Movement is the key

[Thought]

The following are some thoughts I put together over the last couple of days and called the Natural Law of Movement.

 

My knowledge of science is very limited, so this stems from my imagination. My knowledge is so limited infact that at times I may simply be stating the obvious, however i have never read anything that has gathered things together in this fashion.

 

From my perspective it is about putting an unfamiliar spin on the way we view the Universe.

 

I'm not interested in long discussions about technical details, as by default technical detail means that such detials will not encompass a total truth. I am posting it here in an attempt to find out where I am clearly logically wrong, as it is incomplete and not always logically consistent.

 

 

Science and Movement

 

All other physical laws are caused by the Natural Law of Movement.

 

Physics is the study of movement, using maths.

 

Time is the movement of matter within space and between objects. Movement creates time, for without movement there is no time, the faster the movement of an object the faster the time relative to slower objects.

 

Without movement gravity would not exist.

 

Chemistry deals with the collision of different atomic materials moving at different speeds.

 

Different elements are created by differing speeds of movement, sometimes via the speed of atoms colliding with each other and sometimes by the external activity of material colliding with other material differing speeds.

 

Temperature is caused by the movement or lack of movement of matter within itself and outward.

 

The Universe

 

Personally I know we do not fully understand anything that is tiny and in wave pattern, even light. Indeed we do not fully understand anything physical at all.

 

The wave effect is just whatever it is that allows movement. It may not be a wave it may be some sort of spinning object with a form of perpetual motion.

 

It may also be that the entire universe just consists of differently combined units of positive and negative (as nouns), where energy/matter = groups of greater positiveness and negative=is what we think of as emptiness. We simply can’t recognise that emptiness is ‘full’ because we consist almost entirely of positive matter.

 

I believe the universe and everything in it pulses from empty to full, it actually has to for it to be infinite in size and time. We see this action at the macro level in everything we are able to recognise. It is a universal principle. The underlying cause of all things that exist is movement.

 

Another option is that matter may form out of so called emptiness, purely because matter is that part of the void which spins at a slower speed than emptiness, and all different forms of matter and energy are created by different speeds of the spinning void, with the densest material having the lowest speed. The slower the void speed the more opportunity for the void to intertwine with itself. The universe may be like an air pressure system based on speed. Matter can move through the void only because there is no opportunity for matter to intertwine with the faster void and is repulsed, giving movement.

 

Or it could be the reverse of this whereby fast spin is what allows the creation of physical things because the action is so much greater - come to think about it and if what I've said below is correct, it is more likely to be the revers of the above...whatever...it is the principle of movement that counts.

 

The spectrum of existence may begin with a single wave thing that will automatically join with other wave things in a Fibonacci sequence when for whatever reason they come in contact with another wave. Different forms of energy/matter form when different combinations of wave sets can merge into each other like keys in locks.

 

They continue to join until collisions of larger units of matter of a certain configuration hit them and break them apart, somewhat like how the sun produces light/radiation but at an even smaller level.

 

As the cause and effect process applies to all individual things it is also likely to apply to universe as a whole. Physical negativeness is the cause and positiveness is the effect. Scientifically, I think that understanding the nature of black holes is paramount to understanding the nature of the universe and its timelessness. I’m thinking that anti-matter and black holes are collections of combined units of negativeness(causes), and that all other things are collections of positiveness (effects). Above these sits the totally of the cause and effect process which is movement. If say a black hole is created by the immediate collapse of an enormous star, then the speed of that collapse causes the positive matter to turn into negative matter. Although negativeness exists everywhere, it cannot group without the application of intense speed. This occurs because the implosional speed is so great that the denseness of the black hole allows very little movement at the sub-atomic level under the crust of the black hole. Negativeness is the near absence of movement. With a complete absence of movement the universe cannot exist. So when a black hole has sucked up all or most of the surrounding positive matter over trillions of years and changed it into aggregated negative matter, due to near absence of movement the negative matter explodes into positive matter, aka the big bang and the cycle starts again.

