Tom,
Day's stuff is filled with unjustified assumptions and declarations.
Perhaps. Perhaps the ideas are so revolutionary they seem ridiculous. Galieo offered to his peers his telescope to look through. Most refused to even look.
I submit the following based on my readings:
I would propose that the basis of every physical theory has been the manner in which free motion is explained.
What if the Universe was not born of some singular explosion but rather came into being as the consequence of a non material medium undergoing changes in numerous locations. Motion was the primary constant on which a hierarchy arose. Gamma Rays cyclized into stabilized particles; their structural motions induced envelopes of induction fields; atoms formed and gravitating systems evolved as a consequence of matter centering itself in the surrounding space (mediurm).
If the foregoing is correct we can see why theoretical physics is having some much difficulty in condolidating all the levels of matter and the "forces" of nature into a unified theory. The theories have followed Galieo's lead that motion is a state of matter and the change of motion is what must be formulated. But what if motion is more than a state and is an actual structural feature of each hierarchical stage of matter? In trying to understand the structual levels of matter by interpreting everything through the change of motion and the associated energies and forces we have relied upon a set of laws that are applicable only to dynamics.
This is understandable as nothing in the Universe exists in total isolation. All objects maintain union with the universe by extending its presence in some way beyond its physical boundaries to exert an influence on other objects in the space around it. The manner in which this influence is exerted, however, is not obvious and is subject to conjecture. Newton called it 'action at a distance', Faraday said is was due to force fields, Einstein concluded that space-time is curved, and in quantum mechanics objects are believed to exchange "force-bearing" particles. Each theory is valid within the context that it is applied. None is sufficently correct in description to lead to the conception of a simple unified theory, at least so far.
Except for the General Theory these are theories to justify the notion that the universe and everything in it are held together by forces. At each structural level of matter a force is introduced with its own unique properties to account for stability. But what is the rationale for the existance of these forces other than to satisfy the theories?
If instead we consider the simple hypothesis that physical reality has two fundemental components, matter and space, then new relationships emerge which seem both logical and consistent with current knowledge.
Matter in the form of subatomic particles consists of photons of gamma rays locked in resonance around a neutrino nucleus. The photons themselves are paired in standing waves of opposing spirals and arrranged in shells of a harmonic series. The combined oscillations of the photons generate the gravitational field and the algebraic sum of their spirals creates the electrical field of the particle. Thus the properties of matter ( and remember ever since Leukippos it has been a part of logic that properties are not fundemental ; rather they are derivatives that arise at some level of compostion and result from that ) are the result of a compositional arrangement of parts that have no mass or charge but when assembled exhibit the basic properties of matter. Thus if kinematic systems are based on composition then the role of motion should be to give a period of revolution which encompasses a definet amount of induction field. Atoms and gravitational systems therefore should be similar in relationship between the orbital motion of their satellites and the corresponding enclosed induction field.
Thus reality consists of matter and space; motion is a property of both and relates one to the other.
Alfred T Virgilio
Topic Author
