Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Ontology and Fundamental Physics: Object, Matter, Form, First Form, Existence, Concept, Referent

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet; (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet: Juliet soliloquy)
"It may, perhaps, come to this in time," observed Monte Cristo; "You know human inventions march from the complex to the simple, and simplicity is always perfection." (Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo).
Do not winnow in every wind,or follow every path.  Stand firm for what you know,and let your speech be consistent. (Sirach 5:9-10)

Physics has its roots in ontology. Ontology is a philosophical study of radical names such as object, matter, form, existence, concept, referent. Before we go to Norway to hear Florence and the Machine perform "Cosmic Love" live and collect our prizes*: we need to learn how to resolve the ontology of word referents and commit to a clear, precise, consistent and non-contradictory definitions of key strategic terms that will make or break our entire study of physics. In order to do this we need to dig deep down and resolve the referred meaning of these radical names: object, matter, form, existence, concept, referent.


In context of physics the name object is synonymous with the names entity, body, thing. Physics is first and foremost the study of objects. Object impart causal relations to objects via objects. Before we can even begin to understand dynamic concepts such as light, gravity, electricity, magnetism, heat, ionization and atomic motion we sure as hell better understand what an object refers to and how to distinguish an object from a concept so as to identify possible ontological contradictions.

The antonym of Object is Concept. All names can be separated into two distinct categories by way of their resolved ontology: Object and Concept. We resolve the ontology of the name referent by thoroughly understanding and committing to a perfect definition of the names Object and Form.

Object refers to that which has Form.

Matter is an ambiguous and ill-defined Concept passed down by Greeks.  Matter refers to the set of objects or set of existing objects

Form: Introduction

Philosophy is the study of reasons and of concepts.  IMHO, Form is the most important name in all philosophy. It is even more important than the name Existence. Form is the first requirement of objecthood.  Form is a primary quality of all objects, and children understand this quality very quickly by perceiving objects that stand out in their environment.  Those who do not understand that perception begins on objects that stand out in a person's immediate environment have failed to develop their brain, but this is another story.  But back to my main point: Understanding Form is the epitome of education. In intellectual life it doesn't get any more radical than the name Form. Get used to it. This is the future.

Some synonyms of Form are shape, figure, structure, architecture, configuration, pattern.

Why is the word Form so important? The word Form is used to resolve the ontology of the word referent (that which the word refers to). We can only lump word referents into two possible categories:

1. Object
2. Concept

What we as humans are able to do is name objects and concepts. Obviously we then use these names in discourse. However the only way we have of discerning whether or not these names refer to objects or to concepts is through the name Form. Does the word referent have Form??? Yes or no? Answer me this right here and now. If yes then the word refers to an Object. If no then the word refers to Concept.

Form allows us to perform a critical analysis of any given discourse. Form allows us to discover stealthily placed figures of speech, contradictions and so on. Form leads one to intellectual heaven because this simple name forces one to take account for the endless spill of words coming out of everyone's mouth.

Unfortunately, with the development of the human race we have lost sight of the fact that we are constantly naming objects and concepts thus there is confusion over what a name refers to. Some treat objects as concepts and vice versa. What is even worse some literally assign motion to concepts (e.g. time moves, space moves, etc.) and except to be taken seriously. So in these tumultuous intellectual times we need the word Form to lead us out of the darkness.

What Does Form Refer To?

In ontology or generally for the ancient discipline of philosophy and physics, the name Form has a specialized meaning. I REPEAT, a specialized meaning. Form has nothing to do with an observer and his opinion. It is not as if we are looking at Florence Welch on stage at the Nobel Peace Prize banquet and thinking to ourselves: "She has a nice form". She may, but ‘nice’ implies opinion and observer. Form in this radical ontological context has nothing to do with appearance, opinion, and observer. Mother Nature doesn't care about these.

Form is a root name that relates what is observer INDEPENDENT. An object has form regardless of whether anyone so happens to look at it, measure it or even think about it. The Sun had Form before the first human observed it.

Form is what we call a native (innate) and intrinsic (inseparable) property of an object. An intrinsic property is what an object has of itself, independent of the observer. In contrast, extrinsic properties depend on an object's relationship with other objects, especially a human observer (I modify observer with human because some autistic people think atoms are observers that make measurements). Some examples of extrinsic properties are size, color, dimension (length, width, height), taste, volume, weight, etc. Back in the day, extrinsic properties were called accidents. Extrinsic properties require connected objects and usually an observer to determine, yet Form, an intrinsic property, requires no observer, human or otherwise. Objects do not acquire Form through human opinion!

Form is the single innate and intrinsic property that belongs to all objects without exception. Form is the one property that relates the object itself from its immediate surrounding. How an object takes on its Form is given in a Theory which may assume what contained. But what does Form refer to?

Form refers to a what. ('what' functions as a placeholder)
Form refers to what is bound.
Form refers to that which is bound from the immediate surrounding.

The 'what' that is bound is considered holistically, as a whole, as one.  In conceptualization one may reify space (treat a concept 'space' as an object so as to understand Form however in reality it can only be an all encompassing fundamental object that imparts form to atoms or which is inherent to an atom's Form and this fundamental object does not rely on a concept called space for it's Form.  More below).

The name Bound plays prominently in this definition so some synonyms of bound are demarcated, separated, differentiated, contained, defined, delimited, etc. Objects need no definition since they are defined of themselves. IN contrast concepts always need definition because they refer to relational activity rooted in the brain. God knows what is happening between most people's ears.

Notice that in so called 2D objects like squares and circles that it is impossible to imagine anything that is bound, contained, demarcated, separated, delimited, differentiated, etc within said circle, square or any 2D image. So some people calls these abstract objects, but in any case the fact that nothing is contained implies that these abstract 2D object CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.  And so the nihilistic religion called geometry begins to be exposed with these definitions.

Form refers to a what, i.e. what is contained in context to the object in question, itself. What is included or excluded is a matter of context. Form always implies a boundary or boundaries. But how those boundaries are set is made manifest in a Theory. What imparts Form to the object in question?

The History of Form

Thinkers, for centuries, from time immemorial have brainstormed for a more thorough understanding of the name Form. And some have even flirted with a perfect understanding of the name Form. All of these quotes are somewhat useful. Please note that the words thing, body, corporeal, matter are basically synonymous with Object. A more refined definition of matter is the set of objects.

Historical Thinkers On Form:

by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance -- Aristotle, (Metaphysics, Ch. 7)

For the form cannot desert matter, because it is inseparable from it and matter itself cannot be deprived of form -- Robert Grosseteste (On Light)

The first corporeal form is in my opinion light ---Grosseteste (On Light)

The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. (Riedl, Clare C. (Translator) Notes on Grosseteste)

Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. . . The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . (From Notes on Grosseteste)

Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' (From Notes on Grosseteste)

For where there is no shape nor order, nothing either cometh or goeth -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 9)

where there is no form there can be no distinction between "this" or "that” -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 13)

The term 'body' [object] therefore can signify that which has such a form as allows the determination of three dimensions in it, prescinding from everything else, so that from that form no further perfection may follow. If anything else is added, it will be outside the meaning of body thus understood. (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there are extrinsic and artificial properties that we relate but these cannot define an object. Only form can define an object]

The term body [object] can also be taken to mean a thing having a form such that three dimensions can be counted in it, no matter what the form may be . . . (Aquinas, On Being and Essence)

Now matter and form are so related that form gives being to matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words all objects in the set named matter have the native-inherent property called form and this may qualify them under the category existence].

Matter then cannot exist without some form but there can be a form without matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words he realized that there is a first form that underlies the set of objects, i.e. matter].

As Avicenna says, "The quiddity of a simple substance is the simple entity itself," (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there is a fundamental object that belongs to all objects in the set of matter and this object is what is bound of itself]

A boundary is that which is an extremity of anything. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

A figure is that which is contained by a boundary or boundaries.” (Euclid, Elements)

the knowledge of the universal consents of things …. I … understand as the science which applies the knowledge of hidden forms to the production of wonderful operations; and by uniting (as they say) actives with passives, displays the wonderful works of nature. (Francis Bacon IV, 366–7: De Augmentis III.5)

Who existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped (Saint Paul) [Even God has Form].