 

Why would it explode, I think the key may be the word ‘near’, perhaps what actually happens is that the black hole crust is weakened sufficiently on one side while another side remains active, and the black hole structure becomes imbalanced, causing a chain reaction of movement. The black hole becomes unbalanced as there are competing black holes sucking up positive matter, so on one side an old black hole may still be sucking up positive material while on the other side a completing black hole has removed the matter that would keep the black hole active.

 

Actually, a more probable scenario for the cause of an explosion is that competing black holes collide at sufficient speed to tear them apart.

 

Another one is that black holes spin because the surrounding matter is not in a perfect circle, so as they such up material the force of the material slamming into it from a particular angle cause it spin in a particular direction. Eventually though this material has all been sucked into the black hole and its momentum dies. The core of the black hole still has some movement and once the rotational speed has slowed to a sufficient extent, then the constrained matter can then break out as there is no competing rotational speed to keep it in place. Like an atomic bomb it may only take the release of a few anti-atoms to set up the chain reaction.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"Time is the movement of matter within space and between objects. Movement creates time, for without movement there is no time, the faster the movement of an object the faster the time relative to slower objects."

No, faster you go, slower time is.

"Chemistry deals with the collision of different atomic materials moving at different speeds."

No, it deals with chemicals

"The wave effect is just whatever it is that allows movement. It may not be a wave it may be some sort of spinning object with a form of perpetual motion. "

No, perpetual motion is impossible!

[JaKiri]

Perpetual motion is possible at lightspeed, because there is literally no time.

 

It's handy that there's no time, otherwise it might be possibly for exchange particles to decay, and that would cause no ends of problems.

[VendingMenace]

i thought light decayed into two other particles and then recombined to form photons again. And that the permeativity of a substance was a measure of that? Perhaps i am just smoking crack

 

I heard this from a physisist friend on mine. I trust that he was right, when he was telling me this, so if it is wrong i must be remembering incorrectly

[Thought]

Quote: No, faster you go, slower time is.

Quote: Perpetual motion is possible at lightspeed, because there is literally no time.

 

Is not this just a theory of Einstein? You know some people think his theory is not *fully* correct. In fact it cannot be as it has propositions.

 

Anyway I think the faster you go, it is not actually that time is slower, but that time simply *appears* to be slower to an observer due to the effect of becoming more equal to speed of light. Simply an appearance.

 

Quote: "Chemistry deals with the collision of different atomic materials moving at different speeds."

Quote: No, it deals with chemicals

 

Of course that is correct at the macro level, but the purpose of my post is to show that what underlines that process at the root level is essentially movement.

 

Quote: "The wave effect is just whatever it is that allows movement. It may not be a wave it may be some sort of spinning object with a form of perpetual motion. "

Quote: No, perpetual motion is impossible!

 

Well I'm suggesting that both the largest thing, the Universe and the smallest matter both have perpetual motion. If the Universe did not have some form of perpetual motion, at some stage it would cease would it not?

 

The matter within atoms *perhaps* has some form of perpetual motion - unless osmeone can tell me what makes things spin around a nucleus.

[Thought]

i thought light decayed into two other particles and then recombined to form photons again

 

I wonder what would cause light to decay.

 

Perhaps it is not decay though, but rather that light can accellerate to a point where it breaks apart into negative matter when it hits something smaller.

 

I believe everything that exists is part of a spectrum of matter. Perhaps light itself is really so large in comparision to the smallest matter that the colour spectrum one sees is actually millions of different 'smallest-thing-combinations'. This woud make an atom the equivalent of a solar system, which is entirely feasible to me if one reverses it and looks at the solar system in relation to the observed universe.

[Thought]

A bit more detail

 

Heat

 

Heat is a figment of our imagination.

 

What causes heat - in my view heat is simply the degree of ability the atomic structure and sub atomic structure has to break down or combine. The breakdown of this structure or its formation into a different compound results in the transfer of matter internally and outward.

