CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY by Joe Fisher
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Essay Abstract“One way to think of physics is indeed as a (large) set of (complex) mathematical laws of (abstract invisible) dynamics. These (many complex abstract) laws provide (questionable) predictions by carrying (many abstract) conditions at one moment of time supposedly into the (abstract) future. But nature has provided us with only one real observable self-evident phenomenon that is unquestionably real and that is vastly more useful in its singular aim and sole intention.
Author BioI am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist.
Download Essay PDF File
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,
you seem to be far ahead of the times and also long known to the fqxi community for regularily posting the same few sentences. Even having read your essay i cannot decipher what you mean by 'infinite non-surface light'. Is there also some surface or non-surface sound, non-surface smell and non-surface taste in your abstract of the real universe and how are they different to non-surface light or to your 'unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension'?
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher ! The first 3 sentences on page 8 seem to be the core of your approach which is in contrast to the laboratory method of 'testing' nature. This view confirms the opinion of famous German writer Goethe who said that we should first try to understand nature by contemplation and that laboratory testing is limiting our view of natural reality as dominant method. Your viewpoint is actually classical, in humanistic terms. Best: S. Ternyik
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Stefaan Weckback,
Thank you ever so much for reading and commenting on my essay.
Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite sound, Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite smell. Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite taste. Infinite surface am capable of producing infinite touch. Infinite surface can only produce infinite visibility because infinite surface am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Infinte surface can only be occurring in one infinite dimension.
Joe Fisher
Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Stephen Ternyik,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay, and for taking the time to leave such a positive comment about it.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 18:44 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,
never mind, reading your essay was fun. But i don't believe in infinities, because they do regularily produce infinite abstract nonsense. And i indeed do not believe - same as you - that the real universe is mathematical.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 19:35 GMT
Hi Joe, Mr Weckbach,Mr Ternyik,
:) I beleive that I found the meaning of words of Joe.
Joe you consider that an infinite entropy so has created a hologram and that all we are Inside this hologram in being am infinite like this infinity.You see I have understood your surfaces Joe isn't it?It seems a beautiful philisophical appraoch.Could you tell us more about this infinite surface ?
Regards
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 06:56 GMT
Joe, Your very first line is a fallacy "All living creatures have eyes." No they don't. Though you are talking about seen things you don't allow for the necessary physics for sight to occur. You haven't addressed the set topic. I know you do not want to debate what you have written, from previous experience, so instead I am just letting you know that I have read it to the end.
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 17:42 GMT
Dear Georgina,
A Google search asking if all creatures have eyes discloses only that ten species of animals are born without eyes including a species of spider (?) and a species of crayfish (?). As far as I know, my essay has as yet not been presented by audio tape. I am not “talking” about “seen (abstract) things” I am writing about the incontrovertible fact that the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are. According to the theme of the essay contest written by Dr. Bendan Foster, contestants were asked to see if they could present a more reliable explanation of the Universe superior to the mathematical one. I did that.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Karl H Coryat replied on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 01:24 GMT
A few questions for Joe:
1. Do plants and fungi have eyes, or are plants and fungi not living creatures?
2. Do sponges and corals have eyes, or are sponges and corals not animals? Are they not living?
3. When you say "infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension," do you mean a line? (Traditionally, a surface in one dimension is a line.) If not, what do you mean by one dimension?
4. When you say "infinite light," in what way is light infinite? Infinite in quantity? Energy? Extension?
5. What evidence do we have that light is infinite or that it must necessarily be infinite?
6. Why do you write "am" in place of of "is"?
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 24, 2017 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Karl,
Had you read my essay a bit more carefully, you would have been informed that I use the term “am” because of its accuracy. Using the word “is” always implies that a different state could be imminent and interchanged by using the word, “was”
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
A physical eye must be infinite in size and number. I know that every cell, germ and bacterium must have eyes because of natural consistency. A dimension am not linear.
Non-surface light must be infinite because as I explained in my essay, only infinity exists.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 08:30 GMT
Only nature can produce viable reality (p.8), i.e. finite experiments can limit our understanding of (the one infinite) reality or even destroy it. Archiving knowledge (professional academia) and creating knowledge (human learning) are not equal categories in real life; real viability is tight to infinity (non-surface light). The sentence on p.8 is practically a motto for the whole essay. These are the thoughts that I wanted to add to my last comment, Joe.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 25, 2017 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Stephen,
Thank you ever so much for your sagacious comment
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 12:32 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,
I got some observations…
1. In introduction line 1…. Correction …Trees,corals etc., don’t have eyes
2. In introduction Line 6:… How can you say empty space never existed anywhere?
3. In introduction Line 9:…. There are different un-connected surfaces, but not single surface. Single surface may be inside of the eye there is only retina ....
4. 3rd Para Middle sentence… It is not single surface / Not infinite surface
5. 4th Para line2… You are attributing every unknown to God…. Science should develop…
6. Page 3 line 5…Is there any ZERO sized initial Bigbang mass?? I dont think EVEN expanding universe models predicted such ZERO sized INFINITE Density mass was present at the time of Bigbang.
7. Page 4 line 1 to 3… What is real infinite dimension…?
8. Page 4 line 12… Why only two surfaces will travel … in Galileo experiment… there are many surfaces
9. Page 7 line 11…. Why all infinite surfaces travel with same speed… (Based on Newton’s laws the whole engineering and technology are working today…)
10. In Abstract: Simple Mathematical laws will explain… Eg Use dynamic Universe Model
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Gupta,
“I got some observations…
1. In introduction line 1…. Correction …Trees,corals etc., don’t have eyes
Simplicity cannot be simplified. Nature must have provided a reality that all creatures could be capable of dealing with. As all of the creatures I have seen have eyes, in order for all creatures to be able to deal with simple natural...
view entire post
Dear Satyavarapu Gupta,
“I got some observations…
1. In introduction line 1…. Correction …Trees,corals etc., don’t have eyes
Simplicity cannot be simplified. Nature must have provided a reality that all creatures could be capable of dealing with. As all of the creatures I have seen have eyes, in order for all creatures to be able to deal with simple natural reality, it am not too outlandish to assume that trees, corals, germs, bacterium and viruses must have some sort of eyes.
2. In introduction Line 6:… How can you say empty space never existed anywhere?
Because one real Universe must only have one real unified visible infinite surface. It cannot have any finite empty space.
3. In introduction Line 9:…. There are different un-connected surfaces, but not single surface. Single surface may be inside of the eye there is only retina ....
Unified infinite visible surface cannot be separated by any finite invisible force.
4. 3rd Para Middle sentence… It is not single surface / Not infinite surface
What am it?
5. 4th Para line2… You are attributing every unknown to God…. Science should develop…
Please read more carefully. Infinite unified visible surface could not have been created by any invisible God.
6. Page 3 line 5…Is there any ZERO sized initial Bigbang mass?? I dont think EVEN expanding universe models predicted such ZERO sized INFINITE Density mass was present at the time of Bigbang.
I was quoting from page 121 of Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time. Infinite visible unified surface has infinite density and am infinite in duration.
7. Page 4 line 1 to 3… What is real infinite dimension…?
What infinite visible unified surface am occurring in.
8. Page 4 line 12… Why only two surfaces will travel … in Galileo experiment… there are many surfaces
I know simplicity may be difficult for you to understand, but Galileo filed to notice surface, He dealt with objects.
9. Page 7 line 11…. Why all infinite surfaces travel with same speed… (Based on Newton’s laws the whole engineering and technology are working today…)
There is only one unified visible infinite surface. Newton’s laws do not mention surface, that is why they are wrong.
10. In Abstract: Simple Mathematical laws will explain… Eg Use dynamic Universe Model
Mathematical laws are unrealistically complicated. Only my contention that The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, is simple enough to meet all the requirements of being true.
report post as inappropriate
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 30, 2017 @ 01:32 GMT
Nice essay sir,
Probably I did not understand what is meant by surface....
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 30, 2017 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Gupta,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for asking such probing questions about its veracity. Thank you slso for your compliment. I do hope that your essay does well in the competition.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 10:59 GMT
hide replies
Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 02:50 GMT
Your comment to me on my page:
Dear Mr. Butler,
Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary “laws of the...
view entire post
Your comment to me on my page:
Dear Mr. Butler,
Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary “laws of the Universe.”
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
My return comment to you:
Dear Joe,
I do not mind comments about my work because there have been times that I have received good useful information that way. At the very least it tells me about the level of understanding of the one making the comments. This helps me to respond to the comments in a way that is most likely to be understandable to the commenter. Whether the response is actually of value to the commenter, of course, depends on whether he is only interested in giving me his current beliefs or actually desires to know the truth if his beliefs are in error, but that is for him to decide. I just give the information. If I am in error, I desire to change my beliefs to conform to reality and if our beliefs are the same, we can work together to gain more knowledge.
You say “Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.” Your implication seems to be that an amoeba is a very simple creature and it is in comparison to the structure of a man, but it is really a very complicated structure that man has not yet perfectly come to completely understand. It contains well over 100 protein machines that function in various ways to allow it to take needed resources into it, to process those resources to produce its needed energy and materials that it uses to repair damaged parts, and even build all the new parts needed to make a complete copy of itself when it divides to form a new amoeba. It also must be able to 1. Get rid of waste materials, 2. Move itself to find new resources, 3. Detect and take those resources into itself, protect itself from external attack, etc. When it reproduces itself, it first reads the required instructions recorded into its DNA. An amoeba has about 300 billion to over 600 billion DNA base pairs depending on the type of amoeba you are talking about. It must then copy the instructions to make all of the new protein machines for the new amoeba to be generated and transfer those instructions to the machines that build those protein machines following the supplied instructions. Those machines assemble the new protein machines by gathering and assembling amino acids together in the proper order one at a time out of about 20 left handed amino acids that are used by living creatures to build their protein machines. There are also right handed amino acids and a total of about 60 other amino acids that are not use in living creatures. If any of these were used to assemble a protein it would be ruined. Each machine must be assembled with the proper amino acid in each of its positions in order for it to function properly in the amoeba. This is effectively a very complex assembly line production plant on a microscopic scale. Man cannot yet build such a system on that size scale. Of course, all of those base pairs of DNA must also be copied and inserted into the new amoeba. There are no living creatures that just gather together a bunch of assorted amino acids and wait for them to self-assemble. They would die before even one protein would be made that way. They all have special machines that build proteins. That is why it is impractical to believe that the first living creature came about by some type of self-assembly. With 80 amino acids each of which comes in both left handed and right handed varieties for a total of 160 possibilities, only 20 of those possibilities (1/8) can be used in valid proteins used in living creatures. Since each position in the protein requires the exact correct amino acid of those 160 possibilities, constructing a protein machine that required 100 amino acid positions to be filled would be like picking the right 100 digit number in a 160 base math numbering system by chance. If you were really very lucky and you picked the right number the first time you would still have to do it again about 100 to 200 more times to get the number of protein machines needed for the first living creature. This doesn’t even begin to cover the more difficult and even less probable self-assembly of the DNA or even RNA that would actually contain the valid code to produce the first creature. All of these parts would have to be produced close enough together to somehow self-assemble into the living creature quickly enough to avoid the natural destruction of them by entropy processes. To get some idea of how low the probability would be to just produce the first protein machine by self-assembly, lets simplify the problem and in the process make it easier than it would be in reality to produce the needed protein machines for the first living creature by self-assembly. We will start by using a system with only 10 possible amino acids instead of the 160 that are really present in the world. This will allow us to just use the decimal system without having to convert from the base 160 system to decimal. Of course, you will need to keep in the back of your mind that in reality the probability of producing the needed protein machines would be much lower than it is in the example that we are using. To make it still easier we will assume that the living creature will need a total 200 protein machines with 2 each of 100 differently coded machines. This means that after you have assembled the number of protein machines that would build all of the possible different protein machines once, you would very likely have produced the first 100 needed protein machines by chance and only need to do it all one more time to produce the other 100 machines. Let’s also assume that in each place in the universe where protein self-assembly takes place, 1 trillion protein machines are produced in each second of time. Since each protein machine can have any one of ten amino acids in each of its 100 positions the total number of possible combinations is 1 x 10^100 combinations. Man’s current estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. If we figure that it would take about .8 billion years for it to cool enough to generate stars with planets around them that are cool enough to allow protein self-assembly to get going and to produce the first valid usable protein machine, there would still be 13 billion years left to produce the other 199 machines necessary to build the first living creature. Since there could be many places in the universe that could all be producing 1 trillion machines per second, it would likely not take long to produce the first one. After that things change, however. Even though it might be that all of the machines could be produced in a relatively short time with one in one galaxy and another in a second galaxy, etc. they could not come together to form the living creature because of the great distances between them. This would mean that the other 199 protein machines would have to be made by self-assembly on the same planet and even in the same local area on that planet that the first one had formed in order for the 200 machines to be close enough together to somehow assemble themselves along with the DNA, RNA, and any other needed parts to form a living creature. 13 billion years would equal about 4.1 x10^17 seconds. Figuring 1 trillion protein machines produced each second, a total of about 4.1 x 10^29 protein machines would be produced in 13 billion years, which is way short of the 1 x 10^100 machines that would need to be produced to make the first 101 valid protein machines that are needed to produce the living creature by chance self-assembly. You would still likely have to go through about as much time again to produce the other 99 machines. Another consideration would be that if one valid machine was produced and the next one was not produced for several million years, the first one would surely be destroyed by some entropy interaction over that long a time, let alone the many billions of years that it would take to produce all 200 of them. If they all were somehow produced and survived, you would have 200 proton machines mixed up in a mountain of invalid proton machines and they would somehow have to by chance be separated from that mountain and joined together with all the other parts and somehow become a living creature. Remember that I limited the amino acids to only 10 instead of the actual 160 possible amino acids that could be positioned in each of those 100 positions in each of the protein machines. This means that it would even take tremendously longer than I showed in my example to produce all 200 valid protein machines for the production of the living creature.
There are always those who will completely ignore reality to believe what they want to believe, but I can’t do that because I desire to know the truth of how things really work. Given the complexity of the structure of living creatures, the math just does not support the concept of self-assembly of living creatures by chance occurrences.
Reality starts out simple, but as those simple motion machines are joined together hierarchically to produce more and more complex structures, things become progressively less simple as you advance through those levels of increasing complexity. By the time you reach the level of molecules, things can get very complex. Man has not yet made all possible chemical combinations because the number is so large.
You are right that there is only one reality. When we look at the world around us we see things that move in relation to us. Sometimes these things intersect and their motions are changed in certain ways. There are other ways that we can imagine that the motions could change during an interaction between them, but they never act in those other ways. This tells us that the ways that we see the motions change during an interaction are a result of the way the things are made. Their structures only allow the generation of the interaction results that we see. Written into these structures are the laws or paths of action that allow for the production of the observed interaction results and disallow any other results. These laws are not men’s abstract laws, but are operational laws that are built into reality. Men only use abstract language forms to model or represent those laws that are built into natural structures.
When I look at the world around me I don’t see just one unified visible infinite physical surface. I see many objects each of which has its own complete surface that may or may not be connected to any other visible surface. As an example, I can take a balloon and add just enough helium to it when I blow it up, so that it will stay where I place it in the air when I carefully let go of it and will not be touching any other visible surface. If the surface of the balloon is painted so that each side looks different than the other side, I can first look at the one side that I can see and then walk around the balloon and see its complete outside surface and that it is not touching any other visible surface. I can even place mirrors behind it such that I can stand in one place and see one side of its surface directly and at the same time I can also look at the mirrors and see the light that has reflected off of the other side of its surface and hit the mirrors and then reflected off of the mirrors and entered my eyes allowing me to at the same time see the back side of the balloon also. You would have to tell me what you understand this one infinite dimension to be and how it works to let us see all that we see when we look at the world around us before I can make a comment on that because you apparently define dimension differently than is commonly done by most that I have seen in this world. When 2 things intersect and their motions are changed in some way as a result of that interaction, what do you understand to have caused their motion changes? Is their surface in any way involved in generating those changes? I ask this because light can cause motion changes also that are similar to the changes that are generated by the interaction of 2 things that have surfaces. Light does not appear to be infinite to me because when I turn on a flashlight I see that light begins to come out of the front of the flashlight. Since it has a beginning at that point, it cannot be infinite because infinite light would not have a beginning or ending point.
I will try to read your paper and make a comment on it as you requested me to do. It may take me some time, however.
In past years I have had trouble keeping track of the comments that I make on other people’s papers and blogs, etc., so this year I am trying a new way to better control things. I will place my response to any comment on my page on both my page and on the commenters page unless the commenter requests that I don’t do so and I will place my comment on anyone else’s page also on my page, so I will have an easily accessible copy of it to refer to.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 16:56 GMT
Dear Paul,
You really ought to have read my essay first. There is nothing complicated about a single celled amoeba’s surface. The whole point of my essay am that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 19:14 GMT
Dear Joe,
I read your paper and at the beginning you talk about a plethora of surfaces and you then mention several things and say that they have complete surfaces. This leads me to believe that each thing has its own complete surface that is not a part of other surfaces. Later in your paper you seem to be saying that there is only one surface. How can both be true or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in some way? Please clarify what you mean. You say that light is a nonentity, are you saying that it does not exist? You mention invisible radiance causes light to appear on infinite surface. What is the nature of this invisible radiance and how does it make light to appear on surface? If light does not exist, how can I see it on a surface?
An amoeba’s surface is not as simple as you might think. It has sensors or as you would call them eyes that help it to observe obstacles and food and when it finds food it has protein machines that move parts of its surface to enclose it around the food, which is then taken into it and digested. It appears from what you say that to you the base of all things is an infinite dimension. Are there any characteristics of this dimension other than that it is infinite and that it contains an infinite visible physical surface? Is the dimension completely filled by the surface that is contained in it or does it also contain anything else in it or is there any empty part of this dimension? Is this dimension also illuminated by the light or just the surface that is contained within it?
Sincerely,
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT
Dear Paul,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. You have a complete surface do you not? And your complete surface am always in contact with parts of other surfaces am it not? It logically follows that only a single physical visible infinite surface could ever exist. I never stated that light did not exist. I stated that only infinite non-surface light existed. I also implied that if you looked directly at the sun, you could verify that sunlight never moved away from the surface of the sun. Sunbeams, however, do seem to move from the surface of the sun. This could only happen if the sun sheds radiants that turn into non-surface light when they strike the atmospheric surface that exists between earth and the sun, and illuminates the earth’s surface when they strike it as well. An amoeba’s surface has to be as simple as all other surface am. One single, sole, unified, visible, infinite surface that am occurring in one, single, sole, infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am not my idea. It am the only way that one, single, sole, physical state could ever exist.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 03:54 GMT
Dear Joe,
I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man’s standard concept of...
view entire post
Dear Joe,
I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man’s standard concept of a 3 dimensional world, but at the same time you must have a way to explain the concepts of directions that one can go or move relative to other things that he can see around him to go from one place where he is near some things to another place where he is not near those things, but is near other things, and to go there faster or slower etc., which are very easy to observe with our eyes. A theory that can’t explain how these simple every day observations of things in this world work could not be true.
It is just as logical for every object to have its own complete individual surface and that surface can be in contact with the surfaces of other objects.
Do you consider the air around us a surface? I ask this because you say that surface is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, but when I am in a room, the ceiling, walls, and floor surfaces are illuminated by light from a ceiling light, but the air does not appear to be illuminated by light. It appears to be invisible. I see right through the air and see the walls behind it, but the surface of the walls blocks vision of anything beyond the walls. If I turn the light off, all I see is black. Did the ceiling, floor, walls, and myself all suddenly turn black, but are still illuminated by the infinite non-surface light or is the light not always illuminating all of the surface so that some of it is not always visible?
At the bottom of page 7 of your paper, you say “Infinite non-surface light requires no empowerment because it is a nonentity.” An entity is something that exists, therefore, a nonentity is something that does not exist because the prefix non means not. Also, on page 2 in the next to bottom paragraph you say “I use the word “am” because using the word “is” implies that there was a different physical condition prior to the is, best described by the use of the word “was”.”. This does not get away from the connection with the word (was) because (am) is the first person present tense word for state of being (I am here.) The first person past tense of (am) is (was). (I was here.) You were referring to the third person present tense word (is) (It is here.) and the third person past tense word (was). (It was here.) Only the second person word for state of being does not use the word (was). The present tense form is (are) (You are here.) and the past tense form is (were). (You were here.) You could change from (am) to (are), but it still has the past tense state word (were), so I don’t know that it would really help much to get your point across. You could try using a modifier word like endlessly or eternally, etc.
Do the radiants have a surface and what is the speed of their travel from the sun to the earth? How do the radiants turn into light when they hit a surface? From what you have told me so far the radiants seem to be a lot like energy photons to me. How does your theory handle light that is not visible such as microwaves or radio waves?
Why can’t there be more than one object, each with its own complete surface and its own physical state that may or may not be illuminated by light depending on whether light is present and hits (interacts with) it? That sounds just as logical to me. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 16:57 GMT
Dear Paul,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. One real observable Universe must only have one infinite dimension. Only infinite surface exists, invisible three dimensional empty space does not. As I explained in the essay, because there am only one dimension, one only sees a disc when one looks at a sphere. One only sees a rectangle when one looks at a cube. One only sees a PLETHORA of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces when one looks in any direction at any time. One’s surface cannot go anywhere without it always touching other surfaces, as the single law of the real observable Universe has to be consistent, there must only be one, single, sole, infinite surface that am occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. I do not know anything about microwaves, or permanent waves, or waving goodbye, but I wish you a respectable adieu.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Paul,
All real visible entities have a real visible surface. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is indisputably a nonentity. All real visible places have a real visible surface. It would be physically impossible for infinite surface to have any finite gaps. Air has a surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 03:23 GMT
Dear Joe,
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than...
view entire post
Dear Joe,
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man’s current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional object to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a spherical baseball on a table and look at it, I don’t see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional object. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles and the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional object. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don’t appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some things that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these things. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, things would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.
I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many objects that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man’s current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.
Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren’t actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I’m sure you will agree to that.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear anonymous Paul,
You wrote: “If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them” Every real “thing” that you see has a real visible surface. That means that only a single infinite visible surface could possibly exist. Obviously, you can manufacture a finite number of boxes. But each box has to have a real visible surface, Each real tree that produced the wood from which some of the finite number of boxes were made had to have a real visible surface. Each of the nails used to hold a box together must have had a real visible surface. As I explained in my baseball item, the real visible surface of a baseball never travels at a finite speed between two measured points. You can clearly see the real surface of a baseball whether it is purportedly moving at 90 miles an hour, or whether it am stationary. The disc that you actually see merely changes size infinitely throughout the game.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 01:27 GMT
Dear Joe,
Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two...
view entire post
Dear Joe,
Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional entities. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man’s current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional entity to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a baseball on a table and look at it, I don’t see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional entity. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles to form twelve joints between them that meet at the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional entity. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don’t appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some entities that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these entities. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of each of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, entities would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.
I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many entities with complete surfaces that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man’s current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.
Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren’t actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I’m sure you will agree to that.
When you say, “All real visible entities have a real visible surface.”, are you saying that they are all continuously illuminated by light and are, therefore, always visible or just that they will be visible if they are illuminated by light, But may not be visible when light is not present? Does the light illuminate the surfaces itself or is it the radiants that the light sheds that illuminate all the surfaces? You say that light is a nonentity, but you also say that it exists. This is contrary to man’s definition of the word nonentity. What is your definition of nonentity? If it exists, it must be composed of something that has some properties. What is it composed of and what are its properties that identify it as light instead of some other nonentity?
So far, you continue to use your same examples that involve entities that are too far away to closely examine their sizes and shapes and are observed only from certain limited observation angles, etc. and completely ignore and give no response to examples that do allow you to see and observe that a ball is a sphere, a cube is not just a square, and the ball actually travels and takes time to travel from the pitcher to the catcher, etc. This tells me that either you do not desire to share your understanding with others, since I have seen this same pattern in your conversations with others also, or you know that your theory is not valid because it cannot explain these other observations. As an example, even if you see the ball at a distance at the game, if you are sitting in a seat that is centered between the pitcher and the catcher so that the pitcher is on the left side of you and the catcher is on the right side of you, you will clearly see that the ball moves from the pitcher and travels all of the distance from him to the catcher and continues to look to be about the same size during the whole trip, if you are very far from it. This travel does not occur instantly, but takes some time for it to be completed and is, therefore, at a finite speed.
Your theory needs to be able to explain all that we see and observe in any way, not just a small part of what we see and observe under certain very limited circumstances. If you find a place where it doesn’t work, look to see why it doesn’t work and how you can modify your theory so that it does work in that respect. If you keep doing that long enough, you will end up with a theory that comes closer and closer to accurately modeling reality. None of man’s current theories are completely perfect models of reality, although many would like you to believe that theirs is. There is still so much in the world and so much that can happen in the world that man is currently not even aware of, that it is unrealistic to think that any theory will be able to accurately model all of reality without any errors or omissions, etc. In order to have any hope of getting people to understand and accept some of these things, so that advancement can occur, it is sometimes necessary to use over simplifications, leave out some details that would not be believable to those of a specific technology level, or could not be proven in any way given the current technology level and current beliefs, etc., but that which is provided should work with current understandings at a level that is equal to or greater than current understandings and add some real valuable increase in understanding. Best wishes in that endeavor.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Joe,
Even though I logged in and it said I was logged into my account, my above post went in as anonymous. You probably could have figured out that it was me, but I am sending this to make sure and to see if this login works ok.
Sincerely,
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 16:25 GMT
Joe,
I have decided that I will vote on the essays written by everyone that posts a comment in my forum. You posted your usual boilerplate in my forum. Therefore, I am following your succinct instruction and I am scoring 1 for simplicity.
Good Luck with That.
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Gary,
Thank you ever so much. Every little thing helps.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 17:26 GMT
It was my pleasure ... I only wish I could have given you a zero.
It sickens me to think of how much of other people's time you have wasted.
report post as inappropriate
Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 06:13 GMT
Interesting, but incorrect. Many creatures do not have eyes: bacteria, worms etc etc
Eyes give an advantage to creatures in environments where light exists and so their emergence through evolution allows these creatures to survive and persist better than other creatures without eyes.
Declan
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Dear Declan,
All real visible creatures have a real visible surface. This means that only infinite surface am capable of existing. It follows that only an infinite number of eyes of infinite size could exist. Had you read the comments, you would have learned that I had already answered this question of creatures supposedly born without eyes.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 14:53 GMT
Hi Joe
As esoteric as always! It took two reads but I think I clicked into the essence of your concept. I suspect you deliberately obscured it, and if so - from the comments above - it worked!
You may recall my own view, which may be reduced to effectively the conditions of a 'refractive plane' existing everywhere, and in 3D (a cloud of plasma refracts light, but may take 3 parsecs rather than 3 microns) If all electrons' re-emit light at 'c' in the only rest frame each knows, then neither Special Relativity or QM need be paradoxical or weird any more, and fit together.
All electrons 'see' (and 'couple with') all wavelengths of light, but, to borrow the universal number from Srittadev, have a refractive index of 1, so zero 'spectroscopic signature'.
I therefore 'see' a simple logical beauty in your, probably deliberately, obtuse description. Unless I've imagined connections that don't exist? By the way my essay (lodged but not 'popped up' from the 'dark energy' field yet) describes how evolution, 'intent' and 'goals' can simply emerge from such fermion coupling.
Best of luck. I know you know you'd need it!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 16:24 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thank you for reading my essay. I cannot understand why anyone would think that my contention that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, would be difficult to understand. I also cannot understand why some of the readers of my contention have made no attempt to refute it, but have instead chosen to insult me for suggesting that only nature could produce such a singular simplest reality as the one I have accurately described.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
Joe,
Good point. Maybe it's irrefutable!
Insults reveal limitations and lack of understanding.
Unfortunately all three seem endemic in physics
report post as inappropriate
Patrick Tonin wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Joe,
Thank you for your "classic" comment on my essay.
I have read your essay and although most of it doesn't make much sense to me, I must say that there might be an element of truth in what you are saying (if I understand you correctly). In a certain way, I could conceive that the Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite physical surface but maybe I would add "at only one invisible "abstract" moment in invisible "abstract" time".
Cheers !
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Patrick,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for taking the time to leave a comment about it. Visible infinite surface must be infinite in all visible aspects including duration. As there am no real finite time, there also could never be any finite abstract moment in time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
William Walker wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 20:03 GMT
Hey Joe,
Do me a favor, next time you are in the bathroom... take a look in the mirror ... then imagine the mirror encompasses you completely. Now when you look into the mirror and stare into the parallel universe known as your eyes... imagine you are a hyper-sonic vibrating clear butterfly. Tell me what you see... ;)
William Walker
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear William,
Every time I have looked into the real surface of a real bathroom mirror, I have seen a real reflection of part of my real front surface seamlessly enmeshed into partial real surfaces of the walls and knock-knacks in the real bathroom. It is physically impossible to gaze into an imaginary mirror.
Joe Fisher, Realist
William Walker wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:04 GMT
No, its not impossible, just close your eyes... which is typically what we do when we imagine things... or you can stare off into space and forget the image in the mirror... See, it's called consciousness. Which is the only thing that makes anything real. Even your one dimensional surface that you are trying so desperately to convince every person that submitted a paper in this contest to believe in by sending them basically the same carbon copy message...
can you see the light?
Good luck in the contest
WW... aka consciousness
report post as inappropriate
William Walker replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Hey Joe,
I would like to say one more thing to you...
I think your essay (and your ideas) are quite brilliant after reading it one more time...
Just don't try to hard to get it to win... politicking will only turn people off... have faith that your ideas are brilliant and will stand up on their own merits against other brilliant ideas... from the papers I have read, there are some incredibly smart people in this contest and to force your ideas down their throat using a disguise of being humble is easy to see through... your surface right now is pretty transparent and it is one that is condescending if you really look at the way you approach people with your carbon copy post...
Take care - good luck - and God Bless :)
report post as inappropriate
Gene H Barbee wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 22:05 GMT
Joe, I read your essay and was reminded about simplicity. Please do not read mine. It is about complexity.
report post as inappropriate
William Walker replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Gene,
Don't be harsh on Joe... he's a little arrogant with how he's politicking the contest... but show him a little love ;);), he is partially right in my opinion... that one dimension of surface light is an all encompassing mirror that causes light to basically freak out trying to get out of that sliver like tube (wormhole - string - hologram) using imagination...causing it to vibrate... when it vibrates past a certain frequency it actually starts to escape / emit into the space God created when she put darkness into the light (so he could see again)... Now my theory is music is the darkness and light that fuels the strings...
Now the contest does call for simplicity but maybe he was trying to make it too easy to understand... don't make your essay too complex... it should be made understandable to those with some advanced education, but not like the likes of Steven Hawking...
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Honorable Gentlemen,
Thank you for reading my essay, and for commenting on it. William, when one closes one’s eyes, one sees only a black surface. That is why I mentioned in my essay, the need one has for rapid eye movement when one sees surface in one’s dreams.
I know my essay will not win any prizes in this contest and it does not matter. The Indian Institute of Science Journal of Current Science is reviewing my essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE. I am hoping with all of my heart that it am published. I am probably the only member of ORCID who has never had a single paper published in any reputable science journal. I regret appearing to be arrogant and groveling for attention for that is not how I wish to be castigated for. I am an old lonely frightened man.
Joe Fisher, Realist
William Walker replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 12:30 GMT
Hey Joe,
I am definitely a fan of yours now... because you see that you are the same as everyone else... frightened and lonely... and why we try so desperately to get acceptance in this world... so don't feel bad... you are just like me and everyone else that was separated from the 0neness of God...
I really believe your ideas are brilliant and I believe you will get published... and don't sell yourself short on this contest... have a little faith and maybe your dream will manifest itself in the real world... ;)
and thanks for the revelation... when we close our eyes to use imagination... we see darkness... and why the strings are invisible to us... the light disappears... because the strings are transparent (clear)... they are hidden to the 5 senses (thus they are dark)... they are hidden by dark matter... it takes light inside the strings (the dark and light energy of consciousness - sound vibrations) to turn them into something consciousness can see as being real (emit into space)... dark matter becomes light matter and moves the particles found in the Higgs Force Field to create physical matter as we know it... and it all comes from that one dimensional surface you talk about in your essay... I believe you are describing how the strings work... they create the surfaces that consciousness can believe (have faith in)... :)
I wish you the best Joe!
William Walker
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Thank you ever so much William.
Joe Fisher, Realist
William Walker replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 22:49 GMT
One last thing... today was a beautiful day outside... so while I was on my back deck... I tried closing my eyes and looking directly at the sun... and I didn't see black... I saw blades of yellow, orange, and red coming at me in shapes of the letter A but with bars on the end (like Omega has)... I like to call them Alpha Bolts... because they come at you like bolts of lightning...
You don't have to respond - just thought I would share...
Take care
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 14:49 GMT
A OK Over and out.
Joe Fisher, Realist
hide replies
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:23 GMT
I wanted to echo Stephen Ternyik's comment above..
There is some resemblance in your arguments Joe, to the views of Goethe - as expressed in his classic work 'Zur Farbenlehre (Theory of Colors).' This work documents Goethe's dispute with the theory of Optics championed by Newton, as a proper explanation for the phenomenon of color and the properties of light. It can be found here - if you are interested.
Zur Farbenlehre (Theory of Colors)While you are trying to focus on simplicity, and Goethe is much more complicated for the sake of thoroughness; there is some substantial agreement between you. Heisenberg commented "Goethe’s colour theory has in many ways borne fruit in art, physiology and aesthetics. But victory, and hence influence on the research of the following century, has been Newton’s." I think you are trying to bring back the view that the perceptual basis of light is its true nature, or reveals a fundamental level of reality.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for reading my essay, and for commenting about it.
Reality does not have an abstract resemblance. Goethe certainly expressed himself quite admirably, but Goethe never wrote: “The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.”
I am not trying to focus on writing about simplicity. I am arguing rather strenuously that only naturally visible simple physical structure has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Sir,
You have brought out a very interesting detail about eye and vision. We will like to extend your logic. We see through eyes because this is the only sense organ that has the capability to measure electromagnetic radiation. What we say as color is the net reflected wavelengths of light after the full spectrum hits the object and some of it are absorbed by it. We see only these...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
You have brought out a very interesting detail about eye and vision. We will like to extend your logic. We see through eyes because this is the only sense organ that has the capability to measure electromagnetic radiation. What we say as color is the net reflected wavelengths of light after the full spectrum hits the object and some of it are absorbed by it. We see only these reflected wavelengths within human visible range. Some species may see more colors or different colors because their visible range may be different. But the principle remains same. But when we touch the same object, we cut down the radiation and touch the surface, which is reflecting light. Thus, in both ways, we get incomplete information. You also seem to agree when you say “no eye has ever seen a ball”. Only when the various inputs are mixed in our brain, do we know what we are seeing. Since space cannot reflect light, we cannot “see” space. We only see the intervals between surfaces of objects and we call that interval space.
We fail to understand how “the universe is thought to have had zero size, and so to have been infinitely hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased”. Heat is a form of energy that can be transferred from one object to another or even created at the expense of the loss of other forms of energy. Temperature is a measure of the ability of a substance, or more generally of any physical system, to transfer heat energy to another physical system. If the “universe” had “zero size”, how could it be “infinitely hot”? What was there to transfer energy? And what is zero? It is something that does not exist at here-now. Then it implies that there was no space and time. From where space-time emerged? If it was zero size, how could it expand? By what mechanism? Where from the invisible particles appear? Even electrons and neutrinos are said to possess mass. How could mass exist within zero size. Though this is not your view, since you are using it, could you please explain?
Your observation regarding Newton’s law and Galileo’s experiment can be rationalized with the example of a man standing on the bank and another standing on an idle boat. Assuming no turbulence, the man on the boat will continue to move at the same speed. A leaf moving on the water will also move at the same speed. The mistake with Newton was his treatment of gravity as an attractive force. The apple and the Earth had the same mass just before it fell. They had the same distance. Then why did not the apple fell earlier? The answer lies not in gravity, but the force that held the apple to its stem. With ripening, it was becoming weaker. When it passed a threshold, only then the apple fell. Till such time, it was stabilized in its position by gravity. Gravity is a stabilizing force. Regarding Mercury, Gerber had already solved it much before, which was plagiarized by Einstein (like Poincare had discovered the equation e = mc2, 5 years before Einstein).
Finally, your conclusion that the “Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light” is interesting. You are hinting at one infinite background structure like the so-called Higg’s field, though we do not agree with that concept.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear basudeba,
Thank you for reading my essay and for commenting about it. Unfortunately, you do not appear to have understood what I was trying to achieve. An eye sees surface because only infinite visible surface exists. It has nothing to do with whether an eye can be affected by any finite measurement of invisible magnetic waves. Newton, Galileo, Einstein and Hawking were all wrong because they thought that the dual condition of matter and space existed independently of each other.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joseph Murphy Brisendine wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear Joe,
I read your essay as requested and, rather than ask a question or make a comment that has been made already, I'm curious what "simplicity" means to you? Given two objects or phenomena or explanations or theories or whatever, how do we tell which is simpler?
-Joe Brisendine, realist as well but also biophysicist
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 16:40 GMT
Dear Joseph,
Thank you for reading my essay and for your comment. We can easily identify natural simplicity by noticing that all real objects and real phenomena have a real visible surface. All religious and scientific theories are complex and cannot be applied to natural reality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Author Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
As usual, the ignorant NASA white male scientists lied to us yesterday about supposedly finding seven planets comparable to earth orbiting a far distant star. One real visible Universe must only have one visible physical condition. Each real star in the real Universe must have real planets and real asteroid belts and real comets orbiting it. One wishes that the white scientists would visit Bedford Stuyvesant. The white scientists could find out that despite having ideal human life supporting physical conditions, many black residents in Bedford Stuyvesant are forced to live in squalid housing conditions that would be unfit to maintain farm animals in. Not one more penny ought to be spent on utterly wasteful white male space exploration.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Author Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 16:39 GMT
It was good of Pope Francis to declare that it was better for a person to be an atheist rather than that person be a hypocritical Christian. Unfortunately, atheists are just as hypocritical as anybody else for they tend to believe in unnatural science Just as fervently as religious people believe in unnatural religion.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 07:12 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher
Your essay has original content. To some extent we have with you, there is one common view about the importance of surfaces. Being an engineer, I prefer to use and explore for solutions of specific problems very specific surface in the form of gravitational shells with specific properties and structure of their elements. For example.
«The outer surfaces of the spiral arms of galaxy have gravitational shells at the same temperature in the same gravitational potential and stars have same speed of forced orbital motion, which does not correspond to Newton's law of gravitation».
«It is known that on the surface of the flat bodies there is Casimir effect, which is associated with the presence of turbulent gravitational shell and large gradient of the gravitational potential».
However, I can not imagine a single one unified visible infinite physical surface, which limits the specific objects of the universe. Please provide analogues in nature, or analyze specific examples from my essay.
Kind regards,
Vladimir Fedorov
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. There are not different types of surfaces for that would mean that there would also have to be different types of separations of surfaces. That would also give rise to the possibility of there being some sort of anti-surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 08:53 GMT
Dear Joe, I too am a self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist.
It was explained to me and I realized what a three-dimensional space, when I was 20 years old.
When a child first opens his eyes again, he sees a flat picture of the world. When he makes the first step, we again see a flat picture of the world, but only different. Making a lot of...a lot of steps in his mind there is an objective world, but he sees it always flat. No matter what the two eyes of man giving him the amount of the world, but it is only close to, but away we again see a flat picture. If we fly in an airplane from new York to Moscow, we will perceive that we are moving over a flat surface and only when necessary can recall the learned in school that it is convex, but again only in the imagination.
Joe, you are right, in reality, we exist on an infinite plane. Everything else is a figment of our imagination. You're also right that this infinite plane cannot have a void, the Earth must be immersed in something. This is consistent with New Cartesian Physic, which is based on the formula of equivalence of mass-energy makes the conclusion about the equivalence of space-matter. Space is matter, matter is space. Thus, our infinite plane out into the Universe.
An essay is a literary genre, not a scientific report. It requires a description of something personal, Frank. You got it perfectly. I will give you the highest rating.
Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko. (Note that I did not know English and use online translator)
◢
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT
Уважаемый Борис,
благодарю вас за прочтение моего эссе и для понимания его.
Джо Фишер, реалист
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 04:55 GMT
Joe, your theory is similar to projective geometry - there is a science, she engaged serious people. Christian artists who paint icons, paint their way back prospects. The modern French painters are also in fashion to paint the world flat, with no desire to show its volume.
Levitation, which I gave a materialistic explanation in his essay, is also a movement on an infinite plane. Read it again and evaluate from the point of view of traffic on an infinite plane.
Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear Boris,
It is not my theory. The fact that only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the fact that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, am irrefutable.
Joe Fisher, Realist.
Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 20:52 GMT
Dear Joe,
Very interesting essay, could you explain a bit about what you mean by infinite dimensions of universe? I believe personally dimensions are in our mind and real universe apart from what we observe is not comprehensive.
Kind regards
Koorosh
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Koorosh,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. All of the physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have overlooked the fact that one real visible Universe must have only one ascertainable physical aspect and that real observable aspect must be infinite in all of its singular representation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Bishal Banjara wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 05:48 GMT
Dear joe,
I think you are trying to tell a same case repeats at two different stages through your words-'Newton was clearly implying that there was more than one state of physicality'. But in reality it is never possible to be so...according to my concept there is vast difference between my and Newtonian concept...see my essay "Newtonian Dynamics: An explicit diversion from reality"
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear Bishhal,,
I am not trying to describe different “stages” of anything. Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher,
Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:50 GMT
Joe Fisher,
I gave you a 10 because you intuitively grasped the concept of protective geometry (the one infinite dimension). So, I think this is great achievement. So, I think you must look for everything related to protective geometry and studied with a great care. If you do, you will eventually find algebraic geometry. Keep advancing. You will achieve great heights.
As for all living things have eyes, I agree. Eyes, as in the ability to perceive the environment through electromagnetic spectrum is common to all living beings. It is also by the EM field that all cell machinery works. In the end, only reduces to 1 measurement (which requires some kind of information processing, even in virus) in the EM field.
report post as inappropriate
Daniel de França Diniz Rocha replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
I just noticed that Boris Dizhechko made a similar comment, concerning projective geometry. So, you have the independent view of 2 different researchers which might help you expand your ideas.
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:26 GMT
Dear Daniel,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for rating it so highly.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 00:31 GMT
Dear Joe,
Your essay is thought provoking, well written and entertaining. I agree with you that there is an underlying simplicity to reality that defies a complex mathematical approach. You have a strength of conviction that not many have.
Regards,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay properly, and for your exceptionally kind comment.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 17:20 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,
Thank you very much for your comment on my essay. I am a great fan of simplicity myself. simplicity on the far side of complexity.
You have asked me to comment on the merit of your essay and I have in the meantime taken the time to read through it and vote. In your words, “Everything should be made as simple as possible”, so I was excited to expect a simple, concise elucidation on the emergence of aims and intentions from the universe that you describe. Perhaps it is not such a simple concept and I may have missed the mark. Would you be so kind as to clarify on this point when you have some time.
Regards,
Robert
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Robert Groess,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher
You start with a finding: all our eyes see from the outside world is surface. Ok. Then I was expecting that you developed the reasoning, go beyond what eyes can see. But I did not find that. The universe is not just what we see, or touch, or ear or taste or smell. Our senses gave us an initial information and our aim is to find what is behind that. That is what allows us to predict how systems evolve; and when we predict it correctly, we assume that to a certain extent we have approached the reality.
Therefore, here you present your starting point; now I would like to see the continuation.
Best regards
Alfredo Oliveira
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. As I have carefully explained in my essay: Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. All of the theoretical physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have been wrong about the visible real Universe because they have only described what they thought it consisted of instead of believing what they actually saw.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher
On seeing the comments to your essay, i got a suspicious, but I do not want to be unfair, so I am here to ask you: is it true that to those that comment favorable, you give a high vote, no matter their essay; and to those that are not so favorable, you vote "1"?
Alfredo Oliveira
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Alfredo,
I have not voted on any of the essays that have been published so far, and I will not vote on any of the essays yet to be published when they are published in this competition. I am not trying to bargain with my fellow complex abstractions addicted essayists, I am trying my very best to educate them enough so that they will accept simple natural reality.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 08:36 GMT
Hi Jo I read your well-written essay, enjoyable for that and for the delightful pun " self-taut " great!
As an artist I could well understand the logic of accepting the reality of only what is literally seen at any one time. In Mideaval art each figure and shape is seen solid and whole, but the trend since the Rainnescance has been to only see from one viewpoint - and necessarily surfaces.
However..
if you look at a video of a baseball being manufactred
like this one you can see all the stuff filling its insides. What happens to that material to justify your saying only the surface exists? Another problyem is with transparent materials such as a vase. Inside you can see a solid spca full of flower stems, water bubles and so forth. You will prbably say we are only seeing the surface of that.
OK no problem thanks to FQXI we are tfree to express our ideas here whatever they are.
Keep well
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT
Dear Vladimir ,
No matter in which direction an eye looks in, that eye will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces. All “stuff” and all “material” including all gasses and atmospheres are seamlessly merged into one single visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light occurring in one infinite dimension.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 18:38 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher
OK! I though so, that is why I put the question, to give you the opportunity to clarify the subject. You know, it seems that there are some "trolls" around that are voting "1" by reasons that are certainly not the best. This is not a "reality show", at least it should not be. The important point is that we can friendly discuss each other ideas.
On my side, I up vote the essays that interest me the most, I do not down vote anybody. Community members can do it, but I think that authors of the essays should restrain to positive appreciations (above 5) when they consider that an essay presents a relevant contribution.
All the best
Alfredo
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 14:56 GMT
Dear Alfredo,,
I think a fairer method of scoring would be if each essay contestant had to list from 1 to 5, the five other essays he or she thought were the best in the completion. The winner would then have an aggregate superiority, rather than a distorted averaged number as happens now. My problem is that most of the essays I have read are far better written than mine. I am hoping that the judges will judge my essay on the originality of its expressed idea of nature only being capable of furnishing a reality that could be understood by all creatures.
All the best to you.
Joe Fisher, Realist
James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,
Thank you for visiting my essay and saying it is nice. I have downloaded your essay and will be reading it next week. We have communicated before in a past essay contest. I need to look at your position again. I remember that our approaches were different. I will see. Best wishes to you.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 11:01 GMT
Dear Joe,
I am inspired by your deep criticism and enthusiasm for promoting the idea of simplicity of complexity (reality). I think that only the deepest criticism of the philosophical foundations of modern "fundamental science" will make it possible to overcome the crisis of understanding and "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin) and build a model of the Universum that is uniform for physicists and
lyricists , filled with the meanings of the "LifiWorld" (E. Husserl ). My high score for the promotion of the principle of simplicity.
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you ever so much for taking the time to read and understand my essay, and for rating it so highly.
Joe Fisher, Realist
William L Stubbs wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 13:05 GMT
Joe,
I don't quite follow all that you say, but I know what you're trying to say. Your message has no less merit than many of the essays presented here carrying much better ratings. Good luck to you.
Bill.
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Bill,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay, and for leaving such a kind, positive comment about its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer:
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” That's my intention, indeed, with the essay. In this case, I deal with the problems dealt with the cornerstones of evolution, mainly the beginning, the origin. The proposal for chemical clocks is quite complicated in itself, as you can check in the additional notes and references. All you can do is approximate set of approximate chemical equations, which describe quite well the mechanism, but secondary products might be left out. I also made some simplified arguments using arrows on section 2, in order to show how to deal with the most important operators or regulators of the reaction.
The problem it is that the usual programs are extremely complicated and do not have a realistic expectation of a path from "primitive soup" to a cell. So, as you can see in the abstract, what I propose is more in the direction of an invitation to a new experimental program.
report post as inappropriate
Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher, I think you did not see my answer:
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” That's my intention, indeed, with the essay. In this case, I deal with the problems dealt with the cornerstones of evolution, mainly the beginning, the origin. The proposal for chemical clocks is quite complicated in itself, as you can check in the additional notes and references. All you can do is approximate set of approximate chemical equations, which describe quite well the mechanism, but secondary products might be left out. I also made some simplified arguments using arrows on section 2, in order to show how to deal with the most important operators or regulators of the reaction.
The problem it is that the usual programs are extremely complicated and do not have a realistic expectation of a path from "primitive soup" to a cell. So, as you can see in the abstract, what I propose is more in the direction of an invitation to a new experimental program.
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 16:20 GMT
Dear Daniel,
I read both of your very complicated comments and I am somewhat disheartened that you seem not to have any understanding of simplicity. You are not alone.
I repeat:
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 08:19 GMT
Joe,
I found your essay to be better reading than some essays of more highly credentialed people. I particularly like the following:
“Men have never believed that Nature could ever produce a reality that was so simple, even single celled amoeba could deal with it.”
and
“For some peculiar reason, scientists are convinced that their finite experiments in a laboratory are superior in the understanding of reality. They all fail to realize just how unnatural their activity is. Only nature can produce viable reality.”
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for understanding it.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Marts Liena wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 23:11 GMT
joe,
I stand in the middle of a crater with a bright laser on a fast rotating table. I spin up the table and turn on the laser. With my fantastic equipment the laser spot on the crater wall moves at warp 3 (three times the speed of light). Given that the laser light never moves from the surface of the laser how can the illuminated spot on the crater (a real surface) can move faster than light? Is the spot an object in motion or just my emotion?
Thanks for your essay.
Regards
Marts
report post as inappropriate
Author Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Marts,
Thank you for reading my essay. Just as visible surface am infinite, the only physical way one can see any surface am because it am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Your equipment has a complete visible surface . You and the crater have complete visible surfaces. Only the laser light when it is activated does not have a surface. The laser light spot that appears on the crater wall surface remains the same no matter which surface it appears on.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.