[perspective exchange]

Thanks.

Though it is difficult to put into words and I am not a good writer, I will talk about the model that helped me to understand the fundamentals of physics and brought me to the conclusions of perspective exchange mentioned above. I began to use the model of a ‘whirlpool’ to visualize wave/particle duality. In other words, the particle nature of force and matter (or bosons and fermions, respectively) are modeled as the turning of waves (like a whirlpool), and the wave nature of force and matter are modeled as the ‘inward’ and ‘outward’ propagation of the waves. So, in this model, every-’thing’ is ‘seen’ as a ‘whirlpool’—the particles, energy, and even the ‘wave-medium’ itself are represented by the varying distributions of turning waves. For instance, you may picture interacting whirlpools such that the whirlpools represent the fundamental ‘particles’, and picture the interacting waves between these whirlpools as the ‘forces’ acting upon and influencing their motion. In this way, e/m radiation and mass are waves that are ‘turning’, and therefore not circular, as from a ‘point’ source, but rather exponential, as from a binary or ternary relational source. So, there would never be a complete distinction between the wave-like influence and the perpendicular rotational influence that could ‘scatter’ or ‘increase the entropy’ of a set of interacting whirlpools (atoms) that come into interaction with the former. And even further, there would be no complete distinction between these interacting whirlpools and a particular wave of the overriding whirlpool within which the interaction occurs—that is, instead of a static wave-medium, or ‘aether’, the reference (or context) for all interactions between ‘observers’ whirlpools and ‘objects’ whirlpools would itself be a whirlpool that is in interaction with the observer and the observed, thus forming the perception ternary. In this scenario, it is straightforward to assess how the perception of speed, distance, time, acceleration, and mass would all be in relation (“relative”) to each other since the reference for measurement is in interaction with the measurer and the measured. As well, this scenario directly demonstrates the features of “hidden” extra dimensions as the Cartesian and polar dimensions (for space and for motion (time)) of the interacting ‘subjective whirlpools’ overlap with the Cartesian and polar dimensions of their ‘contextual whirlpool’ thereby producing variables that are ‘unknown’, or unobservable, to any particular constituent whirlpool lying within this ternary coordination of fundamental references which provides for all perceptions.

I don’t so often mention ‘whirlpools’ because it is a model/metaphor for considering in various ways the exchanges of fundamental references. In other words, whirlpools are a very useful tool for understanding reference exchange because it represents the relationship between Cartesian and polar coordinates, the relationships of relative motion, and the relationship of the finite with the infinite. So, it is a ‘tool’ for understanding the more ‘mechanical’ aspects of reality rather than representing reality exactly and in total, because the ‘whirlpool model’ is not as applicable to the more abstract, or information/sequence, aspects of the purely communicational totality presented here. I apologize again that it is so difficult to explain; since this ‘ToE’ necessitates only inter-defined (and of reciprocating cause) axioms, all terms must be continuously further qualified and that is the core reason for why my description is usually worded so abstractly and for how it so quickly becomes tiered and complex and testing of the limits of one’s visualization skills. I have a more specific development of the model and associated terms as well as application to the proportions and constants given by modern physics research, but this would be very difficult to put into a short forum post. However, if you have any questions that you would like to ask me in regards to this model, I will try to answer them as best as I can. It is important to me to make clear that this model of tiered perspective exchange is not intended as a refute of string physics or any other theories and findings of modern physics. Instead, it is meant, by a ‘top-down’ approach, as a simplification of perspective on the observations of modern physics that encompasses and unifies the major paradigms of the physics community—to find a ‘What can’t not be?’ basis for reality that leaves us with no final “Why?” to ask relating to an interminable and inexplicable ‘point source’ or arbitrary axiom that must ultimately be left as an assumed context, like a wall, beyond which our understanding cannot pass.

Thanks. I hope this helps to communicate the basic principles mentioned.