Hello and Welcome EVERYONE...
...to this SECOND of the new threads to run in parallel with our TOE thread.
The title is self-explanatory, I think.
Just as in the other 'MATHEMATICS IMPLICATIONS' thread I just initiated, I won't give any 'guidance' at this early stage to intending participants in this
'COSMOLOGICAL THEORY COMPARISONS' thread...so just go for it as you see fit (and hopefully with a modicum of relevance to the aims of our TOE/MATHEMATICS threads, hehehe).
Catch you later, when I have any worthwhile input myself. Enjoy!
RealityCheck.
OK.
At the first glance, the Aether wave theory looks like the current theories hybrid, which is a quite natural, because most common theories are mutually converging into exact description of universe. It seems, the Aether theory contradicts any commonly accepted physical theory - instead of this, it generalizes it.
The basic insight of Aether wave theory comes from the model of the water surface wave, which behaves as the common light-formed spacetime. The underwater wave field is not observable by the surface wave directly, because it lies at the so called "hidden dimension space". This gives a natural explanation, why the Aether movement isn't observable using light directly, although it's a quite real, having frequency, mass, etc. It means, the Aether wave theory is just an ancient plenum/aether hypothesis, expanded/generalized using the Poincare's hidden dimension concept....
The second most fundamental insight comes from superstring theory (i.e. "everything is a string" concept), just replacing the word "string" by the more intuitive "gravity wave". The only difference, the superstring/M-theory is using the hidden dimension concept as the ad-hoc postulate, by the same way as general relativity a quantum mechanic theories. It means, both superstring theory, both the Aether theory is fully compatible with the general relativity theory, both quantum theory - but Aether theory explains it's postulates ab initio, using the water wave spreading model (1, 2).
The nature of gravity wave is the mutual space-time oscillations by the Wheeler's geometrodynamic theory from the end of 60's, where gravity field time change corresponds the mass location change. Therefore, all terms like "space-time frequency", "energy potential", "gravity divergence", "mass field inhomogeneity" are mutually equivalent in Aether theory. Furthermore, the geometrodynamic theory leads to the model of so called geons, i.e. closed loops of the gravity wave, which are collapsing gradually, being metastable. It means, the geometrodynamic theory extended by the hidden dimension concept is the natural mathematical model of the Aether theory - not the ad hoc brane/manifold models of the superstring theory.
From this point of view the Aether theory is compatible both with the Penrose's twistor theory, both the Quantum Loop Gravity theory, too - but the quantum loop/twistor field is the natural result of spacetime compactification during the inflation period of universe - not initial ad hoc postulate/prediction by the Aether wave theory. The branes of superstring theory corresponds a phase interface ("surface") of the quantum loops environment in Aether theory.
It means, the Aether theory is compatible both with the standard inflation model, both with the Linde's chaotic inflation model of cosmology. In general, the Aether wave suggests the universe formation from the infinitesimal gravity field fluctuation (i.e. from "nothing"), but it doesn't stop here. Instead of this, it explains the nature of this field as the evolution result of "uberspace"/"ubertime" quantities of indeterministic nature and extends these cosmology models to the examples of the biological/sociological evolution.
From this point of view the term "Aether" represents rather common denominator of the metaphysical environment directed by the common evolutionary principle based on the Hegel's quantity->quality transformation.
At the first glance, the Aether wave theory looks like the current theories hybrid, which is a quite natural, because most common theories are mutually converging into exact description of universe. It seems, the Aether theory contradicts any commonly accepted physical theory - instead of this, it generalizes it.
The basic insight of Aether wave theory comes from the model of the water surface wave, which behaves as the common light-formed spacetime. The underwater wave field is not observable by the surface wave directly, because it lies at the so called "hidden dimension space". This gives a natural explanation, why the Aether movement isn't observable using light directly, although it's a quite real, having frequency, mass, etc. It means, the Aether wave theory is just an ancient plenum/aether hypothesis, expanded/generalized using the Poincare's hidden dimension concept....
The second most fundamental insight comes from superstring theory (i.e. "everything is a string" concept), just replacing the word "string" by the more intuitive "gravity wave". The only difference, the superstring/M-theory is using the hidden dimension concept as the ad-hoc postulate, by the same way as general relativity a quantum mechanic theories. It means, both superstring theory, both the Aether theory is fully compatible with the general relativity theory, both quantum theory - but Aether theory explains it's postulates ab initio, using the water wave spreading model (1, 2).
The nature of gravity wave is the mutual space-time oscillations by the Wheeler's geometrodynamic theory from the end of 60's, where gravity field time change corresponds the mass location change. Therefore, all terms like "space-time frequency", "energy potential", "gravity divergence", "mass field inhomogeneity" are mutually equivalent in Aether theory. Furthermore, the geometrodynamic theory leads to the model of so called geons, i.e. closed loops of the gravity wave, which are collapsing gradually, being metastable. It means, the geometrodynamic theory extended by the hidden dimension concept is the natural mathematical model of the Aether theory - not the ad hoc brane/manifold models of the superstring theory.
From this point of view the Aether theory is compatible both with the Penrose's twistor theory, both the Quantum Loop Gravity theory, too - but the quantum loop/twistor field is the natural result of spacetime compactification during the inflation period of universe - not initial ad hoc postulate/prediction by the Aether wave theory. The branes of superstring theory corresponds a phase interface ("surface") of the quantum loops environment in Aether theory.
It means, the Aether theory is compatible both with the standard inflation model, both with the Linde's chaotic inflation model of cosmology. In general, the Aether wave suggests the universe formation from the infinitesimal gravity field fluctuation (i.e. from "nothing"), but it doesn't stop here. Instead of this, it explains the nature of this field as the evolution result of "uberspace"/"ubertime" quantities of indeterministic nature and extends these cosmology models to the examples of the biological/sociological evolution.
From this point of view the term "Aether" represents rather common denominator of the metaphysical environment directed by the common evolutionary principle based on the Hegel's quantity->quality transformation.
Hi Evil Genius!
I’m replying to your posts here so as not to confuse participants in the TOE thread. And don’t worry, I understand perfectly about being pressed for time; because I’m on an old computer on a tenuous ‘dial-up’ link along a ‘shaky’ regional telecommunications phone line apt to ‘drop out’ at NO moment’s notice, hehehe!
Now, about your insightful comments/queries...your discussions/observations came into the ‘starting’ concept ‘selection’ stage of our TOE process...at which stage NO OTHER considerations of a ‘derivative’ or ‘system specific’ nature would qualify in answer to the first-stage question in this Q & A sessions-driven TOE ‘construction-from-absolute-concept’ process! But of course, here in THIS thread, or the associated “MATHS/GEOM IMPLICATIONS” and the “PHILOs. IMPLICATIONS” threads, we can discuss relevant/respective aspects/concepts no matter WHAT stage the TOE construction thread is at! So I’ll now proceed with replying to your other deep thoughts/observations; as follows...
(1) When you say “After all isn't direction predicated upon the relationship of dimensions and not points within an array of all or some of those dimensions scalar?”...
...You would be right IF one is talking of PARTICULAR direction(s)...that is, IF one is referring to some PARTICULAR VECTOR of direction in a PARTICULAR ORIENTATION in a PARTICULAR CO-ORDINATES SYSTEM...but at the stage of the TOE ‘construction’ Q&A process wherein I posited SCALAR DIRECTION as the most absolute/independent PHYSICAL concept, the concept denotes ONLY the POTENTIAL for ALL POSSIBLE direction-vector-orientations in ALL POSSIBLE co-ordinates systems imaginable. So you see, no other ‘dimensions’ or ‘change’ or ‘movement’ or ‘process' or any ‘specific’ system of physical properties/dynamics were involved in that concept...only all potential for all possible directional differentiations/derivations FROM THAT INFINITE SCALAR CONCEPT. Do you see?
Of course, HERE in this thread we can discuss such things...and hopefully we’ll have some definite ideas which might lead to answers for the STAGE TWO QUESTIONS posed in the TOE thread! Let’s see now, about that other deep observation (you seem to keep em coming!...how DO you do it, are you an amateur or professional in these matters?...you don’t have to answer that if you don’t want to; just curious though...)...
(2) When you say “Now, let's talk about how information can flow in such a universe. Could it be that the quantum lattice, if you will, is composed of all nine dimensions of string theory and that the added dimension of time is relative? Time being pedantic it would be relative rather than an active dimension wouldn't it? So, maybe there wouldn't be any time within the flat space of the elliptical ring, unless the other dimensions of space-time are moving through there as well. If there is no time within then it sets up a boundary condition at which the dimensions would be forced to interact.”...
