TiAmAt: Why Space-Time = Energy Has Only Two Dimensions (Constituents) – Space and Time (Full Article)

Origen: TiAmAt: Why Space-Time = Energy Has Only Two Dimensions (Constituents) – Space and Time (Full Article)

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Why Space-Time = Energy Has Only Two Dimensions (Constituents) – Space and Time (Full Article)

 
* * *

*               *               * 

*   *   *
follow me in .:
↓↓↓
GooGle
  Facebook page 
  OVNIcube facebook 
 www.facebook.com/ovnicube* * *

Carl Jung:

“Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man does not know what a thing is, it is at least an increase in knowledge if he knows what it is not.”

Translate   /traducir/ Vertaal /
Terjemahan/μεταφράζω / übersetzen /
переводити/Traduire/ переводить
 ترجم / לתרגם   翻訳する
  * * *
* * *   * * *   * * *
  * * *
* * *   * * *   * * *
SHARING:
 *   *   *
*      *      *
Translate   /traducir/ Vertaal
Terjemahan/μεταφράζω / übersetzen /
переводити/Traduire/ переводить
 ترجم / לתרגם   翻訳する
  *    *    *
*   *   *    *   *   *
* * *
*  *  *
*       *       *
Sharing:
 
*   *   *
* * *
 
 

 


* * *
Why Space-Time = Energy Has Only Two Dimensions (Constituents) – Space and Time (Full Article)
by Georgi Stankov Posted on March 21, 2017



Georgi Stankov, March 21, 2017

www.stankovuniversallaw.com

Essay: Systems of Measurements and Units in Physics (Part 1)

“The laws of physics express relationships between physical quantities, such as length, time, force, energy and temperature. Thus, the ability to define such quantities precisely and measure them accurately is a requisite of physics. The measurement of any physical quantity involves comparing it with some precisely defined unit value of the quantity.“ (1)

This is the departing point of any intellectual effort in physics. In this essay I shall explain why the “ability to define“ physical quantities appears to be the “Achilles heel“ of modern physics.

I shall also explain why physicists have failed to grasp that energy = space-time = All-That-Is, which is the very object of their science, has only two dimensions – space and time – and not six fundamental dimensions as they currently claim referring to the SI system. This is the third biggest blunder in physics that is closely linked to their inability to understand epistemologically their own definition of mass as energy relationship which is a dimensionless number. This will be the topic of my next publication. The second one is to confound the basic physical quantity of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics, charge, which is in fact a synonym (pleonasm) of geometric area. This blunder has been thoroughly revealed in my pivotal publication:

The Greatest Blunder of Science: „Electric Charge“ is a Synonym for „Geometric Area“.

which I will present in a simple popular-scientific version later on for the sake of completion of my discussion on all scientists’ blunders in physics and related disciplines.

In many ways, the new Physical and Mathematical Axiomatics and Theory of the Universal Law is a painstaking forensic exploration of the infinite blunders physicists and theoreticians have accumulated in less than four centuries since Galileo Galilei conducted his famous experiment on gravitation and laid the foundation of this natural science. Let us begin our methodological forensics with the epistemological background of the SI system which is in the core of this experimental discipline as not a single experiment can be conducted in physics without employing this system of basic SI units and physical quantities.

Everybody with a modicum of physical knowledge should know that the mathematical (symbolic) expression of any physical quantity consists of a number, which is a relationship between the magnitude of the assessed quantity and the arbitrarily chosen unit for this quantity, and the name of the unit. If a distance, e.g. the length of a soccer field, is 100 times longer than 1 metre (length unit of choice), we write for it “100 metres“. The magnitude of any physical quantity includes both a number and a unit. This presentation is a pure convention.

All physical quantities can be expressed in terms of a small number of fundamental quantities and units. Most of the quantities in physics are composed quantities within mathematical formalism. This is generally acknowledged. For example, speed is expressed as a relationship of a unit of length (metre) and a unit of conventional time (second) v=s/t (m/s).

The most common physical quantities, such as force, momentum, work, energy and power, which are basic to many physical laws, can be expressed with only three fundamental quantities – length, conventional time and mass. The set of all standard units in physics is called “Système Internationale“ or SI system. It consists of a few basic quantities and their corresponding units, from which all other quantities and units can be derived by applying the method of mathematical formalism (method of definition = method of measurement). These are:
(1) length (metre),
(2) conventional time (second),
(3) mass (kilogram),
(4) temperature (kelvin),
(5) amount of substance, also called “the mole“ (mol),
(6) current (ampere) and
(7) charge (coulomb) (2).

The last two quantities are defined in a circular manner, so that they can be regarded as one quantity.

A major objective of this disquisition is to present theoretical and experimental evidence that these six fundamental quantities are axiomatically derived from the two constituents of space-time – space and time. I will begin with the first two quantities in this essay and will discuss the other four in follow-up publications. As all the other conventional quantities used in physics are known to be derivatives of these few quantities, this is also true for any new physical quantity.

This essay will render the fundamental proof that space-time has only two constituents, quantities, dimensions (synonyms) – space and time. This proof brings about the greatest simplification in modern physics which is now fragmentalized by inadequate definitions the epistemology of which has never been truly worked out in an axiomatic and logical manner. This I define in the new theory of the Universal Law as “applied mathematical formalism” which is another word for the new Integrated Physical and Mathematical Axiomatics of the Universal Law.

By way of introduction, we begin with the definition of the SI units of space and conventional time, metre and second. The definition of these quantities is at the same time the method of measurement of their units, which is applied mathematics and/or geometry. The standard unit of length ([1d-space]-quantity), 1 metre (1 m), was originally indicated by two scratches on a bar made of platinum-iridium alloy kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sèvres, France.

This is, however, an indirect system (a surrogate) of standard length. The actual system of comparison is the arbitrarily chosen distance between the equator and the North Pole along the meridian through Paris, which is roughly 10 million metres. Thus the earth is the initial, real reference system of distance – the metre is an anthropocentric surrogate.

As this gravitational system of reference length was found to be inexact, the standard metre is now arbitrarily defined with respect to the speed of light. This quantity is defined in the new Axiomatics of the Universal Law as [1d-space-time] of the photon level: it is the distance travelled by light in empty (?) space during a time of 1/299,792,458 second. This makes the velocity of the photon level c = 299,792,458 m/s. The photon level, of which the visible light is a narrow spectrum (a system), has a constant velocity c.

This has been deduced in the new Axiomatics from the primary term of human consciousness – energy = space-time = All-That-Is – and confirmed by the theory of relativity and physical experience. The universal property of all levels of space-time – their constant specific velocity, also presented as a specific action potential EA being the universal manifestation of energy exchange – is intuitively considered in the conventional definition of the SI unit of length, 1 metre. So far, this fact has not been comprehended by all theoreticians.

Through the standard definition of space and conventional time (see below), the velocity of the photon level is voluntarily selected as the universal reference system of space-time, to which all other physical systems are set in relation (method of measurement).

The standard definition of the length unit reveals a fundamental epistemological fact that has entirely evaded the attention of physicists. The present standard definition of 1 metre by using the speed of light gives the impression of being clear-cut and unambiguous. In fact, this is not the case. The definition of this length unit is based on the principle of circular argument and involves the definition of the time unit, 1 second. If the latter unit could be defined in an a priori manner, all would be well.

When we look at the present definition of the second, which is at the same time the only possible definition of the quantity “conventional time t“, we come to the conclusion that this is not possible. The standard unit of time, being originally defined as 1/60×1/60×1/24 of the mean solar day, is now defined through the frequency of the photons emitted during a certain energy transition within the caesium atom, which is f = 9,192,631,770 per second.

In this case, we have again a concrete photon system with a more or less constant frequency, which has been arbitrarily selected as a reference system of time measurement. From this real reference system of space-time, an anthropocentric surrogate – the clock with the basic unit of 1 second – has been introduced. The conventional time of all events under observation is then compared with the time of the clock. Thus the measurement of time in physics and daily life is in reality:

a comparison of the frequency of events that are observed with the frequency (periodicity) of a standard photon system.

The method of definition and measurement of the quantity “conventional time t“ and its unit, 1 second, is therefore a circular comparison of actual periodicities. Such quantities are pure (dimensionless) numbers that belong to SP(A) (for further information see here). However, any experimental measurement of photon frequency involves the measurement of length – the actual quantity of time cannot be separated from the measurement of the wavelength λ, which is an actual [1d-space]-quantity.

Therefore, the two constituents of space-time cannot be separated in real terms because they are canonically conjugated. The equation of the speed of light c = λ f is intrinsic to any measurement of photon frequency and wavelength. Neither wavelength, nor frequency, can be regarded as a distinct entity – they both behave reciprocally and can only be expressed in terms of space-time:

c = λ f = [1d-space] f = [1d-space-time]p

The wavelength and frequency of photons are the actual quantities of the two constituents, space and time, of this particular level of space-time. The measurement of any particular length [1d-space] or time f = 1/t in the physical world is, in fact, an indirect comparison with the actual quantities of space and time of a photon system of reference. The introduction of the SI system obscures this fact.

We conclude:

The one-dimensional space-time of the photon level [1d-space-time]p is the universal reference system of length s = [1d-space] and conventional time t = 1/f, and their units, 1 metre and 1 second. The SI system is an anthropocentric surrogate of this real reference system and can be easily eliminated. In fact, it should be eliminated in theoretical physics as it only obscures the understanding of energy = space-time = physical world = All-That-Is. This is done in the new Physical and Mathematical Theory of the Universal Law.

This conclusion is of immense importance – I have shown in Volume II that the theory of relativity uses the same intrinsic reference system to assess relativistic space and time of kinetic objects. Lorentz transformations, with which these quantities are presented, are relationships (quotients) of the space-time of the object in motion as assessed by v with the space-time of the photon level as assessed by c. These are formalistic constructions within the system of mathematics. I have proved that these quotients belong to the probability set 0≤P(A)≤1 and can be expressed in terms of statistics as summarized in the new symbol SP(A).

From this survey, it becomes evident that the physical quantities, length and conventional time, and their basic units, metre and second, are defined in a circular manner by the arbitrary choice of a real reference system of space-time – in this particular case, of photon space-time. The SI system is an epiphenomenon; it is a human convention and can be substituted by any other system through the introduction of conversion factors or better eliminated. This also applies to the other four basic quantities and their units, which will be discussed in separate publications.

Therefore, the definition of any physical quantity cannot be separated from its method of measurement, which is mathematics. The latter is, at the same time, its method of definition. Physical quantities as defined in physics do not have a distinct existence in the real world, but are intrinsically linked to their mathematical definition, which is a product of abstract human consciousness. Mathematics is a hermeneutic discipline without any external object. As any Axiomatics is also a product of human consciousness, the derivation of all known physical quantities from the primary term is essentially a problem of correct organisation of physical and mathematical thinking and not a problem that should be resolved through explorative empiricism.

Thus every method of measurement and every definition of a physical quantity are based on the principle of circular argument. This epistemological result of our methodological analysis of physical concepts is of universal character. The explanation is very simple: as every physical quantity reflects the nature of space-time as a U-subset thereof, its definition has to comply with the principle of last equivalence of the primary term which postulates that all terms that assess the primary term are equivalent independently of the choice of the particular words.

This fundamental axiom of the new Axiomatics is intuitively perceived by the physicist’s mind and is put forward in all subsequent definitions of physical quantities. As these terms are of secondary character – they are parts of the Whole – the actual principle applied in physical definitions nowadays is circulus viciosus. The vicious character of this principle when applied to the parts and the simultaneous negligence of the primary term explains why the existence of the Universal Law has been overlooked in the past.

Physics has produced in a vicious circle a large number of concepts, which are either synonyms or partial perceptions of the primary term. Unfortunately, they have been erroneously regarded as distinct physical entities. This has given rise to the impression that these physical quantities really exist. In fact, they only exist as abstract concepts in the physicist’s mind and are introduced in experimental research through their method of measurement which is mathematics.

Space-time is termless – it is an a priori entity; the human mind, on the other hand, is a local, particular system of recent origin that has the propensity to perceive space-time and describe it in scientific terms. Science originally means „knowledge“, but it also includes the organisation of knowledge – every science is a categorical system based on the primary concept of space-time. Only the establishment of a self-consistent Axiomatics which departs from the primary term of space-time leads to an insight that there is only one Law of Nature and allows a correct organisation of human knowledge on the basis of present and future empiric data.

Notes:

1. Textbook on Physics, PA Tipler, p. 245 (I have used an earlier edition of this textbook, so that the pages may have changed. Note, George)

2. Some authors believe that candela (cd) is also a basic unit, but this is a mistake.



Mass and Mind: Why Mass Does Not Exist – It Is an Energy Relationship and a Dimensionless Number (Part 2)

Mass does not exist – it is an abstract term of our consciousness (object of thought) that is defined within mathematics. The origin of this term is energy (space-time).

Mass is a comparison of the space-time (energy) of any particular system Ex to the space-time of a reference system Er (e.g. 1 kg) that is performed under equal conditions (principle of circular argument): m = Ex / Er = SP(A), when g = constant, which is the case most of the time on this planet at the same altitude. When this comparison is done for gravitation, it is called “weighing”. The ratio that is built is a static relationship that does not consider energy exchange, although it is obtained from an energy interaction such as weighing. This explains the traditional presentation of mass as a scalar (for more information on scalars see here).

We can call the space-time of a reference system “1 kg“ or “1 space-time“ without changing anything in physics. In the new Axiomatics we ascribe mass for didactic purposes to the new term “structural complexity“ Ks . When f = 1,

m = Ks = SP(A)[2d-space] = SP(A).

In this case [2d-space] = SP(A) = 1 is regarded as a spaceless “centre of mass“ within geometry, which is a pure abstraction of the human mind as all real objects have a volume (3d-space) and therefore cannot be spaceless.

The definition of mass in classical mechanics is as follows:

“Mass is an intrinsic property of an object that measures its resistance to acceleration.“ (1)

The word “resistance“ is a circumlocution of reciprocity: m ≈ 1/a. This definition creates a vicious circle with the definition of force in Newton’s second law:

„A force is an influence on an object that causes the object to change its velocity, that is, to accelerate“: F ≈ a. (2)

From this circular definition, we obtain for mass m ≈ 1/F. If we consider the number “1“ as a unit of force, Fr = 1 (reference force), we get for the mass m = Fr /F. This is the vested definition of mass as a relationship of forces. As force is an abstract U-subset of energy F = E/s = E, when s = 1 unit, e.g. 1 m, we obtain for mass a relationship of two energies:

m = Er /E = SP(A).

We conclude:

The physical quantity mass is, per definition and method of measurement, a relationship of two energies. The gravitational energy relationship is with 1 kg which is the SI reference system with respect to earth’s gravitation that can be replaced by any other reference system. The definition of mass is equivalent to the definition of absolute time f = 1/t = E/EA = SP(A). In fact, it is a dimensionless number as is the case with all physical quantities according to their method of definition and measurement within the SI system which is mathematics (see also here).

The definition of mass follows the principle of circular argument. If we rearrange m = 1/a to ma = 1 = F = E = reference space-time (Newton’s second law), we obtain the principle of last equivalence. This elaboration of the definition of mass proves again that mathematics is the only method of definition and measurement of physical quantities.

This knowledge is basic for an understanding of various mass measurements in physics that have produced a number of fundamental natural constants. I have derived some of these constants by applying the Universal Equation as can be seen at one glance on Table 1. The definition of relativistic mass follows the same pattern. I have discussed this quantity extensively in conjunction with the traditional concept of space-time in the theory of relativity (see chapter 8.3 & equation (43) in Volume II).

The equivalence between the method of definition of physical quantities and the method of their measurement, being mathematics in both cases, can be illustrated by the measurement of weight F = E (s = 1). The measurement of weight is an assessment of gravitation as a particular energy exchange. The instruments of measurement are scales. With scales we weigh equivalent weights Fr = Fx at equilibrium; as s = 1 = constant, hence Er = Ex . This is Newton’s third law expressed as an energy law according to the axiom of conservation of action potentials (see Axiomatics).

The equilibrium of weights may be a direct comparison of two gravitational interactions with the earth, or it may be mediated through spring (elastic) forces. As all systems of space-time are U-subsets, the kind of interim force is of no importance: any particular energy exchange, such as gravitation, can be reduced to an interaction between two interacting entities (axiom of reducibility). I have reduced the entire philosophy behind the current definitions of physical laws in physics to three fundamental axioms in terms of epistemology, i.e., in terms of human cognition and with respect to the Universal Law. For further information read the new Axiomatics.

Let us now consider the simplest case when the beam of the scales is at balance. In this case, we compare the energy Er (reference weight) and Ex (object to be weighed), as they undergo equivalent gravitational interactions with the earth (equal attraction). The equivalence of the two attractions is visualized by the balance, e.g. by the horizontal position of the scale beam. This is an application of the principle of circular argument – building of equivalence and comparison, which is by the way a practical application of any mathematical equation.

Please observe that humans only employ mathematics based on mathematical equations and have no functional applied mathematics based on inequalities (≤, ≥). When these symbols are used in physics, they always lead to nonsensical conclusions, which are bluntly wrong. This is very important to know.

All physical experiments assess real space-time interactions according to the principle of circular argument. This also holds for any abstract physical quantity, with which any particular energy interaction is described. All physical quantities in physics are abstract mathematical definitions and have no real existence. There is only energy (energy exchange) in All-That-Is.

Let us now describe both interactions, the reference weight Er and the object to be weighed Ex , with the earth’s gravitation according to the axiom of reducibility. For this purpose, we express the two systems in the new space-time symbolism. The space-time of the earth EE is given as gravitational potential (long-range correlation, LRC):

EE = LRCG = UG = [2d-space-time]G.

The space-time of the two gravitational objects, Er and Ex, is given as mass (energy relationship): Er = mr = SP(A)r and Ex = mx = SP(A)x. As the two interactions are equivalent when the scales are at balance, we obtain the Universal Equation for each weighing:

E = ErEG = ExEG = SP(A)r[2d-space-time]G = SP(A)x[2d-space-time]G

We can now compare the two gravitational interactions by building a quotient within mathematics:

K = SP(A) = SP(A)x[2d-space-time]G : SP(A)r[2d-space-time]G =

= SP(A)x/SP(A)r = mx /mr = (x) kg

We obtain the Universal Law as a rule of three. One can use the same equation to obtain the absolute constants – the coefficients of vertical and horizontal energy exchange – in the new theory of the Universal Law (see Volume II). “Weighing“ is thus based on the equivalence of the earth’s gravitation for each mass measurement, i.e., UG = g = constant. If UG were to change from one measurement to another, we would not be in a position to perform any adequate weighing, precisely, we would not know what the energy relationships (masses) between distinct objects really are.

Any assessment of space-time requires, firstly, the building of equivalences (as mathematical equations) and, secondly, the comparison between two identical entities. “Identical” means that we can only compare physical quantities that are the same in terms of their mathematical definition and method of measurement but have a different value. This is the principle of circular argument as the only operational method of physics and mathematics. One can use the same principle to define a level as an abstract U-subset of space-time, consisting of equivalent systems or action potentials.

The principle of circular argument is the only cognitive principle of human consciousness (3).

Without it, the world would be incomprehensible. The above statement is a tautology – there is no possibility to distinguish between “cognition“ and “consciousness“. Such tautologies reveal the closed character of space-time – the principle of circular argument is the universal operation of the mind with respect to the primary term.

The above equation exemplifies as to how one obtains the “certain event“ which is a statistical term in physics: mr = mx = 1 kg = SP(A) = certain event = 1. If mr = SP(A) ≥ 1, the “1 object“ to be weighed is equivalent to n (kg), that is, 1 = n (n = all numbers of the continuum = ∞). Within mathematical formalism we can define arbitrarily any number of the continuum, which stands for a system of space-time, as the certain event and assign it the number “1“although it may have n elements. This mathematical procedure is fairly common in physics but has not been comprehended by all physicists in terms of philosophy of mathematics as an abstract hermeneutic discipline without any external object.

The SI unit Mole is a Dimensional Number That Pertains to Time f

We can show that the basic quantity “1 mole“ is defined in the same way. Any definition of physical units, e.g. SI units, follows this pattern. The standard energy system of 1 kg contains, for instance, 1000 g, 1 000 000 mg and so on (4). We can build an equivalence between the certain event „1“ and any other number of n, such as 1000 or 1 000 000 by adding voluntary names of units to these numbers, which stand for real space-time systems: e.g. 1 kg = 1000 gram. Thus the primary idea of space-time as conceptual equivalence is introduced in mathematics not through numbers (objects of thought), which are universal abstract signs that can be ascribed to infinite real objects, but through descriptive terms (words), such as “kilogram“, “gram“ and “milligram“. The latter are aggregates (assemblies) of n elements, whereas the elements are also arbitrarily defined within mathematics as identical by the principle of circular argument as to build this set of elements as an abstract system or level of space-time.

Because any discrimination of space-time = All-That-Is takes place first in the mind and is only then projected onto the external world where it can be validated in experiments. This holds true for any abstract physical quantity within the SI system as well as for all elementary particles in quantum mechanics which are first defined within mathematics (see Bohr’s atomic model in Volume II).

In modern esotericism this basic truth is explained in a somewhat simplistic manner by saying that humans are the creators of their reality which is All-That-Is. Every human being creates and inhabits its own universe, but then these same light workers have great difficulties to explain how these subjective realities merge /intercept with each other as to create the consensual reality of the current 3D holographic model. Obviously there is more to that and the explanation can only come from a philosophical disquisition of the foundations of mathematics and physics as this is done in the new Axiomatics and Theory of the Universal Law

Back to the terms in human language that are attributed to numbers when they assess real systems of space-time. These descriptive terms establish the link between hermeneutic mathematics and the real world. Such terms are of precise mathematical character – when we apply the principle of circular argument to the words “kilogram“ and “gram“, we obtain a dimensionless quotient: kilogram/gram = 1000 that belongs to the continuum. From this we conclude that human language can be “mathematized“ when the individual words, respectively their connotations, are axiomatically defined from the primary term by the principle of circular argument.

Instead of the voluntary units, kilogram and gram, we can choose the space-time of the Planck’s constant h as a reference unit of mass and call it the basic photon (see also Table 1):

E = h/c² = mp = SP(A) = 1

by comparing it with itself. In this case, we follow the pattern of the SI system, which uses photon space-time as a reference system for the basic units of space and time (see Part I).

We conclude:

As mass is a space-time relationship, that is, it only contains space and time, we should also use photon space-time as the initial reference system for the definition of mass and eliminate the present reference system of earth’s gravitation, given as 1 kg. Since these reference systems are transitive, we can compare the space-time of the basic photon h with the space-time of the standard SI system of mass, called 1 kg, and will obtain a different quotient or dimensionless number but the relations between the energies of the systems given as mass will remain the same (the Universal Law as a rule of three).

We can then express the mass of all material systems, for instance, the mass of all elementary particles and macroscopic gravitational objects, in relation to the mass of h in kg and obtain the same mass values as assessed by direct measurements (see Table 1). The reason, why these results agree, is that mathematics is the only method of definition and measurement of mass or any other quantity.

I assume that my readers already grasp from this and my previous publication what a profound revolution this simple suggestion brings about in present-day physics, which until now claims that “photons do not have a mass”. That is why physicists cannot account for more than 90% of the theoretically calculated mass in the universe according to their cosmological models and define it in a rather obscure esoteric manner as “dark matter”. This statement alone has reduced modern cosmology to “fake science”.

Back to mathematics – the mother-father of all science. Mathematics is a transitive axiomatic system due to the closed character of space-time – it works both ways. One can either depart from the definition of mass and then confirm it experimentally in a secondary way or assess mass as a space-time relationship of real systems and then formalize this measurement into a general definition of this quantity. In both cases, the primary event is the mathematical definition according to the principle of circular argument.

When we set E = mp = h/c² = 1 and mp = (h/c²)×1 kg, the space-time of Planck’s constant h can be chosen as the initial reference system of mass measurement. This is a consequent step based on the knowledge that space-time has only two dimensions, the initial reference frame of which is photon space-time (see Part I) All other units can be derived from these two units.

This interdependence can be easily demonstrated by presenting the Lorentz factor of relativity, assessing the relativistic changes of space and time in electromagnetism and the theory of relativity (Volume II, chapters 8.2 & 8.3), as the universal equation of mass measurement. I will refrain from giving this equation here as not to make this article unduly complicated but you can find it as equation (43) on page 150, Volume II.

Departing from this equation, I have proved (chapter 8.4, Vol. II) that mass at rest is a synonym of the certain event, while relativistic mass is a synonym of Kolmogoroff’s probability set (0,1). In this way I have accomplished the full integration of all the basic physical disciplines within mathematics which was impossible before that as mathematical theory still suffered under its foundation crisis from the beginning of the 20th century which I finally resolved in 1995. This must be considered the second most important theoretical achievement on my part in the context of the discovery of the Universal Law, first in biological (organic) matter and then in physical (inorganic) matter.

As we see, physics can be fairly simple in terms of knowledge when the concepts of this discipline are axiomatically arranged. The above equations show that we can present space-time one-, two-, or n-dimensionally without affecting the basic conclusion of our axiomatics:

The only thing we can do in physics is to compare the space-time of one system or a quantity thereof with that of another system.

The practical consequence of this conclusion is the elimination of the SI system as All-That-Is has only two dimensions. From a didactic point of view, this refrain should be as often reiterated as that in Ravel’s Boléro, so that even the most conservatively thinking, recalcitrant physicist will finally grasp it.

Notes:

1. Textbook on Physics, PA Tipler, p.80. (This reference is from an earlier edition of this textbook and the page numbers may have changed in this latest edition.)

2. Textbook on Physics, PA Tipler, p.80.

3. This physical conclusion is of paramount importance for human gnosis and eschatology. These aspects are covered in a separate book on esoteric Gnosis.

4. One dollar as the certain event, 1$ = SP(A) = 1, is equivalent to 100 cents and 1 million dollars as another certain event, 1 million = SP(A) = 1, is equivalent to 1 000 000 $: 1 = n = 1 000 000. Mathematics is based on human free will and mathematical free will means the right and ability of human consciousness to assign any number to any system of space-time and vice verse.



Mass, Matter and Photons – How to Calculate the Mass of Matter From the Mass of Photon Space-Time (Part 3)

As the quantity “mass“ is a space-time relationship, there are infinite masses in space-time. We shall derive some basic, constant space-time relationships, which are conventionally described as “natural constants“. Thus we shall prove that space-time is a closed entity so that we can derive any constant mass from any other constant mass. The same is true for the magnitude of any other quantity of an actual space-time relationship. As such constants are part of distinct physical laws, which until now could not be integrated, we shall demonstrate how physics can be unified (see Table 1).

For this purpose we shall employ the new space-time symbolism and neglect the SI units that obscure our physical knowledge. The non-mathematical term “kilogram“ will be ascribed to the final result, so as to make clear that we have selected the space-time of 1 kilogram as a real reference system. The reason for this is the use of conventional data from the literature, which are given in SI units.

We begin with the mass mp of Planck’s constant h, which is a space-time relationship of this photon system with the SI unit 1 kg. In the new axiomatics, we call Planck’s constant h the “basic photon“. This smallest constant amount of photon energy is the elementary action potential of the photon level EA = h. The energy of any photon (electromagnetic wave) as a system of this level can be assessed by applying the Universal Equation:

E = EA f = nhf = SP(A)[1d-space-time][1d-space] f

where n is any number of the continuum. This proves that Planck’s equation is an application of the Universal Law for photon space-time. Each action potential can be regarded as a system of space-time. This also holds for the basic photon: h = E = SP(A)[2d-space-time]p. When we set its space-time in relation to photon space-time Ep = c2 = [2d-space-time]p = LRCp, we obtain the space-time relationship SP(A) of the elementary action potential “basic photon” as mass in kg:

mp = h/c2 = hμo /4πK = hμoεo = SP(A)[2d-space-time]p : [2d-space-time]p =

mp = SP( A) = 0.737 ×10-50 kg

The constant mp is the mass of the basic photon. It is a new fundamental constant obtained within mathematics; it assesses the constant space-time of this real photon system in relation to the real surrogate SI system “1 kg“, according to the principle of circular argument. All systems have a constant space-time because they contain the whole as an element and express its properties – in this case, the constancy of space-time. The space-time of any system can only be assessed in comparison with the space-time of another system (principle of circular argument). Such space-time relationships are always constant. That is why this basic constant is central to the integration of all natural physical constants, of all physical laws in which they appear, and subsequently of all physical disciplines as illustrated on one page with Table 1.

The above equation illustrates this principle, which is also basic to the Law: f = SP(A) = E/EA = m. As previously noted, mass can be regarded as time f within mathematical formalism (freedom of mathematical consciousness). The time fp and space λA of the basic photon are thus natural constants:

fp = 1s-1 and

λA = c/fp = [1d-space-time]p f = [1d-space]p = 3×108 m.

In my previous articles on the SI system I have shown that we can alternatively select the wavelength λA of the basic photon as a reference unit of length and compare the anthropocentric length unit of 1 m with it. In this case we obtain the conversion factor:

A = λA /1 m = 2.99792458 ×108

as a dimensionless quotient. As space-time is closed, we can depart from any magnitude and acquire any other magnitude and vice versa. The same is true for mathematics – continuum is space-time. We can obtain any number from any other number as a relationship. All the constants I have derived in the new physics of the Universal Law belong to the continuum – they are dimensionless numbers (quotients).

The equation of the basic photon is a new, key derivation of the Universal Law. It integrates five fundamental physical constants by introducing the new constant mp. These are:
speed of light c,
permeability of free space μo
permettivity of free space εo
Coulomb’s constant k and –
Planck’s constant h (see Table 1).

These constants are part of distinct laws, such as Coulomb’s law of electricity, Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, Planck’s equation of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s mass-energy-equation of the theory of relativity. So far, these laws could not be integrated. Thus a single application of the Universal Law (the mass of the basic photon) integrates such heterogeneous physical disciplines as classical mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. This is, indeed, a remarkable result that demonstrates the superiority of the new theory over conventional physics.

In this process of physical integration, we have already derived Planck’s equation (see above) and Einstein’s law of energy from the Universal Equation. In Volume II I have proved that the other laws which are integrated in the equation of the basic photon are also applications of the Universal Law. This fact is anticipated by the above equation, which is a synthesis of the aforementioned laws.

The five constants are abstract quantities of photon space-time and contain far more information about this level than is generally assumed. I discuss these constants in Volume II, section “Electromagnetism” where I present for the first time the actual epistemological background of the two basic constants, μo and εo (see chapter 6.3).

Mass is a space-time relationship of systems, and space-time is a unity. We can depart from the basic photon and obtain the space-time E of any elementary particle of matter as “mass“: E/h = SP(A) = m and vice versa. I have done this for electron, proton and neutron as can been seen in Table 1. These elementary particles of matter are open systems and exchange energy – we can also speak of mass – with the photon level: they absorb and emit photons. There are several laws that describe this energy exchange (see thermodynamics). I have departed from the universal equation as a rule of three and have made use of the Compton wavelengths of the particles, which are known natural constants.

