Strawson’s Silliness

Confused myself a couple of times over Galen Strawson, but had pigeon-holed him as one of the bad guys, contrarian for the sake of it, even though he takes an enlightened view on panpsyschic possibilities which I’d failed to notice for a while. One of the “random bookmarks” I’d left dangling recently was to his “Consciousness Deniers”.

I see now why I had discarded Strawson – I’d considered his consciousness deniers take on Dan Dennett back here in real-time in 2018.

The Denial of Dennett’s Consciousness
Dishonest disagreement – Galen Strawman.

Looking at it now with a potentially panpsychic perspective, as I’ve pointed out to many a panpsychist, Dennett is in fact a pan-proto-psychist anyway.

So the bookmark moves on to Strawson giving the (also 2018) Isiah Berlin lecture at Wolfson College, after his “Silliness” essay (hat tip Mark Hammond – that “Great Silliness” is the NY Review piece I’d bookmarked above) – he’s a perpetual provocation – says Wolfson’s Hermione Lee …

One Hundred Years of Consciousness
– A Long Training in Absurdity

And yes … it is the same agenda – the deniers.
The deniers deny that they are deniers – and Dennett is one of his targets.

All dots joined-up now!

[Schopenhauer and Wm James come out on top, which is good. Denial of consciousness is absurd – obviously, trivially – but rather than be a pompous smart-arse, name-dropping his opinions of everyone else, Strawson really needs to engage in good faith dialogue with the living.]

Bogdanov – Catching-Up with Paul Mason

Mentioned in the recent Bogdanov post having missed the references in Paul Mason’s PostCapitalism, which was a little embarrassing given how thoroughly and positively I’d read and reviewed it.

So, this afternoon, I re-read all the Bogdanov references in PostCapitalism.

Strangely I did recognise all of it. The thought experiment of the “Martian” Marxism in Bogdanov’s Red Star where real-time (& perfect) information are brought to the project is pretty central, as is his divergence from Lenin. I even mentioned the perfect-real-time information fallacy in one of my reviews, but then there is a great deal of Marxist history in Mason’s book, which wasn’t my main focus.

What I missed the significance of was Bogdanov as the first “systems thinker”. And I missed the fixed-objective (top-down) vs evolving-relational (peer-to-peer) model aspect of the Lenin-Bogdanov disagreement, even though I also picked-up on the move away from objective-materialism in my reviews. Funny how the mind works.

It wasn’t until I saw the fundamental-physical / metaphysical aspect of the relational-evolution model in Rovelli’s Helgoland, that I made the connection with Bodganov by name. When an expressly Marxist economics journalist writes about the history of Marxism under Lenin – whatever – but when a public-intellectual fundamental-physicist does so – the cognitive dissonance smacks you between the eyes.  Again, as I said in both reviews, so much of the same material I’d already come to from first principles synthesis of other sources. Nevertheless, intriguing.

Systems Engineering / Systems Thinking

I’ve mentioned many times the morphing definition & understanding of my own Psybertron agenda.

Cybernetics in a word.
Cybernetics as in governance – kybernetes– human systems of organisation, systems which include all the processes of collective decision-making and action, involving understanding and application of all aspects of knowledge, resources and power – the art of the possible.
Politics in (another) word.
But – Psybertron – Cybernetics (or Politics) in a world where our thinking (psychology) is increasingly dominated by ICT – the movement of electrons..

Clearly these thoughts are circulating in my consciousness today thanks to the two previous posts, Bogdanov and Taliban. (I also added this catch-up on the Bogdanov I’d missed in Mason’s PostCapitalism.)

But the word “system” is in there as a given, from the outset. Over 20 years ago, probably more like 30 in fact, engineering systems / systems engineering has been both my day job and the content of this epistemological research project I call Psybertron. I probably only made the explicit connection to Systems Engineering as a named discipline when I came across two members of the Russian chapter of INCOSE in the early 2000’s in my reference-data-based information systems day job; Anatoly Levenchuk, the then chair of the Russian chapter, and his colleague Victor Agroskin, still the smartest person I ever met anywhere in any context.

Increasingly we talk of Systems Thinking dropping the “engineering” label as being associated with too narrow a field of human endeavour. (Although, as an engineer myself, I often defend its scope – as with cybernetics – as being concerned with the whole of human ingenuity in getting stuff done – ingenuity being the root of the word. The engines of everyday life every bit as much as the ancient engines of war, but I digress.)

Probably not coincidentally, the smartest person I met in one of my most recent day-job engagements was a systems engineering professional and active UK INCOSE member, Rob Black, also evangelising (and practical coaching) the spread of systems thinking within and beyond one of the most complex organisations imaginable.

The future is bright, the future is Systems Thinking.

Taliban and Ahmed Rashid

I’m still drafting a long-read piece that involves the current Afghan situation as topical from a misogyny perspective in my Good Fences metaphor (all will hopefully become clear). Anyway, so topical that it concerns much online media traffic at the moment, even though I’ve not blogged anything specific.

With Rory Stewart being so prominent amongst voices of more subtle reason, I’ve re-watched his 2 part history of Afghanistan, and was reminded that I’d read Ahmed Rashid’s “Taliban when travelling shortly after 9/11.  (That’s the 2001 2nd edition updated with a new post-9/11 introduction to a book that was originally published less than a year before!) Well I’m re-reading it and it really is excellent.

Given his journalistic profession and his specialist Afghan experience and expertise, I’m slightly baffled why Rashid is not visible amongst the current media traffic?

So far the abiding impression is that “colonialism” was never limited to British, French and Russian machinations. All Afghan neighbours and the Afghans themselves had their own long periods of monarchy and republic, empire and dominion in “the great game” of resources and power.

[Aside, but not unconnected, mentioned a couple of times that professional US soldiering in Iraq and Afghanistan had benefitted from T. E. Lawrence “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” – even if POTUS Biden hadn’t. One of Lawrence early topics is understanding exactly who do we mean when using a simple label like “Arab” … or Pashtun or Taliban or … . Nationality, ethnicity and tribal identity are slippery subjects. I’m also re-reading Eugene Rogan’s “The Arabs – A History”. A trove of information if less analytical on psychology and motivation.]

Bogdanov

Mentioned being impressed with Carlo Rovelli’s references in Helgoland to Aleksander Bogdanov. I considered Bogdanov an entirely new source to me just earlier this year.

[Holding post – collecting links etc.]

