Ether Theory?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:08 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:07 pm
...material is strictly movement.
Of what?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
...through particulate which compose space as structure...
From which I gather that space is either a structure composed of particles, or it's the gaps between the particles. Either way there's particles. In which case the question becomes what are those particles made of?
I once asked a physicist (admittedly a self declared logical positivist) the same question. To which he replied "Made of? Well, they're made of their mass, charge and spin." The Pythagoreans believed that reality is literally made of numbers. Plato believed that the Greek elements were made of Platonic solids. If I understand, you are proposing that particles are 'made of' geometric relationships. So you're in good company, but what you, Pythagoras, Plato and the physicist fail to address is what do those mathematical qualities apply to?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:03 pm

For the record, I am going to warn you ahead of time this will be a long post you may want to traverse slowly.
uwot wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:08 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:07 pm
...material is strictly movement.
Of what?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
...through particulate which compose space as structure...
From which I gather that space is .... a structure composed of particles, and it's the gaps between the particles.
Yes, or at least that is what I am arguing.

I inserted a minor change to your above statement to further emphasize the next statement I will make; What we understand of space, and you probably have seen me argue this point a thousand times before, is Dimension as "Limit" and "No-Limit". The particle, when we break it down to its core is fundamentally a set of linear relations.

Do these linear relations equate to the geometric forms Plato, Pythagoras, etc. argued? It appears not, however I still believe the jury is out. However these particles are composed of geometric relations regardless, with those relations being a simple linear dimensionality relating through points. So yes, in these respects, they are geometric and this geometry is unavoidable. These linear dimensions act as limits, or something synonymous to boundaries. These linear dimensions, as relations, have a dual property in regards to the particle:

1) They unify the particle for what it is as a particle. This unity allows the particle to exist as the particle in one respect. In a seperate respect, if or when the particle changes to another particle, that particle in itself will always exist as a cause for further particles. In these respects the particle, as both a limit and composed of limits, is always "unified" to some degree across time/space as it maintains an ever present causal nature. Dimensional limits act as boundaries of unity.

2) They individuate, or separate, the particle from further particles. These limits act duelly as a means of multiplication/division of further particles as the limits relate to form further limits. If we look at the linear dimensions that compose the particle, we can observe that they relate through 0 dimensional points. The relation of further linear dimensions, as the particle and through the particle, in turn cause these lines to individuate further by multiplying/dividing through further 0d points. Dimensional limits simultaneously to their unifying nature act as boundaries which multiply/divide further dimensions through "individuation as movement".

A simple thought experiment can observe this: Imagine all the movements of a particle at one moment. Particle A exists as a linear trajectory that crosses Particle B, which is also a linear trajectory. Considering the particles are strictly movement, what we observe from a 1 or 2 dimensional perspective is strictly the particles as "linear dimensions as directions" with these directions existing as "extra dimensionality". Now Particle A and B, as lines, cross eachother. At this intersection we can observe potential relations which form further actual relations.

These points in turn act as actual relations, through further lines, that move towards further potential relations. In these respects the intersection, as point 0 observes a dualistic nature of "actuality" and "potentiality" though the line as a relation of these very same 0d points. This dualism of actuality and potentiality, which both multiply and divides eachother into further particulate, causes a perpetual movement through alternations. The 1 dimensional line is the median of this alternation as movement itself, as the line is merely the relation of 0d points.

What we observe as movement, through the 0d point acting as gravity field, is the alternation of linear dimensions. The 0d point, as a gravity field equates gravity as purely movement through direction. In these respects gravity can be observe as extradimensional movement, through the 0d point, or intradimensional movement when observed from the perspective of the Ether I argued for a few posts back.

Movement as alternation, is gravity for the 0d point manifests alternations as individuation. Individuation, may be observe as a further alternation between multiplication and division of linear dimensions as particulate. Einstein was right, in regard to gravity acting as field, however I do not believe he gave enough clarity as to the geometry of it...that being the 0d point acting simultaneously as a field.

In these respects the closer the line gets to center point 0, the greater the point field effect takes place, causing an increase in relations synonymous to "density". The 0d point, which may be observed at its height being the black hole (the jury is out in my opinion, however this is the most probable interpretation I can think of) in reality is hyper dense as the absence of dimensionality causes all linear dimensions to individuate at an exponential level with expotential "relations as movement" resulting.

3) Dimensions as "no - limit" or "possible limits" can be observe through the observation of points. The points, as centers exihibit and unlimited nature of further dimensions as a center is without limit. The 1D line entering the center of a 0d point, in theory could manifest infinity further lines as it individuates through that 0d point. In these respects, the point observes all possible "dimensions" as "no limit". In these respects the point allows a form of modal realism to occur, with the point of one object being the same point that connects all the other objects.

