• [deleted]

Teory of Everyhing (TOE) based on Set Theory

Number zero 0 ≡ Ø = {} (empty set) represents BEING. Number 1 ≡ 0' = {0} = {Ø } represents quantum vacuum, number 2 ≡ 1' = {0,1} = {0, {0}}, = {Ø, {Ø }} represents electromagnetic energy, number 3 ≡ 2' = {0,1,2} = {0, {0}, {0, {0}} } = {Ø, {Ø, {Ø, {Ø }}}} represents elementary particles. Observer in physic has origin in BEING which is not a type of energy or matter we know and we describe with E=mc2.Attachment #1: TOE_-_Set_Theory.png

3 months later

What if the structure of the Universe is God's Mind as Hegel argued? All individual minds are a part of Universal Mind. This way all space points represent the whole Universe from their perspective - i.e. the Universe is a hologram.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fra

mework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_K

ants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

3 months later

Akinbo et al.

Our new big home, the 'Laniakea supercluster', video and links here; Scitech article.

paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0880.

Full Video.

To give a better perspective on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'.

But also be careful as they admit to many assumptions, saying;

"Except for the very closest galaxies, uncertainties in distance measurements translate into uncertainties in the peculiar velocities of galaxies that are larger in amplitude than the actual peculiar velocities."

Using Earth as a datum rest frame and assuming distances (we know redshift is a flawed basis), Omega and it's direction etc, only minor adjustments could mean the whole flow direction is REVERSED! i.e. (A crowd walking mainly north at different speeds would look like they're mostly walking south from the rest frame of a skateboard moving north at a speed 85% of the average.). The effect may be a called apparent 'time reversal', or just poor rationalisation.

The clear logial conclusion in any case is that LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. What we actually find is that EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates. The logical rationale of discrete inertial systems with limited spatial 'domains' should then be a little clearer, I hope?

Best wishes

Peter

    Hi Peter,

    I agree with aspects of your post and misunderstand others. But thanks for showing me and others our new luxury mansion, the 'Laniakea supercluster'!

    "on the misconception of a single CMBR 'rest frame'". I still don't know why you have a difficulty with this. Is the CMBR in motion? And if so, relative to what? Most of the anisotropies in the CMBR appear to be related to cosmology and structure formation or intervening effects before reaching observer. Are there any dynamical anisotropies due CMBR motion?

    LOCAL 'REST FRAME' SPEEDS VARY RELATIVELY. Perhaps, as we have argued before, local 'rest frame' can vary relatively, to sun, then to galaxy then to Laniakea supercluster, then to ..., then to ..., then to.... Unless the universe is infinite, you must end at one largest and biggest mansion.

    "EM radiation propagates at c in all LOCAL rest frames, as SR postulates".. This statement hides information. The values of c in LOCAL rest frames is not universal. When compared to each other, for example on the surface of a super dense neutron star, c will be much less in value than what we measure c as here on Earth. This is also why there is refraction (change in speed) when light traverses the vicinity of the star before it reaches us.

    Akinbo

    Akinbo,

    I don't 'have a difficulty', it's just a flawed conception. I suspect being unfamiliar with astronomy you've long harboured a false conception of bunches of 'objects', (i.e. components of a galaxy), moving THROUGH 'space'.

    That's incorrect. The local 'space' moves WITH the 'inertial systems'. Even the editor of Sci Am recently wrote about how galaxies rotate in what he termed 'lockstep', i.e. whole galaxies rotate like 'dinner plates', complete with the interstellar medium, (and halo and satellites out to many k light years) in the same way that it's not Earth' that orbits the sun but the whole Earth 'system'; atmoshpere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, plasmasphere.. EVERYTHING, at rest with the centre of mass of the central dense 'body'. Light does 'c' within that zone WRT THE LOCAL centre of mass frame, just like it does c through the ISM wrt the local Centre of mass GALAXY rest frame.

    That's the dichotomy, never resolved relativistically, of the "ecliptic plane issue" identified in my 2012 essay, IAU 2000 and for instance USNO Circ 179. (p6). The sun's kinetic 'domain limit' is the heliosheath, which is why Voyager appears to have 'slowed down' from our frame after crossing it. 100 years ago they thought space was 'nothing'. No wonder the residual confusion! But the POSTULATES of SR make perfect sense; inertial systems are 'nested'.

    In simplistic terms, space IS a 'medium' (which is why it can expand!) and indeed contains far more of the mass/energy of the universe than baryonic matter! (objects') approx 70% as opposed to just 4%! Once you've grasped that conception you'll far better understand the video and concept of 'bulk flows' of the regions. EACH has it's own local CMB rest frame.

    You'll find a whole host of anomalies can be resolved once the confused 'interpretations' of SR are removed to allow causal logic to return!

    best wishes

    Peter

    It appears you don't understand my position since I am in full agreement with all in paragraph 2.

    But to the POSTULATES of SR make perfect sense, I disagree. Read what the postulates say and mean and not your own interpretation of them.

    Also I doubt anyone can understand the meaning of "EACH has it's own local CMB rest frame".

    Such mixing of sense with nonsense is what sometimes creates the antagonism you see directed at some of the sense you make here.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Akinbo,

    I identify the 'interpretation' of the postulates as the problem. I agree the original is nonsensical. Mine is based on Einstein's OWN final interpretation (his 1952 paper) dropping the original, saying "the entire theory is contained in the postulates" and conceptualizing it as;

    "small space 's', not thought of as bounded, in relative motion within large space 'S'."

    Akinbo,

    Einstein allowed a new logical SR postulate interpretation in his 1952 descriptions, distancing his theory from it's old interpretations as he knew;

    "The history of theoretical physics is a record of the clothing of mathematical formulae which were right, or very nearly right, with physical interpretations which were often very badly wrong." (Jeans 1981).

    An interpretation of a theory is well recognised at NOT the theory but often a cocoon of woolly confusion, or "near-contradictions and excess baggage" (Wilczec 2012).

    As Mach said; "If, however, we so interpret it that we come into conflict with our experience, our interpretation is simply wrong."

    So lets drop ALL preconceived interpretations of the postulates. (That's YOURS TOO!) and see if they CAN be logically interpreted consistent with his 1952 constructions.

    PoR; "The phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." (same as the English; "..laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference.."

    I suggest that becomes entirely logically consistent if we consider each 'inertial system' ('frame of reference') as a 'local region of space', such as that encompassed by a bunch of electrons, with a single assignable group state of motion K. i.e. a 'centre of mass' rest frame. Smaller ones (K') are in relative motion within greater ones, so WITH domain boundaries. That's what the DFM invokes and finds perfectly consistent. It was only woolly prior assumptions that 'hid' it!

    "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

    That then goes almost without saying. If in motion through some background field in state K, the emitting body has some state K'. However large or small that system K' is, when the emissions leave it to propagate in the background system K they change speed at the boundary (TZ) to then do so at c in and wrt the new system rest frame K (so Doppler shifted).

    Again, only woolly preconceptions hid that logic.

    The logical system is 'Truth Function Logic' (TFL - see my 2012 essay) which applies to 'propositions', and brackets in arithmetic. Everything within a bracket relates ONLY to that bracket. We can have infinitely many bracketed functions within bracketed functions, hierarchically. NO COMPONENT WITHIN ONE CAN RELATE DIRECTLY TO ANY IN ANY OTHER!

    Consistently applying the same rule for inertial systems then allows Truth Function Logic to apply to the postulates. However the familiar old interpretation is falsified! (perhaps why AE's 1952 paper was subjugated!). I hope that throws light on my comment that seemed to upset you so much.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Peter,

    All what you are saying is correct but is already well known to Galileo and Newton.

    But the part, "Everything within a bracket relates ONLY to that bracket. We can have infinitely many bracketed functions within bracketed functions, hierarchically" is your own assumption, i.e. you can continue doing your bracketing infinitely. Newton disagrees with you. He suggests at some level if the universe is not infinite there is an ultimate limit to your bracketing. That is just the difference.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Akinbo,

    No. It's the rules of logic not 'my' rule. You persistently ignore what I write and don't check the references so contradict me without basis! TFL is a propositional logic with hierarchical structure. The rule of brackets in arithmetic uses it. Neither are finite and both avoid the paradoxes of all others including calculus', including the 'infinity' paradox. (Actually quantum 'modal' logic does borrow a similar structure).

    TFL is well known as the ONLY logical structure that is not; "ultimately beset by paradox". Newton assumed the religious 'Big Bang' solution which must have had some 'position' in space, so leaves the problems both of 'what happened before', and 'what was around it'. Because it is not 'finite' you can always set your own background frame and the rules always work. If you wish to choose 'the universe' (as a 'rest frame') that's fine and valid, but you can only apply it LOCALLY. You CAN'T apply it as Newton suggested, which is equivalent to 'jumping' and ignoring intervening brackets.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Try using Newtons assumption in an arithmetical equation. You'll get the same illogical nonsense we have to deal with in physics today. EM propagation ('light') speed near Earth is c wrt Earth's own inertial system rest frame K, NOT the centre of the galaxy, universe, or some other arbitrary planet in some other galaxy which may be doing 0.5c wrt Earth (K''''''''''')!

    Once you clear all the wool away that's what your left with. Unfamiliar, but impeccable when evaluated objectively! All I do is find a way well developed CORRECT findings (jigsaw puzzle pieces) can fit together. It's the only way as there's no 'picture on the box' except false ones we guess at. If we expect mainstream physicists to let go of old assumptions and test new ones then I propose we must prove that we can do so ourselves Akinbo!

    Best wishes

    Peter

      If you cannot give a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing' on the large scale without my reading Truth-Function-Logic I will oblige when I get the time. But it looks to me a Yes or No answer can be given.

      Regards

      Akinbo

      Akinbo,

      TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases. Even if you want to bring in a God you can do so. It's agnostic.

      But what's important is not only that it's the ONLY logical system that works universally but that it's the only kinetic system that can consistently resolve all the paradoxes surrounding SR; What can you falsify in this statement;

      "Light is re-emitted by each electron at c in that electrons centre of mass rest frame, and light thus changes speed to the local c on encountering all co-moving systems of 'matter'.

      I suggest that in the whole of science it's mainly initial unfamiliarity with newly encountered truths that prevents progress. That's how our neural networks operate; pattern matching'.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      PS There's a super little easy read book "Introducing Logic" By Cryan, Shatil and Mayblin. You can get one for less that 80 pence on 'Alibris'.

        You have "forced" me to read your Truth-Function-Logic and your 2012 essay again. I reply on the Faster than Light blog if you don't mind as I think it is more appropriate there. Or what do you think? I can repost here.

        Akinbo

        Concerning "a direct answer to whether or not there is a "physical" end to 'bracketing'" and "TFL suggests 'No', but works perfectly in both cases".

        It is a question of details since it works perfectly in both cases. However, in my preferred view, the answer is 'Yes'. On the smallest of scales, I suggest the extended geometric point, possibly of Planck size limit and on the large scale, the universe itself, finite in size but expanding. So smallest bracket - the point, largest bracket - the universe itself.

        Akinbo

        Akinbo,

        In which case you accept the hierarchy in between. I suggest you can't logically refute that in any case. If you don't accept anything larger than 'our universe' that's also fine. The important part is that anywhere in the hierarchy it's only the local 'next frame up' (bracket) that acts as the local datum for the limit 'c'.