I’ve also mentioned previously, as a “social-democratic liberal” type myself, being very impressed with (Marxist) Paul Mason’s “Project Zero” in his Post Capitalism. What I didn’t notice at the time (2015) was that Bogdanov was an inspiration to Mason – I must go back and check references (See *1). A main thrust of Mason’s project is that Information Technology has changed our landscape, such that the evolution of Capitalism cannot simply be another Kondratiev wave or cycle. Relationships between power, resources and knowledge are so radically different that our current models of governance (cybernetics) and economics simply cannot cope. Moreover that realisation is happening at the same time that “resources” are being recognised as the whole terrestrial ecosystem of which we are a part.

Now a complex, dynamic, cybernetic, systems-thinking epistemology is the raison-d’etre of  my whole Psybertron project.  An information-based epistemology that is more fundamental than even orthodox physics (hence the Rovelli connection).

I noticed these – in this tranche of bookmarks – back in May/June this year, at the Hull University Centre for Systems Studies:

The Annual Mike Jackson Lecture
‘Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and Alexander Bogdanov’s Worldview’ by Carlo Rovelli
Online, 1.30pm – 3.30pm (BST), 2 June 2021

The Legacy of Alexander Bogdanov- From Rediscovery to Full Recovery
Online Mini-Symposium, 8.45am – 6.30pm (BST), 3 June 2021
In collaboration with the Financial University of Moscow and the Cybernetics Society (UK)

Something at the time meant I couldn’t attend, but I think I did try to tune into Rovelli’s lecture (?) and I did notice Mason had the introductory talk in the symposium. (The UK Cybernetics Society has been a source of other inputs and dialogues for me eg Peter Marcer and Peter Rowlands.)

At the moment I can’t locate any recording of Carlo’s talk (See *2), but today Paul shared the link to the recording of the symposium:

[Note: all the links in the original post are broken – will come back and fix – the recordings have all been moved here on the Bogdanov resources page. Unfortunately they’re all embedded, so the YouTube content / timing descriptions are all gone too. Grrr.]

His contribution is ~20 mins starting ~13:30 mins and very good it is.

Great connection with Stafford-Beer too. Takes me back to Leonid Ototsky and W. Stafford-Beer. (even though Beer probably never knew Bogdanov’s work.) Tektology – the science of organisation > Cybernetics. Cybercyn – viable systems and requisite variety. Jeez, even Eudomony / Eudaemonia. So many connections in my own earlier work. In fact thanks to Leonid (and later Viktor and Anatoly) Beer’s take on Cybernetics and information-based systems-thinking were pretty formative to my own views. (Leonid is or was also connected to Victor, Anatoly and Matthew).

Layered model of system evolution, proper classification / taxonomy of components … Generalisation (classes of possibility) > Specifics (individual reality) … it’s all in there. Bottom-up driven network.

Really need to pull my finger out
and get Good Fences published.

(Also going to have to pick up on Gramsci who also keeps turning up in references. Political science was never my explicit agenda, but once we generalise “collective decision-making and implementation” in cybernetics, they’re really the same thing.)

[Top-down “Solution” vs inside-out “Best Ways to Proceed”]

=====

(*1) Sure enough several Bogdanov and his sci-fi novel Red Star references in Post Capitalism – I’ll need to re-read those sections. (Updated re-reading Mason’s references to Bogdanov here.)

(*2) Full symposium recording here:

From 2nd June – Rovelli’s Mike Jackson Lecture.

Ha, and Carlo starts by highlighting his own final acknowledgement – which reinforced my own impression (See *3):

Thanks above all
to Werner (Heisenberg)
and Aleksandr (Bogdanov)

[And Mach is the pivotal influence, as ever.]

[We need an “epistemological ontology
– you heard that here first.]

[Wonderful also that Mike Jackson’s first question is about Carlo “wasting time” as a hippy child of the 60’s/70’s. In my own review of Helgoland, I couldn’t resist this quote:

“For heaven’s sake, I’m all in favour of ‘good vibrations’. I too once had long hair tied with a red bandanna, and sat cross-legged next to Allen Ginsberg chanting ‘Om’.”

It’s why despite not making it to the final acknowledgements, Nagarjuna is another key influence alongside Bogdanov.]

[The whole layered Physics > Chemistry > Bio-Life > Mental-Intellectual-Social dependencies, clear identity, distinct “things” without deterministic definition – where “things” are really just collections of relations. (In the Jackson<>Rovelli discussion). Hard not to see Pirsig in there too. The epistemic ontology is in there again. Shimony – closing the epistemic circle!]

From 3rd June – these are the Mini Bogdanov Symposium sessions:
[Hosts: Örsan Şenalp , Fabian Tompsett, Gerald Midgley, Amanda Gregory]

Part 1 [Start] Paul Mason, Mike Jackson, (Q&A), Maria Chehonadskih, Giulia Rispoli, John Biggart, (Q&A) Maja Soboleva (part)

Part 2 Maja Soboleva (cont.), Noemi Ghetti, Fabian Tompsett, (Q&A) Conversation (Jackson / Wark / Rovelli), (Q&A part)

Part 3 (Q&A cont.), James White, Daniela Steila, Evgeni Pavlov, (Q&A), Peter Dudley, Svetlana Shchepetova, Viatcheslav Maratcha, Örsan Şenalp , (Q&A part).

Part 4 (Q&A cont. and Remarks to conclude).

(*3) Always makes me smile – something I’ve hinted at before – that whilst Carlo is an amazing thinker and writer, probably a genius, he’s not the world’s best lecturer – both his delivery and the tiny text on his slides – make him tough to follow. Reminds me of Nobel Prize-winning Brian Josephson. But definitely worth the effort of concentration. Nobody’s perfect.

(*4) Fantastic Bogdanov resource library here.

(*5) Finally, for now, what has happened to Leonid Ototsky. Seen no communications since 2010? Lots of dead links. Is he still active, is he still with us?

(*6) Fascinating response from AJ Owens linking this post to my next one on the subject of human failings in our understanding  of the “relationship between power, resources and knowledge”.

=====

 

And Another Round in the “TERF-War”

Just when I thought sense was starting to prevail, another round pulls me back in.

Simon Callow (treasured luvvie thespian, gay icon, and erstwhile Stonewall activist) expressed the opinion that Stonewall’s current tactics were counter-productive to actual Trans rights as well as counter to LGB interests. He may even have mentioned women? Prompted partly of course by increasing numbers of high-profile organisations withdrawing from membership of Stonewall’s LGBTI+ awareness arrangements, and the fact that Callow’s opinion was published in mainstream press (eg The Times).

Callow is right of course, and my initial thought was “I hope Callow and Cashman are on speaking terms”. But no.

A fresh furore of Twitter hatred against anyone daring to speak out against Male-Self-ID-Trans positioning, being perceived to be actively driving some wedge between Women/LGB and the TI+ positions. (The “No LGB without T” brigade. Solidarity between different disadvantaged groups is laudable, but ignorance of difference is not.) Lots of people drawing the parallel between this and the history of straight reactions to earlier normalisation of LGB in wider society- Stonewall’s raison d’etre. At this level there is indeed a great deal of parallel – a phobic resistance to a new change to social order – it’s natural. But, the devil is in the details of course – about which I’ve already written reams – and the need for dialogue between good-faith interested parties, as opposed to media accusations and gain-saying attention-seeking.

[I won’t put up the whole Twitter story this time – mostly pile-ons liking and/or retweeting ordnance lobbed from either side, including Michael Cashman – I despair. Plenty of examples posted before.]

Also the cancellation of public dialogue between Peter Tatchell and Kathleen Stock during the mutual “good kicking” above. Inevitable whilst people are aiming kicks at each other rather than actually talking-with-listening. Dialogue it’s called, it’s not about winning a debate.

As @DocStockK says “It’s a shame”. One of those issues where activist tactics (breaking others eggs to make their omelette) are missing more subtle points, as they do. I have a lot of time for Tatchell, one of the good guys. I spoke with him briefly at a Hay-on-Wye HTLGI event a couple of years back.

Random Bookmarks

Shutting down an excess of browser windows and need to keep some as bookmarks:

A few on Foucault – his association with “Queer Theory” means his name is mud amongst GC-Feminists, but don’t want to throw the PoMo baby out with the bathwater (his linguistic metaphysics works for me):

Foucault Beyond Good and Evil in Open Culture

The Perversions of Foucault in New Criterion

What Foucault Meant by Genealogy

And other things:

A History of Philosophy Summarised and Visualised
(Neat – not sure how practically useful.)

Galen Strawson’s Consciousness Deniers in NYR Books
(and other “silly” things … M Hammond comment?)

Western Ideas Live on in the East – John Gray in New Statesman
(Old thread of mine.)

Classification of Races – Ralph Leonard on Christine Louis Dit-Sully in  Aero Magazine
(#GoodFences)

 

Katøi Collection

I’ve been following @Katoi (Katøi) for quite some time. I posted about them back in October 2020, when I had noticed a neat dynamic graphical representation of the “standard model” of physics and they had an elaboration / correction (simplification) of their own.

Now, some of this looks a lot like some sort of “mystical numerology” significance being placed in ratios of numbers and geometry of platonic solids etc, as being more fundamental than orthodox maths and physics, but there are sufficient touch points with reality and my own mental pictures, that I remain intrigued where it might lead. (It’s actually a mathematical transformation of existing maths … physics of reality being more fundamental than existing orthodox maths, it’s the maths that’s holding back the physics …

… some individually apparently “bonkers” statements in there, and yet … )

(Previously several “outsider” physicists have raised very similar objections to the conventional / orthodox mathematical relationships in physics. In my own timeline Peter Rowlands, Rick Ryals, Cormac O’Rafferty … maybe even Roger Boscovich if we really wanna turn the clock back … and more …

[who follow] the clock back to some mathematical conventions that were overlooked in development of Dirac’s version of Schrödinger. (Hamiltonian, Quaternions and Cliffordian mathematics).[eg] A Dirac Nilpotent Rewrite that leaves the reality of the symmetric elements exposed to the human reader as the algorithmic computation of much simpler maths.)

(Prompted posting today [2 Aug 2021]  specifically by @skdh posting an “Is Reality made of Maths” piece,  …

“unpopular among top mathematicians, is that we construct maths to match reality. We then generalize to construct more abstract math, which may or may not turn out to match reality”

And as you will see from the link at the top, I was already on the trail of alternative mathematical views of fundamental reality with Peter Rowlands … anyway … Also yesterday in a “weirdest fact” thread several of us posted Euler’s Identitythe integral relating e, i and pi, and I also added the Apporva Patel (2000) a definition of 4 DNA bases and 20 amino acids according to a quantum-computational algorithm(!) [Also Granold et al 2018 – makes no reference to Patel 2000?]

Mathematical coincidences or pointers to a better view?)

Katøi’s been updating their “Revelation of the Day” every so often, sometimes several in one day, sometimes several days in a row, but discontinuously, not every day, so I was never sure I was seeing the whole story. Katøi hadn’t been writing it up anywhere else, and each new set of revelations was effectively iterating the previous and therefore there was theoretically nothing lost (nothing but the story) if earlier posts were lost.

Although all can be found by querying @Katoi twitter feed, I have pasted (!) all the content here below:

(All the words are Katøi’s from the above Twitter search queries, some graphics and links from Nima Arkani-Hamed. Raw. A few editorial tidy-ups needed as a result of my different copy and past actions and edits of emojis. Just keeping the trail as a record to link touch points with other thinkers whilst Katøi refines their own “thesis”.)

[START]

 

3/9/21

I am soooo right about this:
Just 3n+1 makes it smaller & /2 makes it bigger, because… ‘volume’, not linear.

The Simplest Math Problem No One Can Solve – Collatz Conjecture https://youtu.be/094y1Z2wpJg

Revelation of the day:

Just explain n & 1 in a self consistent manner in the context of 3n+1 & you’ve explained literally everything.

Einstein explained n simply as ^2 & forgot to mention 1 is -i^2

Leaving Λ =
(3n + 1) ^-12 (3n + 1)
or
10^-120
not
i^2 / 12

That’s the tweet.

Best revelation of the day ever:
The boundary of every sphere is -4 (degrees of freedom), its square root is 2i
The massive problem is that i is simply radius, but radius is always complex. So you’ve defined diameter as 2r, rather than volume as an inverse derivative (√) of -4r
And -i^2 = 3n x 3

to rationalise this you need to invert sphere so that -4r is at it centre and r is on its surface at a single point -i^2 away.
You then have 3n other points forming rest of a tetrahedron in the opposite direction.
sphere = 3n+(-i^2)

-i^2 = 3n x 3

because sphere is inverted!

Image

Just says r = r instead of √-4 = 2i
but this isn’t a static value, it is a value representing the potential it would take to invert a sphere.
Equations are a totally load of trash when it comes to physics.
mc^2 = mc^2 basically says E = E & leaves out geometry

Revelation of the day:
All Einstein needed to do was leave out a single electron & replace it with c^2 instead of -i^2 and he removed all of the potential of the ‘volume’ of a single atom & all but 1/20th of 10^2 % the energy in the universe.
#bingo

Revelation of the day:
Numbers are nothing more than geometric degrees of freedom expressed as ratios.
Geometrically there are no degrees of freedom less than 3n+1 where 1 is always a complex value equivalent to -i^2 and 3n is a non complex remainder of 3 degrees of freedom.