The same set of points that manifest "x form" are the same points that manifest "y form" and "x" and "y" may be connected through the 0d points acting as ratios. If "x" and "y" share the same number of points as "z", even though they are seperated the even in "x" will cause an effect in "y" (and vice versa) as the number of points which manifests them acts as a median through proportionality.

What we understand of the ratio is a merely a median point of relations between two particulate that are proportional. The connection of "x" and "y" is through "z" as merely being a number of 0d points. However considering the 0d points are the same, regardless of what structure they manifest, the ratios between them act as a form of unity that transcends and form of relation by creating a new relation. "Z" is the linear relation between "x" and "y". In these respects, the ratio forms a linear dimension through x and y having proportional, or equal, number of points.

Quantum entanglement may strictly the relation of 0d points through numerical ratios which transcend movement by creating another bridge of movement through the 0d point.

Considering the "Y" effect, I argued earlier (where the line approaching 0d point center branches off), all particulate maintain a polar dual nature. These "Y's" in turn relate again to form further linear relations and what we can observe is an alternation between 1d linearisma and 2 1d linearism (2d?). Alternation is inversion as a form of circulation. So what we understand of the "Y" effect is the manifestation of dual linear dimensions. Considering the "Y" effect causes a continual branching, the "Y" effect may cause the wave form as a form of quantum entanglement in itself. So what we observe as the wave, may strictly be quantum entanglement in a seperate coexisting dimension to matter, as linear dimensionality, which is approaching point zero.



Either way there's particles. In which case the question becomes what are those particles made of?
I once asked a physicist (admittedly a self declared logical positivist) the same question. To which he replied "Made of? Well, they're made of their mass, charge and spin." The Pythagoreans believed that reality is literally made of numbers. Plato believed that the Greek elements were made of Platonic solids. If I understand, you are proposing that particles are 'made of' geometric relationships.

Mass, charge and spin are a poor answer, I understand I may be in someone of a minority when I make this statement. Let's break down what mass, charge and spin really are:

1) Mass is a body of matter without shape...how does mass differ from a point in these regards? Considering the premise of "matter as movement", what we understand of mass is strictly the 0d point as center. In these respects, mass can be argued as a "quantum of movement" of linear relations through a zero dimensional point.

2) Charge observe the Positive, Negative and Neutral degrees of space. In these respects what we understand of space is fundamentally a trifold property synonymous to +1, -1, and +/- 1 (maybe even 0) in which the charge of the particle may strictly being how they relate: Intra/extra dimensional.

3) Spin is strictly the observation of a geometric circle/oval/etc. acting as a unifying median. The geometric form, through movement as an approximation of that same geometric form, act as a unifying median...one possibly synonymous to the ether as pure form. In a separate respect the geometric form, as approximation through movement...for movement is approximation, observes the Apeiron as a 0d point equivalent to a perpetual movement. This perpetual movement is a perpetual approximation, as the limits of ethereal unity.


So you're in good company, but what you, Pythagoras, Plato and the physicist fail to address is what do those mathematical qualities apply to?
1) The qualties of all linear dimensions are rooted in dualism of 1 and 0. Movement from 0d point to 1d point, 1d point to 0d point, 0d point to 0d point as 1d line, etc. are strictly a duality of 1 and 0 manifesting through the nature of dimension as direct. Number is strictly direction, as extradimensional through individuation as the manifesting of "units" (1's) or intradimensional through unit as "1". What we understand of reality is fundamentally a dualism of 1 as both "unity" and "unit". 1 as unity is 1 as intradimensional, or mirroring itself. 1 as unit is 1 as extradimensional as it ceases mirroring itself and relates through the 0d point.


2) Movement from 1d point (approximated again as 1d lines) to 0d point is actual movement as the 0d point is absent of any dimensionality. In these respects what we understand of as movement is strictly an absence of dimension. Actual movement from 0d dimensional points to 1d lines (as approximations of 1d point) in turn dually exists. Potential movement is proportional to this same Actual movement, and is an "unactualized" dual of actuality. In these respects what we understand of movement is a duality of duals, or a 4d structure.

This makes sense considering the line, as ever approaching 0, must fractate into further lines through a division as dualism where the line branches off. This fractation is movement, for movement exists in, of and through particulate. A unified totality cannot move in an absence of space considering there is nowhere to move.

We can observe this in the double slit experiment where in the face of a 0d point, the slits as absence of dimension, the particle branches off in a Y pattern. Observe this experiment from the perspective of "everything happening at once", and what you will observe is the particle, as a linear dimension, forms a "Y" in the face of "absence of dimension - 0d point". If I remember correctly in regards to the double slit experiment, is that the particle end of moving back together. Put another double slit in from of them again, acting as a zero dimension point, and what you will observe is alternation ad-fininitum in the form of a wave movement.

This "Y effect", through the 0d point field effect, is an altneration of linear relations forming the wave as a linear dimension in itself. You have to remember at the macro scale the wave is strictly a line. In these respects with would not be a stretch to argue all wave movements are linear movements in themselves. In these respects, the line exists through a further alternation.

In these respects we observe "movement" as rooted in a qualitative dualism and quantitative two. Look at some of the equation used in quantum mechanics and observe how often two is used in division, roots, etc. ...it is common. But considering quantum mechanics is strictly movement, and 2 represents a perpetual polarity between forces, we can observe 2 as the root of "movement as particulation".

3) The relations of 0d points, exist if and only if there is a line, as the 0d points are not things in and of themselves. In these respects what we understand of the 1 dimensional line is movement through an extradimensional nature away from its origins. Extradimensionality in turn requires further 1 dimensional lines as the line can only move past itself if their is somewhere else to move. In these respects, the wave as "alternating 1 dimensional lines through the 0d point acting as a field" is the premise of all movement. The wave, can be argued as 1d lines alternating between actuality and potentiality as positive and negative values.

The movement of up and down, as the alternation of positive and negative can be observed in the three arithmetic duals whose rotations form number:

--------a) addition (+) /subtraction (-),
--------b) multiplication(+,+) / division (-,-)
--------c) powers ((+,+),(+,+)) / roots ((-,-),(-,-))

The alternation between positive and negative values in turns observe a proportionality through movement, which observe that particulate exist through a median of movement with alternation/circulation enabling a proportionality to exist. However considering movement is rooted in multiplication and division, through relation, multiplication would be synonymous to a positive value and division as a negative value.



Physics, I argue, is the study of time as alternations of movement through linear dimensions that form circular patterns. In these respects, and probably one of the reasons there is only so far I am willing to delve into physics, these laws in theory should periodically cycle through themselves and change. The laws of physics millions of years ago may differ by a simple fraction, but still a fraction, to today's physics. The same with the physics a million years from now.

In theory the laws of physics should cycle through themselves, and what we understand today may not be what we understand tomorrow. This is considering physics, as the study of particulate, is the study of fractals which are probabilistic in nature. Physics, in these regards, is movement as "probabalism".

And the post is long enough as is, so I will leave it there.

uwot
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:54 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
...through particulate which compose space as structure...
From which I gather that space is .... a structure composed of particles, and it's the gaps between the particles.
Yes, or at least that is what I am arguing.

I inserted a minor change to your above statement to further emphasize the next statement I will make; What we understand of space, and you probably have seen me argue this point a thousand times before, is Dimension as "Limit" and "No-Limit".
I've no objection to you changing my words, but by doing so, you lose the point. The key phrase here is "What we understand", it illustrates the different ways that the question 'What are fundamental particles made of?' is treated. If anything marks the difference between philosophy and physics, it is that physics has a job to do. For that purpose, there is a great deal of careful observation and meticulous measurement. Once the measurements are converted into numbers, patterns are sought in the relationships of variables, the relationships are assigned symbols, the variables are abstracted so that any value can be substituted and, Bob's your uncle, you have a mathematical tool with which you can successfully manipulate your environment. That is the meat and potatoes of physics; as long as it works, it doesn't really matter if it is 'true'.

On the one hand, you don't find this approach satisfying:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
Mass, charge and spin are a poor answer, I understand I may be in someone of a minority when I make this statement.
Fair enough, it doesn't address the ontology, but it is precisely because physicists have determined those and other values, that engineers can design the technology we depend on.

On the other hand though, your own description of fundamental particles is also based on mathematical, rather than physical premises. i.e. It is epistemological rather than ontological.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
The particle, when we break it down to its core is fundamentally a set of linear relations.
Is it? Can you use that information to build a better mousetrap? Do you have the mathematical chops to turn that premise into a set of equations that will make the lives of designers and engineers easier? If not, what is the use of a mathematical description of reality that doesn't work?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:30 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
...through particulate which compose space as structure...
From which I gather that space is .... a structure composed of particles, and it's the gaps between the particles.
Yes, or at least that is what I am arguing.

I inserted a minor change to your above statement to further emphasize the next statement I will make; What we understand of space, and you probably have seen me argue this point a thousand times before, is Dimension as "Limit" and "No-Limit".
I've no objection to you changing my words, but by doing so, you lose the point. The key phrase here is "What we understand", it illustrates the different ways that the question 'What are fundamental particles made of?' is treated.

No point was lost. The origin of the question, that began all of this, was somewhere along the lines of "What is moving space?" "Can space move?" etc. Without understanding basic fundamentals, that provide foundations for further axioms, what we understand of reality is equivalent to a house built on sand. As to "What we understand" it is "dimension". Observing that particles are strictly dimensions changes the premises on how we observe particles.

Physics use to claim to be the study of matter, now it no longer claims to not only study matter but its basic properties are not understandable. It delves into dark matter, something which cannot be seen except through equations. Physics is becoming more and more theory over time, and its empirical roots are slowly approaching a wall.


What we understand is a continual redefinition, over the course of time, as to what the physical universe is made of...specifically what is matter. Physics study of matter, has not given any real definition as to what matter is. The question is "what is matter"? Above is the post responses. If matter is strictly movement, then what the physicists are observing are merely equations for change, base upon certain premises. The question occurs what is the nature of the dimensions applied in order to understand this reality.


The question of physics relationship with number as dimension applies directly not only to the nature of intelligence but quantum computing and AI. Physics cannot hack the universe apart with measurement without first understanding the nature of measurement itself.


If anything marks the difference between philosophy and physics, it is that physics has a job to do. For that purpose, there is a great deal of careful observation and meticulous measurement.

What job? Make the world better? Those questions are not for physicists, it is out of their league. Physics is also at the point where the philosophical problem of measurement comes into play. Do we change the universe when we measure it? It is self-aware through a continual process of self-measurement? How does one seperate a "dimension" from a "particle" or are both one and the same? If they are the same what is the nature of dimension? Is consciousness seperate from matter?

Is Number seperate from space? Most probably not. If that is the case which came first the dimension as number or matter which forms the particulate we study.

Physics may have a job to do, but it is only because its father, metaphysics, told it to get to work. The atom bomb, black holes, dark matter were all premised on the metaphysics Einstein applied to his theory of relativity. Tesla and his inventions? Even he admited it was mostly abstract theory, and theory prevents the problem of wasting time with certain experiments. String theory, while base on physical laws, does not involve some degree of metaphysics?

Physics does not provide any answer other than the nature of change when certain variables are involved. It is equivalent to new and different ways a child forms a ball of wet sand in a sand box.



Once the measurements are converted into numbers, patterns are sought in the relationships of variables, the relationships are assigned symbols, the variables are abstracted so that any value can be substituted and, Bob's your uncle, you have a mathematical tool with which you can successfully manipulate your environment. That is the meat and potatoes of physics; as long as it works, it doesn't really matter if it is 'true'.

If we get a mathematical tool to manipulate the environment, and the environment changes because of this, how much truth does physics possess since fundamentally we are studying our own measurements? Does the environment respond through the application of dimension? Yes, but we are still stuck with the question as to what is the nature of measurement itself, this is considering it is the foundation for physics.

On the one hand, you don't find this approach satisfying:

If I remember correctly neither did you.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
Mass, charge and spin are a poor answer, I understand I may be in someone of a minority when I make this statement.
Fair enough, it doesn't address the ontology, but it is precisely because physicists have determined those and other values, that engineers can design the technology we depend on.

On the other hand though, your own description of fundamental particles is also based on mathematical, rather than physical premises. i.e. It is epistemological rather than ontological.


"Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=ontology& ... 076F66D4D6

"Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,[2][3] (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as "What makes justified beliefs justified?",[4] "What does it mean to say that we know something?"[5] and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?""[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Considering both definitions are rooted in the application of dimensionality, as measurement, the description of particles, I argue, contains both epistemological and ontological arguments. I think you are confusing ontology with empiricism. Regardless the description I argue, does not contradict with any presentation on the nature of what constitutes physics.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:10 pm
The particle, when we break it down to its core is fundamentally a set of linear relations.
Is it?
Do you want to interpret the wave function in some other manner?

Can you use that information to build a better mousetrap?
Do you need to understand electrons to build a mousetrap? Or do you need to understand the nature of apply measurements?

With that being said it gives a more universal understanding of the nature of the particle. If the particle is merely a set of linear relations, what we observe as Einsteins four dimensional understanding of reality, as relative linear dimensions, in theory manifests itself through each individual particle. Each particle is strictly an extension of medium of gravity, through the intersection of linear dimensions at zero point, and it further justifies Eintein's theory while simultaneously providing a different angle of measurement.

