 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
||||
| This is my basis for constructing ‘The Adjusted Calender’, which corrects what I believe is the distortion of time as measured by radioactive decay. The unknown factor appears to be relative to the increase in the size of the object - which suggests to me that the distortion has something to do with time dilation in special relativity ( according to special relativity, the way in which gravity affects light, also affects time ) and some kind of exponential increase like we see in thermodynamics. But this idea will be developed in future drafts of the site ( see: Full Sequence And Notes ) There are many other questions or topics that people may raise; i.e. a geologist might ask how it pertains to the rock cycle. In general, in this present draft, when something that obviously relates to an aspect of it is not mentioned, it is because it is not contradicted by the hypothesis. Many things, like the distribution of fossil evidence, in fact compliment it. At this stage I feel that I
have built the overall map sufficiently to start working into it
in more detail. I have built it so far to a rudimentary level but
from the top down, rather than from the bottom up, and in a more
lateral than conventional manner. I have also tried to retain a
holistic approach to counter the compartmentalization of the disciplines
involved and to try to keep the concepts researched to an equal
level, not focusing on any one aspect or field more than any other,
which again is why I have so far worked to the level of scientific
periodicals which makes palatable the more specialized research
being done. Most of the concepts on this website arise from this
approach. It seems that a common characteristic of these concepts
is that, in accordance with the foundations of the disciplines they
pertain to, they are impossible. It is then tempting to regard them
as wrong, but interesting as oddities. |
However, I feel drawn to the idea that they are in some way, perhaps because of their unorthodox origins, circumnavigating the problems of compartmentalization and ‘straight thinking’ - a fresh unbiased eye in other words. And given the conclusion that the thread created by these concepts leads to, which is the hypothesis on the homepage of this website, I find it simply too exciting to disregard. The object we are walking around on right now is just a basic model. There are no divisions in nature - but we have to make divisions in order to make things more manageable, quantifiable, etc.- discovery and learning and, in fact, interacting with the world, would be impossible without such compartmentalization. But this is the very thing which ultimately blocks our holistic view. So far I have tried to cross reference the content of the site as much as possible. Apologies if this breaks the flow, but it's part of trying to retain the tangential approach. I hope you find the site interesting. Thanks for taking the time. Alan Lambert, KUWAIT CITY, February 2006 Revised, BERMUDA, April 2007 * The closest I have found to one word that encompasses an essential part of this situation is ‘Parallax’, meaning the difference between two viewpoints. Our two eyes are as a rule only 2.25 inches apart; yet the small ‘parallax’ caused by the slightly different angle of vision enables us to see three-dimensional, plastic images and to judge distances accurately (Erwin Raisz). It is the difference between the viewpoints that enables us to see more. It is also a principle applied in astronomy for judging the distances of stars. |
|||
|
||||