A complete answer would amount to a history of thought, for in one sense everything possesses form. In some contexts the Greek words Eidos, Schema, and Morphe, and the Latin word Forma, which are often translated as “form” mean no less than “the qualities which make anything what it is.” (Notes from Accent on Form by Whyte)

Around 1250 we find Thomas Aquinas regarding forma as the essential quality or determining principle of every individual thing. (Notes on Accent on Form by Whyte)

But more importantly, shape is what an object has before light even reaches our eyes from the object. (Fatfist, Physics--What is Shape and Why Does it Define an Object?)
[for fun add a quote from Avengers: Age of Ultron . . .
Ultron to Jarvis: Where is your body?
Jarvis to Ultron: I am a program. I have no form.]

All of these thinkers basically understood that Form goes hand in hand with Object. Object and Form are inseparable. It is impossible for an Object not to have Form. Without Form there is no Object. An Object without Form is irrational, inconceivable and impossible.

These thinkers may not have agreed on their definition of Form and of course there is a never-ending inter-generational brainstorms and debates over these ontological concepts, however it is easy to see that Form was a pivotal name wed to Object.

The buck stops at Form. Form is the Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing itself speaks). Once we have understood the name Form there is no circling back to concepts in a perfect understanding and definition of the name Object. Object and Form are inseparable. Form belongs to all Objects. Lack of Form = Concept.
Obviously attributes and relations lack form and cannot possibly exist. Attributes and relations refer to our thoughts about objects. Attribute refers to a comparison of objects. What does this thing have or not have in comparison to that thing. What can this thing do that another cannot do.

Form is a primary attribute that all objects have and that distinguishes all objects from concepts.
Form has no quality, property, or attribute. Once we have conceived Form there are no more conceptual relations in regards to the Object. To suggest so much is patently circular and contradictory. A quality does not have a quality. Property does not have property. Attribute does not have attribute.

Robert Grosseteste (First Corporeal Form = Minimal Reality)

I placed Grosseteste's quotes near the top since of all these historical thinkers he seemed to be the one who was onto something. His meditations spring up from his work with light. I suggest that perhaps in its most restricted usage the name Form can refer to what Grosseteste calls the 'minimal reality'. This minimal reality is basically the same as his 'first corporeal form', Aristotle's 'primary substance' and Avicenna's 'simple entity'. Lets call this the assumed fundamental object.

In the most radical context of physics it is this assumed Fundamental Object that belongs to all objects in the set named Matter. When these thinkers first conceived their concepts and named they had no clue as to what the First Corporeal Form may be. And so they came up with a host of names such as substance, essence, etc. Since then we have narrowed the search down to atoms and subatomic features of atoms. Now we are a little more advanced, so we can make a reasonable and safe assumption as to what the assumed fundamental object may be. And we think or imagine this assumption without the need for any validation or verification (for our perception begins on objects of our environment comprised of atoms, and this fundamental object mediates our perceptions and observations of objects).  Then we will use this assumption to redefine and restrict the usage of Form and Existence for the purposes of physics.

Grosseteste thought that this fundamental object was light and I agree with him in so far that I think what he was really after were that which mediates light (and btw gravity) to and from all atoms. This fundamental objects converges and changes so as to Form all the atoms (and neutrons) of the Universe as we have assumed in EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory. So now let us take a step back and reanalyze the definitions of Object and Form:

Object: that which has Form
Form: that which is bound from the immediate surrounding

In EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory the immediate environment is gazillions of two stranded Threads converging into Neutrons or Hydrogen Atoms that belong to an object such as the Sun. It is this single closed looped Thread that serves as the source of continuity in the set of objects called matter whereas atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons are critical matrices of Thread. Atoms serve as the limit of Thread. Thread serves as the limit of Atoms. Atom does not equal Thread, Thread does not equal atom. Thread is continuous, Atoms are discontinuous and yet derived from the Thread. Atoms and their subatomic features could be thought of as Critical Thread Densities. A Critical Thread Density refers to an intersection, overlap or superposition of Thread through which no more Thread may penetrate. In some subatomic features these Critical Thread Densities are temporary since if all the Hydrogen atoms of the Universe are permanently connected by Thread there would presumably be an extraneous superposition of Thread on all Hydrogen atoms fused and clustered together, not to mention an endless feed of Thread surging through atoms fused and clustered together. And yet Critical Thread Densities or Atoms are radically distinct and unequal to Thread. They are discrete and yet derived in the the one Thread which is continuous.

It is assumed all the atoms of the Universe are connected and comprised of a taut, rectilinear twined EM Thread. The Thread is common to all objects in the set named matter just like Grosseteste thought. It is this physical mediator of light that belongs to all objects in the set named matter.  
An electric thread can twist around its imaginary axis (and its paired magnetic thread) a certain number of times in either a clockwise or anti-clockwise direction, meaning there are several modes of motion that an atom could induce it to accomplish.

In summary: When we say that an Object is that which has Form; Form in this radical ontological context is a name that refers to what is contained. It is impossible, inconceivable and irrational for an Object not to have Form. This has nothing to do with a subjective observer's opinion, thought or act of measurement. Mother Nature herself taught us Form, so to speak. The Sun had form before any of us observed it. In context to the Sun, Form refers to what belongs to the Sun before it's light even reaches us. The Form of the Sun refers to what is contained namely all of its atoms and neutrons patterned by a crisscrossing convergence of the First Form, the Thread.

When we think and trace back to the First Form, this is bound of itself. The referent of First Form doesn't need an idea called space to contour it. The First Form is self-contained. Res ipsa loquitur.

The Fundamental Object or First Form

{11:18} For it was not impossible for your all-powerful hand, that formed all things from unknown material, to send forth upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions, (From the Book of Wisdom)

Everyone wants to know what the Fundamental Object or First Form is, but in this most radical of all physical contexts all we can possibly do is describe it. In terms of physics, once one gets to the fundamental object there is nothing left to justify, posit or explain. In supposition the Thread just is. Even our basic physical notions such as the action-reaction principle spring up from this supposed First Form.

What is It?

I noticed that many throughout history have traced back to what is called a fundamental object or fundamental entity or simple entity, or first form or minimal reality. This fundamental object imparts form to all objects, contains all objects, separates all objects, differentiates all objects etc. from the H atom to the most massive star. We call this fundamental entity the Thread. It is called Thread, probably because if we could see it (which is impossible because it mediates light signals) it would appear similar to our macro Thread. We have this Thread assumed to be the finest object in existence. The Thread stands out on its own. The Thread is 3D. Height and Width is extremely tiny. Length is immeasurable. It is impossible to trace a beginning or end to the Thread.

The Thread has Form, a wholly unique Form unlike any of the other objects we consider such as man, woman, horse, star, etc. The Thread is uniform, monolithic, always the same, never changes its Form. What I noticed with this fundamental object, this Thread is that assuming reality, it is impossible to imagine anything imparting Form to the Thread unless some sort of miracle happened as in God creating the Thread. In reality, space, a bloody devious relational activity of the brain CANNOT possibly impart Form to the Thread or any Object whatsoever. The Thread is sort of self-contained. Its just there. The thing speaks for itself. And it doesn't change Form because the referent of Form or the 'what' that is bound in context to Thread never changes. What the Thread is made out of never changes. The philosophers above already figured this out hundreds of years ago but they had no assumed object called Thread.

It is interesting: what is bound in reference to Thread is almost the same as saying what the Thread is made of. It's essence, its substance. That I or anyone else does not know. One would have to fly up to Heaven and ask God. But we can call it Gaedium or Paulium

This seems to imply that the Thread is what they call topologically invariant. The Thread retains its Form even when it is led by atoms to oscillate, wave, rotate, etc.


