Maybe a theory on an emerging pattern

[arkain101]

(Revised and Re-written Jan 11th)

 

The more I learn about the physics discoveries of the universe the more often I see a specific pattern emerge. The pattern is one where; after careful testing and experimentation, the mysteries of how the universe works turns out to be more reasonable than many of our preconceptions that come from our common sense.

 

A theory needs a wealth of reproducible experimental evidence with variety of investigative tactics in order to be successful. Just like a theory, this pattern appears to be developing a wealth of reproducible evidence, even though I do not think anyone was really intending to directly produce any. The more often the pattern emerges, the greater the plausibility of the theory and the better it is at making predictions and conclusions. This brings me around to suggesting that this pattern could be translated into a somewhat 'successful' theory.

 

Take for example the fundamental "stuff" of the universe and let us ask what is it? Countless theories have tried to explain this. The most common I have come across have the preconception that these fundamental entities like the electron, the atom, are made of some kind of material, whether it is just regular objects like attractive and repulsive spheres or something more elegant like a vibrating string. When I look into these concepts I notice that they often have preconceptions that somehow the fundamental levels of the universe (like the atomic scale) work in a way similar to how we observe the macroscopic world around us.

 

Even if we did accept that idea that the universe is made of physical stuff I believe certain consequences arise from such conclusions;

 

For example: If we conclude universe was made of fundamental objects that interact in many complex ways to manifest the universe we see, this can create the notion that these objects are somehow infinite. They can not be destroyed, nor can they be created. They always were and always will be. It would suggest to say, everything that exists is actually a "such and such object" and the only thing that exists is that form of object in many locations

 

Another example: As sort of a inverted concept of the previous. If we conclude the universe is made of some kind of an aether like fabric where disturbances in this aether manifest properties of fundamental atomic material then this also creates some kind of notion that this aether is the absolute infinite always lasting material.

 

In either of the above cases (though mostly abandonded theoretical views) the preconception is that 'material' truly exists (a very common premise) in a way or form similar to how one may consider a basket ball or a book (that it just sits there self-contained and existing), so much so, that it could be responsible for everything we observe in our universe. It could simple just exist in its perfect form forever, never requiring a beginning. However, it should be mentioned the discoveries in physics have shown some of these above examples (ones of absolute nature, like aether, and globual particles) to be unlikely candidates of viewing the 'ingrediential stuff' of the universe.

 

So, there are these ideas that think that material exists, but what if material does not really exist? At first glance the statement can sound absurd, especially to the preconceptions of our common sense. Although, at a second look we find that it is more plausible than one might expect. For example, science can tell us that when we run our hand along a rough stone wall, we don't 'really' touch the wall. The atoms in our hands and the atoms on the wall get very close together but they never actually touch like our preconception of touching may be. Basically, the atoms experience each others electromagnetic fields and for the most part avoid any kind of material to material contact. The very notion of material is actually quite strange relative to this atomic world, it does not apply in a very effective manner, as it has been observed objects appear to break the laws of logic by being more like teliporting shapeshifters compared to stones in a field.

 

Furthermore, other scientific discoveries have shown that these fundamental objects have some unique behaviors that are nothing like a material object. Again, these discoveries may at seem very strange (teliporting shapeshifters) compared to the logic we deal with on a daily bases, but again, I think this is so only if we preconceive that the common sense logic has seniority over other kinds of logic.

 

To most of us it may seem that some of today's scientific theories and discoveries are completely non logical (special relativity, quantum physics, particle entanglement, and that teliporting shapeshifting nonsense mentioned), but I dare to suggest they are more logical than our everyday common sense. And I think this is seen more clearly when one takes the time to actually dissect the two views and weigh them out.

 

This brings me now to be able to explain what this pattern really is (with all the previous background story). The pattern is that some of the behaviors of the universe including its fundamental entities operate in a way that is, the opposite of, non-logical (as we often hear it described according the method of our everyday way of thinking). Instead, behaves and operates in a way that is actually more logical than our everyday preconceptions of what is logical and what is not.

 

That is a mouthful, but what it basically says is that, the pattern is that when we view some events of the universe through the lens of our everyday logic some of those events appear non logical, but when viewed through the lens of the logic of how the universe works those events can appear to be occurring as they should and are expected to.

 

How is this so?

 

Well I think I could say it all comes down to relativity. I would explain relativity as how an interaction occurs in a relationship of different locations.

 

For example: If we say "I am located exactly such and such coordinates on the planet earth", the common sense would call this logical, and for some part it is. However, the moment we ask, where is earth located, we come to a bit of a problem. When we follow these steps of location; the earth is located in some place in the solar system, the solar system which is located some place in the milkway galaxy, the milkyway galaxy which is located some place in a group of other galaxies, a group of galaxies which is located somewhere in the universe, the universe which is located somewhere in............................wait... um..... and we reach the point of confusion where our everyday logic falls apart. If everything that exists, resides inside a place/location, then this ultimate location can not logically also be contained in a place.

 

Another example: If we say an object is moving at ### meters per second across a background of other stars, according to an observer on earth, but then we begin to remove locations we also run into a problem. If we remove the background of all the other stars, the object is moving ### meters per second relative to earth. If we remove the earth and the observer in that location the object is moving .............wait...um... and we reach the point of confusion where our everyday logic falls apart. If we remove the relative positions of a position of interest, then nothing can be said about the motion of the object, not to mention other behaviors.

 

The concept is this, both location and motion can not be absolute. This means, that location and motion are relative only. Just like material as we see it in our preconceptions may not exist, both motion and location may not exist like we see it in our preconceptions. When something is relative we must consider that it is a relationship where, one location is aware of its own motion and location while also aware of the motion of another location.

 

When this 'alternative view' begins to make sense, and looks logical enough, one can see how the previously unusual and strange behaviors nature exhibits is actually more in favor and alignment with this 'alternative view' than the 'typical everyday preconceived view'.

 

It is from this that I observed the pattern that, the alternative view is more logical, and at the same time, the universe favors this view. The theory of this pattern is that the 'alternative view' is the logic needed to understand universe and how it functions. Certain predictions can be made using this view and I find it striking that when a person breaks down a logical view into its basic parts, that the universe functions appears to be in alignment with this view.

 

If the universe is not material, or absolute, and appears to be in alignment with an attainable logical set, then, I would suggest the universe is more likely made out of or formed by "reason, knowlege, logic, thought, sense" (whichever word works best) in comparison to self-contained and animated structures. As strange as it sounds, a singular, absolute, individual, non connected object can not be aware of certain of its own properties alone and by itself, and because of this, no singular-absolute-individual-non connected object can exist in a stable manner. Why? because alternative view of logic disagrees with it.

 

For example, and as a prediction, anything observed singular-absolute-individual-non connected concept that one can call tangible with physical property must be composed of the concept two (singular-absolute-individual-connected entities)

[belovelife]

so do you say that the electron shells are correlating to the amount of pressure exerted, more pressure the further out?