The masses of the elementary particles are fundamental natural constants that can be experimentally measured. They are basic not only to quantum mechanics, which is unable to explain them, but also to gravitation. This is what the famous physicist and Nobel-Prize winner Richard P. Feynman writes about the masses of elementary particles:

„So not only have we no experiments with which to check a quantum theory of gravitation, we also have no reasonable theory. Throughout the entire story there remains one especially unsatisfactory feature: the observed masses of the particles, m. There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we don’t understand them – what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem.“ (R.P. Feynman, QED, Penguin, 1985, p. 151-52)

The answer to this disturbing question, as put forward by the founder of QED (quantum electrodynamics) is fairly simple in the light of the new axiomatics: space-time is continuum (primary axiom) and all constant numbers, which physicists obtain from experiments, are constant space, time, or space-time relationships that are introduced by themselves through mathematical formalism. The latter is the method of definition and measurement of all physical quantities as abstract U-subsets of the primary term.

Although the mass of particles is initially defined within mathematics, this quantity can be experimentally verified. This holds true for all abstract physical quantities of space-time and brings about the unity of mathematics and physical world and the resolution of the foundation crisis of mathematics.

One can illustrate this basic insight with the classical experiment of Compton scattering that assesses the vertical energy exchange between electron level and photon level. I will not present the derivation in this article but it can be found in Volume II, p. 154.

Mass can be regarded as a magnitude that gives us information on the density of space-time (see Volume II, chapter 3.10) – the higher the density, the more energy (mass) per space. That is why the higher dimensions that consist of much higher frequency energies are actually much denser in terms of energy per space than this 3D holographic model which is created by diluted energy per space.

In fact space does not even exist in the 5D and higher dimensions but is only an illusion of the 3D matrix created by the limited human senses and the introduction of static geometry in physics. This is accomplished by arresting the time in the minds of the physicists as this was first done by Galileo Galilei with the introduction of the Pythagorean theorem to measure the gravitation as dynamic energy exchange. They simply set time t =1/f = 1 and eliminate it from all further considerations. Since then this flaw has been perpetuated infinite times by all the physicists as soon as they perform any experiment and use geometry and/or mathematics as a method of definition and measurement through the SI system. (see also Part I and Part II on this same issue). I was the first theoretician to resolve this issue from a cognitive and methodological point of view when I developed the new theory of the Universal Law in 1995.

Figuratively speaking, the reciprocity of energy and space can be imagined as an accordion – the more folds per space (f), the higher the energy E ≈ f. In Table 1 (right column) we can see that the Compton frequencies of the electron, proton and neutron are much greater than that of the basic photon mp . The same is true for their masses. The space of these particles as measured by their Compton-wavelengths is correspondingly much smaller than the space of the basic photon with λA = 3×10-8 m. (see above). Such constants reflect the reciprocity of space-time – this reciprocity is inherent to all physical quantities of space-time.

Space-time is a dynamic, elastic entity (elastic continuum = “ether“) that can only expand or shrink in quantitative leaps when it is exchanged, but it never gets lost because it is closed. In reality, the expansion and contraction of space-time are the actual (visible) manifestations of energy exchange, which we perceive as motion. For instance, the contraction of photon space-time is assessed as gravitational attraction at the material level (see Volume II, chapter 4.8). This is the common view of humans, who are part of the material level. In mechanics, this exchange is assessed by velocity, which is the universal quantity of the primary term.

Expansion and contraction are the only manifestations of motion that are assessed in thermodynamics (e.g. ideal gas laws, the definition of temperature etc.; see Volume II, section 5.). At present, physics assesses energy statically as space or any other quantity relationship, e.g. as mass, time or work. This is the reason why physicists have failed to develop an idea of space-time as a dynamic, elastic entity. The concept of matter is such a static idea that has been developed in contrast to dynamic photon space-time.

The Mole Is a Dimensionless Constant

In the view of conventional physics, electromagnetic waves represent structureless, massless energy, while matter implies mass and structure. Mass and matter are often used in the same connotation – Einstein’s equation E = mc2 is a typical example of this semantic tautology. In order to abolish this energy-matter dualism (or wave-particle dualism) conclusively, I shall show here that the mass (energy relationship) of all macroscopic objects can be obtained from the mass mp of the basic photon h within mathematics and only then confirmed in a secondary manner by empirical research. This new derivation will also bestow upon the Old Testament a new scientific touch (See Genesis, Moses’ book 1, chapter 3: „It will be light. And it was light“).

We begin with the next basic SI unit for the amount of substance “mole (mol)“, where the term “substance“ is used as a synonym for “matter with mass“ (see essay under point 24. in Volume II). A mole of any substance is defined as the amount of this substance that contains Avogadro’s number NA of atoms or molecules. We can regard the atoms or molecules of any substance as the action potentials EA of this substance level Emol, called “mol-level“, as they are considered to have a constant energy, respectively, mass. The energy of the system “1 mol “ can be expressed by the Universal Equation:

Emol = EA NA = EA f

Thus Avogadro’s number NA is the time f of the mol-level of any substance NA = f. In accordance with the new axiomatics, it is constant for all substances (systems) of the mol-level. The SI unit “1 mol “ is defined through NA. It is an abstract category that is built according to the principle of circular argument and, as with all other units, it requires the arbitrary selection of a real system of reference. Avogadro’s number is defined at present as the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of 12C.

The particular system “1 mol“ is a typical example of how one builds abstract levels or systems of space-time in physics. In this case, “1 mol“ is considered “1 action potential“ of the macroscopic substance system, which is an U-set of NA atoms or molecules; the latter are action potentials of the corresponding microscopic level (U-subset) of matter. All these abstract levels are built within mathematics and contain energy space-time as an element.

It goes without saying that this kind of discriminating space-time or matter is an abstract achievement of human consciousness. As all thoughts are U-subsets of consciousness, the latter being equivalent to space-time, any abstract definition of system or level of space-time, has a corresponding correlate in the real world. Our knowledge of the outer world is thus an a priori property of the mind because human mind is part of space-time and therefore obeys the Universal Law. Kant speaks of a priori synthetic conclusions. From the higher vantage point of view of the soul space-time is actually a creation of human consciousness.

Therefore the epistemological arrow of scientific knowledge departs from the mind and is only then confirmed in the external physical world, and not vice versa, as is believed in present-day scientific empiricism. In fact, this cognitive process is closed, just as space-time.

At present, the empiric approach is prevailing in natural sciences, while the role of consciousness as an a priori source of knowledge is completely neglected. This is the origin of the cognitive misery of science on the cusp of the greatest transformation of mankind to a 5D transgalactic civilisation – it is cogent that this misery is self-inflicted and will prevent many recalcitrant scientists from ascension because they preach fake science. Just as it is unlikely that any of the presstitutes of faked news in the MSM will have any chance to ascend while perpetuating the dark habits (lies, deception and manipulation) of their descending 3D matrix as a strategy of survival in a rapidly changing world.

As we see, the definition of “mole“ takes place within mathematics and results in a number – NA. How can this abstract number be put in relation to matter (substance)? As usual, physics resorts to the vicious principle – a new unit of mass, the so-called atomic mass unit u, is introduced. It corresponds to 1/12 of the mass of one carbon atom 12C. The new axiomatics reveals that this circular definition employs NA as a conversion factor and introduces the new unit of atomic mass u in relation to the standard unit of “1 kg“:

u = 10-3 kg / NA = 1.6606× 10-27 kg or

1 u /1 kg = mx /mr = SP(A) = m = f = 1/ 10-3 NA

From this equation we obtain the Universal Equation for the quantity “molar mass“:

mx (kg) = 10-3 mr NA (mols) = EA f

This equation illustrates the “principle of similarity“ – the universal equation holds for space-time as well as for any quantity thereof. As mass is a space-time relationship, this principle is cogent from the presentation of this quantity.

