Michael Vaicaitis' Model

12/20/2014 Chat Room Discussion
A=Airman, C=Cr6, L=LloydK, M=Michael, N=Nevyn
A: I don't think photons as spheres work
A: Spheres in contact don't seem to me to allow much precession and remain in contact
M=  First off, I am still in the process of writing (in essay style) a "paper". My previous paper "On The Motion of Matter" is not entirely correct and I have not since had any thoughts about gyros, so I can give no assurances as to efficacy of those previous ideas.
M=  a lot of my intended audience is so far removed from thinking about the problem correctly.
M=  I come from an IT career: analyst/programmer.
M=  My new work is entitled "The Mechanical Universe: An Analysis From First Principles"
A: If the spheres rotate at all, the contact point moves from the spin axis pole to a point on the sphere surface that is moving away from the axis pole
A: The contact point must stay on the spin pole/extension
L: the point of force should remain the same, if no other force intervenes.
M=  I started with gravity
- Some of Mathis' critiques are quite good and quite entertaining, but most of his ideas are off the mark. I have only studied gyros at home, but unfortunately that led me to reason by analogy and make a error in that paper.
M=  Questions 4,5,6 all refer to "photons", but to address that, we should first establish some ideas on "aether".
M=  I do not consider the idea of an aether "medium" to be correct or even logical. The notion of an aethereal medium comes to us from consideration of waves and in no small part from Young's 1803 demonstration of light diffraction.
L: The aether was logical in Fatio's sense quite a bit.
A: The aether is a void
L: If photons have diameter and mass, they seem to work as an aether.
M=  To continue... The aether medium is then reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids) in combination with unjustified presumptions of how waves work. In other words the aether is derived thru reasoning by analogy.
C: is aether a medium of sorts in your view?
M=  NO
N: So you just have a field of real particles that can only collide with each other and the resulting motions of those particles form into helices?
M=  N: Yes.
- "by real I mean have mass an[d] extension"
N: I think the photons are just motions of the field particles, sort of how Miles describes neutrinos
C: Do you see precession of planets, and photon-helices as similar then?
M=  Real, yes, most definitely. But no mass - mass is an emergent property of matter
L: Mass isn't a property of photons?
N: interesting, I see mass (or at least part of what we call mass) as the sum of spin velocities (in a stacked spin model), does your idea of mass go in that direction as well?
M=  Lloyd, I'm not so sure if I had written that "photons" have mass, but if I did, it was an error.
L: I can't imagine anything without mass being able to have an effect on anything.
N: Michael, do you think that mass and inertia are the same thing?
M=  Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion, the quantification of that resistance is called mass. This is actually the mainstream view
N: Yes, and that is why I tend to think of the sum of the spin velocities being the mass, as in each spin velocity resists motion
A: After all my MV reading, I would call mass inertia as gyroscopic. This agrees with MV and Nevyn
M=  Consider completely empty space. Place into it a particle - it is solid with no substructure. We will not call it matter, just simply: substance. We can conceptually say that the particle can move or travel across space, but it cannot spin. If anyone wishes to give such a particle the capability of spin, then you first need to describe how and why that could occur.
N: You can also say the same thing about linear motion as well. Why would it move if there is nothing to push it?
N: We need more than 1 particle to cause spin if the only allowed input is linear velocity, edge hits by other particles can cause an axial spin
- spin is a valid motion, just as much as linear motion
M=  Edge hits. Edge hits would not cause axial spin
M=  Spin is an acceleration. To accelerate requires a force to be applied.
- No the particle has no mass ->​ mass comes later
N: I'm not so sure spin is an acceleration, it can be described just by a tangential velocity, curved motion is an acceleration but spin is a bit different (I think).
L: Acceleration is a change in velocity I think. [i.e. a change in its magnitude or direction]]
N: yes, that is why curved motion is an acceleration but spin is different but I am struggling to put it into words
C: Here's Mathis: If light is a particle with spin, then the wave belongs to the particle itself, and will not diminish with dimming light.
- http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html
L: Is the answer man still around?
C: Mathis again: So, as the linear velocity gets larger, the tangential velocity gets smaller relative to it. [] nearly a perfect inverse relationship. [] the tangential velocity can be estimated [] with just [] 1/c.
M= No, spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force. An edge hit would only serve to affect its direction of travel and the direction in which it faces. Think very carefully, why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis. It is quite difficult to get here from observation of composites systems that sit within a field of smaller particles.
M=  Caveat: When I say "force", it's not quite right, because there is no mass. There is an "amount of substance", but mass is emergent at a higher level and so does not apply.

M= aether "medium" is not correct or logical. comes from consideration of waves
= The aether medium idea is reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids)
= aether is not a "medium", therefore not an aether
- aether is a field of real particles
= they have extension yes, but "mass" does not apply at this level, mass is a property of matter (i.e. electrons and protons) that emerges from its interaction with the vacuum field
= mass is an emergent property of matter
= photons are real, But have no mass
# this requires a more precise definition of the term "photon"
= Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion
= Place a particle into completely empty space. - the particle can move across space, but it cannot spin.
= the particle has no mass - mass comes later
= spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force.
= why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis?
= we can't use mass, because we have no "matter" yet.
= agree that there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe
- Logic is primary here. Since we can't fully rely on "empirical" data, we need to take generalised logical truths and work backwards; thus starting at first principles
M= OK, Q: what is the simplest scenario we can imagine. A: nothing. (Caveat: some people resort to saying that "nothing" does not exist. This is a prelude to infinite regression. We can discuss this if you wish, but I see the argument for the regressionalists is decidedly limited.)
M= The purpose for this starting point is to arrive at a plausible model for the "vacuum field" [] that produces the action-at-a-distance force effects [] of matter.
- Once we grant that there are spatially separated bodies to interact, the defining requirement for that interaction is motion. To have motion we must have substance that moves, and to allow freedom of movement, we must also embrace the concept of separation across volumetric space. In the context of fundamental existence, spatial separation is more simply and usefully defined as empty space, and substance, as discrete material particles. In short we have two classes of volume occupying entity. One is inert and quite literally, nothing, with its only property being volume via distance, and that is completely empty space. The other is interactive and quite literally, something, and that is particles of substance.
- The term "substance" comes from my own limited dictionary, but tallies reasonably well with "substance theory", albeit coincidental.
M= Given that motion!!!!!!!!!, requires (requires = as in the only logical truth that our cognitive existence can provide) discrete particles of substance/material/solid​-something separated by nothing/"no thing", we must populate the "background" of "completely empty volumetric space" with PARTICLES.
M= I am heading towards, and encircling, the defences of aetherism. The aether, as a fluidic medium, cannot stand. It is derived from reasoning by analogy. It is given magical abilities, beyond the analogy from which it is derived.
M= Back to the nothingness/no-thing-nes​s/completely-empty-volum​etric-space
- This is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space - it is volume as we experience it and understand it - it is not somw Reimannian/Minkowski counterintuitive insanity that cannot be justified by human cognition.
M= It is simple "space", it is "volume". It is a logically certain concept. []
- In other words, don't try to find something in the geometry of no-thing.
M= So, NOTHING. Into this "completely empty volumetric space" we must introduce two classes of "something". First, is a field of substantive particles[/u] (the-vacuum-field/the-va​cuum/the-aether/???), the second is the "ponderable matter that is electrons and protons.
M= It is SO!!!!! important to *****ACTUALLY THINK IN TERMS OF A SUB-MATTER FIELD*****
M= The sub-field to matter -that is to say, the vacuum field, or the action-at-a-distance field, must operate without the interactional "PROPERTIES" that we associate with matter.
- It is not matter, yet, by the very undeniable existence of action-at-a-distance, that field, that contains no matter, MUST exist.
- The only route that we have to that particle field (i.e. the vacuum field) is logic. We cannot experiment on it, we cannot observe, examine or detect it. We only know, with absolutely certainty, that it is there - because of its effect upon matter.
M= The deep deep profound...wise...point of my spiel, is that at the lowest level of fundamental "substantive" existence, we cannot arbitrarily assign action-at-a-distance interactional properties, such as mass and charge. We must instead rely only on direct contact - i.e. COLLISION. The laws/rules/logic of collision are the first and third laws of motion. These are not derived by experiment nor equational wishful thinking - they are logical certainties, derived from the very core of our cognitive conscience. That is to say, they are logical truths, or in other words, they are first principles.
N: [] I can see that you are setting the stage to use these collision based interactions to build concepts like mass and charge.
M= That's correct.
L: Chat Room MM2: Airman and Lloyd will discuss in this room while monitoring Room MM1 at http://us22.chatzy.com/96918077779816
A: What is the basic identity or particle or force, what have you
- The substance is still without form
L: In MV's earlier paper he made it sound like there is aether, but there are 2 kinds of photons, which are different from aether. Did you notice that?
A: Yes. And the photons were emitted by electrons, But MV is building the basics at present
N: I think the original paper said photons were patterns in the aether, not real particles themselves
A: photons being massless
A: MV never said what was wrong with his first paper
A: If it affects/effects matter, then it can be experimented on
L: Everything might be susceptible to experiment psychically.
N: You always have to be mindful of the tools you are using and they are made from matter so any experiment would be indirect at best.
L: MV indicated last time that helical motion may not be part of his new model. Didn't he?
A: Motion is still prime in MV's model
N: I think this refers to the properties of the aether field [submatter field?] that form the basis of the properties of matter

17 January 2015, 1300PST
M = Michael, N = Nevyn, and A = Airman
M= Nevyn said that fundamental particles colliding by a glancing blow would be induced to spin.
- I disagree and urge you to think again. A fundamental particle must be considered as a solid indivisible body with no internal structure.
- Furthermore it must exist and move within Completely Empty Space. Its environment provides it with no outside force effects, no radiative signals and no friction of any kind.
- The effect of collision on such a particle would result only in a change of direction. There are no sub-components or internal structure or external forces by which to set up a spinning action.
- A change of direction would result in a different area of its surface becoming its leading face. But between collisions there is no source of forces from which to posit the formation of a spin. []
- In considering the "vacuum field" that is the mediating agent for the action-at-a-distance force effects by which matter interacts, we can only assume that all vacuum field particles are identical in size and speed.
. [Lloyd's comment: Action at a distance is nonsense. And objects without mass would surely interpenetrate, rather than collide.]
M= By my unpublishable estimation, we should likely consider vacuum field particles to be likely separated from one another by at least 8 or 9 or more orders of magnitude times their radius - imagine meter wide objects separated by 100,000 km.
M= If particles are travelling at the same speed, collision will result in a mutual change of direction as dictated by Newton's Third Law - there will be no transfer of energy - there will never be a transfer of energy!!!!!! []
M= The evidence is, such as we have it, that the universe operates at only one speed: c. If vacuum particles are not all moving at c, and instead exchange energy between spin and linear motion, then we should expect light to travel at between zero and 2c.
M= We must assume perfectly elastic collision, since we cannot make any legitimate claim for compressability. We must assume no deformation and perfectly elastic collision - the only other choice is to arbitrarily select a number we want
M= Into this arena of empty space and vacuum field particles we can add two more sizes of particle: electrons and protons. This is the entirety of the forms of substance: just three particle sizes
M= Protons are 1836 times the size of electrons (that would be surface area, not volume) and electrons would be larger than vacuum particles by 10-20 orders of magnitude []
M= Proton!. Protons are 1836 times the size of electrons
M= MASS: mass is resistance to travel of electrons (and protons M= Vacuum particles, electrons and protons all MOVE at c, at all times (and they are fundamental solid structureless particles, so they cannot spin either)
- Because all particles are moving at the same speed there is no transfer or exchange of energy and all collisions result only in changes of direction
M= [] An electron is "moving" in a perfectly straight line through absolutely empty space. A vacuum particle comes along and they collide. Because they are moving at the same speed (of c) there is no transfer of energy, but both particles change direction (Newton's Third Law)
- Obviously, the vacuum particle gets the thick end of the direction change.
M= Now introduce upwards of 10^22 vacuum particles a second to collide with the electron
M= Because the electron is moving and so is moving in a particular direction it experience collisions in several different ways with regard to changes of direction.
