## Encouragement

“If at first an idea isn’t absurd, there’s no hope for it.”
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

## Universe: Hexahedron Theory

Hexahedron Schema:

1. 4 Axes are Dimension Particle Sets
2. 8 Vertexes are Space Particle Sets
3. 12 Edges are Force Particle Sets

1. 4 Axial Plane Sets
2. 6 Edge Plane Sets
3. 16 Axial Plane Triangulation Sets
4. 24 Edge Plane Triangulation Sets

Look at the vertexes of the hexahedron as entities.

Entities are Sequence->Value->Type

Look at the edges and axes of the hexahedron as associations.

Associations

are: SourceEntity->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

or: SourceAssociation->VerbEntity->TargetEntity

The instances for the entities and associations are the sets we are working with.

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.

I have revised my theory to include the observer in the system.  I am of the opinion that the observer is not unary but binary having two hemispheres to the brain.  Position and Velocity are composed of sets not points and are observed separately by the ordinal and cardinal hemispheres of the observer.  Consequently, the universe is not probalistic, but wholly deterministic.

## Where – When : Space – Time

Sequa is an ordinal point set while frequa is a cardinal event set.

## What – How : Mass – Light

Quala is an ordinal sequency set while Quanta is a cardinal frequency set..

## Why – How Much :  Gravity – Energy

Grava is an ordinal quality set while Erga is a cardinal quantity set.

## Who – Whom : Ordinality – Cardinality

Orda is an ordinal gravity set while Erga is a cardinal energy set.

I think there are even higher order entities and associations, but I have still to work them out.

## Set Physics

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:

• Issac Newton
• Albert Einstein
• R. Buckminster Fuller
• Max Plank
• Richard Feynman
• and a broad array of experimental physicists

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.

## System Schema

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:

## Physics: Observer as a State

At Home In The Universe is a landmark piece of thinking by Stuart Kauffman from the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, Canada.  Stuart through the application of Boolean networks, chaos theory, biology and biochemistry makes a profound hypothesis:  Life is a higher level of order achieved though a natural phase change.  In otherwords, the “observer” that Einstein kept out of his equations belongs there as every living thing exists as another state in the equation.  The observer is part of the cosmic system.

There were two things that I considered a crucial flaw in Stuarts work.  First, he talked about a three state system:

1. The chaotic state
2. The edge of chaotic state
3. The ordered state

but he always looked at it as a two state system with the edge of chaotic state balancing on the singularity of the phase change between chaos and order.

This slavishness to a Boolean networks keeps him from seeing another, what I consider, obvious possibility.  Stuart’s light bulb metaphor should have trinary bulbs not binary bulbs–a trinary network.  Like a gas, liquid and solid–the three states of matter– there is a chaotic, ordered and inert state with life residing in the ordered state between two phase transitions (I wonder about how chaos theory would explain the plasma state).

I don’t know if his use of Boolean rules ever provided for this possibility.  It would have resolved many of the challenges he faced and documented in his book.

The second thing I wondered about is he regarded a tightly coupled system as chaotic and a loosely coupled system as ordered.  The logic seems backwards to me.  Is not a solid tightly coupled and orderly and a gaseous system loosely coupled and chaotic?  I will have to delve more deeply into the concepts of chaos theory before I agree.

As a final thought, we could take the six interrogatives and turn them into a new equation:

# L * E = O * M * c ^ 2

Where L is Logic, E is Energy, O is Observer, M is Mass and c is the distance (d) light travels over time (t).

Logic would be defined as the rules that correctly describe the cosmic system.  Einstein referred to this logic as “The Old One”.  My hypothesis is our understanding of these rules, the logic of the observer, is a state as well.

## 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

## On Getting Creative Ideas

Murray Gell-Mann, one of the largest living legends in physics, discusses creativity. (70 minutes)

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “On Getting Creative Ideas“, posted with vodpod

If you listen, Murray’s greatest revelation is simply this: We make up boundaries for ourselves that do not exist. Recognizing false boundaries and crossing them is what “thinking outside of the box” is all about.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , . 2 Comments »