The Unified Concept: The Core of Pulsoid Theory

[Epsilon=One]

The Unified Concept (UC): The Core of Pulsoid Theory
The Unified Concept (www.101123.com/UC) (UC) was discussed with Philip Morrison (www.CQthus.com/PM-NYT-Obit) in the spring of 1955, prior to the death of Albert Einstein. It is the counter-intuitive concepts of Einstein’s relativity that sparked an insatiable interest in the fundamental concepts of physics, which at that time appeared to be four enigmatic forces held together by a mathematical symbolism that, for the twelve prior years, appeared, at least to the author, as absolute certainty . . . that is, until the peripheral awareness of a nagging interpretation of logic concerning the unprovableness of mathematics that concerned an Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/GIT-detail) by Kurt Gödel (www.CQthus.com/Go), who, at that time, was unknown to the writer. Comparatively, for the writer, who was steeped in the infallibility of mathematics, Einstein was easy to understand compared to Gödel’s logic. Several years later Nagel and Newman in a small book,“Gödel’s Proof”, somewhat clarified Gödel; and, and while so doing, completed my horror concerning the underpinnings of theoretical physics.The fundamental truth of physics and mathematics is not of anyone’s mind; such truth belongs to Nature and can only be discovered and partially rationalized from an impenetrable distance that is measured by speed.With this realization, and the Unified Concept’s potential for rectifying physical enigmas such as the particle/wave duality, the problem focused on shoring up fundamental number theory before investing much more time with physical Reality's enigmas.

Almost forty years past by (much too rapidly) with the Gödel (www.CQthus.com/GoNAS) barrier seeming to be insurmountable. Finally, in the spring of 1994, the Brunardot Theorem (www.101123.com/BT) was discovered (and the nom de guerre, an influence honoring Voltaire, was taken). Several properties of the Brunardot Theorem (www.101123.com/BT) seemed to involve integers; prime numbers; a peculiar constant; relationships to the ubiquitous Fibonacci sequence and Golden Ratio; orthogonal concepts related to the Pythagorean Theorem; vectors, squares, and sinusoidal qualities related to physics; and, simple arithmetic manipulations; all of which, at one time or another, seemed to occur while delving into Gödel’s Incompleteness, which seemed to reduce to a requirement for a Proof of One (www.101123.com/PoO) that is not outside its system of reference; i.e. seminal motion (www.101123.com/SM) must establish all Natural integers (www.101123.com/NI) including . . . One.

Soon, it was seen that seminal, oscillating motion and a concept of Infinity (www.101123.com/I), from the 1955 Unified Concept (www.101123.com/UC) (UC), incorporated the powerful concepts of a Universal Proof of One (www.101123.com/PoO), the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC), and Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM).

Thus, the Unified Concept (www.101123.com/UC) (UC), the quintessential simplicity, is, essentially, an amalgam of Triquametric motion (www.101123.com/TM), the Elliptical Constant (101123.com/EC), and Infinity (www.101123.com/I), which demonstrates a universal Proof of One (www.101123.com/PoO) and the “completeness” that is intrinsic to Nature's arithmetic.

The UC does not unify the forces of post-modern theoretical physics; as, contrived, metaphysical forces will never reconcile internally or with one another.

The UC does unify the disparate qualities of Reality (www.101123.com/R) such that all observed phenomena can logically be rationalized in a manner such that, most anyone, with a little effort, can shake the impressed demons of repressive secular faith from their psyche.

See: The Unified Concept (www.101123.com/UC) (UC)

©Copyright 2005-2008 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
Terms: PhysicsMathForums.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.
Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
Please Bookmark and return to this site often.

If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.Please ask questions. :)With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required......http://1.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://7.g2d.us/e.jpghttp://2.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://3.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://4.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://5.g2d.us/e.gif
..........http://6.g2d.us/e.gif
..........If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[ed van der meulen]

I have read in a quick way your paper on this subject and I appreciate it your effort to express your ideas. And the links to previous scientist I like. But Kurt Gödel was like me a pure mathematicain. And he proved mathematically very stricktly all formal theories are incomplete. So also your own theory is incomplete. Also set theory of the mathematicians is incomplete. When I would have the time I could falsify that string theory.

