Thread: General Principles of Reality

Hi Everyone,

www.gpofr.com

This is a link to my theoretical physics paper (ebook) I've been working on for sometime. Hope you enjoy it and please feel free to pass it along to friends who might find it interesting. Its still very much a work in progress and my first attempt at writing an ebook.

What is contains I believe it to be very significant. Just to point this out, my new relativistic mass equation presented in the book equates the relativistic mass of Jupiter to the value of an electron charge which is 1.6x10^-19 C (exactly). It was something I did not expect to find but the new equation was the one that gave me insight into this relationship which was the catalyst why I wrote this book. The new relativistic mass equation was derived using the Reality Scale value of S which remarkably related to the speed of light and Euler's mathematical constant and was further derived from a new relativistic mass-density equation. Essentially mass-gravity at the celestial scale is equal to charge at the quantum scale. To understand how this derived, download a copy of the ebook its absolutely free.

NOTE: The book is a collection of many theories so heads up. None of these theories negate any of our current physics so this isn't a claim to have discovered or toppled current physics. Some of these theories have yet to be tested. The only discovery that I find extremely hard to disprove is the one mentioned above. It was discovered accidently based on the initial premise (theory) that our solar system is relative to a Beryllium atom and is the reason I wrote the paper.

Thanks. I gave your book a heavy skim and greatly appreciate the ...um, #1 little people on little planets hypothesis. At #42 "Existence is alive" struck a chord as well, to borrow your metaphor. :wink:

But perhaps there's more than necessary. A lot of the ebook seems like pseudoscience filler... well, anybody's bound to find disagreeable things when you offer so many. Why'd you have to build up to 42?

I was hoping you would focus on microscopic-macroscopic parallel, and develop that more, also bring more evidence. Yet beryllium = solar system is just too easy a target for critics, and I'm unsure you really believe they're close enough to name. Why not let things skip a few scales? Or allow for a wave e.g. atomic is a trough and celestial is a peak? Anyway the values are comparable - many have noticed that.

Originally Posted by Pong

Thanks. I gave your book a heavy skim and greatly appreciate the ...um, #1 little people on little planets hypothesis. At #42 "Existence is alive" struck a chord as well, to borrow your metaphor. :wink:

But perhaps there's more than necessary. A lot of the ebook seems like pseudoscience filler... well, anybody's bound to find disagreeable things when you offer so many. Why'd you have to build up to 42?

I was hoping you would focus on microscopic-macroscopic parallel, and develop that more, also bring more evidence. Yet beryllium = solar system is just too easy a target for critics, and I'm unsure you really believe they're close enough to name. Why not let things skip a few scales? Or allow for a wave e.g. atomic is a trough and celestial is a peak? Anyway the values are comparable - many have noticed that.

I agree, the book is full of many theories and many will disagree. Its a book so I filled it with many of my mature (heavily worked on) and young theories to allow for a more entertaining experience. But the important thing is that the derived calculation above is hard to ignore which I believe helps support my theory of real relative realities where celestial and quantum realms are relative equals.

The other theories which I believe also holds considerable merit is my theory on gravity and distortion where there's many experiments that can be conducted to verify its validity.

Regarding the number 42: basically I summarized all my theories in the book into many principles hence the title of the book, but many of these principles were inter-related so after grouping them together I ended up with 39. Then I realized was missed a few which finally ended up at the number 42. I'm still currently researching, working and expanding on my theories so 42 principles might end up being more in the end.

True, the Beryllium atom relation to our Solar System might arise criticism but the derived values are again very hard to ignore which strengthens my initial premise (theory). I just wanted to share this information. The wrost that can happen is that I'll be dismissed or ignored, but I'd seriously ask everyone to look at the numbers. There's no harm in that.

I don't understand what you meant by "Why not let things skip a few scales?" Can you elaborate?

Oh and thanks for the kind review.

Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucRuZ9lKM0s

Not my proudest vid for being soo roughly & quickly done, but the content is what matters.

Originally Posted by RDemelo

I don't understand what you meant by "Why not let things skip a few scales?" Can you elaborate?

The fractal may be valid without any two steps corresponding perfectly. While finding beryllium nearly matches our solar system would be a great knockout discovery, I doubt we're going to find anything like life on Earth so "near".

In another thread I used the analogy of Christopher Columbus proving Earth round, since he found "Indians" by sailing west. He was right, but his evidence was wrong. In fact, there were people at the time arguing Earth's diameter could not possibly be so small.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by RDemelo

I don't understand what you meant by "Why not let things skip a few scales?" Can you elaborate?

The fractal may be valid without any two steps corresponding perfectly. While finding beryllium nearly matches our solar system would be a great knockout discovery, I doubt we're going to find anything like life on Earth so "near".

In another thread I used the analogy of Christopher Columbus proving Earth round, since he found "Indians" by sailing west. He was right, but his evidence was wrong. In fact, there were people at the time arguing Earth's diameter could not possibly be so small.

I somewhat see what you are saying. There are many methods (ways) to approach a validity, but in this case the numbers are just too overwhelming that they validate themselves entirely. There is definitely a direct relative relationship there between quantum and celestial scales which eludes to too many other direct relative relationships from celestial to quantum and vice-versa. The characteristics/properties of both systems in my opinion are now directly interchangeable. Think of it for a second. If correct, which I believe I am, analyzing our Solar System as if it were a Beryllium atom is the closest look at any atom imaginable with the nucleus of the atom being directly relative the inner Solar System and gas giants being directly relative to electrons. This means (which is part of my new gravity theory also in the ebook) that two gas giants (Jupiters) would repel each other just as electrons would so gravity isn't only an attraction force, it also repels. The reason why it repels (or attracts for that matter), I have my theories (also in the book), but the fact electrons repel each other eludes that gas giants would also. The reverse is true also. For example, knowing all atoms in there natural state contain electrons, those it directly & relatively eludes to that all star systems have gas giants in there outer system along with an inner system containing rock planets of an equivalent number to the amount of gas giants.

The constant of S is an exact scale ratio between quantum systems and celestial systems and from this simple number many other things were derived that in turn validate the value of S and its meaning.

Regarding life itself existing on relatively equal quantum-type Earth particles of course is a stretch, but if all is directly and exactly relative between quantum and celestial systems then perhaps life is too.

looks like interesting stuff.

i think many of us have toyed with notions like this, but never really had the guts to try and verify/justify them.

if its ok with you, i'm going post my opinions, critiques, mis-understandings etc. as i read through it. please keep in mind that i am relatively uneducated, and not particularly smart, so it should be a good test of your communication skills

edit- let me stress again, im typing these comments AS i read, pretty much paragraph by paragraph. so hopefully it will give you some solid feedback on (at least) the structuring of your book.

Definition of reality
after reading the third sentance, i think when refering to reality, you should specifically state whether it is 'percieved reality' or 'actual reality'.
one of examples - 'the definition of concept is interchangable with reality' - (should be percieved reality), [also interchangeable with 'idea'?]

i find your reality vs abstraction graph initially clear, but somewhat confusing after heavy analysing, due mostly to terminology and the structuring of your ideas surrounding it (the paragraph above and below it)...

i assume you mean 'possibly perceived reality' vs abstraction. with 0 representing 'current perceived reality'.

if your going to say 'it doen't matter where the observer sits on this graph', i think its also worth stating that the observer (n) must always = 0.

so the observer can shift along the graph (edit-limited by perception barriers), but 0 must shift also.

side note; at this point i feel like i want to define 'abstraction' as a value proportionate to the distance between perceived reality and actual reality. (you may be able to incorporate that into your theories at some point)

Man in a Box
this is really nice metaphor. works well.

Man in a box 2 - the big picture
this one works too, but i don't think its as elegant.
it could use some refining and culling. even if your trying to hint at the variations in complexity of how 'reality's' relate to those they encompass.

Barrier of Perception
ahh ok, so the complexity of man in a box 2 is partly justified (at the end of the first paragraph). i still think it could be simplified though.

also you give a clearer version of your definition of reality (that it is always based on perception). just a bit confusing after you allude to an 'actual' reality (one that is the sum of all the relative reality's) so early on (in the 'definition of reality').

The Commonality
i thought the first dot point was unecessary at first. but after thinking about it... i think the second one is. though i'm not sure.

you will probably get asked this sooner or later... what about computers? we can send a program out into space, with sensors for recording information and a hard-drive for storing it. these regions would otherwise be out of the range of our perception/reality (due to mostly environmental conditions).

would you argue that such a computer has little difference to a human? so could be classed as a 'living' consciousness? or that it is only our ability to recover the gathered information which make it an observer?

plenty of room for debate in that one.

you also bring forth the theory that everyone is living in a different reality. something that i have pondered more than once. and the voice in the back of my head is yelling 'yes, perception defines reality, but reality is only a perception of the universe, and it is the universe which gave us our perception'.

next you also touch on the collective consciousness, something which i can accept might exist, though only throughout simular organisms (the creatures on this planet for example, but most likely only the self-aware). if you examine how the brain works, then relate the neurons to ants with their chemical trails and subsiquent collective intelligence (finding the shortest distance around an object for example), its not hard to see all of our conscious minds acting as a whole (though whether the collective mind is self-aware is another debate).

then you go on to rather casually say that everything is a product of our conscious minds. this is something else i grappled with for a while, after smoking pot too regularly and dipping in and out of psychosis.

hell. i think you just mentioned 3/3 of my most pondered theories in the space of a few paragraphs. YOU might exist only in my mind, there is no way to tell as far as i know.

this 'radio' metaphor is interesting. i assume its because you don't want to mention the word psychic :wink:

i don't believe psychic style connections are required to explain a collective consciousness, we are already pretty thoroughly connected as is, with genetic memory and human interaction. though argument stops short of sounding crazy, and im prepared to accept the possibility of some kind of psychic link, but as the effect of the collective consciousness, not the cause.

k now your sounding crazy. hinting that intelligence is caused by a good radio reception to the universal mind .

i would rather define intelligence as quality, quantity and speed of knowledge, understanding and communication. i think you need to flesh out your argument on this point if you wish to make me or others think differently.

alright im getting tired (as you might tell from my deteriorating sentence structure), will continue this tomorrow. its been thought provoking reading so far, thanks!

Originally Posted by redrighthand

looks like interesting stuff.

i think many of us have toyed with notions like this, but never really had the guts to try and verify/justify them.

Yes I know. Many of us have and obviously including myself. Why am I the first to attempt formulating a direct theoretical version of this notion? I can't answer that conclusively. I suspect it's because mainstream physics has further and further separated themselves from Neil Bohr's initial theory that atom and our solar system were relatively similar in some fashion. In my own theory of relatively equivalent quantum and celestial systems I calculate an exact scale ratio between the two which is something that boggles the mind why it wasn't done until now. but my theory didn't stop at the scale S value ratio but used it to also derive relative density and mass equations between quantum and celestial systems which separates my theory from that of Neil Bohr's initial theory and discovered a direct relation between mass and charge. Mainstream physics has done remarkable work in analyzing how quantum particles interact as perceived from our celestial relative point of reference. But because quantum systems appear so foreign in comparison to celestial system (which btw we have limited information on how planets and star systems interact over thousands, million and billions of years). My theory in the ebook states that quantum realm is exactly relative to our own celestial realm but the passage of time is faster at the quantum scale compared to the celestial scale and so what mainstream physics has been seeing & analyzing for decades is THE PATTERN of how celestial systems would interact over the course of thousands to billions of years or even more. I think mainstream physics has lost on some part the ability to philosophize on physics which I believe should be a precursor to formulating formal theories, but instead what happens are ideas outside mainstream thinking are sometimes shunned and our best minds, who reached a certain level of success, fear being ostrasised because it would affect their livelihood or reputation. It is in my opinion that fear is partially responsible for not making this discovery sooner and the other part is due to a lack of formal philosophizing in physics where you still need to know physics and math but don't need to be confined to the current formal theorizing methodology...that would be the next stage. Before any good idea, there is brainstorming where anything goes and some of mainstream physics has lost this ability to brainstorm in an open and constructive environment and there are too many reasons exactly why this has happened and some of them I'm probably not aware of.

if its ok with you, i'm going post my opinions, critiques, mis-understandings etc. as i read through it. please keep in mind that i am relatively uneducated, and not particularly smart, so it should be a good test of your communication skills

Please do. I have no problem with civilized opinions and critiques. Please don't demean yourself. I've met really stupid smart people. Intelligence too is relative and my belief is that all have the potential of achieving a higher intellect even if it takes longer than others and all we need is the will to want to achieve I higher intellect. Too many factors affect one's level of intelligence and a usually its a lack of knowledge and understanding which are two things that over time can accumulate increasing your relative intelligence. To me everyone is of equal potential intelligence.

edit- let me stress again, im typing these comments AS i read, pretty much paragraph by paragraph. so hopefully it will give you some solid feedback on (at least) the structuring of your book.

I appreciate the feedback.

Definition of reality
after reading the third sentance, i think when refering to reality, you should specifically state whether it is 'percieved reality' or 'actual reality'.
one of examples - 'the definition of concept is interchangable with reality' - (should be percieved reality), [also interchangeable with 'idea'?]

Good point. In the book I do talk about a natural actuality in physics, but what I was attempting to describe is that reality, even without actuality, is still a perception interpreted by the observer perhaps based in the actuality of physics if the observer is knowledgeable on the actuality of physics (something we relatively relate too also). For example, someone who suffers from a mental illness and hallucinates every moment of the day perceives a reality that is very real to them where the actuality of physics might or might not apply as it applies to us. Basically, without the observer's interpretation on the actuality of physics, physics would not be defined. That goes for one observer. Now if you include multiple observer's of the same event, the interpretation of some might be different than others but the majority consensus of all collective observer's is what will interpret and define that event, so the actuality of physics is the major consensus of physical events and this is what is taught in school as formal physics. Remember, everything we see and interact with is interpreted by us there is no way around this simple fact.

With regards to concept defining itself. In my opinion, thus in the book, due to interpretation, everything helps define everything else. You use your knowledge to
describe something, but your knowledge contains relative imaginary and understanding to other "things" in order to define this "new thing"

i find your reality vs abstraction graph initially clear, but somewhat confusing after heavy analyzing, due mostly to terminology and the structuring of your ideas surrounding it (the paragraph above and below it)...

i assume you mean 'possibly perceived reality' vs abstraction. with 0 representing 'current perceived reality'.

if your going to say 'it doen't matter where the observer sits on this graph', i think its also worth stating that the observer (n) must always = 0.

so the observer can shift along the graph (edit-limited by perception barriers), but 0 must shift also.

side note; at this point i feel like i want to define 'abstraction' as a value proportionate to the distance between perceived reality and actual reality. (you may be able to incorporate that into your theories at some point)

The graph was a simple representation of how abstraction relates to our perception . The center of the graph is you, the observer, and the further out you go the more abstract things get. The left hand side was meant to represent quantum, the right hand side represent celestial, or small and bigger things respectively compared the observer. I agree, I wasn't too clear.

Man in a Box
this is really nice metaphor. works well.

Man in a box 2 - the big picture
this one works too, but i don't think its as elegant.
it could use some refining and culling. even if your trying to hint at the variations in complexity of how 'reality's' relate to those they encompass.

Barrier of Perception
ahh ok, so the complexity of man in a box 2 is partly justified (at the end of the first paragraph). i still think it could be simplified though.

I agree it could have been simplified.

also you give a clearer version of your definition of reality (that it is always based on perception). just a bit confusing after you allude to an 'actual' reality (one that is the sum of all the relative reality's) so early on (in the 'definition of reality').

There is an actuality to reality, can't avoid the obvious, but it's how we, the observers, interpret it that makes our reality by major consensus. I described this above.

The Commonality
i thought the first dot point was unecessary at first. but after thinking about it... i think the second one is. though i'm not sure.

you will probably get asked this sooner or later... what about computers? we can send a program out into space, with sensors for recording information and a hard-drive for storing it. these regions would otherwise be out of the range of our perception/reality (due to mostly environmental conditions).

would you argue that such a computer has little difference to a human? so could be classed as a 'living' consciousness? or that it is only our ability to recover the gathered information which make it an observer?

plenty of room for debate in that one.

This comes back to the classic notion, it no one was in the forest to see the tree fall, did it actually fall? It was on the forest floor so yes...but are you sure. Only after forensic analysis which still involves conscious interpretation. Essentially, exploratory probes with on board computers are much like our eyes, and is an extension of them much like the the telephone is an extension of our hearing. The probe with it's human-made programming analyzes data and interprets it based on our pre-programmed interpretations of "things" which include patterns. The probe then relays the information back to us for our interpretation. We, the observer, are always in this equation of reality.

There is a mystery I elude to in the book which is the mystery of us being programmed genetically like machines which eludes to a possibility that human programmed machines are actually a very, very low level of conscious entity created by man. This is far fetched, but theorist in the study of AI have mentioned the possibility of randomness in the AI machines. If any of this is true, and that's a big if, then probes too might be considered an observer. Again, far, far fetched but something to think about.

you also bring forth the theory that everyone is living in a different reality. something that i have pondered more than once. and the voice in the back of my head is yelling 'yes, perception defines reality, but reality is only a perception of the universe, and it is the universe which gave us our perception'.

There you go. I think you got it. All "things" are self defining.

next you also touch on the collective consciousness, something which i can accept might exist, though only throughout simular organisms (the creatures on this planet for example, but most likely only the self-aware). if you examine how the brain works, then relate the neurons to ants with their chemical trails and subsiquent collective intelligence (finding the shortest distance around an object for example), its not hard to see all of our conscious minds acting as a whole (though whether the collective mind is self-aware is another debate).

Collectively, we aren't self-aware until the majority of us understand the concept of collective consciousness. Those that do probably do very well in the stock market which is an extension of our collective consciousness alone with the media.

then you go on to rather casually say that everything is a product of our conscious minds. this is something else i grappled with for a while, after smoking pot too regularly and dipping in and out of psychosis.

hell. i think you just mentioned 3/3 of my most pondered theories in the space of a few paragraphs. YOU might exist only in my mind, there is no way to tell as far as i know.

Haha! I'm in you head.

this 'radio' metaphor is interesting. i assume its because you don't want to mention the word psychic :wink:

here's something to ponder philosophically, what if we're all the same entity just being filtered through different "physical" bodies much like water filters differently through different water filters.

i don't believe psychic style connections are required to explain a collective consciousness, we are already pretty thoroughly connected as is, with genetic memory and human interaction. though argument stops short of sounding crazy, and im prepared to accept the possibility of some kind of psychic link, but as the effect of the collective consciousness, not the cause.

We don't need a "psychic style connections" because for global collective consciousness to occur, we already have the media, the internet, and our multiple phone systems. We're all connected already and all this technology is our global collective nervous system.

know your sounding crazy. hinting that intelligence is caused by a good radio reception to the universal mind .

i would rather define intelligence as quality, quantity and speed of knowledge, understanding and communication. i think you need to flesh out your argument on this point if you wish to make me or others think differently.

alright im getting tired (as you might tell from my deteriorating sentence structure), will continue this tomorrow. its been thought provoking reading so far, thanks!

You've got to remember some of the theories in my ebook are at an infant stage and require a lot more work while others are more seasoned. I am a philosopher also and like all philosophers I wanted to touch on explaining our physical existence except I attempted to derive it logically and formulate it where possible. So I did touch on a lot where somethings are far fetched notions & ideas. A warned everyone about this at the beginning of this thread.

Anyone who tries their hand at maverick theories that aim to unite known concepts of space-time take a real risk in seeming 2nd to the real thing.






The ultimate theory, if it is related to what we perceive, will ultimately be known as the perception of "someone else", someone else's idea, an idea that people will understand is not theirs, an idea they cannot even come close to else be the mind of that person. Sure, they might understand the theory, the ultimate theory, but they will know that it is the perception of an ultimate mind, and that for them to understand it means they HAVE TO be a part of their, the greater theorist's, MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIND.

It is a risk any theorist in search of the ultimate takes, namely, "are you the real thing, or can you handle trying to be the mind of someone else"?











Your "man in the box" idea sounds quite novel, but if that person perceives and understands reality, then they represent a UNIQUE reference, and as the theorist of the theory of perceived space-time that man-in-the-box, that so-called "jack in the box" is a "1 and only", according to being an independent reference.

Sad, my friend, but true: you could be trying to be someone you are not, someone you cannot be else try to be someone else already there with the real-thing.

I think the dawn of the ultimate theory will represent an awareness of a human being, scary at first because no one would know what it is about, but then given the attempts of people to understand the ultimate science sprung from that person, they might work out how to "communicate" like real humans with this person, as opposed to living in some fantasy land of ignorance. They will realise they will need the science, and of course the theorist to keep developing it, else perish.

AGAIN: The book is a collection of many theories so heads up. None of these theories negate any of our current physics so this isn't a claim to have discovered or toppled current physics. Some of these theories have yet to be tested. The only discovery that I find extremely hard to disprove is the one mentioned above. It was discovered accidently based on the initial premise (theory) that our solar system is relative to a Beryllium atom and is the reason I wrote the paper.

I don't want to loose sight regarding this. My theories are not a Theory of Everything event though I touch a lot of material . If anything, it unites quantum and relativistic physics.

Do you want someone to solve your jigsaw puzzle?























You know, the overall picture, the fundamental focus? (I'm a little wary of people who say they have it all yet can't see the picture to piece it all together)

"Jupiter is an Electron" theory

Checkout the video:
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=ucRuZ9lKM0s

not my best video, but its the content that matters.

Download a tangible document explaining this:
http://www.gpofr.com/portal/SharedFi...leid=13&mid=25

damnit! you got me interested in this again

i'll continue my in depth analysis after i finish my uni application.

btw

here's something to ponder philosophically, what if we're all the same entity just being filtered through different "physical" bodies much like water filters differently through different water filters.

this reminds me of one of my favourite songs. 'reflection' by 'tool'.

"And in my darkest moment, fetal and weepin'
The moon tells me a secret, my confidant
As full and bright as I am, this light is not my own and
A million light reflections pass over me

It's source is bright and endless, she resuscitates the hopeless
Without her we are lifeless satellites dreamin' dreams
And as I pull my head out, I am without one doubt, don't want to be down here soothing my narcissism, I
Must crucify the ego before it's far too late, I pray the light lifts me out

So crucify the ego before it's far too late to leave behind this place, so negative and blind and cynical
And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable
Just let the light touch you and let the words spill through, just let them pass right through, bringin' out our hope and reason"

mmm can feel it in my spine every time