The Nonlinearity of Perspective - Re-establishment of Classical Determinism

KP_PC k.p.collins at
Sat Sep 13 23:54:05 EST 2003

I RETRACT the sections of my previous post
as indicated below. [Sorry.]

"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at> wrote in message
news:y1J8b.137604$0v4.10098327 at
| Sorry about the screwed-up formatting.
| I'll re-do it in this post.
| "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at> wrote in message
news:kjI8b.140462$3o3.10026891 at
| | I'll begin with a 'short' excerpt from AoK, Ap6:
| |
| |     I first observed the nonlinear perspective
| |     phenomenon  during the summer of  1983.
| |     was  immersed in thought,  considering
| |     some notions in a  notebook while walking
| |     early  one morning. Suddenly, I was startled
| |     by an "explosive" visual phenomenon.
| |     I  had  almost  walked  directly  into one of
| |     those telephone poles that sometimes
| |     exist in the  midst of a  sidewalk. The
| |     "eruptive" nature of my visual experience
| |     was curious. It was easy to see that this
| |     phenomenon had saved me from a bump
| |    on the head. This was so obviously "useful"
| |     that the  experience gripped my attention.
| |     I retraced my approach to the telephone
| |     pole  repeatedly  and,  during  this
| |     "experimentation",  the nonlinear
| |     components  of visual  perspective began
| |     to become apparent to  me. As  I continued
| |     on my  way, the  phenomenon showed itself
| |     with every passing telephone pole and tree,
| |     yet I was not completely won over by it. I was
| |     well aware of  how "linear perspective"  is
| |     used  in artistic  and architectural renderings
| |     and "knew", after  all, that this was  "how
| |     things were". I decided that the things that
| |     I had experienced  were significant  in
| |     regard  to  visual  avoidance, but that they
| |     would  have  to  be  integrated  with  respect
| |     to "the larger linear-perspective phenomenon".
| |     Almost    immediately thereafter, I came
| |     upon a dump  truck that was  delivering a
| |     load of gravel to a construction site and I
| |     stopped to  watch this operation. As the
| |     bed  of the truck rose, the  motion of
| |     its contents occurred nonlinearly  with
| |     respect to the  angle that was formed by
| |     the truck's chassis and its dump bed.
| |     The gravel moved  only a  little until  the
| |     bed  of the truck was raised  to  a  sizable
| |     angle,  and  then the friction of the gravel
| |     on the truck bed was overcome and the
| |     load slid  forth during a relatively-short
| |     period of time. This reminded me of
| |     my earlier experience with  the telephone
| |     pole and  fixed, in my  mind,  the
| |     interesting  time-course  and angle-
| |     variation qualities that the two
| |     experiences shared. I recall saying to
| |     myself that, "If one more thing happens,
| |     I'm really going  to believe". The third event
| |     occurred about a mile further along in my
| |     walk.  I turned off  into a children's
| |     playground that had  a  hexagonal  "merry-
| |     go-round".  I  set  it  spinning as rapidly as
| |     I could  and then  perched myself  atop a
| |     nearby slide   to   observe   the   merry-
| |    go-round's   motion.   The nonlinear-
| |    perspective phenomenon showed  itself
| |     even in  this relatively-complex  situation.
| |    The  vertices  of the hexagon rapidly drew
| |     near and then receded as the apparatus
| |     spun. The ends  of  the  planks  which
| |     formed these vertices seemed to undergo
| |     a  change  in  conformation  as  the  merry-
| |     go-round whirled. (Others have since
| |     observed the same phenomenon with
| |     me.) I became  convinced of the
| |     generality of the  nonlinear components
| |     of visual perspective right then and there
| |     and saw the notion  of "linear  perspective"
| |     as  incomplete in  cases that involve motion
| |     in 3-dimensional space. (A further note:
| |     I expect that the dynamics of nonlinear
| |    "perspective" will be shown  to  have
| |     some  GENERAL  significance  in the
| |     physical sciences.)
| |
| | I'd been studying Physics since a Child,
| | but on that day back in 1983, as a result
| | of this extraordinary walk, I saw, almost
| | completely, what would, afterward, become
| | Tapered Harmony.
| |
| | It's the "GENERAL significance" referred
| | to in the closing sentence of this "aside",
| | which is a footnote in the paper version of
| | AoK and a hyperlink in the electronic version.
| [Which, if anyone 'wonders', is the fourth example
| to which I referred below. The sentence was a
| place-holder for what I knew would be future
| discussions of the NL-P. kpc]
| | What I saw that day is that the nonlinearity
| | of perspective ["NL-P"] as it's discussed in
| | AoK, Ap6 =must= extend right into 'atomic'
| | energydynamics.
| |
| | So, since that day, I've been rewriting all of
| | Physics in rigorous accord with the "NL-P".
| |
| | The first phase of this is finally accomplished.
| | I've reworked all of the experiments upon
| | which 'quantum mechanics' was founded,
| | and am able to demonstrate how, when the
| | NL-P is incorporated, all of them reduce to
| | Deterministic energydynamics within cont-
| | inuous wave dynamics in which all 'things'
| | that have been considered to constitute
| | 'discrete particles' are reduced to thres-
| | holding within continuous wave dynamics.
| |
| | I've discussed all that's necessary in former
| | posts, and have posted a few Verifying
| | QBasic apps [the Compton Refraction
| | analysis of last Winter, with its coincidence
| | with the NL-P, the coincidence of the hydro-
| | gen spectrum with the NL-P, etc. [more of
| | these apps will be posted as my personal
| | circumstances permit]].
| |

------ I RETRACT the following -------------------

| | I've been searching for a way to make
| | Tapered Harmony's synthesis fundament-
| | ally clear to those who are 'unfamiliar' with
| | it and, this morning, I found it.
| |
| | It is that, as a result of 'atomic'-'level'
| | nonlinearity of perspective [NL-P],
| | Poynting Vectors' area factors must also
| | vary in accord with the NL-P.

------ end RETRACTION ---------------------------

| | Recall that, in Tapered Harmony [TH], what
| | have been considered to constitute 'atoms'
| | are viewed as quantities of energy that are
| | 'trapped' in spherical harmonic 'compression'-
| | 'expansion' interaction with an extreme-fluid
| | energy surround because, as a sphere under-
| | goes compression, its volume/surface-area
| | ratio varies nonlinearly - as the compression
| | becomes extreme, this ratio heads rapidly
| | off toward infinity.
| |
| | What I saw back in 1983 was that, if an
| | 'atom' is a quantity of energy 'trapped' in
| | spherical ['compression'-expansion harmonics],
| | then the density of the 'trapped' energy would
| | also increase nonlineary, heading toward
| | infinity, during the extreme-'compression'
| | phase of the spherical harmonics, and that
| | this probably coincides with what have been
| | considered to constitute the 'discrete
| | particles' comprising 'the nucleus'.
| |
| | I've Verified that treating the 'atom' this way
| | yields results that are virtually identical with
| | the results produced by the traditional
| | [1900-present] view of 'quantum mechanics',
| | but does so in a completely-Deterministic
| | way.
| [Einstein was Correct: "God doesn't play at
| dice. kpc]
| | In the TH approach, there's no so-called
| | "uncertainty", be-cause all there is is
| | thresholding within continuous wave dynamics.
| | That is, there [exist] no 'particles' whose
| | 'positions' and 'momenta' have to be 'worried'
| | about. Yet, all experimental observations are
| | rigorously accounted for within the continuous
| | wave dynamics.

------- I RETRACT the following -----------------------

| | As I said above, this morning I realized that
| | what's been referred to as the "Poynting Vector"
| | sits within the 'quantum' approach as a
| | 'chink in its armour', and that by 'prying-open'
| | that 'chink', the essential difference between
| | TH and 'qm' can be exposed.
| |
| | Because of the NL-P, the areas inherent in the
| | Poynting Vectors are not 'static' but are, them-
| | selves, varying in a way that's rigorously
| | correlated to the NL-P - which means that their
| | calculations have been artificial.

------- end RETRACTION ------------------------------

I Apologize for my Error. The Poynting Vector
refers only to "standard" electromagnetic waves.

While the SSW<->UES 'compression'-'expansion'
harmonics are a form of 'EM', they're not at all
"standard", and my point about the Poynting
Vector's area was Erroneous.

There's still a coupling between the energy-
transport that's described by the Poynting
Vector and the SSW's NL-P phasing, and this
"coupling" which varies over the courses of
the "nucleation" and "shelling" that are shown
in the Compton Refraction QBasic app does
Determine the EM<->SSW interaction, and this
coupling is Fundamental within all of the exper-
imental results upon which 'qm' was founded
[mainly be-cause of nonlinear SSW surface-
area variations], but the Poynting Vector, itself,
just describes energy-transport on the EM
'side' of this coupling, without any reference to
the SSW 'side' of it.

As far as the Poynting Vector is concerned,
the only 'armour' with a "chink" in it was my
own. [My Error occurred because of a 'side-
trip' that I took in my reading yesterday morn-
ing, which I 'forgot' I took, and so I invoked
the Poynting Vector Erroneously. The energy-
dynamics are the 'same' as I discussed them,
but all of the interesting stuff derives in the
nonlinearity of the SSW's harmonics.]

I stand on the rest of what's posted in the prior

| | Stuff like "uncertainty" that's invoked by 'qm'
| | derives not in physical reality, but in this
| | artificiality that's induced by the False
| | picture of there 'being discrete particles',
| | when the only stuff that exists is
| | wave<->wave energydynamics.

It's 'hard' to do it, while 'eating-crow' in the
midst of a retraction, but I stand on this
assertion of artificiality.

In Tapered Harmony's view, there are no
'sub-atomic particles'. All there is are
wave<->wave interactions that occur
stereotypically over the course of SSWs
'compression'-'expansion' harmonics.

Each thing that's been referred to as a
'particle' in 'qm' is 'just' an energy-thresh-
olding 'event' within continuous wave<->wave

Be-cause the periodicity of the SSW non-
linearity is stable, incident energy will
interact with an SSW stereotypically, as
the SSW phase Determines.

In this view, for instance, the 'mass' of
what have been referred to as "electrons"
takes on stereotypical values be-cause,
while EM radiation is impinging upon an
SSW, the SSW's volume/surface-area
ratio is varying in accord with the NL-P,
and these combined dynamics 'always'
squeeze-out a stereotypical 'electron'
quantity of energy - and Pauli exclusion
is easily seen to be a matter-of-fact
consequence of the NL-P vol/SA var-
iation, etc., all the way into maximum

The 'squeezing-out' cannot produce
continuously-varying quantities be-cause,
it's dependent upon a =range= of variation
within the SSW's NL-P dynamics, which
range varies in size with NL-P phase -
'compressed' portions of the NL-P phase
have commensurately-smaller ranges, emit
commensurately-higher frequency radiation,
and require commensurately-higher-frequency
radiation to be pushed beyond emission

What's been referred to as "charge" also
derives in this same 'ranging'. Various 'atoms'
have harmonics that are tuned to the quantities
of energy that are 'trapped' within them.
During interaction, an 'atom' will appear to
have 'positive charge' if a test 'atom's
NP-P harmonics are such that it's energy-
trasmission out-of-sync with the NL-P
harmonics of the first SSW. There's
no range within their combined NL-P
harmonics in which they can co-operate
in achieving a mutual lower-energy inter-
action with the energy surround - so they
'repell'. And vice versa with respect to
'negative charge'.

What's been referred to as "spin" is cor-
related with either a 'compression' or an
'expansion' phase at the instant of interac-
tion between waves, and results, literally,
from the interaction of the phasing - like
the torque that occurs if a balloon is in-
flated in the midst of a bunch of already-
inflated balloons - but, in the SSW case,
all the 'balloons' are either 'deflating' or
'inflating' all the 'time'. [This view should
be testable because it holds that what's
been referred to as "spin" is critically-
dependent upon 'instantaneous' SSW
phase - so, experiment sufficiently, and
TH predicts that 'spin'-shifting will be

Taspered Harmony continues in this way.

I Apologize for imposing my Error upon folks.

k. p. collins

| | What have been considered to constitute
| | 'discrete particles' are 'just' energy-thresh-
| | olding dynamics that occur at the various
| | degrees of 'compression' and 'expansion'
| | of the spherical harmonics that have been
| | considered to constitute 'atoms'.
| |
| | This sort of thing is readily apparent in the
| | four examples of the nonlinearity of per-
| | spective that I experienced on my walk in
| | 1983, with the dump-truck example being
| | the easiest to cross-correlate with 'atomic'
| | energydynamics - the potential energy of the
| | soil in the dump truck's bed is increased
| | until a threshold is crossed, and then the
| | soil slides out of the dump bed. This's
| | Exactly analogous to the augmentation of
| | central potential energy that occurs period-
| | ically during each 'compression' phase of
| | the spherical harmonics that are what have
| | been considered to constitute discrete
| | 'atoms' - when the central potential energy
| | crosses a threshold at which, because of
| | the NL-P, no further energy, having the freq-
| | uency of the incident ratiation can fit in
| | the 'instantaneously'-occurring volume, the
| | incident energy is 'rejected' as if the central
| | volume constitutes a physically-real 'particle' -
| | but it's =not= a 'particle' - it's 'just' energy
| | 'compressed' up to [or beyond] the correlated
| | energy-flow threshold - and the incident
| | energy 'just' goes where it's more free to go.
| |
| | All of the experimental results upon which
| | 'quantum mechanics' was founded reduce to
| | the simple NL-P energydynamics that have
| | been discussed in this post.
| |
| | What's here opens up new vistas of stuff that
| | folks can accomplish in applications of Physics.
| |
| | It's Funny - when I look back on that morning
| | walk of 1983, it's as if God reached down
| | and 'tapped me on the shoulder' - it was just
| | that much of a 'b[ol]t right out of the blue' :-]
| |
| | I was, then, living with my Parents - my Mom
| | was in the last two years of her struggle against
| | the cancer that took her - and I'd just attended
| | morning Mass because, penniless, it was some-
| | thing that I could still do. Afterward, I went home
| | by a circuituous route, and the NL-P observa-
| | tions just happened.
| |
| | And I rewrote all of Science.
| |
| | k. p. collins
| |
| | --
| | "Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
| P. S. This post is not only a Sharing.
| It is also a Test with respect to Openness
| in Science. kpc

I'm "open" :-] ken

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list