Thunderbird: A Theory of Everything.

(This rather long article stems from a letter, reprinted below, that I sent to “Street Signs” on Feb 26, 2011 and the thoughts that followed it.  The name “Thunderbird ” is associated with this because, as this thought first occurred to me on a predawn morning, there was a flash of lightening off in the still pitch Southern sky.)

The Letter

RE: Energy (as variations in continuous media). I’ve watched, with great interest, your commentary on America’s sudden surplus in oil, which you often mix with the phrase energy, and the important thing to differentiate is oil is an energy storage media, not the captured energy itself. All energy comes from the Sun, less nuclear energy which is structural form of energy in the Universe, and our current dilemma springs from our inability to release that energy save for burning the media that contains it. In order to understand our reality, we have carefully segmented it into matter/energy, space and force: compartments, boundaries that the universe takes no heed of, functioning in its continuous and seamless fashion. The boundary that we have drawn between particle and wave energy is misplaced and should be redrawn as matter/energy and wave/space. What we perceive as limit the universe sees as media: our perception is that wave energy proceeds across continuous media, as sound travels through the air, and yet as a current is passed through a wire, a magnetic field is established as a reaction to that passing, that disturbance of the space/wave field. A form of accounting for the non-quantifiable energy (not fitting into a quanta packet) that moves simultaneously with energy in quanta. This works regardless of the conducting media: solid, liquid, gas or plasma because it is not state related, it is space related, a manifestation of the universe as largely structural wave energy that matter/energy bonds upon and interacts with. The Greeks were right all along, there is a “ether” though not gaseous as they imagined, rather a web of wave energy the accounts for all energies that do not conform to matter/energy quanta packets. When a photon of energy X strikes a receptor that requires only X-1 to fulfill, the plus 1 is released, in current theory, as a wave energy, when the proper viewpoint is, it is absorbed, accounted for, by the preexisting space/wave fields. The quanta proportions are established upon delivery, not upon inception, and the sub or super quanta energies are accounted for by the structure of the universe. Particle/wave duality is a misnomer and is as fundamental a misunderstanding as mistaking action for reaction. That waves exist coincident with particle motion does not mean they are causal by that particle, rather the passing through of the media: when a pebble is dropped into the continuous media of a pond, the pebble does not spread its energy, its mass, across the pond, the pond reacts to the disturbance of its set field with waves. The quanta of energy sufficient to agitate the water are absorbed by it and the insufficient are reflected into the air, producing the sound, ”kerplunk”. All energies are accounted for in this way. What does this have to do with oil? The current capture of energy by plants via photosynthesis can be improved upon given that they only react to photons of sufficient quanta to grow and all other energies greater or lesser are reflected or ignored. This energy is accounted for by heat, a form of wave energy. All the Sun’s energy that is not absorbed by plants becomes heat, it’s pretty much that simple, and heat wave energy is continuous across all media on this planet but is absorbed by space. Almost a pattern emerging… I’m just saying,
heat capturing and converting devices would be a more efficient method of energy transference than photonic devices, such as plants, and cleaner, too. Plants grow in dirt, you know, and what is dirtier than that? Oh, they’re so damn smug, aren’t they? They’re all, “We can capture light and make it work for us . What can you do?” but no, they won’t even deign to speak to us. Well, they’re getting theirs now, aren’t they? All the Best, TVA Ps. Sorry for going on like that, I guess you struck a nerve.

Bound and Unbound Space.

