Response to Sergey

Sergey,

Thanks for your comment, you identified exactly what I have tried to say in my essay.

I cannot do the same. There is a huge gulf between my reading your Essay and understanding it and the work you have done. I do not have the background. That said I sense a similarity of thought back of it to my own that caused you to want to know in the first place...

view entire post

Response to Sergey

Sergey,

Thanks for your comment, you identified exactly what I have tried to say in my essay.

I cannot do the same. There is a huge gulf between my reading your Essay and understanding it and the work you have done. I do not have the background. That said I sense a similarity of thought back of it to my own that caused you to want to know in the first place what is really happening in this Universe.

Yes I can see that equal in all directions makes for the appearance of stationary.

And when you say, In the Frame any body can be really at rest. Yes I agree, but for me it is a relative rest, for it’s linked to a closed system as in the way my car is parked outside my house and it certainly is not moving relative to my house, or the earth. Yet the earth and my house and car are moving at 19 miles per second around the sun. This knowledge is not necessary in order to drive my car or live in my house yet it is crucial for understanding the situation the farther away such a situation is from my limited world. Such as the movement of galaxies or subatomic particles. When you are attempting to comprehend the movement of galaxies, and subatomic particles at a fundamental level the absolute motion of the speed of light because it is independent of the motion of objects can be used to understand all relative motion of the physical objects involved.

I am not convinced that the concept of an infinite Something Physical as a real existent is possible. I can consider the idea of infinity to be explored theoretically within the mind to that extent infinity is real in our consciousness as is the idea of the stationary frame of reference. As to an infinity that is real in the physical universe I can say nothing itself is infinite, as everything in the universe has its pair of opposites. All opposites are identical in nature and differ only in degree. Physical things are always finite, no-thing, nothing may be infinite. Thus we have in the Universe something that is really existing and nothing that is also really existing. What possible connection between nothing and something could result in both being just different degrees of the same entity?

Motion itself, motion prior to objects moving, that is the entity that is the connecting link between something and nothing for something is created by the motion of nothing. The motion of an ongoing progression of space and time, a scalar motion according to the formula v=s/t evolves the space aspect of itself into physical matter and the time aspect of itself into consciousness within the same location. This evolution as each stage is reached passes to a higher level of complexity wherein the same natural internal law results in new manifested phenomena. Hierarchical nesting of matter yes I agree, I just don’t see it as infinite.

This is the beauty of the moving frame of reference for motion is both the cause and effect of itself when it is the motion of nothing. With the stationary frame of reference there is by definition no motion so that the motion of anything we see moving has to have its motion created by a source outside of the frame of reference we are using to understand the motion of objects. We have been quite comfortable for a long time with the idea of a nothing that does not move, the stationary frame of reference so its opposite, (everything, no-thing in the universe has its opposite) a moving nothing the space-time progression may take time to accept.

As much as the speed of light is c in the stationary frame of reference, in the moving frame of reference it becomes one unit of space combined with one unit of time to give, create, one unit of motion.

The motion we see incorrectly is the result of giving the motion we partake in, observe to some other source, like giving the motion of the rotating earth to the sun and then erroneously claiming that it is really moving relative to the earth, this is the result of seeing only relative motion or rather being only able to see relative motion for the absolute motion that should be available to explain relative motion is really the space and time progression of NOTHING moving outward from all locations whether occupied or not at c the speed of light. And how do you explain that concept. The motion that really exists is a motion you do not see or objectively sense because again it is the movement of nothing. If you take an expanding balloon and placing an X on its surface and then placing that X on the surface of a desk so that the X spot relative to the desk appears stationary you have not in the least changed the movement of any other spots marked on the surface of the inflating balloon but by effectively making the X spot appear stationary from your viewpoint you have unknowingly then given its motion, which is intrinsically away from all other spots on the balloon, an equal portion of its motion to all the other spots.

For further explanation please my essay submitted for the 2008 contest

The Foundation of Physics and the Explanation of Time



http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/388

view post as summary