Is the Fundamental Nature of the Universe Knowable to Man on Earth at This Time by Paul N Butler

Dear Sir,

Kindly forgive our asking some elementary questions. But these are essential for our understanding or rather due to lack of it.

You say: "Like atoms, particles can be broken down into other particles and, or, energy photons. Since it appears that all known particles can ultimately be broken down into energy photons, it would seem that matter particles are also digital constructs of a still simpler form (energy photons)". Will you kindly guide us to some site which shows the mechanism by which all known particles including all the quarks and all the leptons have actually been broken down completely to energy photons and this effect has been verified in an experiment? Further, the theory should explain the charge of photons and how does it evolve to differently charged particles. It should also explain why gamma rays and x-rays originate from different areas with opposite charges.

You say: "It is obvious that the photon must have been composed of motion; so that when its motion was transferred to the electron in the atom it ceased (or at least appeared to cease) to exist". But we do not understand it. What is a motion? It has no physical existence. We only refer to it by observing the effect of energy on some matter particle. Only similar energies are linearly additive like mass. Dissimilar energies co-exist, but are not linearly additive. For example, electric and magnetic energies co-exist. Transfer of motion means transfer of energy or energy and mass both. In this context, how do you justify your statement?

You say: the motion of the energy photon is "divided into two separate motions, one of which seems to be of an analog nature while the other one seems to demonstrate more of a digital nature". How do you define analog and digital? What is the mechanism by which an analog energy photon becomes partly digital?

You talk about what is behind motion? But we could not decipher it. Would you kindly elaborate?

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi Paul, I liked the way you talk about 'structure'. How about considering the Archimedes screw as an image of something which has both particle and wave properties? What do you think?

Dear Basudeba,

I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your query. My access to the Internet has been very limited lately and other activities have prevented me from making frequent checks on this site. I hope it has not been too much of an inconvenience for you.

Elementary questions are perfectly in order as I have only given very basic elementary information because I have found that anything much deeper is often completely misunderstood by most, being interpreted by one's past experiences, beliefs and knowledge base, so that it is either dismissed out of hand as wrong because it does not agree with one's past experience, etc. or it is considered as too deep or complex for one to understand and therefore potentially embarrassing to one (to those who are concerned with such things) if one attempts communication with the source to get more information and then it becomes clear that it is too much beyond one's abilities. I understand the desire or need for more detailed information and I am prepared to give more up to a point (there still are some things that are currently not for release at this time). Let me also assure you that nothing that I am currently disclosing is beyond man's current ability to understand based on current observational data and logical extrapolations from such data. Having the desire to understand as much about the universe and its functioning as I can, I greatly admire others who are like minded and asking questions is a beginning step to increasing one's knowledge and understanding regardless of one's current level of total understanding.

As far as the idea that all sub-atomic particles can be converted to energy photons it is only necessary to consider that every presently discovered sub-atomic particle is associated with its anti-particle (the positron for the electron and the antiproton for the proton, etc.) and that when a particle interacts with its antiparticle the resultant output from the reaction is generally a pair of energy photons (especially when they both have very low kinetic energies before the interaction) (due to the canceling out of the fifth vector angular motion components in each of the particles thus forcing its fifth vector motion back down into the fourth vector). This shows that they can all be converted to energy photons. Individual quarks have not been isolated and therefore cannot be considered to truly be particles by man. Since protons supposedly contain quarks, however, if protons can be broken down into photons it logically follows that the quarks within them are converted to the output photons as well, since they do not emerge from the interaction in some other way. My purpose here is to guide any who are both willing and able to a deeper understanding of the world around us by giving basic concepts and understandings at a level slightly beyond man's current attainment with the goal of encouraging them to develop those concepts on their own through their own research to the more advanced levels of those concepts, thus proving that man has that ability to such as may desire such proof. I will try to answer your questions within that framework as I did above, but you will need to do your own backup research because the results must be conclusive to me one way or the other. A sub-atomic particle's charge (the electron's negative charge and the proton's positive charge, etc.) is derived from the channeled sub-energy field structure components that are primarily due to its fifth vector motion. Energy photons do not possess a fifth vector motion and, therefore, are generally not considered to be charged particles in that way. When a photon with a great enough fourth vector motion component (high enough frequency or short enough wavelength, etc.) experiences the proper angular motion component, some of its fourth vector motion can be transferred into the fifth vector causing it to become a matter particle (if it contained more that .511 MEV it can become an electron, etc.). (Usually a pair of particles is produced such as an electron and a positron so it would normally require 1.022 MEV). The standing wave structures that then exist in it due to its fourth and fifth vector cyclical motions then channel sub-energy in such a way as to generate its charge effects when its sub-energy fields interact with those of another matter particle. To give a very oversimplified example of how charge structures can work, think of two spinning tops. If both tops are spinning in the same direction (say clockwise when viewed from the top, the near side of one will be traveling in the opposite direction from the near side of the other one as they approach each other. The air currents that are generated by the motion of the side of one top (the sides of the tops have been designed to create the air currents) will also move in the opposite direction from the air currents generated by the side of the other top. As the tops approach each other the air currents from the two tops will push against each other and that push will be transferred to the tops causing them to repel each other. If the tops are spinning in opposite directions, however, the air currents from the adjacent sides of both tops will be traveling in the same direction. The pressure difference thus created between the tops compared to the surrounding pressure will cause the two tops to be attracted toward one another. Now think of the tops as matter particles traveling around their three-dimensional enclosed paths generating sub-energy currents (fields). In reality it is much more complex than that, but I am not at present giving all of the details of matter particle field structures because that gets too deeply into fifth vector structuring, which is for a much later time than now. You are certainly welcome to try to figure it out and if you do let me know. It would demonstrate an extremely good result for man's abilities given the relatively small amount of information I have provided. Remember that you also have to take into effect the fourth vector motion variables. I am not sure about the x-ray/gamma ray comment. Please elaborate on it giving details of the experiment or other observation that it is based on.

In our general experience we tend to think of motion as a property of another object rather than an actual object of its own, having an existence of itself apart from other objects, so I can understand your difficulty in accepting that motion is the only real object and that energy photons and matter particles are just objects that are composed (made up) of various motions working together within the dimensional structure to give the photon its specific velocity, frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects and the matter particle its ability to stand still or move at variable velocities (up to the speed of light) and its mass/inertia effects, etc. On the other hand motion can generate these types of effects even on the macro scale that we can readily observe. You can readily see the ability of motion to generate mass effect by putting a ball into motion and then putting another ball with half the mass of the first ball in motion at twice the velocity of the first and then observing that they both produce about the same effects in interactions. It is the additional motion that essentially gives the lighter ball the extra mass effect to equal the heavier ball. Just by moving a paddle back and forth in a pool of water, you can observe at the macro scale how cyclical motion can generate wave effects. Again it is the motion not the paddle or water that generates the wave effects. This can be easily seen in that if you gently place a paddle in the pool of water and do not move it any more in the water, no wave effects will result from that action. It is only because we cannot look at the individual photons or matter particles that we think of them as objects separate from motion. It should be obvious though that a photon cannot exist separate from motion because its linear motion at the speed of light is a part of its definition and its wave effects betray an additional cyclical motion in its makeup. The problem here is that we don't actually observe photons traveling through space at the speed of light. We see the effects of photons being absorbed or bouncing off of objects made of matter into receptors in our eyes giving us information about the shape of the matter object and we see the frequency effect of the photons that are not absorbed by the object as the color of the object. It is even harder to think of matter as made of motions because we only see the macro condition of a multitude of mater particles joined together such that a large scale matter object can appear to be sitting completely still with no apparent motion. It is already accepted by science in this world that in actual fact the object's molecules are in continual motion and its atoms are in motion within the molecules. The sub-atomic particles are also in motion within the atoms of the object. From this perspective it is only a small jump to consider that the matter particles can be composed of motions, since we can easily see on the macro scale that motion can generate the effects that make up the properties of energy photons and matter particles. Magnetic and electric energies (motions) are opposite sides of the same process of motion transfer. As an example, when many electrons move in one direction in a wire, they generate a certain type of macro sub-energy field (a channeled flow of sub-energy particles) that we call a magnetic field. When this magnetic field is moved through another nearby wire in one direction it conversely causes electrons to move in one direction within the second wire. It is all, just opposite sides of a motion transfer mechanism. If you analyze your statement that "Transfer of motion means transfer of energy or energy and mass both." You will see that you already intuitively understand that motion equals energy and/or mass. Lets put your statement a little differently. We will take the first part first. Transfer of motion = transfer of energy. Remove the common parts and you have motion = energy. Again transfer of motion = transfer of energy and mass. Again remove the common parts and you have motion = energy and mass. You are right that all forms of motion are not simply additive because it takes a larger quantity of motion to do some things than to do other things, but this is also true in the macro world. There generally are conversion factors, however, to make it easier to convert from a motion that is stored in one form to one stored in another form.

Analog means continuous and digital means discrete or divided up into discontinuous individual separate measurable quantities. The photon's linear motion in some direction at the speed of light appears to be continuous or analog in that it does not appear to jump from one discrete location in space to some other discontinuous location as it travels, but seems to travel continuously through a continuum of space to the level of accuracy of all of man's current measurement abilities. The frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects that ride like a carrier signal on that linear motion exhibit cyclical motion effects that could be the result of a discrete discontinuous motion.

