Mass is a property of physical items. It is not itself an item. When an item with nonzero mass accelerates, a force that is realated to inertia acts on the item. Inertia exists in linear and in rotational form. Inertia is causes by the cooperating influences of the universe of items. The distant items form a uniform background influence. This creates a huge scalar potential at the location of the affected item. When the item moves uniformely, this goes together with a strong vector potential. When the item accelerates then this goes together with a field that produces the mentioned force. The force depends on the acceleration and on the mass of the item. Each item with mass produces a potential in its surrounds. The potentials of two items with mass cause an acceleration that depends on the product of their masses. The potential decreases with distance as 1/r.

A tight bit of prose that leaves many stranded.

The problem lies I think in your reaction to an image of mass, that most of us don't have. You negate the image of mass that you have, and tell us it isn't needed. But, since we don't share the image, we cannot understand why the image was offered in the first place, let alone negated.

So, instead of reacting to an image of mass that no-one shares, let me give you an image of mass, to react to, and maybe we will find something in common, and maybe not.

Energy exists because things move. In essence every form of energy is at least to potential for something to move. Einsteins formula E=MC^2, defines a relationship between movement and mass, that you are somehow suggesting is not needed.

In my Model, mass is a dynamic effect of spin in two axis at the speed of light. Because spin requires an axis, and an axis implies 2 dimensions, the minimum number of dimensions that mass can be defined by is 3 dimensions of space, and because spins happen over time, we require at least 4 dimensions of space-time.

This is why my theory requires that there be a phase change between the 2 dimensional light wave, and the three dimensional virtual particle called a photon, that phase change happens as a result of the 2 dimensional wave exceeding the limit speed of field, and causing a dimensional phase change requiring a third dimension. An interesting aspect of this, is that the third dimension also implies a three dimensional shape to the element that is formed, but it is probably only those particles that also spin at C in the new axis implied by that dimension that are stable enough to last. Einstein therefore was probably not describing photons when he described mass.

There are two other aspects to mass that I think are important, the inertia, or reluctance to change the vector of movement associated with mass, and the gravity, or attractive force that is associated with mass.

The concept of momentum suggests that big massive elements are harder to stop, and big massive elements are harder to accelerate than equivalent objects of less mass. The formula F=MA describes this relationship in that Mass factors into the amount of force needed to accelerate an object.

This suggests that there is something about spinning in two dimensions that acts to increase the reluctance of an object to move. To understand why this is, we might want to experiment with a Bicycle wheel. Take the front wheel off of a bicycle, and spin it very fast, then attempt to change the angle at which it spins, by changing the angle of the axle, it will resist you. Further when you attempt to turn with the spinning bicycle wheel in your hands it will resist turning. This is the effect that lets flywheels, tops, and gyroscopes work. By spinning gyroscopes up to extremely high speeds, we can get them to resist moving with the ship or structure that they are in, which lets us detect changes in angle of the heading of the ship, or structure. With bearings to reduce the friction that couples them to the ship, the gyro, is capable of staying set on a specific angle until they lose their spin, and precess.

Is then inertia, a product of spin in two axis, at C? possibly.

But if this model is correct, then your model cannot be, if only because it implies that energy is not required for the existence of a particle. The two axis tumble of mass, requires energy, but for some reason, that energy is supplied in a form that makes the product stable. And here we get into Entropy, the idea that nothing exists that does not distribute energy. If Entropy is true, then every time a mass gives off a frequency of radiation, then the energy released by the radiation must somehow be being pumped back into the mass, or the mass must be losing weight. In other words you cannot separate the mass from energy, because it requires energy to maintain, or loses mass. One aspect to unstable or radioactive elements is that they are unstable because they release so much mass, in the form of radiation that they change the nature of their chemical structure and become a less complex element in real time.

One might assume that if one could block time, that they would not degrade, but time itself is not that easily understood that we can "Block" it, and if as I assume it is the first dimension of space, blocking time, might also block space. Where would the elements exist if it were not for the environment of space in which they can be found?

There exists two kinds of inertia linear inertia and rotational inertia.

Sciama’s analysis of inertia is described in “On the origin of inertia” : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609026v4.pdf.

Please check: http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html

@Hans, I think it is not enough to say that mass is a property of objects. Can you explain what an object is, I could somehow infer from that of his property? I want to show an alternative solution, because I see that it might work better than existing ones. I do not see the shortcomings in my own idea, so if you see such a lack of, let me see it.

@Graeme, but in the fact that the sun circulates around the Earth we no longer believe, right? And according to what you write we should.

You begin your piece of prose saying "energy exists, because things are moving". There is something like that in it. You see the thing changes the relative value to you and say that those thing moves. O.K. I also see it. And what does it mean for you? Explain to me this phenomenon from the ground up as a continuation of the text does not make sense, if you will not do this. Only then I will know that you understand what you are writing about and perhaps we’ll find common ground, and maybe not.

@Sidney, probably I’ll disappoint you, but I am self-taught, and my book isn’t translated into English. But the thing does not require extensive descriptions to get the context. I think that nothing bad will happen, if I a little elaborate it here. As to the spiritual approach ... well, my reasoning is slightly different. I don’t close myself to other solutions. Simply at me it goes a little differently. But I could be wrong. I'm only human.

To be able to talk about anything at all (particles, forces), first we must have a frame of reference, to which we can compare them to see what those things are. This is the "base of base". Otherwise, we can (we do not need, but we can) be subject to illusion, and further discussions could be built in isolation from reality. Mentioned reference system must allow comparing to itself any event, even itself to itself, so it must be cleared completely, and yet exist. This implies that only the beginning of the Universe can be treated as a completely inertial reference system. Everyone else already existing will not allow to do this, because it’s the result of something that we are just looking for - some event that initiates the change in status.

What do we know for sure? We know that there is movement. Can we say that the movement is energy? I see that there is no problem. But what is the origin of movement? What are the things and why they move? Please note that if the existing movement would go in all directions equally (let it be three mutually perpendicular axes: x, y, z), then despite the duration of the motion cannot be said about the existence of anything. Not only there are no particles, but the movement itself, although there may be, it cannot be shown. I mean movement the entire contents of the Universe. I treat the Universe as one object, of which we are part, of which in some way we result. In this situation, there is nothing, because nothing can be distinguished, but there may be movement -> energy or immobility -> lack of energy. The whole structure of the Universe is the monolith - a point (1). It’s undivided. Size loses its significance. I hope nobody has a problem to imagine it?

The appearance of difference of motion causes a change in shape (there is a loss), so immediately color, and start time (already we can compare the movements of the axes - to count how much time they lose to each other). The Universe ceases to be transparent, there is a "hole" which forces a change of motion, thus interferes with the color.

Thus, we have two different states and time. But, what is what?

Let’s take a ball. What can we say about it, except that it is? But it’s already known. So let's take two balls. Now the question: what separates the balls? Space? And what is it? Emptiness? Lack of content? Nothing? Consequently, how can nothing (0) cause the ball to waste time getting to the second ball? If we express the distance as 1 meter, it 1 meter has size equal to 1 (positive). What kind of logic allows to: 1 = 0? However, if space is something (1), what is the ball? Also 1? Thus, 1 ≠ 1?

From the logical point of view (my logical point of view because, as one can see it’s a slightly different reasoning, maybe I'm crazy) zero connects totally, because it eliminates the differences in movement. It can even express the reference value of the force, because there is no greater power over this, which connects complete (totally resets). Two balls are here only an example of a general (classically averaged), as in default, the balls are located directly next to each other, and emptiness (here: the lack of anything, zero) does not connect them completely (so there is not zero, yet, but still not unity). If there was indeed no difference between the balls, there would be a total fusion, and we would have one ball - not two. Consequently, we are left with immobility (-1). 1 - 1 = 0 (if one ball) and 1 ≠ - 1. Balls are a result of difference in movement. Nothing else we have available.

Why do we succumb to the illusion? When the system is changed, it seems that an object is moving away from us (collapsing, reducing the size), generating a positive distance (1), although it really only changes the local value of the mass - a negative value (- 1) – lack of movement that allows to our total connection. This lack, however, we cannot see directly, so we use a method of action. When we are looking for the missing values (here: the difference between objects), we compare the objects, where: A - object, B, - object, C - distance (common space or my difference). We cannot see the stillness, so we use those things that we see (objects) and compare them with each other. And here we make inversion of the real state of things. For A ≠ B, we have two solutions: A - B = C and A - B = -C. But the solutions put in place naturally negative, positive real values (B is an object) or in place of the actual value of positive, negative value (in the second equation, the result is a surplus, and is negative -C). This is normal, because we do not know what is missing, so we use what we see and compare with each other. For this reason, if A> B, we get a positive result, and when A works. We see the Universe “upside down”. Hence, movement1 -movement2 = movement3. When mass ( -C) reaches zero , the system is balanced . But even when the mass reaches the equivalence of the energy system is balanced. With the existence of things we have to do only when there is an imbalance (lack of symmetry of motion). Hence, the lack of "justice" at different levels of abstraction, such as the lack of equality of citizens, allows operation of societies.

The fact is that the longer wave has less energy than shorter. This means that the maximum mass is the minimum energy. And very well. There is no need to convert mass into energy. Einstein did not say what the mass is. The effect will be identical. Just as oxygen is bond to burn as energy (movement) will come in place of the mass (stillness), but the contents of both elements remain constant, and the relation of their values determines the power of act. Not every value of the movement matches the value of stillness, so do not come with it on impact. At the same time the engine of the Universe is kept - the overall difference in movement - the total mass of the Universe.

If anyone has trouble imagining a situation can compare the steady state of the Universe to the physical state such a gas cloud, where the generation of local mass recalls condensing gas in the liquid where the liquid does not move through the gas, but it evaporates and condenses in a certain direction, which gives the impression of physical movement.

Time (the virtual thing), as a result of the comparison with each movement, you can form "freely". You can go it back, but to accelerate. Thou there are limitations. When it comes to alignment axis of movement, time ceases to expire (still potential) - the mass disappears. Regardless of whether we move closer to the rate of c, or whether we will change the size of the object to zero it will cause the alignment of axes of motion, and never cross zero. Mass treated in terms of positive values cannot do this. There are those who think that at the time, you can "move" because they perceive movement in a classical way, and time, as an additional axis of movement. Nothing like that. Shaping time we change mass and vice versa - that's all. We can restore the state of our body, to any of his time (mass) and we never have to “travel”. The rest of “time travel”, can be inserted between the cartoons.

The Planck scales: Planck time, Planck length are fundamental. From this fact it can be derived that mathematical points are non existant in nature.

Inertia is the consequence of the collaboration of the influences of distant physical items that have mass. It is the same influence that causes gravity. The electrostatic fields and the magnetostatic fields have a similar influence, but since electric charge has two values, one positive and one negative, these values can compensate each other in large masses. That means that only the gravitational field has a long range effect.

Each physical item is surrounded by its own fields. Movement is initiated by the non-uniformity of the fields. Each movement step causes a reconfiguration of the fileds. Without fields there is no dynamics in nature other than uniform motion.

Nature is based on logic. The propositions in this logic only concern static facts. Thus the logic does not treat dynamics. There is only one way to add dynamics to such system. That is by exchanginging in a sequence of steps the existing logic against a new static logic. The role of the fields is that they secure a smooth transfer between the logics.

At each instant the current logic and the current configurations of the fields describe the current static status quo.

The logic is known as traditional quantum logic.

Each proposition in traditional quantum logic can be represented by a closed subspace of an infinite dimensional separable (=countable) Hilbert space. Fields do not fit in this picture, because they cover the whole Hilbert space. They can be seen as constituted from blurred Hilbert vectors. Each blur covers a large set and may be all of the Hilbert vectors. Every Hilbert vector is touched by a value of the field. In this way traditional quantum logic can be extended such that it also covers the influences of fields. In order to get dynamics it is still needed to step from one extended quantum logic to the next. The countability of the Hilbert space has as consequence that all sets of observable values are countable as well. Nature is principally granular.

What about Hilbert vectors that are only blurred by a gravitational blur. Will that act as dark matter or as dark energy?

About half of Schillers http://www.motionmountain.net/research.html is devoted to the fact that we cannot measure spacetime, mass and energy with sufficient accuracy for cosmologic and femtoscopic purposes.

If the first set is infinite (countable or uncountable) then the new set has the same size. If it is finite, then the new set is larger. When the addition is finite as well, the sum is still finite. Addition of an uncountable set makes the sum uncountable. Read Cantor.

The prove that gravity exists is given by what you experience when you accelerate. It is the influence of the community of physical items with mass that exist in your environment. Take the whole universe as your environment and reckon that the gravitation potential diminishes with distance.

It is well possible that nature lives in an affine space. In that case there is no border. We can still get the impression of a border. It is the consequence of how far we can see.

Sorry I didn't get back to this earlier,

Ok, I said that energy, is motion or the potential for motion.

Somewhere in there you assumed that the motion was relative to an observer, Why was that?

Sure we observe motion, and thus can prove that it exists, but the observer doesn't materially change the nature of motion. The motion happens regardless of viewpoint.

Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? If there is nobody to hear? Define sound, if you require an observer the tree can be claimed not to fall, until you trip over it. At that point it is not a tree falling anymore it is a log, but if you didn't realize that the tree had to fall to become a log, you would assume that the sound determined whether or not the tree fell, and so would assume that the tree didn't fall, because no one heard the sound. Yet you trip over the moss covered log.

So it is with motion, often we don't observe motion, just the results of it continuing even when we weren't observing. Just because I don't look up into the night sky, or can't pick out the stars when I do, doesn't mean that they are not part of galaxies that turn when no one is observing them, and follow mathematical rules that indicate that they have been turning even when we do not observe them, if only because our telescopes didn't reach that far.