Right, a ‘quantum’ lattice can only come into the picture ONCE THERE IS A CONSTANTLY RECURRING INSTABILITY OR ‘FLAW’ IN THE underlying infinite ‘space’ bulk of absolute-point ‘coincidence locations’. And THAT instability/flaw is one of the things being canvassed in stage two of the TOE Q & A session, hehehe! You will see from the ‘preamble’ to TOE stage two, that if the absolute bulk ‘lattice’ (as you call it) of THE UNBOUNDED WHOLE UNIVERSAL TOTALITY was ‘perfectly balanced and flawless’, then NOTHING WOULD BE ‘HAPPENING’ (changing), including information flow, because there would be no difference between the state of one ‘absolute-coincidence-point’ LOCATION and any OTHER such LOCATION(S), hehehe! You see? Anyhow, let’s for the sake of argument ASSUME we have SOME sort of natural imbalance or flaw or factor/property/behaviour etc ......and that this instability results in random totality-wide generation of DIFFERENTIABLE ‘BITS’ associated transiently with random LOCATIONS.....so that, wherever such ‘bits’ occur, then that location in the ‘absolute TRUE-bulk’ MATRIX transiently becomes PHYSICALLY DIFFERENTIABLE (or ACTIVE) in a physical dynamics associated with a SECONDARY or ‘PSEUDO-bulk’ ‘QUANTUM LATTICE’.......where such ‘quantum bits’ would essentially and effectively behave as a 'FLUID' composed of quantum bits that FLUX, INTERACT, AGGREGATE, DE-AGGREGATE, WAX, WANE and eventually ‘deactivate’ back to absolute true-bulk status locations, to be constantly replaced by other 'quantum bits' activated by the ongoing 'instability' mechanism, as already posited.
ONLY THEN can one meaningfully ask: what IS a ‘TRUE-BULK DIMENSION’ and HOW MANY of them are there; and THEN one should ask: WHAT is a ‘PSEUDO-BULK DIMENSIONS’ and how many of THEM are there. With me? That’s the only way the distinction between TRUE (absolute) and FALSE (relative) ‘dimensions’ can ever be made sense of...because if there is no absolute, then IT WON’T MATTER WHAT ONE CONJECTURES, BECAUSE IT WILL ALL BE RELATIVE TO ONE’S CONJECTURE PREMISES AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS....meaning that ANYTHING GOES, so why stop at ‘nine’ String theory dimensions plus ‘time’ (which is obviously a ‘product’ of ‘process’ rather than the other way round---and hence, also relative...I’ll get back to you in a few days to discuss ‘time’ in more detail with you, especially as it impacts on your observations regarding the time/no-time ‘boundaries’ where ‘dimensions’ are ‘forced to interact’ etc.). So, basically, until we come up with a COMPLETE TOE containing the TRUE/FALSE (absolute/relative) frame of reference ‘contexts’, NONE of these discussions will EVER be resolved, because the nature and number of ‘dimensions’ will be different for each and every one’s PARTIAL/BOUNDED THEORY.
[NOW you see why someone HAD to start something like that ‘common/absolute’ TOE construction project, or we’d all eventually go crazy arguing over ‘how many dimensions can fit on the head of a pin?’ (poetic licence there, hehehe!)]
(3) I would also like to pursue the ultimate ‘clarity’ of information possible in any TRUE/FALSE BULK context. When I get back to you about that ‘time’ thing, I would like to know how far that ‘temperature’/energy-state correlation has ‘gelled’ in your mind, because I’ve pondered that myself, and will be putting my own observations to you when we speak about ‘time’. Until then, you may like to refine your own thoughts on these things and then we can compare notes! Looking forward to it....probably in three-four days....speak to you then, mate!
Your friend in science: RealityCheck.
.
I’m replying to your posts here so as not to confuse participants in the TOE thread. And don’t worry, I understand perfectly about being pressed for time; because I’m on an old computer on a tenuous ‘dial-up’ link along a ‘shaky’ regional telecommunications phone line apt to ‘drop out’ at NO moment’s notice, hehehe!
Now, about your insightful comments/queries...your discussions/observations came into the ‘starting’ concept ‘selection’ stage of our TOE process...at which stage NO OTHER considerations of a ‘derivative’ or ‘system specific’ nature would qualify in answer to the first-stage question in this Q & A sessions-driven TOE ‘construction-from-absolute-concept’ process! But of course, here in THIS thread, or the associated “MATHS/GEOM IMPLICATIONS” and the “PHILOs. IMPLICATIONS” threads, we can discuss relevant/respective aspects/concepts no matter WHAT stage the TOE construction thread is at! So I’ll now proceed with replying to your other deep thoughts/observations; as follows...
(1) When you say “After all isn't direction predicated upon the relationship of dimensions and not points within an array of all or some of those dimensions scalar?”...
...You would be right IF one is talking of PARTICULAR direction(s)...that is, IF one is referring to some PARTICULAR VECTOR of direction in a PARTICULAR ORIENTATION in a PARTICULAR CO-ORDINATES SYSTEM...but at the stage of the TOE ‘construction’ Q&A process wherein I posited SCALAR DIRECTION as the most absolute/independent PHYSICAL concept, the concept denotes ONLY the POTENTIAL for ALL POSSIBLE direction-vector-orientations in ALL POSSIBLE co-ordinates systems imaginable. So you see, no other ‘dimensions’ or ‘change’ or ‘movement’ or ‘process' or any ‘specific’ system of physical properties/dynamics were involved in that concept...only all potential for all possible directional differentiations/derivations FROM THAT INFINITE SCALAR CONCEPT. Do you see?
Of course, HERE in this thread we can discuss such things...and hopefully we’ll have some definite ideas which might lead to answers for the STAGE TWO QUESTIONS posed in the TOE thread! Let’s see now, about that other deep observation (you seem to keep em coming!...how DO you do it, are you an amateur or professional in these matters?...you don’t have to answer that if you don’t want to; just curious though...)...
(2) When you say “Now, let's talk about how information can flow in such a universe. Could it be that the quantum lattice, if you will, is composed of all nine dimensions of string theory and that the added dimension of time is relative? Time being pedantic it would be relative rather than an active dimension wouldn't it? So, maybe there wouldn't be any time within the flat space of the elliptical ring, unless the other dimensions of space-time are moving through there as well. If there is no time within then it sets up a boundary condition at which the dimensions would be forced to interact.”...
Right, a ‘quantum’ lattice can only come into the picture ONCE THERE IS A CONSTANTLY RECURRING INSTABILITY OR ‘FLAW’ IN THE underlying infinite ‘space’ bulk of absolute-point ‘coincidence locations’. And THAT instability/flaw is one of the things being canvassed in stage two of the TOE Q & A session, hehehe! You will see from the ‘preamble’ to TOE stage two, that if the absolute bulk ‘lattice’ (as you call it) of THE UNBOUNDED WHOLE UNIVERSAL TOTALITY was ‘perfectly balanced and flawless’, then NOTHING WOULD BE ‘HAPPENING’ (changing), including information flow, because there would be no difference between the state of one ‘absolute-coincidence-point’ LOCATION and any OTHER such LOCATION(S), hehehe! You see? Anyhow, let’s for the sake of argument ASSUME we have SOME sort of natural imbalance or flaw or factor/property/behaviour etc ......and that this instability results in random totality-wide generation of DIFFERENTIABLE ‘BITS’ associated transiently with random LOCATIONS.....so that, wherever such ‘bits’ occur, then that location in the ‘absolute TRUE-bulk’ MATRIX transiently becomes PHYSICALLY DIFFERENTIABLE (or ACTIVE) in a physical dynamics associated with a SECONDARY or ‘PSEUDO-bulk’ ‘QUANTUM LATTICE’.......where such ‘quantum bits’ would essentially and effectively behave as a 'FLUID' composed of quantum bits that FLUX, INTERACT, AGGREGATE, DE-AGGREGATE, WAX, WANE and eventually ‘deactivate’ back to absolute true-bulk status locations, to be constantly replaced by other 'quantum bits' activated by the ongoing 'instability' mechanism, as already posited.
ONLY THEN can one meaningfully ask: what IS a ‘TRUE-BULK DIMENSION’ and HOW MANY of them are there; and THEN one should ask: WHAT is a ‘PSEUDO-BULK DIMENSIONS’ and how many of THEM are there. With me? That’s the only way the distinction between TRUE (absolute) and FALSE (relative) ‘dimensions’ can ever be made sense of...because if there is no absolute, then IT WON’T MATTER WHAT ONE CONJECTURES, BECAUSE IT WILL ALL BE RELATIVE TO ONE’S CONJECTURE PREMISES AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS....meaning that ANYTHING GOES, so why stop at ‘nine’ String theory dimensions plus ‘time’ (which is obviously a ‘product’ of ‘process’ rather than the other way round---and hence, also relative...I’ll get back to you in a few days to discuss ‘time’ in more detail with you, especially as it impacts on your observations regarding the time/no-time ‘boundaries’ where ‘dimensions’ are ‘forced to interact’ etc.). So, basically, until we come up with a COMPLETE TOE containing the TRUE/FALSE (absolute/relative) frame of reference ‘contexts’, NONE of these discussions will EVER be resolved, because the nature and number of ‘dimensions’ will be different for each and every one’s PARTIAL/BOUNDED THEORY.
[NOW you see why someone HAD to start something like that ‘common/absolute’ TOE construction project, or we’d all eventually go crazy arguing over ‘how many dimensions can fit on the head of a pin?’ (poetic licence there, hehehe!)]
(3) I would also like to pursue the ultimate ‘clarity’ of information possible in any TRUE/FALSE BULK context. When I get back to you about that ‘time’ thing, I would like to know how far that ‘temperature’/energy-state correlation has ‘gelled’ in your mind, because I’ve pondered that myself, and will be putting my own observations to you when we speak about ‘time’. Until then, you may like to refine your own thoughts on these things and then we can compare notes! Looking forward to it....probably in three-four days....speak to you then, mate!
Your friend in science: RealityCheck.
.
REALITYCHECK-
I would say, that the next step in this fabrication of a TOE, is to make a "SPOT" , a QUANTUM BIT THAT CAN MAKE A QUANTUM LATTICE, that HAS THE POTENTIAL to evolve to what we observe. A "SPOT" is, (use your own words to describe it, if mine does not give you a consistent image), the basic unit of space, of time and of a complete action. It must have lowest entropy, highest symmetry and homogeneity. It must be compactable. In 2d, circle packing, the packing density is .906899. Not too many voids. However,when evolving a 2d packing to a 3d packing, sphere packing, the packing density is .74048. This evolution means that there is an automatic increase is space when going from 2d to 3d. There are, to my knowledge, at least two ways to evolve from a 2d packing to a 3d packing. Therefore, it is possible to arrive at a 3d topology of space by packing 2d "SPOTS".
from astroid
You can get an animation etc. from the above reference and have a look at what I envision a "SPOT" to looks like. You are free to make your own spots and call them whatever you want. Using other words, IE. knots, will conjure competing/different images for each individual.
Since I am of the opinion that space is something versus the opinion that it is nothing, then I feel that it would be proper to look at 96% of our universe before looking at the 4% of the universe that is composed of particles (solitons/standing waves).
I hope you do not think that my approach has been expressed too naive/unorthodox/groundless and not worthy of having this forum finding improvements.
jal
PS. If someone can show me how to post pictures, I might be able to communicate with less words.
I would say, that the next step in this fabrication of a TOE, is to make a "SPOT" , a QUANTUM BIT THAT CAN MAKE A QUANTUM LATTICE, that HAS THE POTENTIAL to evolve to what we observe. A "SPOT" is, (use your own words to describe it, if mine does not give you a consistent image), the basic unit of space, of time and of a complete action. It must have lowest entropy, highest symmetry and homogeneity. It must be compactable. In 2d, circle packing, the packing density is .906899. Not too many voids. However,when evolving a 2d packing to a 3d packing, sphere packing, the packing density is .74048. This evolution means that there is an automatic increase is space when going from 2d to 3d. There are, to my knowledge, at least two ways to evolve from a 2d packing to a 3d packing. Therefore, it is possible to arrive at a 3d topology of space by packing 2d "SPOTS".
from astroid
You can get an animation etc. from the above reference and have a look at what I envision a "SPOT" to looks like. You are free to make your own spots and call them whatever you want. Using other words, IE. knots, will conjure competing/different images for each individual.
Since I am of the opinion that space is something versus the opinion that it is nothing, then I feel that it would be proper to look at 96% of our universe before looking at the 4% of the universe that is composed of particles (solitons/standing waves).
I hope you do not think that my approach has been expressed too naive/unorthodox/groundless and not worthy of having this forum finding improvements.
jal
PS. If someone can show me how to post pictures, I might be able to communicate with less words.
An up and coming junction-
[/QUOTE]TRUE VOID ‘PRIMARY VACUUM’ BULK. This absolute frame ‘true bulk’ is thus the INFINITE AND UNBOUNDED ‘FLAT’ UNIVERSAL SOURCE AND SUBSTANCE OF BALANCED-ENERGY-LOCATION ‘absolute points’. Each and every ‘absolute point’ LOCATION within this true-bulk ‘primary vacuum energy’ matrix is naturally and logically ‘connected’ to/from every other such location via a....
JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
jal
[/QUOTE]TRUE VOID ‘PRIMARY VACUUM’ BULK. This absolute frame ‘true bulk’ is thus the INFINITE AND UNBOUNDED ‘FLAT’ UNIVERSAL SOURCE AND SUBSTANCE OF BALANCED-ENERGY-LOCATION ‘absolute points’. Each and every ‘absolute point’ LOCATION within this true-bulk ‘primary vacuum energy’ matrix is naturally and logically ‘connected’ to/from every other such location via a....
JUNCTION
#1.
We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws/structures/particles which could be different then the in the "bulk".
#2.
The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d.
We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
jal
RC,
What do you think about the relationship of multiple dimensions in a quantum lattice? Is it possible that some combinations would express themselves and others would not? In other words it could be the relationship of dimensions within a multidimensional lattice that determines their potential. After that we would need to talk about the presence of energy, funny thing energy. I said earlier that it might have something to do with clarity. Clarity of a specific dimensional junction (the ability of said junction to arbitrate information). In other words at low temps there is an electro-magnetic force and a weak force because there is lack of clarity. At higher temps clarity is refined a bit and there is an electro-weak force. In this way energy is never considered gone from a model of functionality, instead it tackles a variety of different tasks depending upon how it is distributed.
The problem is energy might act differently when expressed in different dimensional junctions. The strong force could be what you get when a specific dimensional junction, common to quarks of either the up or down variety, expresses itself because of the presence of energy. The strong force only communicates with those junctions that respect it. Those junctions in the electron, no matter how energized don't communicate.
All of this would occur on an entirely random basis except for something to hold the relationships in place. That's what I was getting at by introducing the concept of the lack of time as a boundary condition. Our three dimensions are the same size. The other six, I am using the string theory people's numbers, may be smaller. The string theory people say that means that those dimensions must be present in the lattice kind of perpendicular to and running along dimensional vectors. That may not be the half of it. They might define the boundary condition that allows elementary particles to exist. Well, to exist on an ongoing basis rather than a constantly winking out basis.
Yes, I am implying that the nine dimensions plus time, making a ten dimensional lattice exist at the same time as those same dimensions also exist in an entirely different form, as matter and space-time. It's tempting to call it a symbiotic relationship except that I don't see it as symbiosis. They are the same thing, they are just at opposite ends of existence.
Does this make any sense. I don't have a lot of computer time so I tend to try to sort things out as I go rather than go off of a prepared statement. I wonder sometimes if that doesn't just confuse people rather than enlighten them.
What do you think about the relationship of multiple dimensions in a quantum lattice? Is it possible that some combinations would express themselves and others would not? In other words it could be the relationship of dimensions within a multidimensional lattice that determines their potential. After that we would need to talk about the presence of energy, funny thing energy. I said earlier that it might have something to do with clarity. Clarity of a specific dimensional junction (the ability of said junction to arbitrate information). In other words at low temps there is an electro-magnetic force and a weak force because there is lack of clarity. At higher temps clarity is refined a bit and there is an electro-weak force. In this way energy is never considered gone from a model of functionality, instead it tackles a variety of different tasks depending upon how it is distributed.
The problem is energy might act differently when expressed in different dimensional junctions. The strong force could be what you get when a specific dimensional junction, common to quarks of either the up or down variety, expresses itself because of the presence of energy. The strong force only communicates with those junctions that respect it. Those junctions in the electron, no matter how energized don't communicate.
All of this would occur on an entirely random basis except for something to hold the relationships in place. That's what I was getting at by introducing the concept of the lack of time as a boundary condition. Our three dimensions are the same size. The other six, I am using the string theory people's numbers, may be smaller. The string theory people say that means that those dimensions must be present in the lattice kind of perpendicular to and running along dimensional vectors. That may not be the half of it. They might define the boundary condition that allows elementary particles to exist. Well, to exist on an ongoing basis rather than a constantly winking out basis.
Yes, I am implying that the nine dimensions plus time, making a ten dimensional lattice exist at the same time as those same dimensions also exist in an entirely different form, as matter and space-time. It's tempting to call it a symbiotic relationship except that I don't see it as symbiosis. They are the same thing, they are just at opposite ends of existence.
Does this make any sense. I don't have a lot of computer time so I tend to try to sort things out as I go rather than go off of a prepared statement. I wonder sometimes if that doesn't just confuse people rather than enlighten them.
Hi Evil Genius, Jal, everyone!
EVIL GENIUS....Continuing our conversation re ‘dimensions’ in a ‘quantum’ lattice, and the lattice ‘junction’s’ clarity (transparency? conductivity?) for ‘energy’ across those junctions etc. Bearing in mind that the absolute ‘locations’ matrix of the true bulk is by ‘default’ balanced and unchanging, I posed the STAGE TWO questions in order to see what we can come up with that will ‘activate’ said ‘matrix locations’ from moment to moment and location to location, and sufficiently often and widespread that there will EFFECTIVELY BE A ‘QUANTUM LATTICE’ for us to talk about here.
So, assuming out TOE questions WILL identify a mechanism that produces our putative ‘quantum lattice, THEN, of course, when we talk of ‘junctions’ activating’/’translating’ any ‘properties’ or ‘energy’ or whatever from one ‘junction’ to another, we are actually talking PROCESS, aren’t we? And THAT’S when ‘time’ comes into the picture!...as a ‘reflection’ of ‘change-of-state’ propagation between and along adjacent ‘junctions’ that respond to either an ABSOLUTELY induced change due to random INSTABILITY-caused change, and/or a RELATIVELY induced change due to the ‘propagation’ of a ‘quantum lattice’ STATE from one ‘junction’ to another etc. Is this what you are envisaging as well? If so, then that is the ‘definition’ of ‘time’ as a ‘dimension’, ie, IT IS A RELATIVE ‘PROCESS’ DIMENSION in the secondary vacuum ‘quantum lattice’ FALSE BULK of ‘activated’ or ‘imbalanced’ primary vacuum TRUE BULK ‘space locations’ . The quantum lattice thus may be thought of as (misleadingly) ‘space-time’ false bulk...and so ‘time’ is NOT an ABSOLUTE ‘SPATIAL’ DIMENSION in the ‘space locations’ matrix’! Meaning of course that the absolute matrix is ‘timeless’ because there is NO ‘process’ between ‘balanced’ locations in that CONTIGUOUS true bulk; ‘time’ only comes in whenever/wherever ‘process’ occurs between/along ‘unbalanced’ locations which altogether at any one instant effectively comprise the DISCONTIGUOUS ‘quantum ‘lattice’ FALSE BULK of which you and jal speak in your own different ways. Until we finalise STAGE TWO of the TOE Q&A process, we will have to speculate as to the FORM and/or PROPERTIES of such ‘activated’ absolute LOCATIONS in the ‘matrix’ (said ‘activation’ of course changing affected locations into transiently-relative JUNCTIONS in a ‘quantum lattice’). I won’t say too much about that as yet because I don’t want to forestall the possibility that someone here may come up with something better and/or more ‘logical’ than what I think the answers should be!
Now, when you speak of ‘strong’ and weak and electromag etc ‘forces’, and quarks etc., I cannot really relate to such things any more because my mind has effectively left those things ‘behind’ in order that I may more ‘dispassionately’ and ‘disinterestedly’ follow the logic trail indicated by the TOE process, without making any assumptions as to what/when that TOE will ‘produce’ forces/particles PER SE, let alone what those forces/particles will ACTUALLY TURN OUT TO BE, hehehe. So I think you’d better discuss those ‘forces/particles’ and other conventional ‘model’ elements with Jal and others until I can join in with some TOE insights against which I can ‘compare’ such things.
I am intrigued by your observation regarding the ‘different forms’ that the (at least ‘relative’) 10 (9+time) dimensions might take. In my perspective, all things are constructed from basic ‘energy-imbalance’ units which activate, interact/translate, aggregate/de-aggregate and eventually ‘de-activate’, in the meantime producing all that ‘quantum-lattice’ dynamics/phenomena. In that light, ALL THINGS, be they the ‘disordered’ stuff’ of activated energy quanta, or all the flow streams/structures etc. that occurs in that ‘stuff’ are ONE AND THE SAME THINGS, only in different ARRANGEMENTS/DYNAMICAL UNITS and TRANSITIONAL FORMS/PROCESSES. So your speculation on that aspect is not so farfetched as you might think...always bearing in mind of course, that we are speaking of RELATIVE ‘PROCESS’ DIMENSIONS/DYNAMICS in a ‘false’ (pseudo) bulk, quantum lattice system; which system naturally and logically must arise and flux WITHIN the ABSOLUTE SPATIAL ‘OMNI-DIMENSIONS’ ‘locations matrix’ of the ‘true’ bulk system.
About your concern that you may be ‘confusing’ people with your ‘off the cuff’ thinking at the library terminal...don’t worry about it...everybody should be so lucky as to be ‘confused’ by someone with such deep insights to put out there, hehehe! Do your best and let the rest of it take care of itself, that’s my motto! Whatever it is you’re doing, it’s not confusing me, EG, on the contrary! If it keeps producing such insights, don’t stop!
JAL......In your post of Oct 23 2005, 06:50 PM, you posit some sort of...
“.....A "SPOT" is, (use your own words to describe it, if mine does not give you a consistent image), the basic unit of space, of time and of a complete action. It must have lowest entropy, highest symmetry and homogeneity. It must be compactable. In 2d, circle packing, the packing density is .906899. Not too many voids....”.
Bearing in mind, jal, that we now are talking of something that will produce a ‘false bulk’ secondary vacuum ‘false void’ (or some ‘space-time’ as opposed to ‘space-only true bulk) dynamics/phenomena which all arises and fluxes in the TRUE VOID of the primary vacuum matrix. So yes, SOME ‘spot’ or UNIT of ACTIVATED ‘space’ [....hence the term space-’time’ because activation and interaction of space LOCATIONS produces PROCESS which in turn allows for MEASUREMENT of the RATE OF CHANGE involved in that process, and hence ‘time’ CYCLES of ONE process COMPARED to ANOTHER process’s ‘time’ cycle’ etc...] will be necessary to arise in innumerable quantities throughout the locations TOTALITY in order to provide a dynamical ‘fluid’ that can produce the observed phenomena. The question remains, what form/properties need that ‘spot’ (or energy QUANTUM or whatever) have/exhibit? Some of those you have already alluded to, and will be WELL worth discussing amongst ourselves IN ADDITION to some which have not YET been mentioned by anyone...but it’s early days yet, and many are obviously ‘thinking’ about it still, and not yet ready to post.
However, I will say that I agree with you that whatever that ‘dynamical quantum unit is, it must be the LEAST or infinitesimal as to energy content and action effectiveness! Also, I agree that it must represent the ‘least’ or ‘basic unit of ‘time’ (by virtue of it’s logically being the smallest unit of dynamical PROCESSES, hehehe).
Regarding your tentative ‘minimal void’ and ‘maximum packing density’ requirements for the ‘minimal’ quantum of activated-energy, it is not yet clear that phenomena ‘requires’ any ‘particular’ density...it may well require a ‘spectrum’ of possible packing-densities and interactive-distances etc. in order to keep ‘fluid’ and ‘changing’ (otherwise we would get ‘wall-to-wall’ solid-packing’ and THEN NOTHING WOULD CHANGE in the false bulk as well, just like in the ‘default’ case of the true bulk. But obviously, things are VERY DYNAMIC around us, so the ‘VOIDS’ (ie, PASSIVE ‘LOCATIONS’ of absolutely-balanced energy amidst ACTIVE ‘POINTS’ of energy-quanta) may be just as important to the dynamics as the active ‘points’, hehehe. Who knows, yet? And about that 2-D, 3-D ‘transitional’ dimensional states/process: I think if you read again the posts in the TOE thread, you will see that IN FACT, space is a priori and by default OMNI-DIMENSIONAL as far as ‘spatial’ dimensions go (see my response to EXCAL in that thread). Meaning, that 2-D and 3-D is purely convenient ‘shorthand’ bounding of all possible degrees of freedom ACTUALLY available to anything having any translation/extension in the SPACE ‘arena’ context. I suspect that ‘packing density’ and 'interaction’ PROCESS 'dimensions' and RULES will naturally apply when such ‘points’ or ‘spots’ etc quanta start having physical properties/behaviours which we have yet to determine. But in any case, they will be somewhat reflective of reality to some extent. So, their emergent properties/behaviour, when they act in concert and in great numbers etc, should not be so surprising when we come to it. Just observe all the ‘fluid’ dynamical systems and constituents/arrangements observed already around us!
Now, in your post of Oct 26 2005, 04:22 PM, you ‘identify’ certain ‘logical/natural’ JUNCTIONS which we may be moving past without sufficient consideration; these ‘junctions’ being:
- JUNCTION #1. We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws structures/particles which could be different than the in the "bulk".
