• [deleted]

A clever Einsteinian derives the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light, c'=c(1+gh/c^2), in the form dc/dh=g/c:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

That is, in a gravitational field the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

Correction -

Caramel Apples - Free Gourmet "Caramel" Apples for the first person to come forward and say they believe in CIG Theory [please bring with you accompanying experimental data (proof)of the validity of CIG Theory]. There will be forms to fill out as well. All fun of course.

I will personally hand dip them.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=caramel%20apples&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

www.CIGTheory.com CIGTheory (Caramel Apple Friendly)

For proof, see all my suggestions in the theory ( mathematical calculations based on receding galaxies, red shift anomalies, mass to space conversions, CUPI quantification, etc. - its out there but I do not have the resources - my theory is experimentally verifiable - I need community effort and involvement -it's not that hard to understand the concept behind the theory and to more fully prove it using existing cosmological data; for instance, is there more Space surrounding larger galaxies?)

CIG Theory - not that hard to prove -

Hope you are enjoying the day

What more can I say.

Doug

    • [deleted]

    There are a number of things wrong with CIG. For one you say that matter times time equals space. Matter has units of grams [g] and time has units of seconds [s] so the product of the two has units [g-s]. Even if we use mass = energy/c^2, where energy has units of [erg], this has units of [erg-s^3/cm^2] or maybe action-s^2/cm^2. The fundamental unit of action is ħ so this might have something to do with N units of ħ/c^2. No matter how you slice this up you don't have space with units of [cm]. There is a considerable number of suppositions in CIG which just don't make physical sense.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    Douglas

    "The author views TIME as movement Dependent" & "The theoretical

    portion of MT=S started out from a simple "rate multiplied by time is equal to distance" concept, from there..."

    This is not correct. The physically existent phenomenon which corresponds with the concept of time is actually the rate at which any form of change occurs (alteration in spatial position, ie movement, being but one characteristic which changes). The underlying point here being that reality can only occur in one physically existent state at a time. This phenomenon can be measured. That is timing, which involves the comparison of frequencies of change (ie what is colloquially known as time). The speed of light is irrelevant, in so far as this has no effect on any given physical reality and change thereto; we just see that with light. Space is that which is 'not-space' (ie a spatial position which is, apparently, unoccupied, or in effect, those spatial positions which are not occupied by the entities as defined which are under consideration). The importance of this being that, according to Relativity, the dimension of entities alters when force is applied, which also causes an alteration in momentum. The latter then acts as a 'warning', because any judgement must involve a reference, and whilst any entity will suffice for such, mistakes will be made if it is not realised that the entity is not what it appears (ie its dimension is altering). Alteration in dimension having consequences on space and timing.

    Paul

    • [deleted]

    Truth is unbearable sometimes. Abandoning Einstein's 1905 false light postulate will take science back to the end of the 18th century:

    http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/tagungen/OWR_2006_10.pdf

    Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context."

    http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Changing-Worldviews-Physics-Studies/dp/0817649395/

    Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect). (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      • [deleted]

      Sir Lawrence Crowell,

      Thank you kindly for your reply.

      The matter of units is a topic I worked on briefly, as this is the second time it has been offered. It appears that the application of units is one of the first things that physicists use to assess whether an equation has flaws. I never quite resolved the units issue as it was easier to dismiss. I dismissed it it, as follows: As an anology, if I am thinking correctly (remember math is not my expertise, even simple as this is) prior to E=mc2 (J=g m/s m/s), I don't believe that grams (mass) could have been taken into unit agreement with Joules (energy). Is there unit agreement in E=mc2? Was there before the equation?

      Also, as for example if apples were always known as apples and pears as pears, and oranges as oranges, and were they known units, and then some theory comes along and shows that there is an equivalency between them such that, in terms of units apples could be understood as oranges divided by pears, then so the new thinking (with much resistence of course) would be that apples is oranges divided by pears. I offer that there is a Spatial equivalency (cubic meters)to Mass (grams), and so, prior unit agreement or not, we must now accept the new conversion.

      I thank you for binging these comments forward. It allows me to focus on my rationale for my theory, and it is exactly what I need. Now I know that there are so many questions I will not be able to answer because the physics is beyond me, and my math is pathetic. Conceptually though, and rationally, I believe I can fully defend my theory and that it will hold up to the rigor of

      experimentation as well.

      I was very tempted to simply say "no caramel apples for you"!

      Thank you again Sir Crowell.

      doug

        • [deleted]

        Paul,

        Thank you. First, I have to put forward my definition of "Space". I can live with the Wiki partial definition as follows: "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction", however I believe it may have bounds beyond which even it does not exists, nor anything, but this is another topic altogether.

