Saturday, 28 November 2009

A note to the a**holes who defiled Paris' catacombs.

Great, guys. Brilliant. Not only are you the first to bring any large-scale destruction to the Paris catacombs since their 1786 creation, you have destroyed in one fell swoop perhaps centuries of Paris underground exploration. Any "largesse" the police had for the more experienced of us is now gone — as, obviously, it would take someone experienced to map/dig the way between the official/non-official catacombs.

What the hell was your motive? Qui Bono?

For me, it can only be one of two scenarios: Either someone with "good intentions" (and the road to hell is paved with these) opened the way to the official catacombs, "hid" it, and someone inexperienced to the underground (long-time cataphiles would NEVER do this) found it later; the other is revenge. Revenge for what? The only thing that could qualify for a "revenge" against the city of Paris is their closing of a clandestine underground theatre a few years ago.

Either way, it amounts to different bull*hit with the same result. I just found out today that the catacombs may be closed indefinitely — this effectively kills all plans I had to return to the underground after an absence of almost eight years. Not only can I not photograph the official catacombs, I cannot return to the unofficial underground to continue the experimentation I had begun in my last visits.

Thanks, guys.

Thursday, 19 November 2009

My Universal Theory

I've had this in my head since a few years already. I've been following most every angle of research in physics and mathematics - theory of relativism, string theory, etc. - and have found a common line between all. In my personal layman opinion - and I may be missing out on part of the research here - many fields of research such as quantum mechanics get stuck in their own research perspective and miss out on the bigger picture - a rather grandiose claim from a layman, I know.

The thing that irked me most was mathematicians trying to make the numbers 'work' - if one formula works, they use this base to project calculations to the next level (and discover something - energy sources, new dimensions, etc. - 'new'. This I think is the reason some scientists came up with a possible nine dimensions through their research into string theory.

The thing is, based on the rest of what we know about atoms and inter-particle interaction, this theory doesn't make sense. If every particle existing bonds with its neighbour around a central 'gravitational' centre, why only nine dimensions? Shouldn't these project - or flow - in all directions, as the base upon which our 'present-time' physical world is built?

Scientists have devised different types of "attraction" - gravitational pull, magnetism, strong interaction, etc. - but I am drawn to a (personal) theory that there may be one unique form of attraction ruling all. For this we have to look to the lowest form of particle we know - the quark - and its characteristics.

Quarks themselves come in different 'flavours' - up quarks, down quarks, charm quarks, etc. - but all experience a unification of all known forms of physical attraction. There is something to be found there. There may be some other sort of particle on a lower level than a quark, but I'll build my theory model at that level for now.

A quark is a charge, but my question is this: what if a quark wasn't a 'charged object', but rather a point, or intersection, of energy flows?

This would explain a lot of things for me. I don't know what form energy flows would take - I would imagine circular, as straight flows would mean infinite length and an absence of effect by other flows - but I'm sure, based on most every physical model we can see today, they would combine upon themselves in any possible direction.

Now, imagine several flows of energy from any and all directions, and imagine that a point where the flows collide is... a quark. This quark would have a 'direction' based on the angle of impact, and this quark would be a 'building point' for further atomic construction. Thus a collision between two energy flows at a certain angle would have one direction, and a collision between two (or more) others at a differing angle would have another. Then consider the resulting 'direction' to be a... dimension. As the directions of flows possible would be almost infinite, so would be dimensions. I would also add into the equation my idea that 'direction' is also... time. When quark construction starts, the 'building blocks' of our universe progress along the same path, interacting with other elements travelling in the same direction as it.

Built on this model, it would make sense that quarks travelling in the same 'direction' - or in the same dimension -, depending on the results of the collision, would combine into a heavier mass - or a haydron. From here we can build our model along the laws we already know.

But back to the energy flows - what if it was this the origin of gravitation and other forms of attraction? Even an atom has a gravitational centre... but what if an objects 'gravity' was so great and so compounded that even the creation of physical mass was impossible? This would explain phenomenon like black holes. Yet I'm sure even black holes, although they may be a route to the 'base energy flow' of the universe, have a direction as well. The absence of mass would make inter-dimensional travel difficult for any material that is anything above a base energy flow.

The whole together, from an inter-dimensional (multi-directional) perspective, would be a massive ball of revolving energy, and the interaction between energy flows would result in the "mass" that we see today - but we can only see this mass if it is travelling in the same direction as we.

UPDATE: Writing all this down helped to clarify my concept a bit - and now I'm having second thoughts about the "colliding energy" part of my theory. The rest still feels solid though - everything we see around us is travelling in the same "direction", and that infinite directions are possible - but I'll have to mull further about what set us along this path.