Understanding the Structure of the Universe, A Basic Structural Toolkit by Paul N Butler

Dear Valdimir,

I am glad that you enjoyed reading my essay. Although my paper was primarily aimed at giving examples of concepts that can help in the understanding and direct interpretation of observed data in order to encourage a return to science based on real world observations rather than based more and more on math models that are divorced from the way things work in the real world, you are right that I did explain the usefulness of the concepts with examples that demonstrated some of the things that I have been trying to get across to others for some time (which you call my pet theory). I probably would have tried to use other examples, but I have observed over the years that usually most entries are way off subject, so it seemed safe and the information that I have been giving is of great importance for man's continued development and existence in the future, although I cannot go into that at this time. When one realizes that everything is composed of motions, which is not difficult to see from readily available observational data, it opens up a whole new world of understanding of how those current theories that really work actually function behind the math models and why many others won't actually work because they are based on concepts that do not account for all of the details of the motions involved or try to do something that may work ok in a math model, but the properties of motions do not support the possibility of the concept. I looked at your paper and the comments and I wish you had included more of your (pet) theory, so I could get a better idea of its details. I did download your 36 page Beautiful World paper today, but have not had time to read it yet, but I thought that I should get something off to you because I also have a couple of other things to do and it will be a while before I can go over it.

Just on the surface it looks like your theory is more based on the structure of the dimensional system (I call this dimensional structuring, but I don't believe that man is currently ready for the acceptance of the implications that come from a detailed study of that subject yet) while what I am covering (motion structuring) is the study of the entities that inhabit the dimensional system. Motion structuring is much simpler to conceptualize, so if man cannot perceive and understand the concepts that I am giving now, there would be no hope of an in depth understanding of dimensional structuring. From the comments it appears that you look at space as composed of small spheres that are either composed of or at least contain angular motion. First, since motion in the absence of an interaction travels in a straight line, how is the angular motion component contained in the spheres, so that it doesn't just leave the sphere in some linear direction away from it? There are methods I just want to see what your method is. If your explanation includes field structures, what is the substance that the field is composed of and how does it work? Second, in an expanding universe do the spheres just get farther away from each other or are new spheres formed to take up the empty space? If new sphere are formed what are they formed out of and what mechanism within the dimensional system makes them and how? Ideally there will be some conservation law that doesn't require making something from nothing, but keeps total motion in the system constant, since in the real world total motion content seems to be the only thing truly conserved. I don't want to burden you too much, so that is enough information to start with if you can and are willing to provide it. If it is all covered in your paper you can just tell me what pages each thing is on and I can then access it without reading the whole paper until I have the time to read it all, so we can be with the same understanding of at least that much of it more quickly.

The reason that I use motions in the fourth and fifth dimensions is to contain the angular motion components of the photon's and matter particle's frequency/wavelength/dynamic mass effect in the case of the fourth dimension motion and that necessary to create the enclosed three dimensional angular motion path that both creates the matter particle's static mass effect and at the same time isolates the photon contained within the matter particle to follow that path in the case of the fifth dimensional motion by generating curvature in its path. Generally gravity and even electromagnetic motions are not adequate to do this (especially gravity on this size scale). I am not saying that other possibilities don't exist. I am only saying this is the simplest concept that I have found to use in a basic introduction. Like in anything else, when you progress further in understanding, more in depth concepts must be used to account for new findings. If I began to try to explain the nature of the photon's structural point, why motions interacting in opposite directions don't just cancel each other out, or how you can have fourth vector photons in multiple fifth vector structural levels, etc. it would all go over everyone's head, but those things and others can require changes in the model when they are later appropriately covered at the proper time. Luckily for me I will not likely have to cover those things in this world. That will be for those that follow at the appropriate times over the next 200 to 300 years or so. The main thing to consider when you generate a theory is that it should as much as possible conform to existing observational data. Since generally in the absence of an interaction a motion will travel in a straight line, any cyclical angular motion generally requires one or more continuing interactions for it to continue to exist. Given man's current expansion of space concept, I find it much easier to use an additional spatial dimension to contain angular motions than dimensional spatial structures that must somehow reproduce to fill the extra added space without getting into a magical dreamland of creating something from nothing. Many current theories are already heading that way very quickly. You may have it all figured out though, so I anxiously wait for further input from you.

Wishing your theory works,

Paul

Dear Alan,

I read your paper and you have noticed some things that most others have not, except maybe the exotic matter part. All large masses such as galaxies, stars, and even the earth generate sub-energy fields. As the earth enters the sun's sub-energy field it experiences the field. As it passes the center of the field, the effects reverse. It is like falling into a hole in a large asteroid. First you experience its pull, then you pass the middle and you suddenly find the force reversed. (Of course, if it is a recreational asteroid and you jump off by the waterfall the view on the way down can be fantastic and then comes the exhilarating feeling as you crash into the shallow pool of water in the middle and come out the other side. That was a Sci-fi moment. At least as far as you know.) This can have various effects within and on such bodies as they pass through such fields. The alignment of planet's fields can also cause some such effects, as can be seen by some things happening on earth at this time. The change is too low in frequency and magnitude for us to feel it. I hope you find this useful in your studies.

Dear Ioannis,

NARSEP sounds like a government mnemonic for something like National Aeronautics Research Space Exploration Program or some such thing.

You are close. It's more like, if you don't start with the real physical problems and decipher them, you will never really understand the uppermost level of natural hierarchy. You may end up with a lot of math that defines field structures and structural rotations, etc. and not really know what a field is really composed of or that the rotation generates the static mass effect and must be three dimensional, etc.

I will try to answer your questions:

1. I am speaking of motion as the entity itself. I am not getting into the nature or composition of the structural point of the motion entity as that gets into dimensional structuring and is beyond the scope of the current information transfer level. Motion can easily be studied in large scale and generally works the same at all scales. The only difference is that motions in the fourth and fifth dimensions generate specific effects in our three dimensional structure that are due to the dimensional size and specific interfaces of those dimensions with each other and the other three. Man currently has scale limitations on accurately determining things like position at scales much below the size of an atom. That is not completely done away with until the development of fifth vector structuring technology, but that is also well beyond the scope of this transfer. Above that threshold level positions and other properties of motions can be detected readily. There are some fourth vector technics that can allow greater resolution, but they still have their limitations. Even though the exact current motion conditions (position, etc.) of an individual particle cannot be known by man at this time, one can understand the types of interactions that can occur and the probability of each by understanding the nature of the motions within it. This may not seem to give any new information that can't already be obtained via Quantum Mechanics, etc., but knowing the cause of the available interaction outcomes and why the various probabilities of them happening are as they are, can allow work to proceed toward actually being able to detect them because one then knows what he is looking for.

2. There are only eight dimensions and generally only five are needed to define all of the structures currently known by man. Charge is felt as a sub-energy field effect and spin is defined by the fifth vector velocity, which generates the particle's three dimensional angular motion component, which in turn generates the particle's static mass effect and enclosed path structure. There are other spin type possible effects in more advanced concepts.

3. The nature of space (i.e. discrete or continuous, etc.) is part of dimensional structuring and as such is not part of information that I can go into at present. I will just say that at the current level of man's development it doesn't make much difference in most practical matters. Time is not a physical dimension. It is just a relationship between motions and the distances they travel through. It is only important because motions do not all have the same amplitude. It is a convenient way to compare motions with different amplitudes. There is a motion continuum and all existing entities are composed of and are, therefore, in continuous motion. If you remove all motion from an entity it effectively ceases to exist, such as when a photon's motion content is transferred to an electron in the photoelectric effect.

I hope this will be of some help to you.

May the probability that things will go well with you be high also and may you understand why.

Paul

Dear Ioannis,

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. Things came up that prevented me from having the time to do so and I still have limited time at present, so it may take some time to answer Valdimir and Jayakar, but I will try to do so as soon as possible.

That is why I do not much like such shortcut representations of things. They can make it easier for those who must continually refer to an organization, etc. to do so with minimal typing, but they can either mean nothing to those not involved in it or even worse since in some cases the same short form is used for more than one purpose, it can completely give the wrong understanding to the one you are communicating with. In general I am for equal social and political rights for all. What does the natural responsible part mean?