        Therefore, when I see an enclosed system, such as a cold balloon, with a defined region (internal volume) of space, and when that balloon is heated, I see a new internal volume greater than that which existed before I started heating the balloon. I am told by physicists that the molecules are moving faster, farther away from one another, and bouncing off the walls of the balloon thereby expanding the volume (at the expense of density of course). My problem with this, is that when maintaining the definition of Space I started with, I need an explanation. I cannot fathom where the new "Space" came from without introducing a reason. I continue to respect the defintions I have used when entering into the "experiment". Where did the new space come from?

        To keep it short, I have new "spatial volumes", do I not? The balloon is larger, yes? And it is an enclosed entity , yes. It is our experiment. The only thing that happened is that the particles are now moving more rapidly. I associate this movement to the "creation" of this new "space". In maintaining the Conservation of Energy Laws, something must be lost for the new "Space" to arrive. This I attribute to a loss of matter and in a similar fashion that mass is lost when energy is created in the E=mc2 equation.

        It is also my explanation of where the space comes from, for there to be expansion in the Universe. It all happens on a local level (micro) and this explains Red Shift anomalies as well. It is very important to recognize that the macro world must always be built up from the micro. This element is consistent with CIG.

        To explain the Double Slit, which you are probably all too familar with, try approaching the experiment from the view of CIG, and you should have no problem understanding the outcome(s). Light is a "particle" when stopped and in its black hole like personality (i.e. at the point of emission, and at the point where it again is absorbed by the screen), However, when traveling, it's mass becomes spatial and part of it goes through each slit, thereby offering the opportunity for constructive and destructive interferrence. [There should be a point where if the slits are spaced far enough apart, that the spatial manifestation, since it is limited by the mass to space conversion limitations/potential (see CUPI quantification), will be unable to go through both slits and interfrrence will not be possible, since only a limited amount of spatial volume was created and it was not large enough to span distant slits.].

        CIG theory is contingent upon the postulate that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference". It takes the Lorentz "contraction along the "x" axis" and gives it a new physical interpretation.

        As for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they are simply the same observations but viewed from different perspectives of % of "c" travel. The halos surrounding massive bodies are examples where due to gravitational effects, these effects limit the "c" rate sufficiently such that a different "Spatial" quantity with a different "mass component" unfold. The space unfolds in the same proportions as length contraction along the x-axis based on how fast a massive particle travels. Can someone look at the dark energy/dark matter data to confirm this correlation? When light can't move at all (black hole), no space manifests and mass alone exists in a singularity. [there are other considerations here such as there must be a certain volume of space for mass to exist; conversely, for the vacuum energy, there must be a mass component - singularities appear unstable - but we will not get into that here]

        If you could explain the balloon problem to me, and convince me that there is no actual new space inside the balloon, then I can rethink things. Right now I am very confused. I have been walking around with the recognition (belief) that I (physically) have a certain equivalency to space and time. It is an uneasy feeling. [The theory also combines the spacetime continuum with the mass-energy equation].

        I will elaborate more on your email later as I agree with much of it.

        From CIG Theory (www.cigtheory.com)

        "Where there is a different time there must be a different

        place. Where there is a different place, there is a different

        space. Where there are different spaces, there are different

        volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of

        space created as the result of different times imparted onto

        the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic

        nature of nature."

        Lots more work to do, and lots of refinement needed to assess what is actually happenng in nature -- need help

        Paul - please keep trying to understand the theory (perhaps you already do?) By all means attack it, since if CIG does not hold up to the rigors of scrutiny, it deserves to crumb cake.

        thx

        doug

          Lawrence, Petcho.

          Do you agree that in the above you're both correct? Please offer any falsification you may perceive, but remember, scientific advances are NEVER familiar at first sight.

          Pentcho, - Interestingly this is somewhat equivalent to Einstaedt's Mitchell-Arago etc. basis, but without conserved photons due to absorption and re-emission on scattering, which solves the rest of the problems they were not able to address (the reason the model faded away I believe).

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          Einsteiniana's priests readily criticize the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in favor of the reasonable implications of the Newtonian alternative, the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Still they would never replace the false postulate with the Newtonian alternative. Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is false but it has been a money-spinner for more than a century. The Newtonian equation c'=c+v is true but, if adopted, would take science back to the end of the 18th century and Einsteiniana's priests do not wish to go there:

          http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148

          "Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

          http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf

          John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time."

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

          Craig Callender: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."

          Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

          • [deleted]

          I am surprised there are people here who do not believe in specials relativity and E=mc^2. World War 2 ended after we built the atomic bomb and dropped it on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The whole idea of the atomic bomb was to convert a mass m of Plutonium into energy based on the conversion rate E=mc^2.

