Dark Matter and Dark Energy are Fiction

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Patricia Burchat sheds light on dark …“, posted with vodpod

Patricia Burchat does the math, but that is the problem, not the solution.

To understand the universe what we have to do is recognize that energy, matter, space and time have discrete states and finite states. We’re using the wrong math.

Relativity is not reality. Relativity is a convenient mathematical illusion.

Links:

Newton’s Laws are Fiction

Zero and Infinity are Fiction

Newton’s Laws Are Fiction

Isaac Newton’s first law is fictional.  There is never a case where the force acting on an object is zero.  There is never a case where force = mass * acceleration.  There is never a case where an action has an equal and opposite reaction.  This is possible in mathematics (reason), but not in physics (reality).  In fact, distance-space (D) and time-space (T) are both finite as is energy-space (E) and mass-space (M).  This is one of the mistakes in Albert Einstein’s and many physicists understanding of the universe.  Zero and infinity are fictional.  This gives us the equation:

ET = MD

Zero and Infinity are Fiction

Something has been teasing at my mind as I have been exploring singularites and a term I call “pluralarities” (what a goddamed awkward word).  What has occurred to me is this.  We live in three dimensional space.  There are no such thing as points (zero dimensional objects) or lines (one dimensional objects) or planes (two dimensional objects).  They are complete figments of the imagination.  What is really happening with a point is x, y and z have a default value of one  What is happening with a line is y and z have a default value of one.  What is happening with a plane is z has a default value of one.  However, the mathematicians are always hurling zeros and infinities in when there is not evidence of one in nature.  They make for some great mathematics, but they are terrible physics.  And most physicists think too much like mathematicians.

We run into the same mathematical stupidity in relational databases with null values and cardinalities of zero and infinity–total bullshit.  In physical reality everything is finite and let me explain how to resolve this.

We have to look at Energy, Mass, Space and Time as three dimensional coordinate systems. None of these coordinate systems ever reach a zero state, they reach an alternate state.  Space becomes Mass and Time becomes Energy for example.  An beer glass is never empty, in normal circumstances it is either full of beer or full of space.  And if you know your physics, space is a thing.  Zero is a mathematical and a perceptual trick not a physical reality.

Space, Time, Matter and Energy are three dimensional and finite.  They are all constrained between 1 and n not zero and infinity.  They present one possible state of ( E x, Ey, Ez , Mx, My Mz, Dx, Dy, Dz, Tx, Ty, Tz ) where all the values are greater than zero.

Zero and Infinity a boon to mathematics, but not to physics.

The Greeks were a lot smarter than you think.  Even to the Indians, space was a thing.

Novation Divergence

When we reach a plurality two things happen:

  1. The current product/service begins its life cycle descent–denovation
  2. A new product/service begins its life cycle ascent–new innovation

The interesting aspect of this is the innovator and the denovator at the divergence are not necessarily the same individual.

Let’s look at the plot:

Here you can see the divergence. This is simply a divergence of the frame of reference not of the observer.

Interesting, this has me thinking about OODA Loops. It also has me thinking about Judo.

Systematic Innovation

The thing that set’s Peter F. Drucker’s legacy apart from all the pop management books is one thing: Empiricism. Peter concentrated on observable, reproducible, systematic methodology. And he took the same attitude in Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

The secret to successful innovation and entrepreneurship for a private enterprise, a public enterprise or a fledgling enterprise involved pre-planning before any attempt to realize the idea took place. The success stories in Peter’s book took an idea that was not even necessarily their own and took the time to foresee the requirements for possibility, compatibility, reliability, affordability, distributability and ubiquity before they entered the life cycle of the product or service. They built a management team to achieve each of these milestones before they entered the life cycle as well. Only then did they execute, because there was no turning back.

It is just like a volley in tennis. The ball (opportunity) approaches and the tennis player observes that ball, positions herself, assesses her capabilities, decides where the return will land and only then makes her power curve lead into the ball, singularity contact, and power curve follow through, all the time never letting her eye off the ball until that volley’s life cycle ends.

Like I said to Seth Godin’s book, The Dip, you don’t make your decisions mid-stroke. It is not empirical and it is bad physics. Peter would say the same thing. He would say it is bad management as well.

Sorry, Seth, There Ain’t No “Dip”

Seth Godin in his book, The Dip, gives good advice about quitting and sticking. However, unintentionally he creates a myth that there is a deviation in the power curve toward the cost benefit singularity. Bluntly, there ain’t. Once you commit yourself to the swing you will have to follow through whether you hit the ball or do not. The question to be asked before you start: once you pass through the singularity, will you have enough resources to push you all the way to pluralarity (call it ubiquity or commoditization). If you cannot make a successful projection to that accomplishment, you are going to take a dive not a dip.

A cost-benefit singularity (that’s the cost benefit to the customer) is a black hole, either you enter it or you don’t. As in baseball, you need a smooth power curve as you lead in, contact and a smooth power curve as you follow through. And don’t forget a smooth power curve as you lead into your run to the base, contact and a smooth power curve as you follow through.

A complete life cycle.

No Dip. If you take one, its bad physics and you’ll hurt yourself.

More about the physics here.

Danger or Pluralarity?

Thinking about pluralities I was motivated to dig out and dust off my copy of Nicholas G. Carr’s book, Does IT Matter?: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage. In this piece of pulp Nicholas droned on about the commoditization of hardware and software and the end of the IT industry.

What Nicholas was witnessing in 2003 was the plurality of one generation of hardware and software. Everybody had an office suite and enterprise software suite.  And rightly, they were no longer providing a competitive advantage. What Nicholas was experiencing was a complete lack of imagination with regard to the opportunities the pluralarity presented: the next generation of innovation leading to the next singularity.

In hind sight it was funny how Nicholas shook everybody up, but I didn’t find myself looking for a new career, I found myself looking for innovation and in many respects we found it in Open Source and Web 2.0 Social Software.

I have also found that Relational Database technology is reaching plurality and its limitations are becoming more pronounced as application developers test its limits. It simply does not have the flexibility we need. I’ve seen the future in the Associative Model of Data and have found it fits the Zachman Framework better than current technologies. The need is growing and this architecture fits it.

What Nicholas and all of us should have still been reading was this book:

Peter is still the authority when it comes to experience based instruction.

The Speed of Events Theory

The following derivation of the law of equivalence, which has not been published before, has two advantages. Although it makes use of the principle of special relativity, it does not presume the formal machinery of the theory but uses only four modified laws (I hope it is not just sci-fi):

  1. Distance-space and Time-space are both three dimensional coordinate systems
  2. Momentum which is distance-space velocity and “Chromentum” (for lack of a better word) which is time-space velocity are conserved
  3. Radiations exert their own pressure; that is, the light-event is a complex of radiation moving in a fixed distance-space direction and time-space direction with momentum and chromentum.
  4. Light and events are aberrant.

We now consider the following system.

Let the body B rest freely in space and time with respect to the system K0. Two complexes of radiation S, S’ each of energy E/2 durate in the positive and negative x0 direction respectively and are eventually absorbed by B. With this absorption the energy of B increases by E. The body stays at rest in space and time with respect to K0 by reasons of symmetry.

Where c is the velocity of light and e is the velocity of event.

Now we consider this same process with respect to the system K, which moves with respect to K0 with the constant distance-space velocity vd and time-space velocity vt in the negative Z0 direction. With respect to K the description of the process is as follows:

The body B moves in the positive z direction with distance velocity vd and time velocity vt. The two complexes of radiation now have directions with respect to K which make an angle a with the x axis. The law of light and event aberration states that in the first approximation a = ( c / e ) / vd * vt , where c is the velocity of light and e is the velocity of event. From the consideration with respect to K0 we know that the distance-space velocity and time-space velocity of B remains unchanged by the absorption of S and S’.

Now we apply the law of conservation of momentum and chromentum with respect to the z direction to our system in the coordinate frame K.

  1. Before the absorption let M be the mass of B ; M * vd * vt is then the expression of the momentum and chromentum of B (according to this new mechanics). Each of the complexes has the energy E / 2 and hence, by a new conclusion of Maxwell’s theory, it has the momentum and chromentum E / 2 * (c / e ) . Rigorously speaking this is the momentum and chromentum of S with respect to K. However when vd and vt are small with respect to c and e , the momentum and chromentum with respect to K is the same except for a quantity of second order of magnitude ( ( vd ^ 2 * vt ^ 2) / ( c ^ 2 / e ^ 2 ) compared to 1). The z-component of this momentum and chromentum is E / 2 * ( c / e ) sin a or with sufficient accuracy (except for quantities of higher order of magnitude) E / 2 * ( c / e ) * a or E / (2 * (vd * vt ) / (c ^ 2 / e ^ 2 ) ) S and S’ together therefore have a momentum and chromentum E * ( ( vd * vt ) / ( c ^ 2 / e ^ 2 ) ) in the z direction. The total momentum and chromentum of the system before absorption is therefore
  2. After the absorption let M’ be the mass of B. We anticipate here the possibility that the mass increased with the absorption of energy E (this is necessary so that the final result of our consideration be consistent). The momentum and chromentum of the system after absorption is then

