The Truth is that the Connection Between Physics and Mathematics is Not at all Mysterious by Paul N Butler

Dear Demond,

If when you say we as theorists, you are referring to you and me, you may be right in your belief, but I don't believe that applies to all theorists. There are many in this world (both those who base their theories primarily on observations and those who base them mostly on mathematical models) who do not believe in a balanced approach especially if such an approach would disprove their pet theory or if their careers are at stake because they are dependent on maintenance of current scientific beliefs, etc.

I believe that the best approach is to first observe as much as we can of the world around us and all of the results of the interactions of its parts and then logically look at the possible structures and the rules of operation of those structures that are required to make a world that works in the way that this world does. The structures and rules of operation that are needed may include some that we can't presently observe where necessary for everything to work the way that it does (These could be considered to be predictions to be looked for in future observations). This will likely lead to the production of many possible hypotheses that attempt to explain this world. Math will be needed at all of the above steps to quantify measurements of things observed and the relationships that are observed to occur between them, the rules of their operation that we observe, and the interactions between them, etc., but at this stage I would discourage the building of complete math models as they would be very incomplete and could misguide efforts to understand the basic structures involved. All of the proposed hypotheses should then be compared to identify their differences and also the elements that are the same in all of them. At this point a math model can be built to model all of the parts that are common to all proposed hypotheses. Then the goal should be to identify and remove any parts that:

1. are unnecessary duplications of structures and rules or where they can be combined under one structure and/or rule that turns out to describe more elements of observed reality than was originally envisioned,

2. don't actually perform in agreement with observed reality,

3. conflict with other proposed structure(s) or rule(s), etc.

Those structures or rules that conflict with each other should then be analyzed and modified and/or replaced with structures or rules that are internally consistent and also agree with observed reality. The end result of this stage of development should be a math model that is internally consistent and agrees with observed reality, but will likely not explain all of it. The next step would be to look at and make math models of the parts of each hypothesis that do not agree with all other hypotheses. Those that are proved to be both consistent with observed reality and the main math model and add new understanding of or explain areas of observed reality that are not covered by the main math model can then be added to that model. In some cases multiple sets of structures and rules may be found that are both internally consistent with the math model and what can be presently observed of reality, but all describe the same parts of reality only in somewhat different ways. In such cases all such sets should be included in the math model and continually be compared to new observations and the required changes in the math model to accommodate such new observations with specific attempts being made to make observations that will discern which one actually most closely fits observed reality. The others can then be removed from the math model when they are proven incompatible with it and/or observed reality. Observations should also be made to confirm that the structures and rules that were needed to make the hypotheses and the math model, but hadn't yet been confirmed to be valid by previous observations are actually valid predictions. Any changes needed to bring them into conformance should be made and any that prove to be false should be removed. Because of the complexities involved in constructing and maintaining a complete and accurate logical hypothesis and math model, there should be 3 divisions made in the scientific community to be sure that a proper balance is maintained between work on the logical hypothesis structure and the math model. One section would be made up of those who are expert in making and recording the data results of observations. The next section would be composed of those who are expert at pattern recognition, logical reasoning, and interpretation of the data produced by observation. These would work on the production and maintenance of the logical hypothesis. The third group would be those who are expert in mathematics who would produce and maintain the math model. There would also be those who would be cross trained in 2 of the 3 areas who would act to transfer and coordinate the information between the 2 groups for which they are trained. Finally there would be those who are trained in all 3 areas that would handle overall coordination between the three groups and also transfer information to the general public, etc. This, of course, is only a general guideline and would need to be fleshed out much to be implemented into practice. As an example, there might be a division that would look at all new observations, new logical hypothesis concepts, and new math developments to determine how they might be further developed and then integrated into the total information structure as appropriate to ensure maximum overall development. Such new inputs of information could come from anyone, not just those who are currently working in the area that the new input is associated with.

You are right about the dimensions. This is because even though we cannot directly observe the extra dimensions, we can observe their outputs, such as the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effect of energy photons that are generated by their fourth dimensional motions.

You are right. Einstein used both logical reasoning about observed reality and math structures to model it.

You are right again. All methods are required to get a full true understanding of reality to man's best ability.

Sincerely,

P. Butler

Dear Koorosh,

It is good that we agree on that. One thing that I find interesting is that after working for many years to gain an understanding of much of the information that I am currently giving in my papers, I came across a book that had been written about 2 thousand years ago that gave information about the world and not only included many of the concepts that I came up with from analyzing scientific observations that have been made only in about the last 100 years by man, but also gave other new concepts that I was not at that time aware of. It also describes a framework structure that our world is built upon that we can't see and gives many details about it.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Amrit,

I agree with you that many current math models have strayed far from observed reality. I also agree that experimental observation is the most important element necessary to find and understand the basic laws of the universe. The one thing that I find most missing today in physics is those with the ability to logically analyze the results of observations and generate a logical model of the universe's structure from which reasonable mathematical models can be generated. The results of observations are there and there are many involved in making math models, but there is a great lack of those in the middle that can interpret the observations into an overall structure that the math models can then emulate. The result has been that the models that are made usually do not conform well with reality in the sense that they may be able to quantify what interactions are possible and the probability of each one happening, but they can't explain why they work that way or what is really going on inside of the entities that are interacting or even in the details of how the interactions accomplish the observed results, etc. They then drift off into false concepts like time dimensions, multiverses, or the concept that nothing happens until it is observed, etc.

I read your paper and see that you have a pretty good understanding of some of these things. I break things down a little differently because I have found that matter and energy photons are made of motions and change (change of position) is a property of motion. As you point out in your paper, time duration is just a relationship between motion and the distance it travels through in the dimensional system. I therefore, would start with just motion and the spatial system that the motion travels in. Everything else is built up from these 2 basic elements.

I received some emails from you asking me to join linked in. I usually don't join those types of things unless there is some special reason to do so to accomplish some purpose, so I was going to email you back to let you know that you could reach me at my email at pljb1@juno.com, but when I tried to make a reply, the email seemed to only go back to linked in and not to you, so I wasn't sure that you would get it. You can contact me at the above email address if you wish to. I am not very good at checking it every day, so it might take me some time to get back to you. It is just that I sometimes get involved in some project and forget to check it for some time.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

You are right that there are differences in individual things that are categorized by man to be the same type of thing. Generally things are not categorized with the same name because they are believed to be completely the same in all respects, but are similar enough to each other in form or function, etc. that an action or interaction that works in a specific way with one will generally work the same with all of them. As an example, if you take a snowflake and heat it to above 0 degrees centigrade it will change from the solid snowflake to a drop of water. This is a general truth that applies to all water snowflakes. Although environmental conditions such as pressure, etc. could alter the temperature at which the change would occur; such variables would still affect all similar snowflakes basically the same. The reason that science is based on the concept of identifying things that are very similar to each other in some way rather than trying to identify all of the structural details about each individual thing is that it is based on the fact that man does not have the capability to determine all existing details about all things, but you can gain much in ability to control your environment for your benefit by looking for similarities in appearance and function, etc. in things, such that when you learn how to get one of such things to do what you want it to do, you can then apply the same methods to the others also. On the other hand, if you look at a specific snowflake and identify some trait that it possesses that is different than in all other snowflakes, anything that you do to exploit that difference will only apply to that particular snowflake. It might not work the same in other snowflakes that didn't have that trait. Practical science is all about making things conform to man's desires so that they can be used to make man's life better in some way. As an example, it is not necessary to completely understand all of the conditions existent in each matter particle in a sample of a substance such as Freon in order to use it in a heat pump to transfer heat from one place to another place. All you really need to know are the traits that they all or at least most of them share in the way they are structured together that can be used for that purpose. There is one problem with that approach, however, in that relatively small differences in very complex structures can sometimes yield undesirable results. This is why drugs that are developed for and usually work well on most people for some purpose can cause other problems such as allergic reactions in some people who have slightly different genetic makeup, etc. The simpler a structure is, the fewer such variations in behavior should be expected to be found. That is one reason that Physicists should be greatly concerned about why simple interactions between what they believe to be very simple matter particles can yield so many different outcomes and why those outcomes have different probabilities of occurrence. I find it very interesting that instead of considering the possibility that matter particles are more complex in structure than they were thought to be, the approach has been to consider something that is in some ways much simpler in structure than matter particles (space) to be much more complex than it is with vacuum energy, etc.

If you consider that the things like the stars and snowflakes that we observe in some way with our senses are actually real existing things, then observations of them would not be abstract observations, but literal observations of their forms. If you then use your mind to analyze a star that you observed through your telescope, your mind will generate abstract structures that will ultimately generate a literal image in your mind of what the star looked like when you saw it. Not all observations or analysis of such observations are abstract. Repetitive patterns and cycles that exist and that can be observed can also be literal and not abstract in nature. I usually use the word abstract to mean when information is produced in a form that does not allow you to extract that information from direct observation without knowledge of some type of code or structure that must then be interpreted in order to access the enclosed information and literal as information that is provided in a form that can be understood by direct observation. It appears that you may be using abstract to mean information that is provided in a literal form through observation, but is ignored by the observer. I was not talking about that type of observation in my paper. That being said, it is important to recognize that when an observation is made by man, much of the information that is presented is often not perceived and/or understood by the observer even when the observer is attempting to understand the observation to the best of his ability. As an example, when the astronomer looks through his telescope, he cannot directly observe all of the frequencies of energy that are presented to him in the image because his eyes can only see a very limited range of frequencies. When you couple with that the fact that man's current limited level of development prevents him from even knowing some things that would be important to look for, it is true that sometimes information that is presented even in a literal form may not be recognized and perceived by the observer.

