1=0

(One equals zero)

A Unifying Theory

by

Matilda Paxton

Smashwords Edition

Copyright: 2012 by Matilda Paxton

All Rights Reserved

This eBook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This eBook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase and additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author

Smashwords Edition

Acknowledgements

This book is dedicated to my daughter, Pamela, and to my Aunt Matilda.

I would like to express my appreciation to

Dr. John Sutphin who encouraged me to develop these concepts into a communicable form,

and to

The International Society for Philosophical Enquiry

for welcoming me as a member and providing me with incentive, encouragement,

and the confidence to finish this project. (-4)

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1: Unlocking The Door

Understanding Infinity

Chapter 2: The New Paradigm

How To Read This Book: Using The Old To Get To The New

Definition Of Infinity

The Basic Functions of Infinity

Paradox?

Chapter 3: Function vs. Essence

Chapter 4: Time - The Fourth Dimension?

Chapter 5: Chaos & Order

Chapter 6: The Zero Factor

Chapter 7: Patterns & The Path of Least Resistance

Figure 7-1: A Mandelbrot Fractal

Chapter 8: Applications In Psychology & Sociology

What Is Love?

Chapter 9: Applications In Biology

Global Biological Balance

Chapter 10: Applications In Physical Science

Light

Curvature of Space/Time?

Figure 10-1: Straight Line Refraction

Color

Figure 10-2: The visible Light Spectrum

Figure 10-3: Red Light plus Green Light equals Yellow Light

Gravity

Physics/Metaphysics

Chapter 11: Mathematics

Chapter 12: Conclusion

GLOSSARY

About the Author and Other Books

Chapter 1: Unlocking The Door

When James Burke, in his series, The Day The Universe Changed, posed the question, "What would it look like if the Sun did go around the Earth? He answered, Exactly the same." Does that mean that we had a 50/50 chance of starting out with the concept of a heliocentric system? I don’t think so. The geocentric interpretation was the point of view of a humanocentric and childlike humanity, manifested in the same way children of any stage of humanity start out understanding and interpreting their environments according to how it affects themselves. We have to start out this way, because if an infant were not the center of its own universe it would fail; in such a case there would be no mechanism by which it could connect itself to an already established universe.

In those geocentric times, the humans whose job it was to explain our existence (seers, astrologers, oracles, etc.), struggled within the confines of that misconception, and although many of their explanations are still considered valid today, there were some that, even then, were deemed unsatisfactory. For example: The heavenly bodies visible to their eyes did and still do change positions relative to ours and each other’s, but omens such as eclipses, did not consistently fulfill the predictions expected, resulting in many a loss of job, or even life of the predictor. When major puzzlements make it obvious that something basic is amiss, humanity reluctantly graduates to a new maturity level, the way a child learns that not all toys belong to itself, but sharing and taking turns has the new benefit of connecting with other children, and a more interesting variety of toys. When we agreed to forfeit cosmic center stage in return for more accurate explanations of our universe, humanity learned that although our status shrank, our universe and its possibilities and benefits grew.

With that particular forfeit, a whole new world of exploration and discovery became available to us. Our thinking expanded enough to allow comprehension of Newton’s Laws of gravity and motion. Further exploration gave us Relativity and Quantum Physics, which became working models for procedure. Now again, we have advanced, scientifically and technologically, to the stage in this level where major puzzlements make it obvious that something in our basic knowledge structure is amiss, and that a new paradigm is needed if the remaining unanswered questions are to be answered.

Even in quantum mechanics there are those pesky puzzlements. I was sitting in class watching the physics professor work out a problem on the board. When he reached a point almost at the end of his calculations he turned to us and said apologetically, We have to fudge this part. It’s OK though, because we know it works to get to the point where we pick it up again, we just don’t know how or why. He then proceeded to pick up the calculations to finish the problem, and I could see immediately why he couldn’t work through that gap; he was using the wrong paradigm. It was at that moment I became convinced that the 1=0 paradigm would work in quantum physics just the way it works in everything else.

Einstein correctly predicted that, because of the curvature of space/time, during a solar eclipse, we would be able to see the light of a specific star as if it were positioned to one side of the sun, even though it was actually behind the sun. The success of that prediction validated his curvature of space/time theory in the eyes of the science world. But could there be another explanation?. Could his theory be a modern day explanation akin to Ptolemy’s ancient theory that had the planets moving in their own smaller circles as they orbited earth?

[Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus CE c100 -c178) in Book I of The Almagest, explains how in a geocentric universe, the planets occasionally, and predictably move from west to east while the general movement of the sun, moon, stars and planets is from east