R. Tahirnen Physics viewed as a system of words In my humble but insisteous opinion , physics in a lot is a system of words that physic ist s use quite nonchalantly. The w ords used by physic s sometimes remind me spells on nature, effecting due the principle that delusions are mainly incorrigible in the minds of bearers. And I suppose that Newton’s Laws could illustrate a n opin ion . Physicists s peak mathematic ian and adopt mathematical mind . Though, in my opinion, m athematics is dealing mostly with metaphysics, handling eternal, unchangeable, immeasurable and irrelative ideas of this physical world . Physics deals with reality that begins with measurability of temporal things, made, as it seems to me , by the Universe ’s single difference binary ; like, e.g. , day and night , sharing volume of their diversity . Physicist s describe and explain nature by logically axiomatic m ethod of scientific abstractionism , diverting reality into its models ; staying on the reason that nature is complex . I would guess that complex are but psychics of physici st s , and their logics particularly . For i t is intricate , indeed, to describe mostly analog ous physical world by physically impossible ideal no tions. By the first law of motion , bodies uninfluenced by emptiness flow eternally and endlessly , at the inertial speed by theirs masses. Or they stay at bay, compared to the bodies taken by physical observer as floating ones . E mptiness dealing with matter , flat ( especially in the absence of the l atter ) and flexible as geometrically designed doormat , is a physical axiom: unobservable, incapable to experie nce and insoluble foothold to physicists’ mind . May be physicists have convi ction that nature has to approach the ir mathematical models . One may approach u nnatural axioms , e.g., of the inertial system , eternally and endlessly. But circle is ci rcle and square uses to be square, they share a difference that might be physical ly worth to notice . A nd motion is physically unable to be restful . They say that motion is the main feature of matter , and that all its moves are but matter’s changing to dif ferent images . I should a gree. Unchangeable things are physically unobservable like immovable ones, or like masses without dimensions and bodies without masses. Either physically unobservable is timeless space or bodiless time . Bo dies can be physically noticed by their changes and owing to the volume for the ir motion. Space is physically observable as the time being of things , a volume where bodies transform, bind and dissipate to their more stable parts. Time is physica lly observable as bodies with one way tickets , I speculate , to uncertainty of maternal field medium . I n common physical case bodies are go ing from ashes to ashes . T hey change their built (structure) and mass es , even when they do not shift noticeably between the points of emptiness . B odies transform to their physical ly possible and probable d er iv ati ons at the time flow of their U niverse , which evidently c an not be entered twice as the same one . In my opinion, human logic s had been born by written grammar relations between subject and object, lead ing to viewable physically possib le se quences by their acting. I think that mathematics o versimplifies these relation s up to its ideals . And though the ir logic h as developed into many various logics they did not beco me more natural . Special p hy sicists’ logic is like there is wave or particle, and somewhat of the third. I dare share ancient opinion that there is but matter ’s density changing either under the names of wave s and particle s or vacuum pulsati ons . P ossibility and probability are the feature s of the phys ical world. T he features of this physical world may be granted as its peculiarities. Matter’s motion , e.g. , is only but measurable . And if the Universe looks like analogous system, maybe it behaves adequately to its physical reputation , changing its data , e.g. , temperature and density, d ue to its physical capabilities , with the quantizing rhythms of its field melody gestalt . I think that p hysical observer ignore s some habits of nature . B ecause of his left mind hemisphere doesn’t perc e ive reality of its changing curving volume , and suppresses cap abi lities of the right hemisphere; which in its turn doesn’t appreciate capabilities of the left one. Left winged mathematicians take space as infinite flat projections onto flatness , and take temporal bodies f o r shades of ideal figures. Physics in th e same way demand matter to split in to its last particle in blue nowhere . I guess that i f nature follows mathematics , i t would be simple r and easier for nature to be a field matter analogous to mathematical one , where there math ematical ideas would get their law as the rules for the volume of their reality . Perhaps the main (and bien fixe ) idea of math ematics is phenomenon of rules , limit ing its deeds into right eous acts. May be the first of those rules is one of proportion , or r elation between vectors (data bearers) in the mathematical acting field . Nature has also its rules , or physical possibilities , not always coinciding with scientific prescriptions to reality . It may be amusable to say, but the so l o motion of matter has two directions, exactly to and fro. Leftward is unnoticeable without rightward, and wi thout their common symmetry , or inequality. I think th at even mathematical vector obtains two , and may be unequal dire ctions. Just for its being virtual . Nature is no t physically virtuous; it doesn’t quite correspond to scientific no tions of its motions . I think there are philolog ical shades of meaning in t he physical notions of m ove, action and interaction . The m ov ement is when one can ignore friction or dimensions, out of the physical axiom that nature has got scientifically unne cessary symptoms. Action is where there is a counteracting , e.g., friction, with its physical consequences . Action looks more coexistent to bodily life . Interaction is where there two directions of the sole move look comparably unequal to the physical observer. Movement is physically noticeable owing to its unequal directions comparable b y their mutual influence or force s . Force is a viewable action of bodies being changed by bodies. For ce cannot be noticed without counte rforce of inertia of object resistance to influence by subject ; like any thing physically irrelative . Newton’s mass is measure to bodies’ resista nce for trans formations, to their force , and to their gravitation into geometrical point s of matter . Gravity without field ing force of body dissipation , in my opinion , looks unphysical like day without night or cold without hea t, like mathematics without its point - and - field binary ; and sounds like one hand clap . Newton had postulated that mass impulse coincides with mass changing . E .g., mass of a bullet radiating from its point of balance to a p robable place of its physical balance with the medium influence . One may su ppos e that mass radiation from its point of balance in to the field probability is compensated by its centering gravity vector , balancing the system of the field - and - point forces into their structure of semi field physical vector or trajectory . I guess that mass also may be a measure to probability or trajectory of bodily changes at the ir space field . Physicists say that bodies make spheres of influence s in some void . I d are shar e ancient opinion that field matter makes its temporal in ner formations or just information in the virtual volume of its ideal point - and - field asymmetry . T he Universe , as it looks to me, ha s a trajectory spiraling to the field uncertain ty . P hysics , quite math ematical ly, name spiral time being s of space like elliptical orbits . I t seems to me that the shortest mathematical line may be equal to balance of the physical force s , collapsing their data to a singular ly immeasurable geometrical point , vanishing into field potential ity . And ellipses are also not very physical descriptions. I t also seems to me that even in math ematics there is basic inequality between the f ield and its multiples . I ha ve heard that V. H umboldt had noticed without comments that human language had had appeared at once and as a system . I would add that the Universe either ; and instantly it turned into a structure, balancing the system of forces into the inertia of physical body . I woul d like to add that t he Universe steps its eternity in the scalar way, so to say, jumping in the both unequal directions on the physical staircase of quantizing energy . Scalar ity is a word for mass es delaying their dissolution to the matter field. And the simpler are bodies , the evener or more symmetrical are the wave s of theirs relative point – field – point changes at the speed by theirs masses - structures . Energy, the measure of system’s unbalance , looks in its hole as temperature ( mix in du e proportions ) streaming to the Universe ’s zero information named the balanced system . The Universe is changing towards singularity of black holes and of the vacuum, where there its measurability comes to a physical end, or to the infiniteness of mathematical field. Summing analogies, the Universe may be a measurable case of the field matter medium: a physical body created by field matter space formations into masses - structures of its energy , ending its time and volume, I guess, by the Plan ck curve . This physical world might be a real case of mathematical field , potentiating its inner formations (data) as much as there i s inequality, or energy of its vector to immeasurab ility of medium matter .