 

Take petrol for example. The application heated oxygen via say a match results in a change in the atomic structure of the immediate vicinity of the application. It becomes more volatile resulting in a chain reaction throughout the rest of the petrol. The lit match also appears to have heat, but only because the striking of that match against a certain form of atomic structure creates volatility within that immediate area, which again via a chain reaction sets the whole match tip alight. The striking of a match does not cause a chain reaction in the air, so that the entire atmosphere is heated up, only because the right match of speed and structure to cause atoms/sub-atoms to disintegrate does not occur.

 

It is like the cogs on a transmission with a million gears. You just can’t get a the smallest gear to seamlessly flow into the largest gear without the application of sufficient speed, you'll crunch the gears, however if you slam the gear into place it will often work. You have the application of movement and structure. Again what holds the structure in place is the same, speed and structure -each atom/sub-atom consists of bits spinning at different speeds and with different structures. When something external is bought into the structure, as per chemistry AND by the application or removal of force, like in the manufacture of diamonds, compounds can change form. Note that chemistry often requires force, even the pouring of a chemical into a beaker and stirring it is a force. It is the moleculare configuration that determines what goes with what, and what are molecular configurations but keys and locks.

 

Everything is created by a chain reaction, as everything is cause and effect and all cause have past causes. Thus we have the butterfly flapping its wings saying.

 

We feel heat/cold only through our sense of touch, which is a chemical reaction, ultimately though what underlies that chemical reaction is changes is structural positiveness and negativeness.

 

Gravity

 

Gravity is an effect of the cause of matter transfer. It does not inherently exist as a force.

 

Rather the appearance of gravity is the net balance of these competing movements:

 

1. A structure breaking down and emitting 'something' from itself that hits something else causing the object to move in the direction in which it strikes the object, as per light/radiation from a star

 

and

 

2. The sum of the internal collapse of it's atomic structure causing it to shrink and become more dense, causing a form of vacuum, which allows a smaller or less dense object to travel down the path of least distance towards it.

 

and

 

3. The ability of the structure that is being bombarded to match up with the material that is being emitted from the other structure. Taking the Sun and Earth as an example, the light that is emitted from the sun being of such a small size and travelling at such a speed has a greater degree of ability to force itself into the structure it hits. The ability of light to move the object it hits in the same direction is decreased because of the ever so small size of the light energy. The speed of the light waves hit at such force that it easily forces itself into the slower spins of matter on earth. Thus, for example, on the crust there is light, but at the bottom of the sea there is little. Also some light will hit and will be reflected in other directions. Being successful in slamming a gear into place does not work all the time.

 

and

 

4. The sum of the above causes from all other objects in the universe form all different angles, with the degree of effect varying due to distance and the size and density of each object creating different angles and quantities of matter striking another.

 

and

 

5. The degree of positiveness or negativeness of the source and target objects (really this fits into points 1-3 above, it is not really a separate cause, but has been thrown in to account for the gravitational distortions proven to exist). Collections of positive matter will produce different results than collections of negative matter (say anti-matter or a black hole). It may be the case that all matter consists of different degrees of positive and negative matter, highly likely when you consider electricity and the internal structure of atoms. Note: As pure guesswork, I apply the same reasoning to what we consider empty space, I just assume it is negative matter at its most basic level - it is not compound matter, unlike anything we regard as physical. So called energy might just be compounded negative matter, with a greater number of negative bits than positive.

[JaKiri]

VendingMenace said in post # :

i thought light decayed into two other particles and then recombined to form photons again. And that the permeativity of a substance was a measure of that? Perhaps i am just smoking crack

 

I heard this from a physisist friend on mine. I trust that he was right, when he was telling me this, so if it is wrong i must be remembering incorrectly

 

That's Zero Point Energy, that's something else entirely.

[JaKiri]

Thought said in post # :

i thought light decayed into two other particles and then recombined to form photons again

 

I wonder what would cause light to decay.

 

Perhaps it is not decay though, but rather that light can accellerate to a point where it breaks apart into negative matter when it hits something smaller.