M= Conceptually it is related to Brownian Motion, but with some important differences.
- Because the vacuum field has no forces acting between the particles, they are not in any way associated to each other. This means that the vacuum particle field is a randomly moving field - homogeneous and isotropic, but random
M= The leading face experiences "hard" collisions, because its speed and the vacuum particle speed are added, which results in a greater change of direction. The vacuum field is perfectly homogeneous and isotropic so the electron receives the same number of collisions from all directions.
M= [] Firstly, previous analyses have assumed that the matter particle was being accelerated by the mechanical field (you can find this usually as a criticism of pushing gravity models).
- However, as I have already said, the matter particle is already MOVING at c and there is no energy exchange and so no change of speed
- The only change is changes of direction.
- The second correction comes from the assumption that matter particles move in straight lines.
- To clarify: between collisions the electron is moving through completely empty space and so moves in a straight line. However, because the electron experiences leading face collisions as "harder", producing a greater change of direction, the direction it is moving in is constantly being adjusted.
M= [] Airman, "The electron is vibrating at c" yes
M= Furthermore, the vacuum particles colliding along the electron's line of motion (at the front and at the back) will be reflected almost directly backwards along their paths and as this happens with consecutive collisions it produces a pattern of reflected vacuum particles that matches the electron's helical (or zig-zag) motion.
- This helical pattern of reflected vacuum particles stands out amongst the otherwise isotropic white noise of the field. We call this pattern "charge".
- As the electron moves through the field, there will naturally be random confluences of collisions to one side or the other. So although its generally trajectory might be categorized as helical it would still be MOVING in all directions over a given period of time.
M= We do have some data about the electron charge radius and the fine structure constant, so the electron moves around in a helix about 10^21 times a second. Think of it as vibrating at a rate of 10^21 times a second.
N: But if a particle experiences motion in all directions then it does not actually move anywhere, it just vibrates on the spot.
M= [] "How would we get an actual velocity from equal motion in all directions?" You start with interaction with other matter.
M= The disturbance caused by other matter introduces a non-isotropic variance in the field. []
M= The variation in the field, that is charge, is "emitted" with a helical pattern. This gives a different road of hard collisions for the electron to roll along.
- The non-isotropic changes in the field come from the effect of other matter.
M= The particularly interesting thing about charge is that it is emitted with a helical distribution. And the electron receiving is prone to be "forced" into a helical pattern of motion.
M= Also, instead of thinking in terms of collision rates, try to think in terms of rate of collision change of direction - where are the harder collisions coming from? [] think about the direction it is traveling in at any given instant.
M= As it veers in a new direction it has a slightly different leading face which is met with harder collisions leading to another slight change of direction.
M= [] The notion of rolling along a track of hard collisions is actually quite accurate
M= [] It is spinning due to the constant effect of mechanical collision
M= The general interaction with the field produces a messy helical motion.
- It goes every which way. So picture a cloud of helices (or is that helixes)
M= Think of this as its intrinsic helical motion.
- Accelerated to a "velocity" it would have another larger "velocity helix"
M= Only when it is accelerated to maximum velocity, so that it is travelling along its intrinsic helix would both intrinsic and velocity helix coincide
- "So if it had no 'velocity' as we measure it, would it be moving around in a sphere? Since it has motion in all directions."
- Yes, we would call this absolute zero - but the electron is still moving at c and still emitting/reflecting a coherent pattern into the field.
M= Temperature is simply motion. In an atomic or molecular context it results (I see your comment) in a jiggling motion
M= [] Temperature of atomic structures is a different matter, and is where the concept of temperature comes from

N: Michael, making something spin aside, why would a spinning object stop spinning without some external force applied? Why does it need constant input but a velocity does not?
M= [] "Mass is substance and velocity is motion." No, neither of these are "real", they are both emergent!
- "why would a spinning object stop spinning..."
- The question should be asking is "How could a fundamental particle spin?"
M= Visualise two bodies (particles if you like), attached/joined by some method. This is a description of a simple composite body.
- Let me highlight that; COMPSITE body
- One body/particle is traveling/moving, but is also attached to the other. The second body also wants to travel, but is attached to the first. In this scenario, a spin around a centre could be envisaged.
M= If the vacuum particle field (the mechanical field of particles that surround matter) were removed, then electrons and protons would also travel/move in perfectly straight lines and would also not be capable of spin.
M= [] I could not objectively justify the spin about "a centre" for fundamental particles.
N: As I described last week, when a particle experiences 2 forces on opposite sides, in near opposite directions, spin is created.
- While it takes 2 forces to create the spin, it doesn't need any more input to keep spinning.
M= NO, I just don't see how you can justify this assertion.
- It is a fundamental, perfectly solid, absolutely structureless and componentless particle body.
M= By what logic can you assert that it can be sub-divided into different, and thus separate, parts that are antagonistic to each other.
- You are describing the dynamics of a composite body - a body of two or more parts, associated together by a system of forces.
M= "The whole surface becomes a place to attach velocity vectors." Again NO. The surface and the interior are inextricably linked - there is no discontinuation between the surface and any part of the interior.
M= If two or more points on the surface are simultaneously contacted, then there is a net effect to be accounted for, but there is no justification for assigning spin about a central point.
M= "You are assuming a massless particle. If it has mass then a collision at the tangent will induce spin because of that mass." And you have NOT defined mass. You are using it as an intrinsic property.
M= Well, maybe it's time to explain what mass is.
M= As a matter particle moves through and is jostled by the vacuum field it experiences a resistance to motion.
M= That resistance to motion is ONLY in the direction in which it is moving.
M= Yes, quite right - in opposition to the direction in which it is moving.
- Given the influence of other matter particles - via variances/fluctuations/p​atterns in the field - it may assume a general direction of "travel" in one particular direction - which we recognise as velocity
- Thus the resistance to "travel" through the field is associated with and proportional to its velocity.
M= [] A particle/body moving in a preferred direction would be "observed" to have a velocity - a speed in a particular direction.
- Since it is moving in that direction for more of the time than in any other direction, its resistance to travel is "concentrated" in that direction []
- A matter particle cannot move in a perfectly straight line through the field - it is forced into a helical trajectory. At slower "velocities" it is still "moving" in all directions, whilst at the same time it has a general drift/trend of travel in one particular direction.
- The fastest it can travel through the field is limited to an intrinsic helical trajectory - whereby it is moving along that helix in only one direction.
- Of course, the fact of moving in a helix means that it is only fully moving in its direction of travel 50% of the time. This is the origin of 1/2mv^2. The spin of matter is the "spin" of its helix of travel.
- Anyhow, it is moving in that one particular direction - which means its resistance to travel in that particular direction. If you wanted to change its direction of travel, or to change its speed of travel, you have to deal with its resistance to travel.
- That resistance to travel is associated with its "velocity".
M= [] I think you can visualise a particle "moving" along a helical path, such that it is "traveling" in a particular direction.
- The actual speed of motion of the particle is c - along the helix. The velocity of travel in a particular direction depends on how much the helix is pointed in that "direction of travel".
N: That gives the particle 2 velocities which is what I was doing above and you didn't like it.
M= No, this is the whole of the particle moving along its intrinsic helix at c. There is a logical separation here of particle and helix.
- The physical particle is moving at c.
M= The fundamental, and only "speed" of motion of all particles is c.
M= c, by definition, and quite correctly, is a velocity.
M= The helix diameter is referred to as "charge radius" - and is often called or thought of as the radius of matter particles.
M= The "charge" signal that "radiates" away from a matter particle, is a pattern of perturbation in the field.
- It is the fact of the pattern that distinguishes it from the white noise of the field and leads to a reaction from "receiving" matter particles.
M= The receiving matter particles are deemed to have been affected by "charge". And are also deemed to have issued/emitted their own "charge".
- The significant efficacy of this charge reaction is referred to as an "electric" effect - hence the term "electric charge".
- Electric and magnetic effects stem from this "charge".
- Anyway - back to MASS.
M= In order to affect a particle with "velocity" (not its velocity of motion along its helical trajectory thru the field, but its velocity "across" cosmological space.
- The velocity that us humans recognise as "travel".
M= A particle's/body's velocity of travel is what gives it mass. It is the resistance to "travel" - to overall motion in a particular direction - that is mass.
- To change/affect a body's velocity of travel, you have to accelerate it - change its "speed" along the same directional vector, or change its direction of travel.
M= [] An acceleration must deal with the body's present resistance to travel - which is a function of its velocity of travel.
M= No, I am trying to draw a distinction between "motion at c" and "travel at a given velocity as recognised by us gawky apes".
- We associate "inertia" with being a resistance to acceleration and we quantify inertia as mass: F=ma
- However, that mass is an emergent quantity associated with a body's "velocity of travel".
- So when a body has no discernable velocity, i.e it is at rest, then any interaction with it that elicits an acceleration only encounters its "rest mass".
M= When a body has a very high "velocity of travel" then any attempt to accelerate it encounters its "relativistic" mass.
- "What is its rest mass if mass is only overcoming its current motion?" Mass is only encountered, when one body is affecting, i.e. accelerating, another.
M= The actual "rest" mass is a theoretical number at the bottom of a graph
- (Relax, there is no relativity involved)
M= Any body has some sort of "velocity of travel". ANY interaction with that body, must, quite definitionally, be an acceleration. As such we associate, inertia, and therefore mass with acceleration.
N: [] But saying 'rest mass' implies no motion, at least to me.
- Well, no travel.
M= However, a body must be traveling through the vacuum field - there is no escaping this reality - therefore it has a resistance to travel in whatever direction it is traveling.
- "Well, no travel." - well if it was at rest (i.e. moving at c in a very compact space) then it wouldn't be traveling, until you accelerated it - which would happen as soon as you attempt any interaction.
N: It is the moving at c while not traveling that is a problem. I can accept that with spin but not without it.
M= Well lets go back to saying that it is "vibrating" at c.
- For an electron, we might be talking about a particle of say 10^-30m vibrating (or moving at c) in a space of 10^-12m (the "radius" of an electron).
- That would be like a human "vibrating" around a space of 100,000,000,000,000 km
- So yes the electron has traveled 10^-12m, but, in interactional terms with other matter, that 10^-12m is considered to "be the electron".
- So, whilst "at rest", the electron (moving at c along its field induced helix) is confined to that sphere of space of 10^-12m.
- The MASS of the particle is its resistance to its "velocity of travel" through the field.
- When an electron is moving along its helix, where the helix is in a straight line (not a whizzy cloud of helix), then it is traveling at its physically maximum possible velocity - which for electrons is 99.99997% of c.
- The electron is "moving" at c, but with a travel velocity of 99.99997% c. At "rest", the electron is moving at c, with a travel velocity of zero - it is moving within the confines of its charge radius.
- The electron is made of some sort of substance - something that is not nothing. However, we cannot measure or quantify that amount of substance - we can only measure and quantify its interactional resistance to travel.
M= It cannot collide directly with other matter - the collision is performed by proxy by the field - that is, it is "mediated" by the field.

M= "Sorry, I'm used to calling it the charge field, which I think is a better term than vacuum field as it is not a vacuum."
- No, it should be called the charge/gravity/light field
- Vacuum means devoid of electrons and protons, but quite obviously, inside atoms - the spaces between the nucleus and the surrounding electrons and also the space between protons and "neutrons" - there is also vacuum. []
- so if we look at Mathis' basic "spin" here http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf and wave.wmv . First of all it should, I hope, be obvious that this is nonsense. The only way that a particle could possibly move like that is if it had another underlying field acting upon it - the aether medium fails for a similar reason. []
M= "Isn't the resistance to travel the same thing as underlying field?"
- That is exactly what I am describing. Larger "matter" particles experience a resistance to travel through the (smaller and vastly more numerous) vacuum/sub-field particles.
M= Ask yourself, how might an electron/proton behave if it were caught in such a circumstance?
- Instead of seeking for "stacked spins", you should be looking at "stacked wavelengths"
M= The resistance to "travel" thru the field means that matter has a "mass" that is proportional to its "velocity" (thru the field).
- This effect is described by the Lorentz transformation and very wrongly ascribed as "relativistic mass"
A: Michael, After reading your paper, I believe now that gyroscopic stability is itself a form of "mass"
N: [] What causes the very first motion, no matter how that motion happens?
M= [] We must assume that the universe of "substance" (that which is not the nothingness of completely empty volumetric space) is very very very ancient
- Given this assumption, it stands to reason that all motion/movement/travel of all the particles (of whatever description) have reached a state of thermal equilibrium
N: That is dodging the question. The question is not what state it has reached but how it started. You have assumed motion from the very beginning. You won't allow spin because you can't see how it could form but I ask the same question of linear motion. How could it form?
M= That is, ALL particles are in motion at exactly the same speed - entropy is maximised
M= Without linear motion across volumetric space, there is absolutely no possibility of interaction
N: Actually, not true. If all particles are expanding then they will interact without actually moving from their locations. This will also give rise to linear velocity once they start touching each other. Of course, it doesn't explain the expansion.
M= If that is so then all volumetric space will be quickly filled with "particle substance" and then shortly after no motion of any sort will ever be possible.
M= One specific property of the universe is that light, gravity and electromagnetism all propagate from their sources at the very specific and constant speed of c
M= "The effect of gravity is thought to be instantaneous, since if it was as slow as c all orbits would be unstable" - I have heard this oft repeated, but the unstable orbits argument holds no water. - An effectively "emitted" gravitational influence is always ahead of the bodies that it influences
M= This "instantaneous" nonsense comes from a false interpretation of Newtonian gravity
M= "The charge field" as you refer to it - vacuum particle field or sub-field, as I call it, must be responsible for all action-at-a-distance effects: gravity, electromagnetism, light

M= Linear Motion is logically required, otherwise there is no possibility of interaction
M= Collision is logically required - it is the only possible form of interaction
M= Existence must be accepted - after all we are here. Attempts to invoke a specific point(s) of creation from nothing cannot be objectively supported. []
M= Our world and our brains operate strictly on flat 3-dimensional Euclidean volumetric space. []
M= Spin motion of fundamental particles cannot be logically supported. Axial spin can only be supported by the mutual-interaction of bodies that make up larger composite bodies. Non-axial spin is also a possible result of repeated collision.
M= A, let's restrict ourselves only to a field of fundamental particles - B Photons if you will
M= I don't see any validity in moving reference frames - not in any theory
M= A, no. The smaller particles of the vacuum-field/sub-field/mediating-field (roughly the equivalent of B-Photons) do not experience mass
- Only matter "experiences" mass as it moves through the field of smaller particles
N: [] Michael. You have different sized particles but since they do not experience mass, they would act the same, regardless of size. I am struggling to see how massless particles would collide. What effects do they have on each other, especially when they are different sizes.
M= An analogy might be drag/fricition, when moving though a fluid medium, such as air or water
M= Three particles sizes: not only by radial size, but by the quantity of substance contained within their volume
M= No not mass - we cannot legitimately attribute "mass" to particles with which there is no possibility of direct examination
M= [] the underlying field (the charge field or B-photon field) is the vaccum-field that medaites the interactions of matter
N: [] force is motion in collision.
M= Yes, but you are inventing some weird Riemanian type of volumetric space - you need the nothingness of volumetric space between b-photons to be expanding too
M= Because if it did not then all of volumetric space would be seized solid with expanded particles
A: As we mentionrd last week, the photons keep everything apart too
- The charge field is much stronger than gravity at closer distance
N: You yourself have defined space as nothing, no thing. I do as well. So how can we run out of it?
N: [] I know what a volume of 5cm^3 is.
N: Yes, but the volume is not real. It is not part of the model. It has no impact on anything in the model.
N: Yes, space can have no properties.
- Yes, but you can't define that volume of empty space. There is no limit to nothing.
N: Not at all. Separation is a measurement of things, not of no-things.
N: [] it does not measure the no-things between, it actually measures a length between things, not the actual space itself.
M= "Space is nothing, no thing, the void, emptiness. It can have no properties because only 'things' can have properties." This is incorrect. Distance and volume are logical concepts - they are not measurements