The Theory Of Realistic

[xyz]

Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to life, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe, in which the  basis of  logical process and rational thought will show the justification of  the axiom propositions to be true.

Part 1 - The Theory of realistic.

1. Introduction, explanation of  an axiom
   
2. Defining various definition
   
3. Defining Theory and Hypothesis
   
4. The meaning of maths and maths use
   
5. The meaning of limitation
   
6. The meaning and value of Geometrics
   
7. Examining mass and massless
   
8. The relationship between time and mass
   
9. The relationship between time and massless
   
10. Explaining the constant-'constant nature of light
    
11. Explaining observer effect and experiment
    

 

1.Introduction, explanation of  an axiom

An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of   the “truth” of  propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on our limited finite observation of the Universe.  We must presume that axiom's observed in our finite visual Universe, co-exist to be true in a broader scale of an infinite Universe or Multi-verse.  There would be no valid reason to assume that our observed physical laws and process is not the same and equal  too,  on a broader scale.  It would be foolish of ourselves to deny axiom's regardless of experimental outcomes, theory or hypothesis.

2.Defining various definition

We should take great consideration and respect for definition, it is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content with strict definition, that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information.  When observing a definition and considering a definition it is of utmost importance we apply the truths we observe of the thing or phenomenon we are defining.

In our visual Universe there is several key axiom definitions that need to be applied.

 

Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer.

Distance - A linear quantity of unmeasured space expanding away from the observer

Length -1. A measured distance of space between two reflective points.

2. A measurement of an objects dimensions.

Universe - an infinite space

Visual Universe - a finite space

Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space

Energy - matter of substance with physical presence but without solidity.

Objects - matter existing with solidity such as a particle.

Motion - the  continuous displacement of matter in space

Dimensions- The volume of an object

 

3.Defining Theory and Hypothesis

In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an important we understand what a theory or hypothesis is in the terms of realism.  A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies.

An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more solid than a hypothesis often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evidential merit.

We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative.

4.The meaning of maths and maths use

We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence.  Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved.

It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer  to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding  the maths, the maths a later of the former.

5.The meaning of limitation

When we observe limitation, we observe restriction, not only are we restricted to a visual restriction that establishes a  finite observation visual Universe, we are restricted to thinking inside of the ''box''and have limitations in our thinking.  Any thinking of ''outside'' of the box, can only be deemed to be speculation and hypothesis and never deemed to be fact until a future time of further investigations may lead to new findings beyond our limitations.  However, we must not disregard the axioms  of the inside of the ''box'' when thinking outside of the ''box''.

It is also important that  we consider why we have limitation and what is the possible cause(s) of these limitations, not overlooking the diminishing of light over distance, matter reflectivity and the relativity of objects moving away from an observer relatively appear to decrease in size to a point of no existence.

6.The meaning and value of Geometric

Geometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes, this leads us to a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space.

It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski's space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski's space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ''truths'' of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects.

Einstein's relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski's space-time regarding space-time to like'fabric'', however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself.  Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light.   It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein's work or Minkowski's space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein's relativity thought is of axiom ''truths'' thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations.

In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion,  the geometrical relative size of the visual universe.  It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time.

In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology

4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = nothing

In this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing.

The big bang also suggests   that space is expanding,  suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ''growing'' and that space itself is expanding into nothing.

However, this is not an axiom of ''truth''and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points .  Space itself does not reflect light or is observed red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect.  I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space,  a length expansion into a unknown distance.

Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and the observer.

In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context.

If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A)  standing by the warehouse walls was observer (b].

Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (b]

Relative to observer (b]they can not observe (A)

Relatively both observers can concur by voice  the axiom  truth, that neither observer can observe each  other.

Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet.

Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (b}

Relative to observer (b]they can observe (A)

Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation.

My reasoning for this observation relatively is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of  the light off (A), where as observer (b} only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (b].  The magnitude of light reflected from (B is not a great enough magnitude by time  the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation  is ''washed out'' by the candle light surrounding (A).

There is no apparent reason why this analogy can  not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ''black'' background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects.

To extend on this axiom, I would  direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view.   A body in motion  travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing.

This can be described in analogy by using a train track, if we are standing on the track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train scaling down in size.

Also this area contraction can be acquainted to the  Lorentz formula and  length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view  relative to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies. 

Thus brings  us to the relative geometrical  size of the visual Universe, there is a ''truth'' in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ''truth''  that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space, this only  shows us relative lengths between objects relative to light.

To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression

4/3 pi r©³

Where r© represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies. 

 

I have not finished this yet, but can someone check it over and give a view on the literate quality?

Edited February 14, 2016 by xyz