Alternative Models of Reality

Mass is always conserved considering the stable gravitational series.It is foundamental.And the mass is an effect probably of rotations of quantum sphères.The proportions in logic exist.The stable gravitational serie can gain or loose but always they return to their equilibrium due to their intrinsic gravitational codes.

Everywhere Inside the universal 3D sphere you shall have always the same mass, not the same weight.F=ma simply in newton.I have 80 kg near 800 newton of forces and I have different force on other place of our universe, but my mass is the same like my intrinsic heat.The mass is due to a number, specific of particles encoded due to evolution, we are results of evolution with a specific mass irreversible in a general analyse.And particles have a mass ,it is just a simple addition of these particles.This mass evolves due to encodings in the stable gravitational serie implying mass.Temperature is a mesure of intrinsic heat of these gravitational stable series.Is it really relevant to debate about these foundamentals?

we see easily that teamperature is function of several parameters.Let's take PV=nRT ........We see that temperature changes if we apply a force in closed volume.If I put a mass Inside this closed volume,I don't change its mass but its properties,it is totaly different.That said the heat ,intrinsic, internal of all gravitational stables series is specific.The reversibilities and irreversibilities must be classed in fact simply.The main gravitational codes are totaly and universaly irreversible.

James,

There is a non-circular definition for mass.. What is it?

Mass can be and should be defined in terms of the properties of empirical evidence. Agreed. What are your own empirical evidence?

Length and time are properties that give us the information needed to learn what mass is, Agreed again. What properties do you have in mind?

You have stopped here. I have not stopped. I discuss this more in the e-book I referred to above. Basically that property, has to do with the question whether the unit of length (call it the Planck length if you want), ... whether it is an eternally existing object or whether it can perish. Whether it can emerge from nothing or be extinguished to nothing. (*note the subtle hint at role of time implied with the term 'eternally' existing or not so)

Akinbo

That becomes interesting.The nothing of course does not exist.Now about the recycling, the eternity,several important différences must be made.The time is a result of our physicality.Mass also.Now let's go more far with the souls and the mass.The standard model for me is a recycling where eternity has no meaning.Now about the gravitational codes, it is an other story, that is why the souls and the gravitation must be considered differently than with our standard model.The mass is not eternal when we consider the standard model.Now more far t 10^-35m and near probably this zero absolute, a different mechanic appears where time must be considered differently also.If people correlates the eternity with the standard model, that cannot give the correct extrapolations;Now if the gravitation is add to mass ,that becomes relevant considering the physicality in evolution of mass and gravitation.But it is two thibgs different.Mass of the standard model has nothing to do with the souls.And the only one eternity is above our physicality,this universal sphere and its sphères.The physicality is a system where laws and doamins have been created by this infinite entropy.God indeed does not play at dices like said Einstein.The universe is a deterministicmechanic.If this eternity, infinite has created a physicality , there are reasons.If singular souls have been created,there are reasons, if the life is a reality insde this universe, there are reasons, we create a kind of paradise;we are just Young still.We die electromagneticaly speaking, not gravitationaly.We are babies in evolution, souls in irmpovement and the real relevance is to consider the infinite potential of this physicality considering an eternal infinity above this universal sphere.I have thought a lot about this infinity eternal,why?,how? ...I said me but how this universe and why has been created ?Perhaps simply that this eternity has wanted to share its universal love because this infinity was alone .....We are the babies and we are Inside a wonderful project of pure imrpovement towards the physical eternity where souls and God are unified.....We are just youngs still.The gravitational codes and the photonic codes are two things totaly different.

My humble general equation E=m(c²+l²) tries to explain this bridge for our universal gravitation spherisation.mlosv=Constant permits to class these sphères and motions.The mass,this matter and correlated energy due to encodings of evolution has still somany secrets to show us.This universal sphere and its sphères dancing around the central BH.God is not far of us when we consider these smallest andspeedest spherons....The main codes are gravitational and this gravitation is themain chief orchestra.The newtonian mechanic is always relevant.

Akinbo,

"Mass can be and should be defined in terms of the properties of empirical evidence. Agreed. ... "

You agree? What do you think I mean by my statement?

"What are your own empirical evidence?"