If one were to place a piece of one way glass between a camera and a mirror, it would, depending on whether the glass was placed with the transparent side or the reflective side facing the camera, return a picture of the camera or the reflective side of the glass. So what is the reality of the situation as it is viewed? As both are equally valid, both are real and the pictures are individually valid for their circumstances. In the first instance, the barrier is invisible, therefore undetectable and, perhaps, assumed not there at all. In the second instance, the light is reflected back to the camera without passing through and the mirror may be assumed to not be there because it is undetectable on the other side of the glass. Oddly, this is reversed if the light source is moved from behind the camera to behind the mirror. With the same circumstances, differing results based on the perspective of the viewer and the viewed, object and subject, and the phenomenology of the sense energy, in this case light. If one were to place a recording device at either end of an echo chamber, the first sound produced would always be the first sound recorded whether it was direct or reflected, differing only in time delay. The difference in the two experiments is the phenomenology of the two energies, light and vibration. Light is super-quanta in space, vibration is sub-quanta and is dependant on the sympathetic vibrations of continuous fields for transmission thus only dependant on continuity, not perspective as light is. What, then, is the proper perspective on light? Is it as the viewed or the viewer, object or subject, do we actually see light or do we see its reflection: the wavelength sufficient to satisfy the required quanta? In other words, is light even a particle at all or just the perception of it as a satisfactory quanta packet? My argument would be as a wave quanta packet because it proceeds across space as only waves do and is only subject to the rules of particles in gravitational fields, ie, upon delivery in a quantified field. This is the dilemma of perception, of measurement, with regard to our circumstances: we are gravitational by the very nature of our being, as matter, and will thus always influence the minute measurement of quanta both by the fields that we exist in and the very fields of our own being.
What, then, is the proper viewpoint for observation: as the viewer or the viewed? What first seems a semantic debate should, now, reveal the necessity of the consideration. I propose, most boldly, that we perceive the reflection of reality, the action of matter that surrounds us, because of our egocentric predicament, because of the nature of our sense receptors as matter interactive and because the true nature of matter is inaccessible to our senses.
The question becomes, why does light proceed across space? All energies proceed across a conductive media, as electricity through metals, which would imply a conduit for light exists. That could only be the true nature of space itself, a wave field that the energy packet we describe as light proceeds across. In fact, the reflection of that field exists in the dichotomous particle/wave definition of light, a delineation that light pays as little heed to as it deserves.
So which is it, particle or wave? The nature of light is defined by the nature of the space it enters, bound or unbound. Bound by what? The gravitational forces of matter. When light leaves a star and enters unbound space, space not separated by the electron valence shells of atoms, it must proceed as a super-quanta wave across a wave field, that can be the only conductive media. I say as super-quanta relative to the space wave field it proceeds across and because of that separation is subject to the same rules as the quanta packets (which are also super-quanta verses the space field) that compose matter.
In other words, there are no particles. There is space, unbound and bound, and the wave energies that ride across and interact with it.
Bear in mind that the primary component of matter is space itself, defined space, space that is separated from continuous space by its capture in the super-quanta wave fields that compose matter. It is that separation that makes matter gravitational, temporal and relative to other matters and energies on that same super-quanta plane.
It is man’s insistence on defining matter as the primary component of the universe that leads to the dead ends of string and null theories. Space and structure are the primary components, energy the defining attribute as to which plane it exists on and unbound or bound space the determinants of matter/gravity. The dimensions of the universe would be the traditional width, length, height and time with the temporal plane bearing the complexity of all super-quanta interaction, the space dimensions of width, length and height bearing the transmission of all space sub-quanta across the capacitance of the universe.
This theory does nothing to the preexisting theories of physics other than to separate the space planes from the time plane: it is not space that bends to gravity, rather time and all energies on that plane (most importantly material energies). The fact that sub-quanta (quark) energies interact with sub-dimensional planes actually supports this theory: as they proceed from relative, temporal, bound space, they interact with the primary spatial planes and are expressed verses those planes with consistent orientations.

The Rigidity of Spatial Tensors and the Temporal Plane.