When you talk about each thing being unique once how would you consider a water molecule if it is first broken down into its separate atoms and then the same atoms are combined again back into a water molecule? Would it still be the original water molecule or is it now somehow a new different water molecule to you? Changing a matter particle into an energy photon is similar in that they are both composed of motions. If a motion exists in one place in it a matter particle is produced. If it is moved from there to another place in it then it becomes an energy photon. The same total amount of motion exists in it in either form. Observations have shown that if you bring a matter particle (an electron) and an antimatter particle (a positron) together at low kinetic energy, the matter and antimatter particles disappear and an energy photon(s) appear in their place. If the matter and antimatter particles have not been changed into energy photon(s) then what has happened to the matter and antimatter particles and where did the energy photons come from? The energy photon(s) that appeared as a result of the interaction contain the same total amount of motion (energy) that was in the matter and antimatter particles that disappeared in the interaction.

Sincerely,

Paul Butler

Dear Joe,

I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you, but I have not had good access to the internet for the last couple of weeks.

I have found that the concept of a real surface is not as most people consider it to be. If you look at a polished piece of metal, you will see a solid looking smooth surface, but as you magnify it you will see that it is not a smooth continuous surface, but is instead composed of metal crystals with visibly defined interfaces. You could consider each metal crystal to have a surface, but once again as you magnify it enough you see that the surface is actually composed of small spherical objects (atoms) with space between them, which is not a solid smooth surface at all. You might say that the atoms appear to have solid smooth spherical surfaces, but if you could magnify them enough, you would see that their apparent surfaces are actually caused by light photons bouncing off of the electrons that are moving around the atoms', nucleuses. There is no actual surface to the atoms. If you could magnify one of the electrons, you might consider that it would be a spherical object with a surface, but if you magnified it, you would see that it is just an energy photon traveling around in a three dimensional path much like the electrons traveling around the atom. If you could then magnify the energy photon, you could possibly see an actual surface, but man does not at present have the observational data to in any way prove or disprove that at this time, so I won't go into that now. The point is that most of the things that we see as solid with surfaces are actually mostly empty space with various motion interactions generating what we see at our limited size scale range as solid objects with solid surfaces. When looked at closely their surfaces are not really solid, but are composed of smaller and smaller continuous cyclical motion interactions.

Why do you believe that light does not have a surface? Do you have any actual observational evidence of that being the case?

I looked at your paper and have a few questions about the concepts presented in it.

1. Why do you believe that all surfaces must travel at the same speed when they appear by observation to be traveling at different speeds relative to each other? It would seem to me that due to the finite speed of light, there is always a delay from the time that light is reflected from or emitted by an object to the time that ours eyes interact with those light photons and we perceive the object. If light photons are continuously leaving 2 objects and traveling to our eyes, we would continuously see both objects simultaneously (at the same time) once light from both objects reached our eyes. If both objects were not in motion relative to us and each other and each of the objects aimed a light source at our eyes and if both lights were turned on simultaneously, we would see the light first from the closest object since the light from that object would travel a shorter distance to reach our eyes. If both objects were traveling straight toward us at different speeds and they both turned on their lights simultaneously just when the faster object pulled up beside the other object so that they were both the same distance from us, and if the light always travels at the same speed to all observers, we would expect the first light from both objects to reach us simultaneously. If in the observational test above, the light from the faster object is speeded up by its faster speed so that its speed is greater than the speed of the light from the slower object, we would expect that the first light from the faster object would reach us first. Observational evidence suggests that the speed of light is the same regardless of the direction and speed that the object is traveling when it emits the light photons. This suggests that when the object is moving in the same direction as the emitted photons, the extra linear motion of the object is transferred to the photons' fourth vector (dimensional) motion, which would increase the photons' frequency and dynamic mass effects and would decrease the wavelength effect of the photons, thus creating a blue shift effect. If the object is traveling in the opposite direction of the emitted photons, the decrease in the motion of the photons that would be expected is also transferred to the photons' fourth vector motion, which would decrease their frequency and dynamic mass effects and increase their wavelength. This would generate a red shift effect. This suggests that the photon's fourth vector motion acts as a motion sink that servos the photon's linear speed at the speed of light by either transferring motion to the linear motion to increase it up to the speed of light or by transferring motion from the linear motion to decrease it down to the speed of light.

2. Please explain why you believe that if all surfaces were not traveling at the same speed it would be physically impossible for one to observe them simultaneously?

3. Why do you believe that a sub-surface must travel at a speed that always remains lower than the constant speed of the surface and why it can only travel in or out?

4. If light cannot travel, what happens when a moving surface intersects a stationary light photon? Does the surface get stopped by the stationary light photon? Does the surface just pass through the stationary photon without any effect on either one or does some other action or effect occur?

5. You say that real objects have surfaces. If you take a 1ft by 1ft by ½in piece of wood, it would be a real object and its top, bottom, and sides would be surfaces. If you lay it on a larger piece of wood, its bottom would then become a sub-surface. If you placed 1/2 in thick wood pieces against all of its sides, its sides would become sub-surfaces also. If you then placed a large piece of wood on top of it, the top would also become a sub-surface. At this point it would no longer have a surface because they would all have been changed into sub-surfaces. Would it still be a real object without any surfaces or would it now be unreal, etc.?

6. You say: "Real light cannot have a surface for the only way light can be seen is if it adherers to a real surface". It makes sense according to your theory that the side of the light that adherers to a real surface would be a sub-surface, but why couldn't the light possess a side that is not adhering to the real surface that has a surface on it, thus making the light also a real object?

7. It would seem to me that the air (gas) that covers the planet earth is (according to your theory) a real object and the top or outside side of it is a surface. The bottom of it that touches the other objects on the earth below it would be a sub-surface and all of the parts of those surface objects that contact the air are also sub-surfaces. Most of the other surfaces of those lower objects that are not in contact with the air are in contact with other objects and are, therefore, also sub-surfaces and not surfaces. This means that most of the earth objects except for the air do not have real surfaces and, therefore, are not real objects unless real objects can exist as real objects when they do not have any surfaces.

So far it appears to me that your theory does not fit well with observational data and possibly in internal structure as well, but maybe you can clarify it for me.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Sujatha,

Thank you for your positive comment, (if I am correctly interpreting it.) I read your paper and noticed that it seems to be based on belief in Indian (Hindu) religious principles and texts, etc. It appears that according to them the ultimate creator of the universe is called Brahman.

1. Is Brahman considered to be eternal or does he enter into the cycles of existence and non-existence as mentioned of all of the others mentioned that come from him in one way or another in their cycles?

2. What is considered to be Brahman's purpose or reason for creating the universe and all that are in it. What does he get out of it for himself for all of the labor that he put into it that made it worthwhile for him to have created it?

3. What is the purpose for each of the multitude of sub-cycles that make up each major cycle and why are the major cycles continued infinitely (if they are)?

4. Is each major cycle exactly the same in all respects as all other cycles or do they differ in one or more respects from other cycles?

5. What is the universe (matter, energy, etc.) considered to be composed or made of? To put it another way: what is the most basic substance from which all things are built up or made?

Unlike many who think that it is unscientific to make any attempt to consider that God may exist and to look for any useful information that he may have provided for us, I believe that it is best to take all possibilities into consideration. Those who do not do so are purposely blinding themselves to half of the possibilities. At the same time any information that is provided as coming from God should agree with observed reality to the extent that man can presently observe. Any such information that is provided that cannot be confirmed by observation should not be considered to be as established as true unless all of the information from that source that can be confirmed to be true checks out to be true. I look forward to the information that you can provide to me in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

Paul Butler

Dear Sujatha,

I was hoping that you would be able to answer my questions since your paper is based on that belief, so I thought you would have expert knowledge of it. I am sorry if I was wrong about that. I am not sure where I could find the book you mentioned in English and at this point of my time in this world I don't desire to learn another new language. It would also, of course, provide you with the opportunity to communicate your belief to all that might read these comments, which I would think you would desire. I may be wrong about that also, though. Feel free to do as you desire.

Sincerely,

Paul N. Butler

Dear Joe,

I thought that I already had received a comment on my paper from you and had commented on your paper in response on my paper's page, but if I did, it disappeared somehow, so I will post it again here on my page and also on yours as you requested. I added a few additional observations for further thought. I hope you will get something productive out of it.

I am sorry that it has taken so long to get back to you, but I have not had good access to the internet for the last couple of weeks.

I have found that the concept of a real surface is not as most people consider it to be. If you look at a polished piece of metal, you will see a solid looking smooth surface, but as you magnify it you will see that it is not a smooth continuous surface, but is instead composed of metal crystals with visibly defined interfaces. You could consider each metal crystal to have a surface, but once again as you magnify it enough you see that the surface is actually composed of small spherical objects (atoms) with space between them, which is not a solid smooth surface at all. You might say that the atoms appear to have solid smooth spherical surfaces, but if you could magnify them enough, you would see that their apparent surfaces are actually caused by light photons bouncing off of the electrons that are moving around the atoms', nucleuses. There is no actual surface to the atoms. If you could magnify one of the electrons, you might consider that it would be a spherical object with a surface, but if you magnified it, you would see that it is just an energy photon traveling around in a three dimensional path much like the electrons traveling around the atom. If you could then magnify the energy photon, you could possibly see an actual surface, but man on this planet does not at present have the observational data to in any way prove or disprove that at this time, so I won't go into that now. The point is that most of the things that we see as solid with surfaces are actually mostly empty space with various motion interactions generating what we see at our limited size scale range as solid objects with solid surfaces. When looked at closely their surfaces are not really solid, but are composed of smaller and smaller continuous cyclical motion interactions.

Why do you believe that light does not have a surface? Do you have any actual observational evidence of that being the case?

I looked at your paper and have a few questions about the concepts presented in it.

1. Why do you believe that all surfaces must travel at the same speed when they appear by observation to be traveling at different speeds relative to each other? It would seem to me that due to the finite speed of light, there is always a delay from the time that light is reflected from or emitted by an object to the time that ours eyes interact with those light photons and we perceive the object. If light photons are continuously leaving 2 objects and traveling to our eyes, we would continuously see both objects simultaneously (at the same time) once light from both objects reached our eyes. If both objects were not in motion relative to us and each other and each of the objects aimed a light source at our eyes and if both lights were turned on simultaneously, we would see the light first from the closest object since the light from that object would travel a shorter distance to reach our eyes. If both objects were traveling straight toward us at different speeds and they both turned on their lights simultaneously just when the faster object pulled up beside the other object so that they were both the same distance from us, and if the light always travels at the same speed to all observers, we would expect the first light from both objects to reach us simultaneously. If in the observational test above, the light from the faster object is speeded up by its faster speed so that its speed is greater than the speed of the light from the slower object, we would expect that the first light from the faster object would reach us first. Observational evidence suggests that the speed of light is the same regardless of the direction and speed that the object is traveling when it emits the light photons. This suggests that when the object is moving in the same direction as the emitted photons, the extra linear motion of the object is transferred to the photons' fourth vector (dimensional) motion, which would increase the photons' frequency and dynamic mass effects and would decrease the wavelength effect of the photons, thus creating a blue shift effect. If the object is traveling in the opposite direction of the emitted photons, the decrease in the motion of the photons that would be expected is also transferred to the photons' fourth vector motion, which would decrease their frequency and dynamic mass effects and increase their wavelength. This would generate a red shift effect. This suggests that the photon's fourth vector motion acts as a motion sink that servos the photon's linear speed at the speed of light by either transferring motion to the linear motion to increase it up to the speed of light or by transferring motion from the linear motion to decrease it down to the speed of light.

2. Please explain why you believe that if all surfaces were not traveling at the same speed it would be physically impossible for one to observe them simultaneously?

3. Why do you believe that a sub-surface must travel at a speed that always remains lower than the constant speed of the surface and why it can only travel in or out?

4. If light cannot travel, what happens when a moving surface intersects a stationary light photon? Does the surface get stopped by the stationary light photon? Does the surface just pass through the stationary photon without any effect on either one or does some other action or effect occur?

5. You say that real objects have surfaces. If you take a 1ft by 1ft by ½in piece of wood, it would be a real object and its top, bottom, and sides would be surfaces. If you lay it on a larger piece of wood, its bottom would then become a sub-surface. If you placed 1/2 in thick wood pieces against all of its sides, its sides would become sub-surfaces also. If you then placed a large piece of wood on top of it, the top would also become a sub-surface. At this point it would no longer have a surface because they would all have been changed into sub-surfaces. Would it still be a real object without any surfaces or would it now be unreal, etc.?

6. You say: "Real light cannot have a surface for the only way light can be seen is if it adherers to a real surface". It makes sense according to your theory that the side of the light that adherers to a real surface would be a sub-surface, but why couldn't the light possess a side that is not adhering to the real surface that has a surface on it, thus making the light also a real object? Also, how can a stationary light photon adhere to a moving real surface? Wouldn't it be left behind as the real surface passed by its stationary position? Also, would the part of the real surface that the photon is adhered to become a sub-surface or is that only the case when 2 real surfaces come together?

7. It would seem to me that the air (gas) that covers the planet earth is (according to your theory) a real object and the top or outside side of it is a surface. The bottom of it that touches the other objects on the earth below it would be a sub-surface and all of the parts of those surface objects that contact the air are also sub-surfaces. Most of the other surfaces of those lower objects that are not in contact with the air are in contact with other objects and are, therefore, also sub-surfaces and not surfaces. This means that most of the earth objects except for the air do not have real surfaces and, therefore, are not real objects unless real objects can exist as real objects when they do not have any surfaces.

8. You say "There cannot be a real vacuum anywhere in the real Universe." Any empty space of any size could be considered to be a vacuum. The only way that there would be no vacuum would be if all of space is completely filled. If the invisible undetectable sub-microscopic particles that you mention completely filled all space that was not being filled by matter particles, etc., that could possibly eliminate all vacuum, but then all of the surfaces of all of those sub- microscopic particles would be making contact with other sub- microscopic particles or other larger matter particles, etc., so their complete surfaces would be turned into sub-surfaces and they would then have no surfaces. All of the larger matter particles surfaces would also be completely in contact with the sub-microscopic particles or with other larger particles and would, therefore, also become sub-surfaces. This would effectively get rid of all surfaces in the universe leaving only sub-surfaces remaining. According to your theory, a real surface can only be a surface when it is not up against anything. This requires that a vacuum exists around the surface because anything else in contact with the surface changes it into a sub-surface.

So far it appears to me that your theory does not fit well with observational data and possibly in internal structure as well, but maybe I am missing some details of it, maybe you can clarify it for me.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

You are right that my example of the piece of wood was based on what I believe would be the result if you actually took a real piece of wood and covered it as I described in my comment to you based on my past experience with real things and was not based on an actual experiment done at that time on real pieces of wood. I, therefore, did a real experiment with real things to see if your belief that all real surfaces travel at the same speed can be true. The real me sat on a real chair in front of and facing a real table, which was in front of a real couch. I placed a real piece of wood on the real table and pushed it away from me so that I could really just touch it when my arm was really fully extended. I then extended my arm about ½ of the way between really fully retracted and really fully extended and wrapped my real index finger around a real marble and used my real thumb to really project it away from my real hand and it came to rest on the real couch. You are right that the marble did really look a little smaller than it did when it was in my real hand, but its position relative to the real me and my real hand also appeared to have changed. To check that out I then extended my real arm all the way again and found that I could still really just touch the piece of wood on the table, so my arm's reach really remained the same. With it fully extended I really reached for the marble, but found that I really could no longer reach it. If it was actually in the same position relative to the real me and my real hand, but had only become smaller, I would still have been able to reach out and grab the real marble, but I could not because its real position relative to the real me had changed. This could also be determined because it was now really sitting on the real couch which was in a position really located farther from the real me than the real table was. I then got up from the real chair and walked over to the real couch and picked up the marble from it to prove that it actually really was on the couch and not still in the air where it had left my real hand.

The point of the real experiment is to prove that the real marble's real surface changed in position relative to the real surface of my real hand and the other real things mentioned above. Motion is just a real continual change in position in some real direction. Speed is just how fast that change of position occurs. If the surfaces of 2 real things are traveling at the same speed and in the same direction then their real positions relative to each other (the distance between them) will remain the same. If the distance between them changes, it can only be because they are not both moving at the same speed or they are not both moving in the same direction. If the change in relative position was caused by only changing the direction of the motion of the real surface of the real marble, this could be detected by projecting the real marble in different directions. When it was projected in the same direction as the motions of the real me, the real chair, the real table, the real piece of wood, and the real couch, etc. there would be no change in direction and the real marble's position relative to the other things would not change. To check this out I projected the real marble in many real different directions and its real position changed from the real me by about the same real amount in each direction. Since the real position of the real surface of the real marble did change relative to the real surfaces of the real me, chair, table, piece of wood, and couch, the real surface of the real marble could not have really been moving at the same real speed of all the other real surfaces when it was really changing position relative to those real surfaces. Since we can observe these relative changes between the real positions of many real surfaces all around us in real life, all surfaces do not move at the same real speed. Also, when the real marble was moving from my real hand to the real couch, its real sub-surface (inside) had to be moving at the same speed as its real surface (outside) toward the real couch and not slower or its real sub-surface would have broken out of the back of the real surface of the marble and would have been left behind.

Of course, you could have a different definition of the word real than its standard meanings. If so, please give me your definition, so we can be talking about the same things. It might help to also get your definition of the words abstract, surface, and sub-surface if they are defined by you differently in any way than the way I have been using them above.

I noticed that you did not answer my comment that it appears that according to how your theory is described to work, either vacuum would have to exist around surfaces or all surfaces would be in contact with something else and thereby be changed to sub-surfaces by the contact. This would effectively eliminate all surfaces from existence.

In your examples, you carefully chose observations of things that are too far away from the observer to allow them to be observed by touch, but we do have the ability built into us to observe things that are close enough to us to allow them to be touched as I have pointed out in my comment above. In addition to this, our sense of sight uses two eyes separated by a space that allows us to have a three dimensional view of the world, so that we can observe that some things that we can see are closer to us than other things. When we observe real surfaces that are in motion in relation to other surfaces around them, we can see them going behind closer surfaces and going in front of more distant surfaces. If all real surfaces move at the same speed, then they could not move in the same direction relative to each other and their surroundings and at the same time have the distance between them change.

You have the ability to look at the world differently than most people are capable of doing, however, the new and different concepts that come into your mind must always be tested by all of the observations of the real world that you can and the concepts must be in agreement with those observations. Those concepts that pass all of the observational tests can be considered valid scientific concepts. Those that don't pass them are either complete fictions or they need to be modified until they do agree with all of the observations. When you see or someone else points out to you that your concept does not completely agree with reality, you basically have three choices.

1. You can do what most do and hold onto the concept as it is and strongly talk up the places where the concept does agree with observation while at the same time ignoring and trying to distract others from seeing and exposing the places where it doesn't agree with reality. This tactic usually ultimately fails in the long run. In the few cases that it works, the result can be that scientific advancement can be held back for long periods of time. I, therefor, discourage the use of this choice.

2. You can completely throw out the concept as false and go on to look for a better concept. This can be a good strategy if the concept is shown to be completely invalid, but there is the potential that you might have almost had the right concept and a little work on it might give you the insight needed to correct it and make it work.

3. You can look at the observations that don't agree with your concept and see if modifications can be made to your concept that will bring it into complete agreement with all observations. This can not only save some valid concepts from being discarded, it can also give you insights of new concepts to look into if your current concept turns out to be uncorrectable.

In summary here are some points that you must be able to explain about the concepts that you have presented or to correct if you can't explain them, so that they agree logically internally and with external observations that I have not yet seen you present explanations of:

1. If, when a surface comes in contact with another surface, the parts of the surfaces that are in contact with each other change from being surface into being sub-surface, then vacuum or empty space must exist and be around all surfaces to allow them to continue to be surfaces. If there is no vacuum or empty space, then all surfaces are in contact with some other surface and are, therefore, no longer surfaces, but are now all sub-surfaces. This is a logical inconsistency that is internal to your concept that calls for a change in the concept to allow it to work.

2. If all surfaces travel at the same speed their relative positions would always remain the same if they are all traveling in the same direction. Those surfaces that are traveling in other directions would all have a specific speed of travel that would be dependent on their angle of travel compared to those surfaces that appear to be at rest. The greatest apparent speed would be twice the speed that all things are traveling for a surface that is traveling in the opposite direction to a surface that is traveling in the predominant direction of all other surfaces. As you change the direction of travel of that surface so that it travels closer and closer to the direction of travel of the predominate surface direction, its apparent speed would decrease until it came to a stop when it was traveling in the predominant surface direction. This would mean that all objects traveling in the same direction would travel at the same speed, so that it would be impossible for one object to pass another object that is traveling in the same direction. In reality, however, we often observe one car traveling down the road passing another car that is traveling in the same direction. When we are driving down the road in one direction, we often either pass or are passed by other cars traveling in the same direction down the road. Your concept does not agree with observed reality in this respect.

3. If all sub-surfaces traveled at a slower speed than the surfaces that surround them, they could not maintain their positions within the surface that surrounds them. They would either apply pressure to the side of the surface that was opposite to the surface's direction of travel and slow the surface down to a speed that would equal their own speed or they would be speeded up to a speed that equaled the speed of the surface, or a combination of both until their speeds were the same, or they would break out of the side of the surface that is opposite to the surface's direction of travel and be left behind. The new surface of the sub-surface that was left behind would then start to travel faster than its sub-surface and would thus leave the sub-surface behind again. This would continue until all of the sub-surface had been turned into surfaces that were internally empty of any sub-surface. Your concept does not agree with observed reality in this respect because we do not see this happen in reality.

I hope this gives you some constructive things to consider concerning your concept. Of course, you may already have considered these things and have valid answers for them in which case you can tell me about them so we can both understand your concept at the same detail level.

Sincerely,

Paul Butler

Dear James,

As you requested in your comment to me on my page, I read your paper and went over it enough to allow me to make a comment on it as you requested. I will post this comment both on your page and mine, so those who read it can easily get the whole picture of how it fits into your comment on my page. To accomplish that completely, I am also including your comments to me on the copy that I put on your page.

I found your paper to be a good exposition relating many of the most popular currently believed scientific concepts in a form that was somewhat disconnected in places, but still somewhat thorough in many respects. I did not see any important new concepts presented, however. It may, however, do well in the rankings because I have seen that although the stated goals of FQXI are given to be:

The goals of the Foundational Questions Institute's Essay Contest (the "Contest") are to:

• Encourage and support rigorous, innovative, and influential thinking connected with foundational questions;

• Identify and reward top thinkers in foundational questions; and,

• Provide an arena for discussion and exchange of ideas regarding foundational questions.

I have noticed that the winners of the contests seem to mostly be those that express agreement at least to a large degree with the status quo of currently believed concepts rather than those that express insights of new concepts, especially if those concepts disagree in any way with the presently accepted belief structure. This is, of course, not totally without merit because many of the new concepts that are presented in papers do not agree with observed reality and thus do not deserve recognition. Even some of those do show some of the problems that exist with current theories, etc. It is best to also have and present a better replacement theory, but there is still some value in just pointing out the problems even if you can't solve them because others who in that way learn about them may be given the insight to solve them. Those papers that most deserve to win the prizes are those that not only show the problems that exist in current beliefs, but also present new innovative theories that solve those problems and also create new paths for additional growth in knowledge, all in a way that agrees with observed reality. There can be other valid approaches such as presenting completely new areas of thought that agree with observed reality, which may not be connected to the validity of current theories, etc., but I hope you get the idea.

Your comments to my 5 points give some good examples of what I am talking about.

1. "The ability to visualize structures in one's mind." Your comment is: "Einstein's thought experiments are an example of the first. Some think his brain structure was the secret to his skill." You are right that Einstein was good at visualizing structures in his mind. Like most of us, however, he tried to conform his visualizations to current scientific belief structures. This meant that he considered time to be an existent entity that you might be able to travel back and forth in and not just the relationship between motions and the distances that they travel in space, as it actually is. This led to the unnecessary concept of a time dimension that has greatly confused the situation. His concept that space could be bent by mass to form gravity introduced the concept of space not just being a place where motions can have and change their positions, but being an existing dynamic entity in itself, which has also led to belief in many false concepts. Most of the time I try to keep the information that I provide as close to in line with current scientific beliefs as I can because I am usually presenting some concepts that are at least somewhat different from those beliefs and man in general has a fairly limited ability to adapt to new concepts if they depart greatly from current belief patterns, but every once in a while I run a test to see what happens, so I will give one example of a concept that has developed and is greatly believed that has some problems that have generally been ignored. The concept is the expansion of the universe. The mainstream belief in Einstein's earlier years was that the universe was neither expanding nor contracting, but was in a stable steady state. In order for him to get his theories to work properly to agree with that concept, he had to create a cosmological constant and give it a value that would produce such a state. This, however, opened up the possibility in the minds of some that the universe would not have to be in such a state, so later when the cosmological red shift was observed it was attributed to an expanding universe. More recently it has been observed that farther objects have a greater red shift and, therefore, seem to be moving away faster than closer objects. This has been interpreted as an increase in the expansion of the universe over time. Another interpretation could be that the red shift is caused by interactions between energy photons and sub-energy particles, etc. that happen with a low probability rate so that the results are only observed over long travel distances of photons since each interaction only very slightly reduces the photon's fourth vector motion amplitude causing a very small red shift, so that it is only measureable as the cumulative effect of a large number of interactions that occur over long distance travel of the photons. This would naturally yield a greater red shift in photons that come from farther away objects. This possibility has been pretty much completely ignored, however. Of course, some combination of both possibilities and/or even other possibilities could be factors in a complete understanding of the observed effects. The thing that I could have been clearer about in my item 1. Is that visualized structures need to be constantly compared to observed reality to be sure they are valid representations of reality and not just fictions and the mind must always be kept open to other possible valid visualizations that may work better.

2. "The ability to mentally extrapolate information from those visualizations." Your comment is: "2 and 3 are mentioned in my essay regarding quantum biology studies, DNA mapping, and simulation of the BB with the LHC." Your mentions of quantum biology studies, DNA mapping, and simulation of BB with the LHC are greatly dependent on the validity of current quantum mechanics concepts. The problem there is that although the types of interactions possible and the probability of each interaction occurring can be determined, the theories generally cannot explain the details of how the interactions occur and the causes of the particular probability of each one occurring, etc. Moreover, current theories tend to say that it is impossible to ever gain knowledge of these things. This lack of a comprehensive understanding of the generating causes of the observed effects greatly limits the practical use of quantum mechanics in many areas and has also led to the development of many strange and counterproductive concepts such as the idea that things don't actually happen until they are observed, etc. If that were true the universe could not have gotten past the first superposition point in the beginning as there would not have been anyone there to observe it then. I would, for that reason, be very suspicious about the validity of results that were generated by the application of many current quantum concepts. It would work, though, if God was there and made it all. That could be a good valid argument for the necessity of the existence of God to allow the creation to come into being if that quantum concept is valid.

3. "The ability to connect such attained information into a more advanced visualization, etc." You joined items 2 and 3 together in your comment, so see item 2 above.

4. "The ability to analyze observed reality for useful patterns of construction and functioning of its

parts." Your comment is: "A biologist and a physicist teamed up to discover how a European robin navigated N and S during the seasons. That led to chemical receptors in its brain thru entangled particles utilizing Earth's magnetic field." I would be very suspicious about the validity of any results generated by the use of the concept of entangled particles.

5. "The ability to connect the math model results to observed reality in a way that brings about a seamless joining of concepts that all agree." Your comment is: All example utilized math models as well as some of your other points." I cannot say that all of the current concepts of relativity and quantum mechanics (the two main theories that your comments are based on) can be joined together in a seamless way so that all agree with each other.

The allowed length of the contest papers is small enough that you might find it more productive to cover just one or at least fewer things in your paper, so that each item can be presented in more detail. It is also good to have all things presented fit together in an overall larger structure or organization of connected information if possible. I hope this helps you in some way.

Sincerely,

Paul