From the above equation we can calculate the macroscopic molar mass of hydrogen MA from the mass of the basic photon h as a reference mass mr = mp. In this way we shall illustrate how one can obtain the mass of any macroscopic material object from the basic mass mp of the “invisible“ photon level, which physicists conventionally regard as empty, massless space (?!). For didactic purposes, we shall only consider the mass of the proton mpr and shall neglect the much smaller mass of the electron:

MH = mpr NA = (mp fc,pr ) NA = 1.007 × 10-3 kg/mol ( = 1g/mol)

In this equation fc,pr = c/ λc,pr is the Compton frequency of proton and λc,pr = 1.321410 × 1015 m is the Compton wavelength of this particle. The latter is a known natural constant (see Table 1). This same equation can be applied for any other element in the Mendeleev’s periodic table or substance thereof.

We conclude:

It is possible to calculate the mass of any material object from the mass of the basic photon mp, that is, from the “mass of light“

We owe this “biblical“ achievement to the new Axiomatics which eliminates religion as a cosmological concept of genesis (see all my books on Gnosis and the articles on this website). Its secret lies in the novel insight that space-time is a closed entity – we can always compare the space-time of any pair of systems or levels of space-time.

Read also: An Open Letter to the Orion “Nobel Prize Committee”. How to Calculate the Mass of Neutrinos.

Physics could be, indeed, as comprehensible as religion is to the layman, provided one approaches reality in a logical and deductive way. Both fields of intellectual endeavour do not need an interpreter, e.g. a priest or a specialist. Both can be substituted by mathematics – and mathematics by the new Axiomatics, which is applied logic. Logical thinking itself is an a priori capacity of the mind and is thus accessible to everybody.



What is Temperature? (Part 4)

Thermodynamics studies temperature, heat and the exchange of energy. This branch has the same universal role in physics as wave theory. The basic quantity of space-time in thermodynamics is temperature T. (1) It is as familiar to us as conventional time t. While the idea of time is based on the aggregated sensation of energy exchange in the body and the surroundings, mainly perceived as motion in transition, our idea of temperature is linked to the sensation of warm and cold that is transmitted to the central nervous system by tactile senses. Contrary to other abstract physical quantities, temperature and time are physiologically associated with our sensations. Precisely for this reason, though, temperature (and conventional time) has not been understood.

Temperature is defined by a change in space. In thermodynamics, this change is measured three-dimensionally as volume [3d-space]. It is very important to observe that the change in space is the primary event, while its association with thermal sensations, such as “warm“ and “cold“, is of secondary anthropocentric character. Therefore, we should clearly distinguish between the subjective perception of temperature and its abstract, geometric definition as a physical quantity.

When the Universal Equation is applied to the definition of temperature as a change in volume, we can show that it is a concrete quantity of time:

T = f = [3d-space]x / [3d-space]R = fR / fx = SP(A)

As with all other quantities, the method of definition of temperature is at the same time its method of measurement. This fact is at best illustrated in a survey on the historical development of temperature scales.

The method of definition and measurement of T reveals a fundamental property of space-time that has not been realized so far – temperature can only be measured in thermal contact. This fact reveals the continuousness of space-time. As T is time f, and f is a quantity of energy exchange E ≈ f ≈ T, this would mean that thermal exchange takes place between contiguous levels – space-time is continuous (primary axiom). This fundamental property of space-time also includes photon space-time. This aspect is not fully comprehended in thermodynamics.

The measurement of T takes place in thermal equilibrium, also known as the zeroth law of thermodynamics. This law says that if two objects are in a thermal equilibrium with a third (through contact), they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This is an intuitive notion of the primary term as a continuum.

The zeroth law anticipates the existence of a common thermodynamic level of space-time, which is part of all material objects (U-subset of matter). The absolute time of this level is constant T = cons., because its space-time is also constant. I shall elaborate this aspect in detail below.

As we see, all basic ideas of physics are intuitive perceptions of the nature of the primary term. This also holds for thermodynamics. Thermal contact and equilibrium are the real prerequisites for the definition and measurement of temperature. According to the principle of circular argument, one needs a reference system (building of equivalence) to make a comparison (building of relationships).

The choice of the reference system to which the temperature of the objects is compared has evolved with time. The mercury column of the normal thermometer is such a reference system. From a theoretical point of view, the choice of the substance is of no importance – mercury can be substituted by any other substance. This liquid metal has been selected for practical reasons.

The choice of the geometric shape of the mercury column is, however, not accidental. It is a cylinder with the same cross section along the whole length of the scale, so that equivalent changes of the mercury volume lead to equivalent changes of the column length:

Δ[3d-space] ≈ Δ[1d-space].

Thus, the building of equivalent increments of mercury volume, which can be regarded as constant action potentials EA, is the a priori condition for the measurement of temperature T = f and heat Q = E = EA f. Once the building of real space equivalences is ensured by applied geometry, mathematics is subsequently introduced as the method of measurement.

The historical procedure has been the following: the normal freezing point of the water (ice-point T) has been assigned the number “0“, the normal boiling point of water (steam-point T) – the number 100. The unit of volume change is arbitrarily called “degree“ and is written as 0o C or 100o C. “C” stands for Celsius, who was the first to introduce this scale – hence Celsius temperature scale.

The length of the mercury column at 0o C is Lo and at 100o C it is L100. The length difference ΔL = L100 – Lo is subdivided evenly into 100 segments, so that each length segment corresponds to “1 degree“ (2). The number “100“ for ΔL is voluntarily selected. Within mathematics, we can assign this magnitude any other number, for instance, “1“ as the certain event or 1 unit, without affecting the actual measurement of temperature.

From this we conclude that the number 100 of the Celsius scale is a simple conversion factor K = SP(A) of space measurement. This becomes evident when we compare the Celsius scale with the Fahrenheit temperature scale (see exercise 1. below).

Celsius temperature tc is defined as:

tc = (Lt–Lo) / (L100 – Lo ) ×100 = ΔLx /LR =

[1d-space]x / [1d-space]R = fR /fx = f = SP(A)

or

[1d-space]x fx = [1d-space]R fR = vx = vR =

[1d-space-time]thermal = cons.

The above equation proves that:

“Thermal equilibrium“ is a tautology of the constant space-time of the thermodynamic level of matter.

However, the actual space and time (temperature) magnitudes are specific for each substance or object that can be regarded as a distinct thermal system – hence the necessity of measuring its particular temperature (time) and volume (space). The same holds true for their relativistic changes.

All we can do in physics is to measure space, time and space-time of the systems and levels.

Anything else is the delusion of the conventionally thinking physicist’s mind. That is why current physics is fake science as the MSM are fake news.

Thermodynamics confirms that space-time is an incessant energy exchange. This discipline has developed the most adequate perception of the primary term. Therefore, it is not surprising that the first law of thermodynamics assessing the conservation of energy is a static perception of the Universal Law, as it is no coincidence that its discoverer, Julius Robert Mayer, was a physician as the author of this article. Both of them studied medicine in Germany and first discovered the Universal Law as a law of conservation for organic matter, and only after that confirmed it in physics (in 1842, respectively, in 1995) (3). Space-time is a cyclic phenomenon in evolution. This is also true for the history of any scientific discovery concerning space-time (4) .

Although mercury thermometers are commonly used, they are not very precise outside their calibration points. The constant-volume gas thermometer enjoys this virtue to a greater extent. Instead of volume change, it measures change of pressure. This isobaric measurement of temperature is based on the ideal-gas law. I have shown in Volume II that it is an application of the Universal Law.

The further refinement of temperature scales reflects the inherent striving of man for precision in assessing space-time. Because of the difficulties in duplicating the ice-point and steam-point states with high precision in different laboratories, a temperature scale based on a single fixed point was adopted in 1954 by the International Committee on Weights and Measures – the triple point of water. This equilibrium state occurs at a pressure of 4.58 mmHg and a temperature of 0.01o C. The ideal-gas temperature scale is defined so that the temperature of the triple point is T = 273.16 kelvins (K), where “degree kelvin“ is a unit of the same size as the Celsius degree. The number 273.16 is thus a conversion factor (T = tc + 273.16).

As the triple point of water was found to be imprecise, in 1990 a new fixed point for the Kelvin scale was introduced based on 17 calibrating points (minimisation of systemic failure).

This is not the end of the story. With the discovery of the Universal Law, it will be possible to define a new, more precise temperature scale that will be based on photon space-time as a reference system as is the case with the two dimensions (constituents) of space-time – space and time. The scientific foundation of such a scale is based on the knowledge that temperature is a quantity of time (see Stankov’s law in Volume II, chapter 5.7). Below I have added two simple exercises for my readers to test their newly acquired knowledge on the new physics of the Universal Law.

Exercises:

1. Express the conversion factor of the Fahrenheit temperature scale to the Celsius scale in the new space-time symbolism.

2. Determine the space-time dimensionality of the coefficient of linear expansion α and the coefficient of volume expansion ß. Discuss these quantities in the light of the new axiomatics. Suggest at least three applications of the Universal Law in the production and construction of materials subjected to significant thermal expansion or contraction.

Notes:

1. We use for temperature in physics the symbol “T“ in kelvin, which is the official SI unit. When temperature is explicitly given in the Celsius scale, I shall use tc.

2. It is important to observe that the same procedure is also used to define “per cents“. The term “per cents“ is a universal numerical relationship of any real or abstract quantity.

3. While Mayer was at first rebuked for his metaphysical style of scientific presentation and suffered from neglect, we can hope that the new axiomatics of the Universal Law will enjoy a more cheerful destiny. At least, one cannot argue that I do not understand Newton’s laws as was the case with Mayer. In fact, it was Newton that did not understand gravitation. This is true for any physicist before and after him.

4. One may speculate, whether it is a coincidence that the discoverer of the Universal Law comes from Thracia, which is the cultural homeland of Heraclitus, the first discoverer of the Universal Law, the atomists, the first really modern scientists of the Old continent, and Aristotle, the universal genius of antiquity, who developed a universal categorical system of science based on the intuitive (or maybe rational) perception of the Universal Law. The answer will be given in the very near future.



The Greatest Blunder of Science: „Electric Charge“ is a Synonym for „Geometric Area“

Its fundamental SI Unit „Coulomb“ is a Synonym for„Square Meter“ (Part 5)

The recognition that the physical world = the universe = All-That-Is we observe with our limited senses as sentient human beings has only two dimensions/ constituents – space and time and can therefore be assessed only as space-time (as already done in the theory of relativity but not fully comprehended yet by all physicists) – is the greatest revolution in the human world view, once it is fully anchored in the minds of the people. That is why I departed in this series of articles from the SI system by proving so far that five of its six basic SI units can be reduced to the two dimensions – space and time (frequency).

As it is generally acknowledged that all the other SI dimensions and units are composites of these six fundamental dimensions and units, this is the unequivocal proof that space-time = energy = All-That-Is has only two dimensions – space and time. In this context it is vital to reiterate one more time that any physical experiment contains the SI system as a method of definition and measurement of the observed physical quantities and parameters so that reliable and reproducible results can be achieved.

At the same time I have proved beyond any doubt that the method of definition and measurement of all physical quantities is mathematics and/or geometry. As both disciplines are hermeneutic categorical systems of human consciousness and have no external object of study, all physical quantities present-day physics deals with are abstract categories of the human mind and not intrinsic properties of physical matter as it is erroneously believed by all physicists today. When this knowledge is fully internalized, one has an open access to the new Physical and Mathematical Theory of the Universal Law.

So far I have proved in my previous articles that five of the six fundamental SI dimensions and their corresponding units can be derived (and thus eliminated), from the two basic constituents of space-time = energy = All-That-Is – space and time (frequency) as this is listed below one more time for the sake of clarity:
(1) length (metre) (Part 1),
(2) conventional time (second) (Part 1),
(3) mass (kilogram) (Part 2 and Part 3),
(4) temperature (kelvin) (Part 4),
(5) amount of substance, also called “the mole“ (mol) (Part 3),
(6) current (ampere) and charge (coulomb)

The last two dimensions and SI units, current (ampere) and charge (coulomb), are defined in a circular manner so that they can be reduced to one dimension and unit as I shall explain below. Since I have discussed both quantities in a comprehensive article published on this website, I will refrain from giving the full proof here as it contains some complicated mathematical equations and necessitates a very deep knowledge of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. I recommend my readers to read my article in full here:

The Greatest Blunder of Science: „Electric Charge“ is a Synonym for „Geometric Area“

and also Volume II on this same topic. Below I will quote the basic conclusions of this article:

“Abstract

“The current definition of the basic quantity „electric charge“ and its fun­damen­tal SI unit „coulomb“ in physics is undoubtedly the greatest blunder of modern science. When the principles of mathematical formalism are applied to this defi­nition, it can be proven in an irrevocable manner that „electric charge“ is not an intrinsic property of matter, as is erroneously believed in physics today, but a syno­nym for „geometric area“, while its SI unit „coulomb“ is a synonym for „square meter“. The reason for this systemic blunder is the incomplete, and hence, for­ma­lis­ti­cally wrong translation of the current definition of electric char­ge into a ma­the­ma­tical equation by physicists, from which they have sub­se­quently derived all known laws of electricity, magne­tism and electromagnetism. Thus, this formalistic blun­der has been repli­cated infinite times through­out the history of this science and has biased the whole edifice of physics and natural sciences from mathematical, epistemo­logical and cognitive point of view. This revo­lutionary physical and mathe­matical proof affects the very foun­da­tion of modern science. At the same time it opens the pos­si­bility for a full axioma­tisation of physics and its development to a consistent, unified theory of the physical world (see Volume II).

Introduction

The current definition of the basic quantity „electric charge“ and its fun­damental SI unit „coulomb“ in physics is, undoubtedly, the greatest blunder of science since the rejection of the geocentric Ptolemaic system of the universe in late Renais­sance, when the foundation of modern science was laid by such prominent scho­lars as Coper­nicus, Galilei, Kepler and Descartes.

Although since then billions of phy­si­cists, scientists, teachers and students have stu­died, educated and used the defini­tion of „electric charge“ in the firm belief that it is an intrinsic property of matter, and are still doing so today in schools, univer­sities and experimental research all over the world, they have obviously failed to realize that this definition of charge is, in fact, a synonym (tautology, pleonasm) of the simple geometric term „area“, which is known since anti­quity, e.g. in Eucli­dean geometry. Accordingly, the SI unit „coulomb“ is a synonym for the area unit „square meter“:

charge = geometric area

1 coulomb = 1 m2

The reason, why this greatest scientific blunder could have occur­red in such an „exact“ natural discipline as physics, lies solely in the fact that physicists have translated the verbal, non-mathema­tical definition of „electric charge“ in an incom­ple­te, and hence, wrong way into a mathematical equation, from which they have subsequently derived all known laws of electricity. Thus they have biased the theory of electromagnetism, and also quantum mechanics where all elementary particles of matter are supposed to have a charge, from an epistemolo­gical and cog­ni­tive point of view. This ele­mentary and incompre­hen­sible mathematical inconsis­tency has been grossly over­looked by educa­ted mankind and exposes present-day physics as fake science.

In the following, an impeccable and irrevocable mathematical proof will be pre­sented that is based on the methodological prin­ciple of mathematical formalism, namely, the principle of in­ner consistence and lack of contra­diction, also known as Hil­bert’s formalism: It will be shown that „electric charge“ is not an intrin­sic property of matter, as is believed in physics today, but a syno­nym for „geometric area“, and that the SI unit „cou­lomb“ is a syno­nym for „square meter“.

All mathematical proofs presented in this publication are accomp­lished accor­ding to established physical theory and experi­mental evidence, and adhere diligently to currently accepted defi­ni­tions in electricity and magnetism that can be found in any com­pre­hensive textbook on physics. The new, revolu­tio­nary aspect of the present elaboration is the consistent implementation of mathe­matical for­ma­­­lism in physics and the novel interpretation of the epis­te­molo­gical and cognitive background of basic physical terms.”

The two basic quantities of electricity and their SI units – charge Q with the SI unit “coulomb“ (C), and current I with the SI unit “ampere“ are defined in physics as follows:

(I) „The SI unit of charge is the coulomb, which is defined in terms of the unit of electric current, the ampere (The ampere is defined in terms of a magnetic-force measurement…( F = E/s, when s = 1, F = E which is actually energy measurement, see Universal Equation). The coulomb (C) is the amount of charge flowing through a cross-sectional area (A) of a wire in one second (time) when the current in the wire is one ampere (action potential)“. (1)

(II) „If ΔQ is the charge that flows through the cross-sectional area A in time Δt, the current is I = ΔQ/Δt. The SI unit of current is the ampere (A): 1A = 1C/s“. (2)

This circular, tautological definition of the two fundamental quantities of electricity, charge and current, within the SI system is based on the geometric method of measurement of their units. Practically, it is based on the definition and measurement of the (electro)-magnetic force which is an abstract mathematical quantity of the primary term “energy” (F = E/s, when s = 1, F = E). This force is also called electromotive force (emf).

The classical definition of electric charge and current, as quoted above, implements mathematics in an inconsistent way and introduces a systemic flaw in electricity that extends throughout the whole edifice of physics. This has not been realized so far. When the non-mathematical, verbal definition of electric current (II) is presented in mathematical symbols in physics, the quantity “cross-sectional area A“ is omitted without any reason:

I = ΔQ/Δt.

This omission in the mathematical presentation of the current is a fundamental formalistic blunder with grievous cognitive consequences for this discipline. This becomes evident when we express the present formula of the current in non-mathematical terms:

“Electric current I is the charge ΔQ that flows during the time Δt or alternatively: “current is charge per time.“

This definition is meaningless, as physics “does not know what charge is“ (3).

In reality, the current is measured in relation to the cross-sectional area A of the conductor according to the principle of circular argument. The latter is the only operational method, with which all six known physical quantities in the SI system are initially defined within mathematics and then measured in a secondary manner in the real physical world (see above). As I have shown for the other five basic dimensions (quantities and SI units) this procedure is the foundation of the SI system – it is the universal method of definition and measurement of all physical quantities and their corresponding SI units.

The principle of circular argument operates as follows: For each specific physical quantity, defined in an a priori mathematical manner in the mind, a real physical system is chosen as a reference system and its specific quantity, e.g. energy, force, space, time, etc., is assigned the number „one“ = 1. This is a basic mathematical procedure, a primary axiom in the new Axiomatics that allows the application of mathematics to real objects.

In the above definition of charge, the reference system is the cross-sectional area A of the wire, which can be experimentally measured. The charge is then defined as a relationship to A and is thus per definition also area:

I = ΔQ/AΔt.

One can only compare identical quantities. When A = 1, the cross-sectional area may disappear optically as a quantity from the mathematical equation of the current, but it is still part of its theoretical definition. This fact has been grossly overlooked by all physicists so far and I am speaking here of millions (?) of physicists and scientists since Galilei founded physics four centuries ago.

As the electric current I and its SI unit ampere is part of this circular definition, and its method of definition and measurement is the electromotive force F which is an abstract quantity of the primary term, energy E = SP(A)[2d-space-time], it is very simple to show that electric current is defined as electromagnetic action potential:

Current = I = EA= SP(A)[1d-space-time][1d-space]

From this elaboration we can derive the following fundamental, universal, methodological principle concerning the method of definition and measurement of all physical quantities in physics:

Physical relationships can only be built between identical quantities.

There is no exception to this rule. Relationships between heterogeneous quantities are meaningless, unless they are associated with conversion factors that establish the equality of dimensions in a physical equation. Such conversion factors are often defined in physics as natural constants. This is the mathematical basis of modern physics that should be the topic of any true methodology of this natural science.

The aforementioned basic formalistic considerations regarding the application of mathematics in physics were made for the first time in this theoretical clarity by myself after I discovered the Universal Law and developed the new physics in the 90s, although they have been intuitively followed in conventional physics, unfortunately not in a consistent way, as has been shown for the definition of charge above.

It is a basic axiomatic knowledge that:

it is sufficient to introduce only one wrong statement in a mathematical system to bias the whole system.

This knowledge, as proven by Gödel in 1931, has undermined Hilbert’s formalism, with which the consistency of mathematics ought to be proven by finite procedures (4). This has triggered the foundation crisis of mathematics (Grundlagenkrise der Mathematik) as embodied by the continuum hypothesis and the famous Russell’s antinomy. This crisis is still ongoing, notwithstanding the fact that nowadays all mathematicians and theoreticians prefer not to take any notice of it.

Since physics is applied mathematics to the physical world, the ongoing foundation crisis of mathematics also affects the theoretical foundation of this natural science. Gödel proved essentially that mathematics, being a hermeneutic discipline without an external object of study, cannot furnish the missing proof of existence (Existenzbeweis) by finite procedures and thus achieve its full axiomatisation with its own means. Each time such formalistic procedures are applied to the structure of mathematics, they lead to fundamental antinomies and challenge its very foundation. Gödel’s theorem tells us in plain words that, in order to solve its ongoing foundation crisis, mathematics should seek its proof of existence in the real physical world.

The goal should be the establishment of an integrated physical and mathematical axiomatics based on finite procedures, with the help of which the proof of existence should be empirically rendered. Such an axiomatics should depart from a small number of primary axioms – ideally from a single primary axiom – that are valid in both physics and mathematics, so that there will no longer be any artificial theoretical separation between the two disciplines.

The new Axiomatics of the Universal Law departs from one single term, the primary term and axiom, which is both the origin of physics and mathematics:

Primary Term = Energy = Space-Time = Continuum =

Continuum of numbers = Infinity = All-That-Is

The theoretical results of the present publication in the field of electricity and electromagnetism shows that this task can be easily achieved within the existing structure of physics by consistently implementing the principles of mathematical formalism and thereby eradicating all mathematical, formalistic blunders that have been historically introduced in this natural science. Such mathematically inconsistent statements and definitions contaminate the structure of present-day physics, where all mathematical equations are essentially correct and all their verbal interpretations are entirely wrong.

This has hindered the unification of physics and its natural evolution to a transcendental biophysics as I have done in the new General Theory of Science of the Universal Law (read also here). In fact, present-day, conventional physics is a “fake science” in terms of true cognition of All-That-Is, just as the “fake MSM news” are a total distortion of the political and economic reality in which humanity dwells on the cusp of its ascension.

Present-day physics is incapable of grasping 3D space-time as a holographic image of the limited human senses and perception and its current transformation to a multidimensional simultaneity where the identical physical quantities (dimensions), conventional time and space (as distance), are eliminated as a human illusion once and for all.

Only energy and frequencies really exist in All-That-Is.

At present, physics, being a scientific categorical system for the physical world, cannot adequately reflect the unity of Nature – for instance, gravitation cannot be integrated with the other three fundamental forces in the standard model, and there is no theory of gravitation at all. The elimination of these mathematical inconsistencies from the theory of physics by myself has allowed the development of this natural science to a truly axiomatic system of Nature based on the primary term of human or any other consciousness in All-That-Is.

This accomplishment was the much endeavoured unification of physics by many renowned physicists on the basis of mathematical formalism since the beginning of the 20th century. This was however first accomplished by the author in 1997 when he published his first volume on the new physical and mathematical theory of the Universal Law and then further developed in volume II that can be read independently of volume I and contains many more advanced derivations that cannot be found in the first book.

Essentially, volume II is a comprehensive textbook on physics, theory of mathematics and cosmology and contains the entire theoretical content as can be found for instance in the very popular textbook on physics for students at universities written by P A Tipler, the design of which I used as a raw version for my books on physics as to facilitate the didactic approach of the reader to the new revolutionary theory of the Universal Law.

Notes:

1. Tipler, PA, Physics, Worth Publ., New York, 1991, p. 600.

2. Tipler, PA, p. 717.

3. Tipler, PA, German ed., p. 618.

4. Gödel, K. Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, Monatsheft für Math. und Phys.. 1931, p.173-198.


Share this:
This entry was posted in Ascension. Bookmark the permalink.




* * *

Anuncios

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s