Is there is no energy, no mass, no time, only space?

This is the Einstein Field Equation

einstein

Time t is simply the distance the hands travel around the clock, the distance the earth rotates around its axis, the distance the earth revolves around the sun.

Mass m is simply a four distance or dimensional space.

Gravity is the comparison of four states: the Energy state, the Mass state, the Distance state and the Time state.

The dimensions that compose the universe are not “curled up” they are all visible to us every day.

Einstein thought the fields were unipolar making them circular, however experiment emphasizes the fields have two poles making them elliptical.

The cosmological constant is simply another four space making the incorporation of dark matter and dark energy graceful.

Why are physicists so tied up in knots over such a simple concept?

czerepak-field-equation-diagram

Click the image to enlarge it.

where d is distance and e is events.

This model gives you twelve dimensions and all of the dimensions are visible every day, they are not concealed or “wrapped up” at all.

I do not consider this equation perfect, but I believe I am on the right track.

What the above equation describes is a toroidal torus, or a klein bottle.

Consequently, the Einstein Field Equation describes a regular klein bottle, while the Czerepak field equation describes an irregular klein bottle.  What is special about the klein bottle is it only has one side.  This would mean the Universe although in constant flux is eternal and singular.  There was no bang and there will be no crunch just continual cycling through states.

klien-bottle-universe

The only other consideration is that the elliptical paths, should be replaced with spiral paths.  This would make the klein bottle recursive.  How many recursions there are may be limited to the seven states identified by the System International Units: luminosity, temperature, time, distance, mass, current and molarity all of these reducing to distances.

I already see commercial applications for this model.

No, you don’t understand physics

IsaacNewton-1689

Newton’s Three Laws of Motion

1. Velocity (inertia)


v = m * d / t

2. Force (acceleration)


F = m * d / ( t1 * t2 )

3.  Energy (action/reaction)


E = m * ( d1 * d2 ) / ( t1 * t2 )

4. Gravity


1 / G = ( t1 * x1 * x2 * x3 ) * 8 π * ( d1 * d2 * d3 * d4 ) / ( t1 * t2 * t3 * t4 )


The observer is always a part of a gravitational equation. The observer has two eyes, not one.

Yes, that is what Newton said. Memorizer.

Universe: Interrogative Spaces

iconuniverse14

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:

v = r / t

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:

a = r / t’ * t”

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.

Buckminster Fuller: In, Around and Out

iconsrelate

There is no “up” or “down”.  There is only “in”, “around” and “out’.

– R. Buckminster Fuller

What Buckminster says is not so hard to understand if you think about planetary bodies.  You can fall into the gravitational well, orbit the gravitational well or escape the gravitational well.  There are only the three choices.  The same goes for all forces ultimately.

Business Physics III: Energy and Gravity

bouncing_ball_strobe_edit

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

or

E = ( ( T * T”’ ) / ( S’ * S” ) ) * ( ( S * S”’ ) / ( T’ * T” ) )

Related Posts:

Business Physics I: Space and Time

Business Physics II: Mass and Light

Universe: Hexahedron Theory Revised

When – Where

How – What

How Much – Why

This is the set of equations I find curious.  As you can see (C)/(C) equals Energy.  Consequently, what are the two higher forms that correlate with Gravity?

Who – Whom

Garrett Lisi on his theory of everything

I agree with Garrett Lisi. It’s sets and geometry.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Garrett Lisi on his theory of everyth…“, posted with vodpod

The Lie E8 is a beautiful structure mathematically with 248 dimensions:

However, I think what he wants to achieve is even simpler to model physically.

This is a 3V Icosahedron Geodesate:

This structure gives us 92 vertexes (entities) and 270 edges (associations) or 362 particles.

Employing Occam’s Razor, I suggest that some form of Icosahedron Geodesate theory is more likely the answer.

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

Additional Schema Components:

  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.

Universe: Octahedron Theory

The octahedron:

  1. 3 Axes (I thought this was a triangular point)
  2. 4 Planar Corners (I thought this was a tetrahedral shell)
  3. 6 Vertexes (I thought this was an octahedral shell)
  4. 12 Edges (I thought this was an icosahedral shell)

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.

When

How

How Much

Why

What

Where

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.

When

Where

How

What

Why

How Much

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:

Who

Network Schema