Do Points Act as Fields?

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Do Points Act as Fields?

Postby Eodnhoj7 on March 31st, 2018, 11:23 am 

Presented Argument:

"Do points act as fields?"


If you look at the 0d point:

1) Any dimension moving towards the center of the 0d point seperates itself from other dimensions. In these respects the point, through movement towards center, extends itself into a field.

2) The point seperates dimensions in a manner in which the dimensions relates to further dimensions. These relations cause further individuation.

Take for example the a 1 dimensional line between two zero dimensional points. The line is seperate through the zero dimensional points. Considering the line is ad-infinitum the line is merely a relation to a further segment of line. If the segments relate, they form further points through intersection resulting in further lines. The lines increase in relation, as the lines increase in quantity. The zero dimensional point, however remains the same as one zero dimensional point is the same as another zero dimensional point. As the zero-dimensional point is the same, across all linear relations, the 0d point acts as a field, with the linear relations merely being the relations of the zero-dimensional field, much in the same manner we observe waves on an ocean.

The lines change however according to their relations with other lines. A line of x separations is larger or smaller to a line of y separations. The lines relate and form z number of lines. However the nature of the lines is define by what further lines they relate too. These relations are mediated through the 0d point as a median of movement.


3) This 0d point-field effect can be observed where the dimension, we will observe again the 1d line, is forced to relate with itself. This act of relation is necessary considering no movement can exist within strict 0d space; because there is fundamentally nowhere to move.

As there is nowhere to move, the 1d line individuates into further 1d lines through what I will call a "Y" effect...or a branch effect. The line manifests continual "duals" which relate and are connected. These relation, allow the 1d line to exist through 0d space through a process of movement as relation, where they continually manifest further duals as relative particulate. This may be observed as quantum entanglement in one respect, while in a separate respect we observe this process within nature in the form of trees, leaves, plants, rivers, etc "branching" through the duality of the "Y".

These "Y"s curve, through the 0d point field, to form the wave as linear relating angles. In these respects, the "Y" effect forms the wave as another linear movement. A further 1d linear dimension forms which in effect follows the same process of individuation as perpetual movement where energy is neither lost nor gained but exists as a perpetual cycles of linear dimensions alternating through the 0d point.

4) At dualistic point "Y", through the 0d point field effect, we can observe the observation of relations in 1 respect, while a connection with the ether in a seperate. At the degree of seperation the extradimensional nature of the linear dimension inverts into a negative dimension as an extension of the 1 intradimensional ether. In these respects the 1 dimensional line is rooted through an inversion into a negative dimensional line as the extension of the 1d ether.

This negative dimensional line, as an inversion of the extradimensional line exists as the boundary between the ether and the 0d space we understand. It is strictly an extension of the ether, through the ether, as the limits of the ether. In these respects the "Y" effect observes a trifold nature of dual lines relationg through the 0d point with the line inverting into a seperate dimension as the extension of the either. In these respects the 1d line and 0d point are connected through a linear dimension.


Agree/Disagree? Why?
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Do Points Act as Fields?

Postby Event Horizon on March 31st, 2018, 2:58 pm 

It seems to me that there are a few questions it might be helpful to know:
1) Are we to assume that the 0D point(s) are static in relative space?
2) Do we also assume that 0D points are quantitatively persistent?
3) Is it possible to connect something infinitely small to anything else?
4) Would observing an 0D site cause it to change behavior as happens in quantum dynamics?
5) Does the 0D point have an EM signature or gravitation associated with it by somehow impacting on the multi-dimensional space-time matrix in its locality?
Sorry, I have more questions than answers.


The OP is blissfully math-free, I'm better at conceptualization than math.
User avatar
Event Horizon
Member
 
Posts: 358
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.
Eodnhoj7 liked this post


Re: Do Points Act as Fields?

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 2nd, 2018, 12:46 pm 

Event Horizon » March 31st, 2018, 2:58 pm wrote:It seems to me that there are a few questions it might be helpful to know:
1) Are we to assume that the 0D point(s) are static in relative space?
What we observe as "static" or absent of "motion" implies a degree of potential motion in the respect that what exists exists through movement. Hence "static" may be "implied" as potential movement at one level, while at a separate quantum (or micro) level it must be "active" in the respect it exists as parts. Considering all "parts" consists of boundaries, which in turn are "dimensions" as spatial direction (a point I may have to address later if not intuitive to you), the 0d point as "absent" of any and all dimension in itself is not static. But considering the point can only be observed through "relations" of parts, at the fundamental level with the part equating to a "line", the 0d point is not a thing in and of itself but rather an observation of relations. In these respects the 0d point observes a locality in which movements manifests, while in a seperate respect as a field in which "being manifests itself".


2) Do we also assume that 0D points are quantitatively persistent?
Considering the 0d point can only be measured through relation (three lines through three points forming various triangles) with these "relations" dependent upon parts existing through each other, any ratio of "points" equal to another ratio of points (3 points through 3 lines, or 3 points through 2 lines) observes that the "ratio" in itself is an approximation considering 3 points through 3 lines (as various triangles) observes an infinite variety of triangles...yet triangles nonetheless. The same argument applies for the 2 lines and 3 points as the "angle".

In this manner "quantitative persistency" (assuming I am interpreting your point with any manner of accuracy) maintains a dual role of clarity through unity (which we see evident in the ratio) and a form of approximation in itself (which we see through the various angles) in the respect that all angles exist through further angles, hence an inherent degree of movement is necessary in the relation of parts (lines in this case) through 0d space.


3) Is it possible to connect something infinitely small to anything else?
Size can be argued as strictly being relation in time space as the "change" in size (we can observe this in all manners of growth) acts as a form of alternating pulse when a phenomena (let us say a child, or even a 'rock') alternatively expands and contracts. In these respects size is a form of movement through time in which a phenomena "pulses" to maintain an inherent form of alternation. This alternation, as a cycling through itself, observes the necessity of "cyclicality" as maintain a symmetry conducive to "order" necessary for being.

4) Would observing an 0D site cause it to change behavior as happens in quantum dynamics?
Well lets look at it this way. I have a geometric form on a piece of paper, let us say a triangle again. I observe the 0d points which form it. In this manner the triangle itself is given structure in the respect that I observe "nothingness" an from it "being" comes forth. Now I look at the 0d points further, I figuratively speaking "look" into the void (which acts as a field). Now I see an "angle" as two lines. I look closer, and a form of "chaos" appears where a multitude of fragmented lines (lines nonetheless, hence order) appears and from this disorder (or complete absence) a "multiplicity" or "exponential" degree of order appears in the respect that further lines, as fractals of lines (unit complete relative to themselves) occurs.

5) Does the 0D point have an EM signature or gravitation associated with it by somehow impacting on the multi-dimensional space-time matrix in its locality?
Considering we are dealing with purely conceptual geometry, or math one could extend itself to, the nature of an EM signature may be argued in the manner of a 1d line existing in 0d space. It's infinite nature is required for its to exist, however a form of finiteness as movement is necessary for it to exist also as it must "relate" to itself in order to exist. It must relate to itself, hence it must fold into itself considering their is nowhere for it to "go" theoretically speaking.

This folding process results in further lines which must fold into themselves, considering they are individual lines in themselves, and a process of "frequency" takes places where (I do not have the graph to show it) each line continually manifests a fractal nature (1 moving to 1/2, moving to 1/3, etc) as it approaches 0d space (much in the same manner as a number line). These fractals in turn, existing as units in themselves, must invert to "wholes" in themselves as a unit is a "whole part of a whole". In these respects the fractal lines convert to a multitude of angles which in turn convert to frequencies...and the process continues alternating ad-infinitum to where "frequencies" exist in "frequencies"....the may translate to the EM field you are talking about.

This gravity as a form of "condensation" in which the 1d line approaching 0 ad-infinitum, observes the process of condensation as the formation of fractals. Eventually these fractals invert into wholes, which may be metaphorically equated to a "black hole filling up with matter and spitting it out again as a line". Hence gravity, through a 0d point, observes a condensation which alternates back to an expansion and the material (metamathematically speaking in this case the "line") continually alternates through itself in various forms...from the perspective of "numbers" as "whole" numbers (where 1/2 turn to 2, 1/3 to 3, etc. with these whole numbers [being relations of 1 fundamentally] following the similar form and function).



Sorry, I have more questions than answers.
I don't apologize to anyone, and I don't expect anyone to apologize to me...ask away.


The OP is blissfully math-free, I'm better at conceptualization than math.

Food for thought....What is the difference?
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: Do Points Act as Fields?

Postby Event Horizon on April 5th, 2018, 6:32 am 

I think I can describe conceptualization over math in the way my mind works by invoking the memory, albeit a bit cheekily, by invoking the memory of the imperious Albert Einstein. He was also able to imagine the concept at hand, but had to rely on mathematicians to describe his concepts in math for professional scientists to understand. It's a poor example and I am not making any comparisons in any kind of way as far as capability is concerned. That would be rather foolish.
I can do some odd stuff though, like placing my mind outside of the known universe and "observe" from a theoretical "outside". I observed that the inflation event caused a shockwave that would probably have radiated out at 40xC, and that it might possibly be responsible for "priming" and expanding spacetime as we know it. I could well be off-base and the theory is probably unprovable, but it's the kind of thing I tend to think about. I just can't put it into math.

I do like your theory though. It's got me thinking about these points. I'm starting to wonder if the current paradigm of the binary existence - non-existence might be a little faulty, and there may be another discreet state which is neither one or the other. It could explain where quantum foam resides when not classically existing. It makes more sense to me than particles just suddenly existing with no origin.

I think studying Quasars might be a way to describe part of your theory inasmuch as they spit out matter in a narrow beam to possibly form a line over a black hole spitting stuff out. Just a thought.
User avatar
Event Horizon
Member
 
Posts: 358
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.


Re: Do Points Act as Fields?

Postby Eodnhoj7 on April 5th, 2018, 1:37 pm 

Event Horizon » April 5th, 2018, 6:32 am wrote:I think I can describe conceptualization over math in the way my mind works by invoking the memory, albeit a bit cheekily, by invoking the memory of the imperious Albert Einstein. He was also able to imagine the concept at hand, but had to rely on mathematicians to describe his concepts in math for professional scientists to understand. It's a poor example and I am not making any comparisons in any kind of way as far as capability is concerned. That would be rather foolish.
I can do some odd stuff though, like placing my mind outside of the known universe and "observe" from a theoretical "outside". I observed that the inflation event caused a shockwave that would probably have radiated out at 40xC, and that it might possibly be responsible for "priming" and expanding spacetime as we know it. I could well be off-base and the theory is probably unprovable, but it's the kind of thing I tend to think about. I just can't put it into math.

I do like your theory though. It's got me thinking about these points. I'm starting to wonder if the current paradigm of the binary existence - non-existence might be a little faulty, and there may be another discreet state which is neither one or the other. It could explain where quantum foam resides when not classically existing. It makes more sense to me than particles just suddenly existing with no origin.

I think studying Quasars might be a way to describe part of your theory inasmuch as they spit out matter in a narrow beam to possibly form a line over a black hole spitting stuff out. Just a thought.



To summate my argument you can look at it like a meta-form of Euclidean geometry where all geometric forms are done away with and the simple premises are lines, points, and angles as frequencies. This thread http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=34193 give some further clarity however the argument is unfinished.

Due to some constraints I have not finished it but it gives a general impression of what I am addressing. It is missing some points but I have not yet put a finger on what exactly. Anyhow if, and I want to emphasize "if", it is what I think it is then theoretically speaking it provides a "folding function" that would account for the unit of number as a unit that originates from this very same 0d point-field while simultaneously cycling back to it. I have a graph I have to put up, but the graph shows that while numbers "expand" they simultaneously cycle back to their point of original....in a straight line "not a circle".
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests