These Message Boards Are Dead, or Terraform Forums

I hope the data shows up-I have searched several times and found a lot of other stuff but when it comes to the distance to the sun all I find is calculated data from a barycenter model like what is at JPL Horizons site. Now that model has still another effect since the moon pushes Earth in this data base which causes the Earth to be nearer and farther from the sun on a 15 day cycle. That would generate a small redshift.

cant there be a standard point that we just add and subtract from a constant?

The intuitive mind

I'm surprised at how quickly the conversation wandered into a free fall of minutiae. I strongly doubt that the rotation of the Earth or the trivial shifting of solar emissions due to Earth's eliptical orbit will ever prove to have much bearing on a demonstrable proof of FTL propogation. I was rather hoping for a more analytically creative discussion that would build on itself. Samizdat offered a challenge, and I've proposed a somewhat inelegant, but possibly effective demonstration of its existence. Then again, perhaps no one really expects any other outcome but a divergent angle between light and gravitation, in which case the point is moot and would prove nothing anyway. And really, I suspect even the most cogent verification would do little to advance theory itself, other than to instill perhaps a degree of confidence in the FTL camp and provoke more thought. I say this largely because the deeper issue --the mystery of mass-- would remain untouched, while the nature of gravitation is inseparably one with the origin of mass. The issue of mass however, is itself inconcievable apart from the formation of particles. There are those who propose that energies are transfered between particles by means of even subtler particles. But I think all such speculations merely beg the question. As far as I can tell, the explanatory center of the nature of mass and matter can only lie in an explantion for the process by which particles form in the first place --or should I say, is synonymous to the 'particle'? I will predict that this process will explain the origin for mass and thus gravitation and inertia as well; all of which must represent, at bottom, merely perspectives on one and the same process.

One more aspect comes to mind. I've noted that every theoretical attempt to unify the nature of reality has been constructed in the context of dimensionality. For example, 'time' and 'space', though somewhat integrated in recognition as a continuum, is assumed as the context in which energetic events occur. Note that there are no equations for the fundamental generation of time or space itself. To full unify our conception, an explanation is needed that reveals in what way dimensions are fundamentally synonymous to energy itself and arrive at an explanation for the nature of dimensionality itself. Only by completing the loop, can the conditions for a truly self-sufficient explanation be satisfied ....and thus the full import of FTL propogation.

--some of the joys of recreational thought <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Makis wrote:
"Do you agree that in the context you just describe all physical laws are simple tautologies?

"For instance, F = dP/dt is merely a tautology, not a law. It would become a law if the cause of dimensionality is included in it. You thoughts will be highly appreciated."

Makis, I would certainly agree that the equations we currently use, and in general, our notions as to what constitutes 'physical laws' are indeed tautological. The circumstances remind me of Charles Forts' example of the definition of an island-- "What is an island? A body of land surrounded by water. All well and good; but what is a body of land surrounded by water? An Island." ---since the pervasive redundancy practiced by modern physics is characterized by an implicitily circular logic.

For instance, E= MC^2, as with your example, F = dP/dt, also incorporates time as a given in order to unify our perception of a select set of attributes. As an equation, it integrates and unifies to a high degree, but falls chort of the goal. The problem of course, exists in its usage of dimension as a self-defined 'given', thus its incapacity to account for dimensionality itself and thus stand as a final expression.

I believe this constitutes the shaky ground upon which physics has been built that everyone senses, but have yet to identity as the source of unease and frustration. Why hasn't more than a century of the most intense scrutiny by the most acute minds, managed to result in a unifying conception of reality? Is it because nature is too "complex? ...or rather, because it is "too simple"? I myself, prefer to assume that nature is already unified. And if that is the case, then one must accept the implication that every aspect is already fundamentally synonymous and one and the same as every other aspect.

Perhaps this may one day prove to have saved me alot of time and money, since it no longer seems quite so important to own a particle accelerator. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

All this is highly reminiscent of the case of economics, which I now find highly convenient as a metaphor for similar circumstances. Just as in the case of 'unified field theory' in the realm of physics, numerous attempts have been made over the last two or more centuries to devise a unifying theory of money. The problem here has been that such an approach relies heavily on the concept of "value." To economists, value too, is a highly mysterious, slippery abstraction, much, you may note, like "time." However, if one takes a fresh look at the economic process and starts from scratch, it quickly becomes obvious that the term "value" is merely an unrecognized code word for energy, thus allowing for the development of a completely unified, encompassing conception of economics.

