Motion that is not cyclical is free and it has infinite range. This is represented by infinite speed as it is all over that range. On the other hand, cyclical motion means that the motion is repeating itself. The faster it repeats itself, the higher is its frequency.
This repetition puts a limitation on the freedom of motion. With increasing repetition the freedom becomes increasingly limited. This is represented by the speed of cyclical motion decreasing with increasing frequency.
An example of cyclical motion is the oscillatory motion of a pendulum. When this pendulum moves while oscillating, the motion acquires the appearance of a wave that has a wavelength. The product of the frequency and wavelength gives a measure of its speed. The mathematical formulas for wave motion apply to the cyclical motion.
The cyclical motion means a certain fixedness because the same motion is repeating itself. As the frequency of this repetition increases it means that the motion is becoming more fixed. This fixedness appears as a consistency, which resists change.
This resistance to change is called inertia. The resistance (inertia) appears as force. This force can be felt. This is the basic nature of substance.
Underlying any substance there is force, and underlying that force is cyclical motion.
As the frequency of cyclical motion increases, it not only acquires increasing consistency, but it also acquires a curvature. This is because the range of free motion within a cycle is becoming smaller. We may say that the least cyclical motion represents the “surface” of the universe, which obviously has a curvature because it contains the universe. As one goes deeper into the universe, the motion becomes more consistent and substance-like. The overall picture of cyclical motion may appear somewhat like a “whirlpool.” This is what we see in the spiral shape of the galaxies. This we also see in the structure of atoms.
At the center of a whirlpool we have extremely dense and spinning motion. This anticipates black holes at the center of galaxies and nuclei at the center of the atoms.
The cyclical motion of a very large range, ultimately, condenses into a spinning motion of a very small range.
.
Summary
Here we have the whole spectrum of substance created out of cyclical motion. As this cyclical motion increases in frequency, it gains consistency, inertia and substance. It acquires a curvature because of its narrowing range. We thus have a shrinking circumference. This gives it a look very similar to that of a whirlpool.
From the periphery of the atom to is nucleus, we have cyclical motion that is gradually increasing in consistency and shrinking in its circumference, ending up in a dense spinning nucleus at the center.
.
Comments
Something there is which is spacetime.
We may be allowing our thinking to be caged by the matter, energy, plasma, space and time concepts and model. Or maybe we don’t have a choice to think outside that box. These seem to be gross definitions aimed at gross manifestations that we sense and measure.
I wish I had more. Maybe one day greater, more universal beings will show us more.
LikeLike
We have no choice but to become that universal being ourself.
LikeLike
We endlessly talk about the supposed fabric of spacetime. Therefore we must think that there is an elemental substance to space. We seem to not be close to understanding what that means. Or are we?
Possibly, there is a scale below which size there is substance such as the photon, but below which the scale is too small for substance such as particle mass to exist.
Or possibly, the supposed missing matter of the universe is invisibly contained in the substance space that heretofore we have said is, “empty?”
In other words, as in the answer to the question, “Where did the Big Bang occur? The answer is, “Everywhere!” Likewise, when asking where is the missing matter? The answer is, “Everywhere!”
If the substance of space were homogeneously omnipresent, then the mass of it may be detectably and measurably invisible because of its lack of potential mass difference from one point location in the matrix of spacetime to another. Yet all the while, it is existing around, within, and right in front of our faces?
LikeLike
I see space consisting of Force just as Faraday saw. There is a whole gradient to it. The physical force of least consistency is the gravitational force.
This is like a postulate, what you refer to as tautology. Now I have to see if it is consistent with all other postulates and spot anomalies.
LikeLike
“I see space consisting of Force just as Faraday saw”
The reason that I do not see it that way is that “force” implies a potential difference. Do you not see force in this way? Without the dichotomy of 2 separate places in the space matrix, why would one know they were dealing with a force?
However, I would like to read the Faraday reference that you mention. Possibly I need to learn a new definition of force than the one that I think that I know.
LikeLike
According to Faraday, force is the cause of a physical action, and not just the tendency of the body to pass from one place to another. Force is the source or sources of all possible changes amongst the particles or materials of the universe. To Faraday force is an indicator of the substantialness of substance, much like inertia.
Faraday: On the Conservation of Force
LikeLike
And I am wondering if the interstellar space has the same consistency of substance as stellar space.
LikeLike
. . . and the same question again when comparing galactic-interstellar space to intergalactic space, Is that spatial substance the same substance as each other and one another?
LikeLike
Since I look at space as a gravitational field, I would say that intragalactic space consists of a stronger gravitational field than the intergalactic space. It is the same substance only their consistencies are slightly different.
LikeLike
I equate space with gravitational field. In my opinion, stellar space consists of a stronger gravitational field than the interstellar space.
LikeLike
Yes, maybe so.
However,
1. Gravity, declines in intensity with the inverse square of the distance. Therefore, local gravity may exert more acceleration on an object – such as within our solar system – than intergalactic space, due to the distances.
2. Intergalactic gravity is impossible for me to understand. To the degree that I understand the expanding universe, as asserted by the Doppler Effect, the galaxies are themselves hanging together, yet intergalactic space seems to be expanding. The theories for why this is so always something within the universe pushing the galaxies apart. None of the theories that I’ve read describe gravity originating outside the edge, beyond the visible universe acting upon what we see with exterior gravity pulling it apart.
LikeLike
Gravity-energy-mass are inextricably bound to one another. This reminds me of how space is inextricably bound to time. And I suppose that in reality, all these dimensions are bound to one another.
Most energy on earth was received, absorbed, re-radiated or stored chemically from the Sun and the radioactive remainder of the energy on Earth is rubbish star-dust.
Likewise, all substance is inextricably bound to the knowable and every other non-substance must therefore be unknowable. Science is moving heretofore unknown substances gradually from through the scale of unknown substance, to mental substance, to physical substance. These are abstractions only, as the substances are not altered because we label them.
LikeLike
I shall write about gravity when I am ready for it.
LikeLike