Lets start with Newton's laws of motion. One of them states that in the absence of any applied force an object that is in motion will continue in motion at the same velocity. Since velocity is a vector quantity, it means that it will continue moving in the same direction at the same rate of motion (what I call motion amplitude). To continue in motion means that it will continue to change its position from its current position to the next position in the direction of its travel. This new position could either be a discrete position that is the next possible position over from the current position in its direction of travel (if the dimensions or motion itself is digital) or it could be a continual change of position in an analog motion and dimensional continuum (if the dimensions and motion are both of a continuous analog nature. From this it is evident that in the absence of an interaction that would apply some external force to the motion, you can completely describe a motion if you know three pieces of information about it. The first is its present position. The second is its current direction of travel and the third is its rate of motion (motion amplitude or how fast it is traveling). With these three quantities you can trace and completely describe the motion's path backward in space to its nearest previous interaction and you can trace it forward in time to its next interaction if any in the future because you know it will keep going (changing position) (position changes so it is a variable) in the same direction (direction is a constant in the absence of an interaction) at the same rate of motion (motion amplitude is also a constant in the absence of an interaction). So far it is very simple. If we look at it from the perspective of motion in three individual equal sized dimensions (each dimension has the same total number of positions as each of the other two dimensions) that are connected together at ninety degree angles to each other it gets more difficult to follow, but not too bad. First the connections between positions in one dimension to those in another dimension are such that each point in one dimension is connected to all points in the other dimensions. As an example, if each dimension contains 10 possible positions that a motion could be at, position 1 in dimension 1 is connected to all 10 positions in dimension 2 and is also connected to all 10 positions in dimension 3. Lets look at a simple two-dimensional example. Visualize that dimension 1 goes up and down and dimension 2 goes left and right in front of you. A motion that is in position 1 (top most position) in dimension 1 must be able to be in any one of the ten positions in dimension two in order for all possible positions to exist to create a continuous linear world such as the one we live in. (These 10 positions would generate the top line of positions in the two-dimensional plane). The same applies to positions 2 through 10 of dimension 1. Although each dimension only contains 10 positions the total possible number of position combinations with each position joined to all 10 positions of the other dimension equals 10 times ten or 100 possible two-dimensional output positions that a motion could be on, giving all of the possible combinations of the positions in both dimensions. This is why every time you add another dimension you must square the size of the total number of possible positions in the output of the dimensional system as long as all dimensions are of the same size (all have the same number of positions). You can see from this that the current position of a motion in our two-dimensional example is an output position that results from the combination of its position in each of the two dimensions. If its position in dimension one is position 3 and its position in dimension two is position 4, it would be in the combined position that is in the fourth position from the left (if position 1 is the left most position) of the third row or line of positions from the top. Each input dimension also has two possible directions of travel for a motion within it, but again these directions must be combined to determine where the motion will go next in the output two-dimensional matrix. The combination of the two individual dimension's directions does not actually produce the actual output direction in the two-dimensional matrix, however. It only generates a range of possible directions of travel for the motion (in this case a 90 degree range). Lets see how that works. If the direction of travel in the first dimension is down and the direction of travel in the second dimension is toward the left it is obvious that if the motion amplitude of the motion is zero in the first dimension and some value greater than zero in the second dimension, the actual output direction in the matrix will be straight to the left. On the other hand, if the motion amplitude in the second dimension is zero and the motion amplitude in the first dimension is something above zero the output direction of the motion in the matrix will be straight down. If both dimensions have equal motion amplitudes the two-dimensional matrix output of the motion will be at an angle of forty-five degrees down and toward the left, etc. The actual directions in the individual dimensions, therefore, determine a range of possible directions of motion in the output matrix and the ratio of one dimension's motion amplitude to that of the other dimension's motion amplitude determines the actual output direction angle within that range in the output matrix. Now lets look at how motion amplitude is translated from the individual dimensions to the output matrix. (For the sake of making it easier for you to understand, I will use the time based units of motion that you are familiar with rather than the more direct approach of direct motion amplitude units without the time complexity added). Let's now look at a larger two-dimensional network in which each dimension contains an extremely large number of very small positions, so that it is more convenient for us at our size scale of operation to measure distances in centimeters than in the actual number of positions traveled within the dimension. At first thought it might seem that if the motion amplitude in each of the two dimensions was 1 centimeter per second and the directions of travel in the individual dimensions was as above so as to produce motion in the down and to the left directions that one could determine the output matrix position of the motion after 1 second by first measuring straight down 1 centimeter and marking that point and then drawing a horizontal line to the left through that point. One would next measure 1 centimeter straight to the left and mark that point and then draw a vertical line through that point in the downward direction. The point at which the two lines meet would seem to be a good choice for the motion's new position after 1 second and it would be on the proper line that would be 45 degrees from either the horizontal or vertical that would intersect the particles original position at the beginning of the one second period. There are a couple of problems with this concept, however. First if one would measure the distance of the line from the particle's original position to its position at the end of the one-second period it would not be 1.0 centimeter, but about 1.4 centimeter, but in the case where one dimension's motion amplitude was zero and the other was 1 centimeter per second the output distance would actually equal 1.0 centimeter. Any other combination of motion amplitudes would yield a difference somewhere between the 1.0 and 1.4 amounts. In real life when motions bounce off from barriers at different angles we do not see this variation in apparent motion amplitude at different angles of travel, however. The second problem is that if total motion quantity is conserved, and a motion that has a 1 centimeter per second rate of change of position in each of its individual dimensions as above was to bounce off of a barrier at an angle such that it now was traveling straight down this would mean that all of its motion would have to be transferred to the first dimension, but this would result in a downward motion of 2 centimeters per second instead of its original 1 centimeter per second and we do not see that happen in the real world output matrix either. So how can it work? Lets start with the assumption that total motion is conserved. This requires that the motions be additive. In our above example, the distance traveled at the forty-five degree angle in the output matrix would be 2 centimeters at the end of one second. If the motion were to bounce off of a barrier such that it now traveled straight to the left, all of its motion in dimension 1 would be transferred to dimension 2 and it would still travel 2 centimeters in one second. There are a couple of dimensional structuring concepts that would need to be added for this all to work properly. First, the 2-centimeter output position in the matrix would not be, as one would expect it to be in either dimension with a 1 centimeter per second motion amplitude in that dimension. (Remember that it would be expected to be at the point 1centimeter down and 1 centimeter to the left or about 1.4 centimeter at a forty-five degree angle down and to the left from its beginning position). This means that there would need to be a feedback of the total motion amplitude of 2 centimeters per second back into each dimension that would cause the motion's position in each dimension to be at about the two-centimeter distance position at the end of one second instead of the one- centimeter position. Another way of saying this is that each individual dimension's actual applied motion amplitude that would actually cause the change of position within that dimension would not be determined by its internal stored motion amplitude, but would be controlled by the sum output of all the dimensions' motion amplitudes. There would also have to be a loss in that additive conversion to account for the .0 to .4 difference depending on the relative amount of motion amplitude that is contributed by one dimension's motion compared to the amount contributed by the other dimension's motion. This loss would only affect the applied distance traveled (motion amplitude) in each of the individual dimensions and would not affect the output matrix combined motion amplitude. It would also not affect the motion's stored motion amplitude within each dimension. The end result is that the actual motion amplitude of a motion within the output matrix would be equal to the sum of all of its stored motion amplitudes in all equal sized dimensions participating in this type of ninety-degree binding. In the case of our real world, these would be the first three dimensions. To sum it all up one could say that a linear motion continues to travel (changes position) in a straight line in a direction that is determined by the range of angles generated by the combination of its individual dimensions' directions of travel as modified by each dimension's motion amplitude in comparison to that of all other dimensions' motion amplitudes with a composite motion amplitude that is equal to the sum of all the participating dimensions' individual motion amplitudes. This is roughly what happens in a motion in the absence of an interaction. An interaction can change each of the motion's dimensions' internal stored direction and/or motion amplitude values causing its direction and/or motion amplitude in the matrix to be changed. I have tried to explain motion as simply as possible in a format that should be the most familiar to as many as I can and still keep adequate detail to pass on some of the more important concepts. I hope it is adequate. Some aspects could vary somewhat with different projection and measurement structural models, but the main points would be the same. The most important aspect presented is that motion is not just an aspect or property of material objects, it is the only true basic object from which all other objects are composed whether they be energy photons or matter particles, etc. It can exist in many different forms (stored in many different ways), but total motion quantity is the only thing that is truly conserved. It is the photon's three-dimensional composite motion that generates its speed of light velocity property in some direction and it is its fourth dimensional motion that generates its frequency, wavelength, and variable mass properties. It is the matter particle's fifth dimensional motion that causes it to take a curved path in the first three dimensions that closes upon itself so that a very small distance cyclical enclosed motion path makes what appears from our scale of observation to be a particle that can stand still in space while its three-dimensional angular momentum generated by its enclosed curved path creates its mass effect and its fourth dimensional motion also gives it frequency, wavelength, and variable mass effects similar to the photon. This is getting very big, so I will end for now. Let me know if I can be of more help in any way. Since it is difficult for me to get Internet time at present it is easier for me to send one large post then to try to divide it into many small posts covering smaller amounts of information at a time as seems to be more typical by most. I hope this is not too big a problem for you.

Alan Lowey,

That is a very insightful observation. A somewhat similar concept applies in fifth vector structuring having to do with the fifth vector motion dimensional interface with the lower three dimensions, but that is beyond the level that I can go into at this time. You are welcome to consider it and develop it if you wish on your own, however. If you come up with anything interesting let me know.

Yours truly,

Paul N. Butler

Paul,

I read your essay. You say that "motion is the basic substance of all things that exist in the universe." I'd like to know what your impressions are regarding my own essay at www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/835. You might also want to read my discussions with the others here.

There was a Butler who was at BYU Provo. Any relation?

Rafael

Paul,

You have my vote.

Rafael

Paul,

There are ideas that I do not agree with in your essay. But we have lots of common ideas.

I've concentrated on the general idea of motion transformations and what I call the genesis formula (presented in my essay but not called as the genesis formula).

Rafael

Paul,

You say: "One very interesting aspect of motion is that motion in this world does not appear to have a true opposite. Two motions may travel in opposite directions, but when they meet they do not cancel out and cease to exist or get turned into something else other than motion. They merely interact with each other in specific allowed ways that preserve the total amount of motion. The true basis of motion seems to exist in some other place and motions just use the dimensional structure of our space to play out their interactions..."

Brilliant!

You say: "Two motions may travel in opposite directions, but when they meet they do not cancel out and cease to exist or get turned into something else other than motion. They merely interact with each other in specific allowed ways that preserve the total amount of motion."

Exactly! Motion may become mass, energy, or a part of the void. Motion never ceases to exist - they may become less observable like the void, but they are there.

You say: "The true basis of motion seems to exist in some other place and motions just use the dimensional structure of our space to play out their interactions..."

I have a pretty good idea how motion emerges and becomes observable - the physics answer is kinematic relativity (the other answer, which is really the same as the first is that domains 'flow without compulsory means')...

Rafael

Hi Paul,

I think that your essay would be a good introduction to my essay. You emphasize motion moreso than position, but I think that they are reciprocally-related scales, and thus equally important as indicated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle delta(p)*delta(x)~h-bar.

You imply a fifth dimension, but I think there are multiple scales, each with multiple dimensions, and therefore more than 5 dimensions. However, if you want to approximate all of the unknown dimensions with one dimension (say along the lines of the old Kaluza-Klein Theory), then that may be a good start. My model currently uses 28 dimensions, although I didn't put all of that complexity into my essay, because I wanted my essay to be more readable than that.

Have Fun & Good luck in the essay contest!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Paul

A nice essay, I struggled with the lack of paragraphs breaks! but particularly agree with your concept of motion, which I use as a foundation for energy and consequently condensed matter. In this way it suggests a consistent explanation of the basic nature and configuration of space and the structures that grow from it (or 'exist within it' as you perhaps better describe). You desereve a better position, and I shall wave my wand....

If you really are interested in "understanding the actual structure and processes of operation of the world that we live in" I do hope you're able to read, evaluate and comment on my own essay. It is very empirically based, finding local reality, but does need careful and skilled thought at the key points.

Best of luck

Peter

Paul,

I totally agree that fundamental to everything in our physical universe is 'motion'. Space and time are human abstractions. In my opinion both space and time arise in our human cognition developmentally as we learn to balance ourselves upright. I do not accept as a physical fact the 3 spacial dimensions plus time. I should quickly add, however, that I don't believe in extra physical dimensions! But my point is that any fundamental and more comprehensive understanding we have of physical nature should lead us to 'prove' the necessity of three spacial dimensions plus time.

Like you, I too don't believe that we can know 'what is'. Any claim of knowing 'what is' in my humble opinion is 'metaphysical'. All mathematical models of the universe are premised that we can know 'what is'. I find these the modern version of 'metaphysics'. And as before, any metaphysical claims, including "The Metaphysics of Physics" is flawed and will ultimately fail.

We can only know our 'measurements' of what is. A mathematical foundation of Physics therefore should be based on mathematical identities that describe measurement. The Pythagorean Theorem is one such identity. In my essay I show that Planck's Law of blackbody radiation is also a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. This Law provides an identical calculation (A=A) of 'energy intensity' with the 'energy absorbed' at a given temperature. This is the reason why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

In a recent post, I give a very simple and elegant mathematical proof of the proposition, "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave". Interestingly, The Constant Speed of Light Postulate of SR contradicts the Photon Hypothesis that has lead to QM!

Paul, these are significant and iconoclastic results. You can only imagine the obstacles and 'knee jerk rejections' these have received. This contest for me is a rare opportunity to get these results in my essay before the panel for review and careful consideration. But I need your help and support!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Rafael,

Thank you for your comments and vote. I read your paper as you requested and here are some of my observations about it.

I like your division of thoughts or concepts of the mind (noumena) into those that are true or represent reality or actual existence and those that are false or unreal in that they do not conform to actual existence or reality.

The time dimension does not really exist. Time is merely a relationship between the basic output of the physical dimensional structure (distance or space) and the basic entity that exists within the basic dimensional system (motion). When a motion changes position from one position to another in the dimensional output matrix, that continual change is called travel (motion) through a distance (change of position in the spatial structure from one point to another adjacent point in the dimensional output matrix). Time is the relationship between motion and distance and is roughly equal to T = D/M where T = Time, D = Distance, and M = Motion Amplitude (you might call it speed or rate of motion if you use a time based motion amplitude measurement system instead of a unit of direct measurement of the amount of motion quantity or amplitude, but all such systems are just comparing one motion's amplitude with that of another motion's amplitude (or a set of motions' amplitudes all of which begin and end simultaneously)). What we see as time is the result of comparing the current positions of motions within the dimensional output matrix with recordings of their previous positions that have been stored in our minds. These stored records represent our past to us and the current actual positions are the present. By analyzing the combination of both the past and present we can extrapolate what the motion's positions will be at the next position change or at some sequential combination of such changes in position. This extrapolation gives us the concept of the future. The past motion positions did exist in reality, but the motions have moved on from those positions to their current positions, so that past set of the motions' positions no longer exists in reality. Future motion positions will exist after one or more changes in the motions' positions from their present positions if the motions do not experience interactions or if such interactions have been considered and accounted for. Those future positions do not currently exist in the present, however, because those motion changes have not yet occurred. What really exist are just the present positions of all motions in a continuum of motions and their changes in positions. If you travel through a distance of 10 miles with a motion amplitude of 2 units you experience 10 / 2 = 5 units of time in that travel. If someone else starts to travel simultaneously with the beginning of your travel and travels the same 10 mile distance at a motion amplitude of 1 unit of motion amplitude, he will experience 10 / 1 = 10 units of time in his travel to that 10 mile distance point. All of this is needed mainly because motions do not all travel through their distances with the same motion amplitude, so we need a way to compare a motion with one amplitude to another one with a different amplitude to see how they will track with each other, etc. If all motions traveled at the same motion amplitude that amplitude could be chosen as the unit of motion amplitude, then T = D/ 1 or T = D. If someone asked you how much time your trip was it would then make perfect sense to say it took 10 miles because all trips of that distance would be the same duration. Motion through distance creates duration and our concept of time is used by us to compare varying durations that are created by motions that travel through the same distance due to the fact that all motions do not travel with the same amplitude (quantity or amount) of motion. We get a lot of our concept of the flow of time from the comparison of various cyclical motions that occur within our bodies such as our heartbeat, etc. and some cyclical motions that occur outside of our bodies such as the motion of the earth on its axis and the motion of the earth around the sun and the moon's motion around the earth with other motions that are external to us and from the fact that we are trapped as observers from the local viewpoint of our bodies. In reality it is not time that is flowing. We are just observing the flow of motions in and around us in the continuum of motions that our world is made of. A given instance of time could be considered as a point on that continuum of motions in which each motion exists at some specific point in three-dimensional space, but the motions create that point as they travel in their progression through their distances and no extra dimension is required to represent that point. From the absolute (global) viewpoint any given point in time is generated by a specific set of the positions of all motions that is preceded in order by all other previous specific sets of all motions that have occurred since motion was introduced into the dimensional system. From our local viewpoint, only a small portion of all motions are observed and we think of a specific time as the conditions of a small subset of all motions and the specific motions that are parts of that subset change as our focus moves from observation of some motions to others and as some motions move out of the range of our senses and others move into that range. That is why our perception of the passage of time can vary and time can appear to go by faster or slower depending on what we are observing and whether our minds are kept very busy or not.

You are very perceptive in realizing that duration and other aspects of time do not really exist as parts of existent reality (phenomena). They are constructs of the mind used to process and compare relative differences in motion amplitudes and distances traveled by and between motions as they travel in the motion continuum. They are relational tools used to allow us to compare the motion effects of one motion to that of another and to let us determine the outcome of interactions between such motions. All that really exists is the motions themselves. Time is just the relationship between distance traveled in the dimensional system and the motion amplitude of the motion that is traveling through that distance. (It is not really that simple because increases in fifth vector velocity increase curvature thus varying size and relative distances, etc., but I cannot go into such details at this time or I should say at this point in the motion continuum, but I will try to use concepts and the words that go along with them that you are familiar and comfortable to you as much as possible and ease into new concepts.) There is no need for a separate time dimension. It just adds an unneeded confusion factor.

I like the part of your conclusion that reads: (I added a few small comments in ().):

The idea of motion is the common underlying idea in all the qualified theories about

the laws of nature.

Newton's laws of motion and gravitation is about the idea of motion. (Especially much macro scale motion.)

Maxwell's electromagnetic waves and fields theory is about motions. (Adds fourth vector motion.)

In spite of the idea of the arbitrary transformations of space and time, Einstein's

SR and GR are about the relativity and transformations of motion. In SR, the

relativistic mass equation and the famous E=mc2 are about the transformations of

motion. (Especially transfer of motion between the fourth and fifth vector.) This claim is supported by the facts regarding the famous formula. For

example, nuclear explosions release so much kinetic energy because the nuclear

particles are composed of motions (K.E.) confined and condensed in those very

small configurations. (Confined to very small three-dimensional enclosed cyclical motion paths by their fifth vector motion.) GR is about the three-dimensional, gravitational motion. (Connected to a matter particle's standing wave sub-energy field structure, etc.)

Quantum theory is about kinetic energy quantization--about motions. (Due to the photon's fourth vector velocity)

String theory is about the interaction of vibrating strings--about motions. (Strings are not real. They just somewhat simulate some actual motion structures.)

Symmetry theories are about symmetry breaking and currents--about motions.

All the qualified theories principally involve the underlying idea of motion. This

suggests that the motion transformation formulations with the suitable modifications may

be appropriate in the unified theories. (Very good observation after removing time dimension confusion, etc. and some additions that I cannot go into at this time.)

In sum, the suggestion is that the picture of a kinematic universe appears to be the

more clearly logical and rational than the space-time universe picture. But it will take

some doing before the idea of the transformations of motion, the idea of kinematic

relativity, could shake the present-day science's counter-intuitive establishment.

Hint: The first step is to generate a unit of motion amplitude and define the amount or quantity of motion that a motion contains in terms of that unit instead of using time based units. The basic motion amplitude unit can be any amount of motion, but you could use an amount of motion that is equivalent to some presently used time based unit like the amount of motion that will cause a motion that possesses that amount of motion to travel 1 meter in 1 second or any other convenient amount to allow easy conversion between the two systems until you get past the initial transformation stage of development. In the above example, a motion that contained 2 units of motion amplitude would travel 2 meters in 1 second in the time-based system.

I suppose there could possibly be some relationship with the BYU Butler because of the same last name, but if there is I don't know what it is.

I guess you could tell me about the ideas that you disagree with in my essay and I can see if I can give you the information needed for clarification of them so we could come into agreement, but I am somewhat limited in how much detail that I can go into at this time, so I am not sure that I can answer all issues. You are much closer than most that I have seen so far to grasping the true nature of the structure of the world. I believe you may still need to be prepared to untie your mind a little more from presently accepted theory and venture out into finding different and more in depth ways of understanding the detailed motion structures that energy photons and matter particles are composed of, etc., but you already have made a good start. A good starting point is to look at the properties of an energy photon and consider what motion or combination of motions will produce those properties. The same can be done concerning matter particles.

Motion doesn't become part of the void (empty space). It can become sub-energy, however, which man's present level of advancement cannot yet discern from the void. For the most part, the total amount of motion in existence today is the same as the total amount of motion that was put into the dimensional system in the beginning. New motion does not just emerge from nowhere. That concept is just part of quantum physics statistical probability and uncertainty confusion. You have to get below the quantum level to the level that generates the supposed quantum effects, uncertainties, and probabilities to understand what causes them and how to get around them. Empty space really is empty and things do not emerge from it. Motion can be added to sub-energy particles, in such a way that they become energy photons, etc., however. Of course, you may have meant something else completely in which case I am sorry that I jumped the gun without first getting more detail of your meaning of motion emerging and becoming observable.

This is getting pretty large, so I better stop here and get this off to you as soon as I can get access to a place that I can use to send it. I got your posts on 3/6/11, so any comments that you may add after that will not be covered by this post. It could be awhile before I can get it off though. This comment is based just on the information in your paper. I have not yet had time to read the comments on your comment page. I will try to do that later if possible.

Dr. Cosmic Ray,

Position is a more fundamental property than motion. Position is one of the fundamental properties of the dimensional system (at least two positions are necessary for motion to occur because motion is the transfer from one position to another position, so no motion can occur in a zero dimensional world as it could only contain one position). Motion, on the ether hand, is the entity that occupies the dimensional system and transfer from one position to the next position is its most basic property. Motion is therefore dependant on the existence of the positions in the dimensional system (its host) to carry out its structural program. The uncertainty principle is only valid when you are limited in your ability to discern sizes and speeds, so that you cannot ascertain adequate discernment of structural detail, position, and velocity, etc. of the target that you are analyzing. There are ways around these scale limitations, but I cannot go into fifth vector structuring deeply enough to cover them at present because these are for another much later time. The most that I can do now is to give general concepts from which fourth vector structuring technology can be derived, so that the energy photon's structure can be understood and its so called quantum nature can be seen for what it is, which is mainly the result of the interaction of its three-dimensional motion with its fourth dimensional motion. I will only cover very basic fifth vector structuring concepts at this time.

There are actually 8 dimensions, but the structural disconnect generally prevents the sensing of the upper three, so I don't cover them especially at this level of presentation as it just adds another source of confusion. All natural processes that man is presently aware of can be described within the framework of the first 5 dimensions, especially at this level of information transfer. There are multiple size scales, but they all share the same basic dimensional structure. It is mostly a matter of the amount of curvature due to the fifth vector velocity and getting around the interaction disconnect, but that is about all that I can say about that now. You may be talking about some other scales, though. One thing to consider about scale structure is that the same scale can be considered either analog or digital depending on the level of detail of the observation. When we look at things in nature it is often evident that they come in whole units like 1 or 2 tomatoes. Tomatoes, therefore, appear to be discrete objects represented properly by whole numbers, but you can cut a tomato in half, so you could have 1 ½ tomatoes. From this you can visualize how the number of tomatoes that you have could be thought of as more analog in nature, at least until you got down to a piece that if divided was no longer a piece of tomato. At that point a minimum size piece of tomato would appear to be a digital item again. The division can continue, however, until you find digital molecules, then atoms, followed by matter particles. These can then be broken down into energy photons that have some analog aspects and some digital aspects. The energy photons can be broken down into individual three-dimensional linear or cyclical motions that appear to be analog in nature. To look at it another way, the whole numbers make up a digital type scale, but if you look at and include all the possible values between the whole numbers you can get a larger analog scale. It is often what level of structure you are looking at that determines your viewpoint of digital or analog. The real question is whether matter particles are the smallest divisions of matter or whether other things exist at still smaller size scales. It is only when you get to the smallest level that you can really know if the universe is analog (continuous) or digital (discrete) in nature. Of course, if it is actually analog in nature, you never will reach a smallest level. All we can do at present is to try to understand what causes the structures that appear to be digital to be that way and continue to see if they can be further divided, etc. Digital systems are generally subsets of larger analog possibilities. If the world were to turn out to be digital at its most basic level, finding the limiting causes would be important.

I hope you also enjoy the essay contest.

Paul N. Butler

Peter;

Sorry about the long paragraphs. I may not have mastered all of the local language structure yet. As an example, when I am answering a post I am not sure if it is better to try to keep my answers to one of the post's paragraphs within one paragraph, so it can be easily compared with the paragraph that it is in response to or to make several paragraphs if the response covers more than one subject (one for each subject). In answering your post would it be easier for you to understand for me to answer your first paragraph in one paragraph or to brake it down into one paragraph for each subject that you included in your paragraph, which would result in this paragraph about my paragraphs, another paragraph about motion concepts, and a third paragraph about positions in the contest. Since I have not yet heard your preference and you suggest mine are too long I will break them into the three paragraphs in this response.

