Space-Time and Electro-Magnetism as Fundamental Symmetries of the Universe

All things on Earth are caught up in the magnetic field of that planetary body. We can call this ‘magnetic interference,’ a magnetic interference that occurs universally on this planet, due to the interaction of 3-dimensional bodies in that field. Beyond the magnetic relationships that exist, there are also electrical relationships. These create complex patterns of electrical interference, and these define the signal that is sent from a planetary body into space. All 3-dimensional reality consists of interference patterns of these two sorts.

Electricity tends upwards and outwards, whereas magnetism tends inwards. This symmetry defines a fundamental symmetry of the Universe. When relating information, it seems as though all things can be defined and related through symmetry. One may perhaps say the Universe is defined through a principle of symmetry. Regardless, it seems as though this is a fundamental principle of psychology/neurology, and the way the brain UNDERSTANDS the Universe.

The magnetic principle draws energy into itself, and it is the guiding principle of cosmic bodies. Physically, this principle is represented by atomic fission, which occurs in the center of planetary and solar bodies. Electrical signals float up into the atmosphere, and thus 3-dimensional bodies connect through electricity. This symmetry defines ‘electro-magnetic energy.’ Due to the universal nature of this principle of symmetry, it can be used as a guiding force relating all of reality. If we would like to look at this in a more generalized way, we can call these two forces yin and yang.

There is another fundamental symmetry of the universe, that of space and time. This symmetry forms space-time, which exists in 4-dimensional space. The 4th dimension can be sophisticatedly modeled in many different ways. Any model should strive for numerological, conceptual, and aesthetic/visual symmetry. Each element represents essential ‘attractor-points’ of space-time. These attractor points are ‘theoretical’ points of non-symmetry, as in a state of complete neutrality, non-polarity. Each individual element represents a state of absolute 0 in terms of polarity. All things in the Universe represent a swinging back and forth between one of those polarities, throughout either spatial or temporal dimensions.

I have a firm belief system based on Interplanet Janet

reply to post by TheJourney


1. A Line to define a Area.
2. A Area to define a Volume.
3. A Volume to define Time
4. A Mass to Define a Density
5. A Electrical current to define a Magnetic field
6. A ........... define Gravity?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by TheJourney

 

1. A Line to define a Area.
2. A Area to define a Volume.
3. A Volume to define Time
4. A Mass to Define a Density
5. A Electrical current to define a Magnetic field
6. A ........... define Gravity?

Gravity does not, strictly speaking, exist as an actual force. Gravity is just the interference patterns of the pure Magnetic Field, created by the interaction of 3-Dimensional bodies.

reply to post by TheJourney

avity does not, strictly speaking, exist as an actual force. Gravity is just the interference patterns of the pure Magnetic Field, created by the interaction of 3-Dimensional bodies.

What happens if a planetary body has no magnetic field then if i land my rocket ship on their and step out will i feel gravity?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Units of gravitational constant (N*m^2/kg^2)- if reduced to fundamental units is m^3/(s^2*kg). In other words an acceleration in the rate of change in volume per kg of matter.

Do you actually know much about magnetism and electricity? Do you know Maxwell's equations? Do you know what Lorenz invariance is? How about induction? Do you know what a milliHenry is? How about a "right-hand rule" -- do you know what that is? Can you explain the way a photon propagates through empty space? Do you know what the 'curl' of a magnetic field refers to? How about a 'Gausian surface' -- does that phrase mean anything to you?

I'm confused because you are using words like "interference" and "magnetism" in ways that do not match their accepted definitions. If you DO know electromagnetics and are proposing a modification of our understanding, then, by all means: SHOW YOUR WORK. What's your mathematical framework for casting say 'gravity' as an electrical phenomenon? How does it reconcile with the empirically observed phenomenon of the electroweak unification?

If you DON'T know any of that stuff up top, then PLEASE, go learn what it says BEFORE you say it's wrong. Because the fact that my computer is on and operating is empirical evidence of an EXTREMELY strong sort that electromagnetics works the way I was taught in physics 210. (There's more that can be _added_, like virtual force carriers and Hamiltonians and quaternions and the like, but the basic behaviors were described accurately by Faraday et al.)

,,

reply to post by TheJourney


That was not... a particularly information-rich response.

