SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY by Joe Fisher

Joe,

I have decided that I will vote on the essays written by everyone that posts a comment in my forum. You posted your usual boilerplate in my forum. Therefore, I am following your succinct instruction and I am scoring 1 for simplicity.

Good Luck with That.

Gary Simpson

Dear Joe,

Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.

If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man's standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional entities. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man's current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional entity to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a baseball on a table and look at it, I don't see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional entity. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles to form twelve joints between them that meet at the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional entity. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don't appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some entities that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these entities. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of each of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, entities would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.

I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many entities with complete surfaces that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man's current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.

Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren't actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I'm sure you will agree to that.

When you say, "All real visible entities have a real visible surface.", are you saying that they are all continuously illuminated by light and are, therefore, always visible or just that they will be visible if they are illuminated by light, But may not be visible when light is not present? Does the light illuminate the surfaces itself or is it the radiants that the light sheds that illuminate all the surfaces? You say that light is a nonentity, but you also say that it exists. This is contrary to man's definition of the word nonentity. What is your definition of nonentity? If it exists, it must be composed of something that has some properties. What is it composed of and what are its properties that identify it as light instead of some other nonentity?

So far, you continue to use your same examples that involve entities that are too far away to closely examine their sizes and shapes and are observed only from certain limited observation angles, etc. and completely ignore and give no response to examples that do allow you to see and observe that a ball is a sphere, a cube is not just a square, and the ball actually travels and takes time to travel from the pitcher to the catcher, etc. This tells me that either you do not desire to share your understanding with others, since I have seen this same pattern in your conversations with others also, or you know that your theory is not valid because it cannot explain these other observations. As an example, even if you see the ball at a distance at the game, if you are sitting in a seat that is centered between the pitcher and the catcher so that the pitcher is on the left side of you and the catcher is on the right side of you, you will clearly see that the ball moves from the pitcher and travels all of the distance from him to the catcher and continues to look to be about the same size during the whole trip, if you are very far from it. This travel does not occur instantly, but takes some time for it to be completed and is, therefore, at a finite speed.

Your theory needs to be able to explain all that we see and observe in any way, not just a small part of what we see and observe under certain very limited circumstances. If you find a place where it doesn't work, look to see why it doesn't work and how you can modify your theory so that it does work in that respect. If you keep doing that long enough, you will end up with a theory that comes closer and closer to accurately modeling reality. None of man's current theories are completely perfect models of reality, although many would like you to believe that theirs is. There is still so much in the world and so much that can happen in the world that man is currently not even aware of, that it is unrealistic to think that any theory will be able to accurately model all of reality without any errors or omissions, etc. In order to have any hope of getting people to understand and accept some of these things, so that advancement can occur, it is sometimes necessary to use over simplifications, leave out some details that would not be believable to those of a specific technology level, or could not be proven in any way given the current technology level and current beliefs, etc., but that which is provided should work with current understandings at a level that is equal to or greater than current understandings and add some real valuable increase in understanding. Best wishes in that endeavor.

Sincerely,

Paul

It was my pleasure ... I only wish I could have given you a zero.

It sickens me to think of how much of other people's time you have wasted.

Interesting, but incorrect. Many creatures do not have eyes: bacteria, worms etc etc

Eyes give an advantage to creatures in environments where light exists and so their emergence through evolution allows these creatures to survive and persist better than other creatures without eyes.

Declan

Hi Joe

As esoteric as always! It took two reads but I think I clicked into the essence of your concept. I suspect you deliberately obscured it, and if so - from the comments above - it worked!

You may recall my own view, which may be reduced to effectively the conditions of a 'refractive plane' existing everywhere, and in 3D (a cloud of plasma refracts light, but may take 3 parsecs rather than 3 microns) If all electrons' re-emit light at 'c' in the only rest frame each knows, then neither Special Relativity or QM need be paradoxical or weird any more, and fit together.