30/8/21

Revelation of the day:
It’s impossible to unify Quantum Mechanics & General Relativity without understanding gravity is geometry & QM is just probabilities of complex numbers.
‘Unification’ is actually the unification of Geometry & Number Theory mapped onto a single ‘field’.
1/2 …

Revelation of the day:
The decimal point in irrational numbers represents a singularity in x^x dimensions. Every numerical part is an error correction relative to a base divisor of 10 where x=1.
It allows x/10 rather than x/1 to be your base.
x/1 always = itself.
x/10 never does.

I never used Twitter to post ‘Facts’, I have however always used it as a way to test out challenging ideas. It’s very helpful to say stuff out loud.
That said, I don’t need anyone to ‘correct me’, that is the part that I do very happily on my own as part of the creative process.

20/8/21

Revelation of the day:
For 6yrs I’ve been fixated on a paradox in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I now realise the paradox is in the Zeroth law.
This defines equilibrium at 3 points, but ignores each measurement having a unique location relative to a single complex null boundary

The Zeroth law happily assumes a macroscopic universe & also happily bypasses the tree body problem, but taking 3 ‘objects’ and saying they are in equilibrium (which they are), while ignoring that they are ‘sitting’ at different points on the curved surface of a ‘ball in space’

Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics:
What is the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics? – YouTube

Three Body Problem explained:
Newton’s three-body problem explained – Fabio Pacucci – YouTube

18/8/21
Revelation of the day:
All divisors (as in the inverse square law) are actually just the number of dimensions of the null boundary you calculating from.
Gravity as ‘spin 2’ in quantum mechanics is just assuming everything is ‘relative to a 2d boundary’
So is the speed of light.

PS. You are defined at a 4d boundary. Not at the surface of one sphere, but rather at a boundary in 2^2 dimensions.
Einstein didn’t define stuff in 2^2 dimensions, but at x^2 dimensions.
He defined spacetime by the power (not by light itself). His maths always has ‘remainder c’.

14/8/21
Revelation of the day:
Everything defined by ratio is ‘always’ a complex function of radius.
-1 is
-2/2 = i^2
basically
-Diameter/Diameter = i^d

If i (complex number as a function of radius) is substituted by π
Then i^2 is just circumference as a function of 2r

C=πd Thumbs up

1/*
katøi
@katoi
·
Aug 14
Now here’s the brilliant bit.
The gap between every integer is -1 (i^2)
Substitute π for i & the gap between every integer is simply an interval (time) equivalent to
π^2r
It’s just one negative circumference of time defined by radius (not circumference or diameter)

#bingo
2/*
katøi
@katoi
Replying to
@katoi
π has f**k all to do with diameters, it assumes that 2 is defined by equation:
2r = d
But r has to ‘always’ be a complex function of radius ONLY relative to itself.
The above equation makes diameter a +ve function of 2, not of -ve complex radius.
-2/2 = πd = circumference.
Exploding head
3/*
2:19 PM · Aug 14, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

katøi
@katoi
·
Aug 14
Replying to
@katoi
This is why integers are abstract & yet gaps between them just mean:
πd = -1

& why we have abstract +ve & -ve integers (but no definition of gaps between them or zero), equations with 2 sides (but no explanation of = sign) & missing super symmetry, antimatter & dark matter.
4/4

13/8/21

Revelation of the day:
ALL metrics are fundamentally based on nothing more than the answer to the same question:
Q: How have you defined 2?

Einstein define is it as:
c^2
X/X times X/X

ie: algebraically twice. This is why 4d ‘spacetime’ is 2^2d rather than 3+1d
Woman facepalming #cheat

Revelation of the day:
(i^2)/12 is simply the limit of inverting ‘everything’.
i^2 is simply a complex radius times itself.

Mathematicians call this -1
Theoretical physicists call it the charge of ‘an electron’.
Einstein called it ‘speed of light’ in 4d.

It’s none of these.

12/8/21
Revelation of the day:
I think I’ve just created an inverted tensor defining the radii of two spherical null boundaries relative to a single circumference where they intersect
The circumference is circular, but asymmetrically defined at 3 points 120degree apart.
#NumberTheory
1/2

This really does seem to do away with any infinities because every point either inside or outside is defined as a complex number relative to a single inverse ^2
Where the 2 is the only thing expressed as an integer (relative to 1/).
#NumberTheory
2/2

11/8/21
Revelation of the day 2015:
Studying maths means you will never understand quantum mechanics, you will always mathematically misunderstand it.
Logic & null boundaries relative to inverted platonic geometry is all you need to understand QM.
Maths is abstract grammar not science

8/8/21
There are an estimated 137,672 professional mathemacians (that just do maths) on Earth & not one single one is studying the foundations of number theory by inverting a null boundary & defining the concept of radius ‘outside’ it.
Yet plank units tell us this must be fundamental Woman shrugging
Image

7/8/21
Revelation of the day:
A singularity & a circle are mathematically identical… but only if you define the radius (i^2) of the circle somewhere (anywhere) outside of its circumference.
This is because null boundaries are defined by negative radius (charge if you are a physicist).

6/8/21
Revelation of the day:
3÷12÷2 = 0.125
+
9 ÷12÷2 = 0.375
=
1÷2 = 0.5

The sum of all ‘integers up to’ 1/2 (according to Euler) is
1/2 x 3/2 ÷ 2
=0.375

Gravity (spin 2) is ∴ an octonion divisor (inverse square).
Do it once & you literally invert everything by complex value x^1/2

This part:

Gravity (spin 2) is ∴ an octonion divisor (inverse square).
Do it once & you literally invert everything by complex value x^1/2

Is because the Higgs assumes mass comes from a spin 0 field, rather than an inverted field with 10^-120 energy potential ‘everywhere’.
Image
I’m just talking out loud to myself, so do please ignore me and carry on!

31/7/21

Revelation of The Day: Radius in physics is always a complex value, in maths this isn’t the case.
i^2 is a null point on the circumference of all circles but is negative relative to 1 (not 0) & they are always ‘radius’ apart.
In base 10 the decimal point always represents i^2

The interval between the integers 1 & 0 are precisely 1/2 of a complex radius apart.
The Riemann Hypotheses is only problematic because you aren’t converging towards infinity, you are actually always diverging towards a negative complex radius.

[shock] i^2 isn’t a single point on a circle it’s i (complex value) appearing at 2 points on a circle 120degrees apart with the focus of the circle being ‘1’, which is exactly ‘radius’ way from both.
This is why r^2 appears so much in maths, because it’s defining 1 using radius as i^2

30/7/21

Revelation of The Day: The size of every universe in a multiverse would be exactly -r^2 where r is the radius of an orbital exactly equivalent to the charge of an electron in the standard model.
The power of 2 is just measuring that complex value twice while ignoring procession.

