The True Nature of Matter and Mass

[Obvious Leo]

However, the test would be expensive to carry out and I haven't found a financial backer for it.

I'd keep the cryptography under your hat if it's money your after.

I wouldn't be mentioning Nostradamus either, if I were you. Bankers tend to be a conservative lot.

[Michael MD]

JSS,

The idea of oscillating point-localities in Original Space is that space at that time was different from our present space, so it no longer exists, which is the reason I used the term "hypothesis" for this part of my origin-model of the aether. Forces are transmitted through our present space, but original space woild have been a space prior to the first appearance of any kind of forces, whether aetheric or other kinds of forces. According to my origin-hypothesis, that resulted in space being more self-compatible than space is now. My best descriptive picture would be that space at that time was shimmering, which meant that differences existed between points of space relative to each other. -All "points" were oscillating in perfect symmetry with respect to all the other points, but the oscillational reciuprocity-distance-parameters involved would not have been infinite. Therefore, the oscillating "points" would have been finite - ultimately tiny, but finite.

Physics now pictures space as "empty." An important point in my model for the aether is that space is not empty, but instead contains an aether primarily composed of vibrational elemental units, but also containing somewhat-larger "etheroidal" units, the size scale of energy units gradually increasing, on up to our quantum-scale (subatomic and atomic) energy units. The elemental aether units are all the same in size, and as they vibrate, their outward vibrations form connections with each other which are uniform and perfectly linear and "cool." -Only at the larger size scale energy units do we see energy processes involving spin, interactiom across vectors of space, and non-linearity and heat production.

If interested, I have a Web Page. To bring it up, enter

Michael Anteski
John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society

[Obvious Leo]

Michael. Ontologising the toolkit is bad philosophy and the pseudo-mystical action at a distance which is demanded by the current models of physics is a good example of how this must inevitably end in tears. This was the problem which kept Einstein awake at nights and I very much doubt that oscillating bits of empty space would have improved his morning mood. How do you propose to deal with the fact that space has no physical properties and thus what you're suggesting cannot possibly be a physical model? We already have non-physical models, which are mutually exclusive, but they work very well in predicting events even though they're useless in explaining how these events come about. Your idea is reminiscent of the "seething spacetime foam", which was briefly fashionable about half a century ago but has since fallen out of favour for want of either sense or evidence.

On a metaphysical note how would you answer this question?

If A is an empty point in space and B is an empty point in space then what physical meaning can we attach to the distance AB?

[JSS]

JSS,

The idea of oscillating point-localities in Original Space is that space at that time was different from our present space, so it no longer exists, which is the reason I used the term "hypothesis" for this part of my origin-model of the aether. Forces are transmitted through our present space, but original space woild have been a space prior to the first appearance of any kind of forces, whether aetheric or other kinds of forces. According to my origin-hypothesis, that resulted in space being more self-compatible than space is now. My best descriptive picture would be that space at that time was shimmering, which meant that differences existed between points of space relative to each other. -All "points" were oscillating in perfect symmetry with respect to all the other points, but the oscillational reciuprocity-distance-parameters involved would not have been infinite. Therefore, the oscillating "points" would have been finite - ultimately tiny, but finite.

It is still not valid to use the word "space" in that fashion, whether current space or any prior space. The word "space" refers only to the empty framework. And the points within are merely relative locations, not physical entities. You are saying that the location {1,1,1} is oscillating with location {2,1,1}. And that just doesn't make any sense. Locations in space themselves can't move regardless of what space you are talking about. It is a matter of the language and logic. You need to find a different word.

Physics now pictures space as "empty." An important point in my model for the aether is that space is not empty, but instead contains an aether primarily composed of vibrational elemental units, but also containing somewhat-larger "etheroidal" units, the size scale of energy units gradually increasing, on up to our quantum-scale (subatomic and atomic) energy units. The elemental aether units are all the same in size, and as they vibrate, their outward vibrations form connections with each other which are uniform and perfectly linear and "cool." -Only at the larger size scale energy units do we see energy processes involving spin, interactiom across vectors of space, and non-linearity and heat production.

If interested, I have a Web Page. To bring it up, enter

Michael Anteski
John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society

I think science has awoken to the fact that space is not empty. No matter where you are in space, if you look around you will see stars (or galaxies). That means that at every point in space, photons (at least) are passing through, not to mention the CMB, all of the other EMR spectra, and gravity (collectively: "Affectance").

[Obvious Leo]

It is still not valid to use the word "space" in that fashion, whether current space or any prior space. The word "space" refers only to the empty framework. And the points within are merely relative locations, not physical entities.

Since we appear to be singing from the same song-sheet on this point perhaps you will also agree that the same reasoning can be applied to the word "dimension". A dimension is nothing more than a mathematical co-ordinate system used to plot the behaviour of matter and energy and not a physical "thing". In the light of the mass/energy equivalence principle, E=mcc, this is not a trivial question because this principle states that matter is nothing more than quanta of energy which are behaving in a particular way, and I've yet to hear of a physicist who would say anything other than that quanta of energy are dimensionless point-like entities. How many dimensionless points are needed to create a space?

[JSS]

It is still not valid to use the word "space" in that fashion, whether current space or any prior space. The word "space" refers only to the empty framework. And the points within are merely relative locations, not physical entities.

Since we appear to be singing from the same song-sheet on this point perhaps you will also agree that the same reasoning can be applied to the word "dimension". A dimension is nothing more than a mathematical co-ordinate system used to plot the behaviour of matter and energy and not a physical "thing".

Certainly true.

In the light of the mass/energy equivalence principle, E=mcc, this is not a trivial question because this principle states that matter is nothing more than [a] quanta of energy which are behaving in a particular way, and I've yet to hear of a physicist who would say anything other than that quanta of energy are dimensionless point-like entities. How many dimensionless points are needed to create a space?

The confusion in that is that "quanta of energy" refers to anything more than an amount of energy. It says nothing of the makeup. I can go into great detail concern exactly of what that quanta of energy is made and can tell you that it has nothing at all to do with smaller "bits" of anything, including bits of nothingness (dimensions or not).

[Obvious Leo]

The confusion in that is that "quanta of energy" refers to anything more than an amount of energy.

It doesn't. Energy is just energy and requires no further definition, although nowadays it is generally agreed that the notion of energy is synonymous with the notion of information. Thus the quanta of energy which encode for matter can be thought of as "bits" are thought of in the science of computation. They are the fundamental units of physical reality from which all higher-order structures are emergent.

It says nothing of the makeup.

The makeup is not a function of the "bits" but a function of the behaviour of the "bits".

bits of nothingness

This phrase makes my blood run cold. That nothing can said to physically exist is bad enough but the thought of chopping nothing into pieces is altogether too much for a simple country lad.

[JSS]

the notion of energy is synonymous with the notion of information.

That part is not true. The amount of information in even one electron is beyond Man's ability to store as information bits.

It says nothing of the makeup.

The makeup is not a function of the "bits" but a function of the behaviour of the "bits".

There are no "bits". There are portions, amounts, even waves, pulses, or spikes, but not "bits" (unless you merely mean very small amounts).

bits of nothingness

This phrase makes my blood run cold. That nothing can said to physically exist is bad enough but the thought of chopping nothing into pieces is altogether too much for a simple country lad.

Krauss professed the "Foam Theory" wherein tiny bubbles of Plank sized nothingness encapsulated by a magnetic field is what makes up space. You can't have a Plank minimum without having bits of nothingness. And bits of nothingness, even though imaginable, is still senseless.

[Obvious Leo]

That part is not true. The amount of information in even one electron is beyond Man's ability to store as information bits.

It is perfectly true and your comment is irrelevant though true. An electron is non-computable because it is not linearly determined, that's all. The behaviour of an electron can only be predicted probabilistically for exactly the same reason as the behaviour of any physical process can only be predicted probabilistically. Naturally occurring physical processes are non-linearly determined and this applies equally to galaxies and subatomic particles.

There are no "bits". There are portions, amounts, even waves, pulses, or spikes, but not "bits" (unless you merely mean very small amounts).

Of course I mean very small amounts. I mean no-further divisible packets which can act as binary logic gates.

Krauss professed the "Foam Theory" wherein tiny bubbles of Plank sized nothingness encapsulated by a magnetic field is what makes up space. You can't have a Plank minimum without having bits of nothingness. And bits of nothingness, even though imaginable, is still senseless.

Larry Krauss is an embarrassment to science and an affront to human reason. I thought we were having an intelligent conversation??!!!

[JSS]

That part is not true. The amount of information in even one electron is beyond Man's ability to store as information bits.

It is perfectly true and your comment is irrelevant though true. An electron is non-computable because it is not linearly determined, that's all. The behaviour of an electron can only be predicted probabilistically for exactly the same reason as the behaviour of any physical process can only be predicted probabilistically. Naturally occurring physical processes are non-linearly determined and this applies equally to galaxies and subatomic particles.

Well, no. Now you are being guilty of the very thing you were accusing others of doing - conflating the math model with the physical reality.

Currently Man has found no means to measure the location of an electron and thus must depend entirely upon probability calculations. The electron actually has a specific centered location at all times, but Man has no way to predetermine, track, or measure it. Man uses QM to make a damn good guess as to where most of 10,000 electrons will end up. QM knows nothing of individual electrons.

I mean no-further divisible packets which can act as binary logic gates.

I still maintain that affectance or "energy" is infinitely divisible. There is no minimum.

[surreptitious57]

That nothing can said to physically exist is bad enough but the
thought of chopping nothing into pieces is altogether too much

Maybe Krauss meant something so small that it cannot even be measured on the Planck scale
If he did then calling it nothing is categorically wrong since no thing can never be some thing

[Obvious Leo]

Currently Man has found no means to measure the location of an electron and thus must depend entirely upon probability calculations. The electron actually has a specific centered location at all times, but Man has no way to predetermine, track, or measure it. Man uses QM to make a damn good guess as to where most of 10,000 electrons will end up. QM knows nothing of individual electrons.

I absolutely and completely agree with this except for the very first word. This is not just true "currently" but will always be true by definition and exactly the same statement could be made about a planet, star or galaxy because this is a statement about gravity. You're forgetting all about relativistic motion because it has been perfectly well known since Galileo that the motion of EVERY SINGLE physical entity with mass is causally determined by the motion of every other and there are simply no logical grounds for assuming that this conclusion is not scale invariant. That's why the wave function for the electron is only perfectly precise for a hydrogen atom. The minute an atom has more than one electron we're up against the three-body problem which has been well understood since Newton. We cannot specify the location of a body in an n-body system without also specifying which other body this location is relative to and this specification can then only hold true for this one other body and becomes automatically false for all the others. Because QM is predicated on the absolute background-independent physical space of SR this simplest of truths becomes the deepest of mysteries but there's nothing in the least bit mysterious about it because this is simply a statement about the nature of determinism. Because of the fixed background space this relativistic motion is being interpreted as being "random" but this is as nonsensical a proposition as to suggest that stars move around in galaxies at random. Electrons within atoms and stars within galaxies move CHAOTICALLY, exactly as the gas molecules do in Brownian motion. Chaotic motion is completely deterministic and yet utterly impossible to predict beyond a finite order of probability, just like tomorrow's weather. The unpredictability is NOT a function of randomness but a function of the complexity of the causal dynamics of the system, which within the atom is entirely due to gravity. This is quantum gravity.

That nothing can said to physically exist is bad enough but the
thought of chopping nothing into pieces is altogether too much

Maybe Krauss meant something so small that it cannot even be measured on the Planck scale
If he did then calling it nothing is categorically wrong since no thing can never be some thing

Krauss is about as metaphysically confused as it is possible to imagine so I have no problem just dumping him directly into the fruitloop bin. Something and nothing are antonymous words in our language which means that nothing does not exist, for the simple reason that if it did then it would be something. A free tip from the philosophy of the bloody obvious.

[surreptitious57]

the motion of EVERY SINGLE physical entity with mass is causally determined by the motion of every
other and there are simply no logical grounds for assuming that this conclusion is not scale invariant

Everything is affected by gravity which is why it is universal
And this may be why it can even leak into other dimensions

[Obvious Leo]

And this may be why it can even leak into other dimensions

For fuck's sake what do you think this statement actually means?

[surreptitious57]

For fucks sake what do you think this statement actually means

I think this is a reference to any dimensions at the quantum level