-JUNCTION #2. The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d. We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
Re #1: I think if one re-reads my latest posts above and in the TOE thread, it will be seen that no-one is suggesting any DIMINUTION of the true bulk, ONLY certain locations of it are being ACTIVATED by an imbalance, so as to produce an ‘overlayer’ false bulk dynamics involving the putative minimal ‘activated energy quanta’ arising, waxing, interacting, waning and eventually subsiding (either singly and/or in ‘quanta-pairs’ etc). So, while the INSTANTANEOUS distribution of the quantum lattice bulk may vary as to ‘activated energy quanta’ CONTENT, at no time does the underlying ‘balanced bulk ‘disappear’, it is only that many of its otherwise-balanced LOCATIONS are transiently UNBALANCED and so active in the overlying system dynamics...but each such location is always ‘there’, and may become RE-BALANCED’ and so once again be a ‘passive’ (or void) COMPONENT of that overlying dynamical distribution over the underlying UNIVERSAL TOTALITY VOID or ‘INFINITE SINGULARITY’ if you will.
Re #2: You are right. The word ‘sphere would at this stage presume too much. Occam’s Razor at all times, heh Jal? hehehe. Whatever form/properties that ‘quantum bit’ of activated ‘imbalance’ energy takes/has, it must be the most naturally ‘simple’ consistent with duality and interactive relativities that will produce observed phenomena. That’s it, I think. Keep at it, Jal...and as you say, stay with the simpler geometry/topology at all times! there’s time enough for ‘complications’ when things get real ‘messy’ once the phenomena become convoluted/complex/multitiered etc, heh?
EVERYONE.....I recommend you reading the most recent posts/replies/comments in the TOE and this thread (especially my discussions with EXCAL, EVIL GENIUS and JAL. They abound with helpful insights from many perspectives. Don’t hesitate to raise questions/observations with fellow participants here or in the other associated threads. No one knows what will come of such interaction between such intelligent folks as yourselves. In any case, it always helps to talk it through, no matter how ‘out there’ you think your ideas are! AND REMEMBER: 5 DAYS TO GO BEFORE YOUR STAGE TWO ANSWERS IN THE TOE THREAD ARE REQUIRED. Good luck and good thinking, all!
RealityCheck.
.
.PS: I hope to post some philosophical/math/physical insights of my own in the appropriate threads over the next couple of days. All ‘challenge’ and 'discussion’ of these will be welcomed. Until then, I hope the above is helpful to all concerned! RC.
.
EVIL GENIUS....Continuing our conversation re ‘dimensions’ in a ‘quantum’ lattice, and the lattice ‘junction’s’ clarity (transparency? conductivity?) for ‘energy’ across those junctions etc. Bearing in mind that the absolute ‘locations’ matrix of the true bulk is by ‘default’ balanced and unchanging, I posed the STAGE TWO questions in order to see what we can come up with that will ‘activate’ said ‘matrix locations’ from moment to moment and location to location, and sufficiently often and widespread that there will EFFECTIVELY BE A ‘QUANTUM LATTICE’ for us to talk about here.
So, assuming out TOE questions WILL identify a mechanism that produces our putative ‘quantum lattice, THEN, of course, when we talk of ‘junctions’ activating’/’translating’ any ‘properties’ or ‘energy’ or whatever from one ‘junction’ to another, we are actually talking PROCESS, aren’t we? And THAT’S when ‘time’ comes into the picture!...as a ‘reflection’ of ‘change-of-state’ propagation between and along adjacent ‘junctions’ that respond to either an ABSOLUTELY induced change due to random INSTABILITY-caused change, and/or a RELATIVELY induced change due to the ‘propagation’ of a ‘quantum lattice’ STATE from one ‘junction’ to another etc. Is this what you are envisaging as well? If so, then that is the ‘definition’ of ‘time’ as a ‘dimension’, ie, IT IS A RELATIVE ‘PROCESS’ DIMENSION in the secondary vacuum ‘quantum lattice’ FALSE BULK of ‘activated’ or ‘imbalanced’ primary vacuum TRUE BULK ‘space locations’ . The quantum lattice thus may be thought of as (misleadingly) ‘space-time’ false bulk...and so ‘time’ is NOT an ABSOLUTE ‘SPATIAL’ DIMENSION in the ‘space locations’ matrix’! Meaning of course that the absolute matrix is ‘timeless’ because there is NO ‘process’ between ‘balanced’ locations in that CONTIGUOUS true bulk; ‘time’ only comes in whenever/wherever ‘process’ occurs between/along ‘unbalanced’ locations which altogether at any one instant effectively comprise the DISCONTIGUOUS ‘quantum ‘lattice’ FALSE BULK of which you and jal speak in your own different ways. Until we finalise STAGE TWO of the TOE Q&A process, we will have to speculate as to the FORM and/or PROPERTIES of such ‘activated’ absolute LOCATIONS in the ‘matrix’ (said ‘activation’ of course changing affected locations into transiently-relative JUNCTIONS in a ‘quantum lattice’). I won’t say too much about that as yet because I don’t want to forestall the possibility that someone here may come up with something better and/or more ‘logical’ than what I think the answers should be!
Now, when you speak of ‘strong’ and weak and electromag etc ‘forces’, and quarks etc., I cannot really relate to such things any more because my mind has effectively left those things ‘behind’ in order that I may more ‘dispassionately’ and ‘disinterestedly’ follow the logic trail indicated by the TOE process, without making any assumptions as to what/when that TOE will ‘produce’ forces/particles PER SE, let alone what those forces/particles will ACTUALLY TURN OUT TO BE, hehehe. So I think you’d better discuss those ‘forces/particles’ and other conventional ‘model’ elements with Jal and others until I can join in with some TOE insights against which I can ‘compare’ such things.
I am intrigued by your observation regarding the ‘different forms’ that the (at least ‘relative’) 10 (9+time) dimensions might take. In my perspective, all things are constructed from basic ‘energy-imbalance’ units which activate, interact/translate, aggregate/de-aggregate and eventually ‘de-activate’, in the meantime producing all that ‘quantum-lattice’ dynamics/phenomena. In that light, ALL THINGS, be they the ‘disordered’ stuff’ of activated energy quanta, or all the flow streams/structures etc. that occurs in that ‘stuff’ are ONE AND THE SAME THINGS, only in different ARRANGEMENTS/DYNAMICAL UNITS and TRANSITIONAL FORMS/PROCESSES. So your speculation on that aspect is not so farfetched as you might think...always bearing in mind of course, that we are speaking of RELATIVE ‘PROCESS’ DIMENSIONS/DYNAMICS in a ‘false’ (pseudo) bulk, quantum lattice system; which system naturally and logically must arise and flux WITHIN the ABSOLUTE SPATIAL ‘OMNI-DIMENSIONS’ ‘locations matrix’ of the ‘true’ bulk system.
About your concern that you may be ‘confusing’ people with your ‘off the cuff’ thinking at the library terminal...don’t worry about it...everybody should be so lucky as to be ‘confused’ by someone with such deep insights to put out there, hehehe! Do your best and let the rest of it take care of itself, that’s my motto! Whatever it is you’re doing, it’s not confusing me, EG, on the contrary! If it keeps producing such insights, don’t stop!
JAL......In your post of Oct 23 2005, 06:50 PM, you posit some sort of...
“.....A "SPOT" is, (use your own words to describe it, if mine does not give you a consistent image), the basic unit of space, of time and of a complete action. It must have lowest entropy, highest symmetry and homogeneity. It must be compactable. In 2d, circle packing, the packing density is .906899. Not too many voids....”.
Bearing in mind, jal, that we now are talking of something that will produce a ‘false bulk’ secondary vacuum ‘false void’ (or some ‘space-time’ as opposed to ‘space-only true bulk) dynamics/phenomena which all arises and fluxes in the TRUE VOID of the primary vacuum matrix. So yes, SOME ‘spot’ or UNIT of ACTIVATED ‘space’ [....hence the term space-’time’ because activation and interaction of space LOCATIONS produces PROCESS which in turn allows for MEASUREMENT of the RATE OF CHANGE involved in that process, and hence ‘time’ CYCLES of ONE process COMPARED to ANOTHER process’s ‘time’ cycle’ etc...] will be necessary to arise in innumerable quantities throughout the locations TOTALITY in order to provide a dynamical ‘fluid’ that can produce the observed phenomena. The question remains, what form/properties need that ‘spot’ (or energy QUANTUM or whatever) have/exhibit? Some of those you have already alluded to, and will be WELL worth discussing amongst ourselves IN ADDITION to some which have not YET been mentioned by anyone...but it’s early days yet, and many are obviously ‘thinking’ about it still, and not yet ready to post.