You want first principles for motion.

Ok, I look at it from a Dark Energy perspective, I am not a flat earther as you implied.

Given a repulsive force called dark energy that has a more fundamental aspect to it, than might be thought, Two objects that share the dark-energy force, will repulse each other, much like certain poles of a magnet do, or two like charges. Dark energy is a relatively light force, in that it is less than gravity, and so doesn't overwhelm gravity, until the scale is so large that gravitic attraction is weak enough that it is not germane to the discussion.

We know it must exist therefore because the cumulative effects of it, curve actual physical structures at the galactic level, in a direction that gravity alone cannot account for.

It doesn't matter whether there is an observer, since even the furthest galaxies that we can get images of, galaxies that existed long before we can document anyone who could have been an observer, and the light from which, has travelled all that time, to show them to us, have these curves in their structures.

So please do not talk to me of Observers when you want to talk about energy.

Observers are important when we want to measure certain physical variables that are not, it seems compatible with each other. This is the area of Shroedingers Cat, and has been controversial, but well debated ever since it was proposed. Heisenberg and Schoedinger argued over this for an extended period, which is why it stays in historical documents.

The image is just the thing that sophomores like to pick up on. Torturing Cats as a way of describing why some physical quantities can't be measured together.

However it is just an attempt to explain why we can't measure something at one point and can at another. The mythical observer opening the shroedinger box, can finally measure whether the cat is dead or alive. But really we can't tell whether it is the Observer, or the fact that we opened the box, that determined something. It is just as likely that there is some feedback from our attempt to measure, that determines which measurement we can take. The attempt to measure one aspect of the physical content might open the box in a different manner than the attempt to measure the other, and as a result the cat may die more often in that sense than in the other. The "Observer Effect" therefore has more to do with how the quantum can be measured, than in how it operates when unmeasured, and therefore while the box is closed.

Observers are a concept of philosophers that want to define propositions about physics and next want to reason about them. They also introduced the concept of measurement. It is a strange concept as if every particle possesses a series of measuring equipments that can enforce a particular state for other particles. The suggested events are just thought experiments and have little in common with physical reality or it must be the spurious cases that humans perform a proper measurement.

The theory of Quantum Collapse into a knowable form, Which is part of Quantum Computer theory, suggests that there is something, eerie about the way that Quantums Work, that makes it possible for a Quantum Wave Function to simultaneously hold multiple states, until they collapse, and that somehow we can use that for computing. The main problem with this theory, is that we can't predict whether the Quantum function will collapse on its own, or only when we test it to see what it's value is. As a result, Quantum computing requires a statistically significant population of Quantum calculation elements called Que-bits to be sampled in order to figure out what the result should be. Things get even stranger when we try to link two que-bits using action at a distance, to produce a simulation of teleportation.

Pick a bicycle and try to reach 10 miles/hour in 20 seconds. Then you experience acceleration and there is nothing around that holds you back! There are no ghosts, just fields. Now cycle with the wind, such that you do not feel the wind and keep that uniform speed. Then there is nothing, not even a field that holds you back. Still you are moving. You are not helped by the wind, but the wind does not hold you back either. For this experiment you must use a well-oiled bike, not the old rusty grandmother's bike.

Effort is force times distance. Force is mass times acceleration. So you experienced acceleration.

I think you are missing the point, by requiring your own sensory envelope to be the only senses that tell you about the Universe. Not every physicist can spend significant periods of time lying under an apple tree waiting for the apple to fall.

If you refuse any physicist after Newton the right to talk about gravity, because they personally did not have an apple fall on their head, then you are making a very strange assumption about the nature of philosophy, and nature.

The accelleration of gravity was experimented with centuries ago, (Remembers Copernicus (sorry I may have made an error, I have been assured it was Gallileo not Copernicus) and the tower of Pisa?) Just because you don't experience it, as a personal sensory phenomena doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, merely that your sensory envelope, does not properly measure it.

Ask yourself this, why would a sense of accelleration evolve?

The head does have something like an accellerometer in it, but it is used more for detecting motion, and direction than for detecting accelleration. The reason why you feel weightless in space, is because the evolved mechanism, depends on gravity to settle the liquid that acts as the motion detector. So your argument is specious in that it depends on a special case in which the system is taken out of its natural operating parameters

Concerning the point.

The point is commonly understood as a geometric object (where its radius is its earth - "something with a very small size”).

The point in the movement system means no difference in movement - the same ratio of all axes of motion - it is neither geometry, nor the strength. This is a time distance. Despite the fact that something happens time does not expire (it is turned off). Thus, there is something (1) and nothing (0). The distance is equal to zero - and this is the time point.

Concerning the observer.

When I’m observing some object, then I’m existing (I'm the second object). When I’m not watching any object, then I’m not existing (there is no second object).

When I am, I’m causing change of another object. When I'm gone, I’m not doing this. The process of observation means the influence and is not colloquial “looking at” but just existence. Speaking about existence, I'm talking about movement, so the mass (i.e. me), is relative (if I get closer to Canada I depart from Poland). It's pretty simple. What do I care if the cat is alive or not? Or sound of the falling tree? This is a different matter, which is related to the prediction of events.

Now ... perception movement through the concept of another movement to be more fundamental than the previous one, thus more reliable? Forgive me, but I do not understand. We do not want to replace some of the expressions with the other expressions, but we want to explain the origin of the movement. I’ve showed what the movement comes from. I do not need to this act any forces, fields, dark energy, dark matter, etc.

K.W. "We do not want to replace some of the expressions with other expressions"

And so, fail to achieve a "String of Models" which includes other expressions known to science.

K.W. "I have showed what the movement comes from"

Have you really? Funny I must have missed that part.

K.W. "When I'm Observing some object then I'm existing. ... When I'm not watching any object then I am not existing ..."

Ah, then why are we having this conversation, You must not exist, because you are not watching me.

Ah, I see here, a tendency to be sceptical yourself, but not to allow others to be sceptical in return.

I think that is idealistic.

It is a matter of Onus, versus freedom to think.

Onus as you may know, is the big rock with "Truth" printed on it, that Greek speakers used to have to hold to limit the length of their speeches.

Essentially the "Onus" in any scientific discussion, is for the introducer of a new idea, to show it's validity. Sceptical thinkers will pick holes in any idea where the validity is not shown, especially where the ideas fly in the face of accepted wisdom, but are based on personal opinion, cultural assumption, or arbitrary changes to the accepted knowledge. It is up- to the introducer of the idea, to at least attempt to defend their idea against common criticism. This then is the Onus of scientific discussion.

On the other hand, if you want to speculate freely, you merely need not to publish in a scientific site. Researchgate is not the only site where discussion is ongoing, it is however a site with a large number of actual scientists and amateur scientists like me. When making statements that are inconsistent, or self-invalidating you may expect them to be picked up on and negated. It is easy to assume that your own understanding of current wisdom is accurate, but instead to be asked to defend your understanding when it steps outside accepted boundaries.

I always attempt to show where my objection to a posters statements lies in my own work, and where it lies in accepted wisdom. When attempting to attack accepted wisdom, I always try to explain why I am attacking it, and look for a paradigm change, instead of taking an arbitrary stand and pushing my own beliefs onto others.

Arbitrary ground rules will not, I think improve the discussion level.

William, yes, I think that our "inner" Universe is just pure information and nothing more. The information, however, requires the carrier (medium). But it needs also a mechanism for dynamic changing its value.

String theory gives an idea of that, you can create a form of object using one-dimensional motion of the element. It also gives an idea, that the dimensions can be reduced. Einstein showed how to explain the origin of gravity, “bending” spacetime with mass. These are genius ideas. Nevertheless in Einstein gravity does not always work, and could. But Einstein did not have to understand the essence of mass (didn’t even know that the Universe is expanding, and this is the base). He “took” what was then. I imagine the Universe as one object that "swells" in all its capacity (it is quite important that the entire capacity). This is not important, what it is. It is important that this exists. Although it might as well not exist. Therefore, I note that in homogeneous movement (when the Universe “swells” equally) cannot distinguish any change, but despite this, such an arrangement could exist at all. From our point of view, however, cannot exist in reality, because we are the result of his disorder, so if there is a "clean" system than we don’t exist, and when we exist, there is no "clean" output circuitry. "Visible" movement, (measurable) results from the mere possibility of disorders, which in essence is perfectly unstable. It’s possible to distinguish any direction (that is to run the system - expose some part of it), stopping the movement in this direction. This disorder can be either local or total, so you may receive the deflection that generates the particle image, but can also collapse the entire Universe. What is also completely natural process. It is a regular possibility. It does not need a reason. Just as the "clean" movement does not need any reason.

As can be seen, the idea does not change in some extraordinary way reasoning, whose roots date back to Einstein and string theory. I want to show that reducing the dimensions we can get the mass, which can be immediately identified with the gravity quantum understood. Natural, simple and complete base, which can be freely complicated. Einstein's concept will work on any level, because the change in values will occur in steps, and the natural limit of the value will not allowing getting any time (any mass). This system is a dynamic one. It works in natural way. The existence of forces or fields is unnecessary. It's just a superficial impression.

#H1-252. Ref Hans Van Leunen, Feb 2, 2011 3:08 am.

@*. I understand.

But please treat the following as a androgogy question:

I want to know what is the thing,eg a rock, is called? And it has fundamental properties like mass, charge, even size. What these are? Wiould it be right for me to assume a "rock" exists, and not mass/charge/size?

And a rock interacts as mass/charge/size, ie for the limited purpose hers, three different types of interactions. If these are properties, where do they reside. Ok, they reside in the rock itself.

These three have different shapes and colours and/ie appearances? Does charge carry mass? Of course now only i said rock carries all these; let me grant "rock" and be satisfied with that.

Now iwant to know what is this type of question i am getting arising. Does it make meaning to ask if a "property" has a separable form? [separable from usually what is called as a form, eg rock]. This is necessarily a category error, or fit but as fiction?

Then a related question is, if i will talk about radiation, are these three properties applicable, esp electromagnetic or what radiation too "houses" these properties, esp in the sense "separable"?

The easiest answer is that the questions contain "factual error" --What this is what David Hirst would say as $, or here enchantment of properties?

$I don't know if i understand DH's meaning correctly. Just guess is.

_____________________________________________________

EDITdone. Added:

B. To complicate matters,

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Clifford.html.

And incidentally, Clifford has given another gem:

_______________________

#H1-253.

252-2. Graeme Smith, Feb 2, 2011 3:15 am.

For my gleaning purpose: Rotational motion resists linear motion, that's how tops reach the standstill.

in these pages, i once read, the rotational and the linear motions are [only] two fundamental possibilities of motion/movement. In that case, i would like it to be able toexplain the two motions aren't "interactible" with each other, and even for a top, or earth or sun, the two motions are some how separately acting, and if at all not more than minimum coupled.

If my desire for that kind of model is absurd, can be unscientific, and i may not pursue it further.

______________________________________________________________________

252-3. Hans van Leunen, 0202110336. And here your link to Berman (Brazil) promises to

____________________________________________________________

252-4. Krzysztof Wypych, Feb 6, 2011 11:15 pm.

@*. illusion/fiction. i need beware. Lest intruding into unfamiliar territory threads in RG.

@*. I think this reminds me of an old Greek definition, I am unable to recall, something talking about something point/circle of no radius.

_________________________________________________________________

252-5. Sidney Clouston, 0207110456. The link given to NASA pictures: 96 % dark matter and 4% atoms. Now they have to this stage, next we have to propose infinitesimily, and thereafter, uncertainty, that atoms, and therefore we, exist. Back to Maya, etc? [Of course, i already expressed in earlier thread, Maya may be uncertainity but is not non-existense.]

_____________________________________________________________________

#H1-254. This thread "Nature of mass" i am reading daily as it get posted; however, due to the difficulty level of the subject matter involved, i had to wait, now re-read the first page, and record my gleanings (H1-252 and 253). As William J would say, i feel i may be out of place and intrusionary, but i know no other way but to want to say 'in situ' thanks only by way of my responses.

I only want to hope, the questions raised, would hopefully make some minute addition to the reflections on the topic involved.

Now to the page 2.

254-1. William Jackson, Feb 8, 2011 1:05 am. .

@*. I think that you at least spin the earth around a stationery bucket of water, and if at all the water would rise up the sides, it has not yet been distinguished by us so far. What i know, with Samuel Berman's link given in this thread by Hans vL, further containing the following:

> The numerical value of the expected relative acceleration, acting in a radial direction from the ”observed” to the ”observer”, is about 8.0 × 10^−8cm/ sec^2 .>>

Will Berman's be approximately a "expansion within an expansion" or a second "moving away" of about 8 cm per 100 million seconds?

_______________________________________________________________________

254-2. Graeme Smith, Feb 8, 2011 10:31 pm.

@*. That's entirely secondary to the question of origin of acceleration. However, it is a very nice field of study as to how we biology has evolved mechanisms to "feel" different physical parameters.

________________________________________________________________________

253-3. William Jackson, Feb 8, 2011 11:54 pm.

1. I am not sure if black holes and big bang indeed form boundaries of universe. I had also been interested in extrapolating similarly [for example, i said that the light radiation coming to rest would turn to 3D matter], but many extrapolations may not be valid. The "boundary" does not make the laws "smear over", other laws may take over there; but, this means there is actually need not be "boundary phenomenon" but only a second region/universe; since there need to be only one universe, we need to discover how in the boundary phase too our known physical laws "meaning-retainingly" operate, and there isn't loss of massed mass or information. If this is to be the sense, then almost there wouldn't be a boundary except in that it's a relative region; we ourselves may form boundary to some other observer; i think "any/all points as boundary" is possible in a spherical universe, and may be possible in a flat universe too if the flat too loops over, and to simplfy things, i believe in conservation of truth and chronology protection; universe would have wanted not only the consistency of logical truths but also that any truth be not undone.

