The metaphysics of space and motion

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

The metaphysics of space and motion

Post by tat tvam asi » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:47 am

Here's a new "Simple Science" page at www.spaceandmotion.com

It goes over the issue of the 'one' and the 'many'. This is a step by step way of arriving at 'one thing', which is the 'many things' that we experience around ourselvses, and what we ourselves actually are. This is the search for universal simplicity while using the accepted rules of science:


"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.
It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."
(Albert Einstein)

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
(Leonardo da Vinci)

Introduction: The following short article shows you how to deduce the most simple science theory of reality, the wave structure of matter in Space, then deduce from this to show that it works. There is no opinion involved - it shows that science does work - we just needed the correct (most simple) foundations.
Geoff Haselhurst (May, 2007)

PS - It is a significant fact that there is not another page on the internet that considers what the most simple science theory of reality is - which is strange given Occam's Razor (principle of simplicity) is fundamental to science. Thus it seems premature to claim science does not really work (the logical positivist / social construct view of postmodern science) without having considered this 'most simple solution'.

1. Deduce the Most Simple Science Theory of Reality
First we deduce that the most simple theory that abides by rules of science (logic from principles = knowledge from senses) must be founded on Space and its properties. This then leads to the spherical standing wave structure of matter in Space (where Space exists with the properties of a wave medium).

Reasons

1.1 The most simple theory must be founded on One thing (substance) existing with properties

This is necessary to abide by two universally accepted principles of Science and Metaphysics;
Science has a Principle of Simplicity / Occam's Razor - "Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". i.e. The theory which deduces the most things from less assumptions is better, thus the best theory must be founded on the most simple foundation of only one thing existing.
Metaphysics is founded on the Dynamic Unity of Reality - that One Thing / Substance necessarily exists and interconnects the many changing things we experience in the universe.

(Bradley, 1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.

So our task is now clearer as we are limited to a foundation of only one thing / substance existing from which to explain the reality of this world that we experience.
Aristotle (who first formalized metaphysics and physics) and Leibniz explain this well;

(Aristotle, 340BC) The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.

(Gottfried Leibniz, 1646 - 1716) Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general.

As we shall see, there is an important clue here relating to motion / activity being a necessary property of substance.

1.2 This One Thing / Substance must be Space (that we all commonly experience)

There are many different minds and material things but only One common Space. This is true when we consider the Space around us - we all experience many different humans (their bodies & minds) living on Earth which orbits the Sun, which orbits our galaxy as one amongst many billions within the observable universe - yet all this occurs within one common Space.
We can confirm this by asking "What one thing must we remove if we are to imagine nothing existing?" Well it cannot be matter or mind or time, because we can remove all of those things and there would still be empty space. However, it is impossible to imagine matter, mind or time existing without Space (and this is never experienced).

From this most simple foundation of Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another substance) and continuous (not made of parts). As Aristotle wrote;
This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and the infinite is indivisible.

1.3 Matter is formed from the Wave Motion of Space

It is well known that there is a particle-wave duality for light and matter. Given this most simple science theory is founded on One substance, Space, we must consider the Properties of Space, thus we cannot add 'parts / particles' to Space. So we are left only with waves.
Thus there is only one solution - Space must exist with the Properties of a Wave Medium, and matter is formed from wave motions of Space.
So Aristotle and Leibniz were largely correct, they just did not realize that matter's activity / motion really came from the wave motion of Space (a vibrating Space / substance is a simple way to imagine it).

1.4 Matter's Particle Effect is Caused by the Wave Center of the Spherical Standing Wave

Note: This is a two dimensional cross section of a spherical standing wave (there is a moving image below) but it is obviously hard to show a sphere / spherical wave on a flat computer screen so some imagination is needed!

Fig.1 - The Electron / Positron
The image represents the most simple form of matter, the electron. The positron (anti-matter) is simply the opposite phase standing wave which sensibly explains matter / anti-matter annihilation due to destructive wave interference. (The proton and neutron are more complex wave structures which still need further study)
It is easy to see how the particle effect of matter is formed at the Wave Center.
You can also see why pythagoras' theorem is not just a mathematical (axiomatic) truth, but fundamental to physical reality. If you draw two lines at right angles to one another, radiating from the wave center, one 3 wavelengths, the other 4 wavelengths, then complete the rectangle, magically! you find the hypotenuse is exactly 5 wavelengths long. This is because this wave diagram truly represents how matter interacts / forms it spatial dimensions.
Further, three dimensional space and spherical space are equivalent, as it takes three variables to describe a sphere. In fact the cause of three dimensional space is simply that matter interacts spherically (see Einstein quote below).
The fourth dimension of 'time' is really just the motion of the wave (motion causes time).

It is important to realise that this conception of matter founded on waves in Space has a different metaphysical foundation. Currently in physics we have a Metaphysics of Space and Time to which we add discrete 'particles' and thus also continuous 'fields' to connect them (thus we have four different things - space, time, matter particles and fields).

The Wave Structure of Matter is founded on one thing, Space, existing as a wave medium. i.e. A Metaphysics of Space and (wave) Motion - where matter is formed from the spherical standing wave motions of Space. This unites Space, Time, Motion and Matter. Thus Aristotle was also correct when he wrote;

Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it. ... there being two causes of which we have defined in the Physics, that of matter and that from which the motion comes. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

This is also consistent with the fact that atomic clocks use the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom (9,192,631,770 Hz) to measure time.

Albert Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity
The argument is really complete - but I just wanted to briefly mention Einstein's relativity as you will then see how close he was to the truth with his rejection of the 'particle' and his attempt at a continuous field theory of matter.