I read your essay (I have not yet had time to read the comments on your contest entry page, so my comments here are based only on your paper) and I believe that you might get a much more in depth understanding of the true structure of the world by not trying so hard to conform your theory to relativity theory and quantum theory and instead try to understand the structure of energy photons, matter particles, and the structure of sub-energy particles and how they all work together to generate various field structure compositions. You would then know how the gravitational attraction of a body can increase with its speed through a vacuum, etc. and you would then have a better basis on which to conform the result to observational reality, which is in the long run more important than conforming it to just a theory about reality. Another help would be to abandon the false concept of a time dimension and go to a direct scale of motion amplitude. (See my comment to Rafael). Motion is the foundation and basic constituent of all matter, energy, and sub-energy. Space is much simpler in construction than you think. The energy and matter particles that many think come spontaneously into existence and disappear in the same way are really just a result of sub-energy particles receiving enough motion to increase their three-dimensional velocity to a level greater than the speed of light. The excess motion is transferred to the fourth vector turning it into an energy photon and if the added motion is adequate and the proper angular motion components are present it can be converted into a matter particle when a portion of the extra motion is transferred to the fifth vector. The same things can happen in reverse causing it to become a sub-energy particle again. Only total motion quantity is conserved. A matter particle's rest mass effect is mostly due to the three-dimensional angular motion component generated by its fifth vector motion.

Thank you for your compliment about my paper. I will wait and see what the result of your wand wave will be.

I did find your essay interesting and I believe that you do have a better understanding than many about the role of motion. You are also trying to incorporate some of man's new observational data that does not conform well to current theories into your theory, which is much better than just ignoring the data as many do. I encourage you to step back from all current theories and look at the observed properties of energy photons and matter particles and try to visualize what structures generate these properties starting from motion as the basic component from which they are composed because as I demonstrated in my paper they can all be reduced to linear and/or cyclical motions. Once you get the understanding of these basics, you will then be able to generate a theory that will at least conform much closer to observed reality than any presently widely accepted theory. I hope that this can be of some help to you.

I could say best of luck to you also, but I guess you don't need it because you can just wave your wand. Try it and if it works, show me how it works.

Paul

Constantinos,

You are ahead of most with your understanding that motion is fundamental to everything in the physical universe (every thing is composed of motion) and that time is merely a relationship between motion and spatial distance and not a basic entity in itself (i.e. T=D/M where T=time, D=distance traveled, and M=motion amplitude (or speed etc.)). Space, however, does exist as a basic entity of the dimensional system and contains the positions that can be occupied by motions. There is no need for it to be filled with anything or contain anything else other than the individual motions that inhabit it. You are right that there is no need for a time dimension. To see the need for additional dimensions to account for the various properties of energy photons and matter particles, it is best to first extricate yourself from all the preconceptions that have been programmed into you by your formal scientific education and look at these entity's basic observed properties and the observed properties of motion itself and try to determine what specific motions are required to generate their observed properties and how those necessary motions are stored within the dimensional system. All energy photons contain a linear three-dimensional motion and that motion appears to have the same motion amplitude (C) in all photons. This motion can be in any three-dimensional direction, which suggests that it is a composite of the individual dimension's directions and motion amplitudes. This operates the same in motions of objects at all size scales and can easily be seen to be strictly a three-dimensional process that requires no additional dimensions for its explanation. The only thing that is different and must somehow be explained is the servo control of that motion at a specific motion amplitude level (C). The main other observed properties of the photon, frequency, wavelength, and variable dynamic mass effect are all connected and interrelated to each other so that as the frequency increases, the dynamic mass effect increases, and the wavelength decreases so that all photons that have the same frequency also possess the same wavelength and dynamic mass effect. This is what the so-called quantum content of energy is derived from. All it is really saying is that these effects are all different aspects of the same variable. Since the only true variables are the number of motions that an entity contains and their individual motion amplitudes, it is obvious that the photon contains some other motion (beyond its basic three-dimensional motions) that generates these effects. This motion must be stored somewhere, so lets assume for the moment that it is stored like the photon's other motions in another dimension. If this is true this motion that is stored in this other dimension must somehow be able to generate the above-mentioned effects. The frequency effect seems to operate at an angle of ninety degrees to the direction of the photon's three-dimensional motion, so lets assume that this new dimension interfaces with the other three dimensions at ninety degrees somewhat similar to the way the other three dimensions interface with each other. The next step is to find some way that the motion in this dimension can generate the photon's observed effects. First lets look at the fact that all photons possess a composite three-dimensional motion amplitude of C. Lets assume that this has something to do with motion transfer to the new dimension. Suppose that motion does not transfer to this new dimension from the other three dimensions in the same way that it does between those three dimensions, but is only induced into that new dimension from the other three dimensions when their composite three-dimensional motion tries to exceed C. Any additional motion that is added to the photon above C is instead transferred into that photon's fourth dimensional motion. If an attempt is made to reduce the photon's three-dimensional motion, motion is induced from its fourth dimensional motion back into its composite three-dimensional motion to restore that motion to C. This explains why the photon's three-dimensional motion servos at C. It is obvious that the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects are cyclical in nature and are therefore likely due to some cyclical motion in its fourth dimensional motion. The fact that the wave effect has both a positive and a negative component suggests that this cyclical motion is bi-directional in nature. The wave and dynamic mass effects appear to start at a zero level of effect and then to proceed linearly to a maximum effect in one direction followed by a decrease back to the zero level, which is then followed by a similar increase in effect in the opposite direction and then back down to the zero level again. This cycle is then repeated continuously. Although there could be other possible ways these effects could be generated, lets first look at the simplest possibility. We will first assume that all individual motions within a dimension have the same very small size in that dimension (lets call it a dimensional point). To make it as simple as possible, lets assume that the fourth dimension is very small, so that it is equal to three times the size of a dimensional point and that the center point size overlaps our three dimensional continuum while the points to the left and right of the center point do not interface with our dimensional structure. Lets assume that as a motion reaches the end of this very short dimension, it bounces off of the end barrier and then travels in the opposite direction until it reaches the other end and then bounces off of that end also creating a cyclical back and forth motion in the fourth dimension. When a motion is at the end of the dimension it does not overlap our three-dimensional continuum and, therefore, has no effect on our world. This is the zero point in the wave cycle. As it begins to move away from the end of the dimension, it begins to partially overlap our three-dimensional continuum and thus begins to generate a small dynamic mass effect. As the overlap increases the dynamic mass effect also increases until maximum overlap is achieved when the motion is completely within the center third of its dimensional distance, so that it can completely interact with our three-dimensional continuum. As it passes that point on its way to the other end of the dimension the dimensional overlap decreases, so the dynamic mass effect also decreases until it reaches zero again when the motion reaches the other end of the dimension. As the motion bounces off of that end and begins to travel in the opposite direction in the dimension the dynamic mass effect increases again, but this time the effect has the opposite directional component due to the feed through of its opposite direction of travel of its fourth dimensional motion. As the motion travels through the dimension to arrive at the other end again, the overlap with our three-dimensional continuum first increases again to the maximum complete overlap and then decreases again to zero overlap at the other end of the dimension. This cycle continues in the absence of an interaction that would change the fourth dimensional motion in some way. If motion is added to a photon's fourth dimensional motion thus increasing its amplitude, it travels back and forth in the fourth dimension faster, so that it completes its back and forth motion cycle quicker. The result is an increase in frequency. The extra added motion also allows for a greater motion transfer in an interaction, which results in an observed increase in dynamic mass effect. The increase in frequency means that the photon travels a shorter distance in its three-dimensional composite motion during a frequency cycle (fourth dimensional back and forth motion cycle), so its wavelength is decreased also. From this it is clear that the quantum aspect of photons is just saying that all photons that contain the same fourth dimensional motion amplitude will generate the same frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects and it is easy to see that it could not be otherwise due to the structure of the dimensional system and the basic properties of motion. The continuous spectrum of photon frequencies is, therefore, nothing more than the result of the continuous spectrum of possible fourth dimensional motion amplitudes. It is also no mystery as to how the photon wave can propagate through empty space because it caries its wave motion internally within its structure and, therefore, has no need of an external medium to carry that motion.

You are right that we can not know absolutely all aspects of reality due to our limited local perspective and our limited abilities to gain knowledge of the world through interactions without those interactions making changes to the world as it is being observed, etc. On the other hand, we have found by our observations (measurements) of the world that there are many cyclical motions and various relationships between observed motion systems in the world that are set and do not change or, if they change, the change occurs according to specific relationship patterns that remain the same, so that we can learn to predict how they will play out from their current motion conditions, so that we can plan and act in ways that will bring about desired outcomes to our actions based on that knowledge. Any model that is built around the most basic, pervasive and as much as possible direct observations of the interactive relationships between entities will at least much more likely be useful and produce valuable results in practical use than those that are based on abstract concepts and math models that do not fit with observed reality to the degree that we can ascertain it. Since all we have to go on in our attempt to come as close as possible to understanding true reality is what we can observe, models that are based as closely as possible on our observations that come as close as possible to clearly explaining our observations in a simple and comprehensive manner are more likely to represent true reality than models that are less based on observations.

Because math is an abstract language structure, it cannot of itself provide the foundation (the basic understanding of the structure that generates our observations) of physics. It can be a valuable tool to allow us to see relationships between various observations, but the structural reason for those relationships must come more directly from patterns and forms of observations. As an example, understanding how matter particles and energy photons interact with each other through a mathematical model that describes those interactions can be of much use, but the deeper understanding that they are all composed of motion is much easier seen by observing that matter particles can be converted to energy photons and energy photons can be converted to either cyclical motions such as when an atom absorbs a photon thus raising an electrons cyclical motion rate or to linear motions such as when an electron is knocked out of an atom and travels off in some direction by absorbing a photon that contains sufficient motion to overcome the atom's attractive forces on the electron (the photo electric effect). The deeper basic understanding can then be used to gain a more detailed understanding of why the math model's relationships work the way that they do and allows deeper math models to be developed that can allow still more and more detailed relationships to be found. Both must work together. One problem today is that the math model has been over emphasized and the concepts that come from direct observations have been under used. As an example, it is one thing to understand the mathematical relationships that are described by Planck's Law of blackbody radiation, but it is another thing to understand the part of the structure of the world that causes those relationships to exist as they do. I just copied my contest page when I had Internet access and then read it later when I didn't have access, so I was not able to read the external references in your post. I am, therefore limited in my response to what was directly on the page.

The proposition that you mentioned sounds interesting, but again I cannot access it at this time. What contradiction do you see and do you have a resolution to it?

I can do more than imagine the obstacles and knee jerk reactions that any concepts that do not correspond to accepted (established) theories will likely receive. I have done a study of man's acceptance threshold and found it to be very low. It is not because of an inability to understand new concepts, but is for the most part due to societal training by those who control the system to maintain their power positions, prestige, and monetary status, etc. I admit that I was especially disappointed to find things to be this way in the scientific community because it is presented as being composed of those who are open minded and always seeking the truth even if it means giving up old established ideas when new information shows them to be lacking. The information tunneling effect and other problems also contribute to the problem. FQXI is much more open than most scientific information dissemination venues to reception of papers containing new and different ideas. So far I do observe a somewhat limited acceptance, however. It is easier to get a paper with new and different concepts published on the site than at many other places, but it is not clear how much it is actually looked at by anyone. I did request that a hit count of the number of different computers that have accessed each paper be included on each paper's page, but so far it appears to have been ignored. This would give each author an indication of whether his paper is being read by much of anyone. This is important because some authors with popular theories publish papers on this site and, on the one hand, this might draw a larger audience to the site, on the other hand, those who come to the site might be more likely to just look for and read papers from those that they recognize out of the large number of papers submitted because many would not have time to read them all. The hit count would let an author know if it is worth it to publish on the site, if his purpose is to get the new idea out to the scientific public. If you are interested in winning the prize money you will not likely be successful if you submit a paper that is based on concepts that are truly new or different. So far the winners have for the most part been those that have physics or other closely associated degrees that generally present incremental variations on at least somewhat established theories such as quantum mechanics or general relativity, etc. I have heard from others that most are members of FQXI, but I have not checked that out to see if it is true. From what I have seen our votes tend to be of little importance in determining who wins, but I suppose I could be wrong.