My latest post in my blog “globvilla” worth checking out:
My latest post in my blog “globvilla” worth checking out:
If you look at my first ZenUniverse post, you will see a six column model. However, the System International Units require seven columns.
Here is a table of two hemisphere intersections. I am using Latin roots, but you will recognize many of the terms:
Here is a blank table you can print out and experiment with correlations and intersections of your own:
If you have seen ZenUniverse 1.o and liked it. You will be pleased to know that I have made some major enhancements to this concept. We will still have the Six Solids, but we will expand considerably on the classifications.
In this version I will incorporate my work describing the six areas of human endeavor:
Then I will correlate them with the Brain’s major regions.
The ordering of everything is very deliberate.
I am not going to belabor you with commentary.
Simply scroll up and down through the tables and think about the correlations and the model of the brain at the end of this post.
So, without further adieu:
These are the kinds of theories that can exist.
You might notice the number of sides for each seems large.
What has been overlooked is solids have an outside, midside and inside.
These are the kinds of space that can exist.
These are the kinds of arts that can exist.
These are the kinds of natures that can exist.
These are the kinds of skills that can exist.
These are the kinds of numeracy and literacy.
Each of the above areas of endeavor correlate with the representation of the brain in the fundamental table below.
Hope there was food for thought.
In my previous post I gave thought to Tim Brown of IDEO’s “design thinking”, Clayton Christensen’s “Innovator’s Dilemma”, Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”, and Buckminster Fuller’s “Synergetics” concepts. What emerged was the above Czerepak Framework. My claim is this framework is fundamental to designing a system.
The thing that the above table shows is interaction within what I am now going to call the “Interrogative Spaces”: HowSpace, WhatSpace, WhySpace, WhoSpace, WhenSpace, WhereSpace, HowMuchSpace, HowManySpace. Each ellipse I call a “vortice”. The Interrogative Spaces are composed of one or more vortices. The Framework above shows how Spaces are composed within the Interrogatives, but what about interactions between the Interrogative Spaces? A good example is speed or velocity. Speed is the intersection of WhenSpace and WhereSpace:
Where v is velocity, r is radius and t is time.
If you are increasing Speed, which is acceleration, you have one dimension of WhereSpace and two dimensions of WhenSpace:
Where a is acceleration, r is radius, t’ is the first clock and t” is the second clock. You cannot measure acceleration with one clock. This uniqueness of every vortice applies to all the Interrogative Spaces and all inter-relationships between all of the Spaces. .
Another way to look at the Interrogative Spaces is as sets and subsets. The first row are the complete Space vortice sets. The second row are the first Space vortice subsets. The third row is the intersect between the row two and row three Space vortice subsets. And the fourth row are the intersects between the row two and row three and row four Space vortice subsets.
I do not believe that anything is constant. Not the speed of light, not gravity, not cosmology. Every intersection of dimensions creates a vortex in Universe and every one is unique. We are simply unable to measure and manage the uniqueness of everything, therefore we make generalizations which create models that can always be falsified.
In examining an Newton’s and Einstein’s equations an interesting result became apparent to me. According to Einstein’s equation
E = mc^2
If we consider my four dimensional equations in my previous related post
E = Mass * Light = M * C
E = ( ( T * T”’ ) / ( S’ * S” ) ) * ( ( S * S”’ ) / ( T’ * T” ) )
The next question we are faced with in physics is: now that we have Space and Time defined, what are Mass and Light? In classical physics Mass and Light are the inverse of one another with Mass defined as
Mass = ( ( e * e”’) / ( p’ * p” ) )
and Light defined as
Light = ( ( p * p”’ ) / ( e’ * e” ) ).
However, I am taking the four dimensional Space and Time approach. According to my earlier post my hypothesis of four dimensional Space is defined as:
Space = ( ( p * p”’ ) / ( p’ * p” ) )
and four dimensional Time is defined as
Time = ( ( e * e”’ ) / ( e’ * e” ) )
where p are point sets and e are event sets. In the context of business Mass is Product and Light is Conduct (Service). Consequently, Productivity is defined as
( T / S’ )
and Conductivity as
( S / T’ ) .
Where S and T are Space sets and Time sets respectively.
Productivity increase is defined as
( T / ( S’ * S”) )
and Conductivity increase is defined as
( S / ( T’ * T” ) ) .
FInally, we get Product (Mass) defined as
( ( T * T”’ ) / ( S’ * S” ) )
and Conduct (Light) defined as
( ( S * S’ ) / ( T’ * T” ) ) .
Thus, we have the second order of business.
The key is the universe is composed of particles of a broad variety. But every particle is simply an association in the form of a set. The lowest order particles are event and point. They are one dimensional particles. All subsequent higher dimension particles can be reduced to a subset of these particles.
The three axes of the octahedron are the universes of different orders. They are simply subsets of one another.
The six vertexes of the octahedron are the vertex dimension sets of the system.
The twelve edges of the octahedron are edge dimension sets between each of the vertex dimension sets. These edge sets are also particles and the same set equations can be applied to them that were applied to the vertex sets.
To understand the tables you will require high school level physics knowledge and an understanding of basic set theory.
First, I am taking ordinal sets and performing three set operations on them to get subsets.
Second, I am then plugging the subsets into a standard set equation that describes the “space” for that dimension set.
Third, I am then introducing the result into a higher order dimension set.
I have been giving theoretical physics a thorough and systematic going over and I think I’ve come up with a unified solution that incorporates gravity and all the particles.
I’m thankful for the work of:
Giants whose shoulders I stand on.
Each row in this model is a set of particles. Everything is ultimately composed of distance and time.
I am creating a new taxonomy because the existing names do not consistently define the particles of the system.
The structure of the schema is three dimensional and composed of three shells:
Inner Tetrahedral Intrashell:
Middle Octahedral Intershell:
Outer Icosahedral Boundary Shell:
The edges, vertexes and connections between the shells are all significant in revealing the dependecy of the particles upon one another.
This is the best I can do for a two dimensional representation: