When we Look with our Eyes and not with our Mind we can See that Space looks very different from what we Think it is. In Our Space Parallel Lines meet at Infinity.
Around 1400 during the Renaissance Painters started to look at Space with their own Eyes and discovered the Rules of Perspective Drawing.
Between 1600-1800 Perspective Theory changed from a Theory of Art to a Theory of Mathematics called Projective Geometry.
It took 400 Years before a few Mathematicians realized that Projective Geometry was the Foundation of Mathematics and it took another 100 years before Projective Geometry started to influence Physics.
In 1908 Hermann Minkowski discovered that Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity could be analysed using Projective Geometry. Minkowski created a 4D Space-Time Metric Geometry in which he added one Time Dimension.
Many experiments now show that 4D-Space-Time is not sufficient to incorporate what Time Really is.
Well, this is what I’ve heard. Among the ancient gods of
Naucratis in Egypt there was one to whom the bird called the ibis is
sacred. The name of that divinity was Theuth and it was he who first
discovered number and calculation, geometry and astronomy, as well as the games of checkers and dice, and, above all else, writing.
Now the king of all Egypt at that time was Thamus, who lived in the
great city in the upper region that the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes; Thamus they call Ammon. Theuth came to exhibit his arts to him and urged him to disseminate them to all the Egyptians. Thamus asked him about the usefulness of each art, and while Theuth was explaining it, Thamus praised him for whatever he thought was right in his explanations and criticized him for whatever he thought was wrong.
The story goes that Thamus said much to Theuth, both for and against
each art, which it would take too long to repeat. But when they came to
writing, Theuth said: “0 King, here is something that, once learned, will
make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory; I have discovered a potion for memory and for wisdom.”
Thamus, however, replied: “0 most expert Theuth, one man can give birth to the elements of an art, but only another can judge how they can benefit or harm those who will use them. And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are.
In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own.
You have not discovered a potion for remembering. but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.”
Socrates, you’re very good at making up stories from Egypt or wherever else you want!
But, my friend, the priests of the temple of Zeus at Dodona say that the first prophecies were the words of an oak. Everyone who lived at that time, not being as wise as you young ones are today, found it rewarding enough in their simplicity to listen to an oak or even a stone, so long as it was telling the truth, while it seems to make a difference to you, Phaedrus, who is speaking and where he comes from. Why, though, don’t you just consider whether what he says is right or wrong?
This is a page from a manuscript of the Algebra (Maqalah fi al-jabra wa-al muqabalah) of Omar Khayyam (1048-1131). This work is known for its solution of the various cases of the cubic equation by finding the intersections of appropriately chosen conic sections. On this page, Omar is discussing the case “a cube, sides and numbers are equal to squares”, or, in modern notation, x3 + cx + d = bx2. The two conics whose intersection provides the solution are a circle and a hyperbola. In the case illustrated, these curves intersect twice, thus providing two (positive) solutions of the given cubic equation. Khayyam even provides a problem which leads to this case: Divide ten into two parts so that the sum of the squares of the parts together with the quotient of the division of the greater by the smaller be seventy-two. For more details, see pp. 90ff of Daoud Kasir, The Algebra of Omar Khayyam (New York: Teachers College Press, 1931) or pp. 144ff of R. Rashed and B. Vahabzadeh, Omar Khayyam, the Mathematician (New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press, 2000).
This particular manuscript was copied in the thirteenth century in Lahore, India. Among the other fourteen works contained in the volume are two by Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi (1135-1213) on determining vertical heights of objects and a treatise by ibn al-Haytham (965-1039) on the astrolabe.
Reviewer: robstawithlove – favoritefavoritefavorite – October 9, 2016
Subject: A New Theory of Everything and Lots of Pain
The implications of this book have been reverberating rather uncomfortably in my mind for days. The literary standard and academic tone are as jarring as its emphatically repeated message to reject the bulk of quantum theory, general relativity, the standard particle model of physics and much of accepted cosmology. Yet, the proposition that emerges is groundbreaking, if taken into proper consideration.
Ken Wheeler draws upon ancient philosophy and the work of Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz and Tesla in formulating the premise that the prime cause for all of the known forces emanate from perturbations of the Ether, which is non-physical and existent in counter-space, that was widely accepted and necessary in the work of the listed innovators and that has roundly been rejected by the advent of quantum mechanics. What follows is an experiential/experimental analysis of the relationship between dielectricity and magnetism as expressed in geometry and interacting forces, leading to somewhat of a definition of both, and their relationship to electromagnetism.
Once established and defined, this relationship is then extended to redefine the nature and observed effects of ferromagnetic, diamagnetic and radioactive elements, conductors (dielectric reflectors), insulators (dielectric capacitors) and superconductors before addressing the toroidal structure of galaxies, molecular bonds, the hydrogen atom, gravity and light itself.
It would therefore be fair to say that the content is an inversion of physics as we know it, but yet accords well with other non-standard contemporary postulates that seek to unite physics with consciousness, science with ancient philosophy, the fractal-holographic view of the universe or even an information-based theory of physics (although I suspect that the author may be as disparaging of some of these proponents as much as Einstein or Feynman). If correct, the work may provide more substance to some of the mathematically abstract and empirically unproven forces or entities that make up our current cosmological view, such as dark energy and dark matter (hypothesised to explain observable effects) and may serve to flesh out the work of physicists and cosmologists in investigating black holes and their effects, amongst others.
A serious drawback in the writing, is the unfortunate tendency of the author to make frequent statements of opposition – many of which lead to contradiction. These are damaging to the core content of the work, which is more than sufficient in quality in both its investigations and findings to be plausible and worthy of serious consideration. Mr. Wheeler’s style and approach makes it manifestly clear that he is not an academic, an apologist or a politically motivated physicist with his eyes on a prize. It is also clear that the book has not been edited or spruced up by a publisher. While this may alienate certain readers before the substance of the book emerges, I find these qualities to be indicators of sincerity, both with regards to the investigation and to the frustration felt with the state of established physics. Simultaneously, I am concerned that the author’s supposition of opposition can only engender further exclusion from consideration, which is a travesty when considering the amount of work and time that have been committed to this transmission of knowledge.
My conclusion is that this book is of great value to those who are able to cast literary prejudice aside, those who are not too attached to a dogmatic view of physics or its luminaries, those who are comfortable with unlearning (even temporarily) what has become “established fact” and in particular those who seek to act upon knowledge rather than discuss it at length in “appropriate forums”. To paraphrase C.G. Jung: “There is no coming to consciousness without pain”. This would be just the book for that.
(Uncle Fester warning btw ‘^)