than the greater massive body acting over a lesser distance with energy being conserved between the two as was work in the mechanical example. The conversion of mass to energy is the conservation factor of a quantity of radiation being released but I feel that the comparative relationship of a single photon is perhaps equal to structured mass within absolute time. This gets into more stuff as with the possibility of mass not effecting a photons velocity whereby all travel at c due to radiation being able to redistribute any quantity of mass at c due to it doing so over distance, thus a greater mass value of such is perhaps a greater linear uniformly moving quantity at c as with merely a greater/lesser amplitude of a wave but equal velocity.

Just thinking out loud, Tim"

"Hi Greg,

with a mechanical advantage system such as block and tackle work is quantized by the product relationship of force acting over distance whereby pulleys allow a lesser force to pick up a greater weight by a further distance of travel provided by the many parts of a line which is determined in discrete whole number values as in relation to the quantity of pulleys thus parts in the line. In the universe, energy is quantized within absolute space and time whereby a lesser mass such as a photon is acting over a greater distance equally to a greater mass acting over a lesser distance. Add in another axis of motion and a smaller mass must orbit a larger mass to conserve this relationship if they both travel along the other axis at an equal velocity eg planet/sun.

P=mv and e=pc thus with a photon travelling at c velocity; e=mcc as with a larger body. When considering pc (photon)=mvc (massive body) energy is quantized whereby despite the mass each body acts upon the same conserved energy quantization within an absolute time and distance interval. The photon has an energy advantage by way of velocity just as with the mechanical analogy.

Tim"

"The easiest way to consider what I'm trying to express is to imagine the PSF I've been suggesting as being a rigid spacetime structural quantization whereby a photon and a massive body occupy a set number of domains relative to their mass value at any instant or freeze frame. Thus, their individual momentum values are diifferent within that instant, but if observed for a second the photon has traveled it's c velocity distance while the body has traveled a distance relative to it's velocity whereby if we were to count the number of domains occupied within a given instant within each system along with the number of domains the system passed through within the elapsed second the quantitative domain value would perhaps be equal whereby we find the reciprocal relationship of mass and distance as with the lower the mass value the greater the velocity thus the conservation of momentum by way of domains occupied vs domains passed through with energy merely being a factor of the aspect of domains occupied within the freeze frame moment which yeilded the various momentum values as to show the relationship of mass systems at an instant while momentum shows the conserved reciprocal relationship over time. This gets back tithe question of what scale the PSF opperates at, which I consider as being directly measured by our observation of frequency and wavelength within radiation. The actual scale would be a resolution much less than the highest frequency shortest wavelength electromagnetic wave, but the exact value I feel can be derived by what I'm suggesting with these conservation mechanics. I just need a lil feedback.

Tim"

"Regarding p = (mv) .... how do you derive e = (mv x c) ... ?

greg"

"Urrrrmmmm.......if you look back at the ee=mmcccc + ppcc whereby a photon has zero mass and a body has zero momentum the equation cancels to e=pc for the photon and e=mcc for the body. This is just standard model jargon so far. If e=pc and p=mv then e=(mv x c). I'm simply suggesting all of the values which are derived from e whereby we can observe how such values are various expressions of e within a given absolute time interval. Forget the symmetry/asymmetry as it only causes confusion between us and just focus on what I'm saying. I'm also not neglecting entropy but to discuss such, you'll have to fully see what I'm suggesting here first. Consider all of the ways that e is derived from p m v h f λ c and the further derivations these values have relative to each other. Now consider the possibility that e is the actual constant quantized within spacetime whereby the relationship of these values are merely rearranged to express various systems within the universal system. The constant cc is merely the ratio of mass to energy and the constant h is merely the ratio of frequency to energy, but perhaps the true simplicity lies within realizing how these various values conserve e within every system by way of external and internal values.

If a photon traveling at c were to collide with a bowling ball traveling at some relatively low velocity in space lets say one mile per second, an absolute second before the collision the photon was perhaps 186,000 miles away while the bowling ball was merely one mile away from the absolute point of collision. The obvious differences in mass are perhaps the reciprocal values of the differences in these distances, whereby at the exact instant of collision the photon had a much less internal mass, momentum, thus also energy value, yet when factoring in the total energy value expressed by way of its external distance traveled, the total internal + external energy values are found to be equal. The bowling ball was merely expressing the true conservation of energy in a different more localized manner than was the photon, but both were expressing equal energy within equal time if considering the dynamics of distance/time. Lets say when a system becomes autonomous, it has only an exact amount of energy to spend within an absolute time interval, thus various systems ration it out in various ratios of the above mentioned constituent values whereby we might observe a photon, an atom, a planet, etc. acting over various reciprocal distances. Change the velocity of a composite structured system, and the effects are reverberated throughout the constituent internal structures by way of momentum conservation etc, which equates to Lorentz contractions, relative time dilation, etc. Energy isn't just about the product of what we find within a system. It's also about how we externally find a system where it is, and how it got there. This relationship isn't clear if just considering the internal values as separate from the external values as does most of the standard model equations. There is simply a relationship between these various equations whereby we always produce the same energy value relative to all systems if factored properly with absolute time taken into account.

Tim"

"I'm thinking .... the bowling ball and the photon collision explain where your coming from.

One hesitant question ..... e =mc2 ....... why do you think that the c2 is a variable and different velocities can be placed there ? (c2) is the constant that shows the amount of energy potential in 'matter' ?

greg"

"You're still not quite getting what I'm saying. I don't think its a variable. It's merely measuring different aspects. Go through all of the derivations you can make from the equations and keep them in your head and keep questioning everything about the relationships. Consider the bowling ball/ photon analogy. E=mcc shows that cc is the ratio of internal mass to energy at the INSTANT of contact between the two systems. The photon would actually be considered to be e=hf or e=pc but we'll hold off on that for now. This isn't taking into account the conservation of energy that I'm speaking of but is only factoring the instant of collision between the two systems. There's a difference between instantaneous state vs. a state over time. If p=mv and the ratio of m to v are found to be reciprocal by way of absolute time as with the analogy then e=mvc will give the exact same conserved value no matter what system we are observing. With a photon v=c and mass is a minimal, but with the bowling ball v= proportionally less than c and mass is reciprocally increased. I'm merely trying to stress that the instantaneous value of a system as shown with e=mcc is an internal comparison between systems not factoring in the external reciprocal values whereby all systems are found to be operating within the exact same e=1 value through distance/time. Consider what aspects of such a system the equations are measuring and then you'll see what I'm questioning. Hope this helps.

Tim"

There seem to be many relationships which satisfy the instantaneous current state of a system Lloyd, but this tells us little about how a system got where it is, and the steps taken to get there with further state changes and such which would be the unified calculus type relationship of change over time by way of distributing composite 'e' through its many constituent values of v m a f λ, etc, as Va is conserved. When all values have to be satisfied in some conserved manner, we can better understand the effects of rad decay and and the atomic clock relationship of QM to RM. This is the asymmetry conserving a deeper unified symmetry which I've mentioned. This is how Dave referenced Va I think. When each system achieves absolute motion, it must satisfy the conservation relationships of the many internal values. An autonomous system is reduced to its specific distribution of Va=e whereby each system has the same ingredients, but the ratios by which they are mixed together determine the characteristics of the system being observed. It's conservation in every direction thus homogenous mechanics. Consider what would happen to the constituent electrons and such if we were to slow or speed up a large composite body if they must further internally conserve the Va of their systems. Studying the composite conservation from Va of the larger body internally into the individualized systems as with our past discussions of Jupiter's effects and such opens up many avenues of exploration if we can work these mechanics out properly.

I hope you can see what I'm trying to express here. I've also started my email discussions with Dave again and am running some of this by him and will relate any information he gives to further clarify these relationships. I'm just discussing these value relationships with him and am not getting into the mechanics by which I'm deriving many of my observations. He responded today to much of what I said and merely suggested that this is why he came to the conclusion so long ago that motion is absolute, but he didn't see the questions I was presenting and asked me to clarify, but I was merely letting him review where I was at. Anyways, I look forward to further working with you to better understand this place which we've both awoken into with all its mystery and elegance. Such thoughts are the only thing which occupies my curious mind....lol.