"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[Khwartz]

As Mathis's theories are pretty huge work to study for a not good at english tongue, I answer you on the items I can already answer to advance the discission a few:

So let's define these conceptual errors so we have something concrete to discuss:

I claim that space (and time) of our daily lives are just geometric reference systems and their only properties are magnitude and direction.

OK, I get what you state. Looks to me we have a rather similar concept of space. Except that for me this space could be filled uniformly of "something".

More precisely and to go all the way along in my present paradigme, I start with METAPHYSICS, and specifically ONTOLOGY:

As I see it:

• SPACE IS A METAPHYSICAL CONSIDERATION, AS TIME IS ALSO.

As in eastern very old concept,

• REALITY IS AN CONSIDERATION OF EXISTENCE. THINGS EXIST BECAUSE WE AGREE THEY EXIST.

• UNIVERSES ARE CREATED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS WE MADE AND AGREEMENTS WE TAKE, IF NOT A VERY PERSONAL UNIVERSE (TO EXIST, A COMMON UNIVERSE, NEEDS AGREEMENTS LIKE A COMMON SPACE AND TIME CONTINUUM, WHILE A VERY PERSONAL UNIVERSE ONLY NEED OUR OWN PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS).

• WHAT WE NAME "PHYSICAL UNIVERSE" IS A HUGE COMMON UNIVERSE WHICH LOOKS VERY STABLE, AS STABLE INDEED THAT THE AGREEMENTS UPON IT IS BASED ARE FORGOTTEN OR LOST SINCE A WHILE. CORROLARY: RECOVERING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THESE BASIC AGREEMENTS SHOULD PROVIDE THE CAPABILITY, FOR THE BENEFICARY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE, TO CHANGE THE PROPERTIES OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, AT LEAST FOR ONESELF.

• "SPACE", IS THE CONSIDERATION OF "DISTANCE". IT NEEDS A VIEWER AND IT NEEDS AT LEAST ONE "POINTS TO VIEW". "3D" SPACE OCCURS WITH AT LEAST 1 VIEWVER AND 3 OTHER "POINT TO VIEW" WITH NO OF THEM ARE "IN BETWEEN EACH OTHER" (MEANS NOT "ALINED").

• "TIME", IS THE CONSIDERATION OF DURATION. A VIEWER CAN HAVE IT EVEN FOR A FULL FIXED UNIVERSE WHERE NO "PTV" ("POINT TO VIEW") ARE CONSIDERED TO "MOVE", SO "PTV" NOT BEING SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF "CHANGING DISTANCE CONSIDERATION". CORROLARY: CHANGING CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE OF A VIEWER UPON A PTV IS EQUIVALENT TO A CHANGING CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE OF THE VIEWER UPON ITSELF RELATIVELY TO A PTV.

• "ENERGY", IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED OF TIME FOR A CHANGE TO OCCURE. CORROLARY: "INERTIA" IS THE RATIO TIME NEEDED UNDER DEGREE OF CHANGE. CORROLARY: WITHOUT THIS CONSIDERATION, "INSTANT CHANGES" CAN OCCURE, WOULD BE IS A SAME LOCATION ("LOCATION" = CONSIDERATIONS OF RELATIVE DISTANCE), OR NOT.

Note: All these statements are open to constructive critics, and will remain still only in they can stand the critics and bring better understanding (= clearer, simpler, more efficient explainative and predictive theories about any universe and specifically to "THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE").

Khwartz.

You on the other hand, seem to claim (and correct me if I'm wrong) that space is a 3D container that envelops us all and is endowed with myriad of properties, such as permittivity and permeability and is filled with something called Aether that acts as a fluid or gas and has the following properties (list them) needed to support propagation of light between atoms as waves.  You do not address the properties of time at all, other than its one-dimensional nature.
Most likely you think that time represents one dimension of some 4D continuum, while space represents three dimensions of the same continuum.

I have specified just before my concept of time.

For me, in this specific universe we call "physical universes", I will cal then "PHI", the greeck letter, SPACE is A DIMENTIONAL THING. Then we need TO FILL this SAPCE with "DIMENSIONAL POINTS" to which we will give propertises, FOR THEMSELVES and IN RELATION WITH OTHERS "DP".

CORROLARY: "EATHER", IS A "GRID" (OR "MATRIX") OF INFINITESIMAL "DP" WHICH CAN CHANGE THEIR BASIC STATE ACCORDING TO THE PREVIOUS SAID PROPERTIES WE HAVE AGREED THEY HAVE FOR THEMSELVES AND IN RELATION WITH OTHERS.

CORROLARY: AN "E.M. WAVE", IS A PROPAGATION OF CHANGES  IN THE GRID (OR "MATRIX") OF THESE THINEST D.P.

CORROLARY: THE SPEED AND GENERAL BEHAVIOUR OF AN E.M. WAVE IS ONLY DETERMINED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS OF BEHAVIOUR OF THE D.P.

CORROLARY: A "MOUVEMENT" IN SPACE, IS THE CONSIDERATION THAT SUCCESSIVE STATE CHANGES IN INFINITESIMAL LOCATIONAL DIFFERENCES, HAVE A "SAMENESS" AS A WHOLE (IS A SAID/CONSIDERATED "SAME THING" THAT CHANGE OF SPACE LOCATION).

CORROLARY: "ENERGY", IS A CONSIDERATION OF TENDENCY FOR CHANGE AGAINST A "COUNTER-CONSIDERATION " OF CHANGE (INERTIA, RESISTANCE). IT CAN BE A CHANGE OF SPACE LOCATION, OR IT CAN BE A CHANGE OF STATE OF PD WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF MOUVEMENT.

CORROLARY: A "CHARGE" IS THE "INTENSITY" OF THE CONSIDERATION OF SENSIBILITY TO A CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE OR ITS OPPOSITION TO. (Like in gravity, GRAVITATIONAL MASS acts as a "POSITIVE SENSIBILITY" in reciprocal attraction but as "NEGATIVE SENSIBILITY" in "pulling" or "tracting" modes in sideral space for a spacenef with  rocket motors.)


CORROLARY: WE CAN HAVE "ENERGY FLOWS" (MOUVEMENT), OR "STATIC ENERGY" (WITHOUT MOUVEMENT, OR "PURE STATE ENERGY".

CORROLARY: "A PARTICLE", IS A CLOSE 3D LOOP OF ENERGY FLOWS AROUND AN AVERAGE LOCATION. THIS AVERAGE LOCATION WHICH CAN BE THE "GRAVITY CENTER" (IF HAVE GRAVITY BEHAVIOUR CONSIDERATIONS), CAN ITSELF MOUVE IN THE "MATRIX" AND HAVE A TRAJECTORY.

CORROLARY: "MATTER" IS BASICALLY A CONDENSED ENERGY, AS A PARTICLE IS, BUT HAVING NECESSARELY A CONSIDERATION OF "GRAVITY BEHAVIOUR".

I realize that I'm putting a lot of words in your proverbial mouth but this is to provoke you to revise the paragraph above according to your framework of understanding the physical universe.

Done and thanks for the opportunity to do so, dear Verpies.

Much groundwork would need to be covered first.
Read this with a rigorous understanding and follow the links in it (even if it takes you a week), but remember that this is not my framework.
While I agree with most of Mathis' conclusions, my framework is much more fundamental because it addresses the composition of charge, photons as well as the nature of space and time (Mathis' framework does not).

OK, I will try to care of that difference with you in my study. Thanks for sharing.

I'm starting with somebody's else's framework because you have mentioned Dirac's concepts and they need to be addressed first (Mathis addresses legacy concepts much better than I) before we jump into the more fundamental framework of mine.

OK.

As a teaser of what's coming when we get to it - I will ask you a simple question:
What is "motion" and what are the units of it?

Done already partially.

For the UNIT OF MOTION, it is all about CONSIDERATIONS AND COMMON AGREEMENT UPON.

But if you talk about something like "THE THINEST UNIT OF MOTION", it would be related for me to THE THINEST CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE "D.P." I conjectured earlier.

Cheers.

[Khwartz]

Yes.
However if neutrons are removed from the nucleus and exposed to the environment outside, then in 14.7 sec. half of neutrons will decay into  protons, fast electrons and anti-ν_e.

Understand but then it is no more neutron; right?

Still need to go through Mathis's theories but you can already react on my previous "proverbial" conjectured axioms and corrolaries...

Thanks for your attention and constructive efforts until now,
Cheers, Khwartz.

[tinman]

My late dad would have been all over this thread like a bad nappy rash on a baby.
He was the reason i got into all this free energy stuff in the first place-befor that,i was just a mechanical/industrial engineer.

My dad !David Fincher! has many pattents to his name,one of which is listed below.

http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US_4926398&language=&patnum=US_4926398&language=en&query=&stemming=&pid=p0

But his true passion was in reserch,in the way of free energy generation.He always believe that the answer lye in motion,space and time.His reserch went as far as having a small working device,which remains in the hands of the remaining company share holders-1 being myself.

As there is two other share holders,i cannot simple forward the device itself.
BUT,i can however forward a coppy of his book that containes the information the device was based around.

If those dedicated (posted )to this thread would like a copy of his book,then email my personal email,and i will forward a coppy to you.
Apon doing so,you agree not to share or forward the book to any other person,as it is PTY LTD reserved-avalible to purchase on amazon.

