The True Nature of Matter and Mass

[Michael MD]

In my aether model, gravity is a force produced by aetheric resonances which are continuous between solid bodies and the aether of space. -If you think of this as a solid body having an aetheric energic "aura," then as two bodies approach each other, there is an increase in the aether resonances in the auric region of space between them, and the behavior of the bodies in space is affected in turn. There is continuous dynamic interactive resonance of a body's aetheric components with the aether of space.

In the Michelson Morley Experiment (MMX) of 1887, it was (I claim erroneously) assumed that an aether would behave inertially with respect to earth's movements through it, producing an "ether drag," or "wind" effect. However, I claim the earth's aura tends to "follow" the earth as it moves, because of the constant interactive resonance of earth's aetheric aura with the aether of the space near it, which is a non-inertial behavior of aether, rather than the aether behaving inertially, as the MMX assumed. -Most spacetime physicists today still cling to the belief that "the MMX proved there is no aether."

[Obvious Leo]

As far as I'm concerned the MMX proved that there's no such thing as space at all, ethereal or otherwise, and if any doubt remained then Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen removed the last vestiges of it. This is what Leibniz said all along and it conforms perfectly with pre-Socratic thought on the ontology of space and time. Ernst Mach was of the same view and rejected Einstein's GR as a result of it. Since Poincare had already rejected SR for different reasons the spacetime paradigm was actually dead in the water before it ever got off the ground. Unfortunately crappy theories in physics are very difficult to disprove.

[attofishpi]

Isn't the Higgs Boson, dare i say it the Higgs Field, the closest consideration to an 'aether' since it gives the property of mass to some particles and ultimately matter. Without this boson, there is no mass ergo no curvature of space-time.

[Obvious Leo]

Isn't the Higgs Boson, dare i say it the Higgs Field, the closest consideration to an 'aether' since it gives the property of mass to some particles and ultimately matter. Without this boson, there is no mass ergo no curvature of space-time.

Not exactly. The Higgs boson is a feature of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and this model is entirely predicated on SR and not GR. SR is regarded as a special case of GR in the so-called "flat" space, i.e. a region of space where gravity is ABSENT. The only problem with modelling the subatomic world in this way is that there is no such region in the physical universe. This is why GR and QM are mutually exclusive.

[attofishpi]

Isn't the Higgs Boson, dare i say it the Higgs Field, the closest consideration to an 'aether' since it gives the property of mass to some particles and ultimately matter. Without this boson, there is no mass ergo no curvature of space-time.

Not exactly. The Higgs boson is a feature of the Standard Model of Particle Physics and this model is entirely predicated on SR and not GR. SR is regarded as a special case of GR in the so-called "flat" space, i.e. a region of space where gravity is ABSENT. The only problem with modelling the subatomic world in this way is that there is no such region in the physical universe. This is why GR and QM are mutually exclusive.

Sorry mate, got some homework here, but are you implying that there is no region in 'space' without some sort of 'interactive' property? By interactive i mean a physical property that exerts some influence on another.

[Obvious Leo]

Sorry mate, got some homework here, but are you implying that there is no region in 'space' without some sort of 'interactive' property? By interactive i mean a physical property that exerts some influence on another.

I've gotta be careful how I answer this because I don't regard "space" as a physical construct. In the mathematical sense in which "space" is modelled in physics there is no such region in this "space" where gravity is absent. It has been known since Newton that the motion of every single physical entity in the universe is causally determined by the relativistic motion of every other and this is because of gravity. There is neither a logical nor a physical reason why this principle should not be scale invariant and yet is is completely ignored in particle physics, where the motions of particles are modelled as causeless events. This is not only metaphysically absurd it is completely unnecessary.

[attofishpi]

Sorry mate, got some homework here, but are you implying that there is no region in 'space' without some sort of 'interactive' property? By interactive i mean a physical property that exerts some influence on another.

I've gotta be careful how I answer this because I don't regard "space" as a physical construct. In the mathematical sense in which "space" is modelled in physics there is no such region in this "space" where gravity is absent. It has been known since Newton that the motion of every single physical entity in the universe is causally determined by the relativistic motion of every other and this is because of gravity. There is neither a logical nor a physical reason why this principle should not be scale invariant and yet is is completely ignored in particle physics, where the motions of particles are modelled as causeless events. This is not only metaphysically absurd it is completely unnecessary.

Thanks. You, you're good...Gravity is of the essence, ultimately the nature of matter is affected by its sphere of influence, ultimately this is time (permissible events).

1e94947a_Robert-De-Niro.jpeg

[Obvious Leo]

.Gravity is of the essence, ultimately the nature of matter is affected by its sphere of influence, ultimately this is time

This is the point which I reckon is being obfuscated by representing time as a Cartesian dimension, as Minkowski did in SR. This disguises the true nature of time as a metric for describing the rate of change in a physical system. Einstein had determined that at the most fundamental scale this rate must be equated with Maxwell's constant speed of light because of the mass/energy equivalence principle. All matter was nothing more than little bits of energy configured in a particular way and these energy quanta only have one speed. At the time when SR was published it was assumed that at this Planck scale this rate must be a constant because it was assumed that all clocks in the universe were ticking at the same speed. However in GR this was shown not to be the case and that the rate of change in a physical system was something which was actually being determined by gravity. This was a profound unification of concepts because it meant that time, gravity and the speed of light were simply three different ways of describing the speed at which reality was continuously being MADE.

Because SR and GR are mutually exclusive in this regard it is utterly impossible for physics to model the universe in this way and this is why it can offer only a metaphorical and purely mathematical description of gravity in terms of the action-at-a-distance notion of a "curved space". This is of considerable usefulness in describing what gravity does but completely useless as an explanation for why it does it.

To summarise consider these two statements.

A. The speed of light is a constant.

B. The speed of light is proportional to the speed of the clock on which it is being measured.

In SR A and B are regarded as synonymous statements and In GR they can only be made synonymous by brute mathematical force. This is why the Standard Model cannot be made compatible with GR and it is also the sole cause of all the various paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities in physics. If the subatomic world were to be modelled on GR instead of SR then the fact that the clock on the electron ticks more quickly than does the clock on the nucleus it orbits is a fact which would need to be taken into consideration. This is quantum gravity.

[attofishpi]

....consider these two statements.

A. The speed of light is a constant.

B. The speed of light is proportional to the speed of the clock on which it is being measured.

In SR A and B are regarded as synonymous statements and In GR they can only be made synonymous by brute mathematical force. This is why the Standard Model cannot be made compatible with GR and it is also the sole cause of all the various paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities in physics. If the subatomic world were to be modelled on GR instead of SR then the fact that the clock on the electron ticks more quickly than does the clock on the nucleus it orbits is a fact which would need to be taken into consideration. This is quantum gravity.

I know you want to get across the difference between GR and SR but that stuff requires copious amounts of time..which im sure you have devoted your life to, possibly further than you assume.

Surely, ultimately, mans tool of measurement, even if it gets to the point of pure maths is eventually measuring the binary value in "space" as something occurring, or not.

"B. The speed of light is proportional to the speed of the clock on which it is being measured."

Care to share an appropriate formula?

[Obvious Leo]

I know you want to get across the difference between GR and SR but that stuff requires copious amounts of time..

It does. It also requires a fairly thorough understanding of two entirely different ways of thinking the world. Metaphysics is a study into the nature of Being and process philosophy is a presentist stance which in the west derives mostly from the pre-Socratics like Thales, Anaximander, Democritus and Heraclitus. All of the ancient eastern philosophies are also presentist paradigms and post-Enlightenment thought in presentism is mostly represented by philosophers such as Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant. More modern examples would be Peirce, Whitehead, Poincare and Russell.

Physics is founded on the diametrically opposite paradigm of eternalism, an insidious and creationist doctrine most clearly expressed by Plato which found its way into western thought via the Roman church. It was formally adopted into Christian thought by Augustine of Hippo and later by Aquinas. However it found its way into science primarily via Descartes, Newton and Bacon. Eternalism models the world as it WAS rather than the world as it IS.

Surely, ultimately, mans tool of measurement, even if it gets to the point of pure maths is eventually measuring the binary value in "space" as something occurring, or not.

A very astute point, atto. This was a point first made by Leibniz and later developed by Thomas Boole into the "laws of thought" and the philosophical underpinning of mathematics. That Boolean logic forms the understructure of all other logics is the central plank of all the modern information theories. Although not many physicists are yet to take the plunge and redesign physics as an information theory there are a few hardy pioneers willing to venture the proposition that at the fundamental scale of reality, the Planck scale, reality can be nothing more than a network of binary logic gates. Leibniz pointed this out over 300 years ago and it forms the central plank of my own presentist philosophy. The universe is a computer without a programme.

Care to share an appropriate formula?

This is well known to science from Einstein's General Relativity, although because of SR it remains the elephant in the room. Gravity and time bear a precise mathematical relationship to each other which is inversely logarithmic in its nature. When we express one of these terms mathematically we automatically derive the other as a function of it, which essentially means that gravity and time are merely two different ways of expressing the same thing, which is the rate of change in a physical process. At the Planck scale this also equates with the speed of light, so at this fundamental scale time, gravity and the speed of light can all be quantised equivalently. This is quantum gravity, the holy grail of physics. The processing speed of the cosmic computation is the speed of light, and since this speed is entirely determined by gravity it is the most inconstant speed in the universe, being variable all the way down to the Planck scale.

This perspective contradicts NONE of the evidence available to science but is merely a different way of interpreting it. This is what Thomas Kuhn meant when he said that the science of physics will never advance further without a major paradigm shift in conceptualised thinking. The universe is not a place. It is an EVENT.

[attofishpi]

woops.

[attofishpi]

I know you want to get across the difference between GR and SR but that stuff requires copious amounts of time..

It does. It also requires a fairly thorough understanding of two entirely different ways of thinking the world. Metaphysics is a study into the nature of Being and process philosophy is a presentist stance which in the west derives mostly from the pre-Socratics like Thales, Anaximander, Democritus and Heraclitus.
All of the ancient eastern philosophies are also presentist paradigms and post-Enlightenment thought in presentism is mostly represented by philosophers such as Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant. More modern examples would be Peirce, Whitehead, Poincare and Russell.

Well, i consider you a 'metaphycisist', do you?

Physics is founded on the diametrically opposite paradigm of eternalism, an insidious and creationist doctrine most clearly expressed by Plato which found its way into western thought via the Roman church. It was formally adopted into Christian thought by Augustine of Hippo and later by Aquinas. However it found its way into science primarily via Descartes, Newton and Bacon. Eternalism models the world as it WAS rather than the world as it IS.

Physics was my favourite subject at school, especially my physics teacher in Southampton, Mr Carter, he was comic and even looked and acted like Mel Smith! His cane would break the silence of the classroom when it snapped on your desk and he would demand an answer from some unfortunate lad..quite often me!

Surely, ultimately, mans tool of measurement, even if it gets to the point of pure maths is eventually measuring the binary value in "space" as something occurring, or not.

A very astute point, atto. This was a point first made by Leibniz and later developed by Thomas Boole into the "laws of thought" and the philosophical underpinning of mathematics. That Boolean logic forms the understructure of all other logics is the central plank of all the modern information theories. Although not many physicists are yet to take the plunge and redesign physics as an information theory there are a few hardy pioneers willing to venture the proposition that at the fundamental scale of reality, the Planck scale, reality can be nothing more than a network of binary logic gates. Leibniz pointed this out over 300 years ago and it forms the central plank of my own presentist philosophy.

"Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real"

Ive reconsidered this point. Eternalism wishes to appropriate all binary events in "space" as equally real. I would argue that these binary events may in fact be subject to something, so i would have to question what is meant by equal? Presentist idea that only the present is real makes a lot of sense since unless the binary combinations are being recorded, the past ceases to be real, and the future is inconsequential since we have no means to suggest there is a cause.

The universe is a computer without a programme.

Quite the contrary, this is naturally the point where we differ.

This is well known to science from Einstein's General Relativity, although because of SR it remains the elephant in the room. Gravity and time bear a precise mathematical relationship to each other which is inversely logarithmic in its nature. When we express one of these terms mathematically we automatically derive the other as a function of it, which essentially means that gravity and time are merely two different ways of expressing the same thing, which is the rate of change in a physical process. At the Planck scale this also equates with the speed of light, so at this fundamental scale time, gravity and the speed of light can all be quantised equivalently. This is quantum gravity, the holy grail of physics. The processing speed of the cosmic computation is the speed of light, and since this speed is entirely determined by gravity it is the most inconstant speed in the universe, being variable all the way down to the Planck scale.

I hope teaching is\was your profession!

This perspective contradicts NONE of the evidence available to science but is merely a different way of interpreting it. This is what Thomas Kuhn meant when he said that the science of physics will never advance further without a major paradigm shift in conceptualised thinking. The universe is not a place.

And such thinking requires philosophy, i'm gradually gaining more respect for the field.

It is an EVENT.

Susynct!

[Obvious Leo]

Well, i consider you a 'metaphycisist', do you?

I'm not all that fond of the labels generally applied to different schools of philosophy but I write in the field of the philosophy of applied metaphysics and I do so exclusively from the perspective of a process philosopher. I don't regard the universe as a place within which events occur but as an infinite sequence of no-further-divisible events which are given a spatio-temporal extension only within the consciousness of the observer of them.

WIKIp wrote:
"Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real"


I don't see any contradiction with these positions, except that the presentist idea appears to be dealing with locality.

No these are antonymous philosophical approaches to the ontology of time. In presentism the Leo I was yesterday has simple BECOME the Leo I am today but the Leo I was yesterday is actually a Leo which exists no longer. I define myself purely in the language of my changes as an entity continuously BECOMING. In eternalism no such metaphysical distinction exists between past, present and future which means that the Leo I was yesterday, am today, or will be tomorrow are all regarded as being equally physically real. Special Relativity is an exclusively eternalist paradigm because it represents time as a Cartesian spatial dimension, which effectively means that SR spatialises time out of existence. That's why as a process philosopher I reject SR as metaphysically non-kosher.

In fact the notion of locality is not a valid construct at all in presentism. All notions of locality and non-locality are relegated to observer effects in a presentist reality. Because the speed of light is finite it is impossible by definition for the observer to observe the world the way it is. We can only ever see the world the way it WAS and thus we can only ever observe a reality which exists no longer. This is a fact of such stultifying obviousness that it never ceases to amaze me that physics ignores it completely. It means that physics is not modelling the real world but a holographic projection of the observer's past.

[attofishpi]

"e="Obvious Leo"]

Well, i consider you a 'metaphycisist', do you?

I'm not all that fond of the labels generally applied to different schools of philosophy but I write in the field of the philosophy of applied metaphysics and I do so exclusively from the perspective of a process philosopher. I don't regard the universe as a place within which events occur but as an infinite sequence of no-further-divisible events which are given a spatio-temporal extension only within the consciousness of the observer of them.[/quote]
Ah ha. (holy crap! )

WIKIp wrote:
"Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real"


I don't see any contradiction with these positions, except that the presentist idea appears to be dealing with locality.

No these are antonymous philosophical approaches to the ontology of time. In presentism the Leo I was yesterday has simple BECOME the Leo I am today but the Leo I was yesterday is actually a Leo which exists no longer. I define myself purely in the language of my changes as an entity continuously BECOMING. In eternalism no such metaphysical distinction exists between past, present and future which means that the Leo I was yesterday, am today, or will be tomorrow are all regarded as being equally physically real. Special Relativity is an exclusively eternalist paradigm because it represents time as a Cartesian spatial dimension, which effectively means that SR spatialises time out of existence. That's why as a process philosopher I reject SR as metaphysically non-kosher.

In fact the notion of locality is not a valid construct at all in presentism. All notions of locality and non-locality are relegated to observer effects in a presentist reality. Because the speed of light is finite it is impossible by definition for the observer to observe the world the way it is. We can only ever see the world the way it WAS and thus we can only ever observe a reality which exists no longer. This is a fact of such stultifying obviousness that it never ceases to amaze me that physics ignores it completely. It means that physics is not modelling the real world but a holographic projection of the observer's past.

Hi Leo, you caught my post before my reconsideration\repost, which is probably equally incorrect!:-
Ive reconsidered this point. Eternalism wishes to appropriate all binary events in "space" as equally real. I would argue that these binary events may in fact be subject to something, so i would have to question what is meant by equal? Presentist idea that only the present is real makes a lot of sense since unless the binary combinations are being recorded, the past ceases to be real, and the future is inconsequential since we have no means to suggest there is a cause.

Scrub that last bit, re unless binary combinations are being recorded - it matters not...
However, i see and agree that the 'present' that we observe is in fact the past. In your answers consciousness appears key, the presentism idea allows for the fact that the Leo of today IS the Leo, being continuously 'adjusted'." Eternalism on the other hand holding that past, present and future are equally real seems rather far fetched. Ultimately where we are talking about the most indivisible aspect of reality or rather 'space' being binary, it would appear that the past was a combination of those binary switches that in all probability would never occur again, hence the past is no longer real.

[Obvious Leo]

Eternalism on the other hand holding that past, present and future are equally real seems rather far fetched.

Nevertheless this is a completely unambiguous conclusion which MUST be drawn from the spacetime paradigm if we were to accept it as a literally real model of the universe. However this is something we must never ever do, as was made perfectly clear by the man who dreamed up the idea. Einstein himself was never under any illusions about what his models were. He saw them exclusively as mathematical representations of physical models and not as physical models themselves.

"Spacetime must NEVER be regarded as physically real".....Albert Einstein

"Space and time are modes in which we think, NOT conditions in which we exist".....Albert Einstein.

Unfortunately many who followed in his footsteps were not as well schooled in basic logic as Albert was and consequently they have consistently mistaken their map for the territory it's designed to be mapping.

the past is no longer real.

A statement of the bloody obvious to almost the whole of humanity but Special Relativity says otherwise.