Does the nature of the particle change when applying five or six linear dimensions instead of four? At minimum it justifies the nature of measurement as the observation of particulate, with the application of each linear measurement forming its own set of particulate to be measured. The physicist has to ask himself the question is he understanding reality or manipulating it? If it is strict manipulation, as evidence for the "need" of certain equations, to what end is this manipulation and what effect does it cause?

What about the double slit experiment? Does it change relative to further number? Even or odd numbers?

If a particle is strictly a set of linear relations, then what seperates the particle from the act of measurement? Or is the universe self-aware? Will the universe recorrect itself everyonce in a while when to many "measurements" have been applied to it?


Do you have the mathematical chops to turn that premise into a set of equations that will make the lives of designers and engineers easier?


Do you have the intellectual chops not to repeat what other people write?

Anyhow:

The MDR Arithmetic thread provides a mathematical foundation for the understanding of the Ether. Still waiting for input, have a cousin who is a Harvard professor looking at it, plus the random responses of the internet. So far it appears positive...
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=23228

Currently I am working on a second set of functions, founded on actual and potential movement as 1 dimensional lines through 0d points. It would equate to the nature of time as a dual multiplicative/divisive function as "relation". So everything we understand of time is merely relation through multiplication and division as a form of individuation resulting in the "unit" as "particulate".

So, if I am correct, and I want to emphasize "if",...f'ck the simple equation...why not create a new field of mathematics? Is that good enough for your standard?


Who said their work was of any real use other than strict majority opinion? And we all know how fickle a group of people get. Physics has become a corporate endeavor.

And "easy" is merely a subjective term.

Take for example nuclear energy that was supposed to "ease" our reliance on fossil fuels. When was nuclear energy really understood in the terms of proportions? Yes it provides alot of energy, however its waste products harm the environment. So while the energy we get may work in the short term for x years , in the long term is provides danger risks over a greater period of time. Where was the application of reason in that?








If not, what is the use of a mathematical description of reality that doesn't work?

Who said it does not work?

uwot
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:30 pm
Without understanding basic fundamentals, that provide foundations for further axioms, what we understand of reality is equivalent to a house built on sand.
If you say so. Let's start with this:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:30 pm
As to "What we understand" it is "dimension". Observing that particles are strictly dimensions changes the premises on how we observe particles.
What do you mean by "dimension"?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:18 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:30 pm
Without understanding basic fundamentals, that provide foundations for further axioms, what we understand of reality is equivalent to a house built on sand.
If you say so. Let's start with this:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:30 pm
As to "What we understand" it is "dimension". Observing that particles are strictly dimensions changes the premises on how we observe particles.
What do you mean by "dimension"?
Neutral space which synthesizes limits, or boundaries, as structures of space with the structures in turn composing space as space itself. Space, in these respects, corresponds with "being" and is not to be confused with the traditional terms as "nothing". These limits in turn manifest a dual nature of unity, as stability through 1, and multiplicity, through individuation as 1.

In these respects all limits are conducive to "1" as a boundary which forms reality and exists as both a positive and negative value which forms space through a product of synthesis through the dual nature of "1" as "1". These limits observe 1 as having a trifold nature positive and negative as neutral. Dimensions are space through synthesis and are the foundation for all realities including the consciousness that observes them. Dimensions are the synthesis of axioms as measurement, with measurement corresponding to the synthesis of dimensions. Dimensional limits form through an alternating and circular symmetry in these regards.

Dimensions, in a separate respect, are the observation of no-limits, through the observation of center points that both provide the foundations for and are dually founded from dimensional limits. These center points, from which all dimensional limits originate and end, are "possible limits" or "no-limits" and in these respects are neither space nor not-space. Furthermore, through the center point as "possible limits" (or what you can call "no-limit") the nature of Dimensional limits as both "Unity" and "Multiplicity" are mediated through the "center point" as dually an intradimensional and extradimensional construct.

As intradimensional the point exists in itself as intradimensional unity or 1d. "1 intradimensional unity as stability" corresponds directly to abstract forms as stable entities in themselves.

As extradimensional the point exists as extradimensional multiplicity or 0d. "1 extradimensional individuating movement" observes temporal forms as perpetual movement.

uwot
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:35 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:18 pm
Dimensions are the synthesis of axioms as measurement, with measurement corresponding to the synthesis of dimensions.
OK. So what are the axioms?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:02 am

uwot wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:35 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:18 pm
Dimensions are the synthesis of axioms as measurement, with measurement corresponding to the synthesis of dimensions.
OK. So what are the axioms?
Are you sure you are not asking what are axioms? Considering axioms as the synthesis of measurements it would depend on what you are measuring.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests