I’ve been pondering the universe as an infinite collection of dynamic eight balls. “**Eight ball**” is my new shorthand for an object described by the path of a point charge through continuous **Euclidean time and space**.

There are many relevant historical uses of “eight-ball”. Here are a few.

Wikipedia

Eight-ball: The object of the game is to legally pocket the 8-ball.

The

WikipediaMagic 8-Ballis a spherical oversized eight-ball toy, used for fortune-telling or seeking advice. The user asks a yes–no question to the ball, then turns it over to reveal an answer in a window on the ball.

Let’s define an **eight ball** object as a bundle of basic properties with a dynamical geometry. A eight ball has a charge, position, and velocity. In nature, simplicty begets complexity via emergence. Each eight ball continuously emits electric potential which expands spherically.

**[**

**(charge _{m}),**

**(t**

_{m}),**(x**

_{m}, y_{m}, z_{m}),**(dx**

_{m}/dt_{m}, dy_{m}/dt_{m}, dz_{m}/dt_{m})**]**

We can imagine an infinite collection of eight balls in Euclidean time and space.

We can model the action throughout absolute time of each eight ball upon itself and every other.

We can imagine all such collections of various densities in Euclidean time and space.

Is our universe describable by at least one such collection?

**How do I reconcile the universe as a collection of eight balls?**

We already consider Earth and Life as comprised of quarks and electrons, with neutrinos and photons flying all over the place.

It is a simple intellectual leap to rebase upon charged eight balls.

Doing so makes everything sensible again, as NPQG illustrates!

**How is eight ball action defined?**

What is the action definition of an eight ball upon itself or another?

Does the action depend on the velocity differential of the field object and the point charge? Maxwell’s equations suggest the answer is yes for the magnetic field. That’s interesting. What about for the electric field?

What is the geometry of the eight ball and Maxwell’s equations?

Is anything else needed?

We have energy encoded in proximity (PE) and velocity (KE).

We have density via Euclidean time and space position.

The question is whether we can extract the action from Maxwell.

**What is the PE vs. KE relationship for an eight ball dipole?**

What is the shape of the PE vs. KE relationship for an eight ball dipole over the Planck’s law curve, and in particular around v = @? How does KE behave around v = @ which is where the dipole has its largest radius? What is the PE at v = @? As proximity defined by radius decreases on both sides of the peak, the PE magnitude increases. This line of thought also correlates with the black body structure emission curve peaking at v = @, i.e., that photon generation may peak here. What is the shape of this PE/KE curve for a dipole? We must formulate a definition of PE and KE in Euclidean time and space that is absolute in scale, but relative to others. Our definition of PE and KE must hold true for any opposite eight ball pair and their ongoing relationship as they approach an orbital. How would that happen ideally anyway given an arbitrary pair of starting points in R4?

*What is the most parsimonious formulation of nature in a complete dynamical geometry?*

I’ve been contemplating the most parsimonious formulation of nature in a complete dynamical geometry of point charges. It is incomplete to say the universe is defined by the interactions of the eight ball (charge, time, x, y, z, dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt) for all point charges including the self. The next step is to specify the universe in a parsimonious set of symbols forming a complete dynamical geometry. The figure shows the equation of nature and the universe in an abstract form.

The task is to articulate most parsimonious abstraction of nature’s geometry of charged eight balls. How much can be simplfied? What other classical concepts are needed? How can we merge and simplify the dynamical geometry of the eight ball with the integral formulation of Maxwell’s equations? Not only that, we should aspire to define an ontological hierarchy of concepts from first principles.

*J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts*

p.s., Remember, the pattern is evident. This is a slam dunk mic drop.