Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
If Read This.....

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on November 14, 2003 11:48:16 UTC

Adjusted from what I wrote re: a sample of stuff I wrote:

Two people who I referred to in my material: Dr. Richard Stafford, and Christopher Langan; have their work available on the internet:

For Chris Langan's work:
where a link is given (The CTMU: A New Kind of Reality Theory was recently published in the scientific journal, Progress in Complexity, Information and Design. The abstract and full paper can be downloaded here .

Dr. Stafford's paper is on the internet at .

I met Dr. Stafford on an internet discussion forum.

I felt that his idea that much of what we regard as the laws of physics may involve circular reasoning, was interesting.

I came to the idea after discussing his work, that it could be done very simply without mathematics. I showed his work to a mathematician. The mathematician felt his work was "much ado about nothing"; but agreed with me that it did not need mathematics: it could be described as "intersecting categories". Dr. Stafford himself acknowledges that his paper is about "assignment of definitions".

I was invited to participate in a discussion forum that involves Christopher Langan's work. I think I have found how his ideas and Dr. Stafford's ideas are linked.

I am extremely interested in Tom Manz's "space mixing " ideas as they are very close to a way of mapping physics that I have uncovered (which is a more general system than Dr. Stafford's, but seems to incorporate what he found and allow many other theories to be harmonised also.)

A theoretical physicist at my local University encouraged me to try to explain my ideas as clearly as possible and get them published.

What I sent was material in a rough state; probably not sufficiently formally organised to journal standard. I had a lot more material but did not want to send too much. So I omitted the material where I laid the foundations of what I sent.

To clarify what I sent here is an abstract with some underlying principals typed impromptu just now:


1. The idea of "comparing and matching patterns":

I once was about to open a door. I suddenly noticed that the key I was about to use was the wrong key.
It was a key I was used to using as I was used to opening a different door.

I had seen "door"; knew I needed "key"; but was not paying attention enough to note "different door this time: so need different key".

I thought about this and realised that I could describe "thinking" as involving comparing and matching patterns (such as matching the pattern of key with the pattern of door, to get the correct MATCH )

NOTE: the concept "MATCH" looks independent of time and space. A robot-rover on Mars matches the blueprint of its construction on Earth.

2. The idea of "definition":

John Hospers, in "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" describes how words are defined by a process of broadening and narrowing. Page 26: "The problem is to get all the defining characteristics into the definition, but none that are not defining. In other words, a definition must be adequate to the possible as well as the actual cases. We want to know what are the characteristics, the presence of which would entitle something to be called an elephant and the absence of which would keep it from being called one. To know this, we must go beyond the range of the actual things to which the word is applied."

"The practical test in fact, when we wish to know whether any proposed definition is a true one or not, is to try whether by conceivable variation of circumstances we can cause it to break down, by its exclusion of what we are resolved to retain, or its inclusion of what we are resolved to reject."

(E.g. If you were claiming an item of lost property, and said that what you lost was a green cell-phone; but the lost property office held actually a blue one; your claim would fail; as the phone they hold excludes the colour you retained in your definition of your phone.
If you said that your lost cell-phone was not internet-capable; and this feature that your definition rejects was in fact a feature the lost property ofice phone included, then it is defined as not your phone that they hold.)

3. The idea of broadening ansd narrowing intersecting categories when defining something:

Example: "Car" is a broad category. How to define "your car" in terms of categories?

You could take another broad category "your city" and like intersecting sets in a Venn diagram: define "your car"
as where "car" overlaps "your city" (so EXCLUDING cars not in your city, and INCLUDING cars in your city).

("Space-mixing" description: if "car" is any word; and "your city" is any other word say; you could simply say that "where these two spaces MIX is where a boundary is placed on "car" and a boundary placed on "your city" specifying a region where these concepts SHARE a mutual space. )

We know what "car" and "your city" mean; but if we just said category "A" met category "B": you might say "A" is narrowed down in its overlap with "B" just as your "car" was narrowed down by saying it was in "your city". But you might wish to broaden the definition of your "car" by saying "in October 2003", because perhaps your car was not in your city before or after that period.
"Your city" has now been narrowed down to "in October 2003"; while your "car" has been broadened away from the sweeping generalisation "your city" to allow for times it was not in your city.

And so by a process of intersecting categories, and of broadening and narrowing; a boundary is strengthened around the definition of your car.

My idea is that Dr. Stafford's "partial differentiation" and his "Summation of differences over Dirac delta functions" can be seen in this way. Further, a great deal of physics flows readily from this approach; numerous laws can be mapped; Maxwell's "div." and "curl" are extremely obvious in the broadening (divergence) and narrowing (curl).

Note: I found I need just regard for example: "electro" as "generalisation"; and "magnetic" as "specification; and "mass" as "uncertainty"; and "force" as "freedom surface"; and "light" as "comparison"; and "distance" as "uncertainty"; and "time" as "referent self-reference" (e.g. a pendulum self-refers by retracing alleged same path) to map laws very succesfully.

4. The idea of mapping physics as "a discussion where views are exchanged", where every voice has a hearing.

When people discuss ideas; they consider different points of view; may change their view to accomodate new ideas; re-juggle their thoughts etc. When looking at Richard Feynman's description of sub-atomic particle physics, I realised that it looked like the patterns of possible changes in opinion that can occur in a free discussion. Example: "weak force" translates to "a pattern juggled out, re-juggled back in".

