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