 

I believe everything that exists is part of a spectrum of matter. Perhaps light itself is really so large in comparision to the smallest matter that the colour spectrum one sees is actually millions of different 'smallest-thing-combinations'. This woud make an atom the equivalent of a solar system, which is entirely feasible to me if one reverses it and looks at the solar system in relation to the observed universe.

 

Light never accelerates. It always moves at exactly the same speed, in exactly the same direction (through 4 dimensional space).

 

And your solar system = atom thing doesn't actually work, because the electrons don't orbit the nucleus in the same sense as the planets orbit the sun.

 

Furthermore, it all becomes irrelevent at the planck length.

[JaKiri]

Thought said in post # :

Heat

 

Heat is a figment of our imagination.

 

Bollocks it is.

 

Thought said in post # :

What causes heat - in my view heat is simply the degree of ability the atomic structure and sub atomic structure has to break down or combine. The breakdown of this structure or its formation into a different compound results in the transfer of matter internally and outward.

 

The energy required for a bond to break/combine is bond strength. Something else entirely.

 

Thought said in post # :

Gravity

 

Gravity is an effect of the cause of matter transfer. It does not inherently exist as a force.

 

It does actually (excluding at certain levels of energy, but then every force combines, so it's pretty irrelevent to mention it except in a quest for precision), but carry on.

 

Thought said in post # :

1. A structure breaking down and emitting 'something' from itself that hits something else causing the object to move in the direction in which it strikes the object, as per light/radiation from a star

 

There is a theorised exchange particle for gravity (called the Graviton, appropriately enough), which is radiated from a mass like photons are radiated from a charged body. But decay has nothing to do with it.

 

Thought said in post # :

2. The sum of the internal collapse of it's atomic structure causing it to shrink and become more dense, causing a form of vacuum, which allows a smaller or less dense object to travel down the path of least distance towards it.

 

Only in the sense that there exists a gravitational potential field, but not in the sense that you mean it.

 

Thought said in post # :

3. The ability of the structure that is being bombarded to match up with the material that is being emitted from the other structure. Taking the Sun and Earth as an example, the light that is emitted from the sun being of such a small size and travelling at such a speed has a greater degree of ability to force itself into the structure it hits. The ability of light to move the object it hits in the same direction is decreased because of the ever so small size of the light energy. The speed of the light waves hit at such force that it easily forces itself into the slower spins of matter on earth. Thus, for example, on the crust there is light, but at the bottom of the sea there is little. Also some light will hit and will be reflected in other directions. Being successful in slamming a gear into place does not work all the time.

 

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.

 

Thought said in post # :

4. The sum of the above causes from all other objects in the universe form all different angles, with the degree of effect varying due to distance and the size and density of each object creating different angles and quantities of matter striking another.

 

See answer to three.

 

Thought said in post # :

5. The degree of positiveness or negativeness of the source and target objects (really this fits into points 1-3 above, it is not really a separate cause, but has been thrown in to account for the gravitational distortions proven to exist). Collections of positive matter will produce different results than collections of negative matter (say anti-matter or a black hole). It may be the case that all matter consists of different degrees of positive and negative matter, highly likely when you consider electricity and the internal structure of atoms. Note: As pure guesswork, I apply the same reasoning to what we consider empty space, I just assume it is negative matter at its most basic level - it is not compound matter, unlike anything we regard as physical. So called energy might just be compounded negative matter, with a greater number of negative bits than positive.

 

Black holes are positive mass. Anti matter is positive mass. Empty space is not empty (see: Zero Point Energy/The Quantum Fuzz)

[Thought]

MrL_JaKiri

 

Me: Heat is a figment of our imagination. ”

A: Bollocks it is.

 

My response: No corresponding reasoned answer has been given so this response can be ignored. I still consider it an observed effect, and any effect is not the cause of itself.

 

Me: What causes heat - in my view heat is simply the degree of ability the atomic structure and sub atomic structure has to break down or combine. The breakdown of this structure or its formation into a different compound results in the transfer of matter internally and outward. ”

A: The energy required for a bond to break/combine is bond strength. Something else entirely.

 

My response: Would then bond strength, not simply be a description of the degree of ability for something to break down due to it's molecular structure. Anything can be broken but it requires something physical to break it apart.

 

Me: Gravity is an effect of the cause of matter transfer. It does not inherently exist as a force. ”

A: It does actually (excluding at certain levels of energy, but then every force combines, so it's pretty irrelevant to mention it except in a quest for precision), but carry on.

 

My response: That is like saying gravity can sometimes exist without matter, but it usually requires matter. You are saying there are two forms of gravity, so this means gravity is not properly understood. IMO, for something to be inherent it must be able to have an existence of its own and it could not have two forms.

 

Me: A structure breaking down and emitting 'something' from itself that hits something else causing the object to move in the direction in which it strikes the object, as per light/radiation from a star ”

 

A: There is a theorised exchange particle for gravity (called the Graviton, appropriately enough), which is radiated from a mass like photons are radiated from a charged body. But decay has nothing to do with it.

 

My response: So you are admitting that there is an respectable theory that gravity exists because of something radiated, or moved out from a mass. For something to radiate outward its internal structure must change in some fashion, it doesn't do it because that is what it just does.

 

Me: The sum of the internal collapse of it's atomic structure causing it to shrink and become more dense, causing a form of vacuum, which allows a smaller or less dense object to travel down the path of least distance towards it. ”

A: Only in the sense that there exists a gravitational potential field, but not in the sense that you mean it.

 

My response: I'll look into that. It was a statement I was not entirely confident was accurate. I was wrong.

 

On another forum I made a couple of responses to some questions about my ideas, one section of which I talk briefly about the ether and light. I'll post them after this post.

 

After you've read them, this would be my response to your comment

 

Matter and energy such as light, can travel more or less effortlessly through any matter that exists in a unit of one, or very low combinations of units, purely because the larger matter cannot combine with the units of one. Perhaps all matter is in the form of the Fibonnacci sequence, which is as follows - 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,......

 

I would however alter the sequence to be as follows -

 

1 negative, 1 positive, the base units of matter, then 2, 3,5,8,13,21,34,....… in effect this would make the number of elements and the periodic table infinite and each more complex configuration would be of a degree density.

 

Units of one cannot easily combine with any of these numbers, without the application of speed, however perhaps units form sequences outside of the fibonnacci ratio that is what causes anti-matter.

 

I imagine lower level combinations of the fibonnacci sequence are things like radiation, light and so on. When I say lower level it might not be 2,3,5,8,13 but much, much larger numbers of units. The fact that light can form a colour spectrum would indicate so. That we can even recognise atomic structures probably means that the number of units are quire large. Tools are still being developed to look closer at sub-atomic structures.

 

Elements can group together to form gases liquid and solids, when groups of like size come into contact with each other, for instance Hydrogen might have 21 base units and oxygen 8 base units, but because there are two hydrogen atoms and only one oxygen atom, they don't fully combine to form a new 'element' they create a new substance. However what is this new substance but not simply a different form of matter, they could easily be called elements if we so wished.

 

That things may only join together in a fibonacci sequence might be a red herring, however I prefer to think that it is not otherwise I'm sure we would have discovered so many more base elements.

 

Here is a link about fibonacci in nature. I believe the things that are most common in nature tell us how to view all matter no matter how large or small.

 

http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

 

 

Anyway that enough from me, I need to think about how weight and the concept of infinity might apply to my hypothesis. I'm finding this of great assistance in learning more about science generally, but I still think the overall concept I am putting forth is correct way to look at things in a holistic fashion.

[Thought]

Very good questions again. I'll have a go. Your questions have been instructive.

 

Do you propose that movement just magically occurs with out any physics involved?

 

No. There is no magic. This is why singularities are not logically consistent and why I won't bother researching that. It presumes no cause, it presumes magic.

 

Physics does not cause movement or even explain it at it's base level, it explains and measures the process and allows predictions.

 

How does movement pass from one entity to the next with out touching so to speak?

 

I don't believe it does, as I believe everything is somehow interconnected, meaning everything is inter-reacting with something else. Research appears to be saying that that is the case.

 

Einstein seems to agree:

 

From the UNITheory site

"Albert Einstein - address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

 

- More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................

 

- Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

 

- According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

 

I think the ether he refers to is negative matter or matter at it most base level, matter with a structure of one, in which no material can combine and form recognisable matter without the application of intense speed, perhaps speed greater than the speed of light as what might occur with the explosion of a black hole or some other such cause. It makes sense that a big bang would spurt out material in all directions and that this material would initially mostly consist of material with a unit of one, being the 'ether'. The force of the explosion being so great that it breaks up all the material of the black hole into unit of one, except for that part of the material which is at the core hits other material during the process of the explosion and combines into units of two or more. Again it might be the reverse, where material does not form until it has slowed sufficiently to allow one unit to match up with another. In this scenario the ether in our immediate galaxy system (or sub universe) would mostly consist of material that was propelled from other black holes outside of our sub-universe.

 

I believe light to consist of more than one unit (so we get a colour spectrum), of many more than one and thus we can sense it and can travel through the negative matter. Negative matter is said to exist in the 'space' between individual atomic segments and the sub-atomic segments as well. What I refer to as negative matter may simply be all matter that exists in a unit of one, however I am inclined to think of matter being negative and positive, due to what electricity is.

 

Here is a description of Electric Charge, to me it all refers to changes in the configuration of material and any change in a material is caused by movement. The thing that causes this movement is the introduction of external matter being bought in that breaks the stasis of the material and changes the structure in some small way….or in the case of a nuclear explosion a large way . It is natural for things to balance out (as per the Law of Thermodynamics discussed in my next post and which your comment about entropy made me find…thanks for that). I see no reason for it not to be the basis of all the things we conceive of as energies and forces.

 

"Electric charge is a component of atoms. In other words, after we have broken an object into molecules, and broken the molecules into atoms, when we break the atoms apart we discover particles of electric charge. Charge is material, it is like atoms but it is one step lower than atoms. Objects are made of equal quantities of positive and negative charge, and objects stay together because of the attraction between the quantities of opposite charge inside them. Chemical bonds are electrical in nature.

 

Charge: it's not energy

Charge is not energy. A quantity of charge can have many different amounts of energy, and if you know the amount of charge, you have no knowledge of the amount of energy present. Charge and energy move differently: in AC cables the charges sit in one spot and slowly wiggle, while the energy flows along at almost the speed of light.

 

Charge is "poles"

When the positive and negative charges of matter are sorted out and pulled away from each other, "static electricity" is the result. When (+) is pulled away from (-), an invisible force field connects them and causes them to attract each other. This field is similar to magnetism in many ways, but it is not magnetism, it is called an Electrostatic Field, or "e-field." With magnetism, the lines of force spring from the north and south poles of magnets, and these lines seem to connect the opposite magnetic poles together. In Electrostatics, the electrical lines of force connect the (+) and (-) poles together.

 

Charge: it's not invisible

Charge is not invisible. Whenever light bounces off an object, it bounces off the outside of the atom, and the outside of an atom is made of negative charges. In other words, electric charge reflects light.

 

….when a significant portion of the positive charges in a block of Uranium become disconnected and fly away from each other, that's called a nuclear explosion.

 

Second post following

[Thought]

Part Two

 

 

If nothing interacts how do you get movement?

 

I did think of a sort-of-answer to this question, but it is circumstantial, so I'll save that for when I put something together re your previous question of "what started movement in the first place, which ultimately relates to 'what is infinity'. Geez .

 

If everything interacts how can you NOT get movement?

 

Precisely what I've been saying.

