Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: the next level of theoretical physics?

  1. #1 the next level of theoretical physics? 
    Join Date
    May 2007
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    The BASIC LEAPS of scientific theoretical inquiry that left humanity astounded, three names stand out: EUCLID, NEWTON, and EINSTEIN. Here in this short summary of the evolution of physics, I will outline those three giants and the algorithms they presented that made them giants of physics. Then I will propose the NEXT LEVEL algorithm. I could be wrong though about what i am proposing as the next level. Correct me if I am vastly wrong.

    The great theoretical suffrage of EUCLID’S time was the problem with “whole numbers” being chopped up into smaller numbers through the process of division. Basically, how can whole numbers be chopped up into smaller numbers that have not been defined, and moreover, how can those smaller “chopped up number representatives” be defined: what “scale” should be used, or more precisely, what universal standard needs to be used for all numbers that do not exist on a “whole-number” basis: are they “real” numbers: do they represent “real” phenomena if they are not real themselves, as numbers. Basically, WHAT NEW ALGORITHM needs to be implemented, what new FRAMEWORK needs to be implemented, to represent how NUMBERS can be used as MARKERS of geometrical inquiry about a real and presumably indivisible reality/universe.
    THAT was the great suffrage of EUCLID’S time. Ultimately, the aim was to find a mathematical algorithm of WHOLE NUMBERS that could explain reality, and thus at that time even, an “atom”, a basic building block. EUCLID was the one then to offer that algorithm, that solution, that set of tools to have one’s mind ACCEPT the concept of non-whole numbers, and their use in geometrical inquiry to better explain observed phenomena: basically an algorithm, a tool, to explain space-time. EUCLID basically presented a variety of tools, words that explained processes of how points and lines can inter-relate with the application of whole numbers to produce non-whole numbers. He basically set in motion the beginning of a REFINEMENT of the number system when applied to geometry. He did this in searching algorithms, mathematical algorithms, of CONSISTENCY: algorithms that hold true in any situation in regard to the use of points and lines. He basically went in search of the underlying LAWS, the THEMES, of points and lines, that would explain the reality, of space-time in accounting for whole numbers and those which he demonstrated were not whole.
    To say that EUCLID was useful to explaining space-time is sheerly an understatement: he set the wheels in motion for the underlying themes of how points and lines would operate. The trap though was geometry. He was trapped by geometry, by what was only known of geometry. If he could define basically the concept of a point and a line to a perfect geometry that basically utilized the absolute features of a point-line system of space-time, in theory he could have produced the theory itself of space-time, the laws of consistency of points and lines. Instead, the path he went on, the path he was hurled towards by his arbitrary presentation of geometrical-mathematical algorithms, was the beginning of a massive jigsaw puzzle that needed to be applied to observable phenomena, for then that observable phenomena to FIT the geometry he was presenting as algorithms.

    Newton hit the nail on the head of the hammer in regard to interfacing EUCLID with observable phenomena. NEWTON made the bold leap of arbitrarily defining what a FORCE is, how a body would either remain at rest or carry on with it’s motion unless acted upon by a force. Given what defines what is at rest and what is moving at a constant rate, the next logical step was to add “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. NEWTON basically sought to find the CAUSALITY of motion, and the forces involved.
    Basically, instead of the point-line theory and associated geometry of EUCLID, NEWTON proposed a NEW LEVEL of research, “forces”. He presented that a FORCE would represent the mass of an object multiplied by its acceleration. Newton applied the standard themes of EUCLID and such mathematics to his equations, BUT NEWTON made the fist step towards actually investigating the workings of the FORCES. BASICALLY, Newton was saying, "let's find the forces"…………"if you see a body change it’s motion, LET’S FIND THE FORCES". He's was a POET. NEWTON'S LAWS basically are NOT fundamental laws of the system: they are starting points of discussion and research.
    Force equals mass times acceleration: that is defining what a FORCE is: it says the Mass times by the rate of change of it’s motion equals the force on it……………….. He just plucked it, like an APPLE. He said, "this is what I think a force is": “this is what a force is, that we are looking for”……….Then he went in search of the different forces that USED that general equation………………his ARBITRARILY DEFINED GENERAL EQUATION.
    The result of NEWTONIAN PHYSICS was getting a better idea of all the different forces at play ideally towards the understanding of ATOMIC PHENOMENA………..which is where his physics no longer seemed effective…………..because TECHNICALLY he arbitrarily defined what a force is. NEWTONIAN PHYSICS is like a simple form of calculus………it’s a language, but it DOESN’T describe how the atom works. It’s a useful language, because technically it is accurate for gross phenomena. It is defined to explain observed phenomena. Basically, the theories of NEWTON lead to a greater awareness of “what the forces are at play” with observable phenomena, using the then theoretical lenses of EUCLID.

    Then, enter EINSTEIN. With the application of graphs that defined the virtual projected behavior of whatever the study was, scientists pursued a virtual map of space-time, using the axes of space-time, of joining graphs of equations of space-time to one another. The only ultimate problem there in using a multitude of graphs was the “reference”, the graph reference, of the observer: where does it exist, basically, the “reference” of the observer. Where does the time axis begin and end: where should it.
    So, Einstein basically went one level up than NEWTON. EINSTEIN realized the problem of the OBSERVOR: who is at rest and who is moving, and how do the laws of NEWTON, the FORCES, how do the FORCES actually determine a reference of motion: how is time basically used as a reference of motion from one reference to the next, and what FORCES are at play there. What EINSTEIN basically sought was a unification of time relevant to a mass that represented the energy state of that mass, and thus ultimately “the system”. So, as history has it, EINSTEIN arrived at E=mc2 through linking all the general equations of space-time. It was a concept that NEWTON failed to address in his arbitrarily proposed terminology of his three LAWS, but to no great discredit to NEWTON.
    There have been MANY OTHER PHYSICISTS and MATHEMATICIANS who have made almost equal developments to the understanding of space-time, but EUCLID and NEWTON and EINSTEIN each represent three different stages of development. EINSTEIN basically presented a list of terms to supplement what NEWTON failed to cover, a list of terms relevant to the theoretical behavior of space-time that required greater depth of experiment into the behavior of space-time, on the atomic and universal level, to verify exactly how to calculate the “observer” to get a truer picture of all the then and current distance-time graphs of force and motion. As I shall highlight, EINSTEIN failed to go to the next level algorithm because he failed to establish that in an ultimate equation of energy of two different variables, namely mass and the speed of light, one must entertain the concept of “opposites”, that MASS is the DUALISTIC mathematical opposite to the speed of light squared. Not a “simple” duality, but a highly complicated one. So, let me explain the actual theme of what he missed.

    THE NEXT LEVEL (a proposal):
    People sometimes ask, “what is space-time”: “space-time is too difficult to understand, it would take too long to research and understand, it is way too difficult for me”.
    I agree. Space-time IS too difficult for anyone to understand through experiment. We make a great effort though, but never do we accept space-time can be predicted, because it is not possible to know the future. If you really want to think about it, the implications of knowing a theory of space-time that DESCRIBES reality, technically, ULTIMATELY, one would be able to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING, one would be able to PREDICT reality, and even then one would achieve that after developing the right tools of mathematics to the right levers of space and time, mass, and energy, force and motion, from large to small objects, combining EUCLID with NEWTON with a theory that accommodates for EINSTEIN.
    The step Einstein had tried to make was defining the reference of an observer, and if the observer is everywhere, what is the fundamental law at play. But Einstein reached the wall of theory, of the OBSERVOR EVERYWHERE AT ONCE, because, imagine it: it would be IMPOSSIBLE for one person to come up with a “theory of everything” as the OBSERVOR who is everywhere in time and space as a “research-experiment”. Einstein sought that universal reference of the observer but failed to realize the PARADOX of a theory that would be able to explain all space and time, the “implications” of that theory, the main one being “how is it possible to predict space-time in using a theory that EXPLAINS space-time if it is not possible to MAKE the future happen by just theorizing it”.
    It is with this key insight that I do not believe a theory of all things of space-time is possible via research, via the research pathway. I think it is IMPOSSIBLE, namely to have a theory of space-time that predicts atomic phenomena, via research-experiment. I think it is humanly impossible. I think it is humanly impossible to explain a reality that has not happened yet as a research-experiment, to explain that reality in using a theory that would represent proof that such a reality HAS TO BE POSSIBLE by theorizing it, if of course a theory of everything is used as the standard of how space-time behaves. Think about it.
    What then can be accepted that is POSSIBLE, in accepting what is impossible and not pursuing that, in accepting the universal observer and the associated theory of predicting atomic phenomena is not possible? Surely then, and this is my claim, the possibility exists of explaining that which exists OUTSIDE space-time, OUTSIDE an impossible “theory of all things”, or more perfectly, “outside that impossible theory”, and that which CAN be explained would represent the HOW and WHY reality doesn’t turn to ash in an instant or some other thing, because it is CAGED by that which contains it, so to speak.
    BY DEFUALT therefore, what can be described of space-time that is understandable, by default, would represent the absolute LIMITS of space-time, the zero and the infinity of space-time, that which represents the border, the boundary, of space-time, and not all that exists within that boundary. Basically, my claim is that the boundary, I would gather, represents the LIMITS, the ZERO and the INFINITY, of space and time.
    In following that logic, it would be true to suggest that if it is impossible to predict atomic phenomena using standard mathematics and physics, the real, in attempting to explain even gross phenomena to perfection, then a theory OUTSIDE the normal confines of space-time would represent the predictable, so much so it would represent a repeating sequence of the limits, the LAWS, of space-time, the framework, the LAWS, that holds the general shape of space-time as it is.

    How does that seem to fit a way ahead?

    Reply With Quote  


Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts