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.


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:


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.