I have looked at your papers, "Has the time come...?" and "Fix Physics Reverse Engineer Reality,..." and I see that you understand that there are problems with some of the concepts that are the basis of Quantum Mechanics. Since you are working on the problems from a coordinate system viewpoint, I can see why you think that the dimensional structuring is the problem. A coordinate system does not generate structure, but at best it can help you to understand the structure that exists. It allows you to manipulate concepts about the nature of such structure. You appear to desire to keep most of quantum theory intact and only attempt to modify the concept of the structure of space to explain inconsistencies in the theory. Starting with analysis of observed data, leads me to the conclusion that much of quantum theory is based on concepts that are completely explained as natural results of the overall structure of the dimensional system and the motion entities that exist in it. The various particle interaction outcomes and the probabilities of each one occurring can be understood. The uncertainty of which outcome will result from an individual interaction is then understood to be just the result of the current lack of precision of measurement and the means to increase that precision to the necessary level can be obtained over time as the nature of the fifth dimensional motion becomes better understood by man.

In justification of your NCS theory you mention what you believe to be shortcomings of the Cartesian system, such as negative numbers and the Pythagorean Theorem. Negative numbers can, of course, have valid meanings and uses in the real world. You gave one when you mentioned not having any apples and at the same time owing 5 apples. Another example in science would be to consider that an atom that contained one less electron than an atom with a neutrally balanced charge (equal number of protons and electrons) would be considered to have minus one electron from the balanced state. One of the things that should always be considered is that just because a possibility exists in math its use should only be when appropriate for the circumstances. In some cases the consideration of negative number outcomes has led to new discoveries, such as the discovery of antimatter. Of course, it is better to understand that one is not necessarily positive and the other negative, but one just has a fifth dimensional motion that travels in one direction in the fifth dimension, while the other's fifth dimensional motion travels in the opposite direction because that gives you more useful information. Let's say that two people that have breathing problems go for a walk and they want to see if they can enter the east door of a large store and walk all the way to the west door without stopping to get their breath. They each only have a five meter measuring tape, so they can't measure the distance between the doors as they walk. One gets two meters from the west door and has to stop to get his breath. The other gets five meters from the door before he has to stop for the same reason. The one walked the distance from the east door to the west door minus two meters, while the other walked that distance minus five meters. They don't know the total distance from one door to the other, but they both know how close they came to traveling the complete distance and that one traveled three meters more than the other in the effort, so the minus two and five meters gave them valuable information. The Pythagorean Theorem is very interesting because it gives a basic lesson in dimensional structuring. The reason it works is that when two lines cross at ninety degrees they can be considered to represent two separate dimensions. If you make a ninety degree triangle with the ninety degree angle at the lower left side, as an example, the horizontal (bottom) line can represent dimension one while the (left side) vertical line can represent dimension two. The third line of the triangle is a one dimensional line that travels in both dimensions one and two. You cannot directly compare the lines that exist in only one dimension with one that exists in two dimensions. When you square the horizontal and vertical lines you are converting those single dimensional structures to two dimensional structures. Let's say that the bottom line is four units in length and the vertical line is three units in length. When you square the bottom line's four units, you create a four by four unit square below it with it as the top line of the square. When you square the vertical line, you create a three by three unit square to the left of the vertical line with the vertical line as its right side. You can now add the areas of the two squares (3X3=9, 4X4=16, 9+16=25) to get the area of the square that will be created by squaring the line that exists in both dimensions as that square will also exist in the same two dimensions as the other two squares and both of the individual dimensions are fully involved in the production of the third line because of their line's ninety degree angle to each other. At this point we know the area of the square created by squaring the third line, so all we need to do to get the size of the third line is to take the square root of that square to convert it back to a single dimensional line traveling in two dimensions, which equals five units in length.

Although it could be of value to consider everything in terms of an origin at the beginning point of the big bang, it is not possible for man at this time to determine where that point is located, and so it would seem to not be of any real practical use in the real world. You are right that we cannot travel in the direction that leads to the past or the opposite direction that leads to its future because a physical time dimension does not exist for us to travel in. We live in a motion continuum in which motions are continually changing their positions. You can think of a point in that continuum where each motion was at a certain position in space, but that condition of the motions no longer exists because the motions have moved from those positions to their present positions, so there is nothing to go back to. There are always only the current positions, directions, and motion amplitudes of all motions in existence. The idea of a physical time dimension has led to many problems. It is much easier to consider each motion to have a specific amplitude or quantity of motion and to choose a specific amplitude as the standard unit to be used to compare one motion with another than to use a time based system that is really only doing the same thing in a more confusing way. Time is a relationship of a motion and the distance it travels through. Because all motions do not have the same amplitude, time can be useful to compare motions to each other, but it is not necessarily the most efficient way.

When you define coordinates or things at coordinates such that they cannot be accessed or tested in any way, (virtual coordinates or entities) you are no longer dealing with science. Science is most properly applied to things that can be observed and tested in some way. It is most useful when used to study things that have behaviors that are always the same or that always vary in the same way to a given set of input conditions or actions (that always follow the same set of rules in their actions). Science is completely useless when dealing with things that occur completely in a random fashion or things that cannot be observed and/or tested in any way. You are then dealing in philosophy not science. It is alright to understand that some things are outside of man's current ability to observe or test due to current size and/or motion scale limitations, etc. with the emphasis on finding ways to overcome such limitations, but when you define things in such a way as to make it impossible that they can ever be observed and/or tested you are either short sighted by not considering that many things that were impossible for man to do in the past were later found to be possible when new discoveries were made and new technologies were developed or you are just talking about something to which science is not applicable. There are several of these types of definitions being used as science currently that really are limiting man's development because they discourage investigations into finding out ways around them, such as the uncertainty principle and the concept that you cannot know what the outcome will be until some magical wave collapse occurs. All these things really mean is that you don't currently have the tools to access all of the data you need to discern the complete answer to the problem. This type of situation has happened over and over again in the history of science and new developments then come about that allow the previously impossible to become possible. They should most appropriately be considered to be weaknesses in the current understanding of the subject.

For all practical purposes the basic structure and interfacing of the five lower dimensions and motion and its attributes are all that are necessary to understand all existing entities that man is aware of at this time. Space can be considered to mainly provide the positions for motions to move in.

Dear Valdimir,

We both agree that time is not a dimension. To me there must be an understanding and explanation of all aspects of observed reality for a theory to be truly valid. This means that if one talks about an electromagnetic field or charge as being a part of reality, an explanation of what that field or charge is composed of in terms of observed entities should be given. One of the major problems with much of current theory is the lack of an ability to describe what such things are actually made of.

I did make a quick preliminary examination of your BU theory paper and I found that you talk about "an ordered lattice of identical spherically-symmetric charged nodes." You then say that "the network of nodes creates space so it is meaningless to speak of the shape of an individual node, neither of the material it is made of, or its behavior nor any space between nodes." You have in this way made the nodes to be nothing more than undefined black boxes that by definition cannot be examined to understand what they are composed of and how they work. This is no improvement over much of current theory that mentions such things as fields, but cannot actually explain what they are composed of or how they really work. I find it interesting that you say that it is meaningless to talk about their shape, but both before and after you say that you say they are spherical in shape. Of course, if they are spherical in shape they cannot be joined together without leaving extra empty space between them in the places where they do not meet, so they could not create space, but would instead need to inhabit an already existing 3D space. If the nodes can spin they must either be composed of motion itself or some other substance that can spin (can possess angular motion). If they are composed of angular motion, how does that work since motion generally travels only in a straight line (is not angular) unless its path is modified by interactions with another motion(s)? If another motion(s) is involved, what is it and how does it work to generate the angular motion path (spin). If the nodes can possess positive and negative charges and can be magnetized, what causes these charges and the magnetic fields should be described. These are some of the questions that would need to be addressed to flesh out your theory to make it more than a curiosity. It appears that you see the need for motion to be very important, but are not yet willing to consider motion itself as the basic entity. When you do you will find that you don't need to add the extra complication of separate spatial entities to hold and transfer motion. A motion entity contains its position, direction, and motion amplitude information within itself. It only needs empty space to exist and propagate in.

One problem with most of these types of theories is that energy is treated as a wave traveling from node to node and spreading out to more and more nodes as it goes. This does explain why it would decrease in amplitude by the square of the distance, but it cannot properly explain how the wave can travel for billions of light years and still be detected because the amplitude of the wave would decrease to the background noise level and would not contain enough energy to be detected by sensors or photo paper long before it would travel that far. This leaves one with the explanation that the atoms store up the weak energy until there is enough to trigger the sensor or register on the photo paper, etc. The problem with this is that this would not explain the photo electric effect. In the photo electric effect, an energy photon that contains enough energy can transfer enough motion to an electron in an atom to allow it to completely escape the atom and become a free electron. You can apply a high intensity beam of photons, but it only releases electrons from their atoms if the photons each contain enough motion to do so. If the atoms stored up energy until it was enough to free the electron, an intense beam of any frequency of energy would supply enough energy to free the electrons, but this doesn't happen. When you look at the photon as a particle that contains its energy within itself in the form of motion, you can see that the beam decreases in amplitude by the square of the distance traveled because the photons in the beam spread out from each other as they travel, but since it has its own internal energy, it can travel any distance and as long as it does not interact with anything on the way it can then still have the energy to register on a sensor or photo paper. You may have to wait for other photons from the same source to also hit the photo paper to get enough interaction on it to be seen, but over time you can get an image. All that is necessary is to figure out how the motion is stored within the photon.

My point is that when you get away from what can be observed and be confirmed to exist and make up things that are so vague that you have to say that it is useless to try to understand the details of them, it is very likely that they will be found out to be false under examination. Anything that is added to what is observed should be kept at a minimum and be as fully understood as possible and as easy to explain how it works as possible. We both believe that matter particles and energy photons are composed of motions. Since motions can travel in empty space, there is really no need to introduce the extra complication of a background structure of nodes for it to travel through. The general rule is to keep things as close to observation as possible and to keep them as simple as possible.

You are on the right track with the understanding that motion is the basis of all things. The only other thing you need to add is that motion does not need other things to travel through. All of those other things that you see moving are themselves composed of motions so that in the end motion is all there is. Electric charges and magnetic fields are just caused by sub-energy motions. The same goes for gravitational fields, but they are a little more complex because they have to do with the fifth dimensional motion. All of these motions can travel through empty space without the help of anything else. That is what motions do. They travel from one position in space to the next and then to the next, etc. Sub-energy particles are composed of one motion, energy photons are composed of two motions, and matter particles are generally composed of three motions (it is possible to combine more than one energy photon into a matter particle when they are properly structurally phased with each other, but that is getting kind of advanced for this level of discourse, so I won't go deeper into that now). It may help some who like to do things in secret to put some of the pieces together, so although I would normally delete that last part, I will leave it in for their benefit and yours also if you can figure it out.

I also desire that there is a high probability that you develop the true physics theory!

Paul

Dear Jakakar,

Photons do not contain electrons. It is the other way around. When a photon acquires fifth dimensional motion, it causes it to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself to create a cyclical three dimensional standing wave structure that is known as a matter particle. The matter particle's static mass effect is caused by its angular motion component as it travels its curved three-dimensional path. Because the matter particle contains a photon it also contains that photon's fourth dimensional motion that generates its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects. The fourth dimensional and fifth dimensional standing wave structures must be properly matched and phased for the matter particle to be stable. An electron is one such entity.

I looked at your paper and at first when you mentioned self rotating one-dimensional strings I was not too impressed because a true one dimensional entity not only has a size greater than zero in only one dimension, it also can interact only with that dimension, so it is impossible for it to rotate because rotation requires interactions with at least two dimensions for it to function. When I read your note 3, I saw that you are really talking about three dimensional strings that can interact with three dimensions, but have a zero size in two of those dimensions and some size greater than zero in the other dimension, so it could be within the realm of possibility. I am not sure about the symbolism that you used to express that rotation though. Are you saying that it rotates from X to Y to Z to X and then reverses direction and goes from X to Z to Y to X or are you merely saying that it could continuously rotate in one of two possible directional patterns (X to Y to Z to X or X to Z to Y to X)? In your concept, what is the composition of a photon (what is it made of and how does it work) and what is the composition of a matter particle? What substance is a string composed of?

May things go well with you also,

Paul

Dear Ioannis,

I do see that VCS could not be expressed in the standard Cartesian system. I just do not see the need for it, partly because when one understands all the motions involved in the interaction and their current conditions at the point of interaction, the resulting output outcome of the interaction becomes known with a one hundred percent probability. The only problem that remains once the motions are understood is gaining the ability to observe the current conditions of those motions at the point of interaction and that comes as a part of development of fifth vector structuring technology. To me the fifth dimension is just another physical spatial dimension like the three dimensions that man is familiar with. The only difference is in the way it interfaces with the other dimensions. Its interface causes its motion to be applied to each of the lower three dimension's motions for the particle that it is a part of (energy photon) in a cyclical manner in such a way as to cause the particle's motion path to become curved, so that it creates a three dimensional enclosed cyclical standing wave pattern path. It describes how an energy photon changes into a matter particle and how a matter particle changes into an energy photon. Likewise the fourth dimensional motion explains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of an energy photon and explains how a sub-energy particle changes into an energy photon and how an energy photon changes into a sub-energy particle. When you understand that a matter particle's composition contains both its fourth dimensional standing wave pattern and its three dimensional standing wave pattern generated by its fifth dimensional motion and you understand how they interact with each other and with the same patterns of another particle during an interaction the reasons for the mysterious multiple outcome possibilities for an interaction and the probabilities of each one occurring are no longer mysterious, but are understood to be the natural possible outcomes due to the structures of the entities involved. No hidden virtual reality is needed to account for these things.

I am not sure what you mean about orthogonally different. I suppose you could put the number of apples that one has on the X axis and the number of apples one owes on the orthogonally different Y axis, so that the line that starts at the bottom left of the chart that represents the meeting of the zero points of both the haves and the owes and proceeds to the right and up at forty five degrees from either axis would represent all the places where the haves are equal with the owes and points above and below that line would represent the amount of departure from that state of equality, but this would seem to more show the relationship between the haves and owes rather than their difference. If you are trying to say that they are opposites, that is true and would be better shown on a single line with the number owed arranged by order of increasing number owed going to the left from a central zero point on that line and the number one has arranged going from that zero point going to the right ordered by increasing numbers that one has. I am not trying to say that you actually have a negative quantity of electrons. I am just saying that it is often easier to manipulate a quantity that has a central zero state and departures from that state in two directions as though one is positive and the other one is negative. You could use the excess number of protons over the number of electrons in an atom on one side of the central zero point and the excess number of electrons over protons in the atom on the other side of the zero point on the line and always have positive numbers, but you would have two different units (protons and electrons) to contend with in your math. It can sometimes be easier to just think of the net amount of positive or negative charge that exists within the atom. I would agree with you that one should always keep in mind the behind the scenes structure that generates that net charge amount. Yes you are right that I was also pointing out that it is always important to keep in mind the structure that is behind the numbers. The world is made in such a way that there are many structures that have opposites joined together by a central zero point. As an example, the dimensions are constructed in a bi-directional form, so that at any point on a dimension you can travel in one direction or you can travel in its opposite direction. If you first move five units in the right direction and then move three units in the left direction, you could desire to know the total units travelled in which case it would be perfectly valid to add the five units travelled to the right to the three units travelled to the left to get a total distance travelled of eight units. On the other hand, if you just want to know how many units you are from your starting point, it would be easier to treat the smaller distance of three units as though it is a negative distance compared to the larger distance travelled in the opposite direction and subtract it from the greater distance to get the position of two units in the right direction. Part of the problem is the limited nature of man's current mathematics. Symbolism to express relations of opposites or various intermediate levels of structure are not usually commonly used, so they are often expressed in more abstract positive or negative relational terms. You are right that this can distract one from or hide important behind the scenes information. Math could be used in such a way as to preserve the structure that is being referred to. As an example, Nd: 5r & 3l= 2r where N = net, d = distance, l = left, r = right, : = of, and & = and would keep in mind that the net left, right distance is what is being determined. Although I used standard alpha and numeric characters, special standardized symbols for net, of, and and could be used. Like in any case where you add information it increases the size of the formula and the operation that would be done to get the answer would still be subtraction. In the distance example, the east-west distance could not be determined, so all that was available was the minus two and five meters. Wouldn't the Pythagorean Theorem also work in your system? It seems like it would, although the virtual reality part might not be used.

I don't see a need for a physical time dimension, but if you can locate and point out the point in three dimensional space that was the initial expansion point of the big bang that would indeed be an important thing to know. My understanding is that man has no concept of where that point is. If you know it you probably can be famous. A continuum is something that continues, whose parts cannot be separated or be separately discerned. A motion continuum is therefore, motion that is continually changing or continuous motion and since all entities are composed of motions I believe it should cover all concepts of continuous change. Whether motion has positions in the absolute sense is dependent on whether the dimensional system is discrete with minimal positions in such a way that a motion travels from one such position to the next or whether it is analogue with a truly continuous structure. Man cannot know the answer to that question at this time. Even if it is analogue a motion can be considered to be at a position at a given time or point in the motion continuum. The concept of position would not be an absolute minimum point in space, but would be considered to be the minimum range of such motion's continuous change in spatial location that could be discerned within the currently available level of measurement accuracy. This would not be absolute, but is adequate for many purposes. If you start with D=RT where D=distance, R=rate, and T=time, you can get T= D/R. If you then replace the time based rate with a direct non time based unit of motion amplitude M, you get T= D/M. Time then is just a relationship between a motion and the distance it travels through. Time is generated by a motion traveling through a distance. The greater the distance that the motion travels through the greater the time interval generated and the greater the motion's amplitude the less is the time interval generated by that motion. This, of course, is a simplified example and does not take into account fifth vector motion variations, etc.

The ultimate goal of science is the acquisition, of the knowledge of and ability to use and control those rules that govern the structure of the most basic entities that exist and how they interact with each other in a more and more complex manner that generates more complex rules and interactions that ultimately generate all of the complex structures that exist in our world. Finding these rules is based on observations that can be repeated over and over again that always generate the same output results when the same input entities and their conditions and quantities are the same. This can only be determined when measurements can be made that confirm the relationships of the specific inputs with the specific outputs of the interactions, but because man currently has and has always had limitations on his ability to make observations beyond specific size and motion amplitude scale levels, an observational barrier always exists beyond which man cannot make accurate observations and/or measurements. Man has generally used the information gained from observations that he can make at a given time to gain greater understanding and to develop devices that increase his range of observation, but scale limitations still remain. This is where the part of science that is the closest to philosophy comes in. Beyond man's current limitations of observation a hypothesis is made based on projections of current observational data and man's understanding of it in an attempt to determine the experimental and observational direction that should be followed to allow further advancements in observational ability or to gain or confirm new understanding or more detailed understanding of the meaning of current data. The difference between a proper scientific hypothesis and a philosophical argument is that although the scientific hypothesis is based on and kept in close correspondence with experimental observational data, the philosophical argument is often only based on a logical argument that may not be closely correlated to observational reality. Philosophy is generally most useful when dealing with situations or concepts that are not well understood because adequate observational data is not present to directly lead to a detailed understanding of the subject. As an example, the question of what (if anything) exists outside of our universe would be most appropriately addressed by philosophy because we have no observational data from outside of our universe to draw upon to come to any scientific conclusion. It is not always easy to determine what concepts are truly scientific concepts and what ones are philosophical concepts. As an example, the concept that the earth is the center of the universe with the sun, planets, and stars revolving around it is based on the observational information that when one looks up at the sky at night, one sees these things moving across the sky. It is only when more detailed observational data is available such as the observation that the planets do not just travel in straight lines across the sky, but perform strange back and forth movements, etc. that an earth centered universe becomes scientifically doubtful. It can thus be clearly seen that what appears to be a valid logical (philosophical) argument even when based on limited observational data can prove to be wrong. For an argument to be a valid scientific hypothesis it must be based on a large amount of experimental observational data that all points to the same conclusion. The more one departs from observational data in one's argument the more philosophical and less scientific the argument becomes. The problem is an excessive reliance on man's logic and/or math structures. Both of these structures are parts of man's overall language structure and like all of the elements of man's language structure they can be used as abstract representations of both real and imaginary structures. It is only when they are tied to reality through observational data that they have an anchor that can hold them to reality or at least bring them back to reality when more detailed observational data becomes available that clarifies the meaning of the lesser amount of observational data that they were originally based on.

The hypothesis that all matter particles and energy photons are composed of motion is clearly pointed to by the experimental observational data chain that matter particles can be changed into energy photons and energy photons can be changed into motion. These things have been experimentally observed in many ways in various different types of interactions using different types of experimental apparatus. The laws or rules of the behaviour of motion are well understood, so a scientific hypothesis can be made that incorporates all this data into a workable structure that explains how energy photons and matter particles are constructed, how they can interact, and what results can come from those interactions.

If a virtual reality world that is offset by one half of a Planck length from our reality dimensional structure exists, it must also be pointed to by observational data in order for it to be a valid scientific hypothesis. Otherwise it becomes a convenient imaginary dumping ground for all the things that man cannot currently explain scientifically due to lack of data or the lack of insight that joins the elements of this data into a useful scientific structure. You say that this virtual coordination system is open to search for finding the nature of its virtual dimensions and the rules that govern them. How would you do these things? If you can do these things and scientifically prove their feasibility by basing them on experimental observational data, you will have a valid scientific hypothesis.

