Joe,
You still have not answered the simple questions put to you and frankly my patience is getting thin. I do not see that your ideas add anything to physics or have any value in their present form. Maybe you are the greatest genius of all time and everyone else is just too dumb to realize it. Or maybe not. My money is on not.
Please put your ideas into a form that adds something to physics.
Gary Simpson
In reply to Rob, Jul. 26, 2016 @ 10:39: I agree with this statement because I consider reality the most reasonable conjecture. Accordingly, the philosophy by Parmenides, Zeno, and Einstein is falsidical.
++++
I read exactly what you wrote and it makes absolutely no sense to me as well as to anyone else. Since you claim there are no objects in the universe, it follows that you did not describe any objects. Since a surface is an object in the universe, what you said makes no sense and so at least you are consistent in making no sense at all in anything that you say.
Since you claim there are no objects in the universe, the universe itself cannot exist since the universe is an object. The alluring thing about infinities and infinitesimals and infinite surfaces is that you can make just about anything from infinity. Since anything can arise from infinity including nothing, infinite surfaces are not very useful for predicting the futures of objects that somehow don't exist.
Predicting the futures of objects with discrete matter and discrete action of photons has proven quite successful for quantum and will be for gravity as well as soon as science makes up its mind about gravity's biphoton exchange. Having a quantum universe with quantum gravity is obviously desirable and does appear to be the case.
Dear Steve,
Only one entity can be objectively infinite. All objects have only one unified infinite common visible surface. One infinite surface am always illuminated by one infinite non-surface light. Abstract physics does not have a single commonality. There is abstract finite mathematics, abstract finite theoretical physics and abstract finite religion.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Gary,
Obviously, you cannot see how my idea of the real Universe consisting only of a single visible unified infinite surface that is always illuminated by singular infinite non-surface light could possibly have anything to do with the finite manipulation of symbolic invisible phenomena that physicists use. Utterly simple reality of infinite surface is not my idea. The Holy Roman Catholic Church scoffef at Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth orbited the sun. At least they bored a hole in the roof of a Basilica that enabled the church to prove that Galileo was correct. The utterly simple reality that I expond is utterly shocking to everyone who wants to believe in finite science. Please do not lose patience with me.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear People
Obviously, you all cannot see how my idea of the real Universe consisting only of a single visible unified infinite surface that is always illuminated by singular infinite non-surface light could possibly have anything to do with the finite manipulation of symbolic invisible phenomena that physicists use. Utterly simple reality of infinite surface is not my idea. The Holy Roman Catholic Church scoffef at Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth orbited the sun. At least they bored a hole in the roof of a Basilica that enabled the church to prove that Galileo was correct. The utterly simple reality that I expound is utterly shocking to everyone who wants to believe in finite science. Please do not lose patience with me. Please join me. Physics Revolution Now.
Joe Fisher, Realist
"Utterly simple reality of infinite surface is not my idea." - Joe Fisher - 8/18/16
That part is true enough. It was the idea formalized by Wm. Rowan Hamilton in 1843. Which none-the-less lacks what you seek, quite transparently. Which is also conspicuously absent in Relativity, Quantum and Newtonian Mechanics.
It is physics and physicists, and mathematicians, whom recognize the virtual reality which has impressed itself on the mind of the cybergen, imprinting the imagery formed by the math of simply connected measurement space to which their eyes have been transfixed since their precognitive childhood introduction to computer graphics on some screen. That should humble ones assumption of perception, and warn against blind faith acceptance from personal experience, unchecked by critical examination of deductive logic. A little humility goes a long way in progressing along a learning curve. If you cannot accept that it is you whom has yet to learn something, you'll never know. So we are back to the matter of whether you know enough to recognize what cyber risk of assuming an aggregator issued number to you, can pose to a potential correspondent. Or don't you care to know that, and others must simply sit at your feet.
Dear Anonymous,
William Rowan Hamilton was best known for his conception of the quatermion. When I wrote : "Utterly simple reality of infinite surface is not my idea." - Joe Fisher - 8/18/16 I was trying to emphasize the fact that, obviously, I had nothing to do with the appearance of the real Universe. The only thing physicists and philosophers have done is create a massive amount of misinformation about abstract invisible conditions. They care only about the complexity of virtual reality. I humbly offer you the exquisite simplicity of the real Universe that only consists of one unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by one infinite amount of non-surface light. You need experts to explain virtual reality. You need only open your eyes to prove to yourself that you will only ever see some of the infinite surface that is always illuminated by non-surface light of which I write.
Joe Fisher, Realist
So you're dazzled. Tell us something we don't know.
>
Still waiting for a testable prediction or a calculation. Perhaps an explanation of gravity or electro-magnetism? Or perhaps expansion of the universe? Radioactive decay? No?
Gary Simpson
Joe, you seem to be talking of experience of the visible universe. Where is Joe the see-er in that? Do you regard Joe as fabricator of the "virtual reality " or passive recipient? In either way to comprehend what is seen there must be more to Joe than just his part of the surface others see, something more inside that is not see-able. Might I suggest the idea that Joe and all observers are beables, having existence independent of measurement or information processing by another organism or device. How do you feel about a whole other category of universe that also exists; as the source of the information for the 'virtual universe', and including (not just surface) observers of it?
Dear Gary,
Reality is not testable. All tests are finite and surface is infinite in construction and non-surface light is infinite in illumination. The only prediction that can sensibly be made of infinite unified visible surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light is that it am eternal. Infinite surface was not created by an invisible God. It did not come into being as a result of an invisible explosion of an invisible "black" hole in invisible space. Because surface is infinite, every real condition in the real Universe must be infinite. This means that infinite surface can appear to infinitely change because of infinite gravitation. Infinite surface can appear to change due to the infinite application of infinite electro-magnetism.
Joe Fisher, Realist
I'd say this is where the conversation ends. I will not respond to any future post from you or from anyone who writes like they might be you.
Gary Simpson
Dear Georgina,
I am not talking to you. Please, please read exactly what I wrote. I am not writing about my own personal observation. The real Universe consists only of one visible unified infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. You can verify this by opening your eyes and looking around.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe, I do read exactly what you write and I try to understand what the idea is based on and what you think about it. Your answers do not show that you have really thought deeply about it as you don't put together coherent argument for or against but just repeat the same 'mantra'.You say 'open your eyes and look'. What is different about when I look and when Joe looks? And if the looker is only part of a surface how does he comprehend what is seen? I'll just leave those with you to ponder.
Georgina,
With due respect, your efforts are wasted ... his own words ... "Reality is not testable."
Scientific reasoning is not possible in this case.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
If you hold a square box up in front of your face so you only see the single square face of the box, the rest of the box does not cease to exist in reality. Also in reality if you construct an image of that box so that you can tumble it around on your viewer so that only a single square face is displayed, the rest of the box still exists in the mathematical relationship of the geometric algebra of quaternion architecture. That is what virtual reality is, the whole box virtually exists in the math that defines just the box, simply. There are no arbitrary vanishing points within or beyond the borders of the screen that the coordinates of the box relate to, the coordinates are simply of that box. And the only vanishing point is in the eye of the beholder, you the viewer.
That is what virtual reality is, and why it became called virtual reality. The entirety of the surface of an object is contained in the math even if only part of it is visible, it all virtually exists in reality. The viewing experience has been marketed as if the experience were a virtual reality. It is not, its a real experience, and one in which the math shines through. And if you follow financial news you might have learned very recently that a major investment has been made in the studio/lab of one of the vetern pioneers of VR. And there are a lot of test subjects out there whom do not recognize the math from the experience.
|
Anonymous, I understand you may not want to use your real name but could you please choose a pen name. There are potentially many Anonymous-es but one you.You have some interesting things to say.
If you hold the box as you have described, only the electromagnetic information from the part of the box facing you is being received by your eyes. The image of the box on the retina and later formed in the visual cortex is formed from processing of information received. So what is formed is a limited view of one aspect of the surface topology. It does not contain the mathematics for the rest of the box unseen, as that information was not received. So it is not a virtual reality as you describe. However I would contend that the source of the information was not limited in the same way.
Anonyous, that is to say the see-ers perception is a new fabrication from received information only. It is not that part of reality has ceased to exist, it has not been included. The information from which the box image was not made does not cease to exist when the see-er 'selects' the information he receives but it remains in the environment unless absorbed by another object.
Georgina,
I am only passing through, there are many open forums. As to your qualifications which are categorical in nature, they are part of the prospectus in the cross discipline research in VR. I won't say more other than you might wish to browse the subject and take part in the real science being done.
: