Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Dimensional Reality : Rules Of The Game.

Move over Euclidian geometry.  Lexian geometry is here to take your place.  Of course it is named after me , though of course I neither discovered nor invented it.  Aliens fed me this information from the distant future though the miracle of a television wormhole.  And Isaac Newton completely confirmed the authenticity of the proof.   Here are the Dimensional Reality Rules of the Game:


1.  There really is no order of the basic dimensions of the cosmos.  All dimensions are in constant "interaction " or our mental relationships as they apply to the practical interpretation of reality.  If there is a first dimension it is a point, a singular point and no other points.  That is pretty clear.  A singular stand alone points exists with absolutely no other points of reference.  It stand alone in a completely compact all inclusive point size container of nothingness. There are no other metrics.  The size of a single point is infinitely small and if there was actually ever a point where the entire universe is fantasized as having been a single point before the fanciful big bang it would have been as infinitesimally tiny as that single point having no other dimensions but a point.  Blame this on Euclid not on Lex.


2.  The next dimensional geometric reality is the appearance of a second point.  It can be one of those unpredictable quantum points that comes and goes popping in and out of reality for all I care.  When the second point shows up it is as infinitesimally tiny as the first point.  Between the two points at any distance can be a line  and many other points can occur along the line such that there is a metric means of proportioning distance or distances between points along the line.  The line has no metric off the line and it does not exist in space it can simply be the same singular point we started with in space and time but it not certain that either space or time would in anyway exist with just a line any more than it would with a singular point.  The line would have no outside ability without a third point outside of it to have any sense of direction to give it that perspective any more than the single point would have.  Direction or sense of direction at least on a plane would take at least three points and that is triangular by definition.


3.  When a third point appears and it is off the straight line between the first two point the dimensional reality of the plane becomes apparent.  It allows for a Cartesian metric to be invented that can stretch vast distances but only on what really is a triangular area between point.  Directionality again would only exist within the triangle and not outside of it without a fourth point off the plane to make it 3 dimensional.... but wait this is the third dimension in a sense the fourth dimension that is usually thought to be time then flips out to the fifth or beyond.


4. The fourth point creates 3 dimensional metric dynamics.  Not usually considered the forth dimension it may be exactly that how ever four points must be off a single line and be aligned  on at least 2 separate lines that are not parallel  to form 3 dimensional reality.  If we have four separate points on two parallel  lines we might remain a plane and need  a fifth point until we have properly identified a point off of a plane.


4.  Moving a point off the surface of a plane in all directions introduces us to the Lexian Probability  dimensional reality  .  That is because the point can be located any distance from the plane to alter relationships of the geometry.


5.  Time then becomes an integral dimension because plane rotation verses the point or points off the plane because probability requires time for what we usually can an event (in probability) to occur.


These dimensions then present a matrix of probabilities that we can predict or try to.  Going back though the list from 1 to 5 it becomes immediately clear that points and lines are completely imaginary philosophical ideas that are not observed in reality unless maybe some quantum particles as observed act like points but that is not clear from any evidence.  It might work somewhat by analogy.


If there is a 6th dimension according to these rules having the interacting relationships of points, lines, planes, time and probability the only dimension left is our conscious ability to understand this. Which is defined by the word perception or conscious perception because animals may perceive what we do but their dimensionality is all about instinctive behaviors.


Next all we need is proof that probability is a basic dimension of cosmic reality.  We find that with a controlled experiment.  We have more than one hour glass / sand clock.  One we turn over to put all the sand on top and let the san flow into a slump pile though the  glass oculus.   The second one we don't turn over but we just shake it vigorously and we get no slump pile as we do in the normal  turned upside down hour glass.  The slump pile appears every time we turn it over in the presence of gravity here on earth.  up in space in zero gravity and the sand grains have no need to fall and may float around like bubbles in a carbonated cola drink, semi suspended in the drink


Whops I was just falling asleep writing this dribble and Isaac Newton pops out of the worm hole on an alien anti-dimensional platform to correct it.  I am not sure I completely understand it but I can tell you what he says:


"You have made many mistakes. First of all any point can be in motion or in a state of rest even if it has no substance and exists only in your imagination.  Until you add energy as a dimension there is no way to prod a point into motion .   Energy of course is another basic dimensional variability.    A single point can have all the energy and even all the mass you can imagine , not exist and have no external dimensions without some metric even if you fantasize you are the observer.  Two points can make a line  and it can spin about a central arbitrary point on the line as rotation and become a circle or a sphere.  Energy , Time, probability are all variables in forming dimensions. Two points , void of mass and nothing but imaginary proximity to each other can also be found to rotate around each other if both have energy which can impart it self as a charge.  Together rotating around each other simultaneously is as good as elliptical. Three points with energy and resulting motion can rotate around the other two simultaneously with each of the other two doing the same and the name for that is a tripoly-eclipse. (something some day you will understand makes water a special molecule)  Essentially the dimensions are Newtonian not Euclidian.  Where energy translates to mass, form, charge, even gravity, acceleration and a large variable number of 'forces' that impact points , lines , planes and figures."  Probability is then a very key dimension.  :Probability requires time and energy as variables to play out it's 'event horizon.'  Dimensions of reality are then probability , time, energy , your geometric possibilities and all of these together can define mass and gravity as probabilities calculated from observed relationships.  If points are actually particles  these can be vested with energy and then acceleration , force mass and even underlying gravity.  Euclidian geometry fails because planes are spherical and lines can become so too it rotated at a central point.  The Euclidian model is also probability driven but in nature we observe spherical nature and elliptical nature not square and not often triangular.



Friday, May 15, 2015

Geometry of Nature Verses Human perceptions of natural symmetry.

The idea that probability is a basic dimension in reality and not something we just perceive artificially brings up questions about  what we think we know is probable.  In nature elements and molecules are prone to crystalize.  They assume distinctive predictable shapes as crystals grow where and when they do.  We have tables that show the expected shapes and  it may or may not be the case the crystals form in the same shapes in different environments say with less gravity on a smaller planet or much more in a much larger planet.  Some of that can be tested in the lab increasing pressure and temperature to mimic higher gravity. So we have a pretty good idea about what shapes are likely to be assumed by crystals of various combinations of elements and molecules.  What we cannot as easily predict is how crystals will grow independently and in formations of multiple crystals. The variables are so many that we have collections of rock mineral crystals  of many different diverse variations.  Man made crystals tend to have similar and completely different fofms that are not found in nature including various diamond cuts for raw diamonds.  crystals are not all symmetrical when we find them in nature but they do have some modulus of symmetry we can assume is a form of symmetry.  It is like looking at all the visible structures in the universe as seen by our various telescopes.  We see the same sorts of structures near and far.  Most famous are spiral galaxies we see as close as 1-2 million light years away and as far away as 10 billion light years away.  We accept what we see with our high power telescopes as being straight forward what we think we know as opposed to something other than what we think we know.  At the same time we are willing to accept ideas that time is not absolute and that time space may just be showing us an illusion.  It seems entirely possible that we see in any moment time warped structures that are actually stable except they are beyond

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Why not use the super collider at CERN to prove that probabiliy is one of the most basic dimensions of the cosmos?

What I find most interesting about super collider experiments is the ability to predict the types of outcomes expected.  The hole idea is to have some standardized means of detection that actually may preclude having any unexpected detectable events.   It seems strange that with an array of macro level detectors that sub-sub-sub particles are going to be detected and not just pass though , between or beyond detection?  To the extent that the results are predictable might really be more important than exactly what might be deduced as happening.  The actual results are in a sort of black box from which a lot of inferences are required to try to understand what ever happens inside that box.  Predictability is a sure sign that probability is acting as a sequencer of events.  Meanwhile I am wondering why we don't grow crystals guided by some computer medium.  I am thinking of a 3-D equivalent of a flat screen tv matrix.  Crystals develop their characteristic geometric faces because they are in a medium for growth and not outside of some medium.  It is important when looking at a quartz crystal to realize it did not assume it's characteristics out in some vacuum.  Those perfect looking geometric facets of crystals form at an interface with the medium.  I was looking for probabilities when it comes to quartz crystal growth because those crystals tend to grow in  the company of many others exactly like the rest with plenty of variation deviations. I still can not find any mathematic formula to generate crystals as a computer simulation.

Friday, May 1, 2015

What happens when all the basic assumptions of a theory are wrong? The theory still exists.

This conditional probability thesis blog is about probability itself being a fundamental "dimension" of the universe.   Go back to the beginning of the blog to see it there.  As it goes we have the top three dimensions.  point, line , plane , the fourth dimension that is volume  and then we have time which is really the same thing as distance.  This comes from Euclidian geometry as I have understood it.  Then come other times of dimensions one of which is of course something like or is gravity, space-time  as some see it or as I see it dimensional expansion / dimensional contraction.  This is where you have a distances defined by mass of something like a sphere  where the spokes of the radius can actually contract with rock crushing power as we see first hand here on earth.  If the earth had less density because of some ability to have less gravity the diameter of the earth could be many times longer than it presently is.  Of course I am not saying any of my assumptions are wrong but I do find in my experiments that photons have no mass at all because they do not retain nor transfer momentum to mass when absorbed.  I found that blows up a major assumption that led to one of the theories of relativity.  I discount the idea that black holes are going to absorb light because light has mass and cannot escape gravity of the magnitude a black hole is supposed to have.  Already black holes get brighter and brighter where they are detected and the theorists who still see them there find an area where there is nothing visible and say "see there is a black hole.  Nothing is visible in the middle there."  Good for them.  The theory is safe.


Gravity according to relativity and the existence of a frames of reference illusion is crushing rock to make planetary spheres and crushed rock being crushed and melted is highly activated meaning it has measurable kinetic energy which tells me that gravity at it's source the center of a sphere like that of earth is not slowing time , as I know time, down but rather speeding it up.    That does not mean that Einstein is wrong about everything it simply reverses the intellectual mind experiment saying that mass is not creating gravity but gravity is creating mass and perhaps time/ space time is being created by gravity and not the other way around.  Which is more like the Original Newton model where gravity is a force.  I found empirical evidence that seems to support this in my new laws of physics dissertation that is still uncorrected sorry to say but online somewhere.  The question about time is what time is it from the perspective of the cosmic time keeping mechanism?  So far as I am concerned yes the universe could have been created in seven days.  Why?  Because simple logic.  Before the first day there were no days to measure days by and then there was light which implies a big bang or the sun was born but there is no earth going around in a circle yet no orbiting planets yet so days , years are months and millennia are completely undefined.  A day can be billions or trillions of years as we know it.  That way in 7 days as reported in that ancient story, it is entirely possible and likely that it only took seven measured days for creation .  The bible does not say the days are units we know as days because the story clearly says nothing had been created yet least of all clocks.


So I see a planet like the earth and a star like the sun as probability generators.  We like to think of clocks as regulated time pieces.  For me these massive things in the cosmos are the cosmic clocks we have and they set time in their relationships with each other and with  the forces that shape them.  I have to wonder if the greater galaxy even has the same time scale or perception of time that we do.  It is entirely possible that other beings  elsewhere in the cosmos count our years as seconds in their life spans.  Why not?  why would we assume our time scale is universal when we know a Jupiter year is a lot longer than an earth year and then we look at that planet and see regular wind speeds over ten times the higher range of earth wind speeds on average.  That may not seem like some coincidence being a longer year with higher wind velocity but it does say that our sense of dimensions is based on how we experience life where we are.


The thing that gets interesting now is that probability is about the outcomes that  time allows to happen.  Without time there is no need for probability analysis as there are no changes that can be expected otherwise.   Time itself is a probability work sheet.  With a clock, a regulated clock, we all bet that the clock will be on time , keep time which it does not do which is why clocks need to be reset from time to time.  If time can get stuck in a clock than there is an issue of probability there.