|
|
        
|
 |
One Stone
by Christopher Wilkinson
2008-07-28 08:11:16 |
| Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author |
   
 |
I know you are busy, maybe too busy to read my missives at this time. The truth is that I often go for long periods without much to say. Right now I seem to have a few grains of sand in my hand, and wish to write them down. I seem to need the idea that someone out there might care to read them, at some point -- so you are the addressee. Please do not feel any obligation to agree, reply or comment -- I only ask you to let me believe that someone is interested in my thought.
My thought for today is on Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
As we are taught in school. Now the general relative, co-relative, inter-relative nature of things is within human grasp. We can see that if the Federal Banks crash, the money will be worthless, the belief in the value of currency will disappear, and chaos will reign, resulting in poverty, disease, famine, and war. To prevent this collapse the chain reaction that it represents, where each event inevitably leads to consequences, till there is no stopping the general wipe out -- well, we go to the root (the source, the basic code that the problem represents) -- we try to alter it so that the chain reaction that follows does not lead to such pain.
Now Einstein was not ignorant of the pain that humans dump on each other, usually in the guise of finding out and attempting to repair perceived imperfections. Einstein was not only a nuclear physicist, he was a humanist -- he loved life. We were often told that Einstein never agreed to the use of his knowledge to build instruments of mass destruction. But, they say, other powers had taken control of this knowledge. Now -- let us consider that some of this information about Einstein might just be true. Let us say that a nuclear physicist who was also deeply familiar with formulas and advanced codification of scientific knowledge, had lived in what was probably "enemy territory" for most of his life, had learned not only the codes of science but codes for communicating with his peers and friends, and who basically regretted the use of his contributions -- as he never intended any harm come for his work. Would someone with this profile quickly and easily spill the beans on the basic source code of his entire theoretical paradigm? Especially when you consider that this paradigm had proved capable of actualization on the material world for many kinds of intention, including the destructive.
I don't think so. In school we were taught that the magical equation that was the ultimate expression of Einstein's knowledge was E=MC2 (where "2" means "squared)." We were told to memorize an interpretation, or break down of this formula. This was that E is Energy, M is Matter, C is the speed of light, and squaring is a mathematical function whereby something is multiplied by itself. So we end up with something like: "Energy equals Matter multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by itself." This gives the impression that Energy is a material reality that is in a state of very high speed. In fact, we were told that the speed of light had been determined by scientists to be 186,000 miles per second. So, I guess, we need to multiple 186,000 times itself, and then multiply "Matter" by that number to get the number/code for "energy."
It is so esoteric. And it comes from such a renowned genius. But does it amount to a hill of beans? I don't think so. The breakdown of the code in this way does not result in any practicable application for doing anything with anything -- except to befuddle the easily befuddled. I would not put it past Einstein to do just this.
But Einstein is well known for presenting E-MC2 as the source code for his theory of relativity. Maybe this is not a lie. Maybe it is the decodification that is the problem. We must also consider whether the theorem E-MC2 is an actual source code, or a definition of a Hat. I will elaborate.
The greatest weakness with the common interpretation of the formula is the defining "M" as Matter. Matter, in itself, has no number -- it cannot be multiplied, as such, by anything. Now we might -- as many have -- further interpret that each element as a specific atomic weight, and that this weight has a number. Then we might say that each basic element has an Energy factor that is its own atomic weight multiplied by 186,000 x 186,000.
This calms the mind that is disturbed by the word "Matter." To test the theory we might use a real example. When Uranium in its natural state has an atomic weight of 238, then 238 x (186,000 x 186,000) should = the Energy of this uranium, what we call "radiation." This natural uranium does indeed emit radiation, which can be measured on such instruments as Geiger counters. If there is any value to the multiplication of its atomic weight by the light speed squared number, it is hard to find. Well, we know that if this natural uranium is refined to an atomic weight of 235 it can be used to create an explosive chain reaction that will rip to part all atomic structure within a certain bound --
It is said that at the time of the first atomic test blast many scientists were worried that the chain reaction, the shredding of every atomic particle, would not stop, but destroy everything. They did the test -- we are told, and it turned out that Nature has a certain tendency not to shred apart, and that there is a natural resistance to an atomic blast that will tend to define the limits of the shredding of the atoms. Further experimentation revealed that by payload, detonation, etc. the spatial extent of the shredding could be somewhat predicted.
Now think about it. Does the numeric differential of 235 vs. 238 multiplied by the light speed square equation really provide sufficient, necessary and satisfactory explanation for the differential between energy as a radiant force and energy as a destructive force?
I don't think so.
In fact, I don't think that the interpretation of the formula that we were made to memorize in school has much to do with anything, except -- as I said -- to serve as a diversion.
No I am going to reinterpret the formula E=MC2 for you. I am not working from anyone else's work. The thought I am presenting is entirely my own, as best I know -- sometimes different people think up the same thing, you know. I may w4ell be totally wrong, delusional, -- my idea useless. Freedom of expression allows me to present this idea. It is your job to decide if it means anything to you or not.
The equation has basically five elements "E," "=," "M," "C," and "2."
Our attention should immediately be drawn to the fact that two of these symbols, "M," and "C," represent variables that have no determined value. The enumeration of "Matter" is unclear and available attempts to make it meaningful are, in fact, meaningless. The numbering of the speed of light, in a universe of relativity -- where nothing has any intrinsic truth or value except in its inter-relation to all things that it relates to, in any way shape or form -- well, how can you number that? Even if you present 186,000 squared as a real number, you have the problem that the number is useless in itself. It is relative to its context and the perception of it, if not more. Well, what is its context? The proximity if "M" and "2" are immediately noticeable. "M" has already been noted to have no specific value. What do we do????
Why not take a big step back, get out of the box, and look at the formula again? It is very well-known, and right in front of all of our faces, and was even more so in Einstein's day, that Roman Numerals were used on monuments, currency, and anything that was Very Important -- as if by summoning the numeric system of the Romans (which lacked the Zero "0," and was -- and is -- generally decipherable only by the educated. Now in the Roman mathematical symbolism "M" is the indicator of the number 1,000. "C" is the indicator for 100. "MC" therefore equals 1,100. This is a real number. To "square" in mathematics requires that a number be multiplied by itself. Now, at least, we have a number. If we multiply it by itself we get something like 1,210,000,000. Now, let us take this not as a number, but a sequence of numbers. 12 10 000-0000. Just bear with me for a moment.
What are we really trying to find out here? Is it the meaning of the word "Relativity?" Doesn't look like it. It looks like we are finding out the meaning of "E." So does Energy, perchance, equal the number string I present above. This is highly doubtful -- unbelievable. Forget it!
What if "E" is not "Energy" at all???
Remember that the world of formulas is mostly symbolic, and that symbols are codes. More advanced codes use a "Hat" or meta-code which is then used to decipher the other code. No such code can be broken -- really -- without knowing the Hat. I present, here, the notion that E=MC2 is not the source code for the theory of relativity, but the Hat for reaching that code.
How so? What else could "E" mean? I will not write a Da Vinci Code type novel to draw this all out for you, combining the intimacies of persons and spies, religious and historical conflict, and all that stuff into the problem (though someone could easily do that). I will present, flat out, my own breakdown. You will not like it. But you will think about it. Out of your thought new understandings will arise. That is called "Science."
I said E = 12 10 000 0000. Please note that the numbers can also be broken up as 1 2 1(0000 0000). This looks very much like the basic paradigm for binary code. Remember that "MC" is presented in the Zeroless Roman Numerics. In a zeroless domain, basic binary patterns would be presented in ones and twos. In Zero based mathematical binaries are presented as ones and zeros. Einstein, then, presents the basic binary, one, two. One is then represented as eight zeros. We know now that when binaries are run through a squaring operation we get a basic sequence that runs 2, 4, 32, 64, - 128, 256, 512, 1024. In zero based binary we get 01, 10, 0102, 1010 - 01010101, 10101010, etc. (or something like that). Now when we apply a principle that each digit represents a binary, in other words the binary 1/0 (which in a zeroless system would be 1/2) will give us numbers, for example 01 = 1, 10 = 2, 1010 = 3, etc. (this can be applied to letters of the alphabet or other symbols, as well -- depending on an understood string, such as the progression of real numbers, the progression of the alphabet, etc.),
Now I will speculate on the breakdown of the numbers introduced in the paragraph above. The basic binary -- in a zeroless system is presented "1" and "2." There is a one (which is a symbol or counter for something, probably "E," will manifest in an Octavian code -- that is, all binary sequencing can be reduced to an eight part coding system.
This is now well known in the present day, as almost all computer technology is based on binary code, the basic form being 8 x 8 = 64.
O.K. -- So what do we do with that? We have enough information at this point to speculate on the meaning of "E." "Energy" as such, is not a binary code. Thermodynamics and physics bear this out. Attempts to define light and its speed were put to the test by Heisenberg, and it was found that light could not be determined or understood based on the binary, or bi-polar reality system passed on particle vs. wave theory. That is, within the domain of binary thinking Light is incomprehensible. It is now generally understood that Light is the most basic force of energy (and perception) known to man. It is not likely that Energy is a binary.
What IS a binary?
It is a code.
How so we know something is in code?
It is Encoded.
So how about "The Encoding is (equals) the transition between non-zero based binaries to 0 based binaries -- these two running in tandem (being squared, or angled/paralleled to each other -- like train tracks) -- forming the Hat by which the elaboration of the relative interdependence of things may be reached -- in other words, binary source code, when understood by the null as well as the real numbers will give us the encoding of relative realities. In fact, in a world where the null factor is an assumed reality, the factor of real numbers will be hidden to the eyes of those who do not understand source code. This, I speculate is why the zeroless Roman system is presented in the equation ("MC"), with a decodification that requires the null-based binary system of modern science.
So I have reached the point where I have identified E=MC2 as a Hat, rather than a source code. What is the code that this applies to, then? What is to be decoded? If we place the decoder over the code we will have the reading, yes?
I don't know at all, but ever since I heard the equation E=MC2 I was told that it represented the theory of relativity. Did Einstein ever write any document, formula, or other thing that we could put this Hat onto? I don't know. There is the possibility that the Hat and the Code that we need to decode is, in fact, the same thing. That is, source code based on real numbers and source code based on Null will together comprehend the relative nature of any reality. By relative we must understand co-relative, inter-relative, etc. - the interdependence of all realities on each other.
This interdependency of all realities on each other, when taken to the logical limit, implies that everything in the infinite universe is -- in one way or another -- dependant on the whole universe and exists in interdependency with every other thing in the universe. Thus universal relativity, interdependency, brings us into the understanding a unified field. A field is a domain. The domain is the universe, everything. A field is also an Energy or Power. So one unified field theory (not necessarily the one Einstein was thinking about), would be that "Energy ("E")is the Power ("2") of reality based ("M") AS Well As open-based binaries -- 0000 0000 (C = 1/0 binaries. ---- look at C, C+, and C++ computer coding systems for application and example).
Thus the code that describes Relativity also describes a Unified Field Theorem.
We fine that the ultimate or transcendent reality believed to be the Unified Field is nothing other than the Interdependence or Relativity of all things. The universe and everything in it.
Could it be?
Am I a mad scientist?
I don't know at all.
Think about it.
There is still beauty in life on Earth.
mathematics Einstein Theory+of+Relativity earth+day |
|
| Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author |
|
|
|
Newsletter
Subscribe
Contact
Search
