Alternative Models of Reality

Hi Joe

I dont believe in extra dimensions beyond three. Time is not an extra dimension. The existence of time is inferred from motion, motion of objects, and with more recent advances in science, from the motions or rate of processes internal of the atom.

So if you mean, space is a single surface within which everything exists, then I could go along with that.

Joe, if you will take some friendly advice. If you join in somebody elses thread, you should engage with them about their idea. Dont impose your ideas on their space. Engage with them politely, then they might be inclined to join you on your thread, where you can engage them in your ideas. As a general rule.

Steve

Dear Steven,

I did not ask you about your dimensional beliefs. Let me try again. Is reality visible?

As for threads, as I have now pointed out twice to you and Gary Simpson, "Dr. Brendan Foster, who happens to be the administrator of this site clearly stated in the first comment: ""If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)"

I have notified Professor Stephen Hawking and his boss, Professor Nigel Peake of my singular infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light proposition, and they have not disputed one word of it. Please remember this Steven; Truth is always self-evident. Only false ever needs explanation.

Best regards,

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Joe, foundational reality is not visible. Vision is the product of a process. Your model does not provide the means for that process to occur. It is a non starter.

Hi Georgina Woodward

I've read a good deal of your content on this forum. I judge your ideas and opinions well. Do my ideas inspire any curiosity of you?

I'm beginning to wonder about FQXi. The builders of this castle community have laid the incentives to draw people like you, me and others here. We are a particular breed who are curious about the world and how it works, and have formed ideas of our own we might like to share. However, I am developing a distinct feeling that I stand beyond a closed drawbridge, and nobody willing to engage me from behind the high walls and across the mote.

I have ideas which I make effort to form logical argument, and also evidence based on interpretation or empirical measures. But having the ability to rationalize and defend my ideas serves me no purpose if this community assigns me as a class not worthy of their engagement.

Will nobody test my ideas? See if I can defend them?

Steven, I have read a lot of what you have written on this site about many diverse subjects. I can't comment on everything. If you read my essay you would know that I do not think that physics and chemistry occurs with or for purpose but that things happen which can appear purposeful as they serve functions. Air does not flow faster over the curved surface of a wing so that it can become airborne but rather the air does flow faster and so the wing functions for flight. That the universe is suitable for life does not mean it was made with that purpose, but as it is what it is, it functions to support life evolved under those conditions. Was there something in particular you wanted to discuss?

Dear Georgina,

There is only one singular visible reality and that is infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Abstract "foundational reality" is pretentious codswallop.

Dear Steven,

You do not appear to have answered my question: Is reality visible? Let me put it to you this way, all of the popes who have ever lived have been wrong about the supposed week long piecemeal creation of the universe by an invisible God, because, obviously infinite surface am infinite in all respects including duration. All of the theoretical physicists who have ever lived have been wrong about invisible finite atoms existing in a three dimensional invisible space/time continuum. There am no way invisible atoms could assemble into any sort of visible finite particular. For instance, the hair on your head would have to consist of a different kind of atom than the atoms that formed a walking stick did. There are supposedly many identifiable elements and compounds, but all of them only have one singular visible surface. You came to this site to indulge in what you thought was superior intellectual informational sharing. You can continue to do so.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

You said

" If you read my essay you would know that I do not think that physics and chemistry occurs with or for purpose but that things happen which can appear purposeful as they serve functions. Air does not flow faster over the curved surface of a wing so that it can become airborne but rather the air does flow faster and so the wing functions for flight. That the universe is suitable for life does not mean it was made with that purpose, but as it is what it is, it functions to support life evolved under those conditions. Was there something in particular you wanted to discuss?"

I understand the distinction you make concerning the wing. I agree, the laws of physics dont exist so that a birds wing may generate lift. It is the birds wing, honed through Darwinian progression that calibrates the wing to exploit this potential of physics. We have achieved the understanding of how Darwinian biology leads to this style of complex structure.

However, complexity of the world does not begin and end with the study of biology. Photon structure has mechanical properties which have agency in the world. And atoms are wondrous in terms of their mechanical nature, the structure built of nuclear and electron bonding potentials, chemistry that initiates a host of various activities, and heat processes which lead to elemental phase changes etc. Ultimately all potentials of biology owe their existence to the pre-existing potentials of matter, so credit has to be given where its due. This credit has to be issued to the physical world in terms of its level of complexity, which is very much a subject related to fine tuning observations. When science becomes a strong advocate of ideas such as "the multiverse" based on the inferences of unexplainable complexity of the world, it takes on an amateurish feel. In terms of choosing to believe in something which has no empirical evidence or predictive ability, which might be a mandatory requirement to reinforce such a belief. And when a belief in multiverses becomes the reason to turn ones back on new ideas offering prospective explanations for complexity of the world, then science has become something to unflattering to mention out loud. I not talking about required belief of a new idea, but rather just curiosity and willingness to test ideas!

What bothers me increasingly, is that I have stepped forward with an idea which seeks to give a solution to universal complexity. An idea which goes to the effort of providing an interpretation within terms of what is already known about the world, and might be tested against logical argument and confirmed empirical measures of the world. And this community which holds its primary mantra to be "asking the foundational questions" has not engaged with me seeking to comprehend or test the validity of my idea. In a world where theory's attempting to prescribe answer for complexity can be counted on a three fingered hand, you might expect for more. I certainly do.

I want this community to engage with me, even if it's just to determine why my idea doesn't work. What do you suppose I have to do before I am honoured with acknowledgment of my existence here? Make some kind of noise perhaps? Perhaps I've been to quiet?

Goes without saying that none of this frustration is directed at you or anybody in particular:)

Hi Georgina

I can only surmise, people are ruled by a strong preconception that

1. Attempts to answer to complexities of the world is a poor quality pursuit.

2. That this effort could never lead anywhere useful.

To write off this avenue of investigation without a thought, is poor quality deduction. The clear presents of order and complexity, which has no answer in terms of conventional theory, is a glaring clue that something is missing in the mix. So glarey it may as well be likened to staring directly at the sun! Complexity and fine tuning is after all the reason we invented the multiverse, and many worlds interpretation. Extraordinary concepts to say the least! And still the notion that there might be an organisational principle responsible for the observed complexities and character of matter, doesnt warrant so much as a second thought.

Steven, the wing i mentioned was not necessarily a birds I was just thinking of an aerofoil shape and air flow. Brief to the point posts would help. You have said a great many things, what do you want considered/discussed most of all or first?

Hi Georgina

I would like people to listen to what I have to say on the subject, the possibility that Gluon activity is derived from space, that this maybe the nature of the interaction between space and matter. That fundamental force requires a prior cause, which originates with the emergence of space Auv, the observation of cosmological redshift associated with the cosmological constant, or if you prefer, Dark Energy.

I can argue the merit of this possibility twenty different ways, but most notably I can demonstrate how various empirical measures line up in support of this idea. Measures for which correlations have been known about for decades, however no interpretation could be determined that links them.

I can show how the same correlations provide an exacting mathematical solution in the case of anomalous galaxy motions, a simple remedy that is variable Gluon activity, that might be summarized as a variable baryon mass hypothesis. Not modified gravity, or an invisible particle theory, but the nature of baryons has not been properly understood.

I'm not sure how that sounds to fresh ears, but I assure you it's a very simple consideration. But it does require a person engage for comprehension. I am amazed that nothing of what I have said so far has attracted a curious and questioning mind. Thoroughly amazed!

In light of its mantra being "Foundational questioning", why doesn't this community engage with new and novel ideas?

Hi Steven, I can only speak for myself. I am uncertain of my ability to offer constructive criticism on what you present because of my own ignorance. As I see it, particle physics is just an accounting system rather than definite representation of what exists in foundational reality at the smallest scales. It accounts for energy changes and forces and properties of materials. While, as you point out, it does not account for every observation. Upfront I have two reservations. Will tinkering with the accounting system affect its ability to continue to account for the rest of physics as well as it does? The other is, I am unsure that cosmological red shift and dark energy are due to what happens at the fundamental particle level. I think perhaps they are to do with how EM information was distributed in space and per red shift is received by the observing system.

I note your reservations. What I propose doesn't change the observations and measures science has made. It corroborates them for the most part and verifies their accuracy. That is why I can use conventional science to corroborate and evidence my hypothesis. Yes I understand you will be "unsure that cosmological red shift and dark energy are related via a process that happens at the fundamental particle level". The discussion I would have with you, would bring the possibility and prospective evidence to your attention. I believe I know how to make this consideration fairly simple.

1. I would build a simple analogy for you, which loosely represents the nature of the relationship I propose between Auv and Tuv. That Auv is an emergent field from which Tuv metabolizes an energy potential that drives fundamental force.

2. We will then make a list of the parameters Paul Dirac mentions in his "Large Numbers Hypothesis", analyse where the parameters are derived from, discuss if they are likely to be accurate measures we can rely on. I will do the work for us, so put your feet up and relax.

3. Being satisfied that the parameters Paul refers to are conventional of origin and therefore likely to be valid, we will then see how they might conceptually relate to my above hypothesis. It is a simple consideration you needn't be apprehensive about. I will highlight an interesting pattern, theme of nature which depends on the parameters of (a) volume of space, (b) emergence rate of Auv, space, (c) value of universal Tuv, matter.

4. I will demonstrate how this same pattern, theme of nature dependent on Volume of space and density distribution of matter operates within galaxies, to give an exacting mathematical solution to galaxy rotation curves.

I don't think the above steps should sound overly complicated. But rest assured the considerations are even simpler than they would have it appear. Besides, I'll do the work and you need only follow me through this step by step please?

Steve

Dear Georgina and Steven,

I am sorry for appearing to insult your intelligence in my previous post. As I have stated earlier, I have notified Professor Stephen Hawking and his boss, Professor Nigel Peake of my conviction that only Nature could have produced the simplest visible physical condition, and as only visible surface am observable, it logically follows that only a single unified visible infinite surface could be occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. I have also provided this information to over seventy Physics Professors and over eighty holders of Ph.D in Physics certificate holders. Not one word of my assertion has been disputed. Is there any part of my infinite surface statement that you agree with?

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Joe, no. There is no part of it that I agree with.

Steven, I am happy to read your analogy. let's just see where it goes from there.

Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your reply, it has caused me to burst into song this bright sunny morning.

"They all laughed at Christopher Columbus

When he said the world was round..."

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Gary D Simpson,

The Category of this thread is listed as: Ultimate Reality. The Topic is listed as: Alternate Models of Reality. According to Dr. Zeeya Merali, the Administrator: "If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. (This is for contributors who have preliminary ideas and would like feedback, but do not have an academic paper or arXiv preprint and have not given a conference talk based on their ideas.)

You can obtain information about swimming pool maintenance at url: https://triangle.poolscouts.com/?_vsrefdom=ppc

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Georgina

Just a quick message to show I'm still here. I'm in the middle of a busy week, so please bare with me. I will return here soon and present my explanation.

Kind regards

Steve

All,

This post and its attachment concern the basis for conservation of momentum.

The attached .pdf file contains two Figures that both have a center of mass at point (0, 0). I used simple numbers to make things ... well, simple:-)

The two figures could represent the same system at different times. Therefore, the changes in position of the particles represent momentum and since the two systems have the same center of gravity, it follows that the momentum associated with the position changes must sum to zero as required by conservation of momentum.

I think that this is a very simple example of the Noether Theorem.

Best Regards,

Gary SimpsonAttachment #1: Center_Of_Mass.pdf

Dear Gary,

There am only one visible singular unified infinite surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Symbolic figures are highly complex because they purport to be finite. Your abstract finite amounts of mass could not possibly have an ascertainable invisible zero center.

Real visible infinite surface am not theoretical.

Joe Fisher, Realist