The metrics of Einstein's special relativity are founded on Pythagoras' theorem (see Lorentz Transformation below) where an electron changes from having a spherical shape to a squashed ellipsoidal shape when it is in motion (which is why an electron contracts in length with motion). The important point is that the mathematics is founded on a sphere because matter interacts spherically with other matter in the Space around it. As Einstein writes;

From the latest results of the theory of relativity it is probable that our three dimensional space is also approximately spherical, that is, that the laws of disposition of rigid bodies in it are not given by Euclidean geometry, but approximately by spherical geometry. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Special relativity is still based directly on an empirical law, that of the constancy of the velocity of light where dx2 + dy2 + dz2 =(cdt)2 and cdt is the distance traveled by light c in time dt.
The defining equation of the metric is then nothing but the Pythagorean theorem applied to the differentials of the co-ordinates. (Note: In the above diagram dx=3, dy=4, dz=0, cdt=5)
In the special theory of relativity those co-ordinate changes (by transformation) are permitted for which also in the new co-ordinate system the quantity (cdt)2 equals the sum of the squares of the co-ordinate differentials. Such transformations are called Lorentz transformations. (Albert Einstein, 1934)

Fig. 2 - The Lorentz Transformation
In the Lorentz Transformations matter becomes a squashed ellipsoid with motion. However, pythagoras' theorem remains true even when the sphere is a squashed ellipsoid.
It is this change in curvature of the sphere when an electron is accelerated that Einstein then related to matter's gravity / energy fields which curve the 4D space-time continuum. But really the 4D space time continuum of Einstein's general relativity is simply a moving spherical wave in Space. Thus the 'curvature of the 4D space-time continuum' is just the curvature of the spherical (ellipsoidal) wave, which changes when the wave center 'particle' is accelerated.

Thus the most simple science theory of reality requires that matter is not a tiny particle separate from Space, instead it is a large spherical spatially extended wave structure of Space (the size of the observable universe within infinite Space).
Einstein's relativity agrees that matter is a structure of space (not a discrete particle in space). His error was to work with continuous fields in space-time rather than discrete standing waves in continuous Space.

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)

History shows that Einstein's continuous field theory of matter in space-time does not explain the discrete properties of light and matter found in quantum theory. And Einstein also came to suspect this was the case, he writes;

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

We now realize that his relativity theory can be simplified by working with real wave motions of a continuously connected space, rather than 'continuous fields' in 'space-time' (a mathematical construction).

Summary

The rules of science (simplicity) and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) force us to conclude that matter is formed from spherical standing wave motions of Space (rather than Newton's particles, or Einstein's continuous fields). This is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all matter (in the observable universe) is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out waves.
The Wave Center causes the discrete 'particle' effect of matter that we see and interact with.
The spherical in and out waves cause the field effects, but in a slightly different way than Einstein imagined because they are discrete standing wave effects, rather than his continuous field effects. i.e. Einstein's continuous field theory of mater does not explain discrete properties of light and matter as determined by quantum theory - whereas standing wave interactions (resonant coupling) only occur at discrete wavelengths / frequencies thus explaining the discrete properties of light quanta 'photons'.

The above arguments all seem true to me, none of it is my opinion, they simply state common scientific knowledge combined with our common experience of existing in Space.
And I should add that Erwin Schrodinger actually proposed a wave structure of matter 80 years ago (unfortunately his wave equations were used by Max Born as probability waves to find the location of the particle, rather than treating them as real waves in Space). As Schrodinger explains;

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics.)

So now we must see if this Spherical Wave Structure of Matter works - does it correctly deduce the fundamentals of modern physics?
Well thanks to the work of retired Professor of Maths Physics, Dr Milo Wolff, we can show with mathematical / logical precision that it works perfectly.

2. The Wave Structure of Matter Deduces Fundamentals of
Quantum Theory, Einstein's Relativity & Cosmology
Note: To keep things simple I will just explain the most important deduction here, the remainder of the 'Simple Science' arguments are in separate (short) pages which are listed below. The mathematical physics page has the full list of Wave Structure of Matter mathematical deductions (which is substantial, though there is still obviously much to do).

The most fundamental (and simple) thing to check is what we deduce for relative motion and see if it matches known results of the two fundamental theories of physics. i.e. Matter's relativistic mass increase (Einstein's special relativity) and the de Broglie wavelength (quantum theory and the wave properties of matter) which are both deduced from the relative motion of matter.

So we should find that the Doppler shifted wave equations for two spherical standing waves with relative motion (of their wave center 'particles') show terms in the resultant wave equations that exactly match quantum theory's de Broglie wavelength and Einstein's relativistic mass increase (where mass m equates to frequency f as E=hf=mc2).

We find that it exactly deduces these two terms. This is absolutely remarkable - for the first time the two central theories of modern physics (quantum theory and Einstein's special relativity) are united by a single theory, which was itself deduced as the most simple science theory of reality.

You can read the deduction by Dr Milo Wolff (Retired Prof. of Maths Physics) or you can view his video where he explains this (I filmed this back in 2000 at Berkeley university - it is well worth watching!).
Milo Wolff Video Interview - See all Milo Wolff Videos
(The video is also on my physics philosophy page at YouTube)

Summary / Conclusion
I have known of the wave structure of matter for ten years now. And over that time I have slowly read the history of physics, philosophy and metaphysics. It is now blindingly obvious to me that Science does actually work - we just had to get rid of the wrong foundation of matter with particle properties, and consider space and its wave properties.

Thus we can now easily recognize the error of Physics (since the time of Newton), where reality is described in terms of 'many things' - the Interconnected Motion of Matter 'Particles' in Space and Time - which further requires continuous 'Forces/Fields' to connect the discrete 'Particles'.

The correct foundation is to describe matter in terms of 'one thing' - the Wave Motion of Space. Thus motion applies to space, not matter, i.e. the wave motion of Space causes matter, time and forces / fields (interconnection).

Note: We have a page of wave diagrams that will help you visualise the spherical standing wave structure of matter (WSM) in space. Basically, we only see the high wave amplitude 'wave-center' and have been incorrect in thinking that matter was made of tiny little 'particles'. A very naive conception in hindsight - and quantum physics was telling us all along that waves were central to light and matter interactions!

In ending, it is important to emphasize - this is the most simple science foundation for describing reality - and most importantly, it works. And this surprisingly simple solution was anticipated by some physicists, as John Archibald Wheeler wrote;

Someday we'll understand the whole thing as one single marvelous vision that will seem so overwhelmingly simple and beautiful that we may say to each other; 'Oh, how could be have been so stupid for so long? How could it have been otherwise!' (J. A. Wheeler)


Here is the formula used by Joseph Campbell for interpreting Mythic images and philosophies that are alluding to a metaphysical insight.

Formula:

the relationship of (a) to (b) pefectly resembles that of (c) to (x), where (x) represents a quantity that is not only unknown but absolutely unknowable- which is to say, metaphysical.

Example:

As many (a) proceed from one (b) so does the universe (c) from God (x)

Joseph Campbell:

"But the term (x), it must be insisted, remains absolutely unknown and unknowable. 'Oneness' can no more be a quality of this (x), (absolute mystery) than can Love or Reason. Hence, as Kant declared, it is only by 'analogy' that we speak of Love or Reason, 'Unity', or even Being, as of 'God' (The ultimate mystery).


Then, after all is found to be 'one' through our quantum wave physics, "mythology and religion" can then step in and point out the way towards transcending even the 'one' - transcending the primary substance of space as a continuous wave medium. This science, well describing everything that exists as one substance, shouldn't really be any sort of a threat towards religion at all. As long as transcendence has anything to do with the religion.


tat tvam asi/space
Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:32 pm

Tat

On WSM. I agree with 99.99% of WSM and Milo's work.

But I discovered a problem, and it is the reason mainstream scientists disregard it completely.

I tried to point this out on the forum, and got put down for it.

Space can not both be infinite and the medium for waves, the concepts are mutually exclusive. Now I believe that space is infinite and not curved, but that means space can not be the medium for wave propagation.

Einstein treated space as a wave medium only because he could not discover what the medium for waves was. It was his work on gravity waves that started the whole curved space time misunderstanding. W. de Sitter proved this beyond a doubt with Einstein's equations.

Milo used space as the wave medium for waves, to be in harmony with Relativity, and fell into the same trap. He could not explain why matter/time contracted within non-curved space/time.

Geoff, by accepting that space as a wave medium, fell into the same trap. No real scientist will give WSM a good look because of this inconsistency at the very heart, and start of WSM theory.

When I tried to point this out, you all put me down in a hurry. A number of threads started about how great the philosophy of space as a wave medium was. Curvy space and all that.

I pointed out to Geoff in my post on electron persistence, what the true medium for wave propagation was. Geoff told me it had no place in WSM theory and not to post more about it, unless I could 'prove' it philosophically.

I am no philosopher. I am not going to write a multi page treatise on the philosophy supporting my views when it can be done in 1 paragraph in plain language, or a single equation.

I will provide Geoff with all the research I have done that supports WSM. I respect Geoff and the work he has done. I am more than happy to help him, and I will not push my concepts that oppose WSM on his site. I respect him to much for that.

I will finish the paper I am working on now, and will send Milo, Mike Harney and Geoff each a copy. Then I will submit it for peer review in the mainstream physics world. Without that one obvious contradiction, maybe it will get a honest review instead of being considered wrong from the very start.

I will continue to help Geoff and WSM in whatever way I can, but my own work on Milo's paper has lead me down a different path.

Charles
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:07 pm

Aireal, I do remember the conversation in question:

"Hi Everyone

I should have added more detail to my first post, I am known for my long posts, but that one should have been longer.

At one time I tried to apply Milo's equations to the formation of a finite static universe. This was prompted by the questions of several people visiting the forum. The result was a model that might convert some Big Bang supporters to W.S.M. theory. Universe formation viewed as the formation of a standing wave on a large scale.

It answers many of the paradoxes between static and expanding universe models seen in observations. A standing wave starts at the point where two waves of the same amplitude meet, and expands to a finite size based on that amplitude from that point.

For a standing wave the size of a universe this has several implications. The birth of the universe would appear as an explosion of vast power starting at a single point in space which expands from there. If the universe had a radius of 100 billion light years, it would appear to expand for 100 billion years, than stop its expansion and continue as a static universe from there.

The main difference between B.B. models and this version is that space/time is not curved. This is supported by study of the cosmic background radiation, CBR. Study of the CBR shows no distortion of space supporting static universe models. Space and time are not curved and therefore space and time exists independent of finite universes and is infinite in the 3-dimensions of space and time.

The observed latent energy density of space is a very small value close to zero. It is the modern version of the gravitational constant. The energy density of space affects the universe's expansion, contraction, or if it remains static in BB models. In the standing wave model of a finite universe, energy is converted into matter until a small but positive value obtained at full amplitude.

Now the universe as a finite standing wave form is not the only model that can be derived from Milo's equations. It does however offer a reasonable argument that erodes the BB theory while showing that some of its key components are possible in Wave theory and Static universe models.

The main problem is how to put the model in a form that would cause BB supporter to have second thoughts?

If you have any other specific questions in regards to this topic, please ask me and I will try to answer them." - Aireal
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:40 pm

Geoff Haselhurst replied as saying:


Cosmology, Truth and Human Existence in Space

"I think we should focus on the truth, as determined by our sense of physical reality being in harmony with deductions from 'most simple' theoretical foundations.
This necessarily leads us to the WSM founded on only 'one substance' existing, Space.

This is necessary as 'Space' is the one and only thing that we all 'commonly experience' as being the 'same'.
Look around you - we all experience existing in a common Space, we all see the same moon and sun and stars in the same regions of space.
Mind and matter are always 'many different things'.

It is also well accepted in philosophy / metaphysics that Space is a priori necessary to experience the motion of matter, and thus for 'empirical science to exist'.
The most simple science theory of reality must be founded on 'Space'.

The next step is simple, guided by Aristotle's rules of Metaphysics (this dynamic unity of reality is well accepted as the foundation of metaphysics).

Quote:
The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.
(Aristotle, 340BC)


To this knowledge we just add the known particle-wave nature of light and matter in quantum theory, and that matter interactions are based on spherical (ellipsoidal) geometry in Einstein's relativity.

As there is only Space and its Properties (thus no matter 'particles') then the only solution is that Space has the properties of a wave medium and matter is really made from spherical waves in space.
This is a completely new metaphysical foundation for Science (the most simple one).
A Metaphysics of Space and (wave) Motion - where the two are clearly connected (space is vibrating / has wave motions), and which then explain time, matter and its interactions.

It is worth adding a bit here about the influence Newton had on science.

Newton had a metaphysics of Absolute Space and Time, and thus had to add matter particles with 'mass' and instantly acting gravity forces to connect them, where F=m.a. So Absolute Space was like a background stage (not affected by matter) in which solid little matter 'particles' moved about and exerted instantly acting gravity forces on one another. (Clearly a primitive / naive view of matter founded on our sense of large objects like balls and planets).

So Newton's concepts of space, time, matter, motion and changing motion (where force = mass by acceleration) became central foundations for Science / physics.
Yet they were all wrong.

There is no continuous motion of matter 'particles (as quantum theory confirms), in fact there is no motion of matter, there is only the 'wave motion of space' that causes matter (thus matter is a type of motion, a spherical wave motion of Space).

So we see how this misunderstanding of the motion of matter in space and time is corrected and simplified to the Wave Motion of Space that cause time, matter and its interactions / forces.

Likewise it is useful to understand Einstein's attempted solution, and why it failed.

Einstein tried to simplify physics by getting rid of the 'particle' and instead use the field conception of Faraday - Einstein's continuous field theory of matter-energy in space-time. The theory is founded on matter and its interactions (continuous fields), rather than space (which arises from matter interactions relative to other matter).
It is a theory of effects (empirically founded on matter interactions being represented by continuous fields).
However, as it was continuous in nature, it was never able to explain the discrete properties of matter found by quantum theory.

But again the solution is obvious.

From Einstein's continuous spherical fields in space-time, to WSM of Spherical Waves in Continuous Space.
WSM is more (most) simple.
WSM explains discrete 'particle' phenomena as due to standing wave interactions (and obviously why quantum theory is founded on wave equations).

WSM Cosmology

The following is necessary, determined by the Wave Structure of Matter in Space, and rules of simplicity / dynamic unity of reality.

As the only thing / substance that exists, 'Space is Infinite and Eternal', as are its wave motions.
The wave center 'matter particles' only interact with around 10^80 other wave center 'matter particles' in a finite spherical region of infinite space - the Observable Universe (Mike Harney call this the Hubble Sphere, which is also a useful name).
This is deduced (search 'equation of the cosmos').

Each wave center's spherical In waves are formed from the out waves of other matter around it in its observable universe.
From this we can deduce:
Mach's Principle - the mass (matter wave energy) is determine by all other matter in their finite spherical observable universe within infinite space.
Each wave center is necessarily at the center of its own finite spherical observable universe within infinite space.
There are an infinite number of finite spherical observable universes within infinite space, but each wave center and its observable universe only interacts with around 10^80 wave centers and their observable universe due to the finite overlapping of spherical regions of Space / spherical in and out waves.

The WSM in Space is profound, it shows that science does work, that we can correctly imagine how we exist in space and see and interact with everything around us.
WSM tells us what we really are as humans (vibrating space of enormous size and complexity).
WSM provides the source code for determining wisdom from absolute truth and reality." - Geoff Haselhurst.
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:53 pm

You did present an interesting consideration Aireal. I'm currious as to what common substance exists as the waves medium aside from the common space that we all experience.

Why exactly would you, or any other scientist feel that space can not be both a wave medium and infinite at the very same time? I don't understand the reasoning behind that claim. What law of science prohibits a wave medium from being infinite?

tat tvam asi/space
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:26 pm

This conversation so much reminds me of one I indulged in a few years back which a quantum physicist which he introduced as "The Non-Spatial Criterion." This is where the 'circle/zero' dialogue found formation. The gist of said conversation was that the universe appeared from nothing.

There are two question, at the outset, which I have found missing from this conversation to stablize any concepts presented. What is finiteness, and infinity?

