Accepting what can be observed is something very different from accepting what can be seen. Ask a blind person..heck, even a color blind person. A deaf person, a mute person or a tactile inpaired person.
The identity is a complex combination of continuous impulses from our senses and the feedback system of our overcapacity in our brain (prefrontal cortex, temporal lobes, etc). We observe and build a reliance on the combined input from the world outside. Depending on the level of logic in cause and effect we have been taught, we are able to decide what is real and what is not. The same way a fly will move towards food with deliberation, simply because its instincts (inherited) tell it that that will give it chance on survival. Humans are little different from instinctive ancestors, we still are 80% or more instinctive. However, we do have the selfawareness that gives us the ability to question the world around us. Because at first we do not understand causality, at young age we infer our internal working on the working of the world around us. ‘Stupid chair’, ‘Yes that vase fell by itself! I didn’t push it!’. But as we learn how cause and effect works and we understand that we can logically deduct the outcome of an action, we start to recognize the ‘laws of nature’. This is how we deduct that when all senses agree with each other and what we observe doesn’t differ from the expected outcome, there is no reason to use cognitive effort to infuse different magical values. Like…wow…that door opened when I pushed it, perhaps there is a leprichaun behind it that opened it for me at exactly the same moment, even though I don’t see it and have no reason to think anyone would actually open a door without reason or corporal ability.
We accept that the world is what we see, as we know (humanity developed science to investigate beyond the physical abilities of observation) that there is more, but that which we don’t see, doesn’t differ from the working that we do see.
Well…the title is a bit deceiving. What I want to write here, is about reexamining the universe and the way we modeled ‘physics’. For those not much into the matter:
Science (any science) is the method of examining the relations between causes and effects in the universe. Building a model from those relations that can be used to calculate how things in other situations will behave.
This is how we got the ‘Laws of Thermodynamics’, and the ‘General Relativity Theory’ and ‘Special Relativity Theory’ and even the ‘Theory of evolution’.
The first is a model that has observed the causal (cause and effect) connections in movement of objects and matter in general. Though it has been refined over the centuries, it is an important base on which we decide how the effects we observe should be connected and which sub-steps and by that sub-causality can be found (which in many cases have been very precise and correct. Others are still being investigated, which caused us to come to more complex/elaborate fields like ‘quantum physics’).
The second is a model that relates to how we actually observed the causality of the first. That when something moves, it is depending on distance, angle and more (ie. both Light and Observer are connected to the movement of the matter and energy in the first model).
The third is a model that explains how the process of evolution is causing different effects to be observed. Though there are people not up to speed with reality yet, regarding the whole fact that people have sex, and their parents had sex and even their dead great great great great grand parents had sex and brought forth new generations with altered combinations of genes, it is what causes life forms (we call categorized them/speciated them into species) to change and diversify on Earth.
Why these three examples? Well for no apparent reason, but there is always a possible causal connection. One of the most attacked theories/models is that of evolution. This has to do with the fact that no scripture writes about the other two (though plenty of them tell tales defying the first and others can only have been observed by defying the second mentioned model). But the first two even have different names and that is something that I do want to address: The first is ‘The laws of…’ which states that the observed is irrevocably correct, while the second one is ‘…theory’, which means there is evidence and proving to support it, but it can still be falsified. The third is, in my mind, a misdenomer. You can’t falsify evolution, even if you wished. You can falsify some small theories (as has been done the last 400 years) regarding partial observed causality, but the actual evolution can’t be denied.
So….what is this ‘reinventing’ or ‘reexamining’ the universe about?
Well…basically it means, taking all the current ‘information’ and ‘data’ we have gathered about the universe and redefine the ‘laws’, ‘theories’ and intrinsic causality. I think that what current sciencific consensus has done, is make a shoestring action (string theory anyone? XD)
We now know that the universe exists of pretty much the same stuff everywhere. There will be exotic options elsewhere, depending on the influences of forces and ‘age’ of the universe at that spot.
We currently hold a model of the universe, where all we observe exists as a ‘spacetime’ unit. Matter is a ‘state dependant dilation of energy of a specific frequency’ E=MC2. In other words, the longer the frequency the more it shifts from energy observation to matter observation. How do we know? Energy is hotter than matter. Meaning the radiation in energy is higher than in matter. Obviously, as a rock is colder than a flame. Though lava is hot, it is so, when infused with radiation.
So, why do you want to re-examine or ‘reinvent the wheel’, you already named it as we know it?! Well…I think you can come to very interesting new insights if you do.
About spacetime. I don’t believe it is a good representation of what we observe. Why not? Because it was a model created as a starting point. If the causal calculations then require arbitrary ‘Constants’ like C, for which Einstein himself said he felt bad to have to add it because he didn’t recognize any other way, it shows that somewhere before that, it went wrong (same as in programming).
So, what is spacetime? Nothing. Lets start at the start. The universe has ‘evolved’ from the very early point. We don’t know about space yet, because all we observe is spatial states. There is always the question of whether wat we ‘experience’ (in the scientific sense of the collection of impulses from the universe to our awareness) is actually what exists. I don’t think spacetime exits. I think you can say: existence is the observed reality (collection of impulses gathered by awareness) of which the state exists without the observer. Yeah, wishywashy eh?
Basically, if we take time separate, we have nothing. Time doesn’t exist without existence. Why not? Because it can’t be measured without us. We are the ones observing it. But how did time pass when we didn’t exist yet? It basically didn’t. What happened was the evolution of the universe in progress. IE. change. Or the movement towards entropy. And how did that come about? Well…think of it as a ripple in a pond (bad example, because it requires something to start the ripple, but still). The ripple starts with large/high waves. Then when the movement is spread, the diffusion of the wave causes it to lose amplitude and angular frequency decreases.
Yes, we are talking wave here. What I will try to explain is that the universe is an extensive model of three dimensional wave functions, which cause what we observe as three dimensional field functions, which in turn is what we perceive/experience as reality. This is NOT a representation of a field theory, or wave theory (well the latter a bit more). What I will try to explain is that particles don’t exist without wave and field, instead of the other way around. Classical physics (but also quantum physics) starts from ‘there is matter and energy’. But the point is, that we also agree in that that matter = energy and visa versa. But if that is true, why do we have particles? Because of mass? Or, because we address matter and mass the same? We often example gravity as a force, that depends on mass. But what if gravity isn’t dependent on mass, but our observation of mass is dependant on the amplitude and the angular frequency of a wave function, and intrinsic behavior as a field function? In other words, what we observe as mass, is the implied result of interaction of the wave/field function in fluxtuation (was writing time there, but I want to explain how we observe time from the actual wave/field function behavior).
Now, lets see where we are. We have a wave (for which we have a flow, which causes the amplitude to diminish due to the frequency that interacts with ….), which has to start somewhere (we call this the big bang/rapid inflation model). At the very start, the amplitude was nearly infinite vertical and it will go to a amplitude infinite horizontal (figuratively, because direction in non-linear space is arbitrary).
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
