Again, you are working at the detailed level, Rex, to deliver your answer. You are not pronouncing the overall level but found yourself a specific reality to further discuss that specific reality.
When we blend colors, then we can talk hours about the different kinds of blue and how blending blue with another blue delivers a blue result. That would not be interesting in light of understanding how all colors blend, right? It would lack interesting input.
That is therefore not what I am discussing. I show the overall structural reality in which blue is its own specific color among all other colors (plus black and white inserted in this overall view to indeed see what is going on at that overall level).
It is 'Science 101' to understand that anything that can blend will blend given the circumstances, and that the blend will be a distinct outcome compared to the separate ingredients themselves. It is very basic science. If indeed we take all ingredients we need to work with to understand the big picture of what we are investigating, then we will get to this structure. Any blending realities will deliver a blended outcome distinct from the specific ingredients for that blend.
--
Let me describe another overall example, again showing the same five (four) parts we are working with.
Planet Earth has four directions, north, south, west and east, and these four can be categorized in two groups.
At the north pole, the entire planet is found south of one's feet. At the south pole, Earth is fully north underneath one's feet. Twice we have a spot in which there is no east or west, and the opposite direction is actually all there is (i.e the north pole has just south to offer and nothing else). We can declare two truths for the entire planet Earth (the whole thing is south, the whole thing is north) that are clearly in conflict with one another.
Meanwhile, east and west do not have any spots on the planet where there is a 'pole' for them (i.e. there is no west pole). East and west are fully dependent on the position a person is standing, while north and south are also dependent on where a person is standing, but with those two poles as ultimate positions.
That is the static lay of the land, while in reality the Earth is turning. We can see that the spin is itself also a direction. The planet turns so the sun rises in the east.
If folks stand toward the equator, then the sun rises on the left side for people in the northern hemisphere and rises on the right side for people in the southern hemisphere. As such, it is handy to use words like east and west so we don't get confused using left and right.
The overall direction of Earth is that spin, and when viewed from the moon, Earth's main feature of movement is particularly focused on the equator that moves the most, visually. Earth itself has no preference for north to be the top part of a map. Earth itself states that the equator is its central feature where the spin is most pronounced.
The fun part is understanding that the spin of the planet is actually the reason we have the four directions. Without spin, a planet would not have a north, south, east or west (good thing the planet is spinning).
The point is showing you that once we place ourselves at that top level of structure to understand how things fit together, that we then end up with a pyramid of 2 x 2 + 1.
Naturally, I am splitting the electromagnetic force into 2, while the choice is ours to do so or not. Meanwhile, the strong and weak nuclear forces can be placed in their own category of 2, not identical, each as if they have a ‘pole’ location. There is no additional partner for gravity, it is in its own category of 1.
—
Let me take the planet to the GUT, because the GUT is indeed based on extreme circumstances and that was visible in this Earth direction image as well.
When standing on the north pole and jumping up, then we go further north, right before we go south and then land back on the ice.
When at the equator, one can mimic that motion by stepping north and stepping back south immediately.
Both motions are a quick north and then a quick south. They can be declared identical, while we both know that they were different in their most important aspects. While we find identical outcomes, they should not be regarded as identical outcomes.
I am using this example to show that humans are themselves involved in the scientific method. We think we are not involved; we think that science is truly a clean discipline, yet it is ultimately a man-made discipline that tries to be a discipline that is without interference of human influence.
To say this differently, people can say 'No' while nothing physical in the universe will say 'No'.
Everything we see in the universe will say 'Yes' or it will say that nothing is happening (and many steps are found in between 'Yes' and 'nothing happening'). Only when alive can 'No' become part of the equation.
In Physics, we should therefore be aware that each time we declare a 'No' (a rejection) that we are then involved with a human activity. A pure Physics discipline would declare everything a 'Yes' and investigate how all the different kinds of 'Yeses' relate to one another. Since there is no 'No' in Physics, we would not be going there. Rejection would then not be a rejection, but rather a confirmation that some ideas are not applicable.
Instead of facing the opposite direction and declaring how the sun rises on the left and not on the right, we have to stand on the moon and look at planet Earth to see all its directional spots and motions.
—
Thank you, Rex, for gnawing on this. I hope you are having some fun with it and, even when you may never agree with what I am showing, that I am bringing a perspective to your scientific knowledge that you will not get from your scientific colleagues to the same extent.
