The difficulties associated with what our minds can understand by what we can see and what actually occurs are vast. One of our greatest counters to this is scientific history. We are very lucky to have the mysteries of the very small and the very large investigated indepth at this stage of sciences journey. Imagine telling people about the complexities of atoms back in the day. What a fantastic time we live in.
Since we have these benifits to draw on , it's surprising to me that so much about the overview of the interactions is still not compacting into a cohesive theory. I personally blame the practical applications of infinity and the theories which would cease to be correct without it.
So what' s good about science is that it hasn't shied away from making some things much weirder for everyday people. The "what could be possible" factor has fuelled the searches through the ages for better understanding.
At atomic level , what is going on is pure process , the atoms have lives which have limits and personalities that set them apart from other atoms with other pure processes. At our level we can be very clinical about processes like evolution in biology and geology. Yet somehow we get to ourselves and change the process view to something else. Sociology colours our view of other sciences. We simply cannot get away from the old question of "why are we here " . Even though we treat everything else as part of a process , when it comes to ourselves we "humanise" it and return to needing personal answers to our lives.
This is very telling in where you see most speculation in science chat rooms. I am very surprised every time I see positive arguments in favour of time travel. It seems so straight forward to me . Time is the difference between where EVERY single atom in the universe was positioned during one snapshot view of the universe and the next. Not just downtown Chicago , but the universe. I see people postulate that they would travel through time and I wonder what is being taught to them.
It is very easy to annoy a physicist , by limiting some of the logical flaws in thier posts. But these are the same people who can dazzle you with mathematical arrays to explain other areas of physics. I have no other explanation except our dream to not be bound by the here and now.
So we continue to here about mathematical possibilities to do with time travel and wormholes that will take us back as well as to the other side of the universe via a shortcut. None of these has any where to go except as dreams for one day in the future.yet they are spoken about by intelligent people as if they were proven reality.
Others look for intelligent life on other planets and the possibilities of contacting them. I can only surmise that half the parameters were left out when they applied for the funding. I read in a book on the Apollo landings and a quote by one of the astronaughts. I have looked for the book and haven't managed to find it , but his answers to the possibility of contacting intelligent life were very sound. The universe is some fourteen billion years old. Given that we have had radio communication for a hundred odd years , that is a tick of the clock. Intelligent life is possible , but the distances are breath taking. I can't remember it all but the distance meant we would need forty thousand years to get a message to the closest possible life yearling planet and the same for them to send it back. We might be waiting a while. Added to that is whether their evolution matched ours. They may have peaked ten thousand years ago when we were coming out of caves. Anyway the likelihood of our two civilisation s being able to communicate was so remote as to be zero. I think that is the reason why unrealistic theory like wormholes exists. Because unless they can find a shortcut , it's not going to happen. And they of all people understand the unlikelihood of getting there in the conventional ways.
But the reason for thinking this way at all is the belief that the universe is infinite and there is somewhere else that we need to find before the demise of planet earth. Of course , humans are much more inclined to move away from sticky problems like wrecking the planet , so looking outward for salvation has taken the place of looking upwards. Because the Christians believed in the world coming to an end , that is the last place a scientist will look , since Christians , in thier own way believed and predicted a finite universe. Scientists also predict an end to life , but only because the universe will expand infinitely until nothing can interact any more.
Here's the funny thing. If what I'm saying is correct , then no one's the least bit wrong. The universe (as we view it in a timeline) . Will indeed expand till nothing can interact. And as far as Christians , Muslims , Buddhists , Hindus , Orthodox Jews and every other religion is concerned , they could not be removed from my model. They were essential in every thing they ever did or said. It's a process , so nothing can be removed. If they want God. What could follow thier doctrine more correctly than for a single entity to be critical in the make up and creation of them and the universe. So they will be "forever one with God" go hard .
The thing is , that science is looking for"the theory of everything" or "TOE" as it's known. But they seem to be picking and choosing what is everything. At which point are they going to say that counts and that doesn't. It must be everything.
All processes must be included in this concept or it can be challenged. Infinity doesn't help the search since it leaves every end open. For me we will never know how big the universe is or how small the smallest individual part of it is. But we can know that the limits exist and with that we can map the behaviours enough to get a definitive result.since we can measure the middle , there is a clear outside parameter , and through that we get our measurement for lineal time.
Sunday, 15 June 2014
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
Singular electron v singular particle
I know particle is the wrong term , but I really have trouble with what to term the pixel . I was reading faradays comments for the first time and was a little upset that something so similar was already out there. Not the same , but similar.
I have experienced this before when googling singular particle theory and came across 'the God particle'. The problems associated with these theories are causality and distance.
" Inevitability " does not use space, it creates it via a signature which remains in an occupied position.
In a previous post I wrote a series of numbers. These numbers mean nothing in themselves, but the method allows the particle to change states from 'one' to 'zero'. It is not motion that creates space but fact that no two states are the same , therefore they cannot overlap. Equally the residue becomes a key which disallows re-occupation as no two representations will add to one or whole.
Since the changes in state occur in the same'space' which is then expanded , the creation of all portions of time is the initial reaction. So the boundaries of the universe were created first. The image of the soupy universe comes to mind. The mass of the universe is created by the reverse of the expansion and the skew caused by the varying states.
10. 5. 0
10 2.5 5. 7.5 0
You will notice that the skew will move one portion towards the ten and the other lower or away from it.
10. 5. 0.
10 2.5. 5. 7.5. 0
10 1.25 2.5. 5 8.75 7.5 0
These numbers are representative and in no way attempt to show the actual degrees . However there are a huge number of possible variations to the method of representing the change in states.
10 5 0
10 7.5 5 2.5 0
10 8.75 7.5 5 2.5 1.25 0
Unfortunately I can see no variation in the above method . It would be necessary that the degeneration of the state was configured in a way that ensured the keys were pushed apart while not simply showing the reduction in a straight line. The second example is more likely. But equally could be represented as
10 5 0
10 7.5 5 2.5 0
10 7.5 1.25 5 8.75 2.5 0
Since time is the creation of the change of states and not the other way around , it could be as random as you like. Though I expect that similarly close states must repeat in the pattern. So while I have shown a split which is reasonably even , in order to create motion , once the first circuit of the universe was run , the next " second" would be represented by shifting every position one space. Under that premise , the closest possible variations should be found next to each other when viewed via a timeline. This allows mass to remain solid and appear to move.
It should be remembered that nothing.....NOTHING.... In the universe can ever be shown to be stationary. Every single measure of energy is in constant motion and can never simply occupy one position...this is what is currently observed. So a reason needs to address this. Big Bang theory is based around the constant expansion of space and tries to show that the reason for this motion is that everything is moving away from everything else.what I'm trying to show is that other methodologies can be responsible for what we observe.
I have experienced this before when googling singular particle theory and came across 'the God particle'. The problems associated with these theories are causality and distance.
" Inevitability " does not use space, it creates it via a signature which remains in an occupied position.
In a previous post I wrote a series of numbers. These numbers mean nothing in themselves, but the method allows the particle to change states from 'one' to 'zero'. It is not motion that creates space but fact that no two states are the same , therefore they cannot overlap. Equally the residue becomes a key which disallows re-occupation as no two representations will add to one or whole.
Since the changes in state occur in the same'space' which is then expanded , the creation of all portions of time is the initial reaction. So the boundaries of the universe were created first. The image of the soupy universe comes to mind. The mass of the universe is created by the reverse of the expansion and the skew caused by the varying states.
10. 5. 0
10 2.5 5. 7.5 0
You will notice that the skew will move one portion towards the ten and the other lower or away from it.
10. 5. 0.
10 2.5. 5. 7.5. 0
10 1.25 2.5. 5 8.75 7.5 0
These numbers are representative and in no way attempt to show the actual degrees . However there are a huge number of possible variations to the method of representing the change in states.
10 5 0
10 7.5 5 2.5 0
10 8.75 7.5 5 2.5 1.25 0
Unfortunately I can see no variation in the above method . It would be necessary that the degeneration of the state was configured in a way that ensured the keys were pushed apart while not simply showing the reduction in a straight line. The second example is more likely. But equally could be represented as
10 5 0
10 7.5 5 2.5 0
10 7.5 1.25 5 8.75 2.5 0
Since time is the creation of the change of states and not the other way around , it could be as random as you like. Though I expect that similarly close states must repeat in the pattern. So while I have shown a split which is reasonably even , in order to create motion , once the first circuit of the universe was run , the next " second" would be represented by shifting every position one space. Under that premise , the closest possible variations should be found next to each other when viewed via a timeline. This allows mass to remain solid and appear to move.
It should be remembered that nothing.....NOTHING.... In the universe can ever be shown to be stationary. Every single measure of energy is in constant motion and can never simply occupy one position...this is what is currently observed. So a reason needs to address this. Big Bang theory is based around the constant expansion of space and tries to show that the reason for this motion is that everything is moving away from everything else.what I'm trying to show is that other methodologies can be responsible for what we observe.
Saturday, 7 June 2014
A process view of time
If I were to show how the process could be seen , I need to use a snapshot view. Although I titled this 'time' it is pure process but would be seen by us as time.
Let's say I could stop everything in it's tracks. In lineal time, there would be a whole lot of space, a whole lot of mass. But under a process , there is only one pixel. It wouldn't matter if you stopped it in the year 2000 bc or 2000 ad. There would still be only one pixel. Of course , the positions in the order is different , but the rule of singular energy applies .
Then we need to see how the order applies to lineal time. Each second of lineal time requires that all the throughout the entire universe be filled for that second in order. I'm sorry to make it more complicated but this is only relevant for a universe without motion. In other words , the behaviour I just proposed was for a slightly more complicated snapshot view of the universe. But next you need to understand that the universal order is not lineal. It does not complete one second and then move on to the next.
Effectively the order must create " all time" and as such builds both the beginning and the end in such a way that there is little difference between the two in importance or process. Imagine that the total sum of universal time is built at once and like the page that I intend to completely cover in dots, the universal time first covers the timeline in a fine haze. As the haze thickens, patterns emerge which will logically consolidate as fewer positions remain to be occupied. When much of space has been filled and occupied , pathways end up in corridors that only show similarities in thier occupation . This can be seen if you were to draw a picture using a course pen with a Spirograph. Then you decided to continue to fill in the page with a finer pen and then still finer.
You could certainly do it but your method would get more and more refined and since you used a course pen , there would still be options available. I wrote earlier in another post that mass passes through space hardly touching it. This is because some of the available space has been used up before hand(sorry...timeline apology), and the earth can only follow according to what's left. Likewise Jupiter which is mostly hydrogen is making use of the only pathway still available to it.
It might be considered that such conformist pathways means that we become aware of our very existence on the last turn of the universe. At the end of lineal time. The reason I think this is the density of mass that we see in lineal time and the stability of the order means that the complexity of the pattern is logically more stable when it's forced into tight corridors . Remember that space is mostly empty . This could be compared to how wind , rain and ocean currents behave .
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Why inevitable?
The term inevitable was last in a line of titles which I have used in my description of my thoughts. I used 'singular particle' , 'variation' and others as descriptive titles. However , the title which fits is 'inevitable'. This word means , the result is decided. That nothing you can do will alter the course of events.
Why am I so sure in this regard? Because of a finite universe , the system needs to be closed. In order for the system to be truly closed and not pretend closed, the components are fixed in place and immovable.
You might return argument that I can move and I have free will. That is correct and a good argument if we continue to talk about lineal time , because in lineal time ' I do things '. However in the theory of inevitability 'I am a function of the sequence '. So you then might argue " but I can decide to act differently " . And my return argument would be that you already did that and it is part of the completed pattern.
We have trouble imagining a concept which makes us simply as a component. But if you look at the vastness of space , which of course is mostly empty , the sheer volume of interaction which follow distinct patterns , orbits , morphings of galaxies , recycling of components , then why should we see ourselves as different from a planet which has function and both affects and is affected by every other interaction in the universe.
Ok . You'll say , "what possible relationship could my morning coffee have on distant stars" . Of course if you use direct lines , then very little , but you do in fact have a minuscule effect. But if you are part of a pattern which relies on every , single , however trivial , tiny component to be in place in order to exist at all , then your morning coffee is very important.
You might as easily dismiss even one element from our lives and think " well we don't really need that" , but you would be wrong. Structure evolved using that element in some process that required it and we could not do without it.further , if you consider yourself unimportant , think about a drop of water and how it looks inactive and rather droll. Until you put it under a microscope and see just how much is actually going on in that drop of water. And how those processes repeated in every drop of water on earth is what has enabled us to live on the planet.
Every pixel is required to achieve the result. There can be no variation and therefore it is finite.
For those who still like an infinite universe with infinite possibilities , I say this. Apart from mathematical infinity , there can be no such thing.
I have had this argument often. If you use infinity as 'unmeasurable ' then we agree with the term being used in reference to physical reality.but if you use it as'going on forever and ever ' then we can't agree and here is my reasoning.
I remember in school having a teacher ask us to imagine an infinite line. Now at the time I , like everybody else , trusted the teacher that an infinite line was possible. I have since seen reason why it could not. In order for an infinite line to exist it must have infinite space and infinite mass. No problem there really in lineal time science since the terms 'infinite universe' and infinite mass are common place. Except nothing else could exist except the infinite line , and it could do nothing more than be an infinite line. Because of the nature of infinity , it has no time component so the infinite line becomes every thing all at once ' if once was possible. Except it can't stop being an infinite line long enough for even that once.
This type of infinity prevents variance and such a line could not even bounce back on itself enough to have 'thickness'. Such a universe which was infinite would have the same problems. Infinity goes both ways. You can't have infinite 'bigger' without infinite 'smaller' and they cancel each other out and simply fix the universe as nothing at all.
My view of what occurs has some similarities to what I am objecting to . I am saying that the pattern occurred 'all at once'. If it was necessary for it to occur at all. There is no need for things to ' actually occur at all. From the inside we are tricked as much by what we see as what we believe we are. Remember how big the question " why are we here" has always been.
Evolutionists would have you believe you just are part of the universes recycling programme. Religious would have you think you aspire to a higher place in some future life after death...the amazing thing about inevitability theory is that they are both right. It's one of the funniest things I found while doing this search .... But of course I also found that it was absolutely necessary for us to have the Easter bunny , Santa clause , a belief in aliens , ghosts , goblins and every other quirk that humans create.
We also cannot do without war , famine , murder , dishonesty and every unsavoury human trait.
Not one interaction at any time or place can be removed or discounted and amazingly , not one event is any more important than any other. Every dot and jot must be there or nothing can exist at all. I have even examined this theory for ways to gain advantage by actually understanding it ....nada , nothing , no can do. Because from within the pattern I cannot affect my position in it even one little bit.
How lineal time and my view can co-exist
Ok.. So next we need to be able to live in a real world universe and have both lineal time, which is current thinking and my view which I have never heard proposed. Some behaviours are possible while remaining true to observed science.
The fact that a different view of what is Actually Happening, doesn't mean that current observations are wrong. I have a great respect for sciences ability to observe behaviour and create new theories.time and experimentation allows us to keep expanding our reference points to prove the truth of what we believe.
Big Bang is a picture of the universe based on what we can observe. It is the best guess based on these parameters and I am not at odds with Big Bang. What is different is that I am sure something entirely different is the driving behaviour behind the observation.
Something in Big Bang which never sat quite right with me was the original singularity posited in Big Bang and the unanswered questions which were put to one side while the theory was expanded. These are,
First , I propose that there is not a lot of energy. There is one quanta or measure of energy. And this is equal to the smallest possible division in the universe. Yep. Just one electron or what ever the smallest is.
The reason for this choice is that it is an unassailable quantifiable measure which I can show would be able to behave in a manner that can explain every observation.there is no need to make allowances or get stuck in the same old conundrums .
Second , I propose that it is not necessary to use a lineal timeline view of space. This means that distance is not an issue when following the make up of what we observe in our lineal view of time and space. ( I can understand that is a confusing statement) . So I better expand that point right away.
So in Big Bang , the singularity expands and then the fun of the theory begins. What I am saying is that an expansive view of the universe is ok, but the how and what needs a tweek . If I took a piece of paper I could show you how I can turn a page from white to black by making individual dots on the page. Now in some ways this is a good description , because I can choose any dot as a starting point to repeat the process with exactly the same result. But in that example time and space are still lineal , with a beginning and an end which require time to get the result.
Rather than a page , I'll use a balloon. Now the balloon itself is nothing , but gives a picture you can imagine. Now , if my pixels are marbles and I add them one at a time , you can get an idea of expansion. However, this view also requires lots of energy.
So let's go to the paper again and use the pencil as a pointer to where the pixel is at any point without leaving a mark. Eventually I can touch the entire price of paper representing the filling of every position.
But let's add a few parameters . The filling of the page must be filled in a particular order which is a not negotiable law. Remember , the universe is full of not negotiables. The first is that in a timeline view, you can go from here to there. Not here. You must build your universe very differently.so let's start .
1 pixel =1 position = 1 = beginning
0 pixel =1 position = 1= end
There is no distance or time between these two events. However there is variance which has infinite (unmeasurable) divisions which create a definable pattern. Being of opposite states , these are pushed apart in a logical fashion , however the progression from 1 pixel to 0 pixels occurs in this fashion.if I give the pixel a value of 10 and no pixel a value of 0 then this is how I see it evolving.
10,0
10,5,0
10,2.5,5,7.5,0
10,2.5,1.25,5,8.75,7.5,0
In this example, the pixel appears to occupy two positions in order to add up to 10 or whole. But in fact these are simply different states of the pixel within the pattern giving variance . Only one of the positions could be occupied at any time.
Please note that if we were referring to a lineal timeline , the matching values would occupy different parts of the timeline which would start at opposite ends....beginning and end....so if you use this as you would a timeline view, the greater the number of variations , the further apart the time and space expand.
This is a simple example of how you don't need to cross space to place each pixel of energy. Further, like your television , which you cannot tell is really only 30,000 pixels per second, you have not the capacity to separate the occurrence of each individual pixels. I could not even begin to guess at the speed required if measured via a timeline view. As a result, it looks like a lot of individual , separate packets of energy that make up the universe.but this is like a person from the 1800's seeing TV for thee first time and not understanding that it is a process that creates the illusion.
- Pre-Big Bang ( absolutely necessary to complete a toe using lineal time)
- Energy/ mass of the universe contained in 'something'
- Causality. Without a finite universe,nothing can begin or end in universal
- Law of conservation.energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
First , I propose that there is not a lot of energy. There is one quanta or measure of energy. And this is equal to the smallest possible division in the universe. Yep. Just one electron or what ever the smallest is.
The reason for this choice is that it is an unassailable quantifiable measure which I can show would be able to behave in a manner that can explain every observation.there is no need to make allowances or get stuck in the same old conundrums .
Second , I propose that it is not necessary to use a lineal timeline view of space. This means that distance is not an issue when following the make up of what we observe in our lineal view of time and space. ( I can understand that is a confusing statement) . So I better expand that point right away.
So in Big Bang , the singularity expands and then the fun of the theory begins. What I am saying is that an expansive view of the universe is ok, but the how and what needs a tweek . If I took a piece of paper I could show you how I can turn a page from white to black by making individual dots on the page. Now in some ways this is a good description , because I can choose any dot as a starting point to repeat the process with exactly the same result. But in that example time and space are still lineal , with a beginning and an end which require time to get the result.
Rather than a page , I'll use a balloon. Now the balloon itself is nothing , but gives a picture you can imagine. Now , if my pixels are marbles and I add them one at a time , you can get an idea of expansion. However, this view also requires lots of energy.
So let's go to the paper again and use the pencil as a pointer to where the pixel is at any point without leaving a mark. Eventually I can touch the entire price of paper representing the filling of every position.
But let's add a few parameters . The filling of the page must be filled in a particular order which is a not negotiable law. Remember , the universe is full of not negotiables. The first is that in a timeline view, you can go from here to there. Not here. You must build your universe very differently.so let's start .
1 pixel =1 position = 1 = beginning
0 pixel =1 position = 1= end
There is no distance or time between these two events. However there is variance which has infinite (unmeasurable) divisions which create a definable pattern. Being of opposite states , these are pushed apart in a logical fashion , however the progression from 1 pixel to 0 pixels occurs in this fashion.if I give the pixel a value of 10 and no pixel a value of 0 then this is how I see it evolving.
10,0
10,5,0
10,2.5,5,7.5,0
10,2.5,1.25,5,8.75,7.5,0
In this example, the pixel appears to occupy two positions in order to add up to 10 or whole. But in fact these are simply different states of the pixel within the pattern giving variance . Only one of the positions could be occupied at any time.
Please note that if we were referring to a lineal timeline , the matching values would occupy different parts of the timeline which would start at opposite ends....beginning and end....so if you use this as you would a timeline view, the greater the number of variations , the further apart the time and space expand.
This is a simple example of how you don't need to cross space to place each pixel of energy. Further, like your television , which you cannot tell is really only 30,000 pixels per second, you have not the capacity to separate the occurrence of each individual pixels. I could not even begin to guess at the speed required if measured via a timeline view. As a result, it looks like a lot of individual , separate packets of energy that make up the universe.but this is like a person from the 1800's seeing TV for thee first time and not understanding that it is a process that creates the illusion.
Sunday, 1 June 2014
Lineal time verses my view of time
One of the most difficult things I have come across is explaining my view without using terms which require me to refer back to a lineal view of time and space.At the outset , I need to be clear, we cannot break out of time and space and causality must be satisfied . Our lives can only every be perceived by us in the lineal sense.
However , science has been able to open up they very large and the very , very small to the point where reality is somewhat different to what we can actually perceive. If you were to tell the general public , two hundred years ago that matter is mostly empty space , nobody could picture it. Equally , the vast distances between mass in a Stella view are hard to comprehend. So we constantly have to update what we think are actually living in.
So what's so different about my view of time and space
Several base truths are required to understand my view , so I'll attempt to explain them now.
Although we don't attribute these actions to a scientific breakdown of time and space , we can see examples in current technologies and simple crafts that we do every day.If we can do this in small scale , then there is no reason they cannot be true for universal.
Examples of how a pixelated universe can work
If I liken the universe to a television program , it's fairly easy to understand. Before I can enjoy the program the parameters have to be completely set and in specific order , creating a completed order that I can comprehend.
However this program that I've used as a example , once completed , can be pulled apart and broken down into it's parts. Each part ultimately comprises of a singular pixel or electron that is correctly positioned within the order to create the whole.
Having been presented with the correct order or pattern of the programme I could reassemble the programme from any single point I chose.In affect the programme reflects the answer or whole.
Whenever we watch a programme , we can only enjoy it from a lineal view of the order of the pattern. That doesn't change what it is , a series of individual parts . The end of the programme is already predetermined and fixed in place. Any deviation from the pattern will mean it is not the same programme anymore.
When I refer this to my view of time , of course I have only one programme to refer to and even then I cannot get outside of it to view all of it's parts .However , I can see how the same parameters can exist in the universal sense. This can only be true if the universe is finite.
A non-lineal view of time and space
If time is non lineal then how would I explain it?
If I am correct in stating that only one point of energy exists then time would be measured by the same parameters it is measured by in a lineal view. In lineal view, we measure time via space and motion. In other words, we measure the motion of mass through space and the increments equal time.
Unfortunately, science has tended to forget that time is only a measurement of these parameters and so scientists run about on tangents like time travel and other theories that affect time . Time , especially lineal time can never be more than a measurement. It cannot be it's own dimension.in fact our perceptions of dimensions has been somewhat warped over the years to the point that we are inventing more and more unrealistic paper dimensions than could be possible.
Example.
We were taught in school about one , two and three dimensions.This is all good and we'll in explaining 'things'. But it is not true. In a lineal time view only three dimensions is possible , and by that I mean that one and two dimensions is incorrect.
The theoretical one dimension is not possible. If you place a dot anywhere , it has height , breadth and depth in physical reality. This is three dimensions. likewise , two dimensions must have height,depth and breadth. Once again reality is different from theory. If you draw a two dimensional picture , it is a three dimensional object. Anything that actually exists is three dimensional when measured via lineal time.
Only a singular object could be seen as one dimensional if it were unique in the universe with no other reference points.
So dimensions are incorrect and time as anything but a measure is incorrect.
What we do is measure mass in space against other mass in space and we get our measure of time. This is about all we can do since we have no other point of reference to work with. Often we refer to an astronomical viewpoint where we see distant galaxies as looking back in time. This is correct using lineal time. Mass or light travelling from point A to point B equals a measure of time.
However , this assumes that mass is actually moving. Rather than the view that mass is moving , I am happy with my assertion that what we see is not necessarily what is occurring.
We all now understand that even at atomic level,space is mostly empty. Unfortunately, the concept of empty space is rather difficult to really comprehend since we can touch things , pick them up and run into them.The idea that a piece of lead is moving through space and barely filling anything at all is hard to get. But few scientists could argue that this is true and the space filled by a piece of lead is by far far less than the space that is untouched by it's passing.
So , in the beginning statements , I stated that each position in space would be filled and furthermore, could only be filled once. This makes the empty space very important in my view of time. Where there not so much empty space in objects that we see as solid, then I could not make such a statement. But in fact. Even the passing of the planet would not be able to use every position along it's pathway. Passing radiation fills in the empty spaces that are left long after we have travelled through space.
As I said in the beginning, it is really difficult to explain my view of time and space without using terms as in a lineal view. In order to explain my view , I need to make plain what is actually happening in a lineal viewpoint as in the previous explanations.Concepts , such as the earth passing through space are a lineal point of view and I use it to highlight how much empty space plays a role in my view of time and space. We are used to expecting to think of 'things' moving around in space. What is not easy to grasp is how nothing needs to actually move in order for the illusion of time and space to occur.further, it is not necessary for lots of energy to be within the universe to create the illusion we perceive .
However , science has been able to open up they very large and the very , very small to the point where reality is somewhat different to what we can actually perceive. If you were to tell the general public , two hundred years ago that matter is mostly empty space , nobody could picture it. Equally , the vast distances between mass in a Stella view are hard to comprehend. So we constantly have to update what we think are actually living in.
So what's so different about my view of time and space
Several base truths are required to understand my view , so I'll attempt to explain them now.
- Only one point of energy , quanta , electron , pixel , or whatever term you want to give it actually exists.
- That this pixel will occupy every position in space
- That this pixel can only occupy a position in space once
- That each position must follow a pattern which cannot be changed and the order creates lineal time.
Although we don't attribute these actions to a scientific breakdown of time and space , we can see examples in current technologies and simple crafts that we do every day.If we can do this in small scale , then there is no reason they cannot be true for universal.
Examples of how a pixelated universe can work
If I liken the universe to a television program , it's fairly easy to understand. Before I can enjoy the program the parameters have to be completely set and in specific order , creating a completed order that I can comprehend.
However this program that I've used as a example , once completed , can be pulled apart and broken down into it's parts. Each part ultimately comprises of a singular pixel or electron that is correctly positioned within the order to create the whole.
Having been presented with the correct order or pattern of the programme I could reassemble the programme from any single point I chose.In affect the programme reflects the answer or whole.
Whenever we watch a programme , we can only enjoy it from a lineal view of the order of the pattern. That doesn't change what it is , a series of individual parts . The end of the programme is already predetermined and fixed in place. Any deviation from the pattern will mean it is not the same programme anymore.
When I refer this to my view of time , of course I have only one programme to refer to and even then I cannot get outside of it to view all of it's parts .However , I can see how the same parameters can exist in the universal sense. This can only be true if the universe is finite.
A non-lineal view of time and space
If time is non lineal then how would I explain it?
If I am correct in stating that only one point of energy exists then time would be measured by the same parameters it is measured by in a lineal view. In lineal view, we measure time via space and motion. In other words, we measure the motion of mass through space and the increments equal time.
Unfortunately, science has tended to forget that time is only a measurement of these parameters and so scientists run about on tangents like time travel and other theories that affect time . Time , especially lineal time can never be more than a measurement. It cannot be it's own dimension.in fact our perceptions of dimensions has been somewhat warped over the years to the point that we are inventing more and more unrealistic paper dimensions than could be possible.
Example.
We were taught in school about one , two and three dimensions.This is all good and we'll in explaining 'things'. But it is not true. In a lineal time view only three dimensions is possible , and by that I mean that one and two dimensions is incorrect.
The theoretical one dimension is not possible. If you place a dot anywhere , it has height , breadth and depth in physical reality. This is three dimensions. likewise , two dimensions must have height,depth and breadth. Once again reality is different from theory. If you draw a two dimensional picture , it is a three dimensional object. Anything that actually exists is three dimensional when measured via lineal time.
Only a singular object could be seen as one dimensional if it were unique in the universe with no other reference points.
So dimensions are incorrect and time as anything but a measure is incorrect.
What we do is measure mass in space against other mass in space and we get our measure of time. This is about all we can do since we have no other point of reference to work with. Often we refer to an astronomical viewpoint where we see distant galaxies as looking back in time. This is correct using lineal time. Mass or light travelling from point A to point B equals a measure of time.
However , this assumes that mass is actually moving. Rather than the view that mass is moving , I am happy with my assertion that what we see is not necessarily what is occurring.
We all now understand that even at atomic level,space is mostly empty. Unfortunately, the concept of empty space is rather difficult to really comprehend since we can touch things , pick them up and run into them.The idea that a piece of lead is moving through space and barely filling anything at all is hard to get. But few scientists could argue that this is true and the space filled by a piece of lead is by far far less than the space that is untouched by it's passing.
So , in the beginning statements , I stated that each position in space would be filled and furthermore, could only be filled once. This makes the empty space very important in my view of time. Where there not so much empty space in objects that we see as solid, then I could not make such a statement. But in fact. Even the passing of the planet would not be able to use every position along it's pathway. Passing radiation fills in the empty spaces that are left long after we have travelled through space.
As I said in the beginning, it is really difficult to explain my view of time and space without using terms as in a lineal view. In order to explain my view , I need to make plain what is actually happening in a lineal viewpoint as in the previous explanations.Concepts , such as the earth passing through space are a lineal point of view and I use it to highlight how much empty space plays a role in my view of time and space. We are used to expecting to think of 'things' moving around in space. What is not easy to grasp is how nothing needs to actually move in order for the illusion of time and space to occur.further, it is not necessary for lots of energy to be within the universe to create the illusion we perceive .
Unassailable truths which are required by theory of inevitability
I cannot explain every parameter at once because each must be understood clearly as being an absolute requirement of the complete truth of inevitability.To be very clear,every parameter used relies heavily on every other parameter being true.
With this in mind, I give the answer to the people who will want to quantify the parameters.
These parameters with always add to the answer of 'one' or 'whole'.
'One' being the only constant which actually exists at any point we are looking. 'Whole' being a descriptive view of one as required to understand how events unfold and interact.
'One' being the only constant which actually exists at any point we are looking. 'Whole' being a descriptive view of one as required to understand how events unfold and interact.
Other absolutes required by the theory
- Definition of time and how I differ from main stream view
- Definition of space and how I refer to it as finite and why this affects outcomes
- Clarification of motion and how it actually works in time and space
Also, I will use ,for the most part,reasonably straightforward terms which anyone with a high school understanding of physics should be able to read.Of course some terms can mean different things to different people.
For instance infinity in mathematical terms is essential. Without it much of the technology we take for granted and many observations rely on statistical results which can only get to a certain level of accuracy. Over the years we have used it instead to mean 'goes on without end or borders'. This definition is used quite liberally as descriptive of the universe. And because of this,we can not come up with a complete theory of everything. Despite this,every science chat is full of theories that can't be quantified while this view of infinity exists. My view of infinity is that it doesn't exist except as mathematical infinity and although useful , very useful, in everyday life , cannot have it's place in a view of reality except as a concept of 'cannot be measured'.
For instance infinity in mathematical terms is essential. Without it much of the technology we take for granted and many observations rely on statistical results which can only get to a certain level of accuracy. Over the years we have used it instead to mean 'goes on without end or borders'. This definition is used quite liberally as descriptive of the universe. And because of this,we can not come up with a complete theory of everything. Despite this,every science chat is full of theories that can't be quantified while this view of infinity exists. My view of infinity is that it doesn't exist except as mathematical infinity and although useful , very useful, in everyday life , cannot have it's place in a view of reality except as a concept of 'cannot be measured'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)