The fundamental mistake, or to be more gracious, misunderstanding, of General Relativity is the conjoining of space/time on the temporal plane, which is the plane General Relativity concerns itself with, when the proper delineation arises between relative, gravitational and temporal forces upon the structural composition of space as length, width and height. Space does not bend: time and those temporal forces of that plane, matter/energy, can only distort energies on the same plane, never the continuous structural tensions of space. Even in a instance of great temporal disruption, a black hole for example, where the fabric of time is stretched and contorted around the consolidation of matter/energy (and therefore, gravity), the fundamental spatial dimensional structures are unaffected because they are the continuous tensors of universal capacitance that the quantified energies of the temporal plane rise above.
Consider the very method black holes are detected: they are “seen” by radio telescopes as an emission of a wavelength across an area of space which suffers severe temporal distortion. This emission is consistent and measurable. The fact that it is consistent shows that, even as the temporal plane is severely distorted, the structural, spatial planes are unaffected. I will assert now that those wave energies that pass along those spatial planes are the intermediaries between the temporal and spatial planes.
This assertion stems from the failure of discrete analysis in sub-particle prediction and the ongoing search for “free quarks”. This, again, arises from the conjoining of spatial and temporal planes, and their treatment as equivalent. A simple answer is that sub-particle energies fall to the spatial plane because they are expressible there as waves in very much the same way that particle energies are not. It is a curiosity that quarks can be created in a electro-magnetic field but disappear when it is removed-unless the temporal plane requires electro-magnetic space that a sub-particle like a quark would be unable to capture. Indeed, it is continuity of space throughout reality, it’s manifestation on the atomic and universal scales, that create the temporal plane by its inability to express particle-quanta energies, which are expelled into the temporal plane until which time as their energies fall to expressible levels. With that expulsion comes the spatial dimensions captured by that energy which, in turn, create the consistency of physical behavior and, by their separation from the continuity of space, gravity. Gravity is a material, temporal and relative force that can only be expressed on a plane that has those capacities and the electro-magnetic, continuous and non-relative traits of the spatial planes leave no reason to look there for it. Still, discrete analysis persists.
The attempt to access temporal phenomena energies through the analysis of their structural energies (sub-“particle”, sub-quanta) leaves the quandary of discrete analysis on the continuous planes of spatial dimensionality, yielding, necessitating the construction of sub-dimensionality to reconcile the manifold entrances to the spatial realms with different coordinates, different electro-magnetic potentials, when the differentials arise from the differences between the temporal and spatial planes.
The rigidity of spatial tensors determines the consistency of all physical phenomena in action and reaction upon the temporal plane and, in this consistency, the rigidity of the construction is revealed. If the temporal plane was interactive with the structural plane, the consistency of the system would collapse, yielding differing results for the same experiment given to the vagaries of the temporal field the experiment was performed in.
What, then, necessitates the temporal plane?
The temporal plane is formed by the rejection of quantified energies beyond the capacity of the spatial dimensions to transmit, that challenge the rigidity of the structure, and in that rejection, proceed to the temporal plane until which time their energies are transmittable across the spatial planes, when the quanta falls below the photonic level. I will state this conjecture and will allow you to assimilate it at your leisure: there are no “particles”, only quantified wave energies that conform to the actions associated with “particles”. Their name is the most semantic of debates, their nature and behavior far more relevant.
What, then, proves the separation of time and space?
The very nature of time as progressive and invariable. Given that the temporal plane is distortable, why then, would the arrow of time forever move forward? If time is expressed as the temporal plane’s gradual fall into the spatial planes, the distortion of a black hole is simply a reflection of the acceleration of that process. True time, as expressed by the spatial dimensions, is unaffected. Looking at this mathematically, the distortion of the temporal, occasionally hyperbolic, plane intersects the rigid, linear spatial planes at distinct individual moments on the spatial planes that are supplying the structural space for the expression of that distinct moment and the possibility of the intersection of moments on the temporal is impossible on the spatial because that intersection is would occur at different co-ordinates.
This Theory of Everything has two exciting, philosophical considerations: that each moment is individual and from that moment the variation, while linear in execution, is at the same time infinitely variable as the possible linear vectors through a point are variable, and the very rigidity of spatial tensors that give consistency to the physical structures of our reality are also the carriers of all energy waves, whether sub-quanta waves transmitted directly on that structure or the particle-quanta waves that are rejected into the temporal plane until which time as they are transmittable. This leaves room for such an abstraction as free will which I would hope would be encouraging. What is the most exciting to me about this theory is the most absolute conservation of energy, that even energy that does not rise to the level of manifestation on the temporal plane has eternal expression as waves along the spatial.
That we are at once free to choose and at the same time possibly held to the eternal expression of our most minute actions leaves us in control of our destinies if we can accept the consequences of our actions. If we were so fortunate to have a God, this would be His ultimate testimony to His faith in us: that we could choose the proper paths under His ever vigilant eye.