Essay Abstract

Every visible physicist who has ever lived has only ever been able to prove that only one real visible physical condition has ever existed. It is an irrefutable fact that all real matter has always had a real visible surface. There has never been a physical duality consisting of finite visible matter swirling round in invisible space. There have never been three finite length, width and depth spatial dimensions. Obviously, Nature must have permanently provided this singular visible reality, which preceded visible humans' appearances on visible Earth and will continue to exist forever after visible humans' and the visible Earth's extinction. The problem with science is that it is totally reliant on its visible adherent's capability for making supposedly finite assumptions about an imaginary Universe. They even try to make supposedly finite assumptions about each other's supposedly finite assumptions. It is my hope that after reading my essay, you will see visible reality as I see it.

Author Bio

Self-taut (thinking makes me tense) visible Realis.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Fellow Essayists,

I suspect I got on your last nerves during the last contest by continually posting comments about my essay on your essays. I apologize for having done so. I promise that this will be the only comment I will leave during this essay contest.

Sincerely

Joe Fisher

    11 days later

    Dear Joe Fisher, I have long understood your concept and I would give you a prize, but I don't have it. As always I can give a high mark, it's a pity that it will not help you either. Here, all such well-read, everyone knows so many smart words and shuffle them like cards. Only you stand firmly as Giordano Bruno, claiming that matter has one visible plane. I also affirm, like you, that there is no space, but only matter, which forms our space. There is no matter, then there is no space. And further, space moves, as it is matter. Vortices of space form the world to which we belong.

    Regards, Boris Dzhechko.

    I invite you to discuss some aspects of the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, which I set out in my essay: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich »

    20 days later

    Joe, good that you have chosen to act differently this time around. I have read your essay. You start off explaining your views well and in places are rather eloquent. Then you change your presentation to give the results of numerous google searches. That does not work as well as the introduction, in my opinion. It seems to me to say more about the search engine than the foundational reality. Well done though for producing an essay FQXi has considered a valid entry. You already know from blog comments why I don't see things your way. Regards G.

    6 days later

    In the abstract of your essay, you mention "the visible Earth's extinction" and in the essay's first section after the intro, you start a question with "Is there a theoretical -- and preferably mathematical -- framework ..." In the spirit of other peoples' essays inspiring thoughts in me and my essay inspiring thoughts in others, I'd like to comment on those two things in your essay. My comments lead to the completed version of the shorthand formula E=mc2, redefinition of electromagnetic and gravitational waves, all bosons and fermions being produced by gravitational/electromagnetic interaction (this accounts for matter's wave/particle duality: see Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry in my essay) - plus the conclusion that the universe is, always was, and always will be incapable of expanding.

    When you speak of Earth's extinction, are you referring to the time in about 5 billion years when the Sun is supposed to expand into a red giant and engulf Mercury and Venus and possibly Earth (the expansion would probably make Earth uninhabitable in less than 1 billion years)? It's entirely possible that there may not even be a red giant phase for the Sun. This relies on entropy being looked at from another angle - with the apparent randomness in quantum and cosmic processes obeying Chaos theory, in which there's a hidden order behind apparent randomness. Expansion to a Red Giant (and so much else) could then be described with the Information Theory vital to the Internet, mathematics, deep space, etc. In information theory, entropy is defined as a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information. This definition introduces a hidden exactness, removing superficial probability. It suggests it's possible for information to be transmitted to objects, processes, or systems and restore them to a previous state - like refreshing (reloading) a computer screen. Potentially, the Sun could be prevented from becoming a red giant and returned to a previous state in a billion years (or far less) - and repeatedly every few billion years - so Earth could remain habitable permanently.

    Now, about the mathematics -

    Many scientists have said mathematics is a universal language because 1+1=2 no matter who you are. The trend in modern physics is towards a unified theory of the universe - starting with the unified theories of the 20th century (notably Einstein's) and extending to string theory and quantum gravity. What happens if a person in, say, the 24th century is raised believing in a unified theory that has implications in physical terms for everything in space-time? Would he or she think there is actually only one thing? Would (s)he think it's a mistake to add one apparently separate thing to another apparently separate thing to produce two, and that such addition is merely the result of the way the body's senses operate? (Our whole mathematical system is ultimately based on the idea that 1+1=2, and would therefore be incomplete in a unified universe.)

    Assuming the maths humanity has developed does indeed apply to the universe, it cannot be totally in error - merely incomplete. Even Einstein's famous mass-energy equation E=mc2 would be incomplete, requiring quantization ie production of a theory of quantum gravity via unification with the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics (which has also been repeatedly verified by experiment).

    The wave-particle duality mentioned in the section above can be described by starting with v = fλ (wave velocity equals frequency times Greek letter lambda which denotes wavelength). Velocity (speed in a constant direction) of a collection of particles like a car equals distance divided by duration. Since distance is a measure that has to do with space while duration is a measure that has to do with time, it equals space divided by time. (Brian Greene in "Speed", part of his "Space, Time and Einstein" course at http://www.worldscienceu.com/courses/1/elements/YhF9pw) Gravitational and electromagnetic wave motion (space-time motion) travels at c, the speed of light ie

    v= fλ = distance/duration = space/time = c

    A particle's velocity, whether the particle be a boson or fermion, is directly dependent on its energy - so it may be said that

    E = v=fλ = distance/duration = space/time = c

    This is not quite right since c represents energy alone, and space-time deals with mass-energy, so it's better to say

    E = v=fλ = distance/duration = space/time = mc

    What about the 2 in E=mc2? In later papers Einstein repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study, and comovement may be represented by the exponent 2.

    In order for E=mc2 to apply to the universe (and it does), observers must be able to co-move with anything being studied (even a light beam). Moving in the same direction is no problem but how can anyone or anything move at the same speed? Present-day observers can never move at the speed which light covers in the vacuum of space-time, so the only way for observers and light to co-move is for the nature of electromagnetism to be revised.

    Like waves of water, electromagnetic waves are known as transverse. Consequently, the particles (photons) of light and microwaves etc that travel through space-time would have relatively little movement themselves. It's the disturbances from the sources of electromagnetism (shock waves of fluctuating amplitudes and frequencies) that travel. (They go through the fields of energy filling the so-called vacuum.) Since E=mc2 only applies to photons when they're at rest, the equation can only describe photons that have no motion in one direction - the horizontal "line of propagation" in which the shock wave moves. The photons can only move in the vertical direction, perpendicular to the shock wave - if they move at all.

    As Paul Camp, Ph.D. in theoretical physics, writes at https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-a-photon -

    "A photon is a quantum of excitation of the electromagnetic field. That field fills all space and so do its quantum modes."

    This is consistent with energy being transferred from one place to another (as wave motion) without involving an actual transfer of particles (little or no movement of photons). General Relativity says gravitation results from the curvature of spacetime (gravity IS space-time) ie the gravitational field also fills all space, so the seeming motion of gravitational waves could also be due to fluctuations of shock waves' amplitudes and wavelengths causing excitations (called gravitons) in the field. These excitations cover 186,282 miles every second.

    The above ideas of gravitational and electromagnetic waves displaying little or no motion are a new interpretation of John Wheeler's geon or "gravitational electromagnetic entity", an electromagnetic or gravitational wave which is held together in a confined region by its own nature. (J. A. Wheeler, (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511 - doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511)

    If there's little or no movement of photons and gravitons, the universe could not be expanding.

    13 days later

    Hi Jo,

    Inspiringly 'different' again, well done. Nice relief from Doctrinal 'same old'. My particular commendations for; "..infinite number of supposedly finite numbers".

    also; "Time is simply an invisible idea." ..and;

    Natures one visible reality. "It is infinite in shape and size and duration".

    Though infinite in 'shape' did get me thinking!

    Good not 'trolling' on other essays, but I'd hope you may read and comment on a few of them. I'm pretty sure you'd love mine as you're not too 'doctrinated'!

    Best

    Peter

    25 days later

    Joe Fisher re-uploaded the file Fisher_t_yall_see_thing_my_1.pdf for the essay entitled "WHY CAN'T Y'ALL SEE THING MY WAY?" on 2020-03-23 19:12:06 UTC.

      Hi Joe, There are many I haven't read once yet. I did yours & messaged you, but no response, yet. If you read and respond to mine I'll make the effort to return the compliment & read you new version.

      Best

      Peter

      Dear Joe Fisher, I already wrote that I began to see things in your opinion. However, the question immediately arose - what next? This is probably the most important thing in your essay - and then what? It is for this question that I give the highest rating and wish you to successfully overcome your visible surface and enter the road leading to success.

      a month later

      Dear Joe Fisher,

      I submitted an essay in the last competition but I wasn't aware of your trolling but then again I tend to dip in just briefly. I've been trolled on other sites though and I can definitely say it's not a nice experience to be on the receiving end of it.

      Still, its important that you have moved on from that attitude, it's not fair on other contributers and you've shown some self-awareness by apologising. That's not always easy, so congratulations on that score.

      I have to chime in here with Georgina's constructive criticism in that you begin well. I like the way you repeat visible. It's a nice literary effect. Repetition, however, needs to be used with a little caution as it can get a little grating. The same goes for repeating finite.

      The idea of focusing on the visible is a nice idea. After all, that's how physics begins. It begins with the senses. It's a matter of observations which is key to science. And how can we observe anything if nothing is visible? I remember how extraordinary it was to discover that the visible spectrum extended into - for us - is the invisible spectrum: radio waves, the infrared, the ultra-violet. Of course its not invisible to other creatures. Certain animals can see into the ultra-violet and others can see into the infra-red. Perhaps there are creatures on other planets that can see radio waves or gravity itself! There are science-fiction stories that explore this territory.

      I also don't think that veering into a list of Google searches was a good move. You're obviously trying to illustrate a point but it just gets annoying. Are you, for example, trying to say something about the use of AI? I mean you subtitle that section with 'Ask me no questions and I will tell you no lies.' Is that a reference to the culture of fake news? It can work both ways. It could be sinister - the Ministry of Truth (rather Propaganda) in George Orwells 1984. Or it could be a man being tortured by the Gestapo who's thinking 'if you don't ask me any questions about where everyone else is I will tell you no lies'.

      But I get the impression you merely like the turn of phrase as you don't seem to develop the idea. Writers after all, often look for ways to hook phrases into peoples mind, thats part of the business of writing. But if you want to write, you should ask yourself why was your mind hooked? In writing it's not enough to begin a thought, it also needs to be followed through...

      I get the impression that you're aware that what you're writing is not quite worthy of you. I mean after one of your questions into Google you write 'this enigmatic codswallop'.

      If you think its 'codswallop', why should you expect other people to want to read it? After all, peoples attention span is finite, their lifespan is finite. You get the picture.

      William Blake wrote this enigmatic poem:

      O Rose thou art sick.

      The invisible worm,

      That flies in the night

      In the howling storm:

      Has found out thy bed

      Of crimson joy:

      And his dark secret love

      Does thy life destroy.

      It hooked me many years ago. And what does it mean? Is the Rose, Britain and the worm, the blight of satanic mills? After all Blake was well aware of the social problems that Britain was heir to. But to my mind, it goes deeper than that. It's similar to Dylan Thomas's

      The force that through the green fuse that drives the flower

      Drives my green age; that is my destroyer.

      Of course, Dylan was most likely referencing Blake here. But what he's saying is clearer. It's a question of life/mortality. The kind of questions we all have to face and sometimes, outface.

      But what was embodied in Blake physically and outwardly as the worm, Satan basically, has become for Dylan a merely invisible force, and something much closer to what constitutes us as a being. He also references the world as duality (a word I notice that you've used). Notice the way he has used repetition and contrast: Green, flower, green, destroyer and force/drive. He's using repetition but changing the way he says it whilst also saying something. It's an art.

      Personally I think he was referencing Schopenhauer, the German philosopher as he cut out of Gods Will, God Himself. So everything - including life (My green age) itself - becomes merely an expression of will. That is force.

      Blake and Dylans language is enigmatic simply because of a lot of compression. They want to say a great deal in a short space, and say it well. It takes enormous skill to do this well.

      You wrote "There have never been three finite length, width and depth spatial dimensions."

      This a profound statement, but I'm not sure that you actually know just how profound it is. Aristotle, over two thousand years ago, one of the first natural scientists posed the question 'is space a body?' and 'if it is a body then what space is it in?' and then 'how can two bodies occupy the same space' which led him to suggest that 'these difficulties lead us to the question as to whether there is actually such a thing as space.'

      This might seem like a list of random questions but one of the big findings about the nature of space and time is that space dissolves away and we have a network of relationships. In a sense, Aristotle was correct. Moreover, it wasn't just a lucky guess, he discovered it by the logical analysis of the concept of space.

      In fact, I think this is why people have misunderstood Aristotle here. They say, he didn't understand space, because he didn't consider space to be volume - that is length, width and height. He considered it to be its boundary. That sounds crazy. So people point their fingers at him - mostly physicists and laugh at him - look at what those ancient philosophers know - they can't even grasp space is volume! But of course space exists, we have it all around you. So if you deny space its volume, all you have left is its boundary - that is its network of relationships ... it sounds unbelievable that they were theorising about quantum gravity two millenia ago, and maybe a bit crackpot. But recall, they did think up what atoms are ...

      I tried explaining this to a physicist once. But as soon as he heard the word 'Aristotle' he threw up a lot of barriers. People are mistaken about Aristotle, there's a great deal more to him than the superficial reading given for him by many physicists, it's as though they have been taken in by the scientific myth-making which pits science against religion, and hence against Aristotelianism and hence Aristotle. There's a good reason why Aristotle was taken as a reference point for a long time. He represents the epitome of Greek natural philosophy, what we call science now.

      Anyway, I've written a lot more than I intended to. Please take it in the spirit it was written in - as constructive criticism. And I apologise for the literary digression in the middle - I got the impression that you liked writing ...

      As Dizhechko says and I repeat ('cos it's worth repeating ;)) 'I wish you successfully overcome your visible surface and enter the road leading to success.'

      Warm wishes

      Mozibur Ullah

        Hi Joe,

        You posted on mine that you'd replied there earlier and I hadn't noticed, but I had. and did reply to that post! A bit strange, including your comment NOT to read your revised version!? I have it on my list to re-read, though after other first reads, and haven't scored it yet due to that, but do explain.

        Best

        Peter

        thanks Joe,simple but self explanatory.. the searches come in handy.can all science be a production of human bias like the finite search listings in an infinite web. kindly read and rate here in my essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525

        Joe,

        You posted you've 'had enough' But I feel you should modify and upgrade your explanatory methods rather than give up. I agree; "Not one physicist has ever proven that any empty space has ever existed. It has not. So Einstein's silly musings about invisible curved space/time have nothing to do with reality." But such claims need sound sounding sounds (lol) to overcome cognitive dissonance and convince people to change their views. Most won't even understand you conception or it's implications so rejection is automatic.

        Best

        Peter

        some irony in the tone, still if i replace the word visible with spatial or detectable , the essay still make sense. "visible" has an advantage of offering the possibilities of jumping from some area to other area . regarding the theme i have mentioned in my essay about this whole unity thing with some examples i have not gone in to many detalies what i think is a good unfiying thing , whats make good aggregation, of things , also for the search engine i thing there could be used graphs beside words (already search has search by image)

        Dear Mozibur Ullah,

        What a wonderful comment you have posted here. I hope many will read it.

        I too have seen a Universe devoid of space and time, but glowing in a myriad of relationships between the various forms of energy. I am happy to be a 'relationship entity' in such a Universe, and that I feel that, in some way, it has been made comprehensible to me.

        lockie Cresswell

        13 days later

        Dear Joe,

        Glad to read your work again.

        I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

        While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

        I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

        Warm Regards, `

        Vladimir

        Joe,

        You get credit for originality and sticking to your own guns, bro. And it's interesting to see what Search results come up as.

        Write a Reply...