Relativity, Negation and Atomism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:11 pm

Relativity, due to its dependence of flux through the manifestation and relations of partials, is equivalent to an observation of the deficiency of a whole through relations.

It is in this respect that Relational logic has similarity to "fuzzy logic contain immeasurable degrees of truth observed by a number between 1 and 0" (Hájek) as a gradation of non-existence and existence. This fuzzy logic implies a necessary duality of "Actualities" and "Potentials" as fractals or what is most probable.

Relativity, in turn, can paradoxically be observed as a dimension of fractals manifesting fractals through divergence. In this respect, Relationalism as a relation of Pi expresses itself through infinite fractal logic and in a further respect corroborates with infinitism as an ever approaching movement towards zero. Russell's observations that atoms are the limit of analysis” and “the final residue in analysis”. However, he simultaneously argued that “analysis could go on forever”, “ad infinitum” (Russel's Logical Atomism).



It is in this infinite fractalization as infinite points that leads to a series of questions: “Is a blurred concept a concept at all?"—Is an indistinct photograph a picture of a person at all? Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one? Isn't the indistinct one often exactly what we need? Frege compares a concept to an area and says that an area with vague boundaries cannot be called an area at all” (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations) and much can be implied to the nature of logic in this regard.


However, Fuzzy Logic is still Fuzzy Logic as the observation of a fractal as a degree of a whole in many respects is a whole. And regardless of this “degree” of whole, The observation of fuzzy and clear is the observation of the median point between certain boundaries which are in a continual flux, with this flux itself forming further points which manifest further symmetries. It is in these further symmetries that “instead of producing something common to all that we call language… these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all,— but that they are related to one another in many different ways. And it is because of this relationship, or these
relationships, that we call them all "language". (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations)


The problem occurs as the interrelations of logistic particles exist if and only if there is divergence of particles; therefore, relations exist if and only if there is divergence and can never be strictly observed as they are never really unifying. Relativity is fundamentally an observation of logistic negative space curving logistic positive space, and logistic positive space curving logistic negative space.

Now where Relativity can be equated as a form of logical Holism, it must be observed that it relates better through logistic Atomism as Relativity, much like atomism, is the observation of particulate.


It must be noted that Wittgenstein later rejected Logical Atomism, (Wittgenstein) along with Russel. However, it must be noted that this view is actually correct when viewed strictly as a "negative dimension" that moves towards structure as the relation of separate dimensions; thereby manifesting a greater whole as an extension of itself as each "particulate", "fact", or "atom" is a "temporal whole".

In this respect, Logical Atomism must manifest as a micro state of divergence requiring a greater "whole" similar to Russel's Logical Holism. In a further respect, Wittgenstein and Russel are in many respects paradoxically wrong about being wrong as what they observed was a dimension of Logistics, not a be all end all.

Atomism was perceived to have failed because it was required to be "a whole law", not an "atomic law" and therefore could neither reflect a greater "Holism" nor relate to it. In many respects, Russel and Wittgenstein where right.

The independence of logistic quantums and particulate in turn argues that each exists as a degree of "truth", and in this respect, are "wholes". In this respect, and only in this respect, they exist, however it is because of their relations. An observation of Wittgenstein claims:
4.211 It is a sign of a proposition's being elementary that there can be no elementary proposition contradicting it. (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

As each logistic particulate and quantum exists as a relation, relations do not contradict but rather defined. The logistic particle and logistic quantum only contradicts if it is relative to itself, as it fundamentally must keep diverging.
5.134 From an elementary proposition no other can be inferred. (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

Relations are not causal, no inference can be made, only correlation. This lack of causality within Relativity stems mainly from the degree that it depends on "absence" through "divergence" or in seperate terms "individuation".

It is in this respect, all logistic particles and cannot infer other logistic particles, they may only correlate to them as relations are acausal. Assuming the logic reflects a degree of all scientific theories, as it does in math, it may be observed through the theory of 6 degrees of separation (xy) that logics particles may all be related to each other within a certain number of degrees. If this is the case, it applies a stronger case for logistics having a numerical dimension. As current research has not observed this is yet it must be observed as theoretical.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Lacewing » Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:59 pm

Thanks for posting this. I'm enjoying the thoughtfulness it evokes.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:11 pm
"fractals manifesting fractals through divergence"
This is what I think life/reality/experience is.
It is in this infinite fractalization as infinite points that leads to a series of questions: “Is a blurred concept a concept at all?"
If it can be perceived to any degree... I think, yes... even though human beings are likely to make it into what they want, rather than seeing it for what it might actually be.
Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one?
Although it's tempting to say that the system would probably be inclined toward the efficiency and "truth" of clarity, there may ultimately be no "cosmic" goal/ideal/agenda for either.

On the human individual level, this question depends on what one wants. If one wants clarity, yes. If one wants or relies on the blurring for their conjured ideas, then they will not see an advantage.
Isn't the indistinct one often exactly what we need?
Yes... I must admit... it seems like a natural part of the whole picture and of the transformation from one thing into another. So I should stop striving for clarity as much. Some blurred lines are necessary. :)
Frege compares a concept to an area and says that an area with vague boundaries cannot be called an area at all” (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations) and much can be implied to the nature of logic in this regard.
It would be good for theists to contemplate that.
The observation of fuzzy and clear is the observation of the median point between certain boundaries which are in a continual flux, with this flux itself forming further points which manifest further symmetries. It is in these further symmetries that “instead of producing something common to all that we call language… these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all,— but that they are related to one another in many different ways.
So in the broader sense of considering and applying this phenomena, the variations of what we say can be equally true and/or equally false... or better yet, neither classification at all... yes?
The problem occurs as the interrelations of logistic particles exist if and only if there is divergence of particles; therefore, relations exist if and only if there is divergence and can never be strictly observed as they are never really unifying.
This description would explain why there is no "single/ultimate truth" for us to perceive. We are thinking and acting according to what we perceive of the relationships that are based on divergence, not based on a single unified thing.
It is a sign of a proposition's being elementary that there can be no elementary proposition contradicting it. (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
Yes... which is why a closed theist system is elementary. :lol:
As each logistic particulate and quantum exists as a relation, relations do not contradict but rather defined. The logistic particle and logistic quantum only contradicts if it is relative to itself, as it fundamentally must keep diverging. "From an elementary proposition no other can be inferred." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
If I'm understanding this correctly, this is saying that everything is in relationship, and that's what defines it -- and it must continually evolve as a result of that, yes? And -- excuse me if I'm stretching this -- since all is actually defined by this ever-diverging relationship, then all is "one" and there is no "other"?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:51 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:59 pm
Thanks for posting this. I'm enjoying the thoughtfulness it evokes.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:11 pm
"fractals manifesting fractals through divergence"
This is what I think life/reality/experience is.''

A part of it, the process of "individuation" where logistic particles manifest further logistic particles is inherently part of why the issue of definition in logic (and by extension reality) comes to hit so many..."problems". Logic is propagative by nature much in the same manner we see cells multiply and divide. This propogative function is what, I argue, makes the "relative dimension" (as logic is not strictly limited to relativity) what it is.
It is in this infinite fractalization as infinite points that leads to a series of questions: “Is a blurred concept a concept at all?"
If it can be perceived to any degree... I think, yes... even though human beings are likely to make it into what they want, rather than seeing it for what it might actually be.

We can understand the nature of a blurred concept fundamentally for what it is: "blurred". To argue that a concept is "blurred" is to argue that "concept" is defined through a modality and the modality is defined through a concept. The nature of the language in turn decides the nature of "blurred concept" and in turn how we percieve the world.

Take for example: "blurred concept". This understanding of the modality of "blurred" gives impression that modality within english determines the nature of certain constants to a degree, as "concept" is defined through "blurred".

The reverse happens under the example: "concept blurred". This understanding of the modality of "blurred" gives the impression within a seperate language (maybe even english, although we do not speak this way often) that "blurred" is not a thing in and of itself but an extension of "concept".

If we are to take a third perspective with either "blurred concept" or "concept blurred" we understand the nature of modality, as a fractal of "concept" is a relation to "concept" as a fractal of something else entirely. What we see is the relations of two logistic particulates that exist as fractal grades of something else entirely and in this respect are part of a greater whole while being "individual" at the same time.

So what we understand of a particle is a duality of "unity" and "multiplicity".

Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp one?
Although it's tempting to say that the system would probably be inclined toward the efficiency and "truth" of clarity, there may ultimately be no "cosmic" goal/ideal/agenda for either.

Efficiency is fundamentally the greatest median between to extremes. I am efficient if I find a point of balance so to speak. In this respect the nature of "sharpness" can be implied as finding the perfect median between logistic particlulate with this median fundamentally be the observation "relation" or "movement" of the particles.

On the human individual level, this question depends on what one wants. If one wants clarity, yes. If one wants or relies on the blurring for their conjured ideas, then they will not see an advantage.
Isn't the indistinct one often exactly what we need?
Yes... I must admit... it seems like a natural part of the whole picture and of the transformation from one thing into another. So I should stop striving for clarity as much. Some blurred lines are necessary. :)

Blurred lines are inevitable in many respects and can be observed as "emanations" from a logistic particulate as further potential logistic particulate. A blurred line in definition can be viewed as equivalent to potential definition. "Blurring" can be equivalent to "potentiality" in many respects as not structure is fully defined through a blurred nature.
Frege compares a concept to an area and says that an area with vague boundaries cannot be called an area at all” (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations) and much can be implied to the nature of logic in this regard.
It would be good for theists to contemplate that.
The observation of fuzzy and clear is the observation of the median point between certain boundaries which are in a continual flux, with this flux itself forming further points which manifest further symmetries. It is in these further symmetries that “instead of producing something common to all that we call language… these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all,— but that they are related to one another in many different ways.
So in the broader sense of considering and applying this phenomena, the variations of what we say can be equally true and/or equally false... or better yet, neither classification at all... yes?
A duality of clarity and not clarity, or actual definition and potential definition. These duals correspond to third element of "approximation" and "relation" (with relation being equivalent to definition being of a fractal or probabilistic nature)
The problem occurs as the interrelations of logistic particles exist if and only if there is divergence of particles; therefore, relations exist if and only if there is divergence and can never be strictly observed as they are never really unifying.
This description would explain why there is no "single/ultimate truth" for us to perceive.
The paradox occurs that in clarifying this we observe the constant nature of "fractation" or "blurring" within definition so we are back at a duality again.

We are thinking and acting according to what we perceive of the relationships that are based on divergence, not based on a single unified thing.

All relationships founded are founded through an individuation or fraction where everything is "approaching zero" or "nothingness" so to speak. Relativistic logic, through individuation, is a process of negation as a movement towards nothingness and in this respect is definition through "absence" as the actual definitions exist if and only if their are potential definitions. The problem occurs in the that potential definition are unactualized and not a thing in themselves. While observing potential as a movement towards unity (we see this in basic fractions as the top number) this continual movement is in itself a deficiency in unity and can be equivalent as an approach towards nothingness in a seperate respect.
It is a sign of a proposition's being elementary that there can be no elementary proposition contradicting it. (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
Yes... which is why a closed theist system is elementary. :lol:

A closed theist system, from the perspective of logic, still implies a constant and to argue all religions are "relative" or are in a continual state of "relation" implies they are continually fractating. Theism, in this respect is an observation of "fraction" or "emanation" in a negative degree.
As each logistic particulate and quantum exists as a relation, relations do not contradict but rather defined. The logistic particle and logistic quantum only contradicts if it is relative to itself, as it fundamentally must keep diverging. "From an elementary proposition no other can be inferred." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)
If I'm understanding this correctly, this is saying that everything is in relationship, and that's what defines it -- and it must continually evolve as a result of that, yes?
Continually move maybe a better way to put it. All things that exist in a relationship are in themselves particulate or "parts" of a whole and can only be observed as "individuals" rather than "wholes" or "unity". This fractal dimension of logic, is what I would argue 1 degree of three. Is everything relational? In one respect yes, and in another no.

And -- excuse me if I'm stretching this -- since all is actually defined by this ever-diverging relationship, then all is "one" and there is no "other"?

This continual fractation implies Relativity as a form of negation of the one through the manifestation of particulate or "atomism". This negation of the "One" simultaneously implies that their is in fact "just One", however this Unity exists as a seperate dimension. Relativity is the observation of Multiplicity and can exist as a foundational logistics dimenison if and only if their is a seperate stable logistics dimension in which it relates to.

The Unity you are talking about, I argue, would be under a seperate logistic space called Reflectivism...which I did not cover here.

In simple terms, and to summarize the above:

Relativity is a process of negation through a continual flux of particulate which manifests further particulate. These particulate exist if and only if their is relation, however the relation itself is equivalent to "movement". In these respect logistic relativity is equivalent to logistic perpetual movement where definition is in a continual state of flux.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Lacewing » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:31 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:51 am
...
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I enjoyed it. I can't even begin to respond to it, however, as it is on a whole other level than what I normally operate. But for some reason, it's turning me on. :lol: :lol:

Just teasing.

I especially like the summing up paragraph:
Relativity is a process of negation through a continual flux of particulate which manifests further particulate. These particulate exist if and only if their is relation, however the relation itself is equivalent to "movement". In these respect logistic relativity is equivalent to logistic perpetual movement where definition is in a continual state of flux.
That's hot! (Forgive me, I'm feeling rowdy after being out with friends. :) )

This has been truly interesting.

Michael MD
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Michael MD » Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:40 pm

An ether theorist like myself would have it that your discourse's focus on "particulates," as a key to greater understanding of the world, actually only reflects our current misunderstanding, based on quantum physics, as to a so-called "particle" nature of our world.

Quantum physics erroneously considers atomic "particles" as discrete solid entities. An etherist like myself would instead have it that what we now are calling "particles" should instead be called "particle-capacities." Our present understanding, based on quantum physics, fails to include the likelihood of the existence of an underlying ether matrix (which, if adopted by physics, would the only possible way to explain quantum entanglement.) Elemental ether units are the elemental building blocks of (presently so-called) quantum "particles" (Which actually should be thought of as "particle-capacities.") The background ether matrix is likewise composed of these same elemental ether units. That's how quantum "entanglement" could rationally be explained.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:24 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:51 am
...
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I enjoyed it. I can't even begin to respond to it, however, as it is on a whole other level than what I normally operate. But for some reason, it's turning me on. :lol: :lol:

Just teasing.

That's how I roll....jk.

I especially like the summing up paragraph:
Relativity is a process of negation through a continual flux of particulate which manifests further particulate. These particulate exist if and only if their is relation, however the relation itself is equivalent to "movement". In these respect logistic relativity is equivalent to logistic perpetual movement where definition is in a continual state of flux.
That's hot! (Forgive me, I'm feeling rowdy after being out with friends. :) )

This has been truly interesting.

Thanks for the compliment, I hope I provided at least a little clarity...these subjects can be confusing for alot of people and often times have to be taken "one bite at a time".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:35 pm

Michael MD wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:40 pm
An ether theorist like myself would have it that your discourse's focus on "particulates," as a key to greater understanding of the world, actually only reflects our current misunderstanding, based on quantum physics, as to a so-called "particle" nature of our world.

I agree in many respects to what you are saying, but you have to remember "Relativity", especially in logic, is an observation of "negative space" and exists if and only if their is an ether. View it this way, in the study of "randomness" one starts from "zero" and "absense" and eventually moves towards "1" or being. Logistic relativity exists if and only if their is an ethereal dimension, or what I call "Reflective Space", and in many respects is not a "thing in itself but rather a study of particulate/fractals/probability/gradation/non-being...etc.

Quantum physics erroneously considers atomic "particles" as discrete solid entities.

Those "particles" they talk about exists as a movement towards a zero dimensional point...their measurement system is based upon a negative, or negating, form of space. Quantum physics, in my opinion and you heard me discuss this prior, is a study of the apeiron or primordial chaos...it will not provide the "answers" we are looking for as "it is a continual descent into darkness" (excuse the dramatic way of wording).
An etherist like myself would instead have it that what we now are calling "particles" should instead be called "particle-capacities." Our present understanding, based on quantum physics, fails to include the likelihood of the existence of an underlying ether matrix (which, if adopted by physics, would the only possible way to explain quantum entanglement.)
The particles are but mere reflections of an ethereal space, or rather a gradation of it. I view it this way

Studying the ether would be equivalent to saying: "the lake forms the waves, and the waves are extensions of the lake."
Studying the apeiron would be equivalent to saying: "the waves form the lake, and the lake is merely the movement of the waves."

They are dualistic measurement systems of the same thing.

The underlying measurement system, geometrically speaking, for Relativity is the point as a zero dimensional object and the line as a 1 dimensional object.

The only measurement system, that would allow the study of the ethereal space is a reversed one of: a one dimensional point (relfecting in towards itself) and a -1 dimensional line that exists as a structure bond between one dimensional points.

Science will never be able to observe the ether in it current understanding of measurement, considering that the scales we used are justified through empiricism. The problem occurs is that any measurement system, justified the the "ever-changing" world in turn becomese "ever-changing".


Elemental ether units are the elemental building blocks of (presently so-called) quantum "particles" (Which actually should be thought of as "particle-capacities.") The background ether matrix is likewise composed of these same elemental ether units. That's how quantum "entanglement" could rationally be explained.

It is one possible and legitimately logical situation.

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by OuterLimits » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:51 pm

Interesting to compare the idea of a "missing ether" with hidden variables.

Bohmian Mechanics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:04 pm

OuterLimits wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:51 pm
Interesting to compare the idea of a "missing ether" with hidden variables.

Bohmian Mechanics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
It is empirically impossible to prove the ether as to prove it would require to break it into pieces. The only possible way to prove the ether is through a strict application of quantitative and qualitative mathematics and geometry which at minimum:

1) Equates geometric forms to number, and both to actual space.
2) All geometry and number coming from space, and in turn all space coming from geometry and number.
3) A reevaluation of what the rules of logic really are.

Michael MD
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Michael MD » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:47 pm

This is to point out a potential falsity, in Eodinhoj7's remarks, to the effect that an ether can never be proven, due to our inability of quantum physics to empirically measure anything at the size-scale of an ether.

If one were to generate and produce an etheric energy field, one could measure the densities of materials within the test system, and determine if any forces that were generated have produced a decrease in the densities, which presumably would be due to an increase in etheric processes in the system, and decreased density due to a concomitant lesser quantization. Such an effect on densities has never been shown to occur with quantum forces.

(I happen to have derived a potential field test intended to tap inner-earth forces in such a way as to generate a selectively-etheric force-field. The test would be relatively expensive, I don't have the means to get it done myself, and haven't been able to find a financial sponsor for it.)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:00 pm

Michael MD wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:47 pm
This is to point out a potential falsity, in Eodinhoj7's remarks, to the effect that an ether can never be proven, due to our inability of quantum physics to empirically measure anything at the size-scale of an ether.

If one were to generate and produce an etheric energy field
And what would that field be exactly without "redefining" the nature of the ether as another magnetic field.

, one could measure the densities of materials within the test system, and determine if any forces that were generated have produced a decrease in the densities, which presumably would be due to an increase in etheric processes in the system,
a decrease in density does not equate to no-density...it equates to a decrease in density. To "decrease" the density of a particular object, would be in many respects a form of pulling it apart slowly.

and decreased density due to a concomitant lesser quantization. Such an effect on densities has never been shown to occur with quantum forces.
I am not arguing your experiment will not work...I am arguing it does not prove the ether. The closest proof of the ether is the magnetic field, but that does not equate to the ether. It is merely an approximate structure of it...and probably the closest one.

(I happen to have derived a potential field test intended to tap inner-earth forces in such a way as to generate a selectively-etheric force-field. The test would be relatively expensive, I don't have the means to get it done myself, and haven't been able to find a financial sponsor for it.)

Tesla argued for the ether, and has done similiar inventions, however the forces he observed were magnetic fields.

The ether is a unified entity, to test the ether would be to "pull it away from itself" through an act of severe energetic trauma. If the "ether" is particulated it is no longer the ether, as the ether is "unified" space. To prove the ether, would be to nullify it and call electromagnetic energy by another name.

Michael MD
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Michael MD » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:50 pm

Running a field test designed to generate a predicted etheric field, and then finding a predicted decrease in density inside the test system, I grant would not constitute absolute final proof that an ether exists, but it would be powerful evidence for it.

In the ether model I work with, such a decrease in density would result from a less quantized, more etheric state of the "particle-capacity" units making up the atoms of the material whose density is being measured. (In this ether model, the atoms and quantum-scale units making up the atom have been initially built up from entrained elemental ether units. (The ether matrix is also composed of these same, universal, elemental ether units. That'concept of quantum units is the only rational way to explain quantum entanglement.)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:01 pm

Michael MD wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:50 pm
Running a field test designed to generate a predicted etheric field, and then finding a predicted decrease in density inside the test system, I grant would not constitute absolute final proof that an ether exists, but it would be powerful evidence for it.
The model you are using requires the ether to be a "particulate".

The ether, I argue, is a one dimensional self-reflective point resulting in infinite points as structural extensions of the original point (through a -1 dimensional line) which reflects as 1 point. Infinity and one would be viewed as synonymous. I understand by the standards of modern mathematics this is considered "heresy" but I challenge anyone to point out the contradiction. With that being said, fully observe a "point" and I will agree you have proven the ether.


In the ether model I work with, such a decrease in density would result from a less quantized, more etheric state of the "particle-capacity" units making up the atoms of the material whose density is being measured.
So "the form" of the atom would fill in the space of the "actual" atoms? However this formed would be measured how?

(In this ether model, the atoms and quantum-scale units making up the atom have been initially built up from entrained elemental ether units.
"entrained elemental ether units" equates the ether to a form of "particulate". You may find something relative to dark matter (not dark matter itself). The ether cannot be reduced to a unit unless viewed as inverted through dark matter. In these respects it would be symmetrical to a zero dimensional point...emphasis on "symmetrical".

(The ether matrix is also composed of these same, universal, elemental ether units. That'concept of quantum units is the only rational way to explain quantum entanglement.)

Its a great idea for an experiment, the results you are looking for are not logically justifiable though. You will find something, assuming you get funding, not the ether though. Most likely another particle or a variant of gravity waves.

Michael MD
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Michael MD » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:11 pm

I maintain my model of the ether is the most sensible, and it's the only kind of model that readily quantum entanglement. The "nonparticulate" ether you mention fails to account for Q.E.

The ether in my Model is one that arose in a "first causal setting," in which symmetrical oscillations were occurring in an original self-compatible state of the world. Areas of space were needed for the "points" of oscillation to be able to move oscillationally. Then, oscillational fatigue caused neighboring "points" to combine into "Yin and Yang" pairings, which then, reversibly would have had to reversibly revert back to elemental singleton "points" which now became out-of-phase with the rest of the points, changing the original world of "particulate points" from oscillatory to vibrational elemental ether "points." Entrainments of the elemental, etheric, "particulate-type" units were what later produced the larger quantum-scale units.

Later, this very-refined etheric, magnetically unstructured, world was changed, creationally, to a structured, more magnetically-balanced, quantum world.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2083
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity, Negation and Atomism

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:48 pm

Michael MD wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:11 pm
I maintain my model of the ether is the most sensible, and it's the only kind of model that readily quantum entanglement. The "nonparticulate" ether you mention fails to account for Q.E.

Quantum entanglement can be observed as matter moving to a zero-dimensional point (this is the current understand of matter, as far I understand). As matter moves towards a zero dimension point, as a continual gradation through movement, the matter in turn is bound through the zero-dimensional point with the zero dimensional point acting as a median of "movement" (I prefer the term flux, but most people don't like the word ). This zero dimensionality, as negative space, may help describe the nature of quantum entanglement as a universal "vaccuum" effect where all matter curves upon itself as an extension of "movement towards unity".

Take for example your standard one dimensional line. It exists as the relation of two zero dimensional points which act as divisors. These two zero dimensional points are equivalent to eachother and in this respect act as medians which manifest the line as a form of "relation" (its one dimensionality as a continual direction "outwards"). Considering that the zero dimensional points form the line, they simultaneously curve it (as negative space) as they "move" towards each other through the line without ever really moving.

In this respect they manifest a universal vaccum effect (as zero dimensional) than in turn not only forms the line but simulateously effects all lines that are an extension of that line.

Using that same 2 point line as an example, in your thoughts, observe the end of that line "branching" or "individuating" into further seperate lines through the zero dimensional point. These "branches" in turn end with another zero dimensional point as the process continues. Considering that the line(s) are divided through the same zero dimensional point, the movement of one line will in turn cause a movement in the other as the zero dimensional point(s), although multiples in nature, are really strictly a universal "zero" or "absence" of space.

Quantum entanglement can be observed through a universal vacuum effect where the matter that "exists" (if one could really use that word for "matter") inevitably relates through itself (in apparently different places at the same time) as it is the only "thing" which exists in the void.


The ether in my Model is one that arose in a "first causal setting," in which symmetrical oscillations were occurring in an original self-compatible state of the world.
Oscillations imply movement, movement implies instability and disunity. The only what the ether would be able to "oscillate" would be if it reflected itself into itself as a form of 1 dimensional intra-dimensionality. This movement into itself, would in effect be no movement at all. The self-reflection of the point would in turn manifests infinite structural extensions of the point, as points which are connect through a negative dimensional line. This negative dimensional line would be "imaginary" as the "points" are strictly a "point".

The reflection of a one dimensional point to a negative one dimensional line would result in a zero dimensional point as the point would "cease" to reflect. In this respect matter "comes" into being as a negative space through zero dimensional points being an inversion of 1 dimensional point whose relations would result in a 1 dimensional line as an further inversion of the ethereal -1 dimensional line.


Areas of space were needed for the "points" of oscillation to be able to move oscillationally.
As stated above the areas of space would not be needed if the ether oscillated into itself as a form of "non-movement".

Then, oscillational fatigue caused neighboring "points" to combine into "Yin and Yang" pairings,
The self reflective nature of the ether would by default create a dual extension as the physical universe. Matter is negation, nothing more. It would be equivalent to saying that one reflecting upon itself manifested all number, including 0 as a dual structure.

which then, reversibly would have had to reversibly revert back to elemental singleton "points" which now became out-of-phase with the rest of the points, changing the original world of "particulate points" from oscillatory to vibrational elemental ether "points." Entrainments of the elemental, etheric, "particulate-type" units were what later produced the larger quantum-scale units.


Later, this very-refined etheric, magnetically unstructured, world was changed, creationally, to a structured, more magnetically-balanced, quantum world.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest