Essay Abstract

The most inaccurate operation that modern mathematicians have always performed was their use of an abstract zero. Competent physicists have long proven that all laboratory produced absolute zero temperature experiments confirmed that infinitesimal sub-microscopic particle motion still persisted at the lowest level that they could achieve. Some physicists speculated that a possible condition of perfect stillness might exist somewhere in the vast Universe. The fact that there was no real zero has never deterred any mathematician from using a presumed zero inches or centimeter indicator located at the left side of a straight edged ruler, or illuminated zero indicators shown on an electronic digital display instrument and pretended that they could accurately measure objects and time and temperature and speed and distance and practically anything. The most inaccurate assumption the modern physicists have always made was their thoughtless use of the three abstract dimensions of height, length and depth, and the abstract dimensions of time and space. One real Universe must only consist of one real substance once. One real Universe must be occurring in one real infinite dimension, once. A real infinite dimension lacks an ascertainable interior, an ascertainable exterior and an ascertainable duration. Once one eliminates the implausible abstract concept of space and triadic abstract dimensions and abstract time from one's real perceptions, the obvious dynamic of the real unique Universe becomes remarkably easy to understand, once.

Author Bio

Decrepit self-taut (thinking makes me tense) realist.

Download Essay PDF File

Joe,

We can not physically see the forces of gravity and magnetism but they exist. Furthermore abstractions are deviations from reality or approximations of reality therefore they must exist in some form logically speaking. While I agree our understanding of zero and many abstractions such as the temporal passage of time are difficult to grasp and confusing, we can predict their existence by their consistent behavior and influence on objects we are able to define as real and therefore necessary in our understandings of reality.

Best Regards,

D.C. Adams

    Dear Desmond,

    Thank you for your comment and your rating. Any deviation from reality must be unrealistic. Force is an abstraction. Because some clever men have made real machines that can seemingly out-perform him physically is indeed impressive, But some scientists are now crazily claiming that they can "build" an artificial brain that can outthink man.

    Regards,

    Joe

    Respectfully Desmond,

    Indubitably real magnetic force does exist. But to believe that each individual planet has its own dollop of gravitational force is idiotic. As I explained in my sublime essay, the surfaces of all planets travel at the same constant speed. The sub-surface of each individual planet travels at a unique speed that is less than the constant speed of surface.

    Joe Fisher

    4 days later

    Dear Dr. Oricchio,

    Thank you for taking the time to comment. Of course Mathematics is a language, but reality is not a language is it?

    Joe Fisher

    Joe,

    I have made a sincere effort to read and understand your essay. As an observation, you used the word "real" almost 150 times. You used the word abstract roughly 25 times.

    If I understand what you have written, you have stated that the outer surfaces of all objects move at one speed and that the material below the surface moves at a speed that is slower than the outer surface. If this were true, wouldn't objects eventually become empty or hollow? If this were true, wouldn't it be impossible for an object to be transferred between two other objects?

    Could you clarify this a bit?

    Best Regards,

    Gary Simpson

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      Dear Gary Simpson,

      Thank you for your comment. A real object cannot become hollow for there is no real interior space. There is no real physical difference between a surface and a sub-surface. Some real people seem to impose abstract difference on everything they sense and there is not much harm in that except as you will glean from reading the other essays in this competition, mathematicians and physicists are completely clueless about reality. They truly believe that each planet and each star and each galaxy has a discrete amount of gravitational force inserted in their interiors somewhere, (Although Newton, Einstein and Hawking have never explained how this precise unique amount of gravitational force was inserted) and they have failed to grasp that the surfaces of all of the planets and stars and galaxies travel at the same constant speed.

      Regards,

      Joe Fisher

      Dear Joe Fisher ! Having read your essay, I can imagine that you could be interested to study the approach of Kelvin Abraham:/ www.tetryonics.com/Best wishes: Stephen I. Ternyik

        I am afraid your post offended me. Google had no listing for Kelvin Abraham:/www.tettyonics.com/

        RATIONALSCEPTICISM did have an article about Kelvin Abraham at url http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/tetryonics-t42862.html

        How could you be so ignorant so as to believe that my explanation of reality has anything to do with Abraham's mad abstractions that are sillier than the ones you listed in your essay?

        An apology would be welcome.

        Joe Fisher

        At academia.edu, K. Abraham has posted his introduction to tetryonic theory. If other researchers work is to be declared as mad or silly, does not interest me.Every explanation of the real world has a limited range and there is no reason to label other approaches as pathological.

        Hi Joe,

        Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I understood your use of the word abstract after I read yours. Your message is an important one. Since we use tools like mathematics to help our thinking it is easy for some to start believing they represent reality. I am glad you quoted my belief that our futile efforts to understand nature are not nature. I agree with you they are abstractions. My belief that "all is information" may not convey the same idea to you but to me it means "it is an abstraction".

        Cheers

          Dear Gene,

          Thank you for your extraordinary gracious comment.

          Joe

          Dear Sir,

          You are right that the real universe is not mathematical in the absolute sense. Mathematics is not the sole language of Nature. It depicts only its quantitative aspect. You are also right that what we call rest is the net null sum of all forces acting on a body. Nothing is truly at rest in Nature. Every object is only relatively at rest on its 'ground' or 'base'. Since this aspect of reality is not evident in observation, you can describe it as abstract. But objects and interactions are real. We define reality as everything that exists (has a limited structure that evolves in time), is intelligible (perceivable or knowable as the result of measurement) and communicable (describable in a language as defined in our essay: Transposition of information to another system's CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy. The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context).

          We differentiate real from the abstract in the following manner: Space, Time and coordinates arise from our concept of sequence and interval. When it is related to objects, we call the interval space. When it is related to events, we call the interval time. When we describe inter-relationship of objects, we describe the interval by coordinates. Everything is subject to time evolution in space. There is a fixed pattern of all events. These are: being (situation leading to its creation), becoming (its creation itself), (growth due to addition of other particles/events), transformation (as a result), transmutation (due to the same effect - incompatible/excess addition), destruction (change of form as a consequence) to start a new chain. Observation/measurement (perception) is of two types. Some things can be directly observed and measured (which you call real universe). But space, time and coordinates that have no physical existence, but are only inferred from indirect observation/measurement of two successive objects or events or arrangements. This second category belongs to the realm of the abstract. Motion also belongs to this category because space, where motion takes place, is abstract. Yet, it can be measured indirectly by linking it to real objects in space. Einstein's zero commencement point belongs to the abstract coordinates. Hence it has to be linked to real objects for meaningful use.

          One word of caution: mirages are also observed. But such observation is dependent on a vantage position and not invariant (falsifiable) from different positions. Thus, they are neither real nor abstract: they are only imaginary combinations of real objects which cannot be physically coupled - like complex numbers. What you call a 'zero physical state' is not zero, because zero is the absence of something that does not exist at here-now (where observation/ measurement takes place), but exists elsewhere. Absolute zero in temperature parlance is a certain temperature threshold, not zero temperature.

          Regards,

          basudeba

            Dear basudeba,

            Thank you for your comment. I am afraid you did not quite grasp the point of my essay. The real Universe is real in the absolute sense of the word. No matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces. Besides seeing the apparent surface of a hologram or a mirage, you will see the partial surfaces of the real floor and real walls and real fixtures of the real room the hologram is being projected into, or you will see the surface of the real sand dunes and real sky in the desert where the mirage appears. Dream surfaces appear in dreams. Timothy Leary described the vivid surfaces he noticed in his hallucinations after taking a shot of LSD.

            Regards,

            Joe Fisher

            8 days later

            Dear Joe,

            Your essay tells its story from an uncommon, although interesting perspective. However, I think you mistake the image of an object for the object itself. The image is conveyed by travelling light.

            As to your question: "Where did the universe come from?"

            The Universe can only come from nothing. If there was a "where" from whence the universe can come, that "where" would be the universe itself. The Universe can therefore only come from "Nowhere" if there was a beginning.

            Regards,

            Akinbo

              Dear Akinbo,

              Thank you for your comment. My essay explains how the real Universe is occurring. Reality does not have an abstract uncommon, but abstract interesting perspective. I did not mistake an abstract image of an abstract object for the abstract object itself. You did that. Abstract images may be abstractly conveyed by abstract traveling abstract light, however, real light can only appear provided it is seen as adhering to a real surface that is traveling at the constant speed of surface.

              Only an abstract universe could come from an abstract nothing.

              Regards,

              Joe Fisher

              The "Sunya" as it is called in Sanskrit supposedly holds the uproots to reality which when expounded given the gift of sublets of "sifr" in Arabic and "Zero" in English.

              Your quest for zero is an answer for the empty space.

              Great subject! Good luck!

              Sincerely,

              Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

                Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

                Thank you ever so much for your gracious comment.

                Joe Fisher

                Dear Joe,

                I left an answer to your response over on my thread. I am willing to consider your viewpoint if it provides answers to the riddles in our cosmology.

                This year you have not used the words, 'unique', 'once' and 'codswallop' as much as you used to. You have instead emphasized this year on the word 'abstract'. This suggests that Joe Fisher is a manifestation of reality and is unique once and is not abstract.

                If you want to argue on cosmological models then I think you can start a dialectic on the Alternative Cosmology models forum which does not require email alerts.

                Regards,

                Akinbo