Hi Aurino,

this continues on from the post re: evolution which turned into physics modelling and more...

Peter Lynds has got the attention of the physics world with a paper that claims that if two items are moving relative to each other you cannot precisely determine the position of one (seems reasonable as if you could calibrate position of one you would have to have no error margin that is no relative motion of the other?).

Consider;

Object "A" moving right to left.

Object "B" relatively moving left to right.

How does "B" know that "A" is moving?

You need a common background...
If you are in a train at the station and another train pulls out and for a momment you think your train is moving backwards: the fixed window frame in your train sliding past the fixed frame in the other gives away the movement?

But if there was not two fixed marks on one of the trains, and at least one fixed mark on the other.... how know there is at least relative movement?

How do you know the background isn't moving along with "A" or "B"?

The two marks on your train (beginning and ending of movement) allows the one mark on the other to be seen changing from one side of your window frame-sides (the two marks say as window sides) to the other.

The other train's length (2-ness: it could be seen as a beginning and ending; as two marks; as a window frame..) may be collpased to a single mark moving between your two marks: the gap of your window can be thought of as "space", the calibration of that space by at least relative moving other train as a mark: can be thought of as space in space (time)?

A common background of mutual giving of space to each other; of shared space; seems required to have at least relative motion?

If background moved with "B"; "A"'s movement would be fixed movement (as "B" now defined as stationary against background with both moving relative to "A" so just "A" moving against background).

That is curious: Relative movement looks the same as fixed movement unless you can differentiate a background to both movements?

**************If "A" COULD be moving in addition to "B + background" moving: then "A" could be moving relative to "B" (and not just moving fixed against "B stationary on background".

You may have:

"A: moving left; background moving less or more left than "A";
so background moving differently left than "A" (Or at same rate but at an angle so approaching or receding and seen to be slower or faster than "A" in side-on perspective): "B" is relatively moving right.

But from "A"'s perspective:

"B" might be moving at a slower or faster rate than the background (Or appear to be if it is approaching or receding at an angle to side-on).

We have a scenario:

Object "A" moving left;
Object "B" moving right;

A shared background to both is not necessarily locked on to either; so you do not know if motion is fixed (one item fixed to background: moving together) or relative (both items moving relative each other, background moving differently.

What can we say about the background?

Background:

it gets some bounded stillness by minus some of B's movement (- from B movement)

it gets some bounded stillness by minus some of A's relative-to-B movement (- from A relative to B
movement)

How much of each contributes?
Other perspective:

it gets some bounded stillness by minus some of A's movement (- from A movement)

it gets some bounded stillness by minus some of B's relative-to-A movement (- from B relative to A movement)

Not sure about this but....(Think of this as an offer wave: without your response it's up in the air................................??????????????)

Place TWO MARKS and call it background?
Call it "the square root of minus one FRAME given to background?"

The definition of the background against the relative A and B movements seems entangled?

How untangle it?

At least have minus one UNIT given to background (between the marks).

Have:

- from B movement
- from A relative to B movement
- from A movement
- from B relative to A movement

gives MINUS ONE UNIT to background.

AGAIN:

- from B movement
- from A relative to B movement
- from A movement
- from B relative to A movement

gives MINUS ONE UNIT to background.

Now have: 8 in 4 mixing (electro-weak)
4 in 8 unmixing ? (strong magnetic???)

Collapse the two cycles of -,-,-,- so have one -,-,-,- and a difference: get 5 view of 4 (hold that constant in new cycle: get 20 constants of mixing minus one mixing of constants (current view) so 19 constants in physics standard model of "varying errors".......

"Lose yourself in the music the moment...." Eminem

?

AGAIN:

- from B movement
- from A relative to B movement
- from A movement
- from B relative to A movement

gives MINUS ONE UNIT to background.

With three units now given to background: maybe 6 quark flavours appear? (mixing of 3 units and A and B perspectives?)(A,B view of three units as colour charge? A,B as 4 (-,-,-,-) in one unit seeing other 4 and other 4: 8 gluons?
Three units as one (time) view of A or B as time reversal (matter, anti-matter)?
??????

uncertainty of 4 out of three 4s: gives two floating 5s: the 5s as boundary and curvature of 4 (curved pentagon model of universe?)

??????

AGAIN:

- from B movement
- from A relative to B movement
- from A movement
- from B relative to A movement

gives MINUS ONE UNIT to background.

Now have four units to background.

This gives coupling constant j?
Bias n (uncoupling?) the three-units of background gives 3-ness so self referent direction to defining background. A fourth unit gives optional direction so possibility of coupling (j) to maintain direction (make it "mass") or uncoupling (changing direction) making it charged (n)?

AGAIN:

- from B movement
- from A relative to B movement
- from A movement
- from B relative to A movement

A fifth unit to background allows "charge" to have "mass" (so "real electron") and "mass" to have "charge" (so real proton)? Or mass to mix with charge (neutron)???????????????

Three units to background: gives direction; a fourth can make that fuzzy (give it mass) so give it properties of "electron"? (splits into generalisation and bias; that is electron with charge).

But the coupling view of 4 units to background allows for "positron" (electron going backwards in time)?

With a fifth unit to background: 3-ness (direction) and 4-ness (scale of bias in specific direction say) can mix giving quantum spin model with scale/direction mixing.

All bit muddly but I think physics can be mapped quite a bit; see post on "Solar flares and predicting"

Earlier posts give quite clear sub-atomic particle map.

-Regards,

Alan