What Scientists Overlooked

It is easy to miss.

Photo by Jeremy Perkins on Unsplash

Science is the “the systematic study of structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against evidence obtained.”

And yet something went unnoticed.

An empty space inside a wallet will upset many of us, and yet the empty space of a laundry basket will make most of us happy. Twice, we have an empty result, nothing to view, both completely identical in essence, and yet we have two different fully-understandable reactions.

Scientists do not care about zero. They either reject it or they tolerate it with a cold shoulder. No one gives it any value.

Therefore they missed that zero is a two-faced number.

To ignore something, we give that something a value of zero. Clearly, we can use zero and apply it to something we do not value. We may even do that a lot.

Scientists do this as well with anything they consider scientifically unimportant. Yet the surprising point is that giving something a value of zero can itself not be given a value of zero. We cannot reject the act of rejection itself as an option we are not engaged in.

In science, the Year Zero is accepted only by astronomers. Astronomers don’t want to deal with that one missing year when looking at astronomical processes of the last 100,000 years. Yet all other scientists reject that there is a Year Zero.

Scientists say there is no Year Zero and rather embrace a time period with a missing year nevertheless accepted as the truth.

Obviously, something is a bit strange. Let’s dig in and get a better view.

Most scientists make use of Number Theory, which is a mathematical application using the integers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) as the scientific numbers to work with. It excludes zero as a scientific number to work with.

A much smaller group of scientists are Set Theorists. They start out with the empty set, and the original action of embracing the empty set actually forced all scientists to accept zero as indeed a natural number where prior it was not seen as a natural number. This is the main reason the largest group of scientists are now using the integers instead of the natural numbers. They rather ignore the empty space than accept it inside their models.

Surprisingly, neither group acknowledges that zero can be functional. They deny that zero can have two faces.

Rubin’s Vase

The easiest way to show what is going on is through using this visual, Rubin’s Vase. All data in this simple image is the same for all to see. Yet what we see if up to interpretation.

Let’s focus on the ‘empty space’ we can discover in this visual by describing both interpretations in numbers.

The Vase: 0–1–0

The Two Faces: 1–0–1

For the interpretation of the Vase, the two zeros to the sides are truly unimportant. The space around the Vase has basically nothing to add to the Vase. This is a clean and clear visual in light of 1, our beloved Vase. With 0, we find absolutely nothing next to the Vase.

All is 1.

For the Two Faces, however, that single zero in the center is vitally important. It is not because it became something all of a sudden; it is still absolutely nothing. Yet this noting takes in center spot. Had it not been for a fundamental separation portrayed that way, the Two Faces would not have been independent aspects of this visual.

All is not 1.

— — —

The Great Buddha got enlightened underneath a fig tree, exactly because Buddha realized that the spot to sit in was always there, whether he sat in that spot or not. The spot was not based on him being there; it was there all along.

— — —

The binary nature of zero exposed.

Of all numbers, only 1 can represent singularity. Nevertheless, many people assume that zero is a singular number as well, and that is a mistake.

‘010’ shows two zeros that are each quite distinct. The first zero can be left out and the total amount remains the same. Remove the second zero, however, and the total number changes dramatically.

Physicists working with scientific models, and who are next ignoring that a zero position could ‘lurk’ in the center of their models, often automatically forget to dot their I’s and cross their T’s. They create models they feel extremely confident about, and yet they forgot to consider the dual nature of zero.

Where there should be two models to work with, scientists pick one model and claim it is the only model to work with. In general, the other model contains a fundamental position for zero, and it is rejected by most physicists.

Take a Black Hole model.

Most physicists like to use just one model, and they may end up rejecting any other model as possible to explain the gravitational monster inside a galaxy.

In their model, we see an accumulation of matter and forces that leads to The Vase occupying the center spot, so to speak.

Since it is not possible to have the entire galaxy be the ‘Vase,’ that ‘Vase’ found in the center must subsequently be of an astronomically great significance. It is even so great that this ‘Vase’ collapsed onto itself and subsequently no light can escape that ‘Vase.’ The ‘Vase’ itself ended up not being a visible material entity. The model collapsed onto itself, so to speak.

To use a much-hated word nowadays, scientists are not woke.

Replacing that model and incorporating the empty position in the center, we find ourselves with a Black Eye model. The Two Faces model is placed on (segments of) the galaxy, and the center is one in which gravity plays a tremendous role, but that gravity is derived from all masses surrounding the center. There is no invisible matter in the center. There is no matter in the center at all (and if it gets there, it won’t be there for long).

The Two Faces do not occupy the center; they surround the center. The empty position found in the center becomes important like an empty wallet. It brings out enormous forces to make sure that this wallet does not stay empty. The emptiness is an essential aspect of the model. No one likes a vacuum of simple emptiness.

Physicists are not working with a functional zero in their models. Instead, they are using zero in their minds but only use it to reject the possibility that zero can be functional.



Structural Philosopher

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store