The Sun may rise in the west or south tomorrow, but that will still have been underwent through the physical laws, including that of no distortioning of information.

2.

@*. That is, boundary gets formed only AFTER that such of information attempts to "reach" and gets smeared.

3. matter from information: so something need precede information (or not need)?

______________________

254-4. William Jackson, Feb 9, 2011 1:48 am.

I am also more comfortable with tweaking a few equations, than dreaming up vast quantities of imaginary mass and energy.>>

@*. and time and space.

Very much my sentiment!

_______________________________________________________________

254-5. Ref Graeme Smith, 0209111917 :

>

@*. Actually, i will be really thankful for that helping me to become right/correct/consistent.

H1-256. Ref William Jackson, Feb 15, 2011 1:20 am. @*. I don't know ownable universes! The earlier record was when somebody calculated 600 trillion stars for every one person for our 6 billion population!

(The above in lighter vein only).

I think i should have missed your earlier explanation, or link; i am sorry. How now i may get to know this your/my universes; more so, how BH and BB can be boundaries not for BOTH; I understand boundaries are like horizons hereby, but it can differ for two persons in Earth.

Then this question of travelling at various speeds and aging. Does light age or not? Any effect of time on light? (red shift and hubble's law notwithstanding)$ I am very uncomfortable just like a common person with the light years and galaxy numbers; even geologic time or cosmological time or femtoscopic sizes [i am the last person to necessarily doubt them!]; i will like better comfort, nothing more.

$.This is because i think [somehow] time would not pass/flow when something is at the speed of light. I would not know what physiology would do, but any way we have been assured [by me!] (1) matter cannot continue to be and may become energy at the speed of light and (2) matter may never reach the speed of light [then how is the conversion? uncertainty should help?]

Is there a way to "reduce" the distance? I do not want to believe in the wormhole etc as yet, nevertheless i would like to have a way [can only think of even less worse way like jumping through another dimension; nonsense]. After all speed and travel do reduce the distance, so what would be similar to them and be better too? But, i think these questions are all because confusing fictitious ideas with realistic efforts.

"I think [somehow] time would not pass/flow when something is at the speed of light"

My understanding is that time would still flow but at 90 degrees to the velocity. As such, as you near the speed of light, you would experience time as slowing, not stopping. In essence your clocks would "Lose time" and tend to be running slow with respect to a stationary clock.

"Matter cannot continue to be and may become energy at the speed of light"

It is my thought, that instead of turning back into energy, the energy needed to achieve the velocity of light, will be transformed into expansion at 90 degrees to the velocity, and therefore not only will the ship become shorter, but fatter as well.

"Is there a way to reduce the distance? I do not want to believe in the wormhole etc."

The answer lies in the nature of space. If space is flat, and not convaluted, then the idea of a space warp, that allows you to move across the warp instead of along space seems silly, unless you can create a local condition that warps space, and how much space you can warp seems limited by its locality.

By the same token, if space is the same in all dimensions, then dimensional theory can be ignored, since moving into a different dimension, will not give you any leverage.

But let me suggest that New Dimensions in a constructive space, may not have expanded to the same extent as old dimensions, and thus that traversal in a new dimension might have a shorter distance to go, than an older dimension, and since dimensions in my constructive space wrap around each other, it might be possible to translate to a newer dimension, and move more efficiently in that dimension, than in an older dimension, if only because it hasn't expanded as far. You probably won't be able to exceed the dimensional variation of C, but Translation into the newer dimension and back out, being possible, you might travel further faster in the combined dimensions, than you would be able to without translation.

If space and time are field phenomena, as I have suggested, there very well might be a way to translate into a higher dimension (and thus newer dimension) using a local high tension field. But if there is any truth to the Philadelphia experiment, you should be very careful about electrical discharges and tidal effects etc. The temporal effects, might also be a bit scrambled if the field design is poorly thought out.

Concerning the point and the border.( I see that the problem is often raised).

In my view, the thing lies in the way of evaluation. If we look at the Universe as a geometric object, then we don’t know where the Universe ends, or where it begins. But if we look at it from the perspective of movement, it will not worry us: where? But: when?

If we assume that E - is the energy (motion), (-E) - is the mass (inertia) then using the formula I’ve written above we’ll obtain three solutions to this problem:

E – E = 0

E + 0 = E

0 –E = -E

The last solution shows the collapse (there is only mass, energy = 0). The second solution shows the total dispersion (there is only energy, mass = 0). The first solution shows the annihilation (energy = mass). And then (and not: here), we have to deal with the point, boundary. This is the set of equations of the Universe before his birth. Zero point, inertial reference system.

Disturbing the symmetry, we start zero, we begin to count down the time because then appears a measurable movement, which can be compared with each other and we can say how much time one loses to the other. But, there is one condition: energy cannot be equal to mass.

This is the first time i read started responding from "Start Page/ Network News". Usually,i go to thread and read and respond.

#H1-257. Ref William Jackson, Feb 16, 2011 2:02 am. @*. I am indeed pleased to be favored with your ideas, and well presented; i understand your communication would not have been complete even in respect of the wordeas (word+idea, may be precursor to a fully-formed concept) took up; our "understandings" do take time to "phase change" to "explanations/language".

As i read i was reminded of one of my ideas "nature converges from so many different (possible) routes". I don't think by this i suggest only multiple routes ADDing along, but also COMBINEing; what is the difference between the two words add/combine; i think quantitative and qualitative; the roads here have a difference in that they have both "linear" and "synthesis" implication too. That is, take for example the various theories of originof life: it is possible life might have originated in different spatial parts of and different time periods of (now we are talking of!) universe. That means, it makes little sense(is it so?) to restrict our "philosophic enquiry" to origins of life only at Earth (however, i admit it will take sufficient sense if we the different genesES are unconnected; but presently i am not taking up that variant).

Then what do i want, and how the add/combine fit in: it is like this: let us say we have found atleast some instances of life(say a small number, 5), say (1) Earth,now, (2) Earth, 5 billion years ago, (3) Sirius, 1 million year ago, (4) some exoplanet, 1 billion years ago, (5) some other galaxy, present! Let they be based on different elements, C, C, B, S, N.

Each of the above would have taken a different route, the route to each specific like let us name as "named routes" ie the specific which takes to the named destination, C-life, B-life, etc; since we would not know the route, we would have multiple theories of routes to each named destination; i think, each route could describe major aspects of the pathway; we only may need to further abstract (synthesise "combining" from different theories) to reach single pathway, or if likely, a taxonomic pathway which would "add"; if we admit a "taxonomic path way" subdistances too may be amenable to "synthesis" as ideas grow; when ideas grow, it's not that the subpaths get re-laid, only that our theory gets re-laid; then the older ideas were not true? Here we do not want to disinherit our older ideas/discredited subpaths; they were the one which took us/me to our/my understanding, so they are "true" in the realm of understanding, and remain there, and need not claimfurther participation to "theory" having done their purpose; truth not possible other than through the path of "apporximate"/ "precursorial" distruth.

I think i have gone to write too clumsyly, which would disserve my communicability; i only hope some how it will communicate. I am at a loss other than to write stream-of-thought; No luxury of time to orderise and re-present the clumsy generations. I still only hope i make sense.

William, that's right. I see it like that. Picture of reality (coming from all the senses), which gives us our brain, has geometrical character (object-oriented), because such a solution accelerates our verdict, making it easier to survive. But things are not really geometric.

I think however that the impression of a limit object is achieved because we are not able to cover its form in its entirety. Our sensitivity is limited. Therefore, when describing an object we express it in the range "visible" for us. I don’t enter any object (finite form) to any space. I get out (distinguish) the existence of one object. If I have many distinguished places of that total, then they come together in interaction. Thus, it comes to averaging motion. This will result in that, despite the existence of a single rate of motion in general (c), average motion speed falls below c, and the character of the Universe will be a local reduction (collapse), giving on the occasion of the 3D image (which may seem limited). I think that this interpretation gives a clear picture of why the average mass cannot reach c, and gravity takes its effect on c. Average object when "approaching" to c, just spread the average mass. There is not classic movement. This leads only to compensate for the rate motion of the Universe in a certain direction, which changes the value of the mass. The object begins to lose the mass, ie recover the loss, "buries" the hole.

I know that it is also about some of the visual image of the Universe, for which there is the question: finite or not? But the "visualization" leads to the geometry and raises the question of where it ends? What is beyond? Am I from the border so far that it cannot see it, or maybe this limit simply does not exist? This is natural attitude. We are built in such a way. But if there is no geometry, this limit is a different type: when? And an answer is simple, too.

#H1-275. Ref Graeme Smith, Feb 16, 2011 12:49 am . Thank you for your detailed explanation.

Ref William Jackson. Feb 16, 2011 2:02 am Thank you for your detailed explanation.