Relations, relations, relations.
Everything I’ve been talking about has some relation to a grand unified theory. Like I’ve said, it all boils down to understanding gravity on an extraordinarily small scale and an extraordinarily large scale with the same mathematical model (overall).
Gravity is a relationship based force unlike electromagnetism. Electromagnetic fields are absolute and kind of give the old Newtonian ways of thought a big thumbs up even though it’s obvious that Newtonian physics is supremely flawed relative to what we know about everything today. What I mean by absolute is that if you have two sets of electromagnetic field lines, their equivalence depends entirely on exactly where they are located in relation to the entire universe (in terms of an absolute space, which is impossible but we can make more obvious definitions later).
Field lines are weird, they take up space, meaning a universe (or any closed system) can be entirely comprised of fields however with our sense of material particles there is nothing in the universe. I only bring this up because Einstein’s theory of relativity supports it and it may confuse you. However, that phrase is totally wrong, nothing in the universe means that there is no universe. Space, as it is defined, is only a way to provide some relationship in terms of a distance between two objects. Space is absolutely nothing, however don’t confuse this definition of space between space in… space because space in space may contain matter called dark matter comprised of neutrinos which are too tiny for us to detect but may still exist.
Say wha? Points of space have no existence in themselves. The only meaning a point can have is a name we define it with a reference to something else within a closed system and in terms of the system it is always within some reference to gravitational field lines, which can be visualized as a triple tree of field lines as opposed to an ambiguous set.
So what did Newton say? Newton defined space and time as being absolute, not relationship oriented. Everyone is taught Newtonian physics to some degree because it supports Euclidean geometry, which is necessary for the development of common sense as well as the development of basic mathematical tools. Euclidean geometry is good for any normal macroscopic engineering and physics taking place, but at the scales and energies we need to view objects with in space, we will have to dismiss Euclidean geometry and our general sense of Newtonian definitions to some extent. An important concept you learn in quantum physics is there is no certainty of anything, which means that nothing can be absolute. If you ask anyone how many angles a triangle has, they will say three and the sum of those angles are 180 degrees. I use this when using calculus or doing other methods of engineering; mostly everyone does. It doesn’t mean that it’s right; you must realize that 180 degrees is simply an approximation fully acceptable on a macro general scale. Everything, all objects with a type of geometry, like a triangle, residing in the universe are entirely dependent on one another, meaning their geometry is actually proportional to a relationship regarding their location in a closed system with regards to any other object. What I’m saying is as objects change their location relative to one another, since all locations are relative to begin with, the angles on these triangles will change to follow suit with regards to the new organization of matter. Now remember, the true space between these objects isn’t space in the normal sense because true space is nothing, absolutely nothing.
Enough about space, what about time? Newton was wrong there too and I’ll tell you why, but in my opinion, time is a little trickier to explain because we’re talking about a dimensional manifestation, which in itself is a little delicate to comprehend on a visual level. So, I guess I’ll first explain why time is relational. Again, he described time as an absolute property of the universe. The problem is, this is how I, and initially I’d say (based on his difficulties with his comprehension of time) how Albert Einstein was viewing time in accordance with his understanding of spacetime. His view was a little different actually, he understood time as the fourth dimension, when he initially sought out to describe it, he didn’t define it as just a manifestation of an always increasing temporal dimension. Newton described time like how many people initially think of it and that’s that it is an absolute property of the universe starting at negative infinity flowing to the infinite future.
However, one way to think of it is in terms of a relationship. Time doesn’t exist without rates, changes in interactions between objects within a closed system. Similar to macroscopic space, this is obvious because you can’t say how fast is going (a rate) in an absolute sense because you need to refer it to a rate of something else, we usually call that something relative to an observer on the surface of Earth. And we zero out any of those rates a “stationary” observer might be having. Space nor time exist outside the system we defined as the universe. Sine time is defined as a relation between interactions between objects within a space, time doesn’t exist without these interactions. Lee Smolin said, roughly in like 30 pages, that you can’t view the universe, space if you will, as a stage that can be empty or full but the stage only exists if there are interactions between actors on that stage and objects are irrelevant without these interactions having rates.
In terms of a less conceptual analogy, why does “time” “move” at the speed of light? And how is there a maximum at the speed of light? This is where I get to be a choosey little girl and I’ll be selecting ideas within several different theories. In moving dimensions theory, it is understood that photons are moving in our special dimensions therefore perpendicular to the temporal dimension, and since light moves at this rate along with the expansion of this perpendicular dimension, and since this perpendicular dimension’s rate is always relative to the three special dimensions, the rate of the photon itself is independent of the rate of any observer. So we have this temporal dimension, a manifestation of this dimension being an act of change defined as time, it expands at the speed of light relative to our three dimensions that we notice and since it travels at the speed of light, which is why time slows as you approach that speed. As you approach it, photon emitting approaches zero and without the emitting and absorbing of photons, there is an inability to ‘age’. I’ll hump this fact in every single one of my blog posts but it all goes back to the 1/r^2 relationship that we live in a three dimensional world (string theory has some problems with this but its orthogonal definitions are impossible to test and truly comprehend by the human mind which is perfectly acceptable since we live in a three dimensional macroscopically obvious world) and that photons are emitting in only one direction relative to the surface area of a sphere. Therefore these relationships exist because of their own existence which seems paradoxical which it truly isn’t, you just need to be able to comprehend actual space as a nonexistent medium allowing matter to interact.
Everything I’ve been talking about has some relation to a grand unified theory. Like I’ve said, it all boils down to understanding gravity on an extraordinarily small scale and an extraordinarily large scale with the same mathematical model (overall).
Gravity is a relationship based force unlike electromagnetism. Electromagnetic fields are absolute and kind of give the old Newtonian ways of thought a big thumbs up even though it’s obvious that Newtonian physics is supremely flawed relative to what we know about everything today. What I mean by absolute is that if you have two sets of electromagnetic field lines, their equivalence depends entirely on exactly where they are located in relation to the entire universe (in terms of an absolute space, which is impossible but we can make more obvious definitions later).
Field lines are weird, they take up space, meaning a universe (or any closed system) can be entirely comprised of fields however with our sense of material particles there is nothing in the universe. I only bring this up because Einstein’s theory of relativity supports it and it may confuse you. However, that phrase is totally wrong, nothing in the universe means that there is no universe. Space, as it is defined, is only a way to provide some relationship in terms of a distance between two objects. Space is absolutely nothing, however don’t confuse this definition of space between space in… space because space in space may contain matter called dark matter comprised of neutrinos which are too tiny for us to detect but may still exist.
Say wha? Points of space have no existence in themselves. The only meaning a point can have is a name we define it with a reference to something else within a closed system and in terms of the system it is always within some reference to gravitational field lines, which can be visualized as a triple tree of field lines as opposed to an ambiguous set.
So what did Newton say? Newton defined space and time as being absolute, not relationship oriented. Everyone is taught Newtonian physics to some degree because it supports Euclidean geometry, which is necessary for the development of common sense as well as the development of basic mathematical tools. Euclidean geometry is good for any normal macroscopic engineering and physics taking place, but at the scales and energies we need to view objects with in space, we will have to dismiss Euclidean geometry and our general sense of Newtonian definitions to some extent. An important concept you learn in quantum physics is there is no certainty of anything, which means that nothing can be absolute. If you ask anyone how many angles a triangle has, they will say three and the sum of those angles are 180 degrees. I use this when using calculus or doing other methods of engineering; mostly everyone does. It doesn’t mean that it’s right; you must realize that 180 degrees is simply an approximation fully acceptable on a macro general scale. Everything, all objects with a type of geometry, like a triangle, residing in the universe are entirely dependent on one another, meaning their geometry is actually proportional to a relationship regarding their location in a closed system with regards to any other object. What I’m saying is as objects change their location relative to one another, since all locations are relative to begin with, the angles on these triangles will change to follow suit with regards to the new organization of matter. Now remember, the true space between these objects isn’t space in the normal sense because true space is nothing, absolutely nothing.
Enough about space, what about time? Newton was wrong there too and I’ll tell you why, but in my opinion, time is a little trickier to explain because we’re talking about a dimensional manifestation, which in itself is a little delicate to comprehend on a visual level. So, I guess I’ll first explain why time is relational. Again, he described time as an absolute property of the universe. The problem is, this is how I, and initially I’d say (based on his difficulties with his comprehension of time) how Albert Einstein was viewing time in accordance with his understanding of spacetime. His view was a little different actually, he understood time as the fourth dimension, when he initially sought out to describe it, he didn’t define it as just a manifestation of an always increasing temporal dimension. Newton described time like how many people initially think of it and that’s that it is an absolute property of the universe starting at negative infinity flowing to the infinite future.
However, one way to think of it is in terms of a relationship. Time doesn’t exist without rates, changes in interactions between objects within a closed system. Similar to macroscopic space, this is obvious because you can’t say how fast is going (a rate) in an absolute sense because you need to refer it to a rate of something else, we usually call that something relative to an observer on the surface of Earth. And we zero out any of those rates a “stationary” observer might be having. Space nor time exist outside the system we defined as the universe. Sine time is defined as a relation between interactions between objects within a space, time doesn’t exist without these interactions. Lee Smolin said, roughly in like 30 pages, that you can’t view the universe, space if you will, as a stage that can be empty or full but the stage only exists if there are interactions between actors on that stage and objects are irrelevant without these interactions having rates.
In terms of a less conceptual analogy, why does “time” “move” at the speed of light? And how is there a maximum at the speed of light? This is where I get to be a choosey little girl and I’ll be selecting ideas within several different theories. In moving dimensions theory, it is understood that photons are moving in our special dimensions therefore perpendicular to the temporal dimension, and since light moves at this rate along with the expansion of this perpendicular dimension, and since this perpendicular dimension’s rate is always relative to the three special dimensions, the rate of the photon itself is independent of the rate of any observer. So we have this temporal dimension, a manifestation of this dimension being an act of change defined as time, it expands at the speed of light relative to our three dimensions that we notice and since it travels at the speed of light, which is why time slows as you approach that speed. As you approach it, photon emitting approaches zero and without the emitting and absorbing of photons, there is an inability to ‘age’. I’ll hump this fact in every single one of my blog posts but it all goes back to the 1/r^2 relationship that we live in a three dimensional world (string theory has some problems with this but its orthogonal definitions are impossible to test and truly comprehend by the human mind which is perfectly acceptable since we live in a three dimensional macroscopically obvious world) and that photons are emitting in only one direction relative to the surface area of a sphere. Therefore these relationships exist because of their own existence which seems paradoxical which it truly isn’t, you just need to be able to comprehend actual space as a nonexistent medium allowing matter to interact.
2 Comments On This Entry
Page 1 of 1
MarkoDaGeek
20 March 2007  07:59 PM
I've always been interested in how a black hole can consume time, how can a dimensional manifestation be consumed into what could be another dimension?
Page 1 of 1
Search My Blog
1 user(s) viewing
1 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)
Tags
My Blog Links
Recent Entries

Relations, relations, relations.
on Mar 20 2007 07:19 PM