Ironically, the self-same process was reflected in the realm of physics itself, --which is also, not incidently, an economic process and system of accounting-- except that here the stumbling block became dimensionality. Here, it is "time" and "space," rather than "value," that function as the unrecognized, metaphysical, tautological abstractions.

<i></i><i></i><i></i>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I think both you and I point to a hidden variable, space and time are a function of.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Makis, I heartily agree with the spirit of this thought. The real problem however necessarily lies in the realm of perspective, rather than that of missing factors. I will contend that nature keeps no secrets, but puts everything on display. It's not the 'forces' that require unification, but the way we view events, and this is commonly determined by the syntax of our native tongue. Unfortunately, it is the inevitable nature of all spoken languages that they all convey meaning in sequential fragments. Therefore, in the case of space and time, we may now speak of them as forming a continuum, and in the process believe we have conceptually formed a nonlinear unity. However, the implication here is that space and time are nevertheless two different things, while the continuum itself is relegated to a largely directional role. We then fail to grasp that the underlying continuum is not merely an abstraction, with meaning only in the context of space and time, but signals the presence of a singular, energetic <i>process</i>, within which space and time are but alternate perspectives.

Here is what I mean: As a thought experiment, first reduce the number of particles in existence to one. Then subtract all motion and begin by holding the image of an infinitesmal, textureless sphere as the indefinable essence of this one-particle universe. It is of course impossible to define space or time under such conditions. Even the "size" of this particle is meaningless. I've referred to it as infinitesmal, but perhaps it is equally infinite. If not for the fact that we ourselves represent an external perspective, there is no measure <i>internal</i> to this universe by definition.

Now by divine decree, we may impart motion. Perhaps the particle begins to alternatingly collapse and expand, and with each such cycle, appears to rotate once as on an axis. As it expands, it could be said to radiate itself; and as it collapses, it absorbs itself. Simultaneously, a relative measure is born in the form of these alternating states.

Call each cycle a "vibratory unit." As a measure of motion, each such unit of radiation now also represents the most fundamental unit of "time." That is, each cycle represents the briefest possible measure of motion in such a universe. In other words, each oscillatory impulse IS the substance of "time." It cannot be said to occur <i>within</i> a "span of time", since obviously, no comparative standard exists, and if it did, it could only be derived from another fundamental source of motion, --that is, another "particle"-- thus taking us full circle.

But, as it's said, "distance in time equals distance in space." This is why: I would bring to your attention that if we now assume a sequence of oscillations --that is, "moments in time," then we also witness the generation of relative space in the form of radiation itself. However, no external perspective exists, so while this universe is expanding "internally", it simultaneously remains dimensionally infinitesmal. It is not either/or: it is <i>both</i>.

"Space" is generated as synonymous to "time," and dimensionality is now integrated to energy.Therefore, the fabric and substance of every event in this universe IS time, which is why every equation that implicitly or explicitly utilizes it as a "variable" is redundant and, as you remarked, tautological.

We often hear it said that we exist within three dimensions of space and one of time; but as you can see, it would be just as valid (or invalid, as the case may be) to describe events as occuring in "four" dimensions of time, as long as it's understood that this is only a way of speaking. The "three" dimensions refered to are of course, merely based on an arbitrary geometry of angles --notably quite Greek <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle> --but is really just a convention all the same. Reality appears holographic, simply because time emanates spherically.

This clearly opens up new territory for discussion, and may ultimately indicate an overdue transformation in the way science formulates its expressions. The depth of unification is only a reflection of the extent to which one's perspective is integrated. The problem does not exist "out there." So in order to introduce the possiblilites to a wider audience, a model was necessary that was devoid of the arcane language of modern physics: thus the theory of economics:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Although I do work in Economics, I never though of it that way. Actually, people are heard saying: " This amount of money will not get you that far...", i.e. in common wisdom it is realized that money relates to energy or momentum. Interesting point, although I believe that solving the Physics problem will be much easier than the Economic one.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

To me, the point of entry appears substantially the same, and with equally protentious results. I would be pleased to send you the theory of [Post Paradox] economics I devised in order to convey just such a notion. It outlines the overview I developed in order to integrate the energy processes and relationships we experience as "economics." In this sense, it's actually a theory of unification. Economics is really only its embedded content.

<img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

This thread started as a question about FTL experiments that can be done. The observations of the redshift of the sun can be used for this purpose and for this reason it is important to study. The money issues that have been introduced are not relavant to FLT are they?