Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 22:01:09
-
Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to life, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomena of the Universe, in which the basis of logical process and rational thought will show the justification of the axiom propositions to be true.
To be continued maybe.....
-
The universe in 5 simple axioms:
Axiom 1: All axioms are true, except for axiom 2.
Axiom 2: Axiom 2 is false.
Axiom 3: Paradoxical axioms are true.
Axiom 4: The universe makes sense.
Axiom 5: Odd-numbered axioms supersede even-numbered axioms.
-
Paradoxical
3,4,5 being the same as number 2 I presume.
''Of course the conviction of the “truth” of propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on rather incomplete experience. ''
-
Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to life, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe, in which the basis of logical process and rational thought will show the justification of the axiom propositions to be true.
Part 1 - The Theory of realistic.
Introduction, explanation of an axiom
Defining various definition
Defining Theory and Hypothesis
The meaning of maths and maths use
The meaning of limitation
The meaning and value of Geometrics
In respect of moving bodies
Examining mass and massless
The relationship between time and mass
The relationship between time and massless
Explaining the constant-'constant nature of light
Explaining observer effect and experiment
1.Introduction, explanation of an axiom
An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions in a sense that is founded exclusively on our limited finite observation of the Universe. We must presume that axiom's observed in our finite visual Universe, co-exist to be true in a broader scale of an infinite Universe or Multi-verse. There would be no valid reason to assume that our observed physical laws and process is not the same and equal too, on a broader scale. It would be foolish of ourselves to deny axiom's regardless of experimental outcomes, theory or hypothesis.
2.Defining various definition
We should take great consideration and respect for definition, it is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content with strict definition, that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information. When observing a definition and considering a definition it is of utmost importance we apply the truths we observe of the thing or phenomenon we are defining.
In our visual Universe there is several key axiom definitions that need to be applied.
Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer.
Distance - A linear quantity of unmeasured space expanding away from the observer
Length -1. A measured distance of space between two reflective points.
2. A measurement of an objects dimensions.
Universe - an infinite space
Visual Universe - a finite space
Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space
Energy - matter of substance with physical presence but without solidity.
Objects - matter existing with solidity such as a particle.
Motion - the continuous geometrical position displacement of matter in space
Dimensions- The volume of an object
3.Defining Theory and Hypothesis
In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.
An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more solid than a hypothesis often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evidential merit.
We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.
4.The meaning of maths and maths use
We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.
It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, the maths a later of the former.
5.The meaning of limitation
When we observe limitation, we observe restriction, not only are we restricted to a visual restriction that establishes a finite observation visual Universe, we are restricted to thinking inside of the ''box''and have limitations in our thinking. Any thinking of ''outside'' of the box, can only be deemed to be speculation and hypothesis and never deemed to be fact until a future time of further investigations may lead to new findings beyond our limitations. However, we must not disregard the axioms of the inside of the ''box'' when thinking outside of the ''box''.
It is also important that we consider why we have limitation and what is the possible cause(s) of these limitations, not overlooking the diminishing of light over distance, matter reflectivity and the relativity of objects moving away from an observer relatively appear to decrease in size to a point of no existence.
6.The meaning and value of Geometric
Geometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes, this leads us to a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space.
It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski’s space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski’s space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ”truths” of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects.
Einstein’s relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski’s space-time regarding space-time to like’fabric”, however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself. Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light. It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein’s work or Minkowski’s space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein’s relativity thought is of axiom ”truths” thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations.
In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion, the geometrical relative size of the visual universe. It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time.
In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology
4/3 pi r³ – 4/3 pi r³ = nothing
In this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing.
The big bang also suggests that space is expanding, suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ”growing” and that space itself is expanding into nothing.
However, this is not an axiom of ”truth”and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points . Space itself does not reflect light or is observed red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect. I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space, a length expansion into an unknown distance.
Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and observer.
In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context.
If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A) standing by the warehouse walls was observer (B).
Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (B)
Relative to observer (B) they can not observe (A)
Relatively both observers can concur by voice the axiom truth, that neither observer can observe each other.
Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet.
Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (B)
Relative to observer (B) they can observe (A)
Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation.
My reasoning for this observation relatively is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of the light off (A), where as observer (B) only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (B). The magnitude of light reflected from (B) is not a great enough magnitude by time the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation is ''washed out'' by the candle light surrounding (A).
There is no apparent reason why this analogy can not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ''black'' background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects.
To extend on this axiom, I would direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view. A body in motion travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing.
This can be described in analogy by using a train track, if we are standing on the track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train scaling down size.
Also this area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.
Thus brings us to the relative geometrical size of the visual Universe, there is a ''truth'' in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ''truth'' that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space, this only shows us relative length between objects relative to light.
To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression
4/3 pi r(c)³
Where r(c) represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies.
to be continued……
Anyone brave enough to peer this?
Is this a reasonable description of what an axiom is ?
https://wordpress.com/post/theoristexplains.wordpress.com/743
-
A more scientific perspective:
Things that appear to be true may be true...
-
A more scientific perspective:
Things that appear to be true may be true...
appear axiom true or appear thoughtfully true? Thoughts can obvious be in error so we could only define ideas as possibly true where as axioms are relatively true.
-
science is about establishing what concepts/things have the most relativity to eachother in order to maximize practicality/functionality/efficiency, you can compare almost any two concepts and they will be related in some way just by virtue of existing but their relation may have very little practical use, like saying a boat is a car - theyre both machines designed to travel/transport but in the wrong environment/context they become impractical, or a more extreme example would be comparing a fork to a tv - theyre both made of particles held together by the same laws of physics and theyre both tools designed to move something: one transports food the other transports electronic information, but you cannot transport food through a tv(yet) and you cannot display electronic information on a fork(yet), so the relativity is low but never absolute zero.
the furthest you can narrow any association down is to a paradox/contradiction itself due to the uncertainty principle/incompleteness theorem, even absolute zero is one-zero and even one-zero is incomplete without defining two-zero's three-zero's-> infinite zero's, even nothing experiences relativity, even nothing experiences entropy, even nothing must be defined
math only improves efficiency: 0=1, 00=2, 000=3, 000.00000=3.14(pi), however loose the association was to begin with all associations have a degree of relativity and a degree of uncertainty, we just add information until the association is established
-
just pointless wasting my time
-
7. In respect of a moving body.
Let us now consider the motion of a moving object in respect to another object thus recalling Einstein's thoughts and the velocity of light. In respect to a Photon, a Photon travels a linear path at the speed of the light (c) This leads us to a dilemma in respect to a moving body . A Photo travelling a linear path from the sun is said to take approximately 8 minutes to arrive at Earth, however in respect to the moving body Earth, the Photon misses the moved ''target''. Relatively the Earth's position is displaced by time the Photon reaches the radius equal to the Earth's radius previous position. Thus the ''truth'' can be shown in analogy with physical meaning.
''I line up a shot with a sniper rifle, I aim ''directly'' at a moving target which is a radius away, the target is travelling from right to left, I fire my shot directly at the target , the bullet falls behind the intended target as the target moves to the left''.
This needs our attention and thus a need to make enquiries of the Photon and it's ''truth'' of existence as a single ''particle'' . There is a truth that we observe the whole of light as opposed to single Photon's.
Thus leading us to the claimed observation of observing an object in it's past, an analogy based on two stationary objects with a fault of not accounting for relative motion of the objects and only considering the motion of a single Photon.
-
just pointless wasting my time
-
just pointless wasting my time
Ditto..........................
-
just pointless wasting my time
Ditto..........................
Ok I give up , I can't beat denial.
-
Ok I give up , I can't beat denial.
No................you can't beat the facts, the tested and studied facts.
-
Definitions update
Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer
Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space extending away from the observer
Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting point sources.
2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.
Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space
Visual Universe - a finite observed length within a Universe
Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space
Energy - A group category for various types of power.
Power - The ability to do work : the generation of electrical energy at an atomic level
Objects - matter existing in bonded clusters.
mass -The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
Motion - the continuous displacement of matter in space
Dimensions- The measurement of a physical object : the measurement of a volume of space
Gravity - the property of matter that has directly proportionate attractive ability.
Force - 1. The exchange of energy to create work
2. The inertia existing between two bodies at relative rest mass to each other.
added - further edit to contents.
Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to life, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe, in which the basis of logical process and rational thought will show the justification of the axiom propositions to be true.
Part 1 - The Theory of realistic.
Introduction, explanation of an axiom
Defining various definition
Defining Theory and Hypothesis
The meaning of maths and maths use
The meaning of limitation
The meaning and value of Geometrics
Explaining the constant-'constant nature of light
Explaining The Box singularity relativity and relativistic affects
-
re-edit of the edit
7. Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.
Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant. Space is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed. Ourselves, observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object is not opaque, it is relatively perceived to be ''see through''. This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in darkness.
Let us consider the difference of three dimensional objects relative to the surrounding relativity of the space and the observable effect of spectral colour. When we are observing an object we observe three dimensional light at the objects exact location, we see this three dimensional state of light as spectral colours. We observe the ''tips'' of a length of light to be different to that of the clarity of length of space.
There is some ''truth'' in that the light propagating through space is observed as a dimensional singularity relative to sight, thus proposing the matter reflecting or emitting light are three dimensional light singularities observed in a one dimension singularity of light which is perceived to be a clarity in reactive observation.
Thus leading us to the proposition of the Box singularity, which we shall discuss in length in the next chapter.
In continuation of understanding the constant-'constant let us look at the consistency of the
relativity of the observation of the one dimensional whole of light propagating through space.
In imagination let us imagine the ''invisible man'' standing but only 10 feet away from us. It would be a conclusion that it would be impossible to define the dimensions of the ''invisible man''.
In regards to this we can consider that the ''invisible man'' has no dimensions of width , height or length to reflect light at a greater ''band-width'' than the singularity whole . In any direction of observing a length between eye and object there is a ''truth'' in that we observe a singularity whole which has no apparent dimensions.
There is no lie's relatively that while submerged in a swimming pool we observe the length of water before our eyes.
Thus leading us to enquire about the nature of light and the existence of the said single particle namely the Photon. Relatively no observer, observes the existence of a single photon, neither does the observer, observe such as photon packets. Relatively all observers , observe the singularity whole to be not opaque.
There is certainty a ''truth'' that we observe dust particles or the falling of rain or snow, but there is no ''truths'' in the relativity of us observing Photons.
This does not conclude that our eyes do not detect Photons, it concludes the relativity to observation.
-
Definitions update
Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer
Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space extending away from the observer
Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting point sources.
2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.
Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space
Visual Universe - a finite observed length within a Universe
Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space
Energy - A group category for various types of power.
Power - The ability to do work : the generation of electrical energy at an atomic level
Objects - matter existing in bonded clusters.
mass -The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
Motion - the continuous displacement of matter in space
Dimensions- The measurement of a physical object : the measurement of a volume of space
Gravity - the property of matter that has directly proportionate attractive ability.
Force - 1. The exchange of energy to create work
2. The inertia existing between two bodies at relative rest mass to each other.
Your definitions are ALL wrong. I would provide correct ones or links to them, but it wouldn't help. So instead I made up a few more to add to your list:
couch A four-legged mammal that creates dust in people's living rooms.
music An N-dimensional arrangement of sonic energy.
sonic energy A forceful noise.
food A collection of tasty particles bound together by the goodness of nutrition.
nutrition Pizza, mostly.
light Opposite of heavy.
heavy Dark, apparently.
time The distance between hands on a clock.
axiom That which is true because TheBox said so.
amirite?
-
Definitions update
Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer
Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space extending away from the observer
Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting point sources.
2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.
Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space
Visual Universe - a finite observed length within a Universe
Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space
Energy - A group category for various types of power.
Power - The ability to do work : the generation of electrical energy at an atomic level
Objects - matter existing in bonded clusters.
mass -The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
Motion - the continuous displacement of matter in space
Dimensions- The measurement of a physical object : the measurement of a volume of space
Gravity - the property of matter that has directly proportionate attractive ability.
Force - 1. The exchange of energy to create work
2. The inertia existing between two bodies at relative rest mass to each other.
Your definitions are ALL wrong. I would provide correct ones or links to them, but it wouldn't help. So instead I made up a few more to add to your list:
couch A four-legged mammal that creates dust in people's living rooms.
music An N-dimensional arrangement of sonic energy.
sonic energy A forceful noise.
food A collection of tasty particles bound together by the goodness of nutrition.
nutrition Pizza, mostly.
light Opposite of heavy.
heavy Dark, apparently.
time The distance between hands on a clock.
axiom That which is true because TheBox said so.
amirite?
My definitions are relational to my theory , I do not state you have to change the entire definition data base. I am explaining my use in my theory, so if I mention the word energy or mass etc, that is according to my definition, definitions that are exactly what it is, without any ambiguity .
It is called the theory of realistic and based on observation with no gimmicks, mostly axioms of relativity.
-
Ok, I am happy with my first part of my theory now, how is the literacy?
Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to the relativity of observation, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe in which the basis of logical process , rational thought and basic science, will show the justification of the axiom propositions to be true.
The Theory of Realistic.
1. Introduction
2. Explanation of an axiom
3. Defining various definition
4. Defining Theory and Hypothesis
5. The meaning of maths and maths use
6. The meaning of limitation
7. The meaning and value of Geometrics
8. Explaining the constant-'constant nature of light
9. Explaining The Box singularity
10. Explaining positive mass and negative mass density function and contrary to belief negative is attracted to negative.
1.Introduction
In reality there exists a fundamental law, a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based. This law being the relativity of something, in which two observers have to equally agree on something. If there is an agreement to disagree about that something, then with a certainty, we know there is an uncertainty about that something. Thus requiring a third, forth or many other observers and opinions to try and devise a rational logical answer about that something. Often we seek evidence to support that something, observation and the relativity of observation between two observers being the rudiment evidence. In this paper, we shall be looking at the rudiment of evidence and the relativity of observation between two observers.
-
Extending on the nature of the constant-'constant we could in respect of the nature of Electromagnetic radiation propagating through space to consider it having a polymorphism value , an interchange or exchange producing change when light is interacting with atomic structure.
8. The Box Singularity.
In chapter 7 it is mentioned the proposition of a Box singularity. A singularity ''a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole''. However the singularity I mention is of a relativity nature with similarities but not exact to present definition.
To define singularity in the terms of understanding the Box singularity , I would like to define the Box singularity as- The infinitesimally dimension of relative observation.
In terms of value we can describe this with the value 0 or n which are equals and can be infinitely small or infinitely large in value relative to the Box singularity.
In chapter 6 I mentioned the relativity of observation of two observers expanding their length apart and the relativity of the observed area contraction relative to each other.
Now let us consider the details of this and consider the relativistic mirrored ''diamond'' square law between two bodies and take consideration for the stretching of points relatively contracting the X,Y central plane to a box singularity relative to the observers.
To be continued and edited
-
Diagram 1
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The boundary of observation finite variant plane.