5. The idea that: the numbers we use in mathematics are assumed to be equally spaced but this seems built on a self-referencing system reminiscent of the "Zeno's Arrow" so-called paradox:

Dr. Stafford talks of "data transmission part of the explanation" and questions "what is a rigid object"; Peter Lynds notes that position may be regarded as not precisely defined in a relative motion scenario; Chris Langan refers to Paul Wheeler and the idea of "question and answer together"; you refer to the idea of space not being rigidly defined I think; what I have done is question the rigidity of our number system: the assumption that the units in our numbers are of equal size.

How do you know that the units in 5 are all the same size?


I look at the idea of exchanges of viewpoint in a discussion, and the creation of mutual common ground.
I look at this with the Leibnitz equation for pi; pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 -1/11 etc.

If two parties meet and create common ground: I consider this as three regions: what each party retained (so 2 regions) and their mutual common ground as a third region (a space-mixed region say).

I consider the idea that this mixed region could be regarded as like a "child" of the original parties; and that further discussion would
take account of this "mixing region" perspective. A new exchange of views to create a new common ground would be built by modifying the "minus a thirds"s: now each party gets something back in making a new mutual ground, itself called a fourth party; the previous common ground (which was a third party born of discussion) gave something back to both original perspectives that made it,
so you get 5 modifications to the -1/3 stage; so +1/5. (The book "An Eternal Golden Braid. Godel, Escher, Bach" actually mentions these recursive loops in the Leibnitz equation for pi)

What I did not specify in detail is exactly how physics patterns (QED etc.) appear implied in this "every way agreement (common ground) can happen" look at Pi. I regarded "space-time" as "pattern compared with pattern (so: a comparison space for patterns to share common ground) meets new comparison (so a new reference for the self-referent patterns)(so "time" just as a pendulum self-refers to calibrate its time). The "4" in pi/4 is this new view of "space-time" as "pattern, pattern, comparison, new comparison".

I look at detail regarding basic forces in physics; and find that I can define them in a minimal way; and that the features ascribed to these forces (e.g. "strength" of "strong force") are built from repeat counting by number of a singular definition without taking into account that the definition could break down. Example: if I take two patterns and produce a comparison (common ground) from them say; by minimal definition a further produced comparison would confine the original patterns to the mixing space available between the first common ground and the second common ground.

The more I count this zone of two linked common grounds, the more I confine its definition in purely number-terms by repeatedly counting it. But this "strong" confinement can be optional; in reality each re-seeing of the linked common grounds could have involved the second common ground sending information back to the first common ground and back to the original two patterns. The definition of the meeting of two patterns compared and compared again (giving them common ground and then new common ground) is negotiable; everything is "on the negotiating table" each time you look at it.

But if you just look at the scenario in singular terms; the act of counting the scenario again and again and assuming numbers are equal size generates the impression of a strong confining. So-called forces in physics are shown to be generated in relation to "forces" in mathematics: electro-magnetic correspond to "plus" and "minus"; "strong" to "division"; "weak" to "multiplication"; "gravity" to "cells".

I comment on atomic stability and galactic stability using the concept of foreshortening in a telephoto lense. I look at a way of mapping sub-atomic particle physics; explaining the three generations of particles as "cancel", "not cancel", and "uncertain".
The basic idea is a mixing of space which gives definitions a choice of where they are allocated. I find modern physics appears to repeatedly apply certain "pattern templates" .

Example of map: Looking at the D view of (A,B,C):

C,D cancel: neutrino (potential discussion that A and B reserved each other common space for in D)

C,D not cancel: anti-neutrino (potential discussion that A and B reserved space for each other at different times (common space going back in time

C,D uncertain: photonino? (uncertainty in space-time (is there a possibility of talking?)

Here I take pattern "A", pattern "B"; these mix in the space "C" which I call a comparison of the patterns "A" and "B" (or a common ground say for "A" and "B"). A further new common ground "D", looking back at its preceding common ground "C" and original patterns "A" and "B": if the new common ground cancels the old common ground (which could happen if there was another space available that could separate them): I call this "neutrino" (the "another space" that could allow C and D to cancel, could be some "A" and "B" space that was held in reserve (passing through C-space un-altered into D-space and remaing unaltered in that space).

C,D not cancel means these first and second common grounds are linked by something that is separating A and B perspectives: this gives a common space for A and B only stretched across time as it requires considering first and second common grounds together.
It is the opposite of reserved space; it is reserved time (or "space" stretched back over time). But it looks like a neutrino (reserved space) coming back in time, you could say?

C,D uncertain: this implies that the definition of common ground C produced by meeting of category A and category B is muddled with definition of subsequent common ground D; so definition of "space" and "time" is itself unclear. Modelling this as a discussion: it is like asking "Is there a possibility of talking" or "Can we make some time and space to discuss things?".

I also consider helicity and the weak force.

Note: a definition can be thought of as being directed towards a particular category by narrowing down in that category. You could say it was "spun" or "biased" or "charged" in that direction; and this is entangled with the "space" for defining the definition.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins