The True Nature of Matter and Mass

[uwot]

The concept of "force" is actually a macroscopic concept of pushing or pulling. But on the subatomic level, there is no such thing as a pushing or pulling force. Instead things migrate due to density variations in the immediate surroundings. The motion that occurs due to changes in the ambient field is what yields the functional concept of pushing as an emergent property. Force is not an true physical entity, but an idea.

I don't see why scale matters in that case. Whatever you attribute it to, even on the subatomic level, there is demonstrably an inclination for particles to move, or migrate, if you wish, this way or that. Force is simply the measurable degree to which they do so.

To me, the issue is that people don't have a clear understanding of what "substance" really means. It isn't what you think.

Well, if you can tell me what you think I think, I can tell you if you are correct.

The underlying "substance" to everything in the entire universe is "the changing of the changing", "affect upon affect", "Affectance". There is nothing else in any physical universe. What you see as objects are merely variations in concentrations and nuances (potentiality and density).

Of what?

[uwot]

You missed my point. We agreed that if it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck so if gravitational lensing looks like refraction then that's what it is. That means c is proportional to clockspeed and slows down in a gravitational "field" relative to a distant observer.

For the life of me, I can't see why. You are insisting on your conclusion, without showing your argument. Personally, I think clock speed is determined by gravity and velocity, as predicted by GR and SR. I don't know of any experiment that shows otherwise.

The observer observes this slowing down effect as "bent" light. It's too simple not to be true and needs no such bullshit as a "curved space", whatever the fuck that's supposed to be.

Have I said anything about "curved space" that you think I need to defend?

[Obvious Leo]

For the life of me, I can't see why. You are insisting on your conclusion, without showing your argument.

Bullshit. I've explained the argument dozens of times and a bloody child could understand it. Simply assume the vacuum for the sake of simplicity and focus on the gravity. If we measure the speed of light on the moon we'll get a result of 300 million m/sec, AS MEASURED BY THE CLOCK ON THE MOON. If we measure the speed of light on earth we'll get a result of 300 million m/sec, AS MEASURED BY THE CLOCK ON EARTH. However these two clocks are ticking at different speeds because they're measuring time in different gravitational environments, so what have we proved in this experiment?

We have proved that the speed of light is NOT a constant but is proportional to clock-speed. This is not a trivial conclusion because on its own it is a complete and adequate explanation for gravitational lensing. Surely you can see that, uwot, because it's too simple not to be true. Its exactly the same phenomenon as the bent stick in the water from our high school days. Light travels more slowly in water than it does in the air above it and the observer observes this differential in light speed as bent light. It just can't be fucking wrong, mate.

Have I said anything about "curved space" that you think I need to defend?

No you haven't. Never once have I suspected you of being a closet logical positivist. I was merely aiming a barb at the troglodytes who continue to use such confusing metaphors.

[JSS]

To me, the issue is that people don't have a clear understanding of what "substance" really means. It isn't what you think.

Well, if you can tell me what you think I think, I can tell you if you are correct.

The underlying "substance" to everything in the entire universe is "the changing of the changing", "affect upon affect", "Affectance". There is nothing else in any physical universe. What you see as objects are merely variations in concentrations and nuances (potentiality and density).

Of what?

"Of what" is what you think.

You are thinking, apparently, in terms of the most fundamental substance being like a hard solid particulate or fluid material, "stuff". You wonder only if that stuff is particulate or fluid. The truth is that said "material" is not a material at all. Or more accurately, what you think of as material, isn't really material. Hard things (even subatomic particles) are not solid nor made of anything solid. And although on a macro scale fluid things are often made of smaller hard things simply rolling over each other so as to behave fluidly, they are still made of those small hard yet not solid things. A particle is actually nothing but pulses or noise moving around in a traffic jam. The mass field around them is simply a thinner version of the same noise. There is nothing else there .. anywhere.

And what that noise is made of is the interesting part. Noise of what? It is merely the noise of the potential to have affect, PtA, changing its surrounding PtA. The faster it changes, the "harder" the "stuff" is. Changing at a maximum rate is what causes the emergence of the property we call "inertia". Inertia happens merely because the changing cannot happen any faster than it is already, thus anything trying to change it, a "force", "pressure" or any proposed impetus to change, simply must wait. That waiting is experienced as inertia, a reluctance to allow change.

