Table of Contents
Image source: Myriams-fotos_pixabay
I have written this article to discuss something that has been on my mind for quite some time now. This “something” is centred around the question, what can we make of Thermodynamics?
Also, in this scientific article, I will discuss some other things besides thermodynamics, but that are importantly related to the centre topic, like creation and inertia, though everything will be centred on my thoughts concerning thermodynamics.
These my thoughts to be presented concerning thermodynamics are what constitute the post-modern view of thermodynamics. This blog is about the universe and especially its unity, and so it is important for us to ask ourselves what role thermodynamics plays in the unification theory.
Like I said, I have thought about this for some time now and I have not been able to come to any personal conclusion, even though I have come up with some concrete scientific ideas that I want to share with you in this article. This is quite a critical situation.
Personally, I am concerned with how every aspect of physics fits in with The Theory of the Universe, and while other aspects of physics can be decisively included or discarded, I cannot really make any decisive personal judgement concerning thermodynamics but I will share with you what I think about all of this.
What can we make of thermodynamics in relation to the unified field theory? Could it be a missing component of the unified field theory or not? Well, I don’t think so, and there are no indications of it.
Now, after quite some time of pondering about the fundamental significance of thermodynamics, I had to turn to Einstein position about the two kinds of theories in science for the answer.
Constructive Theories and Theories of Principle
Einstein proposed that there are two kinds of theories of physics, one he referred to as constructive theories and the other he referred to as principle theories. In a simplified explanation, constructive theories are theories with mainly practical relevance. They are theories that model the behaviour of a system without mentioning anything about how the system works.
While on the other hand, principle theories are theories that are concerned with the true nature of phenomena. They seek to describe based on unpredicted principles the way the universe works.
Based on these definitions, one can proceed to say that constructive theories are theories that model the emergent behaviours of natural phenomena, while principle theories go deep to the very root of natural phenomena and attempt to discover new governing principles.
So, while constructive theories are non-falsifiable because they can be easily adjusted and modified to always represent or model the emergent aspects of a system, principle theories are however falsifiable, as they make formerly unknown predictions about new principles and also of the behaviour of natural phenomena.
Now, it was based on this Einstein position of constructive and principle theories that I began to consider thermodynamics as a constructive theory and not a theory of principle. I consider thermodynamics to be a constructive theory that models the emergent aspects of the universe, and not a principle theory that can reveal to us the way the universe works.
Thermodynamics deals with heat energy and the nature of temperature distributions, all of which are caused by electromagnetic wave. So, in thermodynamics, we are basically looking at an aspect of light which is not really relevant for the understanding of the true independent nature of light.
Heat is mainly the result of the interaction between light and matter. It is not a direct manifestation of light. So, thermodynamics models this interaction and does not capture or seek to derive or predict the principles that govern and determine the independent behaviour of light or the nature of matter which are fundamental to our understanding of the universe.
I take my personal opinion about thermodynamics from my appreciation of Einstein’s thought about constructive theories and principle theories. In the long run, much about classical mechanics and modern physics can be accounted for in the unified theory, but thermodynamics seems to stand apart and I sometimes wonder if I should be concerned about this or not.
But as I have afore expressed, I consider thermodynamics as a constructive theory, that is only relevant for practical science but not for the real purposeful understanding of the universe. Besides, I have this penchant for not considering any theory that is not a theory of space and time as a theory of principle or as a fundamental theory.
This is why I sometimes assert that quantum mechanics is not a fundamental theory, besides its inherent flaws already pointed out in this blog. Space and time and their true nature lie at the heart of science, so any theory that does not further our understanding of these entities cannot be a theory of principle.
Thermodynamics is a theory that is heavily dependent on the behaviour of heat systems and is highly practical and mathematically rigorous. However, theories like relativity are very theoretical and full of principles and predictions that are not first derived from the external observation of the behaviour of the universe which is the system it investigates.
So, considering the different nature of thermodynamics and relativity, I don’t consider thermodynamics a theory of principle and it cannot be incorporated into Absolute Relativity. Perhaps time will tell.
Furthermore, Einstein made it clear that we can only have one theory of principle, which is true. We cannot have more than one theory of principle just as we cannot have more than one universe. This is very critical, and it had been at the center of the crisis in physics.
Before the post-modern era of physics, physicists have sought to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are theories of principle. So, only one of these theories can really be the fundamental theory of principle, but physicists couldn’t tell.
What has emerged in this post-modern era as the only theory of principle is absolute relativity, which in itself is a kind of relativity, but it is not similar to general relativity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics are not the true theory of principle we sought to unify physics and they are not components of it.
This is the unexpected result that is been realized in post-modern physics. Only special relativity, though refined, is found as a component of absolute relativity which is the only theory of principle in the universe. So, in retrospect, when we consider modern physics, only special relativity, not general relativity and not quantum mechanics, had the potential to be the theory of principle.
Now, considering all these, one finds that thermodynamics even has a much lesser chance of being a theory of principle. Thermodynamics in conjunction with general relativity and quantum mechanics which are not theories of principle can otherwise be referred to as constructive theories. Thus, thermodynamics is not a component of the unified theory.
And this goes even further, in the light of post-modern physics, one can unequivocally assert that all the theories of science, since classical and modern physics, are constructive theories. This is because none of them captures the true absolute principles of the universe.
For the first time in scientific history, we are laying our hands on the true absolute principles of the universe. This discovery of very important for the appreciation of post-modern physics.
Classical and modern physics are made up of constructive theories because they are founded on relative science. They contain false or apparent theories of principle. But post-modern physics is made up of theories of principle because it is founded on absolute science.
The Non-thermodynamics of Creation
Furthermore, post-modern physics is imposing real limits on the role thermodynamics played during creation. The new big bang theory based on the commonality interpretation and not the singularity interpretation is revealing to us that creation was non-thermodynamical.
This is really very surprising! It really was surprising to me when I first thought about it. Now, what I am trying to say is that, based on the new big bang theory, the birth of matter did not require heat or thermodynamics.
To understand the non-thermodynamics of creation, you must first grasp the fact that there are two non-mechanical waves in the universe, which are light and gravi-electromagnetic wave. And that heat in its unreducable explanation is due to the friction between light and matter or the action of light upon matter.
Having understood the above, post-modern physics is now informing us that matter was formed from gravi-electromagnetic wave and that light had nothing to do with the creation of matter.
This is very important, for it reveals that the heat or thermodynamics of creation was an emergent result of the fact that light is not the natural environment of matter. The natural environment of matter is gravi-electromagnetic wave, and there could not have been any friction or action between gravi-electromagnetic wave and matter that would have produced the true heat of creation.
Creation was a “cold”, non-thermal process. Creation could not have directly produced heat, for gravi-electromagnetic wave and matter constitute a continuum. Light and matter do not constitute a continuum, and this is fundamentally why thermodynamics or heat exist(ed) in the universe.
So, the heat of creation was not really the heat of creation, it was simply a consequence of the action of light upon matter. Matter was made from gravi-electromagnetic wave and not light.
This non-thermodynamics of creation should resolve the question you may ask about why we don’t experience heat due to gravi-electromagnetic wave. The answer is simple. Matter and gravi-electromagnetic wave form a continuum, and fundamental friction can only exist between two separate continuums.
The creation of matter occurred in the upper continuum of gravi-electromagnetic wave and matter, and this creation did not directly produce heat. I really want you to come to understand the true alchemical explanation of creation. I discuss aspects of it in some of my articles.
Now, the non-thermodynamic process of creation may be pointing to us the truth behind cold nuclear fusion which has been a puzzle for some time now. I may have to talk about this in a future article, but for now, let’s fully dwell on creation.
This proposition about the non-thermodynamic process of creation seems to confront our understanding of the law of conservation of energy. And yes, it does. The non-thermodynamic process of creation comes from a deeper conservation law in the universe which I haven’t thought of until now.
What is this new conservation law? This new conservation law is the law of conservation of inertia. In today’s physics, we have two conservative laws. One is the law of conservation of mass, while the second is the law of conservation of energy. Now, post-modern physics includes as a third, the law of conservation of inertia.
The law of conservation of mass held as fundamental until the law of conservation of energy came along, which proved that mass is just a form of (inert) energy. Now, post-modern physics is taking us further in knowledge, to realise that energy is just a form of inertia. Inertia is the content of all things, both mass and energy is inertia.
Listen, it is obvious that the non-thermodynamic process of creation cannot be founded on the law of conservation of energy, it can, therefore, be founded on the law of conservation of inertia.
What is this law of conservation of inertia? Let me for the first time state this great conservation law of creation:
The law of conservation of inertia states that inertia can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be transformed from one limit to another.
The above conservation law is the law that directed creation and all things. The basic building block of the universe is not energy, it is inertia. Inertia is the famous philosopher’s stone. The non-thermodynamics of creation is founded on the law of conservation of inertia.
Now, if you look at the above law of conservation of inertia, you will realize that I did not treat inertia like energy that “transforms from one form to another”, rather I said that inertia “transforms from one limit to another”.The non-thermodynamics of creation is founded on the law of conservation of inertia.Click To Tweet
There is a difference in this. While energy is an essence that takes up different forms, inertia, as it is important for creation, is an essence that takes up different limits. Light and gravi-electromagnetic wave are constituted of inertia which takes different limits within their essence i.e. light can be the lower limit or the higher limit of inertia, and the same can apply to gravity.
This is how inertia takes different limits, whether lower or upper limits, in the universe. These simple but possible modifications of inertia are what is responsible for the varied appearances we see in the universe. Inertia takes different limits according to the ability of conservation of inertia.
Furthermore, the non-thermodynamics of creation corroborates the non-thermodynamical nature of gravi-electromagnetic energy which was engaged to create matter. Gravi-electromagnetic energy is unlike electromagnetic energy. Electromagnetic energy is thermodynamical, while gravi-electromagnetic energy is non-thermodynamical.Electromagnetic energy is thermodynamical, while gravi-electromagnetic energy is non-thermodynamical.Click To Tweet
This new understanding of the universe is very, very important because in this new era of post-modern physics we are going to explore and engage gravi-electromagnetic energy, so it is important that we understand this new form of energy and how it operates.
Now, creation without heat is impossible to conceive without a law or principle that takes us beyond the law of conservation of energy. This is why the law of conservation of inertia is important, for it reveals to us what exists beyond energy and thermodynamics.
This is why I want you to read this my article linked below. It is very related to this article, and it also discusses creation in terms of inertia and not energy as we are used to.
I really want us to have the true, penetrative understanding of the universe, one of which is that beyond mass exists energy, and beyond energy exists inertia. This is the progress post-modern physics now assures fundamental science. We must become very attentive to the true operations and subtleties of the cosmos.
Furthermore, the law of conservation of inertia assures us that we can transform inertia just as we can transform energy. This transformation of inertia will be particularly important in relation to the sixth and seventh absolute principles of the universe discussed in my second book on FORMS.
I really hope to discuss in the future the relationship between these two absolute principles of the universe and the law of conservation of inertia.
Inertia is the true content of all things. The law of conservation of inertia is the law that guided the technique of creation. Light and gravi-electromagnetic wave, before ever matter was formed, were formed by the transformation of inertia from one limit to another.
The law of conservation of inertia harmonizes with the scientific truth that light and gravi-electromagnetic wave are limits of inertia. So, though we call them waves of energy, the law of conservation of inertia reminds us of their true nature as limits of inertia, which are beyond their wave behaviours. This is very important.
The law of conservation of inertia, therefore, informs us that light and gravi-electromagnetic wave were created before matter was formed from the standing field process. Bodies are nodal points in the standing gravi-electromagnetic field.
It is then obvious that creation had two phases. The first phase had to do with the creation of the ethereal elements, light and gravi-electromagnetic wave, by the direct application of the law of conservation of inertia. And the second phase had to do with the creation of matter from the indirect application of the law of conservation of inertia through the standing field process.
The creation of matter was a direct result of the creation of gravi-electromagnetic wave since bodies are simply nodal points in the gravi-electromagnetic field. Light did not produce a standing field, and this alongside the thermodynamical nature of light are what causes the obviousness of light, unlike gravi-electromagnetic wave which is a standing field and is also non-thermodynamical.
So, the second phase of creation was a result of the first phase of creation. Therefore, even in the absence of matter or in the sudden disappearance of matter, light and gravi-electromagnetic wave would still exist because of the law of conservation of inertia.
The law of conservation of inertia has replaced the law of conservation of energy as the cornerstone law in post-modern physics. This newly revealed law which lies at the heart of reality will guide us in our ventured transformation of matter and even the ethereal elements.
So, what lies behind thermodynamics? We have for so long been manipulating and harnessing heat energy to transform and to make different forms of matter, but now can we also manipulate and harness inertia to create different forms of matter?
In this post-modern era of science, we will touch the base of the universe. We will seek to harness the law of conservation of inertia and directly touch the elements. This will result in us creating matter of fundamentally different kinds than the kind of matter we already have in the universe.
Therefore, the law of conservation of energy as it concerns thermodynamics will be of less concern to us, as we seek to touch the law of conservation of inertia as it concerns non-thermodynamics.
Now, we touch and manipulate matter using the thermal energy of light, but in the nearest future we shall create and manipulate matter using the non-thermal energy of gravi-electromagnetic wave (which may produce heat as an emergent result and not as a true consequence).
Creation is an event or process that occurs in the upper continuum (gravi-electromagnetic wave) and not in the lower continuum (light). We have for so long being touching matter through the lower continuum (light), but in this post-modern era, we shall touch matter through the upper continuum (gravi-electromagnetic wave) which is the true environment of matter.
The fundamental operation of the gravi-electromagnetic wave has been laid down for all of us in The Theory of the Universe. We must harness the potentials of this higher wave and move beyond thermodynamics. There is a purer science waiting for us in the upper air. Let’s go there and see what we shall find.
Science and its new practical aspect will be more refined and subtle than they have been in other eras. Like I have said afore, we shall be more attentive to the inner workings of the universe. Post-modern physics is really assisting us to come to the understanding and refined application of the laws of the universe like never before.
Beyond thermodynamics lie deeper aspects of reality that we have not thought of before. The true nature of reality and its pure exploration will be involved in post-modern science. And all I can say is that we now have the assurance of understanding the true science of the universe, and like I always say, we will know and become.
This article, in discussing what we can make of thermodynamics, has exposed us to new concepts and principles. And to be frank with you, some of the concepts introduced in this article, and especially the law of conservation of inertia came as I wrote this article.
It’s all because I’m passionate about post-modern physics and the new opportunities for understanding that it presents to us. Everything you have read so far in this scientific article constitutes the new post-modern view of Thermodynamics.
These new ideas all come my post-modern understanding of physics and of the universe. The universe is my message, and I want to assure you that a lot would be possible for us as we pursue this new knowledge which I now teach in this blog. The limits of science will be superceded.
Thermodynamics is not as fundamental as we would think. To me, it is a constructive theory that even has no relevance to creation as discussed in this scientific article. Thermal energy and thermodynamics were simply by-products of the non-thermal and non-thermodynamical process of creation…
Until next time.
Just my thoughts!
– M. V. Echa