Every time you see a particle you know that it is actually made up of smaller particles in motion. We thought the atom was the smallest particle. (atom means un-cuttable). Then we discovered electrons, protons, and neutrons. Subsequently we discovered that neutrons are themselves made up of quarks and such. So it would seem that what we think of as solidity is actually a purely macroscopic phenomenon. Why continue in the delusion that if we dig deep enough, we will eventually hit upon something that is truly "solid"? That is like monadology; it is clearly an attempt to conform reality to the ways that we like to think about it fundamentally, in absolutist terms, where observed properties are not the incidental results of complex dynamics (like they are in everything we actually observe), but simply exist in-themselves for no particular reason. Material substance is more likely by nature a system of motion. So what is it that is in motion? Light? How fast is it moving?

The quarks may be moving at < C, but its consituent particles are also moving. The motion of the quark plus the motion of the proton plus the motion of the atom plus the motion of any constituent particle of a quark may add up to C in any given vector. There may not be a smallest particle, though, so it may be more like a geometric series with a limit of C. On the other hand, I assume there would be no particles smaller than the planck length. In any case, this streamlines nicely with the precept that as an object approaches C, it "shrinks" along the vector of motion..

E=MC^2, right? Or close enough. That's about the energy you get when you disrupt the material process so that all of its contained energy (light in motion) is released. We know that matter and energy are essentially made of the same stuff, because the unit of conversion is constant. On more familiar levels, we observe that actual base substances are generally conserved, even if they make take on different form. When the same exact substance is converted from one form to another, measurements specific to the substance are constant while measurements specific to the form may vary. (Chemical reactions make a good example.) If there were not a basic essential substance that make up both 'energy' and 'matter' then there would be no basis for the conversion from one to the other to have a consistent ratio. C^2 is the unit of conversion between matter and energy which are two ways of looking at the same thing.

Just like space and time. Light is energy in time and matter is energy in space. Or something like that.

Matter is light cought up in a very complex "loop", probably by its own gravity.

It is a kind of four-dimensional knot?

Obviously whatever the actual substance of a particle is, it is ultimately travelling at the speed of light. How can we tell? Notice the similarity of the equations E=MC^2 and K.E. = 1/2 MV^2!! In the case of E=MC^2, the V(elocity) is the speed of light, C. That is, the speed of its constituent particles but only when you recursively reduce them to the point of having actual energy. EVERYTHING travels at the speed of light. Time slows down when an object approaches C because the speed of causality acts as a commodity: it's all being taken up by the motion of the whole object through space, from the perspective of an outside agent that would causally interact with it. If it were to retain causal influence on outside through internal dynamics as well as gain influence through motion in a single vector, it would be like a source of free energy (and/or free information?). So when it reaches light speed (hypothetically speaking), there is no internal time. Either way, its overall speed of motion is constant, adding up to C.

Energy is ability to do work, and work is causality/causal interaction. The ability to do work, is causality made apparently still in time through angular momentum/perpetual cycle. But causality always happens at the speed of light, which is why action-at-a-distance (like EMF) only affects the affected object after a lapse of time proportional to its distance. That's how light can be a wave in the absence of a medium to carry it. It -would- be a field of instantaneously oscillating polarity but because of the limit of speed of causality, the oscillations can only propagate at that speed, thus making it a wave in its own right. When there is a physical medium propagating a wave, the dynamics of the angular momentum within the constituent particles acts as a delay. In essence, the information of change is deferred through circular detours. (Imagine wobbliness.). I suppose causation is allowed to 'propagate' in circles because of the bent space/time inherent in the gravity that sustains said circles.

Time = measure of change or motion, afforded by causality. The speed of causality is the speed of light. Therefore in a sense the speed of light is the "speed" of time.
 
 

A footnote about matter and space. Upon close inspection we see that an atom is "mostly empty space", because it is actually made up of smaller subatomic particles, far removed from eachother. There is no reason not to assume that these smaller particles are also made up smaller particles, because that is the pattern we normally observe. It was only when we discovered the atom itself that we got the idea in our heads that there was some kind of absolute limit. Now that we've gotten past that, let's move on. Supposing that every subatomic particle contains "empty space" in between smaller subatomic particles which are in motion, if we go down the line indefinitely we should end up with 100% space. But that's fine, matter may just be distortions of space anyway. (matter = energy = gravity = spatial distortion, but gravity is actually the fundamental.) And besides, it's not really that empty, it's energy fields. Or probability fields. Maybe it's eensy weensy singularities/black holes in motion?

Anyway, an interesting note here is that solidity itself is a fundamentally macroscopic phenomenon. Therefore, matter is just as "solid" as it appears to be. That closer inspection reveals that it is "mostly" empty space doesn't really mean much; it is misleading, since we are then delving out of the scope of solidity as we know it. Therefore, matter isn't really less solid than we think it is, but moreso.
 
 

I'm sure somebody is wondering how I conclude that energy is gravity. Energy in all forms 'has' gravity, attracts mass/energy. Energy as light, energy as matter, energy as kinetic energy (mass increases with velocity, or so I heard). Two phenomena that can never be separated in principle are always two ways of looking at the same underlying thing. That's how Einstein knew that acceleration = gravity, I would guess. And I can't think of many properties of energy that are universal to all forms thereof. Yes, light has gravity. Light has mass. A photon has zero rest mass, but then, if it's resting it's not a photon. At C a photon has a small amount of mass. We know this because gravitational attraction bends the path of light. By the ideology that gravity is bent space-time, one might argue that its path is bent simply because the STC it travels through is bent, but gravitational attraction is directly proportional to the products of the masses; it's a two-way thing. To assume this is not true for photons introduces an unnecessary duality or break in continuity or consistency. Now mass is essentially a measure of gravitational attraction. A black hole has no volume, but it has gravitational attraction, therefore it has mass. That means that mass = gravity. So wait, we said that light = energy = gravity, and mass = gravity, therefore energy = mass? Yes, in a sense. Just not material mass. ;)
 
 

Well, I guess that's it.

I don't guarantee that all of the above is true. Just that there are some good ideas contained therein.

-inhahe

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrections/afterthoughts:

Is it possible for the motion to add up to C in "any given vector"?  Maybe I meant always in some specific vector.

Would the series really be "geometrical"?  I guess not.  What did I mean?  That the speeds generally become smaller as the scale does?  Would they?  Not necessarily.

How does this relate with the fact that it's not actually particles that are travelling anyway, but probability fields re their position (i.e., possible flash-point in the wave's effect an a sink?) per motion of most-likely-point?  An electron orbiting a nucleus would be more like a wave.  Well, I read in a book by Feynman that it is.  But if this is true then we already know it's going at C.  A wave without a medium goes at C. If electrons are thought not to move at C then i need to know how his is deemed possible.

A particle that is small enough to exist only as a probability field/wave I suppose can't have any constituent particles.  I guess the idea that a particle is always broken down to a smaller one at least to planck size only applies to sub-nuclear particles.  How big is the electron in comparison to the planck length?

The energy cought up in an atom isn't necesarily light in motion.  If gravity is fundamental as I posited, then matter and light are both secondary artifacts so matter isn't necessarily trapped light.  Just trapped gravity/energy/mass.  If light is only emitted by matter then it is merely a characterization of the way in which one object affects another at a distance delayed by speed of causality.  Which I sort of implied already.   Once light is "detected" it's gone..this fact + conservation of energy + no medium + fastest possible speed is that of light thus C is speed of causality hence action at a distance, means that light as a thing-in-itself is superfluous in intermediacy.  Defies Occam's razor.  (but then, so does space.)  It's just hard to reconcile this with new-age paradigm or rather with a bent toward attempting to integrate such with physics.

If light is strictly an artifact of matter, and matter is trapped gravity/mass, maybe light is some kind of permutation of gravity?  (of course if gravity/mass/energy is the one fundamental element then this is implied, but anyway..)  Maybe instantaneous gravity is omnidimensional but in order to make it a wave it has to be polarized in one or two dimensions so that it can be linear and thus limited to the speed of linear time?  And this polarization of course corresponds to the perpendicular E and M waves in light's case?

And if light is just a modus operandi of material interaction then maybe material itself is a system of such polarized gravity.... I guess it's polarized in three dimensions thus allowing for the existence of a knot of sorts, i.e., material particles/self-retaining distortions of gravity. They say three dimensions is the only in which a knot can exist..seems to explain why matter is three-dimensional.  But then, like I said, a material particle is actually a four-dimensional knot; it necessarily involves time.  ("So THAT's what a four-dimensional knot looks like...").  Of course, existence as we know it isn't just three dimensional, it's four dimensional including time, so this little anthropic principle thing re dimensionality still holds.

A thought about dark energy/dark matter.  Everything that exists is energy and all energy has/is mass, therefore it is hardly surprising that we would detect more mass or energy than we can account for, it just exists in configurations (or dare i say no configuration?  just balance?) that have modalities of interaction with other energy configurations that we know nothing of, so how could we identify it. (form is function?) Or no interation at all.  Of course, such theories have already been presented, such as, dark matter is out-of-focus particles, but the point is just that it's not surprising that it exists.

Maybe it is higher-dimensional energy configurations?  Corresponds to "out-of-focus"?  Or omnidimensional?

Unfortunately I don't know the difference between dark matter and dark energy.

The question of whether energy necessarily has a configuration brings up another notion that matter is perhaps most fundamentally, a process. It seems that in principle by its very nature it requires internal motion/dynamics. And if any particle within such dynamics is a function of more dynamics, then it ALL comes down to process.

Speaking of which, when speculating about the internal motions of the atom necessarily adding up to C in certain vectors (and C perhaps being a plastic thing within where various 'forces' are bending space-time), i should mention that it seems that there would be a qualitative division in this principle at the delineation at which a subatomic particle can or cannot sustain itself outside of the larger structure.

But if that were true then spectrum of half-life would imply some kind of marginal adherence to the principle or ability to adhere...

I wish I knew why the 1/2 is there in the  K.E.=1/2 MV^2 and not the E=MC^2.  What exactly is the relationship between E and K.E.?  Energy as stored ability to do work exists as angular momentum or kinetic energy, kinetic energy from outside that is the angular momentum's interaction with itself, or something.  Is there a relationship between the 1/2 and the ^2?  Maybe inside a particle pi is 6.28?  And that could also explain "spin"..

Final thought, if the gravity/mass that light has is not in the same proportion to its ability to do work that it is in matter (ability to do work being MC^2), then my theories are all messed.