WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL by Joe Fisher

Dear abstract Mr. abstract Fisher,

Had abstract you abstract been abstract properly abstract trained abstract in abstract the abstract language abstract and abstract art abstract of abstract mathematics abstract and abstract of abstract physics (abstract abstract), and abstract had abstract you abstract any abstract concern abstract for abstract (Abstract!!) Truth abstract, abstract you abstract would abstract have abstract realized abstract that abstract your abstract "theory" abstract is abstract nothing abstract but abstract an abstract ABSTRACT abstract figment abstract of abstract your abstract imagination abstract which has nothing to do with really unique and really real and really reality, yes not twice, but once and real (not abstract!!).

Abstract Thank abstract you,

Abstractly yours,

J Pecheur

Joe,

Great essay again, and even when driving home the importance of 'abstract' it seems many simply won't be at home! You also identify (as I also do briefly) the great issue with considering 0 as a number. Division by zero is a famous 'fallacious proof' as the link I give, which can prove anything is anything. (It's even included in SR's formulations as functions with value = 0!)

I did struggle a bit to understand your 'surfaces' and inert light but just about got there (I think), or at least somewhere I've already visited but seen from a quite different angle. (A better initial specification would have helped most I think). i.e. the OAM of a subatomic particle is c wrt it's locality (i.e. a train), not c wrt the station the train is passing through, or wrt the sun the spinning planet is orbiting. All local speeds are then the same when properly measured. I hope you may thumbs up this video identifying the wide importance of that; Stunning short but desnely packed video, turn the sound up and use the slider regularly!.

Your score is stupidly derisory but I have a cool (1 shot) levitation trick to try to transform the numbers. I think and hope you'll like my essay revealing yet another about trick with numbers, all about socks, proving nature is NOT necessarily described by our mathematics. Perhaps you may then try the levitation trick yourself.

Thanks for the refreshing read. Very best of luck.

Peter

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Joe,

Thanks for your comments. I have one question though, what is this real surface made of and where did it come from. And if it was here from endless past, is endless past is also real once?

-1 You can't attack Newton, Einstein etc. and continue with "I humbly present...". Quit biting right and left..

-2 Know your field. Knowledge of the universe has a two components; A) A physical description, or the HOW things appear to work or happen (Newton, Einstein etc.=physics/science) They are very successful, proven and useful and these guys/gals are way better than you and I at the math game.. B) the logical understanding of the universe i.e. or the WHY? (natural metaphysics- substance and cause via logic) Now, this field of logic is hardly plowed, and yet just as important. This is where I am working. You too are addressing this components and it is accessible to anyone given one is careful in knowing and understanding the distinction between the two components. These two components of knowledge are complementary BUT mutually exclusive.

I am sorry but I could not make much out of reading your essay. Precise definitions of "real", "surface" etc. in context are required. Need examples. Any new discourse must start with a truth, usually an impossibility. Show that impossibility, then derive logically the inevitable consequences of it. If you can't prove your starting impossibility, then, make it a postulate or a declared assumption; let assume that if X was impossible, then the logical consequences would have to be.....and ...... and .... Don`t assume this to be as evident to others as it is to you. Usually my problem..

Good luck!

Marcel,

Dear Joe,

I'm inserting this short note because I believe it to be relevant to what goes before it and the thread that follows: "Joe: I have replied to you at Gordon replies to Joe's initiative. The reply is linked to a draft work-in-progress proposal for my new FQXi signature."

......

"Nature speaks in many ways (which can be tricky), from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling; but just one grammar, Nature's concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Gordon Watson (2015: p.5).

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Dear Joe,

On my essay's page, you wrote: "All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it." I take you on your offer, and I hope you will give me fair answers!

I will not start with objections, because right now, there are so many aspects of your essay that I do not understand that I need many clarifications first. I will ask my questions one at a time, so you can give me specific answers.

OK, here's my first question!

On page 1 of your essay, you start by deploring that mainstream physicists deal with abstractions (abstract object, abstract force, abstract motion) instead of "real" stuff. Yet, in the third paragraph, you admit that there is such a thing as a real object, because you write:

"Any real object can appear as a real solid, or a real liquid, or as a real vapor depending on its subjection to real extremes of real temperature. It is difficult to believe in a real object's proclivity for being at real rest or in real calculated motion when any real object's real inconsistent physical endurance is so unpredictably ephemeral."

If I understand correctly, you say that because real objects can change phase (solid-liquid-gas), it is impossible to say that they can be at real rest or that they can be in real motion. I don't understand why you say that. Imagine a brick that stays solid for many, many years (surely, it is possible?). If the brick detaches from a high building and falls to the street, why can't I say that (in Earth's reference frame) it was at real rest in the beginning and in real motion just before it crashed on the sidewalk? Surely, there was a difference between what it was doing before it detached and after?

I am looking forward to your answer to this very specific first question, before we can get to more interesting questions!

Marc

Dear Joe,

Of course I have a real surface (with 9 holes, as you often specify in your replies!), and so do the objects in the room. But you lose me right away with your statement:

"Obviously, all real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed; otherwise, they would not stay in position to be observed simultaneously."

I have a clock on my wall with a seconds hand, and I can clearly see that the tip of the hand does not stay in position compared to the face of the clock (if it did, it wouldn't be a useful clock!!!). To me, it clearly means that the tip of the hand is not moving at the same constant speed as the face of the clock, and yet, I can observe the tip of the hand and the face of the clock simultaneously! Your statement is clearly false... unless you somehow have a definition of "surface" and/or of "speed" that is different from the usual meaning of the words in the English language. Can you help me make sense of your statement?

Marc