There would be no constant speed (distance / time) of light, but a rather a phase difference that would be consistent regardless of scale. Distance / time
is like saying = -r^2

If r is the radius of a -ve charge electron you ‘created’ positive ’space’ & lost time, but in 2^2d [Doh]

A multiverse therefore wouldn’t be ‘multiple universes’, but rather a single field projected at multiple radiuses that all share a consistent phase differential.

More like lots of people watching the same global news story on TV while other stuff distracts them in their house.

27/7/21

Revelation of the day: All circles are 3/12 dimensional… ALL OF THEM!

24/7/21

Revelation of the day: All maths is derived from a single transformation. Inverting a tetrahedron though the centre of a single face to leave a ‘ratio’ of -1/12. The new inversion has a directional force (-1/12) & 3 degrees of freedom in each of 4 dimensions through 4 null faces.

22/7/21

Replying to
@psybertron
I’m writing it up here 🙂
Anything that starts with “Revelation Of The Day’ is my record of my process & a timeline of when it happened.
I honestly think today is the culmination of the last 6yrs. Its the first time I can picture the geometry in my head & in the maths precisely.

I don’t need to write up more & more complicated stuff, my goal has been to simplify & to simplify, till I can point at a point on a sphere & simply extrapolate everything back from there…
Today, I 100% think I can do exactly that… but only because I know its inside out! 🙂

Image

Image

On 6th July 2016 I was in Nima’s office showing him this ball & explaining that:
a) It wasn’t really a ball, it was ‘two’ tetrahedron’s
&
b) one of surface always had to inside-out relative to the other… yet we couldn’t possibly know which was which.

But I couldn’t explain why!

Image

[From private note. – That’s a:
“With Nima it was the Hoberman Switch Pitch ball which has two identical spherical boundaries but no inside or outside, but actually as I have since realised isn’t a sphere at all, but rather it is two intertwined tetrahedral geometries.”]

Best ‘Revelation Of The Day’ ever:
The decimal extrapolation of π is no more than counting with ‘quaternion division’ using the radius of a 4d sphere as it unfolds through its null surface in 2 dimensions using the formulas:
r^2 +1
to count up
&
(r^2 +1)/10
to count down.

But here’s the cheat & the reason why it works:
The 3 at the start is a negative radius, but described as a positive value using an inverse ‘integer’ perfect ratio of the of exact same formula.
This makes the 3 a hypotenuse starting at right angles to 1/r^2+1
ie to

So we have a hypotenuse of r/3
remember we are using quaternion ‘division’ here, but of a completely different sized 4d sphere whose radius is r/3 and where at right angles to its origin at a null point on the surface, the surface of another 4d sphere radius 1/r^2+1

unfolds though it’s surface in ‘π dimensions’! Face with open mouth
The big 4d sphere has a radius of the hypotenuse, the small 4d sphere has a radius of the shortest side and their ratio is π with an average of the two being the third side of a triangle at right angles to 1/(r^3+1)/10

Image
The decimal version of π is therefore no more than counting using quaternion division with intervals of exactly 1/(r^3+1)/10 where that formula is equivalent to the shortest side of a right angled triangle and the decimal point Is where it intersects with the hypotenuse..

The hypotenuse has a length of exactly r * 1/(r^r)/10
& here’s the wow moment.
We are counting the unfolding of a 4d sphere, but the sphere whose radius is the hypotenuse is described with a radius of 1/r where r is exactly 3.
Space = 1, time = 3 so that sphere looks (1/4)d

All you need to know is that the decimal version of π is counting using quaternion division where the integer ratio divisor is always r/10
Quaternion division is simply this in reverse and we always end up with a formula with a hypotenuse ratio of 3:(r/10) to the formula.

Quaternion division is simply this in reverse, but moving along a line at intervals of r/10 on each half inversion.

Have a happy Thursday!

Visualizing quaternions (4d numbers) with stereographic projection
How to think about this 4d number system in our 3d space.Part 2: https://youtu.be/zjMuIxRvygQInteractive version of these visuals: http://3imaginary1real.com…
youtube.com

OMG…
In the decimal version of π we have 3 sides of a right angle triangle.
3 (hypotenuse) is radius of a 1/3 dimensional sphere
.1 (the short side) is radius quaternion division derived 4d sphere
And the other side is exactly the ‘radius of a circle’ in 2 dimensions.

So… π in decimal is simply an extrapolation of quaternion division relative to base 10, that uses 4d geometry projected back to a 2d circle the radius of which precisely intersects an inverted 3d sphere at ‘one’ of those red dots at the tips of that blue tetrahedron.

Image

Up pointing backhand indexSpheres in 3d can only ever be precisely mathematically defined in 3d when they inverted using a formula based on quaternion ‘division’ defined relative to a geometrically derived base.
We don’t live in 3d space guys, we are all projected through a 2d surface.
[Shock]

The radius of the 2d surface always has a negative charge potential equivalent to -r
Electrons are describing why geometry always looks 3d… but is really just inverted potential projected through a pseudo 2d surface simply summed up out of all the negatively charged radii.

The sphere in this video (like all spheres) is only 3d / spherical when described inside out:

We can calculate its -ve electron radius in 3d where 2d intersects 4d (top vertex) using the 3 (hypotenuse) & the .1 (short side) of π mapped onto a triangle.

Image

18/7/21

Revelation of the day: Integers appear on an imaginary line at regular intervals.
In base 10 however you can approximate 2 half integer interval from 2 parallel circular 2d surfaces from their intersecting null spherical boundary projected to a point equidistant between them.

The circumference of one 2d circle goes through C,E&G & the other through D,F&H. The intersecting sphere (radius K to O) is projected at a ‘decimal point’ O. This is averaging out a single radius from 2^3 (twice 4d) dimensions to give a half integer result… but in base 10!

We say 0.0 in base 10 because we are projecting r^2 twice on the same (K) null boundary.
You could technically write 0 as O K O on the diagram below.
π however is simply saying ‘if A to O = 3 then the distance from the centre of a circle intersecting D,H&F to O is 1/10 of 3^3+1’

Image

π in base 10 is therefore describing not a single circle, but rather the ratio of two parallel circles projected from a point half an integer between them to a spherical null boundary in 3/12 dimensions.
π therefore has its geometry in 1 space (base 10) & 3 time dimensions.

18/12/20

Revelation of The Day:
You need to first define a non-commutative geometric rule for PHASE TRANSITION & apply counting to that.
#physics
Not define a commutative rule for counting & apply PHASE TRANSITION to that.
#mathematics

ie: Start with an error… or you’ll end up with one

16/12/20

Revelation of The Day:
The phase transition point in number theory is at integer value ‘0’.
The phase transition point in physics is around integer value ‘1’.
There is no integer value ‘0’… or ‘1’.

