Friday, September 18, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part V

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

I have decided to discontinue this series for reasons that I cannot divulge at this time. Sorry.

Hang in there, though. I may change my mind later.

[Addendum, 9/24/2009]

I will post two more items in this series. Coming soon.


Click Understanding the Lattice, Part I for the continuation of this series.


Unknown said...

Argh, I was really waiting. You had to leave us with a cliffhanger.

Louis Savain said...

leszek wrote:

Argh, I was really waiting. You had to leave us with a cliffhanger.

You are not alone and I sympathise. Now is not the time for this to come out. I am not as free as I would like to be. Be patient and all will be revealed in due time.

Anonymous said...

Louis Savain, prove to me you are not lying!


me said...

Time is the wind in my sails,
traveling on an ocean of energy.
Gravity is the cumulative force of the waves,
breaking against the rocky shores of Materia.

The speed of Darkness exceeds All,
binding and containing the absence, the essence, of Light.

Causality, the edge of Relativity.
it is, it is not.
Both one in the same, and neither.
the event, universal.

the vacuum, the void, does not exist.

"Let the future tell the truth.."

Philip said...

Louis, I imagine you don't "believe" in Special Relativity". However there is considerable experimental evidence.

Check out this:

especially section 10, "Experiments that Apparently are not consistent with SR/GR".

What are your thoughts?

Product Secrets said...

Come on and bring on Part V...I have heard enough from the sponsors of the current construct.

I thought in Part V you would divulge the 4-D stacked lattice network (e.g. and delve into the how this residual energy appears as gravity in the 3-D space. And you would explain to everyone the concept of how this "zonal-compressive" space is cone shaped, with the point of the cone appearing as matter in the 3-D space.

"Where the universe lacks in density, it compensates with volume in order to achieve a casual state".

Too bad...I was anticipating a break-through.

Mike said...

Gee you started this series with reasons that you have utterly failed to explain as well.

Unknown said...

... to leave off with a Saturday afternoon movie house ploy. What melodrama, what slop, what custard-filled pastry -

bruce p

Unknown said...

The dream is not a dream until the dreamer awakens from his sleep.

A 3D universe traveling through a fourth dimension called time equals four dimensions. No need for more, or is there?
Causality, if something causes it to be, then something also causes it not to be. So the real question to me is; what is the something? Basic quantum mechanics speaks of the existence of an energy matrix at the sub atomic level. That all things are bound energy and you cannot tell where one thing end and another thing begins at the sub-atomic level. So yes there is an energy field, and no it would not be to anyone's benefit to invent technology to tap into it.What is this notion of free energy? That dear sir, is the real problem. There is money to be made in those oil wells , there ain't no money to be made in free energy!
What kind of talk is that, I bet that is some kind of blaspheming you doing, now ain't it boy?
But that is the sad truth. In a capitalist society someone has to be making money off of all this "free energy".

thamors said...

I would like to congratulate you on your first four posts, which stimulated quite a few responses. Your hypothesis looks wrong to me, but I appreciate your attempt to make one. It's better to try and fail than never to try at all. I look forward to hearing more from you, once you've recovered and are ready to try again.

Break said...

I read this like (Science????) fiction and it is pretty entertaining, so please continue your speculation (hypothesis must conform with existing observations, and a theory must be falsifiable)

The Nutty Professor said...

you just described the venus project. they need minds like yours in the zeitgeist movement.

Anonymous said...

Everything visible appears on a screen on which a particle seems to move like we see on those big add screens where a series of light bulbs light up and are turned off in sequence, giving the impression that a dot of light is actually moving. Or in plural, a wave of them. But nothing is moving; all light bulbs stay were they are.
That is not to say that there is no energy or force that makes the sequence of on/off appear.
Besides that, we have never seen a light particle come towards us, because before it has reached our retina and brain, it is not being perceived. Just like we can't feel a tennis ball come towards us; we only feel it when it touches our skin.
On top of that, our perceptual organs also are made of those apparently moving particles, so here we would have particles perceiving apparently moving particles. Hmmm...
Awareness in which all this takes place is left out of the equation.
Just some food for thought...

Unknown said...

I think you fail to appreciate that the reason your critics prefer theories other than yours has little to do with the characteristics of the theories, but rather with the difference between the criteria you and they use to determine which theory you favor. For some, you for example, a theory is like a credo, something that forms various events and observations into a pattern that gives them meaning. This notion is widespread, and is probably the emotional motivation for most scientists. However, the chapter-and-verse on what theories are and what they’re for, as the great majority of professors will admit after a bit of a struggle, is that theories are whores. We pay them with our belief, and then we expect them to put out for us, to give us something tangible we wouldn’t have had otherwise, like a prediction about what will happen to light that goes through a certain lens, or what some particular chemicals will do when they’re mixed. If we find a better whore, or if the first one no longer satisfies us, we dump her, and anybody who gets attached to a favorite whore and won’t move on when a prettier one walks by gets laughed at. Some want to pay less belief for their action, and choose theories they find beautiful or comprehensive; some are willing to pay more for more vigorous action, and choose theories with lots of constants and ad-hoc factors that give sensational results in their contexts.

No theory works for free: you don’t test it, you don’t get results. Still, some theories make a big foofaraw about how they’re going to give you something really special, something no other whore will give, but they have to do it now so their pimp won’t find out, etc.; those of us who’ve been around the block a few times know immediately that whatever else may happen, the pimp will show up when we’re in in mid-thrust, and we’ll get shaken down, probably for nothing in return. Magnetic fields causing illness was all show and no ho; magnetic fields curing illness was another. So when we hear you say that those other theories have nothing, that you’ll make us forget all about them, as long as we follow you right now into this little motel, we’re skeptical, not because we’re brainwashed, but because we’ve been with those other theories and we know they can do the job at least somewhat: maybe they’re not cheap, maybe they’re not magic in the sack, but they get our ashes hauled. We’re willing to be convinced, but we don’t want to be suckers either. So, we’ll pay you a little now: a little attention. We’re listening. In return, give us a taste. Don’t just talk about how great you are, show us. In public. Repeatably. Put out, and we’ll happily dump those boring bitches and maybe get you a Nobel Prize. No lay? No pay.

Unknown said...

This is the most out-of-the-ass, pseudo-scientific bullshit I've ever read.

Evan M said...

Just because it's logical doesn't mean it's true. I could come up with a thousand explanations for motion (or anything else) that all logically flow and comply with some pre-decided axioms, but they can't all be correct. I certainly can't pick one and say "It's true because it just makes sense!" and then heap disdain on those that don't believe me. Actually, I could, but that would make me a crank.

Science didn't start making its huge successes until people got over the "all we need is reason" mentality and started thinking in terms of empirical data and falsifiability. Einstein's theory of general relativity certainly flowed logically, but scientists were right to not accept it until he made a specific prediction and astronomers got out the telescopes and confirmed his predictions. If you can do the same, I'll be happy to believe this 4D lattice stuff. Until then, it's interesting speculation and nothing more.