Hi- I was wondering what you had found that you referred to before- I need all the ingredients I can find to more fully map this theory out.
The whole theory can be built up as an inevitably logical fact (I think).
Remember Einstein's Equivalence Principle? Well there's an equivalence principle here of sorts.
An object is a 'change'. A boundary is a change, and you can't have an object without a boundary.
(And a boundary requires two sides; but two sides of what? Three is one, and one is three; for every object)
Now, abstractly you can see that a velocity, being a change involving an object (change); can be seen as two 'objects' or boundaries.
And an acceleration, being a change in the velocity change of the object (change); must involve three 'objects' or boundaries.
Now, what happens when you draw a line at right angles to another? You have just one point fixed in the one line, that is the one dimension of freedom (back and forth direction gives two options on that line).
And you have your second line giving you two options (back and forth) that are not available to the first line- you have a second dimension.
Same applies if you draw in a line at right angles to the first two.
If you displace this 3-D arrangement in time; the same pattern has been repeated when you created new dimensions. You've got a fixed point (the whole 3-D pattern) given two new options (back and forth in time) so a new dimension (time).
Time is effectively at right angles. But you could take any perspective from a freedom point of view on all this. You could regard any of your dimensions as the 'time' one, as the whole arrangement looks the same whatever you call each dimension.
Thus you have the possibility of jumping from one orthogonal perspective to another. And each dimension is made of 'back and forth' options, two options. 'Musical chairs' involves two options: child on a chair, child not on a chair.
And two sets of two options has the effect of creating a third pair of options by matching the two pairs.
If you look at it, every physics scenario is reducible to pattern matching. And pattern matching is reducible to a minimum three-way jump scenario.
I think physicists have already decided that waves can be viewed as a quantized field. Maybe they already admit simple harmonic oscillation reduces to simple jump oscillation. Maybe I re-invent the wheel somewhat here.
But by mapping physics scenarios into a logic built from simple jump-field relativity, I think you can get astonishing resolving power of explaining mysteries (even outside the subject physics).
I think there is a strong parrallel to what I'm doing and what Dick did in his paper.
Thanks for the book tip; I've run out of time to write more just now but am reading physics/ math trying to get more up to speed to figure out this theory better.
-dolphin |