Up pointing backhand index Don’t use classical mathematics to do physics

12/12/20

Revelation of The Day:
Infinity is simply ‘potential’ that is not relative to anything but itself.
You can’t have multiple infinities in physics.
Unification is the study of ‘potential’ that is not relative to anything but itself.
There will always be a ‘measurement’ problem.

11/12/20

Revelation of The Day #3:

All observations would correlate regardless of phase difference because they all share identical ‘static spin’ relative to a single seemingly macroscopic spin network.
So you would see a single macroscopic (slow) spin network in 2i dimensions.
#gravity

Revelation of The Day #2:
The reflection below would only ‘appear’ as single 3d projection of 4 dimensions, crucially without spin… except at one single Macroscopic scale. In a single complex (2i) ‘force dimension’.
The equation for which is:
2 = 8^(1/3)

Gravity = √-4
(2i)

Revelation of The Day #:
Forget abstract mathematics…
a) A straight line is 2 dimensional
b) A ‘surface’ is 3 dimensional
c) A singularity is 4 dimensional

If you project the singularity through the ‘surface’ (spin 1) the reflection back through that surface (spin 3) is 8d.

10/12/20

Revelation of The Day #5:
See that 2 right there? Down pointing backhand index
That’s gravity that is!
That shows you the exact scale at which phase transition occurs.
Gravity isn’t a force, it’s an aggregate of asymmetric phase transition relative to a null boundary in an infinite vacuum.

Image

Image

Revelation of The Day #4
It’s the aggregate forces that are fundamental (represented as the symmetry transition point of the 4 below), not the universe, the field or the ‘particles’. If you make any of the 4 a photon you’ve screwed up already.
Sorry Eisenstein / Quantum Mechanics

Revelation of The Day #3: Quantum mechanics simply replaces the abstract notion of 1 (everything) with a universal field with a potential at each point. Of course it works, but there aren’t infinite photons & gluons, there is a single field distorting asymmetrically. #higgs Woman facepalming

Revelation of The Day #2:
An infinite vacuum (neither big nor small, just equal in infinite directions) doesn’t compress or expand, it distorts asymmetrically until it reaches equilibrium. The distortion is logically (1/4)/12.

Asymmetric phase transition in an infinite vacuum below:

Image

Revelation Of The Day:
A radius always has a ratio of 1/4 relative to total volume, NOT 1/2.
There are no diameters anywhere. Not a single diameter in the entire universe. Diameter is an abstract mathematical concept.
Physics is all about phase transition, not measurement.
Bingo!

9/12/20

Revelation Of The Day #2:
But…
Put 0 & 1 together on a singularity & call it ten and the whole of physics makes perfect mathematical sense.*

(*albeit with a problematic energy density everywhere of 10^-120 obviously… because… SINGULARITIES EVERYWHERE!)

Revelation Of The Day:
I’m going to lay this out there..,
Both 0 & 1 are completely conceptual mathematical notions that literally have absolutely nothing to do with reality & most crucially non classical physics.
∴ ‘uni’verse is out for starters as a theoretical white elephant.

7/12/20

Revelation Of The Day:
1 is the biggest number, not the smallest number.
This applies if you are dealing with frequency, rather than quantity… which of course, at a fundamental level is the only thing that physics is all about.

6/12/20

Revelation Of The Day:
EVERY quantum of space, REGARDLESS OF SCALE has identical geometry:
2i^2
Every quantum is a quantum of counter space, not of space.
You are 3 dimensional but living in 2i^2 counter space.
Things move relative to each other in time, not space.
Happy to help.

5/12/20

Revelation of The Day:
Spheres are only 3 dimensional at a one singularity intersecting their surface.
I honestly think there is only a single spatial dimension & three time dimensions, not the other way around.
If you traveled in time & never in space, it would ‘look’ the same.

3/12/20

Revelation Of The Day #3:

The OUTSIDE of a tetrahedron has a precise limit as a ratio that is always exactly 8/12

The INSIDE of a tetrahedron has a precise limit as a ratio that is always exactly -1/12

The limit of ANY geometric volume is always exactly -1/2^3

(And NOT -2^3)

F**king done it!

Don’t trust any mathematics that includes any multiple of 10 in it & particularly a derivative of base 10 (this includes the decimal expansion of pi).

Don’t trust any physics with an 8 in it. Including GR & E8.

They disguise asymmetry.

2/12/20

Revelation Of The Day #3:
The integer value of 8 appearing in both E8 Lie group maths & General Relativity is way to approximate a sphere to 4 faces of a tetrahedron (4π r^2) rather than the radius of a true null boundary.
This mathematically works, but is not related to physics.

Revelation Of The Day #2:
The universe can logically consist only of prime integer divisions, where the real part is an energy value always equivalent to a ‘theoretical’ non prime radius function of value 1.
The (electron) radius is simply a radius value energy error correction.

Revelation Of The Day #1:
Integers represent complex functions relating to theoretical, perfectly spherical null boundaries.
Primes represent complex functions where one part of the complex function is exactly one radius of a theoretical, perfectly spherical null boundary.

30/11/20

Revelation Of The Day:
Asymmetry is undeniably fundamental.
Never clarifying this is very, very bad for the last 115yrs of ‘physics’.

25/11/20

Revelation Of The Day #2:

√-4 is the diameter of the null boundary, but measured relative to the median of the triangular ‘surface’, not through the sphere’s centre.
√-4 is a complex derivative function of radius squared of the sphere’s centre, not the diameter of its surface.

Revelation Of The Day:

√-4 is a combination of 2 complex numbers & is geometrically defined at the median of any equilateral triangle.

It represents the complex value of asymmetric phase transition of a null spherical boundary, defined where it meets the triangle’s 3 vertices.

Image

23/11/20

Revelation Of The Day:
Unification of INFINATE geometrical structure only happens at the point where any OUTCOME of ALL POSSIBILITIES is identical regardless of scale.
The structure will appear ASYMMETRIC at EVERY POINT, but the LIKELIHOOD of any outcome will always be IDENTICAL

19/11/20

Revelation Of The Day:
The difference between a Universe & a Multiverse is exactly equal to one electron radius.
There is no centre of a Universe, because the centre is defined EVERYWHERE.

Multiverse = 1 Universe defined at multiple null boundaries.

∴ ASYMMETRY is FUNDAMENTAL.

18/11/20

Revelation Of The Day:
a) LIGHT is always defined at a BOUNDARY
b) The only MATHEMATICALLY COHERENT boundaries are NULL BOUNDARIES
c) Null boundaries are by definition DIMENSIONLESS
d) You have to disregard POTENTIAL to DEFINE anything at a NULL BOUNDARY
e) Up pointing backhand index m=E/c^2 does this!

