Philosophy Now Forum

All movement as relative to context is an absolute, as context is absolute. While the movement may be relative to a specific context, that context determines its movement in a constant manner. The double slit experiment, as a framework, has three variables which determine the wave movement of the particles:

1) the double slit.
2) the particles themselves.
3) time.

The quantum of energy "rippling" through the field observes the "ripple" as a movement synonymous to a frequency as alternating movement. This is considering all frequencies are premised in alternation.

This quantum of energy, or a localization of it, is still a particle.

The the particle/wave dualism can be argued as a localization of a field where the difference is a context of time.

If observing a localized quantum of energy up close it will appear as particle considering this "closesness" observes the particle with a specific framework of time with this time merely being a set of relations. Take for example is I look at a ripple in a pool up close, I see the crest move from one spot to another.

If viewed from a distance the ripple in a pool acts as a wave but as an individual wave is still a "particle" in the respect it is part of other waves.

The distance of the observation determines its localization, as the localization is a distance.


Now considering the particle and wave appear randomly, one alternates at some unidentifiable frequency (Considering the alternation between particle and wave is still a frequency), even though the framework of observation is still the same distance. This would necessitate the fields alternate distances between the observer.

Using the pool example again, it one it to look at the individual crests of the waves as a particle, then we can observe it as formed of waves in itself.

So I can observe a framework and see both particles as crests of the wave and simultaneous waves as multiple particles. Each relation of parts effectively is its own time zone with a time zone. It would be like looking at a clock and seeing one hand move from one degree to another. This degree would represent the particle. However the space between the degrees on the clock hand would be a wave of quantum degrees. Under these premises some particles would be smaller than another, so if an electron exists as both a particle and a wave(ripple in field), the electron as a particle can be greater or smaller in size than other electron particles.

In these respects the atomic perspective has a trifold nature of particle/wave/field where each alternates through the other as a framework.



Time is determined by distance in this case, with distance merely being a relation in parts. With distance determined by the observer, the object being observed and the framework in which it is observed (with this framework having a specific distance in itself) and so on and so forth.


Movement is merely particulation where an object individuates (multiplies/divides simultsneously) by inverting between unified and multiple states.

Take for example I see a particle "moving" from position "A" to position "B". The particle is effectively the replication of individual localities as the movement between A and B observes A to A.1 to A.2 to A.3, etc. all the way to position B. Now A.1 is composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc with each containing a localization in its own right. So the movement of the particle is the replication of localities are particles in themselves so that when we see the particle move from A to B we are observing the particle as multiple localities replicating, where the particle is composed of and composes further particles.

Movement in these terms is inversion of one to many and many to one in these respects. Where the particle as moving inverts from one locality to another locality as many localities. Simultaneously the many localities the particle is composed of (using the example of A.1 being composed of A.11 to A.12 to A.13, etc.) Invert to one locality.

This corresponds to the particle/wave/field triad in the above examples. In these respects my argument is supported.

I thought 'waves' and 'ripples' don't move at all, it's just the water particles going up and down that gives the appearance of movement?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 12:08 am I thought 'waves' and 'ripples' don't move at all, it's just the water particles going up and down that gives the appearance of movement?

That is actually an interesting question when I think about it.

I may have to elaborate further, on this argument, considering pictures would be ideal.

1. If the wave is merely the particle going up and down, with not just the particle alternating but the particle next to the particle alternating in accords with the particle is near (A goes up as B goes down) waves are the alternation of alternation. The wave effectively is the alternation of linear 1 directional movements of particles projecting (particle as point space projecting to form line).

2. The wave, is the alternation of angles simultaneously, where the angle is merely a small version of the line in the respect it projects. For example it I have an angle, as two lines, projecting in one direction the angle contracts and forms a line. Simultaneously the wave as projecting in one direction through time observes the line/angle/wave as one.


3. So while the wave may be multiple particles, the particle is merely a position in space, hence the wave may be one particle where the multiple positions are observed at one time. The movements in the wave may strictly be multiple waves occurring through multiple particles.

So if I have a particle, using a the degrees of a clock as an example, project at 1 degree and it alternates accordingly the wave appears in one manner.

If a second particle of equal volume projects at two degree, the wave changes. However the appearance of the wave moving is merely multiple waves. Each wave is the position of a particle at multiple positions. Each wave as a "position of the particles positions" is in itself a position which replicates much in the same manner we see a single particle replicate multiple positions as movement.

In these respects the up and down movement of a wave, can be argued as multiple waves (as particles in themselves considering they are positions) replicating within a specific framework.

The alternation of particle and wave is an alternation of time zones effectively as the particle is one time zone as the replication of positions, while the wave is the replication of a particles moveme ts as one position in itself. Volume and time are correlative in these respects.


So the wave as still is simple a particle in multiple positions at one time. The wave as moving is strictly multiple waves.