        I've described how and why that is the only logical dynamic, which you haven't refuted and appear to have agreed. But I suggest you must then also accept the only possible logical consequences which are as I've described; The 'larger space 'S' is the same as any other space, so is the 'smaller space' in the larger context.

        Einstein's postulates (the only part of the theory consistently verified) then DO have a valid logic. Approaching the issue scientifically that is the only possible solution.

        The problem with changing paradigms is that the gatekeepers have all published papers saying 'A+B = F'. Proposing that A+B = C is then a unacceptable to them a priori. You've now fallen into the same trap. If we're to change paradigms we must all learn how to be more objective and abandon positions we've previously taken. (I did point out the flaw or 'incompleteness' of your view at the time!)

        Best of luck in that. It's hard, but I've done it many times. If you can't do it then you can't expect mainstream to do so.

        Peter

        Of course it is obvious I accept the hierarchy in between. Within each space the value of c varies. The value of c within the moon's local space and that within the earth's local space are not the same. This is why local space which you prefer to use has to be further refined. If you like you may say the value of c depends on the local content of each local space.

        Akinbo

        Akinbo,

        "the value of c varies". No, The hierarchy doesn't imply that at all. The value c is identical within all inertial systems. Each IS then entirely equivalent as logic anyway demands and as Galileo, Einstein's postulates and all empirical evidence. It's the DATUM condition K that varies, becoming K', K" etc.

        Look at it like this; We have a sealed laboratory on a ship. It measures the speed of a light pulse in a near-vacuum chamber to be precisely c. ALL such laboratories on all such ships will do so. Yet they may be 100 space ships going flat out on 100 different vectors. If we change observer frame to that of a background rest frame OUTSIDE the ships and look through the windows, all light pulses will APPEAR to be going at c+v or c-v.

        What you need to grasp and apply to overcome the apparent paradox is that the light reaching your eye is NOT the light pulse! That light is NOT VISIBLE! The light observed is that from the SEQUENCE of stationary particles in the vacuum chamber charged in turn by the pulse. That's why we see light from collimates quasar jets at apparent speeds many tines c. There is no paradox. It is the 'carrier medium' if you like that is also moving wrt the observer.

        If you'd also like the implications of the 're-emision at c' transition mechanism, here they are;

        Each transition between hierarchical interim rest frames ('discrete fields' - thus DFM) is equivalent, and each MUST then be a LOCAL 'CMBR rest frame'. That is indeed Galilean relativity, but when one frame is moving at near c through it's local background the blue shift at the TZ tends to min wavelength gamma, which is 'optical breakdown mode' electron density where the Lorentz factor well models the acceleration 'drop off' near c. The difference between Galilean and special relativity is only that 'drop off' approaching c.

        Peter

          I have replied on Cosmic Hologram . Let me use sound/air for analogy. Arrange your 100 space ships vertically at different altitudes. Is the velocity of sound the same in all the ships, given what we know of variation of air density with altitude? See the illustration I attached on Faster than light thread.

          Akinbo

          Akinbo,

          The bottom 3 ships sunk! The light down there then only went at 140,000miles/s.

          Actually this IS Cosmic Holograms, but I understand the confusion!

          I just answered that elsewhere, you're correct for bound gas, Not for plasma, but that makes no odds as the two effects are entirely independent. One a media constitution, the other a media relative state of motion.

          If you can hold those two and their effects separately in your mind prior to 2020 you're doing exceptionally well and beating the intellectual evolution of our species! It's like golf. It first needs constant practice for a while.

          Best wishes

          Peter

          3 years later
          • [deleted]

          " He mused that our universe is an image projected backwards in time from a hologram located at the boundary of the cosmos, in the infinite future."

          When physics research resorts to this kind of non-physics, we can only hope that crisis also means opportunity, for others who actually have a genuine interest in making progress, instead of wasting time and resources.

          Best, Koenraad

          Write a Reply...