My personal email is  sidewinder350@westnet.com.au
And please,only people on this thread.

[Khwartz]

I tinman!

I am honoured you joint this thread and share your very personal family history and the work of your late daddy.

I send you my mail in pm and if I see this book enrich me intellectually or personally, it will be my very pleasure to purchase it then on Amazon but be very patient cause I do not read english fast!

Thanks To Be Here And To Communicate With A Constructive Purpose For The General Interest

Cheers, Khwartz.

[d3x0r]

I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also? (I've read and reread the equations of torque and I still can't get it)

Here's most of a structure for a particle.... though since most aren't programmers it might as well be alpha-centurian....


// I use RCOORD for a floating point value, but then can switch to double/float for all computations
struct particle
{
   int frame;  // used for collision resolution.

   RCOORD size;  // this might be extended someday/ but let's start spherical.  default 1.0

   RCOORD mass;  // default of 1.0

   RCOORD location[DIMENSIONS]; // where the mass is; affects other masses.

   RCOORD velocity[DIMENSIONS]; // normalize to get heading

   RCOORD acceleration[DIMENSIONS]; // has to be maintained for magnetic falloff D^3

       RCOORD up[DIMENSIONS];  // up (what spin is relative to when crossed with velocity?)

       RCOORD spin; // a scalar of rotation around the normalized heading.  It is a rate of change.

   void (*gravity_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/d applied as change to velocity which is t^2

   RCOORD charge; // default of 1.0
   void (*charge_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/(d), applied as acceleration, so distance will square


   // location is shared between mass and charge


        RCOORD magnetism; // apply a scalar ... default of 1.0 - the strength of it's field
   RCOORD north[DIMENSIONS];  // north (or south)  separate from velocity direction.  In a digital world it would be possible for north and another particles inverted north could be parallel, and no spin applied...
   void (*magnetic_torque )( RCOORD *result_spin, RCOORD *north1, RCOORD separation, RCOORD *north2 );


   void (*magnetic_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function default to 1/d

        void (*deflection)( RCOORD **result, RCOORD *velocity ); // a computation for when one particle's size overlaps another particle's size, also needs parameters like spin, depth of collision (ie. how hard it hit)
};

started to sketch the idea an ended up with lots of text in an image; very sorry....


which ends with... how do I compute the rotation?  And then.

Does the direction of rotation affect motion in other ways than during colision?  Does a force applied to a direction have to account for the spin and cause a gyroscopic deflection of the axis of spin?

There is a seperate axis of spin from the magnetic moment; so the poles could be rapidly spinning around the equator instead of aligned with their direction.... When attempting to align with other influential particles then.  Since the pole effect is really manifested as a size from the origin, this rotation should cause a linear shift in velocity too?  Or is it a torque relative to the origin?

Oh; but then this is totally classical thinking, allowing for action at a distance as just givens for the system.  Does everything really have to be cause and effect?  or can we just take it that two particles can't occupy the same space etc.

It seems pretty arbitrary that two different objects of different size, composition, and mass would fall at the same rate subject to gravity; seems much more like a 'and that's the way it is'.

While considering initial conditions, I figured I would start all particles at the origin, and allow the collision resolution to displace them; but that's big-bang sort of thinking...

And then there's the idea that a particle isn't a thing but somehow becomes 'energy'.  Energy is thermic?  It just imparts motion on other things what things, why?  is it energy as in watts?, so suddenly without any sort of conductor it would make a light?  no... so what really is E?

does it have a location?  Does it just lose size but maintain charge, et al. ?  does it have infinite size instead, causing displacements of other matters? 

My simulation so far seems to lack enough to model particles, since additionally a StrongForce that is another binding force...

What about vacuum, does the lack of particles provide a influence on the particles; or is it just a higher pressure that drives particles to scatter?  Pressure?  Why because of electrostatics repulsion... well that wouldn't account for neutral overall conglomerate particles like dust... could just be the entropy of the collisions, followed by momentum... so anyway I guess there is no natural suction...

but other than simplifying the complex interactions into expressible equations and quantifications... does all this quantum theory really 'fix' anything broken with the classics?

I guess then there's this stuff called light that's not a particle... but can't we all just live in the dark?    Is this light the result of collision? does it take from the velocity? not really; lasers are pumped energy (again, that word) to make electrons bounce shells, which translates into photons emitted... and like magnet fields..., light causes other particles to receive energy also (something like as it began, so does it end)  (as in, making a current flow, causes other currents to flow in other things, as a result of...)

Masses of particles can themselves be combined as particles; but might better be called cells;

Alright I've rambled enough