Forwarded to design-l by Howard
==========================
Thanks to Gary.
At 11:15 PM 3/3/97, you wrote:
>Hello Howard
>
>Just wondered how my articles are going in DESIGN-L ? Perhaps you could
>let me know if anyone responds within the forum.
=======================================
Your best bet is to subscribe to the list.
I was also wondering if
>there is an archive for Design-L ?
===========================
Yes.
In any case I have a new article out
>on usenet about the infrastructure. I'm sending it below.
============================================
Thanks very much.
>
>regards
>Gary Forbat
>
>
>
>2-2-97
>revised 2-3-97
>
>Notes on the Structure of Reality - article 4
>(first draft)
>
>by Gary Forbat
>
>Copyright (C) G. Forbat 1997
>
>The Micro Infrastructure Part 1 'infrastructure' series
>
>
>In previous articles I made mention of an invisible micro
>infrastructure which is dispersed throughout the entire spatial
>environment. This infrastructure forms a highly dynamic and interactive
>particle based environment. It is from the same family of particles
>that the matter subject of our observation is constructed. The exact
>formational nature of this infrastructure is not yet entirely clear,
>though I believe I have made significant inroads toward discovering it.
>In its most general formulation it is likely to be composed of a group
>of structures or structure types, perhaps over several consecutive scales
>of magnitude, at least several levels below the quarks. The
>infrastructure is one of the essential parts of the material environment.
>So essential, in fact, that without it no sense could be, and indeed can
>be made of reality, since it not only sets the rules for the transmission
>of
>matter, it is also the cause of gravitation and electro-magnetic radiation.
>
>The reader may well be thinking that have been through this already. What
>about the Mitchelson-Morley and subsequent related experiments? But those
>experiments sought a different kind of medium to the one under our
>consideration. This infrastructure is not the kind that can be detected
>by 'ether wind' or friction. As it was, by the experiments devised, that
>elusive 'ether' would not reveal itself, and for good reason. At the
>time there was, and probably could be no conception of a different type
>of medium coverage. Nor would anything in the then available evidence
>have suggested it. The pattern of rate/scale structuring had not time to
>emerge. There appeared only one solution, and accordingly the debate
>shifted to the opposing conclusion that no medium exists. Space was
>henceforth to be seen as a potential vacuum. By the turn of century this
>idea took such a hold that Einstein wrote his relativity theories with
>that idea as a main presupposition. As a result his theory portrays a
>distorted view of reality. The calculations may well be brilliant, there
>is no need to deny that. The problem is that the view they present cannot
>be sustained by the conventional logic. To validate these results a further
>adjustment was necessary. What was required was the abandonment of the
>intuitive logic, which is built on the consistency of observation. Ideas
>which would have formerly been held absurd were now to be allowed in.
>Strange effects became possible, such as space curvature, time dilation,
>extra-dimensional finite but unbounded space, and the like. A multitude
>of paradoxes that may be associated with the theories may now be overlooked.
>No longer do they indicate a point of difficulty, a contradiction or
>inconsistency with the reality, but only in our capacity to grasp it.
>It is an easy explanation, not only for this but anything at all. If it
>does not make sense, it is only us, not the portrayal of the thing itself.
>
>As just seen, with the abandonment of the medium, the range of theoretical
>conclusions derived undermined the conventional systems of understanding.
>The only way out of this impasse was either to reject the new conclusions
>or to reject the viability of the intuitive logic. As things stood at the
>time, the new ideas, however bizarre, offered real progress against an
>inadequate Newtonian system, which, classical as it was, could not cope
>with the complexities of the reality we are only now beginning to
>understand.
>
>Undeniably progress has been made. So in what sense did the diggressed
>framework offer solutions ? Relativity theory pronounced a total
>relativity, so that everything moves relative to another, with no
>absolute rest determinable. With the infrastructure there is also a total
>relativity in that all movement can only be comparatively determined,
>and since all objects are reductive to moving parts no state of rest
>exists, nor can it exist. Besides, in an infinite space movement cannot
>be absolutely determined. So as it happens, Einstein's concept, though
>not the true explanation, holds good nevertheless by equivalence. But it
>does not hold good in respect to other issues such as the determination
>of comparative speeds between objects. In Einstein's framework it is
>impossible to determine which object is of higher or lower velocity, not
>in relation to eachother, but in an absolute sense. The infrastructural
>model offers a solution by measurement in relation to the static position
>of the infrastructure. Any further motion, for instance motion of the
>overall infrastructure itself is not brought into consideration. The
>solution involves a time factor, but it is really a question of cyclical
>pulse rates. All faster moving objects funtion on slower cyclical rates,
>so that clocks run slower in a faster velocity framework, and clocks are
>actually in the process of slowing down in an accelerating framework.
>The life of a fast moving muon is a prime example of extended lifespan
>for fast moving objects.
>
>In Einstein's theory movement is absolutely relative. But the reality is
>an inverted image as relatively absolute. Everything has infinite roots and
>becomes absolute by limiting the necessary infinite parameters. The twin
>paradox cannot occur in this framework, as the one travelling faster will
>age slower. By Einstein's theory it cannot be determined which object is
>travelling faster, each is only relative to the other. The earth spectator
>sees the other accelerating from it, but the space traveller sees the
>Earth distancing itself, or at least there is no significant difference
>between the two situations. Indeed it could be the case that the planet
>was hurtling at a faster speed in the opposite direction, so that the
>travelled speeding away from it was still only in negative motion. None
>of these problems arise in our model, where the clocks run slower in only
>those frameworks which are in faster motion relative to the static position
>of the infrastructure. Of the twins, only one ages slowly, in this case
>the traveller, but it could well have been otherwise if the planetary
>movement within the galaxy exceeeded that of the spaceship. Technology
>is rapidly refining itself, so that once more refined measurements
>become available which can compare cyclical rate discrepancies between
>moving objects the measurement of true velocities will be well established.
>
>The abandonment of the medium caused the further abandonment of the
>the intuitive framework. This opened the way for more abstract reasoning
>to be allowed into calculation, supposed aspects of reality which were
>said to be unintelligible to the human mind. But I should not want to
>trivialise what we lost, that is, what I mean by the intuitive framework.
>Firstly, an important distinction should be considered. Intuitive ways of
>thinking embraces two variations. There is the so called "common sense"
>kind, which is a conventional logic mixed with unappraised impressions
>of evidence. Then there is a more critical form of intuition which
>overrides impressions through a more thorough and systematic examination,
>correcting the distortions that obtain between raw impressions and the
>reality. This critical intuitive method supercedes the 'common sense'
>view, and this is the view at stake, this was the framework abandoned.
>
>So then, there is supposed to be space itself curving, not the
>medium or infrastructure within it, and then time itself slowing,
>not the slowing of material function. So everything is upside down,
>inside-out, clearly an inverted view of reality, held in proportion by
>equivalent relations. There is also the portrayal of space as extended
>in an unbounded finiteness. There is no point in arguing that short
>distance three dimensionality is easily proved by observation, and if
>it exists over short distances, it must exist over the long distance
>also, to infinity. It should be clear enough that room must be three
>dimensional, perhaps nothing is more obvious to the intuitive
>imagination both 'common sense' and 'critical'. And if room exists, as
>it surely does, it must be three dimensional. The rest is mathemathics,
>a three dimensional structure cannot have an ending, it must continue
>forever. How convenient that there is infinity, for otherwise it would
>be so difficult to explain. I have already written on some aspects of
>infinity in my essays on space. So then, what is so difficult about
>infinity ? It is the most natural concept for the 'critically' intuitive
>mind, though it does conflict with the 'common sense' intuition, and no
>doubt the confusions stem from that. It conflicts in the sense that
>'common sense' logic is closed to the internal nature of observation,
>it cannot cope with logical implications which are outside of experience,
>or rather, outside our capacity to observe. According to 'common sense'
>everything has a beginning and an end (everything in actual
>observation/experience that is) and this must apply to overall reality
>also. But critical intuition can grasp beyond the immediate empirical fact,
>for instance, the projection of three dimensional space to its inevitable
>infinite conclusion. Once the nature of the methodological problem is
>realised, the enquiry can be applied in its full deductive potential.
>
>So then, the overall result of not taking the infrastructure into account
>is that both quantum and relativity theories find themselves wanting.
>As already seen, historically it may well have been a necessary digression,
>so it seems the progress of knowledge sometimes depends on tangential
>solutions, but there comes a stage when the way becomes open to return
>to the curve itself. But I have yet to finish the task of proving what
>I have so far outlined. It is one thing to discover the system of dynamic
>structuring, it still does not immediately imply the existence of an
>infrastructure. I only became aware of its inevitability after exploring
>in some depth the logical consequences of the structuring process toward
>the macro scales. During my early attempts at the theory of time, I played
>the modern day Gulliver by projecting an idea of how the stellar world
>would look through much larger scales of consideration. I realised how
>much material there must be interspersed throughout space in terms of a
>much larger scale outlook. Galaxies and their clusters reduce to invisible
>tiny specks, very finely and densely distributed. The larger scale the
>view, the finer this mist becomes, and the more evenly it is distributed.
>Then in terms of a larger scale world of materiality an adjustment in
>time factor reveals a more dynamic form of this mist. The argument then
>follows that if a microstructure is inevitable to a larger scale world,
>then it must be inevitable for us, since we relate to our micro world as
>a larger world relates to us. The jump back to the micro scales completes
>the process. In simple terms, what applies toward the macro scales also
>applies to us from the micro scales.
>
>Once the broad concept of an infrastructure is realised, more specific
>issues arise. For instance, it cannot be just a passive particle cover,
>the failure of the early 'ether' seeking experiments testify to that.
>The particle fabric of the infrastructure must be an interactive
>formation allowing for material events of the high order of regularity
>and consistency shown in our observations. Of course, once the presence
>of the infrastructure is realised, the task focuses on discovering its
>more specific nature. As it turns out both light (emr) and gravitation
>have microstructural implications. These processes will be the subject
>of the next essay in the series.
>
>
>To be continued in part 2
>
>Gary Forbat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
H o w a r d R a y L a w r e n c e Voice: 814
865 9535
College of Arts and ARCHITECTURE Fax: 814 865 3289
The Pennsylvania State Univeristy
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
==========================
Thanks to Gary.
At 11:15 PM 3/3/97, you wrote:
>Hello Howard
>
>Just wondered how my articles are going in DESIGN-L ? Perhaps you could
>let me know if anyone responds within the forum.
=======================================
Your best bet is to subscribe to the list.
I was also wondering if
>there is an archive for Design-L ?
===========================
Yes.
In any case I have a new article out
>on usenet about the infrastructure. I'm sending it below.
============================================
Thanks very much.
>
>regards
>Gary Forbat
>
>
>
>2-2-97
>revised 2-3-97
>
>Notes on the Structure of Reality - article 4
>(first draft)
>
>by Gary Forbat
>
>Copyright (C) G. Forbat 1997
>
>The Micro Infrastructure Part 1 'infrastructure' series
>
>
>In previous articles I made mention of an invisible micro
>infrastructure which is dispersed throughout the entire spatial
>environment. This infrastructure forms a highly dynamic and interactive
>particle based environment. It is from the same family of particles
>that the matter subject of our observation is constructed. The exact
>formational nature of this infrastructure is not yet entirely clear,
>though I believe I have made significant inroads toward discovering it.
>In its most general formulation it is likely to be composed of a group
>of structures or structure types, perhaps over several consecutive scales
>of magnitude, at least several levels below the quarks. The
>infrastructure is one of the essential parts of the material environment.
>So essential, in fact, that without it no sense could be, and indeed can
>be made of reality, since it not only sets the rules for the transmission
>of
>matter, it is also the cause of gravitation and electro-magnetic radiation.
>
>The reader may well be thinking that have been through this already. What
>about the Mitchelson-Morley and subsequent related experiments? But those
>experiments sought a different kind of medium to the one under our
>consideration. This infrastructure is not the kind that can be detected
>by 'ether wind' or friction. As it was, by the experiments devised, that
>elusive 'ether' would not reveal itself, and for good reason. At the
>time there was, and probably could be no conception of a different type
>of medium coverage. Nor would anything in the then available evidence
>have suggested it. The pattern of rate/scale structuring had not time to
>emerge. There appeared only one solution, and accordingly the debate
>shifted to the opposing conclusion that no medium exists. Space was
>henceforth to be seen as a potential vacuum. By the turn of century this
>idea took such a hold that Einstein wrote his relativity theories with
>that idea as a main presupposition. As a result his theory portrays a
>distorted view of reality. The calculations may well be brilliant, there
>is no need to deny that. The problem is that the view they present cannot
>be sustained by the conventional logic. To validate these results a further
>adjustment was necessary. What was required was the abandonment of the
>intuitive logic, which is built on the consistency of observation. Ideas
>which would have formerly been held absurd were now to be allowed in.
>Strange effects became possible, such as space curvature, time dilation,
>extra-dimensional finite but unbounded space, and the like. A multitude
>of paradoxes that may be associated with the theories may now be overlooked.
>No longer do they indicate a point of difficulty, a contradiction or
>inconsistency with the reality, but only in our capacity to grasp it.
>It is an easy explanation, not only for this but anything at all. If it
>does not make sense, it is only us, not the portrayal of the thing itself.
>
>As just seen, with the abandonment of the medium, the range of theoretical
>conclusions derived undermined the conventional systems of understanding.
>The only way out of this impasse was either to reject the new conclusions
>or to reject the viability of the intuitive logic. As things stood at the
>time, the new ideas, however bizarre, offered real progress against an
>inadequate Newtonian system, which, classical as it was, could not cope
>with the complexities of the reality we are only now beginning to
>understand.
>
>Undeniably progress has been made. So in what sense did the diggressed
>framework offer solutions ? Relativity theory pronounced a total
>relativity, so that everything moves relative to another, with no
>absolute rest determinable. With the infrastructure there is also a total
>relativity in that all movement can only be comparatively determined,
>and since all objects are reductive to moving parts no state of rest
>exists, nor can it exist. Besides, in an infinite space movement cannot
>be absolutely determined. So as it happens, Einstein's concept, though
>not the true explanation, holds good nevertheless by equivalence. But it
>does not hold good in respect to other issues such as the determination
>of comparative speeds between objects. In Einstein's framework it is
>impossible to determine which object is of higher or lower velocity, not
>in relation to eachother, but in an absolute sense. The infrastructural
>model offers a solution by measurement in relation to the static position
>of the infrastructure. Any further motion, for instance motion of the
>overall infrastructure itself is not brought into consideration. The
>solution involves a time factor, but it is really a question of cyclical
>pulse rates. All faster moving objects funtion on slower cyclical rates,
>so that clocks run slower in a faster velocity framework, and clocks are
>actually in the process of slowing down in an accelerating framework.
>The life of a fast moving muon is a prime example of extended lifespan
>for fast moving objects.
>
>In Einstein's theory movement is absolutely relative. But the reality is
>an inverted image as relatively absolute. Everything has infinite roots and
>becomes absolute by limiting the necessary infinite parameters. The twin
>paradox cannot occur in this framework, as the one travelling faster will
>age slower. By Einstein's theory it cannot be determined which object is
>travelling faster, each is only relative to the other. The earth spectator
>sees the other accelerating from it, but the space traveller sees the
>Earth distancing itself, or at least there is no significant difference
>between the two situations. Indeed it could be the case that the planet
>was hurtling at a faster speed in the opposite direction, so that the
>travelled speeding away from it was still only in negative motion. None
>of these problems arise in our model, where the clocks run slower in only
>those frameworks which are in faster motion relative to the static position
>of the infrastructure. Of the twins, only one ages slowly, in this case
>the traveller, but it could well have been otherwise if the planetary
>movement within the galaxy exceeeded that of the spaceship. Technology
>is rapidly refining itself, so that once more refined measurements
>become available which can compare cyclical rate discrepancies between
>moving objects the measurement of true velocities will be well established.
>
>The abandonment of the medium caused the further abandonment of the
>the intuitive framework. This opened the way for more abstract reasoning
>to be allowed into calculation, supposed aspects of reality which were
>said to be unintelligible to the human mind. But I should not want to
>trivialise what we lost, that is, what I mean by the intuitive framework.
>Firstly, an important distinction should be considered. Intuitive ways of
>thinking embraces two variations. There is the so called "common sense"
>kind, which is a conventional logic mixed with unappraised impressions
>of evidence. Then there is a more critical form of intuition which
>overrides impressions through a more thorough and systematic examination,
>correcting the distortions that obtain between raw impressions and the
>reality. This critical intuitive method supercedes the 'common sense'
>view, and this is the view at stake, this was the framework abandoned.
>
>So then, there is supposed to be space itself curving, not the
>medium or infrastructure within it, and then time itself slowing,
>not the slowing of material function. So everything is upside down,
>inside-out, clearly an inverted view of reality, held in proportion by
>equivalent relations. There is also the portrayal of space as extended
>in an unbounded finiteness. There is no point in arguing that short
>distance three dimensionality is easily proved by observation, and if
>it exists over short distances, it must exist over the long distance
>also, to infinity. It should be clear enough that room must be three
>dimensional, perhaps nothing is more obvious to the intuitive
>imagination both 'common sense' and 'critical'. And if room exists, as
>it surely does, it must be three dimensional. The rest is mathemathics,
>a three dimensional structure cannot have an ending, it must continue
>forever. How convenient that there is infinity, for otherwise it would
>be so difficult to explain. I have already written on some aspects of
>infinity in my essays on space. So then, what is so difficult about
>infinity ? It is the most natural concept for the 'critically' intuitive
>mind, though it does conflict with the 'common sense' intuition, and no
>doubt the confusions stem from that. It conflicts in the sense that
>'common sense' logic is closed to the internal nature of observation,
>it cannot cope with logical implications which are outside of experience,
>or rather, outside our capacity to observe. According to 'common sense'
>everything has a beginning and an end (everything in actual
>observation/experience that is) and this must apply to overall reality
>also. But critical intuition can grasp beyond the immediate empirical fact,
>for instance, the projection of three dimensional space to its inevitable
>infinite conclusion. Once the nature of the methodological problem is
>realised, the enquiry can be applied in its full deductive potential.
>
>So then, the overall result of not taking the infrastructure into account
>is that both quantum and relativity theories find themselves wanting.
>As already seen, historically it may well have been a necessary digression,
>so it seems the progress of knowledge sometimes depends on tangential
>solutions, but there comes a stage when the way becomes open to return
>to the curve itself. But I have yet to finish the task of proving what
>I have so far outlined. It is one thing to discover the system of dynamic
>structuring, it still does not immediately imply the existence of an
>infrastructure. I only became aware of its inevitability after exploring
>in some depth the logical consequences of the structuring process toward
>the macro scales. During my early attempts at the theory of time, I played
>the modern day Gulliver by projecting an idea of how the stellar world
>would look through much larger scales of consideration. I realised how
>much material there must be interspersed throughout space in terms of a
>much larger scale outlook. Galaxies and their clusters reduce to invisible
>tiny specks, very finely and densely distributed. The larger scale the
>view, the finer this mist becomes, and the more evenly it is distributed.
>Then in terms of a larger scale world of materiality an adjustment in
>time factor reveals a more dynamic form of this mist. The argument then
>follows that if a microstructure is inevitable to a larger scale world,
>then it must be inevitable for us, since we relate to our micro world as
>a larger world relates to us. The jump back to the micro scales completes
>the process. In simple terms, what applies toward the macro scales also
>applies to us from the micro scales.
>
>Once the broad concept of an infrastructure is realised, more specific
>issues arise. For instance, it cannot be just a passive particle cover,
>the failure of the early 'ether' seeking experiments testify to that.
>The particle fabric of the infrastructure must be an interactive
>formation allowing for material events of the high order of regularity
>and consistency shown in our observations. Of course, once the presence
>of the infrastructure is realised, the task focuses on discovering its
>more specific nature. As it turns out both light (emr) and gravitation
>have microstructural implications. These processes will be the subject
>of the next essay in the series.
>
>
>To be continued in part 2
>
>Gary Forbat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
H o w a r d R a y L a w r e n c e Voice: 814
865 9535
College of Arts and ARCHITECTURE Fax: 814 865 3289
The Pennsylvania State Univeristy
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802