COMPLEX IDEAS FOR YOUR SIMPLE TIME

 

Form Generates Form:
Time as a Second Order Oscillation From Indecision
Between Heisenberg Uncertainty and Einstein Legality
Marvin E. Kirsh
Kirsh2152000@yahoo.com
© This paper is not for reproduction without permission of the author

ABSTRACT
Concerning time, relativity, the esoterics of time-space, the ordering of phenomenon
into a proper orientation and superstructure with respect to unifying elements, one can
employ a linear perspective that both delineates and affirms a perceived aparity to events.
This resulting in a circular path shrouded with a lack of explanation founded on
unresolvable question. In the creation of higher principles from the normal oscillations of
daily cognition that are structured from experience, objective cognitive focus can fail from a
lack of definition and perspective to perceived phenomenon and elements that formulate
experienced time. This propensity, is a result of frustration to order the world from sensory
input that is restricted to perceptions of size, shape, volume.. .i.e distances and proximities
into some degree of logical accord. In this presentation, the root of all inquiry, change, and
time is addressed, though of majority consent that it is inherently unorderable, statistical in
nature, that it has a second order that is divisible into elements of the appropriate, proximal
and direct, verses the inappropriate, distal, and indirect: other
than as victim of the linear and continuous, time is alternately explained as an evolved
unperceived second order oscillation of the same identically perceived sensual factors of
volume, shape size as functions of distance and angle of perspective.

PRELUDE
In this presentation, all processes of the physical world are, other than being
conceptualized with the divisions of space, matter, energy and living things, are herein
described as a single process of action and reaction, reduced in definition to a process of
witness as both verb and subject in order to establish the uniqueness of all frames of
reference, and on the same order as the communications, exclusively unique emissions and
reflections in nature, or of intellect and without the existence of a universal perspective or
natural constants. This notion is presented as a prelude in order to contradict the briefly
outlined ideas that permeate current scientific interpretation of the world beginning with the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein(i.e. both general and special relativity), of the
interpretation of unties and the definition of empirically applied concepts with an implied
emphasis of the mathematical to the unknown. In contrast to the difficulty in the conceptual
unification of the properties and processes of space and matter, it’s composition of open
volumes(volumes that contain surfaces that cannot be extracted to a common center
point(i.e. spherical) and the deduced mutual contradictory sections of closed-space, deduced
from witness of odd phenomenon to have other energetic and material properties distinct
from those accountable for by the energy and gravitational phenomenon of the more
proximal spaces of normal observation (general vs. special relativity), space is here-in
viewed .as a homogeneous entity rather than a heterogeneous mathematical composite with
both open and closed topological parts that are currently encompassed as a whole n -
dimensional space-time.

   Four new principles are introduced:
1) Life sciences and physical sciences are not of different phenomenon -e.g. form
generating form 16 , replication in the form of likenesses-self generation
2) Neither (the life or physical sciences) has really a tangible foundation in terms of
constants and absolutes and are functions of the actions of, inclusive to all, uniquely
named entities (e.g atoms-aton A, atom B . .etc)
3) The world is a product-process of only comparisons. Comparisons can describe
distances, shapes and volumes, and possibly a
fundamental shape and set of ratios to all things that can be related to existing
peculiarities of the world(e.g. is a unique-uniquely named entity itself and compose
of the same- sound and light, slow and fast oscillations, and the respective distinct
mechanics of propagation)
4) In principle (the world) is nearly indistinguishable from self -how we know it and
are yet unable to encompass it.

INTRODUCTION
Current conceptualizations of space and matter adhere singularly to maintain a view that
highly assembled, ordered, and open with respect to the environment, biological structures
reside within a unique subset of a broader heterogeneous space 1 0 .This conception leads to
researches based meticulously on balance; equals and opposites, opposing forces, antimatter,
and a very asymmetrical model lacking a unified superstructure that can focus
equally to define all components from the same conceptual perspective.. In this manuscript,
nature, natural history, is viewed as the result of a unique volume creating process, composed
of a one sided surface, an associated force related to surface area, and of definition with
regards to point of perspective that no component can be beyond the frame of reference of at
least one exisitng witness and for any component, there must exist at least one other
component that, with respect to it, that is unknowable-beyond witness. . At the root of this
reorganization, is a reorientation to exclude the total conceptions of relativity, space-time 3
constructions of multi dimensions as a complete concept. A re-definition of plausible
interpretation in scientific theory construction relying on mathematics is included, not only to
provide a reorientation from models currently existing to witness an alternative and distinct
version that precludes the former, but this reorientation also enables a new perspective that
can be applied equally to either model as a test criterion for suitability.
A new component conceptualization that rigidly adheres to empirical foundations, that is
perpetually self orienting that way(originating from and oriented towards the empirical) is
added, the theory of relativity rejected on the basis of a lack of unity. To accomplish this, an
analogy is created with the mathematical topology of volumes; as space is a volume it must
fit a definition of open or closed. Subsequently all elements of models including the model
itself as a suitable self description is tested with regards to the existence of center in it, itself
as a center, and the empirical verses the theoretical. The fitness of the parallel drawn with
respect to a central unity(if one exists) is the decided criterion for fitness and validity. Thus
all abstract/theoretical components(elemental parts and final geometry) are said to have a center theoretical
surface that precludes the actual/empirical. In viewing this notion, its components, a
unit model as an approximation construction component that is excluded from the
empirical, centeredness as a non-existent fact of nature, an aparity between the model
and the actual verses the concept an aparity potentially exists without the accepted
distinction made between the notion of a pure thought held as a model and the normal
acentered oscillations of the mind. Closedness is a theoretical property only and does
not exist in nature.

CLOSED AND OPEN SPACE
Closed two dimensional spaces, spaces with surfaces that can be defined not to contain
tears or holes cannot mathematically coexist in the same space with open surfaces. This
follows from the fact that a surface is defined to be closed if and only if it is possible to
define a focus point that is equidistant from all points of any surface area that can be
derived from it. The converse is true for an open structure. It follows that there cannot
exist within any space, that defines or encloses any number of open surfaces such that,
within which, a change of with time can occur that can heal a tear in any space(create a
closed surface)and for it to still contain an open space-as the healing of a single tear
must heal all tears if the tear causing force(s) are derived from any series of unique
events and able to function on all points in that space(i.e. the whole space is unique).
Otherwise such forces can be defined to have existed with in the space at any point in
time and the space not be considered to be open at a n y point in time. -i.e. if a space
contains an open space it must be open itself.
Within a space that contains living things-motion, and energy processes, not only can
there not exist any forces older or younger in age than the oldest open existing surface,
there cannot exist, especially, any tear healing forces either, for the lifetime of the space.
A space was always open with the same set of forces, if it is open.
As a corollary, a closed space cannot contain forces or energy processes at all, as they
would cause tears. If one reflects carefully, singular or multiple forces at an inception
must act with equal displacements such that all movements originating from and descending
from singular or multiple inceptions must be of the same parameters as the original forcesdescended
from them to be coordinated and aligned with respect to rates of displacement as
transmissions from a unique origin that one can equally state that a space with a fixed rate
of change is no different from a single rate of displacement of a single point. Ones’ thoughts
can drift to the possibility of multiple (more than two closed spaces of uniquely acting
forces that can birth a space derived of multiple forces, but if the forces are unique, this
would define an open space (without an extractable center)-and the whole existing original
space - inclusive of all space, to be automatically defined as open, as well as any postulated
subsets originally defined as a set of closed spaces-as a single topologically open space that
cannot exist without non-tear healing forces and energy processes. Topologically closed
spaces cannot exist in real two dimensional space.

A SPECIAL CASE VS A UNIQUE CASE
If instead of applying a center/universal focus to the world in efforts to describe it, one may
center around, instead, the thought of “action and reaction”. Light is able to perform work
when it reflects. This process might be redefined as simple primordial example of
communications of unique instances-emission and reflection-rather than as the special
phenomenon dictated by the definition of a constant speed of light. In this interpretation, one
might also be able to mathematically describe a unique force, of a space composed of a single
surface (mobias-like strip) with a second order rate of change (square meters-area per second
squared), dependant on v and c, @. Observed force and energy processes, facts of
uniqueness, self, immunogenic systems might additionally be accounted for within this
framework if surfaces are said to be self avoiding 4.An intuitive universal order to nature can
be found from the natural self avoidance of a single surface, as its’ prerequisite to exist, as a
vast set of unique positions, categories of positions, of unique peculiarly arrived
environmental parameters extended from its’ own itself and its’ own self avoidance. Such a
surface, by apriori definition have no other possible properties or as a result to fail in self
definition, massless/volumeless if considered to be only an abstract construction, and exerting a force where ever one part
approaches approximate the other. It cannot overlap with itself with out the creation of
non-unique pluralities(of another definition) As examples of phenomenon that might relate
to this description, chromosomes(which might be one sided open surfaces reflecting in
structure the basic element of construction of the proposed model) have been recently shown
to contract in response to a pulling force 8 , 9 , light is capable of existing, fluxing, via
diffraction and reflection in restricted spaces 6 -phenomenon potentially accounted for by
facts of self avoidance.

THE DICOTOMY BETWEEN GENERAL AND SPECIAL
RELATIVITY
Is relativity theory 1 , 2 , 5 either/both a completed notion and compatible with a completed
notion, or a mathematical stepping stone(i.e as the mathematics of ,and constants related to a
circle). Is a real, final synthesis related the same-in example , as a circle is related to the real
world- as a perfect symmetry to the imperfections a natural snowflake. Though a natural
snowflake-it’s imperfections, can be elucidated from the contrast between the two, it is not
evident that the reverse route from a snowflake to a perfect circle exists?(for example, if
open systems and change be described mathematically to describe a perfect symmetry, can
an imperfect symmetry be derived (in reverse) from mathematical description?) It is thus
implied that all reasoning in this case excludes a valid deduction of reality.…Thus, with
respect to our understanding and on a second account with regards to unity and homogeneity
in description, is relativity theory a poor candidate as a final construction, as a potential
model for the comprehension of a unifying concept to nature. Is it not possible that, with the
observation of unusual physical phenomenon that are beyond ordinary perception,
experience and beyond witness, excessive dependency on mathematics to account for these
events results in a contrived fitting? Dichotomies arising from contrived fittings have been
repeatedly reduced with the same extended mathematical reliance, resulting in the creation of
a near perfect fitting though as conceptually and visually heterogeneous as are the observed
and predicted ambiguities from which they are fitted mathematically. It is thus restricted, in
its contribution, to, a theory of light propagation and associated energy factors.
As human beings have the capacity to register change-the passing of time-could it not be
more reasonable to assume the same capacity for all of nature; from the simple primitive
actions of emission and reflection, to more complexly created observations involving
multiple events. In such cases observation is mandatorially in the dark. Can extractions,
extrapolations and projections to the existence of additional dimensions 1 0be simplified to the
common perceptions of two dimensional space(open space), and all subsequent phenomenon
and anomalies pursued from that orientation. It is conceivable, in this light, that vacancies
with regards to position-place, total mathematical verses an intuitive lingual plus
mathematical view, in initial constructions result is a false total picture.
It is not common sense that space with and without tears can coexist under the singular
unique description/name “universe”. One, the latter, a total mathematical construction, and the
other, relational to common scientific objects-the velocity of light, energy and mass.
Intuitively it appears that the uncertain, the realms of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
have been filled with pointed and tangible mathematics of the principle itself, creating the
delusion of an endless unknowable. Unknowable facts are not equal in description to failed
conceptualizations.. If this is so, empirical testing should eventually diverge, possibly
without a notice of invalidity resulting from the enormous magnitudes of empirical figures
and certain characteristics of theory assumed to be untestable (i.e the existence of, and mass
of a photon), especially in light of the fact that test for conceptual and empirical validity
cannot discriminate clearly if initial theoretical conceptualizations are mandatorily needed in
order to translate empirical .results. This stretching and extending of mental reach is a
ubiquitous intellectual capacity,. ubiquitous, though, does not mean mathematically pure, in
balance with nature or describable as so.
It is thus a very difficult conception to know the record player from the record where
nature is concerned. This is evident in the continual surfacing of added factors
involving the exogenous (imprinting, factors involving translation, and the environment)
that complicate the theory of evolution.
As a suggestion, perhaps a void in theory attempts can be accounted for with deletions
and additions in language descriptions. 'Cause and effect' can be replaced with 'intent and
action' ("it decided to rain”} and a new description replacing this two-word
description, composed of the one word “witness”, as the source of all change ("witness
rain"). A suitable new model is created from this one element ("witness"} of a universe of
pairs and not three's (i.e. cause, effect and the velocity of light., verses .point A, point B,
and the velocity of light). The word ["witness"-- A B] or simply [A B] can be applied with
the assumption (in order to prevent the implication of N dimensional space); that there
exists no other components(i.e. vacuums, constants, etc) but light, distance [distance A B];
witnesses A and B as a unique pair(.i.e the witness number in any process is always equal to
two). The propagation of light and its energistics can be assumed as a common element
that is not necessary as a core of the final painting; as a volume defining process common
to all elements-i.e distance [A B] can be composed of any number of prominent or nonprominent
multiple intermediate elements {A... [C D]
[E F] ...B} of which any separate events may or may not be witnessible/knowable from a
given orientation, but mandatorially knowable from some(at least one) existing orientation
and mandatorially unknowable from some (at least one) perspective- all perspectives are
necessarily defined to reside within the same ordinary two dimensional space. This
composite view describes space theoretically as a collection of mathematically describable
space-volumes: and all total and subset theoretical views, inclusively without exact
mathematical centers. Witness in theory construction cannot include a common
mathematical reference to all elements or reference to any element that is unknowable from
all perspectives.
Though the brain can have hands like a clock, when it writes mathematics, the hand
cannot draw a perfect circle, only pictorial distances, shapes and volumes. Is there an
exclusion to be conceived of that does not involve the elements "perceiving-witnessing"
throughout and a "force" of mutual interaction, that necessarily requires further
description?
Inclusion of closed spaces, the existence physical processes, in a model of the world,
logically reduces the model to the mathematical parameters of a single point, that maybe is
intuitively associated by those adhering to contrary views as an uncertain Heisenberg unit,
that though is fitting in the same manner as a definition for the unknown/unknowable and
perceived similarly suitable for conceived limited inductive application in a forward
direction of time-i.e prediction, it is none the less still a single
unity and excluded from, by definition, processes involving witness, whether empirically
witnessible, or theoretically construed as such..
Perhaps excess baggage introduced from the inclusion of universalites/constants, strains
to unify and fit concepts to include the unknowable in mathematical form and minute
description. create an odd mathematical shape as a substitute for asymmetrical perception
and intuition-naturally existing asymmetries. Though at first glance it appears we are left
without a scientific interpretation, a random chaos, space can then be described as replicating
processes of witness generated volumes that lack mathematical centers and are asymmetric
as a result of the peculiarities of the general properties of slow and fast motion and
attributable to the properties of what is, regardless of how, or if, what composes a real picture.
-i.e. a composition of volumes of related mathematical shapes (fig 1) defined by a synergism
of very fast and slow witness associated change, empirically found replicating selfgenerating
volumes and theoretically fitting ratios/dimensions; in which both the
composed(nature) and the composer are difficulty perceived unequal to, or different from,
the composition itself- and to include a force of surface interactions related to surface area.
Usual scientific objectivity in this case, leaning away from self description, totally lacking in
self description, for which there is no satisfactory common definition, not only, frustratingly,
results in the creation of rigid mathematical interpretations, results in an intellectual quandary
that persistently resembles in nature the same original enigma from which it embarked; the
identification of self and a contrast/comparison with the world. Resulting interpretations are
conceptually mistaken for it (the dichotomy between himself and the external), lending a
false affirmation to the correct directions and validity of pursuits. Heisenbergs’ uncertainty
principle, I believe is not intended to define, or substitute, as an unattained description of the
commonalties of the self with the external world, as a conceptual a source of objectivity. In
more simple description interpretations themselves become replicating and self-generating
and ignored as an aspect of the model which must include the life sciences, if not some
aspect of the nature of all interactions and the process of witness. Current models have not
advanced from those of antiquity, and are judged for their validity with the exact same first
sense conceptualizations of how the world appears to function as a place of solid objects and
motion. The model herein proposed, not only introduced as a deductive, symmetrical conceptualization of which there is no
mathematical reverse path from the actual, employs as a unity that which might be
intuitively extended to the conflict of Einstein in the proposal of his general(verses
special) theory. This entails not only disregarding previous notions of mathematical
constants, and those of the definition of witness in original concepts-to begin construction
with the only applicable perspective of one existing witness, and to describe as a
conceptual unity a self avoiding massless single surface for all of space whose
dimensions are describable by the laws of motion, of Einstein and Newton, of the very
fast and slow propagations of energy and a force of avoidance related to surface area and
the parameters of (self) approach.- such a surface is the coordinate system of points in
space for all applications and has no definable center of itself or of any subset of points of
the surface.

PERCEPTION AND THE NATURAL WORLD: HEISENBERG AND
EINSTEIN : UNCERTAINTY, LEGALITY, AND INVISIBLE OSCILLATIONS
If one considers the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg 1 1 , that natural laws cannot
not be deduced- position and momentum are impossible to know simultaneously, and the
relativity theories of Einstein that seek to reorder the conceptual hierachies of accepted
natural law- basic order is not perceived directly from common sense of primary witness,
it is possible to add to the list of phenomenon, appropriateness and inappropriateness of
factors, applied to e l eme n t s o f d i r e c t witness. For example, consider a world
mandatorially defined by distances and cannot exist without energy and openess. Can an
origin, at least mechanism, be speculated for its’ existence?. From a simple perspective,
time is no more than distance and energy. If one takes into account facts of history, that
behavior can be inappropriate to proximal environment (Nietzsche 1 4 , 1 5 ) , that light can
be captured at very low temperatures and velocities, relocated and released in its’ initial
form 1 2 , it is possible to present time as a fact of distance; of the differentials of
displacements of the appropriate and the inappropriate; of a difference caused by the
momentum imparted by light beams of appropriate (proximal origin) and that of environmentally inappropriate (distal origin)-as a
synergism of the various differentials of displacement and energy; yet, to be not as simple as
elemental building components of a model, but as a unified principle, sole constituent to all
frames of reference and that its’ occurrence is both a second order function to the line of
sight and oscillatory in that an exact nature regarding order of events (light imparted
momentum verses distance) is meaningless but to state the existence of an oscillation, in
terms of distance, unperceivable by means of the nature of its’ second order period,
component periods, synergisms .…................................................e.g. time.

ILLUSTRATION OF AN OPEN SPACE DEFINED BY V AND C
If one considers the two most familiar energies, the energy of motion -.5 mv^2(kinetic
energy) an open space cannot be defined with c as a constant (as it is easy to define a center
from the relation ax^2+ bC^2(x a dependant variable and C a constant, a and b real
numbers. However it is possible to define an open surface of the type ax^2 + by^2. For
example consider the surface defined by the spherical emission of light from a moving
body if c is a variable:

E/m=.5v^2 +c^2 tan@=v/c v/R=sin@ c/R =cos@
F(x) = v+2c=2cos@ + sin@
F(y)=2cos@
R=(F(x)^2 + F(y)^2)^.5
(a motion of velocity v and light irradiation velocity c in two planes): only net changes (
thus a rate of change from a starting E/m=(v+c)^2 is (2v+2c)-(v+2c)=v,
E/m[(v+c)(t=0)] –E/m[c(t)]=

 1) if v(0)=0 E/m(c(0))-E/m((t)=E/m(v(t) E/m(c(0))=E/m(t)
In this case (v(0)=0, E/m is conserved as well as energy, and can be defined as a
natural constant that defines a state of zero work accomplished 'E/m= 0, though,
does not necessarily define a lack of motion if motion can be accomplished from
light energy alone (note 1) (see ref 7). This matter, though pertaining to the exact fact of
confusion, failure in the definition of acceptable witness and perspective involving
impetus, mass, and energy, is not a critical factor of this theory which purports the
similarly confusing existence of a one sided single dimensional continuous surface as a
agent of force and sole element of (porous) containers (volumes). Again, this model, the
object in Figure 1 , it’s mathematics, energy relations, ratios, shape, is considered a
better center point than the notions described of relativity, that either does not exist in
(topologically) open real nature-i.e. in any exacting form, but to better depict, if it is a
true conceptual center-orientation (if one does exist), the events of the processes of
space(s), volume(s), to serve as a starting form.
(insert Fig 1)

note( 1)- It is conceivable that all of the processes of the universe can be conducted with a net
of zero work accomplished if light is considered the source of all momentum. That
although it can supply energy applied to create movement, if it has no attributable mass
then at it’s (theoretical) source there is no motion, and hence no net motion throughout
regardless of the accounting of energy changes and distribution and is no more tangible
than the theoretical one-sided surface composition and force of self avoidance that is here
in proposed.

 

References
1) Einstein, Albert Physics and Reality Journal of the Franklin Institute 221:3 359-382 March 1986
2) Norton, John What was Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence? Studies in the History and Philosophy of
Science Part A 16:3 203-246 September 1985
3) Huggett, Nick Can Spacetime Help Settle Any Issues in Modern Philosophy? Issues in Modern
Philosophy Conference at The New York University November 2006
4) Einstein, T.L. Survey of Self Avoiding Random Surfaces on Cubic Lattices: Issues, Controversies, and
Results IMA Volumes IN Mathematics and its Applications Springer-Verlag KG 1992
5) Einstein, Albert The Meaning of Relativity 5t hed. Princeton University Press Princeton N.J. 1955
6) Peccianti,M ,Dyadyusha A, Kaczmarek M., Assanto, G. Turnable Refraction and Reflection of Self
Confined Light Beams Nature Physics 2:737-742 November 2006 (Letters)
7) Leonhardt,L. Optics Momentum in an Uncertain Light Nature 444, 823-824 December 2006 News and
Views
8) Fulconis,R. Mechanism of Rec-A Mediated Homologous Recombination Revisited By Single Molecule
Nanomanipulation The EMBO Journal 25:4293-4304 September 2006
9) Bancaud,A., Conde,N., Silva,E., Barbi, M., Wagner, G., Allemand, J., Mozziconacci, J., Lavelle, C.,
Croquette, V., et al Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 13:444-450 May 2006
10)Cody,G. Where in the Relativistic World Are We?. Philosophical Perspectives, 20, Metaphysics (2006).
11)Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (New York: Harper and
Row, 1958). Lectures delivered at University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Winter 1955-56.
12 ) Naomi S. Ginsberg1, Sean R. Garner1 and Lene Vestergaard Hau1,
Coherent Control of Optical InformationWith Matter Wave Dynamics, Nature 445, 623-626(8 February 2007)
14
13)Lam, Vincent (2007) The singular nature of space-time. In [2006]
Philosophy of Science Assoc. 20th Biennial Mtg (Vancouver): PSA 2006
Contributed Papers
14)Beyond Good and Evil. trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1966.
15)On the Genealogy of Morals. trans.Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale, in On the Genealogy of
Morals and Ecce Homo. New York: Random House, 1967.
16) Kirsh M. E. On the Nature of Natural Processes 1981 Unpublished