You can't see through the concentrated cluster of noise, so it "appears solid". You can't freely move it without being resisted, so it "feels solid". But it is not made of anything solid as you perceive solid to be. It is made of extremely rapid changing of the potential to change the potential to change, the extreme changing of PtA by PtA or the "affecting of the ability to affect". You can probably more easily accept the idea that it is "ultra-minuscule pulses of EMR" (because you accept the notion of EMR even without really knowing what it is). Or you can accept it as "concentrated energy" (although energy is merely the ability to cause change). If you could reduce your vision down to its scale, you could not see particles because you cannot see EMR or energy waves that are as big as you are.

That "substance" is merely an ability actualizing, the ability to change ability. That is "of what" all physicality is made. If you could be reduced to its scale, you would see nothing there (although not 100% true, pretty close).

[uwot]

If we measure the speed of light on the moon we'll get a result of 300 million m/sec, AS MEASURED BY THE CLOCK ON THE MOON. If we measure the speed of light on earth we'll get a result of 300 million m/sec, AS MEASURED BY THE CLOCK ON EARTH. However these two clocks are ticking at different speeds because they're measuring time in different gravitational environments, so what have we proved in this experiment?

We have proved that the speed of light is NOT a constant but is proportional to clock-speed.

This could take a while Leo, because, at best, the above needs extra clauses in order that it follow. It is thoroughly theory laden, I'm not disputing the theory particularly, but what is 'clock-speed'? What are clocks measuring?

[uwot]

You are thinking, apparently, in terms of the most fundamental substance being like a hard solid particulate or fluid material, "stuff".

What do you base that on?

[JSS]

You are thinking, apparently, in terms of the most fundamental substance being like a hard solid particulate or fluid material, "stuff".

What do you base that on?

if you can tell me what you think I think, I can tell you if you are correct.

[uwot]

I was wondering what I had said that made it apparent that I think in terms of solids or fluids, JSS, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "apparently".
Anyway, if the universe is actually 'made of' something, if also it started out considerably smaller than it is now, if the particles that make the standard model are 'real' and their behaviour described by quantum mechanic, if the expansion of the universe is accelerating and so on, then whatever the universe is made of, it does all that. Big bang stuff, for want of a better word.

[Obvious Leo]

If we measure the speed of light on the moon we'll get a result of 300 million m/sec, AS MEASURED BY THE CLOCK ON THE MOON. If we measure the speed of light on earth we'll get a result of 300 million m/sec, AS MEASURED BY THE CLOCK ON EARTH. However these two clocks are ticking at different speeds because they're measuring time in different gravitational environments, so what have we proved in this experiment?

We have proved that the speed of light is NOT a constant but is proportional to clock-speed.

This could take a while Leo, because, at best, the above needs extra clauses in order that it follow. It is thoroughly theory laden, I'm not disputing the theory particularly, but what is 'clock-speed'? What are clocks measuring?

Clocks measure the rate of change in a physical system. The rate of change in a physical system is determined by gravity. Therefore time and gravity are simply two different metrics for the same phenomenon and both can be equated with the speed of light. Obviously light cannot travel faster than time therefore in gravitational lensing the light must slow down relative to a distant observer. The light slows down in the intervening galaxy because the clocks are running slower here than they are in intergalactic "space" and the distant observer sees this slowing down effect as bent light. Quack Quack, says the duck.

[uwot]

Clocks measure the rate of change in a physical system.

Do you mean a physical system such as a clock? All clocks are part of the system they are measuring.

The rate of change in a physical system is determined by gravity.

And velocity.

Therefore time and gravity are simply two different metrics for the same phenomenon and both can be equated with the speed of light.

Only if you ignore the experimentally verified dilation of time due to velocity.

Obviously light cannot travel faster than time...

By which I take you to mean that change cannot occur before the agent of change gets there.

...therefore in gravitational lensing the light must slow down relative to a distant observer.

That may be true, but I don't see that it follows from the above.

The light slows down in the intervening galaxy because the clocks are running slower here than they are in intergalactic "space" and the distant observer sees this slowing down effect as bent light. Quack Quack, says the duck.

Well, I agree with the conclusion, but I'm very unclear about how you reached it. It seems to me that you have started with the observable fact of gravitational lensing and reverse engineered an argument, but I reckon you have a few nuts and bolts left over. I really don't think you can ignore SR.

[JSS]

I don't see how SR changes anything Leo has said (which all appears to be correct). SR is actually a limited truth. It is provably not ontologically valid (especially considering spinning disks).

From the perspective of a distant observer, light and all movement slows propagation speed as they pass through denser mass/gravity fields. That has been measured forever. Because all movement slows and time is just a measure of RELATIVE change/movement, all clocks that measure time also slow in denser mass fields. And that means that the clock within the mass field will measure the light within the mass field as being the same as a clock distant from the mass field would measure the light that is distant from the mass field. So the measuring device causes the measure to be [relatively] constant whether in a dense mass field or not.

But a clock distant from a mass field will not measure light to be traveling at the same speed if that light passes through a dense mass field. In that sense, light does not have a constant speed. SR doesn't consider or concern itself with that issue.

I don't see how SR comes into the game (whether correct or not).

Anyway, if the universe is actually 'made of' something, if also it started out considerably smaller than it is now, if the particles that make the standard model are 'real' and their behaviour described by quantum mechanic, if the expansion of the universe is accelerating and so on, then whatever the universe is made of, it does all that. Big bang stuff, for want of a better word.

The universe is certainly "made of something", but there was no Big Bang. The universe was never smaller. Time never began. Subatomic particles have always existed along with all of the complexity that stems from their nature. There is nothing new in the universe.

[uwot]

I don't see how SR changes anything Leo has said (which all appears to be correct). SR is actually a limited truth. It is provably not ontologically valid (especially considering spinning disks).

I'm not sure what you think ontology has to do with it, as time dilation is not a 'thing', nor is time in my opinion. From an epistemic view, time dilation due to velocity has been confirmed by every experiment from Hafele-Keating onwards, but tell me about these spinning discs.

Because all movement slows and time is just a measure of RELATIVE change/movement, all clocks that measure time also slow in denser mass fields.

How then do you explain the 'Twins paradox'?

The universe is certainly "made of something", but there was no Big Bang. The universe was never smaller.

Then what of red shift?

[JSS]

I don't see how SR changes anything Leo has said (which all appears to be correct). SR is actually a limited truth. It is provably not ontologically valid (especially considering spinning disks).

I'm not sure what you think ontology has to do with it, as time dilation is not a 'thing', nor is time in my opinion. From an epistemic view, time dilation due to velocity has been confirmed by every experiment from Hafele-Keating onwards, but tell me about these spinning discs.

Time is a measure of relative change. Distance is a measure of amount of changes. Both are measures. Both are ontological elements. Distance becomes "space". And time becomes "duration".

SR proposes not only that time dilates, but also that distance contracts.

If you try to apply SR to the rim of a disk spinning at near light speed and look at the radius, you get absurd results. The circumference ends up being shorter than the radius = Ontontologically broken. Perhaps think of the extreme asymptote wherein the time dilation of the traveler around the disk has become 1 (100% = zero time). The distance measured around any disk would also be zero regardless of the radius.

Because all movement slows and time is just a measure of RELATIVE change/movement, all clocks that measure time also slow in denser mass fields.

How then do you explain the 'Twins paradox'?

GR has nothing to do with SR. The twins paradox has nothing to do with GR (other than to add confusion). The acceleration element in the paradox is the substitute for gravity, but is actually irrelevant to the issue. The issue is resolved merely by who accelerated more from the origin.

In the paradox, it is presumed that neither party knows which is actually moving. But in any real system, one of them accelerated, if not both. The one who accelerated more, in total, is the one who will have had the slower clock. Thus the ship that left Earth and returned, being the one what accelerated more, will be the one that did not age as much.

And you really don't need mystical theories for that, despite what it might seem like. Time dilation is a relatively simple issue, although I believe in the following improvement in time dilation equations.



The confusion was that Einstein and cohorts, presumed (and proclaimed) that one could not by any means know who is the reference, "it is ALL relative". And that was a fantastic thought to promote very anti-God, anti-moral, anti-religion notions, thus it was promoted very quickly. The problem is that he, and they, were actually wrong. It is not ALL relative. It is only partially relative.

The universe is certainly "made of something", but there was no Big Bang. The universe was never smaller.

Then what of red shift?

That is a bit of a longer story, but basically the "red-shift" presumed was actually a "blue shifting" unseen.

Everyone is aware of the prism effect separating the color spectrum. Empty space is not empty and has affect upon light passing through it. The light actually shifts; right, left, up, down, and all back around and around as it squirms through "empty" space (filled with affectance causing this). And with each tiny shift of the light, the blue gets shifted slightly more than the red. Through 1000 light years of travel, much of the blue has actually been shifted out of line entirely and dispersed into adjacent light such as to blend into the background. Only the red light remains visible as cogent photons.

The formerly presumed "empty space", if you could actually see ultra-minuscule EMR pulses ("Affectance") would look something like this:


As light propagates through that, the red and blue spectrums gradually drift apart.

The presumption that a moving source, the Doppler effect, was the ONLY potential cause for red-shifting was their error. But by the time someone explained it to them, they had already promoted the religious preference that the universe had a beginning and the red-shift was proof. They did the same (and still do) with the "Second Law of Thermo-dynamics", which was proven wrong more than 130 years ago by James Maxwell and probably empirically 20 times since. Today, Science is merely a mask for a new dogmatic religion and although a little, not all that much different from how the other religions got going.

[Michael MD]

JSS:

To your question "Why does an aether exist?" - My model starts with Original Space (space before the first appearance of forces, a type of space that no longer exists, but which hypothetically was more self-compatible than our present space, such that elemental point-localities of space were oscillating in pefect symmetry with each other.) Then, oscillational fatigue led to adjacent points combining in "Yin and Yang" pairings, which in turn would have had to reversibly re-equilibrate with the initial oscillational setting, of all the other space points, and in reverting back to singleton elemental units, they broke the symmetry pattern of the oscillational elemental setting. This led to a vibrational (as derived from the oscillational) aether in space, composed of elemental point-like energy units. These elemental units of the aether interact with each other as their outward vibrations form transient, or loose, connections with each other.

The next step was that these aether units interacted, or resonated, further, forming confluences, or entrainments, of aether energy, which then led to foci of aether energy in space. That led in turn to the first appearance of mental sapience, and to intelligent creational input in the cosmos.

Thus, space is not "empty," as science now believes. Rather, it contains an aether, which is an underlying universal matrix upon which other energy systems are based, such as our earth world's setting, where quantum-scale energies mediate the actions of atomically-structured bodies.

To illustrate how this energy interplay works, take the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. -So-called quantum entanglement just represents radiated packets of aether energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental aether units are the only actual participants in this phenomenon, with the quantum units being kinetically "walled off," like the cool "arms" of a quiet purring mechanism that can turn itself off and on, by itself.

Going back to your question about "photons" and "photon beams," they would represent spin/vector energy units we are able to observe, in our earth world's quantum setting, but they actually arise from an underlying aether matrix which behaves according to vibrational forces. -As atomically-structured humans, of course our visual process is mediated by those quantum-scale forces, but the true basis of all quantum photon forces is the underlying aether matrix, through which the larger scale energy units, like quantum units, are generated. -In space, as the aether light-forces get transmitted, as an impulse consisting of interacting vibrating elemental aether units, the larger units, such as quantum photons, are generated along the way.

Quantum entanglement best illustrates this process. -The quantum units seem to be "entangled," but the real process is that the elemental aether units they are made up of are producing the apparent entanglement, via their vibrational mechanism, amidst the surrounding aether

[JSS]

I see WAY too much supposition in that theory before anything at all becomes testable.

And realize that quantum entanglement is not a physical phenomenon, merely a mental issue. The wave function that collapses is not a physical wave of any kind, but a math wave, a graph. And the 'other' particle, not observed, doesn't change, it merely becomes known after observing the first particle.