Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
FQXi FORUM
September 2, 2010
In my essay, Time Traveling by Simuverses in the point "1-The nature of Time in the architecture of the universe", I expose a theory about the no need for a ToE.
Have you read it?
post approved
Have you read it?
post approved
Sorry, I didnt see that you were talknig about an article of yours.
post approved
post approved
re the mark kaufman theory of everything. A spectator at a football match is not athletic enough to participate in the match itself but has a grandstand seat to view the whole of play more so than any individual player and can actually contribute to the game by fetching a ball that has been kicked out of bounds of the field of play. So too the amateur in a forum such as this (FQXi).
Time has always existed and is constant. Period. Neither the past, the present nor the birth of the Universe could exist without it. Chaos existed and out of it grew the physical (our) universe as well as an unknown number of other Universes. Our parent was born out of chaos by the Creative Waveform and our visible discernible Universe is a product of the parent's shadow in whose shadow we exist, analagous to electromagnetism existing out of phase with its cause. We are of the light so to speak. Time cannot alter it exists always as a constant analagous to a fluid. Cause and effect ruled after the waveform formed a "different state of being out of chaos". "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God", for those inclined that way. The greatest mistake being made is the acceptance of Time as a changeable entity when in fact it is constant. The fact is, I simply have a state of being, I exist. Molecular, atomic, spiritual or whatever form I will always exist as does everything exist all at the same time regardless of its structure.It might undergo cosmetic changes but the sum parts of everything will always exist.The pursuit of cosmology to fit the ideals of men are doomed to failure unless the start point of mans quest is simply that, I exist, I am. The implications of that statement cannot be readily appreciated till we accept the proposition that we are but rather insignificant light formed in the shadow of the Product of the Creative Waveform.A Universal model can then be constructed exhibiting the cause and effect at work to create gravity, the inward force, and the rotation of bodies. The key to understanding the construction of this model is that..."our view of the nature of time is distorted. We simply exist in Time and i do mean "in". However we, all matter, is on a journey to reconnect with the rest of itself. To see the future we must look backwards because that cycle has not happened yet. We journey through to this future, it is a quantifiable mechanism. We are and exist in Time without change,but the cause and effect of our environment changes us and matter is changed to many forms. The understanding of that simple quantifiable mechanism should be the single minded pursuit of every Cosmologist. Regards, baryczka.
post approved
Time has always existed and is constant. Period. Neither the past, the present nor the birth of the Universe could exist without it. Chaos existed and out of it grew the physical (our) universe as well as an unknown number of other Universes. Our parent was born out of chaos by the Creative Waveform and our visible discernible Universe is a product of the parent's shadow in whose shadow we exist, analagous to electromagnetism existing out of phase with its cause. We are of the light so to speak. Time cannot alter it exists always as a constant analagous to a fluid. Cause and effect ruled after the waveform formed a "different state of being out of chaos". "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God", for those inclined that way. The greatest mistake being made is the acceptance of Time as a changeable entity when in fact it is constant. The fact is, I simply have a state of being, I exist. Molecular, atomic, spiritual or whatever form I will always exist as does everything exist all at the same time regardless of its structure.It might undergo cosmetic changes but the sum parts of everything will always exist.The pursuit of cosmology to fit the ideals of men are doomed to failure unless the start point of mans quest is simply that, I exist, I am. The implications of that statement cannot be readily appreciated till we accept the proposition that we are but rather insignificant light formed in the shadow of the Product of the Creative Waveform.A Universal model can then be constructed exhibiting the cause and effect at work to create gravity, the inward force, and the rotation of bodies. The key to understanding the construction of this model is that..."our view of the nature of time is distorted. We simply exist in Time and i do mean "in". However we, all matter, is on a journey to reconnect with the rest of itself. To see the future we must look backwards because that cycle has not happened yet. We journey through to this future, it is a quantifiable mechanism. We are and exist in Time without change,but the cause and effect of our environment changes us and matter is changed to many forms. The understanding of that simple quantifiable mechanism should be the single minded pursuit of every Cosmologist. Regards, baryczka.
post approved
Hi ,
Yes Time is constant .
The rotation is proportional with the gravity ,and thus the mass and thus the energy .......
My model is the Spherization Theory ,all is coded ,the building is the spherization ,the perfect balence and the perfect harmony .
post approved
Yes Time is constant .
The rotation is proportional with the gravity ,and thus the mass and thus the energy .......
My model is the Spherization Theory ,all is coded ,the building is the spherization ,the perfect balence and the perfect harmony .
post approved
Albert Einstein is quoted as having said...
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction.There is no logical path to these laws,only intuition,resting on sympathetic understanding of experience can reach them.In this methodological uncertainty one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is in no doubt correct,theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest.
It seems that Mark Kaufman does not agree with Albert Einstein on this matter.He is not alone.Intuition and logical deduction do not appear to be held in high regard.So many scientists despair of finding the solution that will answer the fundamental questions of physics.After all, as Einstein said, there are any number of possibilities.
However despite Mark Kaufman's pessimism on the subject, the solution is not too complex to be reached but very simple.Albert Einstein is also quoted as having said .."Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." However theoretical physics has become increasingly complex, so that it is almost incomprehensible.
It is incorrect to assume that the solution can be found with increasing layers of complexity.Breaking the problem down into falsifiable chunks is a different approach, but sounds akin to a massive exercise in trial and error learning.This can be slow and painful.Though luck can come in to play too.
Rather than using trial and error, I have built up the solution. Starting with time. This was the most obvious candidate as the trouble maker. The grandfather paradox being a big clue that time is inadequately comprehended. I later found that the problem of time consumed Einstein's later years.
After some deviation down the blind alleys of multidimensional time and assumptions of the veracity of universal expansion, I realised that the problem lay in 3 different concepts being muddled together.This then allowed a new understanding of what the 4th dimension represents. From here more and more pieces came together to form a very simple, self consistent explanatory model.
I am optimistic that the main premises of the model will be upheld even if the detail is falsified or deemed unacceptable.There are 3 concepts of time muddled together.
Ht,t,Ut
4 dimensions.(3n+1)
2 realities.(separated by Prime reality interface.)
Answer to the ultimate question?
Whether the Prime Quaternion model is the single one that proves itself decidedly superior to all the rest has yet to be decided.Perhaps it is just another one of any number of possible solutions.
post approved
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction.There is no logical path to these laws,only intuition,resting on sympathetic understanding of experience can reach them.In this methodological uncertainty one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is in no doubt correct,theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest.
It seems that Mark Kaufman does not agree with Albert Einstein on this matter.He is not alone.Intuition and logical deduction do not appear to be held in high regard.So many scientists despair of finding the solution that will answer the fundamental questions of physics.After all, as Einstein said, there are any number of possibilities.
However despite Mark Kaufman's pessimism on the subject, the solution is not too complex to be reached but very simple.Albert Einstein is also quoted as having said .."Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler." However theoretical physics has become increasingly complex, so that it is almost incomprehensible.
It is incorrect to assume that the solution can be found with increasing layers of complexity.Breaking the problem down into falsifiable chunks is a different approach, but sounds akin to a massive exercise in trial and error learning.This can be slow and painful.Though luck can come in to play too.
Rather than using trial and error, I have built up the solution. Starting with time. This was the most obvious candidate as the trouble maker. The grandfather paradox being a big clue that time is inadequately comprehended. I later found that the problem of time consumed Einstein's later years.
After some deviation down the blind alleys of multidimensional time and assumptions of the veracity of universal expansion, I realised that the problem lay in 3 different concepts being muddled together.This then allowed a new understanding of what the 4th dimension represents. From here more and more pieces came together to form a very simple, self consistent explanatory model.
I am optimistic that the main premises of the model will be upheld even if the detail is falsified or deemed unacceptable.There are 3 concepts of time muddled together.
Ht,t,Ut
4 dimensions.(3n+1)
2 realities.(separated by Prime reality interface.)
Answer to the ultimate question?
Whether the Prime Quaternion model is the single one that proves itself decidedly superior to all the rest has yet to be decided.Perhaps it is just another one of any number of possible solutions.
post approved
Georgina
Just to let you know someone did notice your post, value it and take it seriously. It's nearly a year, but better late than never.
I believe you were right about many things, but nearly right about just too many. I've been thinking about your own thoughts, and working on a similarly based model, but combining reality with locality for a truly falsifiable unification model.
I had a seminal eureka moment as it all slotted into place, helped by every single rigorous test I gave it, but since then have had so many doubts, as it would need an adjustment of a ruling paradigm.
It had some slightly bizarre predictions, but research shows these are known anomolies which can now be solved! I've produced 3 papers, but of course no peer review journal will even look at them. When the NASA Lunar Laser ranging Gezari papers came out in December, with an unexpected result that was predicted by the model!! I got confidence back and tacked a note about it on the end of the last paper; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010
I hope you get to read this and have a look. I also had an essay, 'Perfect Symmetry' in the competition. If you'd like a quick review, a few have read the papers, most seem to be supporters, (amazingly) and one has done quite a good short encyclopaedic intro - to the 'Discrete field model (DFM). See attachment.
Please do let me know what you think if you get to look. It'd be nice to know if I'm really a crackpot!
Peter
attachments: WDFM21110index.php.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Just to let you know someone did notice your post, value it and take it seriously. It's nearly a year, but better late than never.
I believe you were right about many things, but nearly right about just too many. I've been thinking about your own thoughts, and working on a similarly based model, but combining reality with locality for a truly falsifiable unification model.
I had a seminal eureka moment as it all slotted into place, helped by every single rigorous test I gave it, but since then have had so many doubts, as it would need an adjustment of a ruling paradigm.
It had some slightly bizarre predictions, but research shows these are known anomolies which can now be solved! I've produced 3 papers, but of course no peer review journal will even look at them. When the NASA Lunar Laser ranging Gezari papers came out in December, with an unexpected result that was predicted by the model!! I got confidence back and tacked a note about it on the end of the last paper; http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010
I hope you get to read this and have a look. I also had an essay, 'Perfect Symmetry' in the competition. If you'd like a quick review, a few have read the papers, most seem to be supporters, (amazingly) and one has done quite a good short encyclopaedic intro - to the 'Discrete field model (DFM). See attachment.
Please do let me know what you think if you get to look. It'd be nice to know if I'm really a crackpot!
Peter
attachments: WDFM21110index.php.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Ooops! That was me above. No Login at the bottom of this page so I assumed I was!
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post