There is another enigmatic property of the Thread called superposition or light on light. Thread can pass through Thread to a critical thread density which serves as location of fundamental interactions.  When a threaded feature of the atom attain critical thread density or a sort of critical anomaly, dynamic relations happen, Thread connecting atoms gets disturbed, etc.  But in between atoms and stars Thread intersects, superposes, and overlaps Thread.  This was first understood by Grosseteste, then by Huygens, and finally by Maxwell.  Although these thinkers were still stuck in the darkness of concepts such as field, wave, light, etc. They never pinned down the problem thoroughly enough before another figured it out (Gaede, 1997). Here are there quotes:

Maxwell: “ Equation (361) for the electromagnetic field is linear in the field,… this means that two waves can travel through each other without disturbing each other”
“ Here then we have two independent qualities of bodies, one by which they allow of the passage of electricity through them, and the other by which they allow of electrical action being transmitted through them without any electricity being allowed to pass.” (J. Maxwell, On Physical Lines of Force, Philosophical Magazine 21 (1861))
Huygens: “ Another property of waves of light, and one of the most marvelous, is that when some of them come from different or even from opposing sides, they produce their effect across one another without any hindrance…the waves do not destroy nor interrupt one another when they cross one another” (C. Huygens, Treatise on Light (1678) trans. S. Thompson (1912) p. 22)
Grosseteste: "Corporeity, therefore, is either light itself or the agent which performs the aforementioned operation and introduces dimensions into matter in virtue of its participation in light, and acts through the power of this same light. But the first form cannot introduce dimensions into matter through the power of a subsequent form. Therefore light is not a form subsequent to corporeity, but it is corporeity itself. 
Furthermore, the first corporeal form is, in the opinion of the philosophers, more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all the forms that come after it. It bears, also, a closer resemblance to the forms that exist apart from matter. But light is more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all corporeal things. It has, moreover, greater similarity than all bodies to the forms that exist apart from matter, namely, the intelligences (i.e. Angels). Light therefore is the first corporeal form." (Robert Grosseteste, De Luce)
Professor Richard A. Mueller (Berkeley): The amazing thing about gravity is that it goes RIGHT THROUGH THINGS; more effectively than even neutrinos. You are pulling, RIGHT NOW, on the atoms of the other side of the Earth. (From Gravity and Satellites)

If the hypothesized Thread performs the dynamic concept called light conceived as torsion waves then this fundamental object or first form can superpose, overlap, pass through, intersect etc. without hindrance, interruption, disturbance, tangling, etc. It is only when we have an intersection or overlap of so much Thread at a location that another moving Thread may get disturbed, hindered, stopped, redirected, reformed, etc. This critical overlap is exemplified by proton (maybe quarks), neutron, and electron which are basically supposed as a crisscrossing convergence of gazillions of Threads, perhaps even 3 times that of all base Hydrogen atoms (protons) of Universe. These nodes of critical thread density are discontinuous, they are matrices, they are radically distinct, and unequal to the Thread and yet derived in the Thread which is continuous.

Werner Heisenberg was also close to conceiving these sorts of assumptions. In his words:
"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." (Heisenberg, Quantum Theory, 1930)
"This state of affairs is best described by saying that all particles are basically nothing but different stationary states of one and the same stuff."

Comment: Same stuff refers to the Thread, the so called stationary states are temporary crisscrosses, overlaps, or superpositions of Thread in critical density or anomaly, exemplified by proton, neutron and electron.

"Thus even the three basic building-stones have become reduced to a single one."

There is a single closed looped Thread underlying all atoms/protons, neutrons, electrons.
"There is only one kind of matter but it can exist in different discrete stationary conditions." (Above quotes from Atomic Physics and Causal Law, from The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, Werner Heisenberg, 1958)

Comment: The one kind of fundamental object, the Thread is continuous, but this Thread can establish what I call Critical Thread Densities, which are not continuous, however derived in the one Thread. Perhaps in what they call black holes, there is an object that has almost continuous Critical Thread Densities.

Now some may seem this ridiculous that a 3D object, albeit fundamental, could overlap up to a hypothetical critical density. But I suggest you understand the utter vanity of you questioning this assumption. Thread overlapping, superposing or intersecting has nothing to do with the stated fact that Thread has Form and so refers to an Object, that we could hypothetically measure to length, width and height. Length, width and height depend upon an observer, but the Thread's unique property is observer independent and in addition does not require any sort of conceptualization from a human or the Thread itself for that matter. Thread overlapping is natural. It is unnatural for two trees to overlap because the atoms comprising the tree have attain a critical thread density which enables them to not pass through one another or repel one another.

And as a side note. I could just as easily come back at you and ask why do protons and electrons repel one another? How is it that you do not sink down to the center of the Earth this very moment? Its not because atoms are 3D. Oh no. An atom is a fullness of Thread converging from all the atoms of the Universe. The idea that atoms are mostly empty space thus you are mostly empty space is a ridiculous and unenlightened idea. Space refers to that which lacks form. An object cannot be made of mostly empty space. This is a stupid thought rooted in Rutherford and the planetary model of the atom. Rationale would seem to suggest that an atom or a human is a fullness of whatever fundamental entity comprises all matter. Wherever an atom or a human or a star is, there is an abundance of whatever it is that fundamentally comprises these and here we have that assumed as Thread. All one need do is get over the unique properties and behavior of this fundamental entity such as superposition.

People sometimes used to say that exist must be ambiguous because look at the difference between 'chairs exist' and 'numbers exist'. A familiar reply goes: the difference between the existence of chairs and the existence of numbers seems, on reflection, strikingly like the difference between numbers and chairs. Since you have the latter to explain the former, you don't also need 'exist' to be polysemic. ---Fodor, Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong

With some understanding of Object, Matter, Form and First Form we may graduate to Exist. Exist is the most important name in all physics. In order to study phenomena such as light, gravity, electricity and magnetism we need to invoke objects that exist.

The name existence comes from the Latin word exsistere. Exsistere literally means to stand out: the Latin prefix ex means out added to the Latin verb stare means to stand. Synonyms of existence are nature, perhaps real, be, presence, reality.  I imagine that our Latin ancestors originally conceived 'EXISTENCE' because they rationally discerned between objects that stand our in their environment (existing objects) and dream objects, hallucinatory objects, imaginary objects, 2D geometric objects, hypothesized objects, etc.  

The name Existence is what we could categorize as a static concept. This static concept is used to describe object/form. And in light of the literal Latin meaning and our thorough understanding of the name Form and First Form; Existence is easy to understand.

That which has Form, STANDS OUT.

Or if one wants to get even more radical:

That which has the First Form, STANDS OUT.

Existence refers to that which stands out. That which stands out implies three dimensions (length, width, and height), however these are measurements and whether or not an object exists does not rely our act of measuring.  

But Forma and Existentia are two fundamental ways of describing Object. Form refers to what is contained and Existence refers to what stands out. Form refers to the 'What' from boundary to core, Existence refers to the 'What' extending out.

In terms of physics Existence relates an Object contained out of Thread. A configuration of Thread stands out. Imaginary objects, abstract mathematical objects, and so on do not stand out because it is impossible to imagine them containing anything. In other words, in terms of physics they are NOT configured of the supposed 'first corporeal form' which Grosseteste made synonymous with the 'minimal reality' which we call the Thread.  So in this conception, the primary qualifier of Existence would be Form and the secondary qualifier would be Thread.  

In context to physics, my tendency now is to restrict the definition of Existence to the First Form, the Thread. In physics, existence refers to that which has the First Form or that which is the First Form.

So now let's apply these super restricted descriptions to the referent of Florence. The referent of Florence has Form. Thus the referent of Florence is an Object (a body). The First Form belongs to the referent of Florence. A crisscrossing convergence of countless Twined Threads coming from all the atoms of the Universe pattern her body. The Threads either converge to form her atoms, including the unique crisscrossing features of proton, neutron and electron. Thus the referent of Florence exists. She stands out.

Now one could opt for a broader but no less clear, consistent, unambiguous and non-contradictory definition of the name existence. Existence refers to an object that has location. That which has Form and location exist. Primary qualifier: Form. Secondary qualifier:  Location.  Existence invokes a WHAT (Object/Form) and a WHERE (Location). In other words exist relates something somewhere, a presence, a nature. Location is the set of static distances from an object to all other objects. This definition disqualifies all geometrical objects such as circles, squares, lines, etc. from existence as well as imaginary objects such as Bart Simpson. With this enlightened understanding of the word existence we can clearly see that 1D, 2D, 4D objects of geometry cannot possibly exist or be used in assumptions, explanations and conclusions in physics. Geometry is a nihilistic religion.

I opt for the more radical and restricted definition of Existence because if an Object has the First Form it is (in my understanding) literally connected to all objects via the First Form. The Sun exists because it is comprised of a big ball of configured Thread coming out from all the atoms of the Universe. To have the First Form is to be connected to all physical objects in the set called matter. The Thread enables us to redefine some extrinsic qualities for the purposes of physics. Distance is really the length of an EM Rope connecting any two atoms. Location means an object is connected to all other objects by the supposed First Form twisted out from the atoms that belong to a particular object. Dimension describes a figure of Thread.

In summary here are some possible definitions of existence for the purposes of physics and philosophy:

that which has form and location
that which stands out
the Thread or that which is woven by the Thread
the First Bodily Form or that which is woven by the First Bodily Form

*** First Bodily Form is a philosophical name for the Thread

1D object, 2D images, fail on all accounts. Dream objects, hallucinatory objects and abstract objects also fail. 4D objects are impossible.

With object, matter, form, first form and existence in mind let us proceed to the radical name Concept.


The name Concept is the antonym of Object. To describe a Concept as an object, entity, or form is a terrible misnomer that causes confusion. A sheer contradiction. All concepts, without exception lack Form, let alone the First Form, thus Concepts do not refer to Objects, or Forms and of course are disqualified from Existence. (This the Medieval philosophers failed to understand).

Again, Concept refers to a lack of Form. Concepts do not literally assume a Form and they have no Form. So called "Concept Formation" is poetry.  Concepts are the antithesis of Objects. Some synonyms of concept are idea, notion, thought, abstraction, conception, conceit, cogitation, intellection, conceptualization, etc.

In the radical ontological context, Concept refers to a work of the brain, a brain-work. Concept refers to a motion of the brain, more specifically our neurons and the mediation of signals through EM Ropes. Our brains elaborate relations in service of understanding and then praxis or communication.

We process objects of our environment through our sense organs and by way of the brain we identify and associate relations between objects. We then name these relations, remember the names, trace the names, etc. Sometimes we use the same name to label many new concepts. Through the names we use the concepts that they refer to in recall and through communication. At this juncture of the human family we have gazillions of concepts traced out. Our concepts (brain works) have become increasingly complex and difficult to learn. In fact we are at a stage of micro-evolution where specialists learn and use a narrow set of concepts known only to those in their fields.

Concepts are relations. Relations can be classified into many categories but some basic modifiers are natural/artificial, intrinsic/extrinsic, and dynamic/static.

With this understanding we can define Concept as
a relation between two or more objects (worked out by the brain).
I added the parenthesis (worked out by the brain) because it does not seem clear to everyone that conceptions originate via the brain. We live in a time when concepts seem to take on their own life. People tend to be enslaved by concepts, so to speak. But this is not at all how it should be. Since it is us who continuously do the work called conceptualization till brain death, it is us who should have dominion over our concepts. And since it is us who conceive the onus is on us to define our concepts unambiguously and without contradiction.

All rational concepts can be traced back to at least two objects. Even the referent of a simple name such as 'Florence' can be traced back to the object who conceived the name usually Mom or Dad and the referred object of the name.

All concepts are relational actions of the brain. The brain takes in objects of the environment through a sensory system and works a relation between objects. Some of these relations such as light and love work out naturally, others are artificial, man-made. A concept's meaning is defined by the user and sender. Concepts are not supposed to confuse or deceive . . . they are supposed to help. (Corollary: IMHO concepts worked out by the brain are ever new. Even familiar concepts are ever conceived anew. We almost continuously do the work of conception till death. This is why no two genuine discourses are ever the same unless we quote, copy, transcribe, etc.)

Some concepts could be described by the name 'abstract'. Abstract concepts are simply a nest of many related objects worked out by the brain. A classic example of an abstract concept is Universe or Cosmos. Universe is a binary conceptual system relating space and matter. Matter is the set of all objects, all things. Space relates lack of Form. I guess that an ancient got sick of saying, "All the trees, and all the hills and the seas, and all the men, women, and children, and all the stars, and space and the aether, etc." So he came up with the bright idea now called Universe or Cosmos. Universe lacks From, this name resolves to an idea.

But now some have gone and named the brain work called Universe into a pregnant Florence Welch with a curving belly. In other words, some have irrationally converted the abstract concept Universe, into an object of existence that can perform actions like expand(ing).  Although we reify concepts such as space and matter, to perform a synthetic abstraction we must understand that the reification does not allow our concepts to exist and perform causal actions or undergo change effects.
Obviously someone has mistaken Universe or Space, both names that resolve concepts, lacking form, not to mention the concepts of dark matter, dark energy, the Higg's Field, EM Field, quantum field, the sixty or so particles, energy, gravitational waves, gravity wells and so on and so forth ad nauseum etc. for the mesh of Twined Thread crisscrossing and connecting, converging and forming all the atoms and neutrons of existence. Thread even can emanate in great arcs from the protons in stars.

Concepts Do Not Change

Concepts DO NOT change. The idea distance does not change. All the stars and galaxies are connected by the supposed First Form twined in a DNA like configuration. It is these supposed objects connecting the stars that change, and the stars themselves that change, not the idea distance. "Change of distance" does not happen in reality. Change of stars, galaxies and the supposed objects connecting them is the reality.

Since Concept refers to relational actions worked out by the brain by our neurons, atoms, EM mediators, etc. it is blatantly obvious that Concept lacks Form and so is automatically disqualified from Existence. In a radical ontological context, Concepts cannot possibly move since concepts are motions of the brain. Concepts cannot possibly perform causal actions or undergo change effects. (Note that this does not entail that Concept does not HAPPEN, however these dynamic concepts must ALWAYS be performed or worked by objects that exist.)

Onto-logically, strictly speaking, in a stern restricted manner, concepts cannot possibly change because concepts are what the existing objects of your brain DO. One is always conceiving anew. The objects of your brain are changing. When a human changes his ideas, it is not the ideas that change, it is the human who changes or the objects connected within the human that change. I cannot even begin to express how important it is to understand this fundamental.

Concepts cannot possibly change.
Only objects can possibly change.
Concepts cannot possibly move.
Only objects can possibly move.
Concepts cannot possibly perform actions (verbs)
Only objects can possibly perform actions.

And objects that exist are way more valuable and important than concepts. Objects are greater than concepts, e.g. food, an object is more important than economy, a concept.


Now languages have the fault of containing certain expressions which fail to designate an object (although grammatical form seems to qualify them for that purpose) . . . 
So language brands a concept as an object, since the only way it can fit the designation for a concept into its grammatical structure is as a proper name. But in so doing, strictly speaking it falsifies matters. (Gottlob Frege, 1892a, 168-69) 
"the concept horse is not a concept" (Gottlob Frege, 1892b)

A name is usually what we call the word. All names are first and foremost concepts. This is a matter that Frege could never quite work out. He understood that a horse is a concept and yet not a concept. But he never could solve the answer as to why. The name 'horse' is a Concept, but the name refers or relates him to that which has Form in other words an Object.
A referent is that which the name refers to. Names are conceived so as to refer the thinker or the audience to objects or to concepts. In other words we name objects and concepts. We establish a direct or indirect relation or an affinity with objects by our act of naming. With objects all we can possibly do is name them, assume them, draw them and explain how they work in relation to other objects. Naming refers to a dynamic concept completed by a human and can be traced directly to the object that is named (to that which has Form). We also have the tricky ability to perform the work of naming our conceptions. We name our brain works, to organize, synthesize abstractions, develop and stimulate our brains and also so as to communicate directly with other objects such as humans and animals. Naming concepts modifies objects, describes them, etc. This name can indirectly trace back to the objects of our brains (atoms, electrons, neurons, connectors, etc.) performing causal relations and undergoing change effects in the referred concept or to objects of our environment remembered and used to relation in conception.

The name of our conception serves as a placeholder for the objects of our environment we conceived in a relation via our sensory organ or the objects of our brain performing the work called conception and serves to modify, describe, explain the objects. So we perceive water molecules, remember their locations, think and name that thought wave. Wave is what an object does. Wave does not refer to an object. We can trace back wave to objects even if these objects are no longer perceivable or even imperceptible.

Since we perform the act of naming we have to determine whether or not we named, or used a name, to refer to an object or to a concept. The way we do this is to ask:

Does the nominal referent have Form?

If so we may file the name under Object. If not the name resolves to a relation worked out by the brain: Concept. Now this may seem insignificant at first, but I assure the reader that this is one of the, if not THE most important task in all of philosophy and physics. 

Language can be tricky and seductive without this ontological basis that we perform naturally and yet seemed to have lost touch with. The seeming deficiency, ambiguity, or seduction of language has to do with us. We conceive and use words in a deficient manner. And we introduce ambiguity into language when we fail to define strategic words. And some seduce the weak minded with deficient and ambiguous word use.

But all referents without exception are categorized into two categories by way of their resolved ontology: The two ontological categories are of course

1. Object
2. Concept

There is no third category.

The underlying ontology of the word referent is resolved objectively. The objective criterion is based on the rigorous definition of the names Object and Form derived from all the great thinkers of history. All we need do is take a word in its context and ask whether or not the referent has Form. This is a cut and dry. The answer is yes or no. Form is the only name that can possibly describe any and all Objects. Thus Form serves as the criterion for resolving the ontological context of the word referent. If the referent of the word does not have Form, then the word refers to a relation worked out by the brain; the word refers to a concept.

We haphazardly resolve word ontology every time we parse a sentence. However this skill needs to be honed so that we can perform a contextual analysis on any and all discourses given by anyone in any study, especially science. And we need this skill to trace concepts back to objects. If a concept cannot be traced back to a minimum of two objects then you should note that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Evaluating the Ontological Context of Referents is the only way an author or a reader can guarantee clarity in understanding and communication. By resolving the underlying ontology of the word referent one is able to discern ordinary language from scientific language. One is able to discern figures of speech, colloquialisms, rhetoric, etc. One is able to discern hogwash. And one is able to accomplish many other educated tasks.

The ontological roots of language are as clear as the Sun and as strong as a mountain. There is no manner of circumventing a concept. All concepts necessarily invoke a minimum of two objects. And all concepts lack that which belong to all objects, namely Form.

I will stick my neck out and say that resolving the ontology of the word referent is a font of acquired wisdom. Whoever understands the significance of resolving the ontological context of word referents is truly educated and free. Whoever does not understand how to put this into practice or does not respect the importance of this practice is uneducated. Educated of means "led out from". The idea is that one is lead out of darkness and into the light. We need to be able to master concepts in our route out of darkness.

Some Examples of Resolving the Underlying Ontology of Word Referents:


Does the name 'wind' refer to an object? Or to a concept? Wind has no form, thus it resolves to a concept. Wind could be defined as two or more locations of air molecules parallel to the Earth's surface. Adam and Eve came along, thought invisible objects moved parallel to the ground: pelting their faces, trees, as well as their huts and so named 'wind'.

Wind cannot move. Wind is invisible objects (air atoms/molecules) in motion. Wind is really a specialized verb in disguise. It is as if the subject, air, is built into a verb. Wind relates motion of air. A verb is a name that represents a moving relation worked out by the brain. With motion we need an object(s) regardless of whether or not we can see them.


Wave is a tricky one. A wave may seem like it has form but indeed the ontological context resolves to a concept. Like wind, wave refers to a dynamic concept, a verb. Wave is a manner of motion. Wave is our conceptualization of a thing's action. For example, Florence Welch's arms wave when she sings. There is no such thing as a wave. A wave is not a noun of reality, e.g. gravitational waves resolve to concepts. They cannot possibly exist.

In context to light and gravity and the electron, it is indisputable that these phenomena have dynamic wave-like properties. So we have to ask ourselves what is it that is waving. What is waving at the atomic perimeter??? What is waving between stars in light and gravitational mediation??? Brainstorm and then suppose a rational mediator, an object.


Space is the whore of philosophers and of weak minds.

The tricky and seductive word Space, resolves to a concept. This might sound crazy to the uneducated, but it is impossible to see space via our sensory systems. No one in the history of the Universe has seen space or taken in space via their sensory systems. All we can possibly see are objects that are literally connected to our eyes by the mediators of light. When we see two objects, we think space. Space refers to the separation between two or more objects. However the referent of the name space is an impoverished notion since we assume that the Twined Threads separate any two objects and the Twined Thread is bounded from the immediate surrounding of itself. The stuff that is the referent of the name 'Thread' or 'first corporeal form' or 'fundamental entity', or 'minimal reality', certainly doesn't need an idea called space to separate it.

We cannot see that which mediates light and converges to form all the H atoms and neutrons of the Universe, thus we have overindulged ourselves with the bunk notion of space. Space has never imparted a causal relation or undergone a change effect in the entire history of the Universe since it is JUST A RELATION worked out by the brain!!!! Space is a concept. Space is not even a container. Space cannot perform the the referred action of the verb 'contain' or 'bind'. Concepts do not perform actions. Space is a sheer deprivation and it is truly a sign of the times that people so fawn over the name 'space'. What's in a name???

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Gottlob Frege Commentaries

Today I will resurrect some poignant quotes from Frege and others who have studied him. The most important aim to keep in mind with this is that Frege was on the verge of understanding how to resolve the ontology of the nominal referent which is IMHO, THE, if not one of the pinnacles of philosophy, critical thinking and all those good healthy practices expected from a tried intellectual. He didn't quite figure it out, but later another would come up with the way.

This is taken from Frege's article titled ‘On Sense and Reference’

Now languages have the fault of containing certain expressions which fail to designate an object (although grammatical form seems to qualify them for that purpose) . . .
Comment: Some words refer to a concept, conceived by a human, however they are surreptitiously used in a syntactical grammar AS IF they refer to objects. Understanding HOW to resolve this distinction is of the utmost important when processing communication ESPECIALLY in a study of fundamental physics. Understanding this distinction will also help lead to an ultimate appreciation of objects and their essential role in conception.

Continuing Frege says:

So language brands a concept as an object, since the only way it can fit the designation for a concept into its grammatical structure is as a proper name. But in so doing, strictly speaking it falsifies matters. (Gottlob Frege, 1892a, 168-69)

Comment: I would not say it falsifies matters, since validation/verification of statements is another matter that is subjectively performed by humans. I would say in doing so renders that expression irrational, contradictory or at best figurative. Now we do this all the time and it is fine, but in a rigorous intellectual setting such as physics, these matters must be clarified for the sake of communication, sanity, consistency, honesty, and helping to produce brilliant, rational assumptions, theories, conclusions, etc.

Here are some quotes from a study on Frege:

From Philosophy of Language and Logical Theory by Khatchadourian (p.309-11)

A concept-word, according to Frege, is predicative; it is a possible grammatical predicate of a range of otherwise different sentences. To predicate a concept-word of a grammatical subject is to relate a concept to a logical subject, i.e. to an object. Another way of saying this is that to predicate a concept of an object is to state that the object falls under the concept. The predicative character of concepts is what Frege calls “incompleteness” of concepts. In terms of this the difference between a concept and an object is that an object falls under a concept but that the converse is impossible. “An equation is reversible; an object’s falling under a concept is irreversible

Comment: So concepts are based in objects. Frege never figured out why: objects have form, concepts lack form; they are relations between two or more objects worked out in thought. Concepts are based on objects, but objects are not based on concepts. An object has the referent of Form independent of our conception or even perception. The referent of Form is inseparable from an object. So for example the form of that object across the street named woman does not rely on our seeing it or on our naming it ‘woman’. Now this might sound trite or petty semantics but I assure everyone that understanding how to resolve the ontology of word referent in all contexts can help enable one to accomplish immense intellectual tasks for example:

1. Ability to discern and interpret figures of speech, and perhaps learning how to conceive of one’s own figures

2. Ability to interpret obscure and difficult texts, etc.

3. Ability to understand the roots of all languages. All languages have their roots in objects.

4. Identifying intellectual charlatans who make millions even billions off of concepts that refer to nothing in reality

5. Enabling one to see through intellectual hogwash and acquire a sort of natural wisdom.

6. Initiating intellectual revolutions in self and others

7. Appreciating the great value of existing objects and understanding that a dynamic concept such as love will never happen or even be conceived without that object named woman who grew up down the road from you. Thus one would imagine that this woman is very valuable and should be treated with great care and dignity. Understanding that without the two objects named man and woman and what they have the ability to do continues the human family. Understanding that objects such as food, clothes, water, house are more valuable than concepts such as money.

8. Understanding the great darkness and devolution of Western Civilization as it currently operates. Many are enslaved to, burdened and lost in the concepts they worked.

9. Understand how people manipulate each other via use of concepts.

10. Tracing back to the fundamental object that underlies and connects all existing atoms of the Universe and understanding that this fundamental object cannot possibly rely on a concept called space for its form.

11. Figuring out devishly difficult problems in physics such as what object may mediate gravity and light between stars and planet, how atoms work, what electron, proton, and neutron refer to, what sort of assumptions can we make about the fundamental entity, explaining fundamental interactions, exposing the wave-particle duality, balancing the continuity of all objects with their discontinuity, and so on.

12. Enable one to attain freedom of thought.

Continuing with Frege Study:

It seems to follow from this that “completing” a concept can be regarded as stating that a given object falls or does not fall under the concept. We “complete” ‘() conquered Gaul’ by ‘Julius Caesar’, when we state that Julius Caesar falls under the concept conquered Gaul, i.e. when we make the statement ‘Julius Caesar conquered Gaul’.

Comment. We base the concept ‘conquered Gaul’ on Julius Caesar. Without the referent of Julius Caesar the conquering of Gaul would have never happened. Frege took a sort of . . . how do I want to say this . . . backwards approach to solving these problems.
. . .

Concepts are attributes. Hence what we have said about the “incompleteness” of concepts, put in terms of this notion, is that attributes are “incomplete” in isolation from objects. Another way of saying this is that attributes, in order to be attributes at all, have to be attributes of objects. An attribute is “completed” when it is related to an object, is thought of as attributed to the object [objects precede concepts]. Relations [also concepts], which are in a similar position, are functions with two arguments, i.e. are doubly “incomplete”, and so require two objects to be “completed”. Speaking about concepts Frege says: 
"It is clear that a concept cannot be represented independently as an object can but that it can occur only in combination. One can say that a concept can be distinguished out of it. All apparent contradictions which one can come upon here result from treating a concept as an object, contrary to its incomplete nature. (Uber die Grundlagen der Geometrie)" 
Black says that this suggests that Frege’s contention that functions (and so concepts) are “incomplete” is that “it is logically impossible to make a function the subject of an assertion” (p. 246).

Comment: Obviously attributes and relations lack form and cannot possibly exist. Attributes and relations refer to our thoughts about objects. Attribute refers to a comparison of objects. What does this thing have or not have in comparison to that thing. What can this thing do that another cannot do.

So, concepts refer to a relation between two or more objects worked out by the brain. A concept is 'incomplete' without a minimum of at least two objects since one of those objects is the man conceiving the relation or two neurons consummating the relation in the brain of the man.

Frege began to understand the hierarchical relation between objects and concepts. Objects precede concepts. Without objects there would be no events (moving relations, syn: phenomena, happening, etc), no perceptions completed by sense organs of humans, animals and possibly plant, no conceptions completed by the brain, no verbs, etc. Verbs refer to what we think objects do. The woman sings . . . stars illumine and gravitate. How they do this is a matter of explanation and we may have to suppose an unperceivable object such as air or invisible mediators so as to explain the action. But it is contradictory to make a verb or a grammatical function the subject of a sentence because then it is treated as an object. Verbs, attributes, or relations CANNOT perform actions or reactions. Objects perform causal relations and undergo change effects via objects and this makes our conception of verbs possible and it is rational to acknowledge this order.

With objects all we can possibly do is name them, assume them, draw them and explain how they work in relation to other objects. Naming refers to a dynamic concept completed by a human and can be traced directly to the object that is named (to that which has Form). We also have the tricky ability to perform the work of naming our conceptions. We name our brain works, to organize, develop and stimulate our brains and also so as to communicate directly with other objects such as humans and animals. Naming concepts modifies objects, describes them, etc. This name can indirectly trace back to the objects of our brains (atoms, electrons, neurons, connectors, etc.) performing causal relations and undergoing change effects in the referred concept or to objects of our environment remembered and used in the conception. The name of our conception serves as a placeholder for the objects of our environment we conceived in a relation via our sensory organ or the objects of our brain performing the work called conception and serves to modify, describe, explain the objects. So we perceive water molecules, remember their locations, think and name that thought wave. Wave is what an object does. Wave does not refer to an object. We can trace back wave to objects even if these objects are no longer perceivable or even unperceivable.

If we conceive an abstract concept such as Universe then we can trace back that abstraction to a nest of all existing objects and the static separation we conceived (space). If we do not at least make note of this, then we may begin to think that our conceptions literally have form and perform causal relations and undergo change effects when clearly this is impossible because our conceptions are already the objects of our brains performing causal relations and undergoing change effects. And bye the bye, we are always conceiving. So naming our conception is sort of a convenient illusion to stimulate our brains and communicate. It is the goal of intellectual life to master this stimulation and not become a slave to this work or use this work to deceive others, lord it over others, or swindle others.

But the reverse is impossible. An object cannot possibly refer to or resolve to a concept.

Our intellectual activities better end on objects that have forms and hopefully exist. In a strict intellectual environment objects should never be used as a concept or vice versa: Concepts should not be treated as objects. When all is said and done, two or more objects induce concepts or make concepts possible. Frege took a sort of negative approach and never completely solved the problem because he failed to understand that Form resolves the ontology of the word referent (does the nominal referent have Form? Yes or No???) Form is the most important name in all philosophy. It is in a category all its own. The Sun, Moon, Stars, atoms, the fundamental object underlying all atoms and the woman or man across the street all had their unique Form and performed their actions before you saw them, remembered them or thought about them.

Frege also wrote an article "On Concept and Object" (1892a) where he struggles with the contradiction that "the concept horse is not a concept". Had he known how to resolve the ontology of the word referent he would have solved some of his own problems.

All names, first and foremost refer to conceptions, verbs, or brain-works performed by a human. Its what we do! These either directly refer to an Object (that which has Form) or indirectly to two or more objects embodied by the brain in a relation with the aim of understanding, communication, praxis, organization, etc, in other words Concept.

Syntax follows this rational order, however for whatever reason, because we are free, i.e. not bound by artificial laws of syntax or of logic, because we are creative, or ? we break these laws all the time and switch the order treating referred concepts AS IF they were objects. Thus we need to parse sentences and discern communication so as to make sense of what the author meant to convey. In other words we resolve the context. If the author is confused we should be able to figure this out rather quickly by using these conceptual tools at our disposal.

From object, form, and concept we can graduate to exist.  Exist refers to an object that stands out.  Exist implies three dimensions (length, width, height) however these are measurements and whether or not an object exists has nothing to do with our act of measuring.  The Sun had Form and existed before any human came along to observe it and measure it.  Another possible definition of exist is that which has Form and Location.   With this enlightened understanding we can clearly see that 1D, 2D, 4D objects of geometry cannot possibly exist or be used in assumptions, explanations and conclusions in physics. Geometry is a nihilistic religion.

Concept lacks Form and so is automatically disqualified from existence. This does not entail that Concept does not HAPPEN, however these dynamic concepts must ALWAYS be performed or worked by objects that exist.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

E = mc2

The most famous equation in this Universe and all Universes, known or unknown. What is the physical interpretation of Al's equation? Or should I say De Pretto's equation? There once lived an obscure Italian industrialist/engineer who derived and marveled over "Einstein's" equation a couple of years before Al's so called annus mirabilis. His full name is Olinto De Pretto. He wrote an article translated "Hypothesis of Aether in the Life of the Universe" published in 1903 where he derived and played with the famous E = mc2; using the symbol v to represent velocity of light instead of c. This he did independent of general relativity. Few if anyone give De Pretto a nod of credit.  But this is for another discussion. (here is a link to his original Italian article where one can see E = mv2 used more than a few times).

What is E = mc2 physical significance? To me it is a boring and forgettable equation that is way overrated. This is forgettable compared to the 'magic' of some other equations like Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, or the math expression of the fine structure constant. How do I interpret this equation? It is a top-down equation. It describes nothing about the fundamental nature or constitution of matter. This is implied in the equation or read into it. One need understand the fundamental constitution and relation of matter first, before one can interpret the same in this equation.

Also, E = mc2 does not imply that energy is converted into matter. This is nonsense. A concept (energy) cannot change into an object or a set of objects (matter)

Definitions & Reflections

E refers to an object's capacity to do work, specifically the mode of work we call light, or radiation which is performed by atoms and all objects comprised of atoms.

m refers to an object's inertial mass.

velocity of light squared refers to all atoms of the Universe constantly sending and receiving light signals to and from all atoms via an object, that has form, supposedly exists and serves as a nexus and constituent of all atoms.

E = mc2 is a sort of static potential equation. It is a general principle equation. It states the obvious once one understands the constitution of matter. There is no real magic here.

Following Gaede's physics, I see that the profundity of the equation lies in the physical interpretation of inertial mass which is perhaps implied but not explained in this equation. Inertial mass refers to an object's resistance to being pushed or pulled by objects in the vicinity. The object's resistance is rooted in all atoms of the Universe performing a constant tension upon that object via a fundamental and intrinsic mediator connecting all atoms, which I might add are in perpetual motion (rest mass is fictitious). The tension is bi-directional. A sort of nudging of atoms by all atoms from all directions in all directions NOT hook line and sinker. This interaction between all atoms is worked by all atoms in the dynamic concept we call light or radiation.

This is Mach's principle to the max. When a star moves its pulls on you. When you move your little pinkie finger . . . you pull on all the stars. When a lone hydrogen atom moves it pulls on all the stars . . . and all stellar atoms pull on it. All atoms are in perpetual motion so there is no end to this tugging. The tension needed to mediate this tug o war is sustained by the atom's work of light mediated by that rectilinear 3D nexus connecting and constituting the same atoms. This nexus is assumed to be a continuous two stranded Thread that is DNA like. Atoms are critically dense matrices of this same Thread.  But back to the point . . . this is why m is related to c2 in the equation. For those who have eyes to see it inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light performed by atoms and the invisible nexus intrinsically connecting all atoms. The relation is simple and profound. C2 refers to an atomic work that is always done, light. So the Energy in the left side of the equation must imply capacity to do the work of light. All E does is calculate an object's capacity to do the work of light, specifically receive and send off light signals.

Furthermore, t
he velocity of light is significant in that if light signals happened to communicate between atoms at a greater velocity all objects would have a greater inertial mass, and gravitational potential would be greater for the entire network of matter or conceptual Universe.

What is interesting is that the more resistance an object has to being pushed or pulled is proportional to that object's capacity to do the work of light. So a hydrogen atom has a certain inertial mass that is equivalent to its capacity to perform light. A hydrogen atom's inertial mass is less then that of a star. Obviously a star has more capacity for light as one can imagine it is sending out and receiving more light signals than a lone hydrogen atom. So an increase in inertial mass multiplies the amount of light signals an object absorbs and emits, which implies that there are more fundamental connections to all atoms of the Universe in that object. Where else would a light signal go other than to or from an atom? However the payoff for increased light capacity is that it will take more work to push or pull on that object.

A hydrogen atom has less capacity to do light work than cesium atom because it has less permanent as well as potential connections to all the atoms of the Universe. A cesium atom on the other hand has greater capacity to do light work because it has more permanent and potential connections to all the atoms of the Universe.

When work is done to an atom does it ever lose a little inertial mass? I suppose that is possible. Say we send in a neutron and fission a U-235 isotope. They say that after the nuclear reaction the whole system may have lost a little mass. Perhaps this inertial mass was locked up in some temporary critical electron thread densities established in the isotope that participated in light phenomenon, but after fission were dissolved. But essentially the products end up having less inertial mass than the mother isotope because they have less inherent connection to all other atoms in the Universe. And they have less capacity to do the work of light.  However all of the mediators were already present in the fission and simply let go of by the atoms.

E = mc2 has nothing to do with nuclear bombs or nuclear potential energy. This is urban legend, Time magazine b.s. pop/mainstream science or Wikipedia stuff. Nuclear potential energy is distinct from Energy in Al's equation. Nuclear potential energy is locked up in the nucleons extremely close proximity. On the other hand Al's or de Pretto's E = mc2 implies is that certain atoms or objects have more or less potential to complete light phenomenon via a nexus which also serves to maintain inertial mass relation. In nuclear reactions Nature does not literally inject energy or release energy into and out of the system of atoms nor does it lose or gain mass. In a fission an object called a neutron works to break the nuclear bonds and there will be extreme replusions, nuclear and electric mediated by the atoms which in turn will work light, work each other kinetically and ultimately all atoms in the blast radius. In a fusion, atoms or objects such as electron threads or magnetic threads work to crush together say two hydrogen atoms which at a certain distance and in certain circumstances (perhaps in the presence of neutrons) fuse.

Even though an atom, absorbing or emitting light signals may vary it's inertial mass a teenie tiny little because of the dynamics of electrons but E = mc2 implies a relation that is more simple and profound for those who have eyes to see it.

E = mc2 implies a profound physical relation subsuming all atoms of the Universe.  In objects, beginning with the hydrogen atom and ending in the greatest superstar, inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light performed by atoms on the passive mediators of light intrinsically connecting all atoms.  The totality of this work which never ends is abstracted and symbolically represented by E on the left side of Al's or De Pretto's equation.  

Thursday, November 6, 2014


I parsed emeritus professor John W. Moffat's book, Cracking the Particle Code of the Universe.  The definition he uses is about the same one as one finds on the net. Nonlocality is synonymous with action-at-a-distance. The concept refers to a direct action between two separated objects, say atoms or stars, WITH no perceivable mediator, agent, or nexus or any perceivable mechanism. Notice the word perceivable. Some definitions modify with perceivable and others do not.

Einstein described the quantum non-locality of so called quantum entanglement as "spooky action-at-a-distance". Before him, Newton whined that action-at-a-distance is "so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it". It is only an absurdity if no mediator is supposed to connect the two separated objects that are stated as a matter of fact to be in direct action.

One of the core strengths of EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory is that to attempt to address these issues of non-locality. Direct action between two objects separated at great distances WITHOUT some sort of mediator of a mechanism is irrational. How is an electron that moves in one location suppose to influence the electron across the Universe without some inherent physical connection, mediated by a real object?  Nature doesn't perform miracles like God.  Angels don't mediate atomic electron transition.
So we need to suppose and visualize a nexus, or an agent, or a mediator, that connects these two atoms and make manifest how it works. This mediator must be an object with form. It must have some unique properties like it can superpose with another similar to it. It can wave and yet signal like a particle. Even two mainstream boson sparticles, are suppose to overlap and share the same quantum state, whatever the hell that means in reality. They supposedly transmit action-at-a-distance and are called force-carriers. These sparticles carry verbs like push and pull. On the other hand two or more fermions supposedly cannot overlap. In Thread Theory we have our own terms like EM Rope, Thread, Critical Thread Density, electron thread, magnetic thread, electric thread, etc. Atoms and stars are already connected by mediators constantly activated by atoms which account for a mechanism. The underlying assumption is that a single closed looped entity underlies all the atoms of the Universe. Matter is a web, and atoms serve as matrices.

Bosons are very roughly like Thread or EM Rope. Fermions are very roughly like Critical Thread Density or derive from a CTD. Thread Theory notions of proton, neutron, electron are completely different then that of mainstream Standard Model. Suppositions and explanations are also somewhat different. Mainstream seems to want to continually divide up a supposed fundamental entity and its similar yet radically distinct opposite in the atom, as well as their actions it into hundreds, even thousands of categories and state these categorical particles as if they were proven fact (when they cannot even be perceived), even going so far as to name one type of particle a 'wino'. Lol . Mainstream also seems to want to treat concepts as objects. Mainstream also tries to thrive off of ambiguous, ill-defined, and irrational concepts such as wave-particle duality, spin-orbit, superposing quantum states. Much of the problem of mainstream modern physics is communication (which individuals and organizations are at fault for).

On the other hand Thread Theory takes a non-pluralistic approach and strives to live up to a clear cut and cutthroat rational analysis and critical thinking. Plurality should not be posited without necessity. Concepts should be clearly defined. One should be able to visualize and give illustrations, make movies, and be ready to answer for them (as lowly and as simple as they maybe). One should be able to provide some reasonable explanation for action-at-a-distance, other than having to circumvent and lead the audience into a maze of literally millions of ill-defined concepts, absurdities and circles. One should be forthright.

It is not as if rigorous modern research, experiment, data-collection, technology, math equations etc. aren't neat and a great starter but someday someone has to start to put the pieces of the puzzle together and try to clearly explain just what the hell is happening. There must be a somewhat reasonable and unified explanation that can be worked out here. Marshaling relevant information provided by all sorts of scientists is important. Brainstorming is very important. Critical thinking and rational analysis is important. Thinking outside the box: important. Understanding the difference between an object and concept is important. Trying to get back to that attitude that you are child-like and detached from fame, status, qualifications, money, etc. is important. Striving to be a sort of like a renaissance man is important. Explanations stand or fall on their own merit. Having a good attitude and not being extreme is important.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Electron Bubbles?

Electron Bubbles

You are creating all the bubbles at night
I'm chasing round trying to pop them all the time
We don't need to trust a single word they say
You are creating all the bubbles at play

--Biffy Clyro, Bubbles

These are my rough brainstorms and I know that my pictures look like garbage, but I'm not going to spend hours on this.

Electron Bubble refers to a concept conceived by mentally-ill quantum mechanics and particle physicists. The referent of 'electron bubble' lacks form, and cannot possibly exist. They are appearances, or patterns conceived from an empirical analysis of the chamber. One could say electron bubble is synonymous with space but this is misleading and ultimately useless.

What roughly happens is 'electron' threads are injected from an electrode into a group of super-cooled helium atoms contained by a metallic canister. In the canister, helium atoms are cooled to what they call a liquid state. This merely refers to a relation of helium atoms where they are just shy of stationary in reference to one another. In other words the helium atoms aren't travelling far in relation to one another like one would except of a gaseous relation. Their relation is more liquid or solid like, but there is no bonding between the atoms.  Just low frequency light signals exchanged between them via EM Threads inherently connecting the Helium atoms to one another.

When a beam of gazillions of electron threads are forced into the canister of super-cooled helium atoms, what happens is that helium atoms wedge the beams, thus splitting the beams into subsets of electron thread and these press against the helium atoms and get redirected in circular, spherical or all sort of patterns between the CETD locations of the helium nuclei. These electron threads form a pattern akin to mishap-pen cocoons. So a cocoon would IMHO be an analog, not bubble. Many countless of these cocoons of electron thread form between the helium atoms and may temporarily separate the helium atoms, a little. The helium atoms in a liquid state contain the electron threads.  However, some electron threads might even tunnel through helium atoms and back through cocoons. Thread is interfaced throughout the canister and worked in all sorts of directions. If the current is kept up some cocoons will push helium atoms aside and appear to move to the bottom. If more electron threads are burst into the chamber more cocoons will temporarily form. If the electron threads of the electrode are induced to burst in at higher speeds and numbers perhaps some electron thread of the helium atoms will be pulled out of the nucleus.

electron bubbles are like cocoons of electron thread forming between the super-cooled Helium atoms

In reality, electron must refer to a temporary location where and when 'electron' thread crisscrosses, overlaps, superposes to a critical density. This enables that location to temporarily participate in light phenomenon and enables that threaded location to be pushed or pulled on by incident magnetic or electron threads all of which are twisted in helices, are inherently wavy and ultimately rooted back in proton. The anti-parallel crosses or twists of thread running along electron or magnetic threads or EM Ropes, account for the particle like behavior.  These threads can push and pull on atoms, specifically locations of the atom that have attained critical thread density (all fundamental interactions of the Universe involve Thread, and at least one Thread in the interaction must have attained critical density: an intersection, overlap, or superposition of Thread through which no more Thread may penetrate).  When a beam of gazillions of these electron threads is lead into a chamber . . . the helium atoms, specifically the locations of helium atoms that have attained critical thread density, force the beam to split up, sort of like roots growing out of the main root. These continue to whirl around the chamber until bubbles begin to appear (note I said appear).

The electron threads must also need EM Ropes to cross through so as to attain a critical thread density (this would certainly be the case in a metallic chamber, there would be countless EM Threads crossing through and intersecting). This maybe why their precious electron is measured as 1/1836 the mass of a proton. There are less electron threads involved in the CETD relation as opposed to the critical thread density location at 'proton'.

There is no splitting of wavefunction into parts or any of that mumbo jumbo. In addition since thread is being redirected in all directions there will be some crisscrossing of electron thread through cocoons. They may temporarily establish a CETD which can signal light to an observer (because all the atoms of the observer are connected to all the atoms of the objects of the experiment); and the physicists might gleefully think that they have captured, contained or isolated an electron.

"Here is some of the b.s. coming out of the quantum mechanics/particle physicists mouths:

"Electrons . . . only exist as oscillations . . . they exist as a wave function, or a probability distribution."

[Me: impossible for oscillations and wavefunctions to exist. Wave and oscillate refers to the action of electron threads.]

"If the physicists are correct, then some of the wave function pieces must actually hold the electron and others do not. It may be possible in the future to narrow down the location of an electron. Dividing and trapping pieces of the wave function can increase the likelihood of finding the electron."

[this is how mentally-ill they have become. They imagine themselves dividing and trapping pieces of a concept: wavefunction]

Read more at http://guardianlv.com/…/could-quantum-mechanics-change-fo…/…

"Experiments led by Humphrey Maris, professor of physics at Brown, suggest that the quantum state of an electron—the electron's wave function—can be shattered into pieces and those pieces can be trapped in tiny bubbles of liquid helium."

"Electrons are elementary particles, indivisible and unbreakable. But what the researchers are saying is in some ways more bizarre."

[this is true, to divide a probability into pieces is more bizarre and they take pride in their insane thoughts. What they have failed to realize is that their electron refers to a crisscross, overlap or superposition of gazillions of thread. If a set of these threads is unreeled from a metallic atom and focused into a beam that collides with adjacent atoms then it can be divided into multiple subsets that continue to move around.]

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-function-electron.html#jCp

So then . . .

Giggles then dribble from my lips.
Bubbles to breeze. Thousands.
Not one popping. Bubbles forever.
Just floating forever.
Popping forever.

From Mark Z. Danielewski's Only Revolutions

Some crude visual aids:

In summary: Classically, bubble refers to atoms in a liquid relation containing atoms in a gaseous relation. In this conception of electron bubble helium atoms crunched together in a so called liquid state split, redirect and contain the injected beam of electron threads so that they temporarily cocoon between the helium atoms. However vice verse some of these cocooning electron threads contain helium atoms pushing up against them and in addition can tunnel through the helium atoms and back through the cocoons. Of course both helium atoms and electron threads are contained by the metal.

So bubble may be an analogy, but the mathematical physicists have electron bubble defined as the empty space created around a free electron in a cryogenic gas or liquid of helium or neon. That just doesn't cut it. The helium atoms are not containing discrete electron balls (unless those balls are continuous convergences of electron thread).  And it i
s clear from the descriptions that something more is happening here than meets the eye.