Originally posted by Stunspot
reply to post by TheJourney

 

That was not... a particularly information-rich response.

lol, I accidentally posted what was meant for another thread here. I think you are right about connecting all of the patterned formulas with existing scientific formulas. That is definitely something I would like to do. I understand the pattern conceptually, but it would be good to thoroughly link it to existing formulae. I studied a variety of the formula of physics not long ago, and have already made some of the general connections/translations/solutions. Nonetheless, fully formalizing all of that would definitely be worthwhile.

Alright, well this is a mathematical thought I just went through now. It is associated with the general idea, and this seems to be the place to put it. It has incredibly profound implications. Now, this is 'math,' and if you think you don't like math you might not really ponder what is being said with these equations, perhaps because you will think they are complicated. These are actually very intuitive ideas, expressed using math. If you understand the 'idea,' the math makes perfect sense.

E=hv
THEREFORE E/v=h
THEREFORE v is inversely proportional to h
THEREFORE v=E/h
THEREFORE v is directly proportional to h


E=mc^2
c^2=E/m
THEREFORE E is inversely proportional to m
THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v
CREATE variable t, which is equivalent to E
CREATE variable s, which is equivalent to m
t=v/m

c = speed of light
c is proportional to v^2
THEREFORE
E=mv^2
THEREFORE E is directly proportional to v^2
DUE TO E-t equivalence, t=mv^2
DUE TO t-v equivalence, v=mv^2
DUE TO m-s equivalence, v=sv^2
DUE TO v-c equivalence c=sv^2
c = speed of photon in 'empty' space

We can thus operationally define empty space. Empty space is what exists in a theoretical state of no mass, or physicality. We can say this is equivalent to there being no spatial dimensions, 'space,' hence variable s. Let us then create variable z, representing 'zero' spatial dimensions. Since z represents empty space, we can define a limit of 0 for variable z. 2-dimensionally, on a graph, we can represent this spatial dimension by x. Let us give t, 'time,' the graphical dimension y.

z(as x approaches 0) = xv^2
DUE TO E-v^2 equivalence, z=xE
E=z/x^2
z=Ex^2
DUE TO z = 0x
z = E(x/0x)
DUE TO E-t equivalence
z = t(x/0x)
DUE TO E-t , t-y, and x-z equivalence
LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0) = y(x/0)
THEREFORE y-x equivalence
THEREFORE LIMIT OF x(as x approaches 0 from either positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches 0 from positive or negative numbers)
ALSO LIMIT OF x(as x approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers) = LIMIT OF y(as y approaches infinitely large positive or negative numbers)

These limits essentially define the x and y axes. These axes define perfect 90 degree angles, defining a circle. Since these 90 degree angles are themselves perfect, due to the symmetry of the equivalent limits, they are actually unable to be 'perfectly' modeled, due to the assymetry of inversely non-equivalent limits. This inability to perfectly model data is related to chaos math. Due to this perplexing fact of both equivalent and non-equivalent limits approaching 0 and infinity, we can only define a bisecting line by another limit. That limit is 90 degrees, as it approaches itself.
Angle = 45+(90 degrees, as it approaches itself)

Due to this impossibility of 'perfect' modeling, we cannot say that the graph 100% accurately contains the form of the graph. It is always slightly disturbed by the existence of the limits. Therefore, despite the fact that four 90 degree angles defines the circle which defines a graph, four 'quadrants' cannot be said to ultimately define the reality of this equation. Since 90 degrees is always approaching itself, it can have virtually any value, from negative infinity to positive infinity. Therefore, circles can be defined according to virtually any point, graphically, in 2-dimensional space. In 3-dimensional space, these can be represented by 'balls.'

We can, using this methodology, define the first three dimensions, using the model of angles bisected by lines. The 1st dimension has no line, therefore 360 degree angle. The 2nd dimension has 2 180 degree angles, bisected by 1 line. The previously define equation can therefore be demonstrated to define the third dimension, using a standard infinitely-close-to-perfect 2-dimensional graph.
The x-axis is defined by y approaching 0
The y-axis is defined by x approaching 0
3-Dimensional reality is defined by a perfect 360 degree circle.

The implication is that we can, in 3-Dimensional reality, understand the 'graphical' representation of 3-dimensional reality, from a 4th-dimensional perspective. That would be defined by a perfect 3-dimensional 'ball' that is defined by being perfect in terms of 2 dimensional lines spreading out at every possible angle(approaching infinity).

You seem to be misusing the word "proportional".