You are right that we cannot have absolute knowledge of anything because all information comes to us by intermediary processes such as by light photons acting on matter structures in our eyes and then through a chain of motion transfers from those sensing structures that ends in our perception of an object through many levels of structure in our brains, etc. For all you know you may just be a little black box sitting on God's desk being fed all the information that you interpret as existence in this world. There have been many such philosophical arguments made over the years and it is impossible to say that they are wrong because of the nature of our existence in this world in that we are a part of its structure and cannot separate ourselves from it and look at it from the outside, so that we could get an objective perspective. Nevertheless, we must live in this world whether it is real or not, so analyzing the data that is presented to us to learn the rules of operation of this world and how to manipulate those rules, can still give us some control over what happens in our lives to improve the quality of our lives here. You are right again that as man has progressed, it has been necessary to construct and use devices that allow man to overcome the size and motion amplitude scale limitations that are built into man's structure. These devices add extra intermediary levels of abstraction to the sensing of things that are too small or large or are too fast or slow or are too high or low in intensity, etc. for man to sense using only his built in sensory capabilities. These devices do increase the possibility that the data that they produce is in error due to faulty design or construction, etc. of the devices, but this possibility is drastically reduced when many devices of different design and construction all give the same output data results.

The argument that happiness could be deduced by measuring human's health as happiness has a positive effect to human's health would not even make a good philosophical argument let alone a good scientific hypothesis. First you would need to determine if health has an absolute condition of perfect good health, an absolute condition of bad health, and a linear range between them and you would need to know all the variables other than happiness that would contribute to one's level of health condition. As an example, it could be that a combination of the other variables other than happiness could create a condition of perfect good health, in which case a person who was completely unhappy could be judged to be happy because he was in perfect health. There could also be other variables that if present would negate the positive effects of added happiness, so that no change in the level of health would be observed whether happiness was present or not. The point is that you could only deduce one's state of happiness from one's state of health if happiness was the only variable that determined the state of one's health and if there were no counteracting variables involved. Even if happiness has a positive effect on health it would not be logically correct to say that better health necessarily has a positive effect on happiness because some relationships only work in one direction. Also to take the other side of the argument, if happiness is not determined only by one's state of health, then good health would not give an accurate representation of one's happiness because the state of all the other variables that generate the person's state of happiness could overpower the effect of the state of health alone. If you take all such things into consideration you could develop a good philosophical argument about the effects that the state of health would have on the state of happiness, but for it to be a good scientific hypothesis you would need to base it on extensive observational data about the variables that generate good health and also those that generate happiness and the effects that each variable has and their interrelationships with each other, etc.

It is true that the only way we could completely understand the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe would be to get that information from the one that generated them.

Dear Ioannis,

I have enjoyed our discussion. Your concept of things and places that are hidden from man's current observation ability by his lack of knowledge of their existence and lack of current ability to make the devices necessary for that observation, is an insight that could help you to understand many things concerning fourth and fifth vector structuring technology development, if you chose to look in that direction. I agree that a face to face exchange of ideas would be preferable, but I do not know how practical that would be. Did you have any suggestions about that? I can work with abstract concepts, but I do see that we have somewhat of a language conversion problem. As an example I am not sure what a half terrains's game is unless it is about a video game in which the terrain of one half of the screen is inverted to generate the terrain for the other half of the screen. If it is, I guess you are saying our thought processes are opposite. That can be good because each sees what the other can't. The only problem is how to work together to transfer the needed information to each other that each one needs to develop a complete understanding. An English language translation problem is also present, but could be worked out. As an example, when you say "your inflationary expression" I believe you are saying that I use a lot of words to explain my point. A common way to say that in English would be to say that I have a very verbose manner of speaking or just that I use a lot of words in my explanations. If that is what you mean, you are right. I have found over a long time that if I try to explain complex concepts in a simple concise manner, I am more likely to be misunderstood than if I elaborate more and sometimes even repeat the same thing using different words. This is especially the case when talking to someone not really fluent in English as can be the case with some who read these papers and comments. The down side of that method of presentation is that some may not want to continue reading long enough to get the point being transferred, so some of the audience can be lost that way, especially those who can pick up the meanings easily. Since I am trying to reach the greatest range of people, I hope that those who might get somewhat bored waiting for me to finish giving one point because they fully understand it and desire to go on to the next point, will have patience with me for their sake. If I am misreading your intent and you are trying to tell me that you desire to have no further conversation at all by any means, feel free to not answer this comment and I will understand.

All good desires,

Paul