Search results

A new expression of the panorama of pansystems relativity is stated. Some modes and related principles or applications are developed. Concrete contents include: new forms of the framework 784e of pansystems theory and its connections with relativity. The paper introduces eight classes of relativity topics, and further research presents many new models of pansystems relativity such as: 23456R, super‐23456R, SSOS, SOMERQ, pansystems dialectics, clustering quotient, field‐net, meta‐topology, image‐boundary, cognition and practice, thinking experiment, etc. These modes present some new understanding to systems, society, methodology, epistemology, wisdom, psychology, hi‐tech, paradox, anthropology, ego, literature, arts, poetics and aesthetics, etc. There are 60 or more related references listed in the paper.

Attempts to prove, in this second chapter of the author’s monograph, that with a new research programme, it is possible to build a methodological bridge between economics and all other natural sciences and the scientists should address this challenge. Reviews basic principles that govern nature, including Einstein’s findings along with such luminaries as Copernicus, Newton, Galileo and Jeans. Concludes that the future is safe, as a new generation of scientists is now emerging in the East and the West, and that the new methodology should provide enough space for new roads, ideas and interpretations, which may occur in the future. Closes by saying a new spirit should be initiated in economics and transplanted into natural sciences.

There is a double crisis in modern science and in particular in physics and mechanics. Among others Einstein and Stephane Lupasco, in the 1930s, warned about this crisis. The Quantum Theory cannot be reconciled with the Relativity Theory. Specifically there is a gap (cleavage) between micro – and macro‐physics and mechanics. Parallel or beneath there is also a second crisis derived from a discontinuity (again a cleavage) between classical and modern science, that is between two previous revolutions. A new research programme of a simultaneous equilibrium versus disequilibrium approach, initially applied in economics has now been extended to include natural sciences. It is the question of a new, more comprehensive methodology which is actually a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern heritage. The rigorous application of the new research programme leads to the organisation of an Orientation Table, that is, a methodological map of all possible combinations (systems). The Table shows, without any exaggeration, a few revolutionary results. For instance, with the help of the Table, modern science or the second revolution (Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg) does not appear contradictory but rather complementary to classical science or the first revolution (Newton, Lavoisier). The Kuhnian thesis to the contrary is disproved and the second crisis is solved. With the help of the Universal Hypothesis of Duality (the basis of the Orientation Table), matter and energy, at the micro – and macro‐level, appear in a double form (the Principle of Duality): stable (equilibrium) particles and unstable (disequilibrium) waves. The strong interactions from modern physics are associated with the law of gravitation (attraction) or stable equilibrium which governs stable matter and energy. The weak interactions are associated with the law of disgravitation (dispersion or repulsion) including entropy or unstable equilibrium which governs unstable matter and energy. In this way the first crisis is also solved.

The derivation leading to the formulation of Lorentzian transformation in special relativity is actually a duplication of an ancient “miracle” in algebra: 2x−x=0, 2x=x, 2=1. Dominated by such a mathematical confusion, relativity displays fundamental uncertainty in understanding physics. As such, with equations, it claims to have “discovered” two speed limits in nature: the speed of light in the vacuum space and the speed of light at the mass center of a material body. Needless to say, these two speed limits repel each other, not to mention that the second speed limit is even against nature. Relativity then further extends this confusion and uncertainty in physics to make up many self‐contradicting concepts. These concepts include the so‐called homogeneous gravitational field and the idea of having (circumference/diameter)>3.1415926… for a spinning circle. With the same mathematics guiding to its “success”, however, relativity presents no homogeneous gravitational field, but a monster that must be called a homogeneously inhomogeneous field for its appropriation. Based on the same erroneous mathematics, relativity must force itself to have (circumference/diameter)<3.1415926… for a spinning circle. With the idea of a homogeneous gravitational field, relativity believes that it can establish the validity of the so‐called Principle of Equivalence for the legitimacy of general relativity. However, Newtonian mechanics, supported by the close orbital movements of numerous heavenly objects, must witness the nonexistence of such a “principle” in nature.

The purpose of this paper is to examine a device used in leasehold enfranchisement valuations known as the graph of relativity, which shows the percentage of the freehold value of a dwelling that a lease of a given unexpired term comprises. There are a number of such graphs in existence put forward by practitioners based on their experience and as a result of research but they contain different values. The paper explores why this might be the case and how this issue can be resolved.

The paper examines the literature on graphs of relativity and the various graphs that have been published and critically examines the methodologies behind them to see if these account for the differences between them.