We now assume the law of conservation of momentum and chromentum and apply it with respect to the z direction. This gives the equation

or

This equation expresses the law of the equivalence of energy and mass and the nature of events as part of the complex of radiation. Since energy according to the usual definition leaves an additive constant free, we may choose the latter that

As a consequence of this equation there is no dark matter and the acceleration of matter in the universe is due to a transition from a distance singularity to a time singularity.  Distance-space is observing exponential expansion.

Time-space is finite. Which leads to this:

Which bring us to my post on Singularity, Pluralarity and Lorentz Transformation

Singularity, Pluralarity and Lorentz Transformation

Working with Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping point, Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity and the Pareto Principle lead me to begin thinking about a pattern that presented itself. In an earlier post here and here I discussed how there had been many Singularities in history. It also lead me to talk about Pluralarites. Then it struck me there is an oscillation between Singularity and Plurality, giving us the Singularity Pluralarity Plot above. And the implications are interesting.

Any innovation follows the Singularity Pluralarity Plot as a complete life cycle. Kurzweil’s singularity will be no exception. The first working AI will be the domain of specialists it will not be unleashed uncontrolled on humanity and it will have been accomplished after several incremental developments that will leave humanity more than prepared for it. The AI will then have to be molded into compatibility to a variety of purposes. After that it will have to be iterated until it is reliable. Once it is reliable then the true singularity happens: the cost benefit ratio is achieved and AI becomes accessible to the general public. The next step is availability on the global market. Finally, AI will have to be always on and pluralarity is achieved. AI will be ubiquitous and the next innovation will take place. The commoditized original AI will begin its descent and a new innovation in AI or a completely new technology will take its place and begin its ascent.

There will be social upheaval, but I don’t think it will be as dramatic or as immediate as some think.  The anthropomorphization of AI will fade and it will just be considered another tool.

The first thing that occurred to me is that as there is a positive and negative infinity there is also a positive and negative zero. Whether the zero is positive or negative is determined by whether you approach it from positive values or negative values. The second thing that occurred to me is that a pluralarity to singularity transition is divisive while a pluralarity to singularity transition is multiplicative. The third thing that occurred to me is that it is possible to have a positive to negative transition. For example you could follow a positive singularity to positive pluralarity curve with a negative pluralarity to negative singularity curve which would ascend like a staircase. The fourth thing that became obvious is that on an exponential curve the Pareto Principle applies at both ends. It’s like applying Lorentz transformations. Fifth, I am currently reading Peter Drucker’s Innovation and Entrepreneurship and have discovered that seizing opportunity, Entrepreneurship, requires recognizing whether you are approaching a Singularity or a Pluralarity while creating opportunity, Innovation, is making a Singularity or Pluralarity. The final thought that occurred to me is what are the implications of this knowledge on network design, physics, chemistry, biology, databases, complexity, simplicity, organization, history, anthropology, evolution, commoditization? I’ll leave it there.

Systema Framework: Structured Thinking Advances

Forget Microsoft. Forget Apple. Let’s break the rules and create something truly beautiful.

This is the new Systema Framework. Let’s look at definitions for each of the icons. I want you to note that putting this together even close to coherently is taking considerable time and I will be revising this post repeatedly.

Things I’ve learned:

  • I am abandoning the term entity for the term logos which is closer to the correct concept we are dealing with.  Logic deals with the logos (words) of reason versus the forms (things) of reality.
  • I have found that de Bono lead me to realize that a relationship or association is not the correct term for these connections. The correct term is “directive” because the connector has a source.verb.target structure. Sun Tzu would call it a command. Ultimately, all people are directors not actors.
  • The real genius of Zachman was creating a two dimensional framework where all his predecessors had only provided one dimension.
  • “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Reaction is induction. Action is deduction. Thus a bottom up inductive process involves:
    • Reintuition, Renegation, Reobjection, Reposition, Redirection and Recreation
  • While a top down deductive process involves:
    • Creation, Direction, Position, Objection, Negation and Intuition
  • The finer points can be debated.
  • I find the relational model is not best adapted to this framework. The associative model of data found at LazySoft is better equipped to meet the framework’s requirements.

Systema Framework Terms

Systema Framework Icons

Icon Definitions

CREATIVE Logic Logics

CREATIVE are the logic logos in your system. These are the logos you will use to explain your motives. Another way to look at it is using Edward de Bono’s hats in two dimensions: Creative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Moral Law.

DIRECTIVE Logic Organics

DIRECTIVE are the logic directions in your system.  Reason directions are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive.  They connect source reason logos and target reason logos. In de Bono hats Creative directions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Command.

POSITIVE Logic Methodics

POSITIVE are logic methods in your system. Reason methods are mandatory or optional; single, multiple or plural and cursive or recursive. Ultimately the reason methods act on the reason forms. In de Bono hats Creative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Training.

OBJECTIVE Logic Pragmatics

OBJECTIVE deals with the logic forms you add to the system. In de Bono hats Creative objections. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Discipline.

NEGATIVE Logic Cosmics

NEGATIVE is the logic universe of your system. The reason nouns, reason verbs, reason methods and reason forms have been created and are an existing part of your system. In de Bono’s hats Creative Negations. Note that it is called a negative because a cosmos can only falsify a system otherwise it simply corroborates. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Terrain.

INTUITIVE Logic Chronics

INTUITIVE are the logic triggers applied to the reason universe of your system. Changes to reason forms are reason triggers. In de Bono hats Creative intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Moral Law Heavens.

CREATOR Organic Logics

CREATOR are the director logos (plant, animal, person) in your system. In de Bono hats Directive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Moral Law.

DIRECTOR Organic Organics

DIRECTOR are the director directions between director logos. In de Bono hats Directive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Command.

POSITOR Organic Methodics

POSITOR are the director methods applied to director forms. In de Bono hats Directive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Training.

OBJECTOR Organic Pragmatics

OBJECTOR are the director forms. In de Bono hats Directive objections. In Sun Tzu factors Command Discipline.

NEGATOR Organic Cosmics

NEGATOR is the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Command Terrain.

INTUITOR Organic Chronics

INTUITOR are the director triggers applied to the director universe. In de Bono hats Directive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Command Heavens.

CREATE Methodic Logics

CREATE is the methodic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Positive creations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Moral Law.

DIRECT Methodic Organics

DIRECT is the methodic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Positive directions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Command.

POSIT Methodic Methodics

POSIT is the methodic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Training.

OBJECT Methodic Pragmatics

OBJECT is the methodic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Training Discipline.

NEGATE Methodic Cosmics

NEGATE is the methodic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Training Terrain.

INTUIT Methodic Chronics

INTUIT is the methodic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Positive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATION Pragmatic Logics

CREATION are the pragmatic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Moral Law.

DIRECTION Pragmatic Organics

DIRECTION are the pragmatic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Command.

POSITION Pragmatic Methodics

POSITION are the pragmatic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Training.

OBJECTION Pragmatic Pragmatics

OBJECTION are the pragmatic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Discipline.

NEGATION Pragmatic Cosmics

NEGATION are the pragmatic univserse of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Discipline Terrain.

INTUITION Pragmatic Chronics

INTUITION are the pragmatic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Objective Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Training Heavens.

CREATORY Cosmic Logics

CREATORY are the universe logos of the system. In de Bono hats Negative creations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Moral Law.

DIRECTORY Cosmic Organics

DIRECTORY are the univserse directions of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Directives. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Command.

POSITORY Cosmic Methodics

POSITORY are the universe methods of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Training.

OBJECTORY Cosmic Pragmatics

OBJECTORY are the universe forms of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Discipline.

NEGATORY Cosmic Cosmics

NEGATORY are the universe universe of the system. In de Bonos hats Negative Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Terrain.

INTUITORY Cosmic Chronics

INTUITORY are the universe triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Negative Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Terrain Heavens.

CREATUM Chronic Logics

CREATUM are the chronic logos of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Creations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Moral Law.

DIRECTUM Chronic Organics

DIRECTUM are the chronic directions of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Directions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Command.

POSITUM Chronic Methodics

POSITUM are the chronic methods of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Positions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Training.

OBJECTUM Chronic Pragmatics

OBJECTUM are the chronic forms of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Objections. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Discipline.

NEGATUM Chronic Cosmics

NEGATUM are the chronic universe of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Negations. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Terrain.

INTUITUM Chronic Chronics

INTUITUM are the chronic triggers of the system. In de Bono hats Intuitive Intuitions. In Sun Tzu factors Heavens Heavens.