You can google for Gödel incompleteness. It's a well known finding of that man. Some times you refer to the incompeteness. And latge you are taling abouit the competeness af the arithmatic of nature. Also just open if our theories. Philosohers tell us we can't know reality exactly.

But how do you know beforehand that we can have a unifying theory. I see that not as scientific but as a believe. And about believes we can't come to an agreement.

Have a nice day

ed

[Epsilon=One]

…Kurt Gödel was like me a pure mathematicain. And he proved mathematically very strictly all formal theories are incomplete. So also your own theory is incomplete.Kurt Gödel (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/45922;jsessionid=baaaoJKX8J0LQG) is greatly admired. For about forty years the Incompleteness Theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html) was an insurmountable hurdle. However, the geometry of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179) led to the Brunardot Theorem (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=271), which led to a Natural mathematics that contained all elements within a given system; and, you might say completed the Incompleteness Theorem (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/simplex.html).

See: The Unified Concept: The Core of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=298); The crux of the matter . . . (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=291); The universal Proof of One (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=165), and many other mentions throughout the various Threads.

Philosohers tell us we can't know reality exactly.Philosophers seldom agree among themselves on any aspect of any subject. Until they can settle Determinism vs. Indeterminism, they have little credibility. The answers to, What Reality is? must be discovered in arithmetic and then physics; which will unite Science, Theology, and Philosophy. See: Indeterminism . . . Settled (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=190).

But how do you know beforehand that we can have a unifying theory. I see that not as scientific but as a believe. And about believes we can't come to an agreement.If the forces, dimensions, and mathematics are properly defined; then Reality can be defined. Currently, post-modern, elite academia has defined none properly.

[ed van der meulen]

Hi Epsilon


Do you know Cosmologist are seeing others like also me as stupid?

Do you know the same yields for many philosophers. they see everyone else as stupid.

Like many other people they all preach their own studies. Not criticizing themselves for that.

Can't we to stand above our own studies?

Kurt Gödel's incompleteness is destructive for all theories. Formal or still informal. They are like a sieve.

The incompleteness proof doesn't tell where and how many holes there are in a theory. But I have looked at it and the holes are forming patterns. When you know it you know where you can find them.

Equivalent is in CS the halting problem, also undecidable. Incompleteness is in computing undecidable. No answers. But real questions.

In the mathematcal lambda calculus their was an error. Algebra mixing with geometry. thatb is like a flatlander with a surrondinmg hedge telling how to escape. (By jumping over that hedge) But normally he can't do that. And in that way they came from natural numbers to R the real numbers. Only that way wasn't allowed. Pure mathematicians know the reals don't exist. Only a few we can construct. But they are uncountable, unconstructable, not having an order. But we can pretend that we can use them. But then we are making holes in a theory.

But we don't have only incompleteness in theories we have also the notion abundance. And that leads to paradoxes. A too general view applied on the reality that isn't so general. Those to general formulations produce all paradoxes. The duality in physics is a paradox as well. It's not possible that a mathematical defined stretched out field suddenly changes into a local particle. That is a physical paradox. Also a too general theory to describe it. Abundance in it.

A big hole in all real mathematical theories like set theory is that time isn't involved. The reduction of the unexpected hanging is an example of it. Even a mathematician can't jump forward and backward in time. The mathematical numbers are timeless. A mathematical proof is timeless as well. Deductive Mathematics deals with ideal things. And it can express a lot.

Finding such things is falsifying a theory, Popper wants that.

Popular is to say the axioms are vulnerable. In a really consistent theory indeed we can look at the axioms finding contrarieties and also alternatives. In a formal theory we often can restrict ourselves to the axioms.

MM is a formal theory above the quantum theories. (Cosmologes. Meta Model)) And very vulnerable as well. Their extension is statistics, And as mathematician I know that is a bad direction. Only they don't believe me.

I have had Gödel in proof theory. Also I have papers on my site to popularize that for a larger public. For High Schools as well. The New Era needs that. We have to popularize more. Too less students for the exact sciences we have in this country. The education at high schools we have to improve. In any case in my country.

You tell: "If the forces, dimensions, and mathematics are properly defined; then Reality can be defined. Currently, post-modern, elite academia has defined none properly".

But can you explain me what forces are, besides mathematical formulae. I know the formulae but what is a physical description. How are dimensions formed after some big bang. Questions I have. And not yet answers.

From 7 years old I couldn't understand what attracting forces were. You can blow things away. That is physical. And now I can nearly formulate also attracting forces. Like a vortex but now quantified. The vortex is only a shape. But I know I am coming closer. And for that I am using metaphors in language. I am not looking at mathematical formula's I want to compute it in a computer program.

Mathematics is mainly a language. And algebra makes that we can't see the wood for the trees.

And that means looking at it from different directions.

And these things I email as debate posting to the big universities of the USA. And in the same time I am telling what the ERA means for all people.

Nowhere in reality I have ever found any infinity.

It's very cold here now. I am looking for warmth in a tiny tent.

Some are overestimating themselves enormously. Having other ideas than other scientist about many subjects I don't see as a right scientist. Like denying black holes. No normal scientist will do that. Measurements enough. That I see as overestimating oneself.

ed van der meulen

[ed van der meulen]

Conclusion:

Thesis: The man who doesn't want to listen to other people with more knowledge about a subject, in my case mathematics. He will always arrive at bad conclusions and isn't fit for the New ERA.

In the ERA all scientists listen to each other. And no one has an absolute truth. Ideas are just presumpions. We can convince our own group. But not other scientists. Then we are on a wrong way.

These are my last words here and I will leave this place

kindly regards.

ed van der meulen

[Epsilon=One]

Kurt Gödel's incompleteness is destructive for all theories. Formal or still informal. They are like a sieve.The Incompleteness Theorem (IT) destroyed most Western philosophy of the 20th century prior to WWII. Most of the other academic disciplines ignored it; particularly, mathematics and physics.

The incompleteness proof doesn't tell where and how many holes there are in a theory. But I have looked at it and the holes are forming patterns. When you know it you know where you can find them.Fortunately, when you understand why Gödel’s IT is wrong, you can see that by ignoring his conclusions there was little damage to theories.

Most theories of physics fail because of not understanding physical processes rather than the failure of the mathematics that is used. Forces and dimensions must be defined such that the illusional “duality” of light, the “attractiveness” of gravity, and Cosmic Inertia are not enigmas

Mathematics only fails in areas that involve the infinite and the infinitesimal.

Equivalent is in CS the halting problem, also undecidable. Incompleteness is in computing undecidable. No answers. But real questions.The problem here is not IT as much as digital vs. analog.

In the mathematcal lambda calculus their was an error. Algebra mixing with geometry. thatb is like a flatlander with a surrondinmg hedge telling how to escape. (By jumping over that hedge) But normally he can't do that. And in that way they came from natural numbers to R the real numbers. Only that way wasn't allowed. Pure mathematicians know the reals don't exist. Only a few we can construct. But they are uncountable, unconstructable, not having an order. But we can pretend that we can use them. But then we are making holes in a theory.Pure mathematicians don’t have a clue as to the origin of numbers. Geometry, simple arithmetic manipulations that can be noted algebraically, and an understanding of fundamental motion is required to know the fundamentals of pure arithmetic. These requisites are lacking in mathematical theory.

But we don't have only incompleteness in theories we have also the notion abundance. And that leads to paradoxes. A too general view applied on the reality that isn't so general. Those to general formulations produce all paradoxes. The duality in physics is a paradox as well. It's not possible that a mathematical defined stretched out field suddenly changes into a local particle. That is a physical paradox. Also a too general theory to describe it. Abundance in it.All these paradoxes are the result of not understanding fundamental motion.

A big hole in all real mathematical theories like set theory is that time isn't involved. The reduction of the unexpected hanging is an example of it. Even a mathematician can't jump forward and backward in time. The mathematical numbers are timeless. A mathematical proof is timeless as well. Deductive Mathematics deals with ideal things. And it can express a lot.Time is well explained if one understands the Elliptical Constant (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=107) (EC). If “time” allows (I only have a day left on the forum), I will post a Thread titled the “Mystique of the duality of Time,” which will clearly define Time as the second dimension after speed. In the meantime, an understanding of the EC will lead to a complete understanding of Time.[/QUOTE]

Finding such things is falsifying a theory, Popper wants that.Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) is someone that I highly admire and respect. His work has given me great encouragement for over twenty five years. His death and Linus Pauling's death at almost the same time were great personal losses.

Popular is to say the axioms are vulnerable. In a really consistent theory indeed we can look at the axioms finding contrarieties and also alternatives. In a formal theory we often can restrict ourselves to the axioms.Unfortunately, most axioms are unsupported by fundamental Natural observation.

We have to popularize more. Too less students for the exact sciences we have in this country. The education at high schools we have to improve. In any case in my country.I strongly agree. This has been much of my motivation for over fifty years.

You tell: "If the forces, dimensions, and mathematics are properly defined; then Reality can be defined. Currently, post-modern, elite academia has defined none properly".

But can you explain me what forces are, besides mathematical formulae. I know the formulae but what is a physical description. How are dimensions formed after some big bang. Questions I have. And not yet answers.There was no “some big bang”; Pulsoid Theory’s seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=236) should answer your questions.

From 7 years old I couldn't understand what attracting forces were. You can blow things away. That is physical. And now I can nearly formulate also attracting forces. Like a vortex but now quantified. The vortex is only a shape. But I know I am coming closer. And for that I am using metaphors in language. I am not looking at mathematical formula's I want to compute it in a computer program.There is no “voodoo” attractive force at-a-distance (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=127). See: Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124), etc.

Mathematics is mainly a language. And algebra makes that we can't see the wood for the trees.No, I disagree. Mathematics is a physical manifestation that can be discovered; not, contrived nor invented.

Nowhere in reality I have ever found any infinity.You and I must define Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) in a different manner. I see Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) everywhere that I examine Reality.

It's very cold here now. I am looking for warmth in a tiny tent.I also, except Southern California is much more warmer.

Some are overestimating themselves enormously. Having other ideas than other scientist about many subjects I don't see as a right scientist. Like denying black holes. No normal scientist will do that. Measurements enough. That I see as overestimating oneself.I must be guilty of “overestimating oneself”; as, I have never hesitated to laugh at the ludicrous concepts of the Big Bang and black holes.

[Epsilon=One]

Conclusion:

Thesis: The man who doesn't want to listen to other people with more knowledge about a subject, in my case mathematics. He will always arrive at bad conclusions and isn't fit for the New ERA.Wisdom requires individualism, an open mind, and tolerance.

A group seldom has an original thought.

Your knowledge concerning mathematics appears to be limited to conventional theory, which is sorely lacking in the fundamentals of number theory.

In the ERA all scientists listen to each other. And no one has an absolute truth. Ideas are just presumpions. We can convince our own group. But not other scientists. Then we are on a wrong way.Fortunately, wisdom has often been found by those that march to a different drum beat.

[ste]

Seems like having two posts about the Unified Concept is a little bit redudnant, not?

[Epsilon=One]

Seems like having two posts about the Unified Concept is a little bit redudnant, not?You are correct.

There is much redundancy in the collection of Pulsoid Theory posts. I have made a conscious effort, not always successfully, to avoid redundancy. This last post was intended to emphasize its importance more than its concept. Remember all my posts are ad hoc; and, I have little ability for review in such a format. Yes, I am pleading an excuse.