« Debate: Why Something Rather Than Nothing? | Main | LST Preon Theory Leaps Into Pages of Scientific American »

Where Does the Motion Come From?

Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 06:17AM by Registered CommenterDoug | Comments9 Comments

In an interesting panel discussion called the 2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything, many interesting theoretical and philosophical observations were made by the panelists on theoretical physics, mostly on string theory. 

The thing that struck me the most, however, as the discussion went along, was how the concept of energy was central to all aspects of the discussion. Finally, with about seven minutes to go, a lady in the audience asked the obvious question, which Brian Green answered (see 1:32:0 in the video).

“What causes the vibrations of the strings?” she asked. Brian’s answer was as simple as it gets: “I don’t know,” he confessed. This is a question of where in the universe is the energy to move the strings coming from? The question is profound, not because we need to know, we don’t, but because it reveals the fundamental paradigm of the legacy system of physical theory (LST), which is important to understand, if we want to understand the nature of the trouble with physics: Energy is required to move. 

The motion of massive entities requires energy and the motion of massless entities requires energy, and the ultimate source of that energy must be assumed to exist, in the LST paradigm. In an earlier observation by another panelist, it was noted that the understanding of theoretical physicists working on the unification of the forces of the LST community’s standard model with gravity is that these four forces are really one force at some very high energy.

My reaction to the view points of the panelists, which are really different views on the correct path to seeking the answer to the question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing,” as Brian Green put it, was almost visceral, because I’m convinced that the energy paradigm, as I’ll call it, is so misleading.

If we assume that motion itself is an entity in it’s own right, without regard to changing the locations of massive or massless objects, then we are actually, in a sense, inverting the LST energy paradigm, from energy, which is the inverse of motion, to motion: A new paradigm based on v = Δs/Δt, rather than the old paradigm based on E = Δt/Δs, changes everything profoundly.

The amazing fact that this change immediately places our thoughts in the realm of fundamental magnitudes, dimensions and “directions” of geometry and algebra, as found in the ancient tetraktys, and enables us to convert units of motion (s3/t3) into units of mass (t3/s3) that occupy relative locations in space and time, and units of mass into units of momentum (t2/s2), which is mass changing relative locations of space and time, and units of mass into units of energy (t/s), which converts mass back into motion, presents us with a wonderland of units of motion, combinations of units of motion and relations between units of motion that literally teases us out of thought, with its transcendent beauty and intriguing mysteries.

The fact that all of this comes out of unit motion at high speed, instead of out of unit force at high energy, is very encouraging. 

The trouble with physics is the failure to recognize that the energy of the universe comes from the motion of the universe. It would be a great step forward to remedy this error, even though it won’t answer the real question, “Where does the motion of the universe come from?”

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (9)

Did you read this before writing it?

January 28, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

Hi Horace,

Thanks for the link. I had read his paper on orbits, but not this one. This is huge.

January 29, 2013 | Registered CommenterDoug

At first it was kind of boring but as I got to that diagram of a circle inscribed in the square (yet both having the same circumference) I was moved.

January 29, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

Hi Horace,

Yeah, that really surprised me too. It's hard to believe. I need more time to concentrate on the implications.

February 11, 2013 | Registered CommenterDoug

Gopi has analyzed that Miles' "charge field made of photons" is the same as what we call "outward scalar motion".

February 28, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

I can't find it over there. Can you provide a link?

March 1, 2013 | Registered CommenterDoug

It's in one of the posts of the thread below:

March 2, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

I have posted a new comment in "The New Math" section how linear c gets converted to rotational 1/c at the unit boundary.
Sink your teeth into it. It's big!

March 5, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterHorace

Oki doki.

March 5, 2013 | Registered CommenterDoug

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>