Zeno's TOE and Y's Range of Realisation.
- From: Y <yanarchi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Apr 2007 06:15:26 -0700
It has been understood, or generally expressed that the findings of
Zeno provide us with some kind of paradox. Has it ever been suggested
that what could equally suggest a paradox could equally be a theory of
everything ? I think it is coming to the point now in our 'range of
realisation' (if we are not ignorant to it) that a theory for
everything is difficult to realise without making some kind of
'unobserved' but decisive point of reference.
What I am suggesting is that at this point a true TOE, can ONLY ever
be expressed in words. That is, if the physics community are unable to
agree that a proportionate relationship between zero and infinity
exists. Only then I will suggest that a TOE may be expressed in
function.
As mathematicians we should, and perhaps never will, dismiss the
findings of Zeno. As we have come to mathematically express physical
phenomena as well as the relationships and 'proportions' of physical
phenomena, quite rightly as someone in this very forum has pointed
out, there exists a certain plea of ignorance. This ignorance is
absolute in that it is near impossibility that a person will come to
realise an infinite set of things.
Calculus was never required to provide a mathematical basis for Zeno's
argument btw, although yes, it describes it well, and is example of
how the paradox runs true for classic field theory, and as far as I am
aware quantum explanations.
ZENO REVIEWED.
Generally, the formula of the paradox focused on the idea of motion,
utilising ABSOLUTE, points of reference within what I call a range of
realisation. I have been developing this philosophy for some time now,
and I am expecting to publish it within the year. I will talk about
this later, but first I will focus on a rather interesting other
aspect of the paradox. The aspect of the paradox I am talking about
refers to the issue of time. The idea of the paradox of motion could
equally be considered as a paradox of time, and the 'seemingly'
proportionate relationship between Velocity, Time and Distance.
If we remove time from the set of 'observables' that are required for
Zeno's experiment, we will end up with no paradox at all, and rather
something that explains itself quite nicely. The idea that an object
traversing infinite midpoints from A to B will 'never' meet its
destination wouldn't factor since the description 'never' is an object
itself procured from the idea of time. Never say never would become
DON'T say never rather.
RANGE OF REALISATION : And how it relates to all of this.
A range of realisation is the intersection between all that we come to
realise of observable physical phenomena as well as what we have come
to realise by representing physical phenomena. The idea of 'range of
realisation' is that it is embedded in the qualities of empirical fact
and reasoning, but is not rigid in these qualities since reflection
upon all available data in any system may provide postulates that step
outside this boundary or to revise 'accepted' representations within
the range. For instance; The idea that one can assume a
proportionality between zero and infinity comes from all expended
reasoning within the ranges of a realisation which can go no further,
providing therefore enough 'basis' for which to move forward and
assume things like zero/infinity equals 1.
If we go back to the statements provided at [Zeno reviewed] and we
consider the 'observables' that were required to build the paradox, we
can observe that speed is there, yes, that distance is there, yes, but
we cannot absolutely say that TIME is there. I will say this in other
places; Time has no physical substrate and cannot be measured. It can
be represented yes, but measured ? No.
My range of realisation.
1. I observe that the photon is massless, has velocity, has momentum,
and has energy.
2. Proportionality between the variables of physical activity are
inconsistent if we consider the full range of observation. In
practical physics they exist, but in actual physics they do not.
3. All variables may be considered to exhibit separate properties
which may be attributed to representation but have no 'actual'
proportional relationship to others, but for practical reasons appear
to be proportionate (in some cases directly or inversely, in other
cases neither).
I just think that these are important things to consider when trying
to find unifying principles behind a collection of theories, and
wanted to share them with the forum. Maybe they will be of use to the
creative seekers of a TOE. I'll be interested in all comments.
-y
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Evidence against emission theories
- Next by Date: Re: Einstein's equivalence principle doesn't apply to light
- Previous by thread: HELP! - Constant acceleration in SR and event horizon
- Next by thread: Re: Zeno's TOE and Y's Range of Realisation.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
