25 July 2013

Some ask how it is we can even ask such questions at all. Can a computer program calculate all the possible computer programs? Not! How then can a single person understand the whole universe?

Thomas Aquinas gave us the argument from design during the 13th century, and his philosophy is without comparison. The argument from design speaks volumes with just three words. Descartes proof of God rests on its infallible logic, the results of which are the foundational ontologies of Galileo and Newton.

The terms Science and Philosophy are intrinsically the same. Both words simply mean 'knowledge'. But how do we decide which to believe when claims are at odds with one another? I have become increasingly skeptical of the word 'science' as it has been abused as much today as philosophy was in medieval times, and it increasingly reduces to little more than an argument from egotism with complexity as a smokescreen.

The good philosopher will always be able to reduce an idea to a basic concept, even if the reasoning is complex. Knowledge always forms a series of simple claims, all of which can be validated logically or empirically. Mathematics and philosophy can always be reduced to many interwoven sets. No argument is intrinsically impossible to grasp, and the willing mind can overstand anything. Even; bodily immortality.

Logical Positivism is an attempt to enlighten the mind with the notion that an empirical experiment can only be empirical if the person making the claim has first hand experience of the phenomenon directly. Be warned. There are many who call themselves 'scientists' who rely on belligerence, ego and false claims.

There are many who even ignore the first-hand experiences of their own perceptions due to ulterior motives, or they could be quivering at the prospect of having to ascertain the validity of new ideas. The fear of backing a new false idea can reveal the difference between those that parrot knowledge, and those that can evaluate notions analytically themselves. Ethics in an absolute sense is indivisible from Science, Aesthetics, and ultimately from faith in God.

The trinity of metaphysical concepts that are indivisible are: fate, chance and free will. In a universe without free will, questions themselves would not be possible. We can seek the unknown without knowing it in advance. If such questioning was determined, we could not be in a state of mystery about the question in the first place. Shakespeare said that the only question is: to be or not to be. I would like to clarify: The only question is: to ponder further or not. An answer has to be freely pursued, or else we would have such an answer implicitly within the question.

Our universe itself has an origin. My calculations show that this begining was not a chaotic big bang, but a very ordered unwinding: organic more than explosive. Very much deliberate, and precise. The concept of spin has been calculated to be an intrinsic feature of the ordered and almost circular structures of this Universe.

Gravity and the big bang are not enough to produce a universe like ours. The chaos that a big bang brings would result in entropy or a single giant black hole. Without spin as an intrinsic force, spiral galaxies and binary stars would not be as commonplace as they are; neither would a solar system with concentric orbits be able to form.

Most of Flight Light and Spin is to be considered orthodox science. Much of it is pure mathematics, and there is considerable software programming underpinning the claims in Astrophysics. All of this is only possible with the faith that answers to such questions are attainable.

As for the various ontologies postulated, many of them are mathematically implicit within one another. My preoccupation with the notion that theories on solar system formation were lacking, lead me to construct the first orbit-game (OG). The answer to why the moon is receding from the Earth became apparent after 4 years of observing how Newton's g=m/r^2 interacted between multiple bodies. Inadvertently the many-problem was solved before I realized it was even a posed problem.

On researching contemporary theories on solar system formation, I noticed Rubin's problem and within a day had the solution; as the computer model from solar system formation was 90% the same and just required some minor tweaking. The answer to dark matter could then be simply observed in the computer model. And, dark energy was easily seen in the light of the common principles behind solar system formation and the structure of spiral galaxies.

All of this was held together by the realization that spin had to be a fundamental force of the universe. I had always felt that something was missing, now the mathematical proof became certain. Spin would need to be either much weaker than gravity or, (less likely) a force only present at the start of the Universe.

At one point I had the mistaken belief that I had discovered the essence of quantum gravity, only to find that a fraction had erroneously been declared as an integer. And, yet, because of my error, the true nature of quantum gravity became a pertinent question.

Feeling anxious about publishing, I scoured the text books for any reference to gravity I had missed. It was only then that I noticed that the many-body-problem was seemingly unsolved. And yet I had worked out these calculations years before. At this point the nature of quantum gravity became as clear as daylight, fitting in to the answer to Xeno's paradox which I had solved 15 years earlier.

Quantum time was essential to solving Xeno’s riddle, just as Quantum energy was necessary to solving Lord Rayleigh’s ridiculous notion that there is infinite energy at any point. Lord Rayleigh's conundrum and Xeno's paradox are both division by zero errors. They both require quantisation of the dividing variable.

When I realized that this math was precisely the same as that used by Max Planck to thwart the misconceptions of one Lord Rayleigh, I was laughing louder than a lolcat! My old Nemesis was a traditional foe of reason. All the theories clicked together like a jigsaw puzzle so neatly that all doubts I ever had about my work dissipated in a flash.

In fact all my faith in God was restored at that point and I can assure the reader that before this endeavor I did not in any way realize that the term enlightenment could be quite so light.

Finding wider publication for this work, is a quandary just as difficult as solving the problems themselves. Let the reader be heartened. Though I have answered many questions, so many more remain, and so many more have been unearthed. Until medical science gives us immortality of the body, this work, however grand, is but a precursor to works which shall be much, much greater.

But! If the answers here remain invalidated, then the next steps will be impossible. Dark-energy or spin is quite likely the reason that many biological organisms are spiralled in the same direction. There is no way that foundational medical science can progress, if foundational physics is denied. There is no way that aTheism, can prevail in a world so clearly designed.

The world must have faith that not only is bodily immortality an inevitable outcome, but calculated resurrection of those who are long dead, must eventually occur; however long this mighty endeavour takes. But faith is intrisically an active problem solving principle. Faith is never passive.

This book starts here: a dream