All electrons 'see' (and 'couple with') all wavelengths of light, but, to borrow the universal number from Srittadev, have a refractive index of 1, so zero 'spectroscopic signature'.

I therefore 'see' a simple logical beauty in your, probably deliberately, obtuse description. Unless I've imagined connections that don't exist? By the way my essay (lodged but not 'popped up' from the 'dark energy' field yet) describes how evolution, 'intent' and 'goals' can simply emerge from such fermion coupling.

Best of luck. I know you know you'd need it!

Peter

Joe,

Good point. Maybe it's irrefutable!

Insults reveal limitations and lack of understanding.

Unfortunately all three seem endemic in physics

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your "classic" comment on my essay.

I have read your essay and although most of it doesn't make much sense to me, I must say that there might be an element of truth in what you are saying (if I understand you correctly). In a certain way, I could conceive that the Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite physical surface but maybe I would add "at only one invisible "abstract" moment in invisible "abstract" time".

Cheers !

Patrick

Hey Joe,

Do me a favor, next time you are in the bathroom... take a look in the mirror ... then imagine the mirror encompasses you completely. Now when you look into the mirror and stare into the parallel universe known as your eyes... imagine you are a hyper-sonic vibrating clear butterfly. Tell me what you see... ;)

William Walker

No, its not impossible, just close your eyes... which is typically what we do when we imagine things... or you can stare off into space and forget the image in the mirror... See, it's called consciousness. Which is the only thing that makes anything real. Even your one dimensional surface that you are trying so desperately to convince every person that submitted a paper in this contest to believe in by sending them basically the same carbon copy message...

can you see the light?

Good luck in the contest

WW... aka consciousness

Joe, I read your essay and was reminded about simplicity. Please do not read mine. It is about complexity.

Gene,

Don't be harsh on Joe... he's a little arrogant with how he's politicking the contest... but show him a little love ;);), he is partially right in my opinion... that one dimension of surface light is an all encompassing mirror that causes light to basically freak out trying to get out of that sliver like tube (wormhole - string - hologram) using imagination...causing it to vibrate... when it vibrates past a certain frequency it actually starts to escape / emit into the space God created when she put darkness into the light (so he could see again)... Now my theory is music is the darkness and light that fuels the strings...

Now the contest does call for simplicity but maybe he was trying to make it too easy to understand... don't make your essay too complex... it should be made understandable to those with some advanced education, but not like the likes of Steven Hawking...

Hey Joe,

I would like to say one more thing to you...

I think your essay (and your ideas) are quite brilliant after reading it one more time...

Just don't try to hard to get it to win... politicking will only turn people off... have faith that your ideas are brilliant and will stand up on their own merits against other brilliant ideas... from the papers I have read, there are some incredibly smart people in this contest and to force your ideas down their throat using a disguise of being humble is easy to see through... your surface right now is pretty transparent and it is one that is condescending if you really look at the way you approach people with your carbon copy post...

Take care - good luck - and God Bless :)

Hey Joe,

I am definitely a fan of yours now... because you see that you are the same as everyone else... frightened and lonely... and why we try so desperately to get acceptance in this world... so don't feel bad... you are just like me and everyone else that was separated from the 0neness of God...

I really believe your ideas are brilliant and I believe you will get published... and don't sell yourself short on this contest... have a little faith and maybe your dream will manifest itself in the real world... ;)

and thanks for the revelation... when we close our eyes to use imagination... we see darkness... and why the strings are invisible to us... the light disappears... because the strings are transparent (clear)... they are hidden to the 5 senses (thus they are dark)... they are hidden by dark matter... it takes light inside the strings (the dark and light energy of consciousness - sound vibrations) to turn them into something consciousness can see as being real (emit into space)... dark matter becomes light matter and moves the particles found in the Higgs Force Field to create physical matter as we know it... and it all comes from that one dimensional surface you talk about in your essay... I believe you are describing how the strings work... they create the surfaces that consciousness can believe (have faith in)... :)

I wish you the best Joe!

William Walker