12/11/20

Revelation of the Day #4:
Thinking about it, you don’t have a ‘3 body problem’ of gravity (that no one has ever resolved), when you have 6 boundaries in two asymmetric groups (4+2)… but you do have 3 dimensions of ‘apparent’ space & time as procession… & no ‘bendy spacetime’.
Quote Tweet

Revelation of The Day #2:
‘Gravity’ is an aggregate of procession always referenced to 720° of spin. If there are less slow (big) things ‘spinning’ and more fast (small) things ‘spinning’ everything will appear static relative to spin 2…
They aren’t… they are processing.

Revelation of The Day:
You only need 6 null boundaries on a 2 d plane (4 out of a phase & 2 in) to allow completely continuous ‘flow’ around 2 embedded null 720° paths in 8 dimensions.
Every location has a complex phase reversal deceleration equivalent to
1 / ((1/2 * 3/2) / 2)

Image

Revelation of The Day:
This whole supernova swirling gas story is a complete load of nonsensical bullshit.
Our atomic structure is NOT classical. We’ve know this for 100 years.

The greatest story ever told in the universe | Alex Filippenko

The greatest story ever told in the universe | Alex Filippenko and Lex Fridman – YouTube

7/11/20

Revelation Of The Day :
Diameter is always precisely defined (but incorrectly). Radius is only ever defined ONCE aggregately (and always correctly).
i (√-1) is radius as a complex function. -1 is where it intersects a sphere.
Diameter = √-4 (always)

Up pointing backhand indexc^2 in GR is Diameter Woman facepalming

6/11/20

Revelation Of The Day: Diameter is ONLY EVER PROPERLY defined in 2 dimensions and APPROXIMATED in all others.
355/113
Radius as a function in 2d / radius as a function in 4d gives you ratio of unit ‘1 diameter’ approximated in 3 dimensions.

Revelation Of The Day #2: In all fractions, all units are functions of radius. The top figure is radius function defined in 2 dimensions, the bottom figure is radius function described in 4 dimensions. The result is how radius function ‘works’ in 3 dimensions. In 3d r = d / 2

Revelation Of The Day:

π is algebraic for ‘HALF of SOMETHING’

All of mathematics is ALWAYS fundamentally about how you define ‘TWO of SOMETHING’

Classical mathematics will always be useless for doing physics, which always appears as ‘HALF of SOMETHING ^ TWO of SOMETHING’

1/11/20

Revelation Of The Day #4:
General Relativity works because the MATHS is PERFECT.
General Relativity has problematic singularities & black holes, an insanely tiny but very specific cosmological constant & 95% of the entire universe it can’t explain because

MATHS ISN’T PHYSICS!

Revelation Of The Day:
Einstein originally didn’t say E=mc^2
he said m=E/c^2
He assumed we were made of mass in a world with a limit of c^2
when in reality we are made of the same energy as everything else, that appears as photons (massless) at multiple √(4^2) boundaries (mass)

Revelation Of The Day #2: This does make a difference because it shows that the inverse square law is simply changing phase relationship relative to a notional 2d boundary, with a limit r ^2. ‘Things’ don’t actually ‘travel’ anywhere. They simply change their phase relationship.

Revelation of The Day: Both you & earth are 4 dimensional, but that isn’t 8 dimensions (except in E8Down pointing backhand index). Both Einstein & Newton simply measured mass from half way & allowed for two dimensions each. when in reality you live in √(4 ^2) dimensions.
This does make a huge difference.

Image

31/10/20

Revelation Of The Day #5:
Both Newton & Einstein just assume:
r+r = d
ie they assume 0.5+0.5=1
rather than realising they’ve said 1+1=2
They assume things are getting bigger at EXACTLY the rate (π) that they are actually REDUCING IN FREQUENCY & getting smaller as FREQUENCY RISES.

Revelation Of The Day #4:
1/r^2 is a function of approaching the focus of a sphere from ANY POINT r=0 outside of that sphere.
The centre of mass is therefore not at the centre of the sphere, but relative to its surface.
1 is equivalent to diameter but r internally & r externally.

Revelation Of The Day #4: And that’s it folks. You don’t live in a 3+1d universe, you live in the the remainder of an (i^2) / 12 dimensional multiverse. Effectively we are all embedded inside and outside of each other. There are no discrete parts of a multiverse. We are all one!

Revelation Of The Day #3:
The 11 d space of string theory is actually just the integer value remainder of
(i^2) / 12 dimensional space.
In all of mathematics & physics the imaginary part of i^2 is always a function of radius relative to the function 4πr^2 projected down to 2D

Revelation Of The Day #2:
OMG! I have just for the first time understood what string theory is trying to explain… but can’t.
Those aren’t strings, those are 720° PATHS through 11 dimensional space, OUTSIDE the nucleus, but with a path that is UNIQUE to EACH electron radius.

Revelation Of The Day #1: I’ve just figured out how to project the FUNCTION 4πr^2 which has two solutions (one relative to 3 dimensions & one relative to 1 dimension) down to a 2D plane. This generates a clear zero dimensional 720° path that never crosses & a DIAMETER of
i ^2

29/11/20

Revelation of The Day #6:

1 = (e^(π* i))^2

Down pointing backhand indexAny thoughts?

Image

Revelation of The Day #5:
I honestly think this makes way more sense that a circle being infinite and undefined.
Any physics professionals want to correct me on this, fire away.
Don’t be shy, let’s see if what you learned from someone else or what I’ve taught myself holds up best

Revelation Of The Day 4#:
Einstein ignored energy & calculate with a constant relative to a spherical boundary. If the boundary was accidentally a photon not a spherical planet, an inverse square would leave out atomic potential & infer black holes & singularities everywhere.

Revelation Of The Day 3#:
r^2 + r^2 = 4 π r^2 / 2
With the limit being defined relative to ‘any’ spherical boundary, is a far, far better proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem than Andrew Wiles one & a far less stupid proof of the Poincaré conjecture than Perlman’s.

