PERFECTION STUDIES: CONTINUITY•SYMMETRY•HARMONY GOALS.5.July.2024
PAGES:.CHECKLISTS.|.REFERENCES |.FOOTNOTES | EMAILS.| IM | CRITIQUE.| Zzzz’s
Five Mistakes In Science Misled the World
by Bruce E. Camber (a page-at-work — pre-first draft)
Abstract. Our biggest mistake is to think we know when we only partially know. At some point, simple mistakes are coupled with observations and become “our best possible” description of reality. Even though we know that description is incomplete, theory gets presented as fact. It’s not good for science and It confuses everybody.
These, I believe, are our Big Five mistakes that are profoundly misleading the world:
• Aristotle’s 1800 year-old mistake still drifts, now over 600 years later.
• Newton’s absolutes have staying power because Einstein is barely understood.
• Hilbert and others put infinity in time out and then made it untouchable.
• Planck-Bohr-Schrödinger-Heisenberg-Dirac-Born made indeterminacy an absolute.
• Hawking gave Lemaître’s big bang theory the universe and too much authority.
Arrogance: It blinds us from further analysis and reflection. Even the most arrogant can decide not to be arrogant. What happens to the human family when we base our understanding of things on the incompletes, mistakes, and erroneous assumptions? What happens when we lack the integrity to own up to our mistakes and lack of good judgment and discernment?
Key words: Natural geometric gaps, tetrahedral gap… more to come.
Introduction. Mistakes are mistakes. There is often some element of truth within our errors of discernment and judgment. There are always ways to rationalize and justify awkward beliefs. To that end let us now review all five statements which are believed to be historical mistakes that have substantially misled the world. We will be going over these five many more times, for years… perhaps for the rest of our life.
I. Aristotle’s gap was not seen for 1800 years and now drifts unresolved over 600 years later.
Aristotle’s gap, so named because he never saw it,[1] is still not widely known even in these days; and, by most, it is even less understood. This is one of the few places on the web where there is at least a perfunctory study of the geometry of these fundamental geometric gaps. Not a concern of the scientific community, we hypothesize that these gaps will reduce quantum physics to very specific geometries. Here, within this work, it is no longer a key ingredient of our primordial soup and no longer a fundamental theory.
These geometries do not change any results of experimental work. The conclusions of work-to-date and ongoing can be more deeply analyzed. Quantum physics will adopt the same basic foundations as all sciences and we will all see more deeply within the infinitesimal, the first 64 base-2 notations of the 202 that encapsulate our universe.
Yet, it also needs to be emphasized that these 202 notations and the very nature of these basic geometric gaps are largely unexamined and there is no consensus within the scientific and intellectual community. [1]
II. Newton’s absolutes have publicly prevailed within the face of Einstein.
The general public has never quite gotten comfortable with Einsteinian formulations. We are a space and time people. Newton’s absolutes of space and time have long been our common sense worldview. Einstein was too difficult, too much of a stretch, so in spite of the successes of Einstein’s theory, we have de facto held onto our Newtonian logic. Until a more simple alternative is introduced, Newton’s absolutes of space and time will continue to hold their place even though we know Newton doesn’t have it quite right.
An alternative is to recognize that all notations are active and all time is Now. Though a paradigm shift, there is a natural logic within it.
III. Hilbert (and others) put infinity in time out and then made it untouchable.
Infinity, problematic throughout time, because everybody has an opinion. It is too accessible and too emotional. Sciensce has had little use for it. The results of too many equations were infinite, an abyss of unknowns. There has been and continues to be a growing disdain for anything infinte. Within this website it is redefined by the logic of pi(π). We are looking for other sites where infinity begins to be understood through the logic of pi (π) and mathematics. We defer to all our work on continuity-symmetry-harmony of the spheres.
The first continuity equation is the endless, never-repeating, enigmatic numbers of pi (π). These are the first continuity conditions that give some definition to space-time.
A second-kind of continuity equation is for those constants defined by the dimensionless and mathematical. That is, the Planck base units begin adding new lines… new connections… new nerves… new ganglia… infinitesimal neurons… for the universe. There are the 26 from John Baez, the 31 (mostly duplicates) by the Wilczek gang, over 150 from Wikipedia alone, and then the 350+ by NIST, and the the billions from Simon Plouffe. Of course, a new vocabulary may well emerge here to define what today can only be metaphorical words and expressions.
To arrive at that new vocabulary will require a lot of consensus building! We say, “Let’s get to work.”
IV. Planck-Bohr-Schrödinger-Heisenberg-Dirac-Born made indeterminacy an absolute.
To begin to see the foundations of quantum theory as a geometry opens research in many new ways. To pull it out of the abyss of absolutes and to give it an actual structure will re-energize the industry. These foundations do not change any results based on measurements and experimentation. This geometry of the gaps gives it numbers and angles and groups to follow it deeper, further, and more accurately.
Again, we defer to experts who have been studying the foundations of functional dependencies for generations.
V. Hawking gave Lemaitre’s big bang theory the universe and too much authority.
In 2011 when this study began, we were a bit cautious. We’ve been less cautious since 2016. We’ve been wrestling with the fact big bang cosmology had no notations. It had no exponential numbers of anything. Either we were missing something obvious (but couldn’t quite figure out what that something was) or big bang cosmology was missing something. First, it had no sense of the first moment of time although Planck, Stoney and the ISO had been giving us numbers for over 100 years. Wouldn’t at least one set of numbers serve as a starting point for testing? Though a theoretical unit that was known as the smallest unit of time and a length, we took Planck’s base units as given.
Also, although our start was within a progression of encapsulating geometries of tetrahedrons and octahedrons, we quickly learned how those geometries were derived from circles and spheres. The concept of an infinitesimal sphere defined by dimensionless and mathematical constants was rich with logic, numbers and equations. Big bang cosmology ignored those numbers, geometries (especially the spheres) and equations. For us, it was all too rich to ignore. We had to continue asking questions.
Spheres gave us those continuity-symmetry-harmony equations. It gave us order, relations, and dynamics. These became facets of everything finite. These were value equations; big bang cosmology had discounted the qualitative.
To hypothesize that space-time was forever and eternal no longer seemed valid. These two experiences of life are profoundly relational, a natural dependence, one cannot be without the other, two equations going on and on and on…
Much more to come…. I thank you for your patience, Bruce (June 21, 2024)
—————————
“””…”””…”””
The first version of this article — https://81018.com/mistakes/ — is as follows:
“Arrogance has given us a Big Bang Cosmology that is considered a fact, not just theory. Yet, it has always been “just a theory.” It is rather strangely interwoven with Newton’s overly confident definition of absolute space and time (quite possibly the all-time, most-damaging, on-going mistake) and Einstein’s special theory of relativity. If Newton had stretched for a higher level of generality but with more meaningful specificity, he may have started a real discussion with Gottfried Leibniz. Is it possible that the concept of time, while being inextricably interwoven with space, could be order-continuity? Could the concept of space, while being inextricably interwoven with time, be relations-symmetries?
“These possibilities are being analyzed. [1]
“Today’s big bang cosmology has put blinders on the the entire theoretical physics community and limits the creativity of people like those at CERN labs in Geneva. It has shut down discussion and openness to other theories and that stunts the growth of science.[2]
“First, there is a growing list of questions[3] that big bang cosmology has not addressed. Wikipedia has a bit more background. There are also many highly-respected scholars, academics, scientists and researchers who object to its dominance.[4] Big bang cosmology has survived only because there has not been a stronger, more compelling alternative theory.
“But, that just may be changing.
“In December 2011 a simple and totally predictive chart of numbers began to emerge.[5] Alongside base-2 exponentiation, this progression has a natural inflation that begins with the original four Planck base units (time/ length and mass/energy) at the first moment of creation and progresses to the current time in just over 202 doublings or notations.[6]
“This progression of numbers is a virtual script that defines each of the big bang epochs more precisely than the epochs of big bang cosmology, yet it requires no “big bang.”[7] Following each of those doublings from Planck Time is pivotal; within this scale of the universe, the first second falls between notations 143 and 144.[8] The first day is between notations 160 and 161. And, the first year is between notations 168 and 169. Large structure formation at 150 million years is within notations 196 to 197.
“What happens in that first second of creation will go a long way to answering key questions about isotropy-and-homogeneity and about dark energy and dark matter. It brings into question the roll of geometry, simple math and simple logic. It also reopens the Leibniz-Newton debate about the nature of space and time and the infinite.
“The particle people will say that notations 2 to 65 have no physical significance. They may be correct. Things within that range are not physical by any standards or conventions that we follow today. This is the domain for systems theory, ontology, Langlands programs, pointfree geometries, scalar field theory, automata theory, and more. Thank you.”
Endnote: This response, an answer to a Quora question on January 24, 2017, will be reviewed and updated as we learn more. More…
Footnotes:
[1] This earliest parts of this quest began in 1972.
[2] Letters to a scientist: Fabiola Gianotti, Directeur Général, CERN
[3] These open, unanswered questions are now mounting up as the failures and contortions of big bang inflation become self-evident to more and more.
[4] Perhaps the protests formally began in 1991 when Eric Lerner first published his book, The Big Bang Never Happened.
[5] This model, initially considered to be just an excellent Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) tool, requires further study, especially of the first 67 notations. It all still requires out-of-the-box thinking.
[6] The most recent chart with five Planck base units.
[7] Precision ontology can work with Hubble/Planck precision cosmology.
[8] Over two-thirds of the universe is well-defined within the first second.
Objections from around the world
The Big Bang Boom Is Over
1. There is a more simple model that uses base-2 notation that is entirely mathematically-and-geometrically predictive.
2. This simple model captures each of the currently-defined big bang epochs and all that science without the need for a bang.
3. This model uses the same process that drives all biological processes, a natural inflation, that starts at the instant the universe began and proceeds to this very moment.
Open for your comments:
• The Numbers: A horizontally-scrolled chart
• More Numbers: The Universe From Scratch
• Value values, ethics and integrity
• Big Bang Cosmology: #10 Bully #9 False Start #8 Hot head
Help Wanted
Letters/emails:
Your Questions/Our Answers: Ask a question about this work, especially about the chart, and we will attempt to answer it!
To the Top Guns of Physics: What’s wrong with this picture?
Sample of One of Many Different Tweets:
To Our Pop Stars: Appeal to Katy Perry, “Become a spokesperson.”
Worldviews limit perspective 