          Do people who don't believe in special relativity also not believe in atomic bombs? Do they not remember the Cold War? The Cuban missile crisis? Atomic testing?

            Hi Jason,

            LOL! This is basically a wide open forum so what did you expect? The anti-relativity people will be stuck to it like glue. Best to just ignore them.

            Fred

            • [deleted]

            Jason, Fred,

            You are the most intelligent Einsteinians I have ever known so please tell me if the following argument is valid:

            If the speed of light depended on the speed of the light source, no atomic bomb would have been built.

            Atomic bombs *were* built.

            Therefore the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

            Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

            • [deleted]

            Pentcho

            Not sure why I am repeating this, except that on the last attempt Lawrence mentioned Joy and the thread was drowned out.

            Einstein's 1905 light postulate 1) is correct 2) does not lead to the conclusions you assert.

            1 His postulate was that: 1) That the speed of light is independent of that which the photons interacted with. Which is correct because light (as in an effect in photons) results from an atomic reaction, not a 'collision'. Hence, same form of reaction results in same starting speed on every occasion. The speeds of he interacting entities before the reaction are irrelevant. 2) That original speed will be maintained unless impinged upon. Which is again correct and applies to anything.

            2 Light is just a physically existent entity. It has no impact on how other entities behave. With the evolution of sensory detection it has acquired the role of a representation of that behaviour, ie organisms can 'see' it. Another important point is that each existent state of any given 'entity' is represented by different light. The driving force behind Relativity is dimension alteration. Now, it is irrelevant to that fact, but one can argue with how this assertion was derived (which involved a presumption about light and a certain experiment) and whether it is actually correct, irrespective of the derivation. The theory was about the electrodynamics of moving bodies (the clue is in the title), it is not about light or the observation thereof. This has become the subsequent interpretation based fundamentally on a confusion as to what time is, as opposed to timing, and it becoming the surrogate variable for dimension alteration.

            Paul

            • [deleted]

            Douglas

            Although irrelevant to the point I was making, forget 3 dimensions. That is just a human conceptualisation of direction. In physical reality what exists is a definite number of possible directions from any given spatial position (ie all adjacent spatial positions which could be occupied if 'something' moves from its current position).

            Space is the corollary of 'thing'. The same spatial positions deemed to be extrinsic space when considering one thing, can be intrinsic when considering another. In your balloon analogy, the "new space" is not new, because it did not "come from anywhere". The balloon (thing) altered dimension, ie the balloon got nearer to adjacent things-it occupied spatial positions which were previously, given the definition of the things involved, unoccupied. You are conceiving of space as if it is an entity in its own right, when all that physically exists are 'things'.

            Now, expansion of the entirety of reality, as known to us, is a different matter. By definition, this is not detectable, except on an historical basis. Because it is an effect which is omnipresent, so there is no comparison possible to identify difference. In that sense then, whether this is occurring or not is irrelevant.

            Forget about the "speed of light" and "inertial frames of reference". Whether the derivation was correct, or indeed the original observation was so, and irrespective of whether it actually happens or not, Lorentz postulated a physical alteration in dimension, in the line of travel. This, although on each occasion he put forward some simple explanation he also expressed reservations, was never rescinded and is the real variable in Relativity. The point being that for a law to be valid it must be possible to choose anything as the reference from which then to consider it. Note that any judgement inherently involves a reference. But, not only must one then continue to use that reference, but any change which occurs to it, or the other things being referenced, must be factored into the calculations. And they 'discovered' that matter alters dimension when differential force is applied, which also causes changing momentum. That is, the latter is an alternative indicator to the fact that dimension alteration is occurring.

            An example. 2 buses. The momentum of one of them is altering. According to the theory, that indicates it is being subjected to a differential force (ie it is no longer in equilibrium/at rest) which causes an alteration in dimension. [Incidentally, there is a tendency to only talk of contraction/acceleration, but the concept was of a state of equilibrium size, ie that which it reverted to-which must involve 'expansion'-once forces regained a 'balance']. If this alteration in dimension is not taken into account, then space and timing will be incorrectly calculated. Because the 'squashed' bus would be considered as per the normal state one. But a squashed bus has further to travel as space (ie that which is 'not bus') to (say) the bus stop has increased, and it will take a longer timing, than would otherwise have been expected, to travel. That's it. No strange effects with 'time', or different observers, or light.

            On Dark Matter/Energy, do not forget that light is just a physical phenomenon that organisms utilise in their sensory detection systems. There can be no presumption that it is capable of 'detecting' everything.

            Paul

            • [deleted]

            Paul,

            Space is emergent, and manifests itself from traveling massive particles. Look inside the balloon, not outside. There is more going on than a simple re-positioning of the balloon in a non-changing spatial environment. Space has been created. It happens everywhere all the time.

            It happens all the time with new Bohr orbitals via the discrete planck quantum jumps. The jumps create new Space. This new view, if correct, brings determinism back into the picture. It what may also be happening with Virtual Particles about which I know little.

            Your notation: "You are conceiving of space as if it is an entity in its own right, when all that physically exists are 'things'." Space is an entity in its own right, but since it is another form of matter, everything now gets slightly blurred into a single "indistinguishable reality". In CIG, more fundamentals have been combined.

            Where Einstein stopped with matter warping the spacetime continuum, CIG theory takes the next logical step and offers that it is the spacetime continuum itself that actually turns into matter.

            Matter has often been described as that which "Occupies space and has mass": The inherent contradiction of this definition is all too apparent unless each is a manifestation of the other. Matter could occupy matter and have no further relationship to space. But as soon as Matter occupies Space, it is by default a manifestation of Space. CIG expands and explains how this happens.

            My theory explains how space emerges. I've applied it to solve the Horizon Problem, and Red Shift anomolies, as well as using it to remove the confusion surrounding the Double Slit.

            Now, the only problem is, one must convince oneself that it is correct.

            Much more than that, it would be nice if the "community" subjects it to rigorous evaluation. There is enough in the theory to allow itself to be subjected to real tests (mostly through data confirmation). I'm not giving you 30 dimensions in a box containing a dead cat here.

            Wait a second, I think I heard a purrrr

            Thanks,

            doug

              • [deleted]

              E=mc² was not sufficient because only the linear velocity of the spheres is considered. the spinal rotation and the orbital rotation must be inserted for a real quantization of the mass.

              c o s is more logic and of course with the cubic for a real maximum universal entropy in increasing furthermore.

              Here is so the improved equation E=m(c³o³s³) and also mcosV constant for all physical spheres, quantical or cosmological. You can also correlate with the universal 3D sphere and its central sphere. The serie of uniqueness appears for all spheres !

              ps eureka :) SPHERIZATION THEORY !

              • [deleted]

              The real question to ask here is what can light, and specifically its speed, have to do with the attributes of other, different forms of matter???

              Perhaps the clue as to why this is thought to be so lies in the fact that we see with light?

              Paul

              • [deleted]

              Pentcho

              This particular example was a shambles. But a flawed explanation does not invalidate whatever the underlying hypotheses are.

              In essence: the man and ray of light are not interchangeable in the way Einstein proposes.

              In more detail: The key is in the definition of the reference point: "see from the above". Assuming that the 'observation point' is of the earth. And assuming the other conditions as stated. Then, the velocity of this ray of light will be c from the perspective of the embankment, and c-v from the perspective of the carriage. And the velocity of light is c. The observation point, embankment and carriage are of the earth (the carriage just moving an additional v in the same direction as the light). The ray of light is not of the earth. So, if something independent of the closed system 'earth' (which comprises, earth, carriage, observation point), is observed from within that system, then its velocity will be just be the difference, and vice-versa. It is of no consequence which reference point is used, other than that the carriage is moving v faster, within the 'earth' system, in the same direction as the light. So carriage vis a vis light is less than c. Einstein stipulated what the light was doing, ie, it is travelling at c, a finite and constant speed. He even said the air "had been removed".

              Paul

              • [deleted]

              Douglas

              Leaving aside the possibility that the entirety of reality is expanding, space is neither emergent or created. It is the corollary of entity. And here one also has to be clear, in ontological terms, about the concept: entity. There is only one physically existent state at a time. Each time it is different. However, we keep referring to different existent states as 'it', because superficially certain features are retained which are deemed to constitute that particular 'it'. That is, we are attributing a level of persistence to reality which does not actually occur.

              Anyway(!), space is just the reverse of object. There are only objects which occupy spatial position. In that sense one could say that that which is being designated as space in any given instance, is another object from the ones being used as a reference for the definition. For example: the space which is the consequence of identifying two molecules, is part of the ball which is formed from these, and other, molecules. If the reference is ball to another object, ie the extrinsic space, then the former is not space but ball. Etc, etc, etc. The extent to which all possible spatial positions are occupied by 'something' at any given point in time, is another matter.

              As I hinted before, with the definition of time, spacetime is a flawed model of reality. There is no 'time', or more accurately, change, in reality. It can only exist in one state at a time. The subsequent one is different, and so on. Comparison reveals change which involves substance (ie what altered) and frequency (ie the rate at which it did so).

              That cat knew what happened, as indeed did the fleas, etc, on its body. Their rights were denied. Or put another way round, the underlying philosophy there as to how reality occurs is incorrect.

              Paul

              • [deleted]

              Hi Doug,

              Will you be entering the essay contest?