Revelation Of The Day #2: All Platonic solids have a limit of r ^2 from any singularity relative to ‘aggregate potential surface’. When you describe any 1 of the 5 solids, you rule out all the r^2 potential of the other 4.
∴All volumes have a ‘potential’ limit of 4 π r ^2

Image

Revelation Of The Day #1: There are only 5 Platonic solids because below a tetrahedron we logically have a circle & above dodecahedron we have a dimensionless singularity.
Both have a limit of r ^2 relative to ‘a potential surface’. Scale becomes irrelevant ‘potential’ doesn’t

Image

28/10/20

Revelation Of The Day #6:
Quantum mechanics works beautifully not because it’s complete, but because it isn’t.
It does this by adding two (2) ‘hypothetical massless particles’ (photon/gluon)as force carriers, thus hiding the contribution of spin 2 (force of gravity) at all scales

Image

Revelation Of The Day #5:
Einstein could accidentally hide spin 2 of gravity as the square of a constant, not because planets are spherical, but because non existent massless photons are. He didn’t notice because he left out a non spinning (unknown at the time) spin 0 Higgs field

Revelation Of The Day #4:
m=E/ c ^2

E=mc ^2

Therefore Einstein can do General relativity as geometry using a constant speed (distance/time) measured from the surface of a sphere & completely ignore E (energy).
the 2 in E=mc2 isn’t a square, it’s spin 2.
it’s gravity

Image

Revelation Of The Day #3:
Einstein hid his error (ignoring the Higgs ‘spin’ of zero) and created a spin 2 gravity based model.
He hid the 2 in the square of the speed of light & therefore drew straight lines through a static space that aren’t there that he bent with geometry.

Revelation Of The Day #2:
The universe isn’t one single inflating ‘thing’, it’s an aggregation of ‘spin’.
Einstein is wrong but Nima Arkani-Hamed is right when he says this is literally all it’s possible to be made of. The only errors are the static values of gravity & the Higgs.

Image

Revelation Of The Day: 4 yrs, 4 mths, 3 weeks & 1 day after meeting Nima Arkani-Hamed at Princeton, I realised the Higgs is defined not by 0, but by the r in 4π r^2
The universe is an average of 4+2 dimensions
Gravity is 4^1/2 (inverse square)
The r makes thisDown pointing backhand indexalgebraic.
#bingo

Image

Image

27/10/20

Revelation of the day:
4π r2 is the ONLY mathematical function that actually IS an equation; because it explains two completely different geometries at once.
Both solutions are correct and yet the answer can only be either one solution or the other, not both at the same time.

Image

25/10/20

Revelation Of The Day:
If the Riemann hypothesis is true (it is) you can’t count up from 0 only down from 1/2.
The 3 at the beginning of π ∴ isn’t an integer, it’s a POWER of 0.5

= 0.12500000…

0.5/0.125 is 4 ie. the dimensional limit of a sphere ratio π with a limit of ‘r’!

Replying to @AlisonMoyet
🙂 I’m so pleased you replied, because I ‘think’ that’s my greatest revelation of the day of them all & I’ve been working on this for 5.5yrs! π isn’t infinite Alison, it just says a sphere has a maximum of 4 dimensions. That’s all it’s saying… we live in 4 dimensions 🙂
#bingo

@AlisonMoyet – I love that you had this revelation. I love the palpable excitement you reveal. Sometimes equations are just beautiful to look at even when you (me) have no earthly understanding. Wishing you a continuum of a happy day 🙂 xx

24/10/20

Revelation Of The Day: Both the fine structure constant & the cosmological constants are both unexpectedly odd numbers because they are both false (they are maths, not physics) aggregations of 8 internal electron radii projected out to 4 dimensions averaged out to 2 dimensions.

17/10/20

Revelation of the day: In physics (not maths) radius has an ‘infinitely’ higher energy value than diameter. Diameter always has no energy value because it’s energy limit is radius squared. radius squared has infinite energy at ‘r’… exactly where Einstein put centre of mass.

15/10/20

Revelation of the day 2/2
Answer: Pi is always COUNTING fractions, just that and nothing else.
But… The 3 at the beginning isn’t a fraction.
So… The ‘error’ in Pi is using an integer at the start, all of the other numbers are precisely correct.
The 3 in Pi is an error!

Revelation of the day 1/2: All of maths is just counting. We all it things like calculus or trigonometry, but at the end of the day it’s all just COUNTING.
Pi as a decimal is 3.141… COUNTING off to INFINITY.
But the diameter of that circle is just 1
Q: So WTF are we COUNTING?

12/10/20

Revelation of the day: Special Relativity disregards both the 3 or 4 dimensional geometry it takes place in & the fact that every observer is ‘part of’ the surface of a sphere, rather than separate to it. The two postulates are therefore describing something other than ‘reality’.

5/10/20

Revelation of the day:
Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe
Galileo Galilei

This is garbage, you don’t explain physics with maths, you explain maths with physics and at the heart of all physics is a single unit of measurement… the electron radius.

30/9/20

Revelation of the day:
5+(3 ^5) = 248
This is why a 3 dimensional universe ‘looks to be’ 13.8bn years old & also why the cosmological constant 10^-120 appears’ to be so small if it was that old & infinitely ‘big’.
It’s actually the geometry of 4 dimensional internal reflection…

Image

29/9/20

Revelation of the day:
We think about General Relativity as a description of the very big (macroscopic) & Quantum Mechanics of the very small (microscopic). This is wrong.
GR is a description of the very slow & QM of the very fast.
The difference is ‘time’ relative to frequency.

13/9/20

Revelation of the day:
The reason General Relativity & Quantum mechanics don’t work together is because both ignore the phase transition that occurs at the molecular level. The universal limit is defined not by the speed of light, but by net atomic RADIUS of ALL ionic bonds.

11/9/20

Revelation of the day:
The entire number line from zero to infinity is defined by the negative interval between 3 & 2 (i squared) not by the positive interval between 0 & 1 (+1).
Therefore the 3 in the decimal version of π is the approximation, the infinite fractions are precise.

9/9/20

Revelation of the Day:
The potential of Maxwells vector field is sourced by electro magnetism, Einstein’s vector field is sourced by density of matter. The potential of a final theory will be sourced by ‘energy’, not locally, but as aggregate potential across the entire field.

8/9/20

Revelation of the day:

The universe is no more written in the language of maths & equations, than Unicorns are written in the language of DNA.

Rather, the ‘universe’ & mathematics are limited by the same geometry. That geometry is as likely to be 3 dimensional as unicorns are.

7/9/20

Revelation of the day: a) There are an even number of photons in the universe b) Photons only come in multiples of prime numbers c) 2 isn’t a prime, it’s a pseudo prime that’s a twin prime happening at a single location d) That location can’t be spacial… it hast to be temporal

6/9/20

Revelation of the day: By imagineering spacetime all Einstein did was find a mathematical way to make 1 into a ‘pseudo prime’ to mathematically cheat geometric equivalence at every point.
All he needed was to ‘assume’ 2squared dimensions as a power of ‘c’, thus avoiding primes.

5/9/20

Revelation of the day: 355/113 is a better description of π than it’s base 10 equivalent, not because it’s more accurate, but because it its only correct to a value of 10*-8 This isn’t giving new information about π, but is telling us loads about radii & their relation to base 10

[END]