 

Everything does not interact with everything else in a direct fashion though. A movement of an atom in the most remote galaxy known or even 1mm away, of course has zero direct interaction and almost zero indirect action, but it does effect directly something in it's immediate vicinity, which goes on to effect ever so slightly the next thing and so on. That’s where the term convection comes from.

 

How do you answer questions about entropy?

 

I would refer to the Laws of Thermodynamics below. Lol, these laws are precisely what I was going on about.

 

Why didn't someone point me to them. Is this not just basic physics!!!!

 

I posted my initial post on another science forum and they haven't pointed this out either. Although it might be that no-one could be bothered, due to the problem of 'where would I start', but IMO it is circumstantial evidence that many scientists have become too far removed from the basics and perhaps even never fully understood the basics in the first place.

 

 

Thermodynamics Dictionary Definition: Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy.

 

This is where I deviate from that definition. I say it applies to everything and the universe as a whole, after all energy is matter and heat is an energy process and energy is simply a symbolic way of describing movement.

 

An explanation I got from another website on the laws of Thermodynamics.

 

Symmetry, Broken-Symmetry and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics

 

The laws of thermodynamics are special laws that sit above the ordinary laws of nature as laws about laws or laws upon which the other laws depend (Swenson & Turvey, 1991). It can be successfully shown that without the first and second laws, which express symmetry properties of the world, there could be no other laws at all.

 

The first law or the law of energy conservation which says that all real-world processes involve transformations of energy, and that the total amount of energy is always conserved expresses time-translation symmetry. Namely, there is something that unifies the world (constitutes it as a continuum) which if you go forward or backward in time remains entirely the same (Thought - except that the latter part of this statement is not possible).

 

It is, in effect, through this conservation or out of it that all real-world dynamics occurs, yet the first law itself is entirely indifferent to these changes or dynamics. As far as the first law is concerned, nothing changes at all, and this is just the definition of a symmetry, something that remains invariant, indifferent or unchanged given certain transformations, and the remarkable point with respect to the first law is that it refers to that which is conserved (the quantity of energy) or remains symmetric under all transformations. (I interpret this to mean that competing movements surrounding an object can and mostly do hold an object in place relative to other near objects. But this is only relative, as any object or group of objects is moving, s we see the universe expanding and contracting)

 

Although intuited at least as early as the work of the Milesian physicists, and in modern times particularly by Leibniz, the first law is taken to have been first explicitly "discovered" in the first part of the last century by Mayer, then Joule, and later Helmholz with the demonstration of the equivalence of heat and other forms of energy, and completed in this century with Einsteins's demonstration that matter is also a form of energy.

 

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated following Carnot's earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the "fall" or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law.

 

So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process.

 

Clausius coined the term "entropy" to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.

 

The active nature of the second law is intuitively easy to grasp and empirically demonstrate. If a glass of hot liquid, for example, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop.

 

A glass of liquid at temperature TI is placed in a room at temperature TII such that . The disequilibrium produces a field potential that results in a flow of energy in the form of heat from the glass to the room so as to drain the potential until it is minimized (the entropy is maximized) at which time thermodynamic equilibrium is reached and all flows stop.

 

Of important theoretical interest for this paper is the fact that Joule's experiment (Figure 2) while designed to show the first law unintentionally demonstrates the second too. As soon as the constraint is removed the potential produces a flow from the falling weight through the moving paddle through the thermometer. This is precisely the one-way action of the second law and the experiment depends upon it entirely. The measurement of energy only takes place through the lawful flow or time-asymmetry of the second law, and the point to underscore is that the same is true of every measurement process (Thought: No, not just measurement process, actually in everything). In addition, every measurement process also a demonstrates the first law as well since the nomological relations that hold require something that remains invariant over those relations (or else one could not get invariant or nomological results).

The first and second laws are thus automatically given in every measurement process for the simple fact, in accordance with the discussion above, that they are entailed in every epistemic act (Swenson, in press a, b; see also Matsuno, 1989, in press on generalized measurement).