It is not my own empirical evidence.

Quoting me: "You stopped here."

This remark refers to your analysis of what you think I am proposing?

Quoting you: "I have an idea what you are getting at. You desire a definition of mass that is non-circular? If that is the case, there is no such definition and in that case your claim that mass is an indefinable property is correct. But so are other properties like length and time. To paraphrase from your statement and replace mass with length, one can similarly say,

Your analysis shows that you are not following what I am saying. You think that I am saying that mass is length? That is where you stopped. Obviously mass is not length. I asked above: What do you think I mean by my statement?

Quoting me: "There is a non-circular definition for mass.."

Quoting you: "What is it?"

I was refuting your statement:

"I have an idea what you are getting at. You desire a definition of mass that is non-circular? If that is the case, there is no such definition and in that case your claim that mass is an indefinable property is correct. But so are other properties like length and time. ... "

This shows that you do not know what I am getting at. Putting that aside, your statement is false. My claim that mass is an indefinable property is correct because mass is currently an indefinable property. That is an established historical physics fact. Yes length and time are not defined. They never will be defined. There are no other properties that you describe as "But so are other properties like length and time. ... ". Length and time are the only properties that can correctly be indefinable.

I understand that you are presenting your own ideas. That is fine. This is your thread. You said you started it because "The original thread is a bit muddied and become incoherent so let me reply on a new thread." That original thread was mine. It was not muddied. It was not incoherent. It was carefully written and said what I wanted it to say. You didn't follow it. You have a distorted view of it. So be it. If you, in your view of it, think that I am wrong and that you have better ideas that are probably right, that is understandable. We all come here to teach. I will return to my own thread to continue explaining my work.

Again: Quoting me: "There is a non-circular definition for mass.."

Quoting you: "What is it?"

There is a non-circular definition for mass because there are non-circular definitions for all properties other than length and time. Not that length and time have circular definitions either. They have no definitions. They never will have definitions. All other properties can be and must be defined. With regard to "What is it?", I will not be posting that answer here. The time to answer it is when and where the process of getting it defined is understood. It is not yet understood.

I have it now and will read and comment on it...very cool stuff...

*Read ether as space itself in all cases. All quotes appear in Chapters 5 and 6 of my e-Book, Hypotheses Fingo, available in bookstores Hypotheses Fingo: *A Universe Increasing in Mass and Radius from Zero *Dark Matter and the Relativity of Time Dilemma *Postulate X and Its Implication for Space, Motion and Light *Action Is in and Not at a Distance

What does f/m=a tells us about what the empirically led units of the ratio of force to mass should be?

Hi James,

I think you misrepresented/ misinterpreted me in your response on the other thread. It is okay to continue the discussion here. By 'muddied' I was referring to the frequent posts by Steve D, which sometimes are unrelated to the topic under discussion.

By using a question to reply my question, "What is it (mass)", I assume you are searching for the answer which is okay. We are all searching for answers.

Your equation F/m = a is your starting point I presume. What is 'Force'?

Akinbo

In fact you are still a vanitious lacking of generality, probably that you need recognizings like me, like all in fact.I have read your posts on fqxi, you have nor innovated, nor well extrapolated in a gneral point of vue;I beleive that you are still one persons speaking in repeating the courses of universities, that is all, you don't imrpove our generalities or équations.In fact you speak, that is all.Already that you do not encorcle the aether nor gravitation, so how could you give relevant courses about our laws??? My reasonings are always related on topics.Wd speak about matter and energy No? And forces, you think what ? that I do not know my foundamentals, you don't imagine the works and books read since many many years.I was in secondary in maths sciences strong my friend and I know what is a study of functions, like I know what is a derivation and integration.I was after at universities, in medecine and after geology.After I was in coma and I have made agronomy and I am a simple nursery man, but my knowledges in sciences are all my life,I have wonderful books of maths and physics,by Bronstein and semendiaev for example in maths,you want discuss about the zeta Riemann function ? or what he geometrical algebras of Lie, Hopf, Clifford....What ? You do not imagine how I am passionated by sciences and physics, since the age of 17 ,I am 41 years old.I class all,I search simply answers.What is mass? see the mass simply in seeing the standard model and mass of électrons, protons...study the mendeleev table and you shall se the encodings.About F=ma it is not complicated to encircle this acceleration,like is our weight on earth with mg.Frankly that becomes ironical there ???? F=ma is a wonderful equation of Newton about this universal force between all mass.All our universal sphere is Under this logic, we are all connected with the central BH and with a force between all mass implying this gravitation spherisation.See that like the entropy increases due to encodings of evolution, this mass increases and so the gravitation and so the spherisation.It is simply the equation of newton m1m2/r²,we know what is mass and why it exists ,but perhaps for that,... a real undertanding of what are the encodings of evolution sent by god must be understood.It is the same with the principle of equivalence between matter and energy and the entropical principle.If people wants to speak about the generalities, so they must understand this generality.What is mass and what is temperature ??? Frankly it is not complicated.Gravity is complicated.The universalgravitational force is correlated probably with the quantum and cosmological 3D sphères and their evolutive mass.The mass increases at each instant dear thinkers.logic we encode mass and informations of evolution and comlexification.Regards

There are always reasons why a comportment changes in function of social comportments.It is simply logic.I respect people, so I d like also this respect in return.If not,it will be a transparent discussion in détails to show them where their vanity must be harmonised.After all the problem Inside the global sciences community is this vanity and the business.So let's be rational, empiricaly speaking like a torch towards this universal determinism and its foundamental lawsand domains.The force .........Be the force with you Jedis of The Sphere above our human interprétations and its vanity ....:) irritating ? hate ?frustration? be Christian Please :)I critic but I am nice ....I never utilise bad Tools, always the discussions and transparence.The words.....Regards

Akinbo,

"By using a question to reply my question, "What is it (mass)", I assume you are searching for the answer which is okay. We are all searching for answers."

No I know the answer. I know better than to give an answer in isolation. It would be a wasted effort. I ask the question of anyone to see if there is understanding of what I have written about fixing physics. Both the why and the how. There is no marketplace for solutions to problems that don't exist. If a reader doesn't understand my description of the problem, they will dismiss answers. The problem is that mass and temperature remain unexplained properties. The response to this statement is that others, physicists and laymen, either scoff or put forward what they believe are explanations of what is mass and what is temperature.

It is a symptom of how far afield that physics has drifted that it has become unknown that mass and temperature are properties that lack definitions. The meaning of the word 'definition' in physics has been lost and replaced with the non-technical, commonplace meaning. Physicists no longer know that they don't know what mass and temperature is. Laymen are comfortable with this change to a weakened standard. They, just like professional theorists have done, join the rush to propose their high level guesses about the overall nature of the universe.

"Your equation F/m = a is your starting point I presume. What is 'Force'?"

That is an unanswerable question at this point. I am not proposing what mass or force are. I am showing how to learn what empirical evidence is revealing to us about them so that I can give direct empirical support for my explanations of them. Unlike Relativity theory that lack direct empirical support, I want my work to be tied to direct empirical evidence. One step at a time please until the fundamentals fall naturally into place. Fundamental unity is the prize for proceeding carefully.

It must be known what mass is before it can be known what force is. Please understand that I am aware of the obvious. it is obvious that others believe they know the answers. Temperature is a measure of hot and cold isn't it. It is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy isn't it? It is an indicator of the distribution of molecular kinetic energy isn't it. It is a number on a thermometer isn't it? It is the ratio of molecular kinetic energy to thermodynamic entropy isn't it? It is obvious that others do not see a problem. But, with answers like these how could the problem not be seen by some at least?

None of these indirect answers tells us what temperature is. Sure I have the answers, but, putting them out front before others even know there is a serious problem in physics that could change physics to something very different from what it is today. Learning what mass is could effect all of physics in a drastic way. Lastly to head off the usual "I know what mass is. It is this or that ... " Or as Steve Dufourny asks "Is it really necessary to debate the fundamentals?" The answer is yes of course until they are known. There are at least three fundamental properties that remain unexplained. Their units remain indefinable units. They are something that most claim to know what they are even while they remain indefinable properties.

I will know who knows what any one of them are because that person will know how to define their units. Until then, this is the stuff that theoretical speculation thrives on. The f/m=a question is my way of finding out if any others see the problem. Your response tells me that you do not see the problem. By the way, the answers lie dormant, in storage, here at FQXi.org as well as at other sites on the Internet. Everyone who comes here does so to teach the very important knowledge that they have acquired.

I like Google books and so my review shows up there and I consider it five bucks well spent. I love your jocular and intuitive style and do not want to be harsh, but you know that you do need to face the music as it were...

My whole review did not fit on Google books, so here it is...

This author has a very engaging and jocular style and this makes for a very enjoyable read even though the author is completely wrong and otherwise confused about many things about the universe. The author seems so sure about many things and yet there are many facts that are patently wrong in this book.

However, despite the many wrong facts, another nice thing about the book is that it's many arguments are intuitive and there is very little math to muddy the already complex nature of what the universe is like. The author's notion that the universe comprises a discrete aether and discrete action has much merit.

The author repeats two fundamental notions as postulate or axiom X and hypothesis 3. However, in science, an axiom is only useful if it is self evident and a hypothesis is only useful in science if it can be tested by measurement. Postulate X does not seem self evident and the author does not provide any experiment to either validate or falsify hypothesis 3. Unfortunately, the book is riddled with this kind of flawed logic and misinterpretation of many famous experiments.

Hypothesis 3: The only motion that actually takes place in the universe is a movement of places from somewhere to nowhere and from nowhere to somewhere, and not fundamentally a movement of one place to another place.

If you do not understand what hypothesis 3 means you are not alone. It is clear that somewhere is a measurable place that exists in the universe. Nowhere, however, does not seem to exist in the universe and therefore there is no measurement of nowhere. Without a measurement of nowhere, there is no test for this hypothesis and so this statement is simply an axiom. However, including unmeasurable objects such as nowhere from outside the universe means that hypothesis 3 can explain anything and therefore has little value in predicting the action of objects in the universe.

Postulate X: The non-zero dimensional point does not have an eternal existence, but can appear and disappear spontaneously or when induced to do so by physical law.

If postulate X does not make sense, you are not alone. A postulate or axiom should be self-evident and not subject to interpretation. What is a zero-dimensional point? A non-zero dimensional point requires several axioms of its own just to understand. Since the universe does not have an eternal existence, no point in the universe has an eternal existence, so that statement is self evident. It is certainly not self evident that points can appear and disappear spontaneously from somewhere to nowhere and there should be a measurement to show this is the case. Magical appearance and disappearance of objects simply does not make a good axiom.

There are many examples of flawed analysis. For example, the author states that particle exchange cannot possibly bond two objects together since momentum is conserved in collisions. While it is certainly true that two or more colliding objects cannot bond without losing energy, but if energy and momentum are taken away by a other particles including photons as heat, two objects can bond. Likewise, two colliding objects can bond by exchange of a third particle as long as the excess energy of that collision is emitted by other particles.

Another example of flawed logic is that the author suggests that the Sagnac interferometer is similar to that of the Michelson-Morley. Since the Sagnac is a ring interferometer and Michelson-Morley was a linear interferometer, they actually work on very different principles and measure very different displacements. While neither interferometer can detect linear motion, both interferometers can detect rotation and ring interferometers like the Sagnac are especially good for detecting rotation. Ring interferometers are therefore very useful for inertial navigation while linear interferometers are not useful for navigation at all.

Yet another example of flawed logic is in extensive discussions about relativity that ignore the GPS satellite system that shows the effects of relativity including the slowing of light in gravity. The author does not discuss any of the modern examples of gravity effects on light including the radiotelescopes. All radiotelescopes need correction due to the gravity of the sun and also of Jupiter and the book does not discuss these well known effects at all.

As a result of these and many other flaws, the actual value of the arguments is lost. There is simply an overwhelming amount of data that supports the notions of relativity for constant light velocity, mass energy equivalence, and gravity lensing. Arguing that the substantial body of knowledge and measurements is somehow in error seems like jousting the windmills of Don Juan.

Despite the book's many deep flaws, though, I did enjoy reading it and would recommend it to a person that is knowledgeable enough to recognize its many flaws. Books like this help me organize my own thinking about the universe and therefore help me to avoid the same kinds of rabbit holes that dominate much of current thinking about the universe.

Since I already know where the FXQi gang are coming from, I am much less interested in what they say than what the fringe says. I find the fringe much more interesting...

Thank you Steve Agnew. I accept your criticism and welcome any debates. I asked you about Planck density and I will be posting something on the Alternative Models of Cosmology forum to promote my ideas.

Two of your statements caught my eye in your post because they seem contradictory, at least on the surface:

"effects of relativity including the slowing of light in gravity", and

"the notions of relativity for constant light velocity"

I am sure you know that gravitational influence is not the same everywhere. Strong in some areas and weak in some. Assuming that gravity slows light, then the slowing of light will vary from place to place, and by implication of this light velocity cannot be said to be constant from place to place showing an incompatibility between your two statements above. Einstein said as much and seems to agree with my view I quoted him in the book.

By the way, it is also now available on Amazon.

Again, many thanks. I appreciate.

Gravity slows light...just like all materials slow the speed of light by a dielectric effect, gravity works in the same manner. I like to use those terms since they make sense for an aether universe like aethertime where particle exchange bonds all matter and from which space and time emerge or even an aether universe like yours where space still seems to exist first of all.

However, you do know that in GR, gravity shrinks space and that is why light appears to slow down near massive objects like the sun. The nice thing about GR is that the master equation for gravity is complete and validated within the two limits of black hole event horizon and the Planck limit.

The unfortunate thing about GR is that its determinate geodesic paths are inconsistent with quantum uncertainty. Quantum gravity has an exchange particle but the uncertainty of particle exchange is inconsistent with the infinitely divisible spacetime of GR. Therefore stringy and loopy theories add new hidden dimensions to try and make GR and quantum work together, but there are no ways to measure hidden dimensions, just like your nowhere points. Hidden dimensions, just like a nowhere point, can therefore explain anything that you want.

Your nice intuitive logic is not necessarily always wrong, but you do need to be cautious about cherry picking quantum results and GR results and then trying to make sense out of those comparisons. Maudlin's work is rife with this kind of befuddlement and so there are a lot of very smart people right there with you in your befuddlement. It is interesting that Maudlin does not seem to get invited to the FQXi bashes despite his having won some essay contests.

The FQXi elite needs to be careful that they do not simply produce echos of their own pet beliefs. They really need to challenge the norm and push back more and hear more alternate cosmologies from qualified scientists. I would like to hear more about the shrinking universe cosmology of Chris Wetterich, for example.

A shrinking instead of expanding universe is a very worthwhile alternative cosmology that is completely different from a big bang approach.

Georgina - all forces get more strong as they travel for the same reasons but there are extras reasons for some forces - gravitons get more energy and momentum as they travel because gravitons make time and space have a shape, gravitons influence the vacuum and gravitons create attraction for positive energy particles - gravitons influence the vacuum like gravitons make light slow down around the sun - all forces get more strong as they travel and they do not decrease 1/rr - I think Einstein did not like to put together time and space - I guess a lot of people think Einstein wanted to put together time and space - gravitons change the energy of time and space - as distance from mass increases energy of time increases - think about air around the earth - at the surface of the earth there is a lot of air and as you go up density of air decreases - Einstein wanted shape of time and space around mass to create gravity - all people mistakes - shape of time and space creates a force in a direction that is opposite to gravity - shape of time and space around mass creates a force that is away from mass it fights against gravity it helps to create inertia - search internet - least action - I have a twitter account there is more information about this - I tell people I do not want any person to follow me but they can look at it - if a person tries to find my twitter account they need to avoid a fake account by a psychopath using my name - search internet Tom van Flander

Steve Agnew,

" ... that is how I define all of reality; with matter and with action."

I haven't followed your definition. I will look for it. I don't see how your statement accomplishes your goal. Matter matters not. It does not show up in equations. The properties of matter matter. They, actually their units, represent matter and whatever its relationship to reality is. Your choice of action looks to be a choice of effects over cause. Isn't cause the source of reality? I will have to look back at your messages. if this message is off the mark because of my lack of knowing what is your case for reality, then I apologize.