The theory of realistic continued.

Part 1 continued

6.The meaning and value of Geometric

Geometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes thus leading us into a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space.

It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski’s space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski’s space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ”truths” of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects.

Einstein’s relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski’s space-time regarding space-time to like’fabric”, however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself.  Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light.   It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein’s work or Minkowski’s space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein’s relativity thought is of axiom ”truths” thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations.

In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion,  the geometrical relative size of the visual universe.  It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time.

In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology

4/3 pi r³ – 4/3 pi r³ = nothing

In this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing.

The big bang also suggests   that space is expanding,  suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ”growing” and that space itself is expanding into nothing.

However, this is not an axiom of ”truth”and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points .  Space itself does not reflect light or is observed to be red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect.  I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space,  a length expansion into a unknown distance.

Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and the observer.

In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context.

If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A)  standing by the warehouse walls was observer (B).

Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (B)

Relative to observer (B) they can not observe (A)

Relatively both observers can concur by voice  the axiom  truth, that neither observer can observe each  other.

Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet.

Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (B)

Relative to observer (B) they can observe (A)

Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation.

My reasoning for this relationship is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of  the light off (A), where as observer (B) only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (B).  The magnitude of light reflected from (B) is not a great enough magnitude by time  the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation  is ”washed out” by the candle light surrounding (A).

There is no apparent reason why this analogy can  not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ”black” background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects.

To extend on this axiom, I would  direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view.   A body in motion  travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing.

This can be described in analogy by using a train track.

If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train’s observed rear area,  scaling down in size.

This area contraction can be acquainted to the  Lorentz formula and  length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view  relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.

Thus brings  us to the relative geometrical  size of the visual Universe, there is a ”truth” in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ”truth”  that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space itself, this only  shows us relative length between objects relative to light.

To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression

4/3 pi r(c)³

Where r(c) represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies.





to be continued……












Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s