There are different methodologies that have been employed in producing the graphs, including transaction evidence, the opinions of practitioners, and tribunal decisions, and these may account for some of the differences. Many of the graphs are based upon relatively small samples, particularly at specific points on the graphs, so there are likely to be differences as a result of sampling errors. The graphs mix together properties with different characteristics, which could be a further source of variability.

Further research is needed to produce a more definitive graph of relativity based on a larger sample of properties and that reflects the differences between properties.

The paper challenges the notion that there is a single graph of relativity in which the length of the lease term remaining is the only significant variable and argues that there are likely to be multiple graphs of relativity that reflect the risks associated with investing in leasehold property.

The constructs of relativism and absolutism have a significant role to play in the development of ethical theory; however, they are commonly simplified in their depictions and are philosophically more complex than we give them credit for. The purpose of this paper is to undertake an in‐depth examination of ethical relativity and ethical absolutism before concluding with a discussion of which research implications warrant further investigation.

A descriptive, historical, anthological approach has been taken.

Ethical relativism is regrettably subject to a proliferation of related terminology and, in many instances with different meanings ascribed to similar terms. In addition, ethical relativity appears to attract different research perspectives that are heavily dependent on their academic origins. A clear distinction needs to be made between ethical and situational relativity. It is suggested that relativism is present in the process of moral justification and that ethical relativism should be analyzed from three levels: the individual level, the role and group level, and the cultural levels. The over‐riding objection to ethical relativism rests on the consequences of accepting relativism, which undermines the existence and strength of global moral standards and the inherent positioning of ethical absolutism. Absolutism does not deny the existence of multiple moral practices evident around the world, but proposes that variations in ethical actions could still be rooted in common universal moral standards based on our requirements as human beings and the necessities of long‐term survival.

The ensuing discussions of relativism and absolutism open up a rich vein of research opportunities and suggest caution is required in regard to research methodologies. From a methodological perspective, care needs to be taken. For example, using hypothetical ethical dilemmas that are often unrelated to a specific industry or cultural setting has resulted in many researchers observing situational relativity rather than true ethical relativity.

This paper specifically examines whether there are differences in underlying and basic moral standards even though similarities in ethical behaviour have been determined, or whether differing ethical actions could, as the absolutists believe, originate from common universal standards despite apparent differences in perceptions and actions across cultures.

Primordial pattern is the name given by Grigg to the curve representing the response of many biologic systems to a single stimulus. This curve consists of a fast ascent and a lingering descent. The equation had been chosen empirically to describe the primordial pattern. This equation taken in isolation does not reveal its close interconnection with the physical world. In this paper it is seen as one of the solutions of a second‐order damped system representable by the differential equation with zero initial displacement but some initial velocity. Such a system involves contributing responses by components of threekinds: inertial, restoring and resistive. This observation should stimulate scientists to extract these different components from any biologic response. The resistive component is a term proportional to the first derivative of the response with respect to time. Evidence for the necessity of this frictional component to obtain a primordial pattern is presented. Such frictional component imparts to a process an irreversible character in agreement with Poincarés thermodynamic formulation and provides the physico‐mathematical substrata to the concept of biologic relativity, namely: as the primordial pattern runs its course, there occurs an incessant change, not only in the recorded response, but also in the respondent's reactivity. This paper offers a unifying view of biology and physics. It should be the task of biologists henceforth to try to find the pertinent analogies with inertial, restoring and resistive components of biologic entities and responses. As an example, consider the fact that the primordial pattern requires of necessity the existence of frictional elements within the system. It will be of great interest to look into these elements and try to identify them. Then, perhaps, they could be manipulated from outside the system to increase or diminish them for mankind's advantage.

To develop an overview of generalized scales based on pansystems‐relative quantification.

This is a discussion paper exploring the key issues surrounding generalized measures.

The concrete contents of the study include generalized measure views, dimension theory, concepts, logic, theories, Einstein's relativity, quality‐quantity‐degree, methodology of physics, theorems in pansystems mathematics and physics explained within the framework of pan‐scale transformations.

Provides an overview of generalized scales based on pansystems‐relative quantification.

Using the variable mass system of particles theory [1‐3] in classical Newtonian mechanics we attempt to achieve Einstein’s equations [4‐10], and explain the Lorentz’s transformation in the special relativity theory with only tools in classical Newtonian mechanics as Henri Poincaré try to do it in his monograph for the dynamic of the electron[0]. Our aim is to prove that Einstein’s equations and the special relativity theory are included in the classical Newtonian mechanics, and so to contribute to the unification of the mechanics theories, giving the classical theory, i.e. Galilei’s space time and Newton’s fundamental dynamic law their veritable places.