These questions leads to the questions: What does each contain within their boundries, if they are found to be separate? and are those things contained imprisoned by the borders of each, again, if they are found to be separate?

To say that infinity is solid decry the future of finite vision. To say finiteness closes the door upon infinity negates the expanded wave length necessary for a beginning. Why? because as thoughts, matter, in any form can be projected and reversed.

How can this be if infinity and finiteness does not blend as the objective and subjective balance of the totality of what is considered positive and negative wave lengths of conveyance the universe over?

jufa
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:02 am

If you go over the initial quote on the "simple science" page you can see that the infinite is being said to be boundless, limitless, beyond all measurement - no possible boundary. The image of the universe is presented as an infinite amount of space, acting as a wave medium. Motion, or activity, is the essence of this one infinite substance of space.

For the sake of a religious translation, this is like saying that God is the one infinite substance of life, and the spirit of God is the actual activity of the one substance. The finite things, are simply spherical waves that have formed in the infinite space by the waves forming centers where they meet. So the interesting thing here is that the finite is composed of the medium of the infinite. The two are actually one. This certainly confirms the "I and the father are one" statement in the bible ( I the finite, and the father infinite, are one). I want to see what the reasoning is behind feeling that a medium can not be infinite - unbounded?



tat tvam asi/space
Robert G.
Associate
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:48 pm

Post by Robert G. » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:08 am

logic from principles = knowledge from senses
It looks like there is a problem here. This is a statement that Kant for sure would have said is completely false. Modern epistemologists may not agree with Kant's emphasis on the a priori/a posteriori distinction, but I can't think of anyone that would equate the "principles" of logic with the senses. Post-Wiggenstein, the idea that there are universal logical principles (logic with a capital "L") is pretty much an uncertain proposition.

Also (since you quote Campbell paraphrasing Kant), there would seem to be a problem viewing space as a substance when, for Kant (definitely) and Campbell (I think) space and time are the merely formal conditions of our experience and have no independent or intrinsic meaning in themselves.

The whole idea of substance which Aristotle gave to us may be problematical. John Searle says that the mistake that Aristotle made was not in asserting that there were two substances, a material and a mental, but to start counting in the first place.

Finally (with my apologies, I don't mean to be critical), this
Science has a Principle of Simplicity / Occam's Razor - "Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem". i.e. The theory which deduces the most things from less assumptions is better, thus the best theory must be founded on the most simple foundation of only one thing existing.
is a problem. Occam's Razor is a heuristic tool, not a principle of nature or even "logic". Even if it was, your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:37 pm

Like I said, I'm interested in knowing the problems of any scientific theory. 8)

The page at the top of the thread is from www.spaceandmotion.com - I just copied and pasted it. Your merely criticizing Geoff Haselhurst, philosopher of science. :lol:

Obviously, explaining everything from 'one common substance' is the simplest explanation for our reality. Whether being used as a tool or whatever, 'one' is always more simple than 'two' or 'three' of course. This directly addresses the 'interconnectivity' of all things (spooky action at a distance, The E.P.R experiment, the spin of the electron etc.) So the theory does have simplicity on it's side whether or not simplicity is an absolute must. The simplest explaination 'tends' to be the correct one.

www.quantummatter.com is the site of the physicist who first proposed the theory. He has a lot of data that helps to understand what the foundation of this theory is all about. It combines quantum theory with special relativity. 8)

Campbell is clearly stating that transcendence, or factor X, is well beyond even one, or unity. Beyond all categories. So this science doesn't threaten our mythic and religious transcendence with the claim of one existing 'infinite substance' - the substance can easily be penetrated to it's mystery. That was my only point for quoting Campbell.

The direction of modern physics is in building more complexities - superstring, m-theory, Multiverses etc. The above web page has made an attempt to move in the opposite direction. The important thing that I need to know here from Aireal, one of the administrators, is what rule of science prohibits a wave medium from being infinite?

tat tvam asi/space
Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:17 pm

Robert G.

Nice to see someone getting in on this topic.

Occam's Razor and philosophy are very useful tool to the physicist, if not taken to the extreme. Modern physics has lost sight of that. They even teach that intuitive models of quantum processes is impossible, so don't even try. Hogwash!
But when philosophy is taken to the extreme, then you have made the same mistake as them. Both should be tested against the other along the way to keep one's course.

The result is instead of looking for solution within the normal 3 dimensions plus time, they invent as many other dimensions as they need to make their outlandish mathematical models work. Ideas crazy by any standard.

And the whole mess stated with Space as a medium for gravity waves.

Einstein even said that using Space as a medium for gravity waves was an add hock solution because the Aether could not be found. When his prediction about the bending of light was confirmed, everyone assumed that Space was the medium, regardless of how crazy the idea seemed at the time. This lead to the end for Aether based theories and the end of intuitive models. Pure math now ruled the physics world, and anything 'proved' by math was considered valid.

Others then took Einstein's equation's and Space as a medium and proved, mathematically, that Space could curl in upon itself, and the rest is history.


Tat

So the only "proof" that physicists need to "prove" that WSM is wrong is Einstein's gravity equation. If space can curve enough for gravity waves to work, it can curl up under extreme conditions to a single point, the singularity. Proof of the Big Bang. If space is infinite in 3 dimensions, which I believe it is, then another medium for wave propagation must be found.

Milo noticed this too, and put a short section about it in his paper on the electron. Here is an excerpt: Relation to Special Relativity. The relativistic law obtained from analyzing the movement of two SRs in Section IVA is the well-confirmed mass increase of moving matter. But the controversial time-space contractions are not predicted. An explanation outside the scope of this article predicts that the speed of an energy transition is equal to the speed of the IN wave to the receiver. This wave always moves in the frame of the receiver at a constant velocity c. This is observed but does not imply contraction of space or time.

Here is on of my short posts, only several pages of physics, that addresses this problem, from my blog. http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/vie ... serid=1532

Although it is long, it is mostly basic physics. Anyone with even some basic physics should be able to follow it.

It is a very short, proof of concept post I tested on several science forums. Other physicists do not like it much, but none have found fault with it yet. There is a forum for professional physicists that I will go to with my detailed paper.

I am almost done with the far more detailed paper, which I will post there as soon as I am done, and the copyright applied for. Milo, Mike, and Geoff will get a preview before this.

In all honesty, I stumbled upon the answer by luck. I was trying to answer a minor problem with Milo's paper that others had pointed out, the sheer persistence of the electron. Electrons do not decay, some have been around for billions of years. All prior standing wave models failed to answer this issue. Milo's answer was both simple and elegant. Many felt it went a long way to solving the "persistence problem", but not far enough. The fix I found was the clue that lead me to answer many other questions.

Charles
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:17 pm

By what authority other than thought would Kant definitely define
logic from principles = knowledge from senses
to be completely false when the principle cannot be arrived at except by feelings initiated from thought? Or the thought cannot be arrived at except by 'I think' feelings of initiative?

To extract any condition by saying
space and time are the merely formal conditions of our experience and have no independent or intrinsic meaning in themselves
eliminates the cause of structure of existence. This itself would eliminate the need to discover beyond one's own meaning. And one's own meaning has not been defined to be because of ??????? One's own meaning has, however, been realized to be no different than anyone elses which is the bridge of commonality which place the building blocks of the universe together 'precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little."

In somewhat of an abstract way I agree with John Searle's assessment
The whole idea of substance which Aristotle gave to us may be problematical. . . that the mistake that Aristotle made was not in asserting that there were two substances, a material and a mental, but to start counting in the first place.
not concerning the two substances, - I see three from the standpoint of man, Spirit, mental, material - but from the premise of why count in the first place when no one can go beyond one (1), and that is one's self.

Aireal has stated:
when philosophy is taken to the extreme, then you have made the same mistake as them. Both should be tested against the other along the way to keep one's course.

The result is instead of looking for solution within the normal 3 dimensions plus time, they invent as many other dimensions as they need to make their outlandish mathematical models work. Ideas crazy by any standard.

And the whole mess stated with Space as a medium for gravity waves.
This line of thinking does not stop where he put it. It is applied across the entire spectrum "logic from principles = logic from senses" assessment. And what is that spectrum? It is man's awareness made possible by the gravitation wavelength and pull of consciousness.

Where does one find the curve in either? In order for there to be a curl of reversal, then the curl must be view as an extension of that which it reverts back to. That which is reverted back unto then is the totality of the space and gravity and wavelength which the "logic of principles = logic of senses" lays upon. So regardless of what proposition is brought forth, the beginning and end are always the same - one (1).

This is also the infinity of the logice of principles logic of senses of the infinity of mathematics.

jufa
Last edited by jufa on Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:23 pm

I just want to understand the new perspective of a wave medium other than space.

Does this other wave medium extend to infinity, along with the infinite space?

Is space and the alternative wave medium totally separate, as being two discrete things, or are they ultimately interconnected as one thing existing?

Aireal, I agree with you that taking the extreme side position on anything is seldom the wise decision. I understand that that's why you're shooting down the middle between Literal things in the bible, and metaphorical things in the bible. I see that you've applied the same logic in approaching the science issues as well. The extreme position of the post modern world view is a good example as well.



tat tvam asi/space
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:10 pm

I noticed that some of you guys were drifting towards post modernism as a way of thinking that there was a problem with this particular science theory. I'm going to post an answer, but please try not get overly offended by how direct of an answer it is. This is just for fun and learning after all.

Wave theory 'negates' the post modern world view. Here's another page that sheds some light on the issue:


The Death of the Idealist Philosopher

"Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived). ... All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth - in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world - have not any subsistence without a mind." (George Berkeley)

"Idealist philosophy believes that the mind exists, and that our sense of the external world (physical reality) is simply a construction of the 'mind'. Given that all our knowledge is in fact a creation of the mind (imagination) it has been difficult to refute this - to get from our ideas of things to the real thing in itself (see Kant).

The experiment. Imagine an idealist philosopher in an aeroplane at 30,000 feet. A ten second timer is activated that will eject the 'philosopher' from the plane. They are wearing a parachute, but it is not fastened. They must decide if they wish to fasten themselves to the parachute or not.
This eliminates idealist philosophers / philosophy- they either fasten the parachute and thus acknowledge the truth of physical reality - or they do not and fall to their death!

This argument is a bit mischievous, but it does make two important points - that the physical laws of nature apply equally to humans as they do to all other matter - and while it is easy to be an idealist when writing essays, we should always apply these ideas to physical reality (the ultimate determiner of truth!).

The absolute argument against idealism is Darwinian evolution. It is necessary that the physical reality of the earth and sun existed 'prior to our evolution', thus prior to our 'mind's evolution'. There are many common traits of the human mind which confirm that we evolved as animals on the surface of the earth. E.g. We sleep, get hungry, seek pleasure, avoid pain, love others and lust for sexual reproduction. Idealism does not explain this - evolving as sexually reproducing animals on the surface of the earth does. Thus matter is a priori to mind. Popper's comments on idealism are pretty spot on;

Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher). (Karl Popper, 1975)

The End of Postmodern Philosophy
(Logical Positivism, Cultural Constructs, Relativism)

Postmodern philosophy assumes that there is a physical reality but it is impossible for us to know it with our limited minds. It is basically a position of skeptical doubt and uncertainty. As Ernst Mach wrote;

A piece of knowledge is never false or true - but only more or less biologically and evolutionary useful. All dogmatic creeds are approximations: these approximations form a humus from which better approximations grow. (Ernst Mach)


While this all sounds reasonable on the surface, with closer examinations we see that it leads us to the dogma of postmodernism that 'The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths'. i.e. True knowledge of reality is impossible - we can only imagine things that do not exist, we cannot imagine things that really do exist! (Which is odd when you think about it.) Thus we see that the postmodern idea of no absolute truths is actually a 'contradiction', as Aristotle wrote 2,350 years ago;

Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion. (Aristotle)

I recently read a philosophy joke that summarises this problem of postmodern philosophy very well!

The First Law of Philosophy
For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy
They're both wrong.

While I admit this does make me smile, the truth is that this confusion and contradiction in philosophy does great damage to what is in fact a most beautiful and important subject.
This is not trivial as the problems of philosophy always manifest as problems for Humanity, and this largely explains why our modern world suffers such profound problems (the destruction of Nature and resultant change in the Earth's climate and ability to produce clean air, water, and food - which are clearly necessary for our future survival).
Again it is worth quoting Karl Popper.

In my opinion, the greatest scandal of philosophy is that, while all around us the world of nature perishes - and not the world of nature alone - philosophers continue to talk, sometimes cleverly and sometimes not, about the question of whether this world exists. They get involved in scholasticism, in linguistic puzzles such as, for example, whether or not there are differences between 'being' and 'existing'. (Popper, 1975)

To summarise. The central problem of postmodern Philosophy is to connect our incomplete senses of the world with the real world of what exists (Kant's thing in itself). The problem is that we do not see the causal connection between things, only the effects which are representations of the mind and thus deceptive. As David Hume elegantly explains;

It must certainly be allowed, that nature has kept us at a great distance from all her secrets, and has afforded us only the knowledge of a few superficial qualities of objects; while she conceals from us those powers and principles on which the influence of those objects entirely depends. ...
When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. ... experience only teaches us, how one event constantly follows another; without instructing us in the secret connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable. (David Hume, 1737)

See Hume's Problem of Causation & Necessary Connection

So if we go back to our poor idealist philosopher free falling through space - we see the effects of this causal connection between the philosopher and the earth (the philosopher falls with an accelerating velocity), but we do not see the causal / necessary connection. We just give it a name, gravity, and then forget about it (though I am sure the falling philosopher is starting to take gravity more seriously - the necessary connection between their body and the earth!)

What is Truth? On Necessary Connection and Causation
We now need to make one important clarification about truth - which will then lead us to our solution.
One billion years ago the earth orbited the sun - thus there was a necessary connection between the earth and sun. Yet at that time, before our human evolution, there were no truths. Just physical reality abiding by its laws. This is very important to realise, as libraries full of books have been written about truth - yet it is really just a concept that we make up. In reality there is just necessary connection - this is the source of any truth.

So for any statement you can always analyse it in terms of necessary connection. Here are two simple examples of logical and empirical 'truths' that found science.

Logical Truth: We can create necessary connections through definitions / principles, e.g. 1+1 = 2 and 1+1+1= 3 thus 1+2 = 3 is true because of the necessary connections we created. This relates to the axiomatic foundations of mathematics and principles in theoretical physics which are necessary foundations to deduce things from.
Logical truths are a priori (necessary, certain and universal - anyone would deduce the same results).

Empirical Truth: "The current time on my computer is 5.30am" is true if there is a necessary connection between my eyes and the light emitted from my computer showing this time.
Empirical truths are a posteriori (uncertain, dependent on senses which can deceive us).

Summary: To know the truth about things we need to know how they are necessarily connected. Thus to know the truth about physical reality we need to know how matter exists and moves about in space in a necessarily connected way. If we knew this then we would find that deductions from our theory of reality (logical truths) would match knowledge from our senses / experiments (empirical truths).

The Problem of Induction
All arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. .... Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. (David Hume, 1737)

Popper's problem of induction is no different than Hume's problem of causation and necessary connection - they are the same problem because 'necessary connection' is the central problem of knowledge which applies to all the sciences - physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology.

Popper claims that we can never prove something is true, we can only show that it is false. So we could drop 10,000 idealist philosophers out of the plane, one after another, yet we could never be certain that the next one would fall to their death. To do so we have to assume the future is like the past - and this is uncertain.
This is the current state of science / physics, which is founded on induction from empirical facts (uncertain) rather than logical deduction from principles which correctly describe reality (certain).

What most people do not realise though, is that this uncertainty is only the case while you do not know the necessary connection between cause and effect (postmodernism assumes this is a permanent limitation of science, thus we can never know reality / absolute truths). As Hume and Popper wrote;

Were the power or energy of any cause discoverable by the mind, we could foresee the effect, even without experience; and might, at first, pronounce with certainty concerning it, by mere dint of thought and reasoning. ... Now it seems evident that, if this conclusion were formed by reason, it would be as perfect at first, and upon one instance, as after ever so long a course of experience. (David Hume, 1737)

Hume is saying that once we know the causal connection between things, we could deduce with certainty the effects, and they would always match the effects we in fact see, i.e. logical truths = empirical truths.
And Popper acknowledged the truth of this. (It seems though that postmodern philosophy has forgotten this fact in their haste to say that we cannot know the absolute truth about physical reality).

There could easily be a little quarrel about the question which is the deeper problem; Hume's Problem of Causation, or what I have called the Problem of Induction. One could argue that if the problem of causation were positively solved - if we could show the existence of a necessary link between cause and effect - the problem of induction would also be solved, and positively. Thus one might say, the problem of causation is the deeper problem. (Karl Popper, 1975)

For example, we know that electrical charges repel one another, yet we have no 'ultimate explanation' of how they do it, even if we accept Maxwell's theory. We do not have any general theory of causality (at any rate not since the breakdown of Descartes' theory that all causality is push). (Popper, 1975)

This confusion is clearly evident in modern Physics, e.g. the particle / wave duality of both light and matter, the big bang origin of the universe from no space and no time. However, we can now show that this confusion is simply due to 'errors in the foundations of physics relating to the discrete and separate particle conception of matter'. i.e. If you try to explain reality in terms of many things (like many separate 'particles' moving around in space and time) then you still lack knowledge of how they are necessarily interconnected (so they add 'fields' or more 'particles' to connect them - but it is a naive way to solve the problem and it clearly cannot work).

The Solution
True Knowledge of Reality (Necessary Connection) as the Source of Truth / Wisdom
The solution is to describe reality in terms of only one thing existing, as this will then explain the causal / necessary connection between the many things we experience. As Aristotle and Leibniz wrote;

(Aristotle, 340BC) The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.

(Gottfried Leibniz, 1646 - 1716) Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general.

The solution is actually very simple and obvious once known (which is why philosophy is also known as the discovery of the obvious - because humans are blind to the obvious, as history shows). We simply had to ask one obvious question about science (Occam's razor)" - Geoff Haselhurst

END QUOTE


Well guys, there's a little more back ground on the issue at hand. Post modern approaches to philosophy suffer greatly from self contradition.

If we can not answer the question of why existence even exists/why a wave medium exists at all, then existence is itself an absolut mystery. That means that the mystery of being is itself an absolute truth, therefore the very mystery of being itself negates the post modern world view - it is absolutely true that existence is indeed a mystery with no specific answer. It would appear that having a knowledge of mythology can easily negate post modernism.

tat tvam asi/space
Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal » Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:35 pm

Tat

Simply put, it is the Energy Density within Space, and not Space itself that is the medium for waves. It is hard to tell the difference between the two, even by scientists. All matter is made of energy, but energy also exists between all matter. It also means that gravity compresses this energy density and matter along with it.

In short, Our ruler is curved, so we think space is curved.

It have always been so. Man used to think the heavens revolved around him, that space was curved around him, it looked that way.

All of our senses tell us space is curved, and our fancy high tech rulers, which are curved, agree with us.

It is another paradox of relativity, much like the twins paradox.

It was Nigel who gave me the first clue. On my post about wave propagation on the WSM forum, I used a fluid model to represent wave propagation. I treated it as a perfect fluid to make it easier to understand. Nigel started asking me questions about Einstein's Field Equations. I had never even looked at the field equations, the math was too complex for me. Nigel thought I knew them, and was just explaining them to others without the use of math. Einstein's field equations describe his medium for gravity waves as a perfect fluid, compressible and elastic, having the properties of matter without the drawbacks of matter as a medium. Exactly the description of energy density, but I did not know that at the time.

Then I stumbled upon the energy density of the electron as a wave medium inside the electron to explain persistence. Proving all of this however is no easy task. I am not surprised Geoff dismissed some of my earlier explanations. It must be viewed as a whole, from the lightest particle to the extremes of gravity, for the connection to become clear.

That is why I am sending Geoff a copy of my final paper just before I release it. If he does agree with it after viewing the whole, I will gladly change the title of my theory to WSM before submitting it. Space as a wave medium is really the only point we disagree on. It is a point that makes all the difference however.

Space is infinite in 3 dimensions. Energy density is also infinite in 3 dimensions, but can be compressed locally. If released it flows back towards a uniform density within Space.

Charles
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:15 pm

Aireal states
Simply put, it is the Energy Density within Space, and not Space itself that is the medium for waves. It is hard to tell the difference between the two, even by scientists. All matter is made of energy, but energy also exists between all matter. It also means that gravity compresses this energy density and matter along with it.
However, Aireal does not deal with the reality of the situation because he forgets deals from a stand point of Energy Density within Space in a compressed state brought on by gravity. But gravity is an Energy itself within and without the dense field which has become Aireal's point. So the true formular does not begin with the effect, but with the cause. This means one would have to consider the energy of gravity and it's relativity in connection to the electrons which cause Energy Density within Space. This means how can there be "Energy Density within Space and not Space itself that is the medium for waves," when it is the Energy of gravity of Space which is the condenser?

Aireal also states:
In short, Our ruler is curved, so we think space is curved.
but fails to show what ruler is used to make this assumption and show;
Where does one find the curve in either?
However, Aireal does agree that;
If released it flows back towards a uniform density within Space.
with this writer's conclusion that;
In order for there to be a curl of reversal, then the curl must be view as an extension of that which it reverts back to. That which is reverted back unto then is the totality of the space and gravity and wavelength which the "logic of principles = logic of senses" lays upon.
The question to ask is not whether;
it is the Energy Density within Space, and not Space itself that is the medium for waves.
but can one find the cause of said proposition within the proposition itself?

jufa
Locked