what relativity means (to me)

I believe that Einsteins relativity is flawed, even though I am unfortunately not familiar with the mathematics.

Physics or any other science based on mathematical reasoning is only ever an abstraction, a more or less valid approximation to reality, but never giving an “absolutely” true picture of if, but rather a very relative one.

It is all too obvious that the constancy of the speed of light is no more and no less than a necessity, an absolute anchor to be able to construct any kind of mathematically based physics around reality at all. There is nothing absolute in “a beam of light” or the idea of a “photon” as a repetitive pattern or element.1 apple + 1 apple = 2 applesOnce tasted, one may be sour and the other one sweet. What does that individual perception make for a universal description of apples or how interesting is the count, after all?Finiteness is but the mother of consciousness and perception. Yet reality in all its infinity, and there is nothing mystical about infinity, does not revolve around finiteness as much as a Plack Quant is but the ultimate invention of high resolution physics, yet NOT the very bottom of reality as much as there is no end to it in terms of “at what distance shall we draw a border to our universe”. It is laughable to try and “bend” “spacetime” just to then come up with the ultimate deterministic loop of “everything was, is and forever will be”.Relativity means, for example, that light or its speed is as relative to “beings” or “objects” as a perceived length or weight or any other measure of some kind. My foundation of relativity stems from the very basic understanding that, with the premises of infinity and eternity, there are no two things in the “universe” that are, were or ever will be “entirely” equal. There is not even an exact “moment” that can be defined at which to compare two objects, no “absolute” reference frame to pin down.

In short, if there were a human being as big as the milky way, then what it perceived as an “electron” in its context, would within our contextual reality be something far bigger than what we usually think of as electrons, or a “second” of its time perception would be a time period considerably longer with respect to our temporal senses.

This – in some way continuous – understanding of reality is the very foundation of relativity. Reality is not necessarily uniformly repetitive, which means that I don’t propose, know or need to know whether a nucleus to an atom is quite similar as the sun to our solar system or to what degree there are biological similarities or differences between me and the next person.

It is a simple suggestion that any wave or field needs some, maybe very specific kinds of objects which allow the “energetic impulses” describing the nature of that wave or field to propagate or to establish; just like a “good old” wave “on the surface” of a liquid or vibrating air stimulated by a loudspeaker. In some highly elaborate model, even the actions of a human being could be described by a myriad of wave functions.

I prefer not to call objects “material objects”, since I believe that all objects should rather be seen as compositions of two basic constituents, matter AND void, the latter being horribly ignored by science or simply mistaken as a vacuum or “empty space”.

Nature knows no zero.

Zero is either a turning point of opposing potentiality, an arbitrarily defined ground level in our scientific models or, when talking of size dimensions, zero is the principle of infinity applied to the very small.

True, science needs base units, elements around which to construct theories, models, measurements and understanding. Yet those basic elements themselves are indeed “universes” in their own right as, if perception allowed, I am sure they can be distinguished into an infinite amount of even smaller subsystems of elements within a totally differently perceived context.

Essentially, there are phenonemenons that merit the different names we give them, such as “electrons”, “light”, “elements”, “fields”, “forces”, “heat”, etc… yet all these things are abstractions of what there really is and only have their implied meaning and specific characteristics relative to our human perception.

There is no empty space. Reality is an infinite composition of matter AND void in motion, hence energy. In that sense, Yin Yang is a close to perfect illustration of that duality, of its motion and of the continuous presence of one in the other without having bend ones mind around religious mysticism.

If there are energetic waves or fields, such as in “radiation”, then there have to be transmitting objects that allow those energies to propagate.

Of course there is no “ether” which is fixed in “absolute space”, as there is no absolute space. Ether simply is the network of existence, the overall composition of matter and void, the undistinguishable part, where we fail to perceive objects or elements, yet they do exist, if we were able to take a closer look. I believe the borderline between matter and void infinitely evolves just as vividly represented by fractals.

If not as energetic impulses propagating in a composition of matter and void, how else should all those energy bands we perceive of the sun or the universe at large, even of what is right in front of us, reach us?

I am sure that – from a remote viewpoint – our galaxies are the very constituents of “elements” in a higher context. Indeed, apart from our existence, there is an infinite number of micro- or macro existences, which simply subsist within different aspects or contexts of the same “universe” or “space”, different in relative size to each other and, of course, in their individual composition.

A vivid phantasy might come up with the idea that aliens are not to be searched in far away regions of the universe, but rather within ourselves, as highly organised, tiny wee beings driving ourselves into existence from a single cell and some genetic code; or simply not just letting ones mind travel far and wide enough to allow their existence but rather zoom in and out on reality.

It is all too simple to decline the ancient myth of attraction and finally come to the very simple understanding, that gravitation is but the idea of an “energetic shadow” produced in-between any two objects, simply because some energetic bands are absorbed or reflected by the objects of concern and therefore a resulting “force” pushing objects together.

Maybe next time, sitting on a chair, you feel the “cosmic” pressure that puts you “down there”, instead of hidden strings that pull on you from some arbitrary gravitational centre.


~ by tobibeer on 2007-07-19.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: