User:Androu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my page - pleasure to meet you
here is a sample of my theories ...
Contents |
[edit] Objectivity
At the core of the Modern Sciences is objectivity - a value, one could say, on which much of the Scientific literature thrives on. Without it, science would be bias, and with bias comes falsifiability which in turn accompanies the lack of knowledge and the presence of ignorance. Indeed, for much of the history of world, ignorance has been the prevailing power of the two and, as I will argue later, is still common. As Kant has said and Popper reformulated, Our intellect does not draw its laws from nature, but tries to impose upon nature laws which it feely invents. Adding to this, I stipulate that the laws being formulated are a product of the nature we try to describe with physical laws.
Ideal objectivity is impossibility in science. In layman's terms, I say that Science is as bias as our own senses make and our own mind formulates it. Our senses detect information, and it is only through the five senses that we can realize a Scientific fact. At the end of the day, it is senses that determine an observation. I ask, how can we use our very senses to detect something which governs our interpretation? This is a kin to a student marking his own test paper. Naturally, the student believes it all to be true - it is only through the knowledge with which he wrote the test paper can he use to evaluate the test paper assuming there is no higher intelligence at work.
[edit] The Senses and Quantum Theory
Observations and results clashing, in a certain battle with truth, can currently only be seen through quantum mechanics, the physics of the infitismal. I hypothesize that this very situation in dealing with Quantum Mechanics is only magnified with size. Observations in context of a theory will produce a result that can only be interpreted in terms of nature simply because our mental framework only works in a self-defined nature.
If the five senses cannot detect a body or a force, then it must not exist. Moreover, if the instruments we produce which fine tunes our five senses cannot detect the body or force, then it must not exist. Indeed, the electron microscope is only as good as the eyes which attempt to perceive the information the machine relays to the observer. A blind man will never be able to interpret an electron microscope picture simply because his very nature forbids him to do so. I say that it is the same with the humans who are blessed vision and all other senses. There is a barrier which prevents us from understanding nature. Nature will forever be locked out of the vault we ourselves are entrapped in - the vault called the five senses.
I say that the larger the objects, the easier it is for us to understand it. The smaller, the more difficult it becomes because our senses themselves begin to collapse. When our senses completely collapse, that is to say when our senses become frivolous - useless, we can truly understand the nature of what I will now, The Natural Barrier of Science.
[edit] The Natural Barrier to Science
The Natural Barrier to Science is exactly what the name suggests, Science has a barrier, after which nothing can be understood. Indeed the barrier is not so much a brick wall as it is a steep ramp. The smaller we go into the intricacies of the universe, the harder it is to climb the ramp. If we do happen to get close enough to the edge, we slide right down to where we started. This is what precisely happens when we delve into the theory of Quantum Mechanics. Our basic laws and logic completely collapse like a city built with cards. We begin to question the basic nature of the universe, and begin to notice that the physics that we knew since Newton is not precise. At this level, the quantum or Planck level, our senses collapse and, not surprisingly, so do our equations. They become increasingly difficult to solve and can only be solved using an array of different computer software. Even the most advanced computer on the planet could not solve the Schrödinger equation for even the simplest of compounds.
When we go down to such small levels, our observations become irrelevant and we begin to see what is truly governing our universe. I say that the seeming contradictions in quantum theory are also present in the modern world dealing with large bodies, but are only glossed over with observations which just happen to fit with the theory perfectly. I also say that correlation does not mean law. If all things fall to the earth under gravity according to the inverse square "law", this does not mean that all things fall to other bodies under the inverse square law.
[edit] Macroing Heisenberg
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is one of the more well known subtopics in the theory of Quantum mechanics. The theory stipulates that
This formula in essence states that it is impossible to precisely determine the momentum and the position of a particle. That is to say that as one measurement becomes more precise, the other becomes less precise. I named this chapter Macroing Heisenberg simply because I say that Heisenberg is valid for every body in the universe - not just for the microscopic. Although Heisenberg was referring to the fact that merely observing the position changes the momentum, I believe he was also referring experimental observation and error. Here, I believe, is the first formulation of the error of an actual observation. Let me expound.
Heisenberg is not referring to experimental error per se, such as misreading a test tube, he is referring to the error caused by merely observing the phenomenon. I believe that observing macro-phenomenon has the same effect, yet is glossed over by our senses themselves. Using our senses, I believe, counters the effects of such error such that much of our general physical formulation coincides nicely with what we observe. However, to strip down the layers of our senses means to observe true nature at work. However, as long as there is even minimal observation, the results will be skewed, but not to the degree they would be with full sensual capacity (i.e. like observing an apple fall from a tree).
I say that much of the theory we have today only works with our senses, but not with reality. If our senses were the only thing needed to understand our surroundings and nature, then why do our senses seem to "play tricks" on us when we go atomic? Indeed, there is much to be learned from nature yet our senses are the main barrier to us discovering it simply because our senses, in a sense, work with nature to ensure that we never truly realize how the universe works. More on this at a later date.
[edit] Observational Thermodynamics
A number of respected physicists hold the view that the tendencies of a system to increase in disorder - the entropy - is governed by our ignorance of the system to increase. Entropy is not to be defined as a measure of its objective state of disorder, but the subjective state of ignorance. More shall be expounded at a later date
[edit] Evolutionary Hypothesis
Hailed as being the cornerstone of modern Biology, the general scientific community has come to accept Evolutionary theory over the course of time since 1859. In that year, English naturalist Charles Darwin published The Origin, a seminal dictum in which he outlined the groundwork of evolutionary hypothesis and the then novel idea of Natural Selection. In the following, I shall take examine evolutionary theory and take a more critical look at its mechanisms and its logical framework. Reader take notice that what I will say is equivalent to scientific blasphemy and not worthy of the attention of a scientist. I implore those reading to truly understand what I will outline and not merely dismiss it as heresy.
[edit] Natural Selection
[edit] Sociophysics: Applying Newton to Freud
After years of musing over the Newtonian laws, it dawned on me that these very laws can be applied to sociology and psychology. The theory fits in an almost aesthetically pleasing way and to my knowledge, no one has ever expounded on this topic. The ideas presented here are solely the result of my reflecting over the logic of Newton and irrationality of humans. Anything quotes or laws I present have been borrowed freely from a number of credible sources.
I have entitled this chapter Sociophysics, a word which would seem quite unfamiliar at first site yet after a quick examination, the term is merely a juxtaposing of Sociology and Physics. Here, I define Sociophysics as the study of a man and a people in terms of physical laws. The term is meant to reflect the woven nature of man and physical laws, and how the complement one another in a peculiar yet logical fashion. Again, the ideas presented here are solely of my standpoint and any familiar ideas are only a co-incidence.
Newton, I believe was a true genius, a term I use here to denote exceptional intelligence and insight into the world he inhabited. The term genius has often been construed in society, and it is with deep regret to say that it is by no means the only thing that has not escaped the itching fingers of the modern media.
Newton's laws are a work of art - a sort of liquefied genius. The Laws, as translated from the Latin
[edit] Law I
"Every Body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon"
In layman's terms, and in order to avoid confusion, let us assume that one is in the vacuum of space and there are no nearby planets, starts, or other celestial bodies. The speed of a body, whether it is at 0 or at the speed of light, will not change unless an external force acts on the body.
This is, in my own mind, a kin to a man. Left alone without any external forces, the man will proceed without acting on his environment. Naturally, there are always forces acting on the man: nature, his environment, the media, and fellow men. We must therefore assume that there are always forces acting on an individual as long as he is conscious and alive because the environment itself can be seen as a "force of nature". Even the simplest things can cause a dramatic change in the mind of a man. A cloudy day can "depress" him, for without the sun - a natural antidepressant - the man may and will act in a relatively irrational manner. Once death strikes, the man no longer has external forces acting on him, but supernatural forces. However, it is the very act of dying which is a cause of Force amongst men, for a death will lead to grievance and therefore a change from the natural state.
Macroscopically speaking, this also holds for men which are alive. A man will mind his own ways if he not bothered by others and, left alone, he will not be a major force which acts on his fellow men. However, the slightest force is enough to cause a change in the man so as to cause great disturbance, whether positive or negative on his surroundings. This topic can be greatly expounded on, and so it will in the future
[edit] Law II
"The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed"
A common formulation of this law is familiar site to those who have taken any elementary physics course: F = ma. That is to say that it is the presence of a mass accelerating causes the force. Or, more precisely, acceleration is the by-product of a force acting on a mass. That is to say, the greater the mass, the greater the Force. Similarly, the same could be said for acceleration. A Force is governed by only two factors: mass and acceleration.
With this in mind, it can be shown that the force of a man is also governed by his mass and acceleration. A large man, either physically or mentally, has an ability to impose his will on the masses more than the powerless or the physically weak. This is why women are rarely heads of state and why there will probably, and regrettably, never be a physically disabled head of state. The more mass one has, that is, the more influence, the more charismatic, or the more physically stronger, the stronger the Force one has and therefore the more power one can have over the bodies in the environment. The law can be further generalized, but this will kept for a later time
[edit] Law III
"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary Parts"
This is probably the most important one of all in terms of the interactions between people. The Conversation follows this law, a simple give and take situation. As I produce a force with my words, I receive words back , usually from the same source to which the words were directed. Complications arise when there are more than two people engaged in discussion and as the number increases, the propensity to have a one-on-one dialogue decreases. In the limiting case, an infinite amount trying to have one conversation will produce complete chaos and anarchy almost instantly. In another example, there is the case of one attempting to impose his will on the other through physical contact. If one were to get hit by another, chances the man on the receiving end will retaliate with an equal amount of Force. For instance, if X decides to slap Y across the head, Y would be tempted, and would probably, to slap X across the head with an equal amount of Force. Y would not, in the absence of external forces, be tempted to kill X however, because this would be illogical and would result in a severe reaction from society.
The Rules seem to change when other forces are at work, such as the introduction of hate towards a certain people, which would consequently result in a disproportionate result. The laws, however, hold because when another Force, such as racism, is introduced, the net Force of the system would be zero. That is to say that there is a sort of conservation of Force or, more generally, a conservation of momentum within populations and between people. Again back to the example brought up earlier. If X trips Y due to complete accident (while Y himself harbors serious racial values towards the race of X), Y would be provoked to give X a beating because Y felt that his "superior race" should not be humiliated by the inferior race X. X would then appeal for aid from all the Xs - and so a small accident quickly explodes into a civil battle of the races.
Terms like peer-pressure harbor much more meaning than what would meet the eye. Pressure is defined in physics as The Force impressed over a definite area. It therefore seems plausible that when a group of youth act in an attempt to influence one individual, say a young lad, that lad is under pressure because of the vast amount of Force concentrated, in a phsychomentalitical sense, on the young man.
[edit] Gravity and the Tendency to Attraction
The phenomenon known as gravity to the physical sciences is considered by many to be the most mysterious and misunderstood force in the universe. It was first postulated by Einstein of Germany that there can be imagined a sort of time-space continuum in the vacuum of space. Liken to a thin rubber mat, objects in space would be as bodies on the rubber mat which would, by the laws of elasticity, bend the rubber mat so as to cause a depression under and around the body's contact area. This, then, is what gravity is - a bending in the rubber mat of the universe called the time-space continuum. There has also arisen the postulate of the graviton, a theoretical, virtually massless, particle which would be the ultimate agent of the gravitational force. As of the present, no such particle has been detected.
The gravitational field around an object can be likend, I say, to the so-called gravitational field of the man. In the pages of history, one can see that man has always congregated with man. The yearning of people to be around each other is a longing that acts over long distances - not attenuated by distance or time.
[edit] Charge and the Forces of Nature
In the modern physics, there are two possible configurations of charge: positive or negative. Indeed, the very simplest constituent particles of the universe are either positive, negative, or neutral. Many have theorized that the state of neutral is nothing more than the equal amounts of positivism and negativism. Sub-atomic theorists claim that the neutron, the basic carrier of such neutral charge, is a proton and an electron - thereby rendering it neutral. It is also important to note that the 'amount' of charge in both proton and electron are equal yet opposite in sign. This seems to be baffling to say the least, that nature itself has realized that only with balance harmony can appear.
I say that such positive and negative charges can be likened to the forces of good and evil, and of love and strife. There then arises the problem of moral relativism, for what is good? What is love, and what is strife? At present I say that they are, like protons and electrons, direct opposites. That is to say, one "particle" of love contains the same amount of matter as one "particle" of strife. I define moral goodness as an word, thought, or deed which does not harm oneself or his surroundings. Evil, I will define, as the word, thought, or deed which harms oneself or his surroundings. Indeed, these rather vague definitions will be discussed later on, but for now I leave it at that. Good can also be defined as the nature of God, Evil as the nature of Satan.
[edit] Rule of the Rules: The politics of a sociopathic people
The ideal political system is paradoxical phrase, for in it lays the barrier to success of the other. Politics is essentially a way of imposing the will of a few on the many - an ideal system where both parties can be at ease is therefore an impossibility. In one extreme case, there is no rule - resulting in a complete anarchic state. On the hand, there is complete dictatorship, where the actions of one controls the actions of the people. Indeed, to control the mind of man is one challenge every dictator has had, for it is only through controlling the collective mind and consciousness that a dictator can rest assured that his power is ultimate and will go unchallenged.
[edit] Populations and Entropy
The problem of every nation and city is simply this: size; they are all too large. In order to solve the problem of politics, there must be a fragmentation of society into groups thousands of times smaller than the calamities we have today. As I have argued above, assuming an infinite amount of people gathered, there is infinite entropy amongst the populace, resulting in a state of disorder. I realize, however, that this poses a great threat to the Capitalist elite and will therefore never be established in the West. Further, fragmentation could prove detrimental to any communist state because it becomes much harder to impose a will on a number fragments rather than just a concentrated large group. A thousand groups of 6000 people is much harder to control, both politically and socially, than simply one group of 6,000,000 persons.
Consider the thought experiment with, say, a number of particles in an enclosed test tube. If I were to place all gas particles into a small test tube, the entropy of the particles would be much higher - and therefore would have little order. Similarly, a large concentrated group of people would have little order and would therefore find it necessary to yield to any form of order which, naturally, would be in the best interest of the people. This is how governments control the masses. Keep them in large ignorant groups.
However, If I were to take say 1000 test tubes and distribute the molecules equally, the entropy of each test tube content would be considerably smaller simply because the collisions between atoms would be decrease. Here, a collision could be compared to a conflict between people. This is even fairly obvious when examining societies.
This, I believe, is one of the reasons why many people loathe the idea of the "melting pot" societies, such as the American Society. In America, the popular saying goes that it is the great melting pot; many different ingredients come in but the resulting mixture is uniformly American. Subconsciously, people will hold on to their culture because it helps them to identify with a smaller group which will, naturally, have more order. This is one of the reasons why, I believe, the Family is key to the survival of a society. The Family is a small unit of people who are held together not only by biological ties, but by the power of love. The Family has managed to survive the years not only because of divine will, but also because in it is a high degree of order. The Family, I would argue, is the most stable element of a society. It is no surprise that some have called the Family the foundation of society. I would concur with this conclusion - at least for the most part.
Entropy is also thought to be a function of Heat. The Higher the temperature, Molecular theory holds, the higher the frequency of collisions between particles. It can be shown, furthermore, that temperature is directly responsible for rifts we see in society today - globally and locally. In the city I inhabit, there was one particular summer which many pundits called the "summer of the gun" because of the high frequency of homicide amongst the people. As it were, that summer was also the hottest on record. That has lead many to believe that temperature was an agent which directly influenced crime rates.
However, this simple theory has rarely been observed simply because there are many effects which act concurrently with the one I described which 'hide' the temperature-crime effect. I say, however, that after accounting for all other effects, it will be shown that crime rates are higher in the South than in the North for a population that is of uniform composition.
So as one has seen and will continue to see as I further expound on this subject, It is the very nature of what we call Science that also governs our societies. Societies, like gases, have an entropy - and a decrease in the amount of agents of entropy, such as heat, will have similar effects.