However, I will say that I agree with you that whatever that ‘dynamical quantum unit is, it must be the LEAST or infinitesimal as to energy content and action effectiveness! Also, I agree that it must represent the ‘least’ or ‘basic unit of ‘time’ (by virtue of it’s logically being the smallest unit of dynamical PROCESSES, hehehe).
Regarding your tentative ‘minimal void’ and ‘maximum packing density’ requirements for the ‘minimal’ quantum of activated-energy, it is not yet clear that phenomena ‘requires’ any ‘particular’ density...it may well require a ‘spectrum’ of possible packing-densities and interactive-distances etc. in order to keep ‘fluid’ and ‘changing’ (otherwise we would get ‘wall-to-wall’ solid-packing’ and THEN NOTHING WOULD CHANGE in the false bulk as well, just like in the ‘default’ case of the true bulk. But obviously, things are VERY DYNAMIC around us, so the ‘VOIDS’ (ie, PASSIVE ‘LOCATIONS’ of absolutely-balanced energy amidst ACTIVE ‘POINTS’ of energy-quanta) may be just as important to the dynamics as the active ‘points’, hehehe. Who knows, yet? And about that 2-D, 3-D ‘transitional’ dimensional states/process: I think if you read again the posts in the TOE thread, you will see that IN FACT, space is a priori and by default OMNI-DIMENSIONAL as far as ‘spatial’ dimensions go (see my response to EXCAL in that thread). Meaning, that 2-D and 3-D is purely convenient ‘shorthand’ bounding of all possible degrees of freedom ACTUALLY available to anything having any translation/extension in the SPACE ‘arena’ context. I suspect that ‘packing density’ and 'interaction’ PROCESS 'dimensions' and RULES will naturally apply when such ‘points’ or ‘spots’ etc quanta start having physical properties/behaviours which we have yet to determine. But in any case, they will be somewhat reflective of reality to some extent. So, their emergent properties/behaviour, when they act in concert and in great numbers etc, should not be so surprising when we come to it. Just observe all the ‘fluid’ dynamical systems and constituents/arrangements observed already around us!
Now, in your post of Oct 26 2005, 04:22 PM, you ‘identify’ certain ‘logical/natural’ JUNCTIONS which we may be moving past without sufficient consideration; these ‘junctions’ being:
- JUNCTION #1. We should NOT eliminate the possibility that the total "bulk" did not change/evolve to become our universe. It could still be there. We could be an embedded/sprouted universe in this "bulk" that we perceive/observe to have operating instructions/rules/laws structures/particles which could be different than the in the "bulk".
-JUNCTION #2. The words that we use will influence the development of our logic. I hate the word "sphere" because it automatically includes 3d. We should eliminate the possibility that our universe could have have gone through a 2d stage or even that "a 2d spot" can be oriented/folded/rotated/spin which would make us perceive 3d/etc.
Re #1: I think if one re-reads my latest posts above and in the TOE thread, it will be seen that no-one is suggesting any DIMINUTION of the true bulk, ONLY certain locations of it are being ACTIVATED by an imbalance, so as to produce an ‘overlayer’ false bulk dynamics involving the putative minimal ‘activated energy quanta’ arising, waxing, interacting, waning and eventually subsiding (either singly and/or in ‘quanta-pairs’ etc). So, while the INSTANTANEOUS distribution of the quantum lattice bulk may vary as to ‘activated energy quanta’ CONTENT, at no time does the underlying ‘balanced bulk ‘disappear’, it is only that many of its otherwise-balanced LOCATIONS are transiently UNBALANCED and so active in the overlying system dynamics...but each such location is always ‘there’, and may become RE-BALANCED’ and so once again be a ‘passive’ (or void) COMPONENT of that overlying dynamical distribution over the underlying UNIVERSAL TOTALITY VOID or ‘INFINITE SINGULARITY’ if you will.
Re #2: You are right. The word ‘sphere would at this stage presume too much. Occam’s Razor at all times, heh Jal? hehehe. Whatever form/properties that ‘quantum bit’ of activated ‘imbalance’ energy takes/has, it must be the most naturally ‘simple’ consistent with duality and interactive relativities that will produce observed phenomena. That’s it, I think. Keep at it, Jal...and as you say, stay with the simpler geometry/topology at all times! there’s time enough for ‘complications’ when things get real ‘messy’ once the phenomena become convoluted/complex/multitiered etc, heh?
EVERYONE.....I recommend you reading the most recent posts/replies/comments in the TOE and this thread (especially my discussions with EXCAL, EVIL GENIUS and JAL. They abound with helpful insights from many perspectives. Don’t hesitate to raise questions/observations with fellow participants here or in the other associated threads. No one knows what will come of such interaction between such intelligent folks as yourselves. In any case, it always helps to talk it through, no matter how ‘out there’ you think your ideas are! AND REMEMBER: 5 DAYS TO GO BEFORE YOUR STAGE TWO ANSWERS IN THE TOE THREAD ARE REQUIRED. Good luck and good thinking, all!
RealityCheck.
.
.PS: I hope to post some philosophical/math/physical insights of my own in the appropriate threads over the next couple of days. All ‘challenge’ and 'discussion’ of these will be welcomed. Until then, I hope the above is helpful to all concerned! RC.
.
Hmmm... reality check i agree on your quote:
It makes things simpler - I work with electrcity on a weekly basis making circuits etc and I see how it works from a scientific viewpoint. It answers many aspects of electricity that I come across during my experiments.
I am inclined to see electricity as a fluid flowing through a closed circuit under a certain pressure and speed - voltage and current than a flow of electrons because it is a 'natural extension' of what I know of the world around me. Voltage is water pressure in a pipe, current is the speed of the water in a pipe. The whole concept of the electron particle has left my mind. I have to speak in terms of 'electron particles' to scientists so they know what Im on about when Im describing my research to them.
However these are all still concepts derieved from observations of nature - in other words, a 'natural extension' of what we already know
Cheers Zapper
QUOTE
when you speak of ‘strong’ and weak and electromag etc ‘forces’, and quarks etc., I cannot really relate to such things any more because my mind has effectively left those things ‘behind’ in order that I may more ‘dispassionately’ and ‘disinterestedly’ follow the logic trail indicated by the TOE process
It makes things simpler - I work with electrcity on a weekly basis making circuits etc and I see how it works from a scientific viewpoint. It answers many aspects of electricity that I come across during my experiments.
I am inclined to see electricity as a fluid flowing through a closed circuit under a certain pressure and speed - voltage and current than a flow of electrons because it is a 'natural extension' of what I know of the world around me. Voltage is water pressure in a pipe, current is the speed of the water in a pipe. The whole concept of the electron particle has left my mind. I have to speak in terms of 'electron particles' to scientists so they know what Im on about when Im describing my research to them.
However these are all still concepts derieved from observations of nature - in other words, a 'natural extension' of what we already know
Cheers Zapper
To All
I've read your comments. More than once. My mind feels like it has gone through more than one cycle in the washing machine. In some areas, my mind is not so littered, in others areas, I feel that I've lost something cherished ???. It's disturbing. You even suggested a new possibility...
If I may rephrase.
The true bulk has lowest entropy, not max. not chaos. A"spot" could change/go through an evolution process/etc and return to its initial condition and become indistinct from the true bulk. ( At this stage of the conversation, a spot could be the size of a quanta or the size of the universe). The concept of conservation of energy would need re-defining. The base line would be the "true bulk".
INTERESTING... I MUST REFLECT
Jal
I've read your comments. More than once. My mind feels like it has gone through more than one cycle in the washing machine. In some areas, my mind is not so littered, in others areas, I feel that I've lost something cherished ???. It's disturbing. You even suggested a new possibility...
QUOTE
So, while the INSTANTANEOUS distribution of the quantum lattice bulk may vary as to ‘activated energy quanta’ CONTENT, at no time does the underlying ‘balanced bulk ‘disappear’, it is only that many of its otherwise-balanced LOCATIONS are transiently UNBALANCED and so active in the overlying system dynamics...but each such location is always ‘there’, and may become RE-BALANCED’ and so once again be a ‘passive’ (or void) COMPONENT of that overlying dynamical distribution over the underlying UNIVERSAL TOTALITY VOID or ‘INFINITE SINGULARITY’ if you will.
If I may rephrase.
The true bulk has lowest entropy, not max. not chaos. A"spot" could change/go through an evolution process/etc and return to its initial condition and become indistinct from the true bulk. ( At this stage of the conversation, a spot could be the size of a quanta or the size of the universe). The concept of conservation of energy would need re-defining. The base line would be the "true bulk".
INTERESTING... I MUST REFLECT
Jal
And to this discussion I add the "Higgs field" and I quote: <This form of field exhibits a drastic effect called "spontaneous symmetry breaking">
From the site: http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#standard
Long live the Higgs.
From the site: http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#standard
Long live the Higgs.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2005, 06:47 AM)
ONLY THEN can one meaningfully ask: what IS a ‘TRUE-BULK DIMENSION’ and HOW MANY of them are there; and THEN one should ask: WHAT is a ‘PSEUDO-BULK DIMENSIONS’ and how many of THEM are there. With me? That’s the only way the distinction between TRUE (absolute) and FALSE (relative) ‘dimensions’ can ever be made sense of...
As you say, this is terribly important to the whole discussion. Absolute (true) dimension however, may not be a dimesnion at all. Realtive (false) dimension may be the illusion of dimension and may not go beyond three.
As you say, this is terribly important to the whole discussion. Absolute (true) dimension however, may not be a dimesnion at all. Realtive (false) dimension may be the illusion of dimension and may not go beyond three.
EE: Been looking at all your posts, each one stimulating my thoughts.
Back to B. Fuller's tetrahedron with three duals from 6 edges that must be compromised in a definition some way.
So space, time, and mass are "dual" with space time and mass on the "other" edge.
Three is a magic number and the next is not 4 (+1) or 5 (fibonacci growth), but 7 as determined from stacking magnetic marbles. SO WHAT?
Back to B. Fuller's tetrahedron with three duals from 6 edges that must be compromised in a definition some way.
So space, time, and mass are "dual" with space time and mass on the "other" edge.
Three is a magic number and the next is not 4 (+1) or 5 (fibonacci growth), but 7 as determined from stacking magnetic marbles. SO WHAT?
I'm glad you find they stimulate thought. Some might think they're "crackpot".
"So space, time, and mass are 'dual' with space time and mass on the 'other' edge."
Don't know what you're getting at here. "Other edge?"
"So space, time, and mass are 'dual' with space time and mass on the 'other' edge."
Don't know what you're getting at here. "Other edge?"
Been reviewing my paper of 1989 on spheres and regular tetraedrons as related to my 4 magnetic marbles in at least 3 stable configurations. Three marbles make a triangle with 4 edges that compromize their magnetic fields, i.e. 3 "edges". Now adding the 4th must cause 3 more "edges" that must compromise and stabilize with the other 3. It appears that there are at least 3 ways that a stable configuration in equilibrium can be established. (I can see it and feel it, but not enough of a mathemetician to describe it with an equation. Anyone?
Lately I have extended my thinking to include the "dimensionless constant" of S^3/V^2 (or its inverse, V^2/S^3) to prolate and oblate spheroids. It would seem that this would represent the connection of a "surface" to "volume, or content" as it relates to a geometric structure.
So, in order of regular tetrahedron, sphere, prolate spheroid, and oblate spheroid: )below)
Note f=r/R where prolate is considered as a round pencil of radius r and length R while for the oblate is considred as a round plate of thickness r and radius R. ( R>>r so higher ordrs of r ignored)
S^3/V^2 values are:
374, 113. 25.2 f. and 1.57 f^2
or inverse, V^2/S^3
.00267, .00885, .0397/f, and .637/f^2
I find it significant that the "f" value to equal value for a tetrahedron is ~15 for BOTH prolate and oblate, while the "f" value to equal that of a sphere is ~4.5 for prolate and 0.014 for oblate.
Seems as if geometric "structure" is involved some way...??? Tetrhedrons have discrete "edges" while spherical "edges" are continuous, i.e. blurry.
Lately I have extended my thinking to include the "dimensionless constant" of S^3/V^2 (or its inverse, V^2/S^3) to prolate and oblate spheroids. It would seem that this would represent the connection of a "surface" to "volume, or content" as it relates to a geometric structure.
So, in order of regular tetrahedron, sphere, prolate spheroid, and oblate spheroid: )below)
Note f=r/R where prolate is considered as a round pencil of radius r and length R while for the oblate is considred as a round plate of thickness r and radius R. ( R>>r so higher ordrs of r ignored)
S^3/V^2 values are:
374, 113. 25.2 f. and 1.57 f^2
or inverse, V^2/S^3
.00267, .00885, .0397/f, and .637/f^2
I find it significant that the "f" value to equal value for a tetrahedron is ~15 for BOTH prolate and oblate, while the "f" value to equal that of a sphere is ~4.5 for prolate and 0.014 for oblate.
Seems as if geometric "structure" is involved some way...??? Tetrhedrons have discrete "edges" while spherical "edges" are continuous, i.e. blurry.
This, I think, boils down to the question of infinite/finite. Finite being discrete and infinite being blurry. I vote for blurry when it comes to the universe. Only in a greater persepective that is beyond infinte, but not finite, does the universe become clear. Oops, too philosophical.
Cosmology takes into account the form of the universe. Einstein believed in a universe that is closed; finite yet unbounded. The precise form of the universe then would be the surface of an expanding hypersphere or 4 dimensional sphere.
This expansion of the universe can be seen as space stretching out in between the galaxies. That is the hypersphere growing. If we are on its surface we are moving, along with the rest of the universe, away from the center of the 4th dimension where the Big Bang took place.This movement can be called "cosmological time."
This expansion of the universe can be seen as space stretching out in between the galaxies. That is the hypersphere growing. If we are on its surface we are moving, along with the rest of the universe, away from the center of the 4th dimension where the Big Bang took place.This movement can be called "cosmological time."
Hi!
RC.... the process is continuing ....
STEPHEN HAWKING...from Nature of space and time
Objections to Weyl tensor hypothesis
1. Not CPT invariant.
2. Weyl tensor cannot have been exactly zero. Doesn't explain small fluctuations.
Despite all this, I think Roger has put his finger on an important difference between the two ends of time. But the fact that the Weyl tensor was small at one end should not be imposed as an ad hoc boundary condition, but should be deduced from a more fundamental principle, the no boundary proposal. As we have seen, this implies that perturbations about half the Euclidean four sphere joined to half the Lorentzian-de Sitter solution are in their ground state. That is, they are as small as they can be, consistent with the Uncertainty Principle. This then would imply Roger'sWeyl tensor condition: the Weyl tensor wouldn't be exactly zero but it would be as near to zero as it could be.
This is an other way of saying what we are saying at this stage.
Also, see my last post at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...75&#entry115929
Change the wording to "true bulk".
Change the wording to "true bulk".
Posted on Oct 28 2005, 08:06 AM
The true bulk has lowest entropy, not max. not chaos. A"spot" could change/go through an evolution process/etc and return to its initial condition and become indistinct from the true bulk. ( At this stage of the conversation, a spot could be the size of a quanta or the size of the universe). The concept of conservation of energy would need re-defining. The base line would be the "true bulk".
The process is in the magic square/cube. As long as it continues/repeats there is no movement no change. There is no way of making a measurement/distinction.
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE.
Let us begin.
jal
RC....
the process is continuing ....QUOTE
Our job is to identify what are the relevant mathematic/geometric/volumetric RELATIVITIES that will give rise to such 'active' forms' of leftover 'bits' of energy-lines that will then produce an ACTIVE 'pseudo-bulk' dynamical context of their own, before subsiding back into passive context once the affected UNBALANCED('activated') point-location is 'balanced' once more (until the next (random?) unbalancing (and hence activation) ‘event’
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Our job is to identify what are the relevant mathematic/geometric/volumetric RELATIVITIES that will give rise to such 'active' forms' of leftover 'bits' of energy-lines that will then produce an ACTIVE 'pseudo-bulk' dynamical context of their own, before subsiding back into passive context once the affected UNBALANCED('activated') point-location is 'balanced' once more (until the next (random?) unbalancing (and hence activation) ‘event’ |
STEPHEN HAWKING...from Nature of space and time
Objections to Weyl tensor hypothesis
1. Not CPT invariant.
2. Weyl tensor cannot have been exactly zero. Doesn't explain small fluctuations.
Despite all this, I think Roger has put his finger on an important difference between the two ends of time. But the fact that the Weyl tensor was small at one end should not be imposed as an ad hoc boundary condition, but should be deduced from a more fundamental principle, the no boundary proposal. As we have seen, this implies that perturbations about half the Euclidean four sphere joined to half the Lorentzian-de Sitter solution are in their ground state. That is, they are as small as they can be, consistent with the Uncertainty Principle. This then would imply Roger'sWeyl tensor condition: the Weyl tensor wouldn't be exactly zero but it would be as near to zero as it could be.
This is an other way of saying what we are saying at this stage.
Also, see my last post at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...75&#entry115929
QUOTE
WOULD THE MAGIC BOX/CUBE/HEX BE A VALID APPROACH TO FINDING HOW A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME IS PUT TOGETHER?
DUE TO IT'S SYMMETRY, WE CANNOT DETECT IT.
DUE TO IT'S SYMMETRY, WE CANNOT DETECT IT.
Change the wording to "true bulk".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| WOULD THE MAGIC BOX/CUBE/HEX BE A VALID APPROACH TO FINDING HOW A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME IS PUT TOGETHER? DUE TO IT'S SYMMETRY, WE CANNOT DETECT IT. |
Change the wording to "true bulk".
Posted on Oct 28 2005, 08:06 AM
The true bulk has lowest entropy, not max. not chaos. A"spot" could change/go through an evolution process/etc and return to its initial condition and become indistinct from the true bulk. ( At this stage of the conversation, a spot could be the size of a quanta or the size of the universe). The concept of conservation of energy would need re-defining. The base line would be the "true bulk".
The process is in the magic square/cube. As long as it continues/repeats there is no movement no change. There is no way of making a measurement/distinction.
QUOTE
leftover 'bits' of energy-lines that will then produce an ACTIVE 'pseudo-bulk' dynamical context of their own
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE.
Let us begin.
jal
Jal,
Never got back to this one either.
The "beginning of the universe" is one theory. No beginning is another.
We certainly can't begin with either theory, at least not until infinity is defined and surpassed.
Eric
Never got back to this one either.
The "beginning of the universe" is one theory. No beginning is another.
We certainly can't begin with either theory, at least not until infinity is defined and surpassed.
Eric
Hello all.
I have spent a year and 1/2 on the BAUT forum, but very little time on any others.
Recently I came across this one and have been reading quite a few of the different posts and sections. This forum appears to have some pretty open minded individuals and numerous well qualfied individuals that understand that "SOMETHING" is truely wrong with all comologies and are very keen on seeing if an answer can be found. Accept for the ego outlashings (which obviously happen everywhere, but as RC says, and I agree, are TOTALLY counter-productive, and waste sooo much time), most have a real sense of common courtesy, and just want to stick to the main issues of any particular subject.
Anyway, this is from one of the scientists on that forum.
I prefer a different way of describing the GR/QM incompatibility - there is a regime (the Planck) within which application of both GR and QM produces wild inconsistencies ("a confusion of infinites", if you will). However, the inconsistency is considerably deeper than the infinities - the very structures (of GR and QM) are incompatible. Or, if you prefer, there is no way to unite the two theories - we must abandon one, or both, and create a new theory (or theories) that have completely different structures (but which 'reduce to' GR and QM, respectively, in their limits).
Singularity is just a term that is a Placeholder for what really happens there!
So, just like when Burt Ovrut, in Parallel Universes said..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...lunitrans.shtml
Singularity is just a term that is a Placeholder for what really happens there!
So, just like when Burt Ovrut, in Parallel Universes said..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...lunitrans.shtml
When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.
NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.
I believe whole heartedly that String/"M" Theory can be shown to to work!
But please allow me to to put forward a few of the dilemas and my take on them and go from there and just see what comes out.
It appears to me that the ONE question that is the MOST important when considering the Universe as a whole is...
Is the Universe operating according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN SYSTEM or a CLOSED SYSTEM?
Since there is absoluely no way to know this for sure, shouldn't everything be considered both ways to see which is working best???
Now your first thought is probably that this has been done because the QSSC was about an OPEN System universe and the BB is a closed system universe, and the BB appears to be on the right track. And for 50+ years the greatest minds on the planet have tried to figure out another way that Baryonic Matter could be getting here and Nada, Zilch, nothing has made enough of an impact to be considered seriously.
But what has really happened in this QSSC VS BB battle?
The BB has stuck to its guns and Hawking, Penrose, Thorne, and Preskill, just to name a few, have held fast and insisted (well, accept for the bets, but still only considered in a closed system) that Black Holes cannot loose information (Matter cannot be destroyed), and Naked Singularities cannot be seen, once the event horizon has formed.
QSSC on the other hand has said all along that Matter is being created (In enough volume to make the galaxies that we see), but considers that this cannot be happening as any kind of result of Einsteins General Relativity.
So, the BB has never even considered Open, and QSSC has never even considered GR.
SO, what would it mean if it could be shown that Baryonic Matter was being created on a galactic size basis, in a definite General Relativistic way???
First it would mean that the Universe is operating according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an Open System, and secondly, because of that, it would mean that Baryonic Matter crosing the event horizon of the MBH's could be destroyed, and that MBH's were *Burrowing* through space/time and that Matter could leave the system.
Where 'this' would then make total sense...
NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.
I am not even close to being an expert on the details of these matters but since i was thinking along these lines especially from the point of energy cannot be destroyed nor created one comes across variation of our universe being a portion of larger one. This variation doesn't claim separate universes but one Giant Universe being extended into new directions. Our universe is a branch or more precisely a new direction bubble which represents a movement of the whole into all kinds of directions. Random movement. Amoeba like. So conclusively universe is finitely large and is complete or closed structure. Additionally we cannot get out of it because we are this stuff. The gravity leak is in my cranky opinion movement of space-time structure. It is the actual stretching and twisting and rotating of this stuff. Its inner structure is vibrational density. If one imagines a reactive jelly in a zero gravity field. Its not a good analogy but it kind of has a point. This jelly is amoeba like and it moves but it doesn't go anywhere really. Any new direction is a black hole which is temporary stretching of the structure which can pull it. The problem is that this structure is in the middle of nowhere. So the pull if one could see it outside of itself doesn't really move it anywhere. Its more like change of always temporary shape. The energy is conserved because there is nothing that could absorb its energy consequently take it away. But it has to go somewhere. And somewhere is always inside. Black hole doesn't go outside. Its new direction of inside.1
-This doesn't mean infinitely inward. Fundamental space-time doesn't change. It only changes direction. Part of amoeba pops out and pops in. Amoeba hasn't lost integrity by that.-
1And if that means counter-forcing itself that is what it means. So each black hole is actually a pull which pushes itself from the existing black hole. Large black hole doesn't have the original pull anymore. Because the basic fiber is not infinitely and smoothly stretchable. This small difference is enough for any new black hole to counter-force the basic black hole pull. Fibres could be enormous closed strings which vibrate inwards only. If they get too close to each other black hole forms.
Additional assumptions are that we are talking indestructible and inseparable substance-fibers. So basically only a black hole can counterforce a black hole. But black hole is not something out of the universe. Black hole is space-time like the one we are living in. If pull is not strong enough you get blurry-fuzzy image Because boundaries or fibres vibrate so close to each other it simply doesnt make time to form anything stable.
Black holes as a sub assumption could have very random angles which is at least a hint towards such reality.
This is nothing new right? Well the only difference is that universe in question here is not capable of producing infinity of black holes at the same time. Because there is always a stronger pull or "perpetual imbalance". Universe can never uniformly segment itself into billions of exactly the same black holes. FUndamental fibers are so sensitive its impossible to imagine "resting"vibration. Stretching of these fibers results in different vibrations and they are not fusable. You cannot shrink these fibers into less than they are. Fibers vibrate fundamentally. Its pretty messy to explain.
Universe doesn't get bigger in any way. New direction when connected with integrity means that -basic fiber stretches until it starts to pull the rest of the structure with it -because it is inseparable. So basically nothing disappears really. But it gets pulled. Things which are matter have their own life-times. They do dissolve because of movement which basically forms matter. The same thing that "creates" is the same thing that "destroys". It is a kind of-fundamental vibration is eternal but derived or compunded vibrations have finite echo.
The closest analogy is therefore a jelly like structure which randomly "moves" in empty space.
I have spent a year and 1/2 on the BAUT forum, but very little time on any others.
Recently I came across this one and have been reading quite a few of the different posts and sections. This forum appears to have some pretty open minded individuals and numerous well qualfied individuals that understand that "SOMETHING" is truely wrong with all comologies and are very keen on seeing if an answer can be found. Accept for the ego outlashings (which obviously happen everywhere, but as RC says, and I agree, are TOTALLY counter-productive, and waste sooo much time), most have a real sense of common courtesy, and just want to stick to the main issues of any particular subject.
Anyway, this is from one of the scientists on that forum.
QUOTE
I prefer a different way of describing the GR/QM incompatibility - there is a regime (the Planck) within which application of both GR and QM produces wild inconsistencies ("a confusion of infinites", if you will). However, the inconsistency is considerably deeper than the infinities - the very structures (of GR and QM) are incompatible. Or, if you prefer, there is no way to unite the two theories - we must abandon one, or both, and create a new theory (or theories) that have completely different structures (but which 'reduce to' GR and QM, respectively, in their limits).
Singularity is just a term that is a Placeholder for what really happens there!
So, just like when Burt Ovrut, in Parallel Universes said..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...lunitrans.shtml
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I prefer a different way of describing the GR/QM incompatibility - there is a regime (the Planck) within which application of both GR and QM produces wild inconsistencies ("a confusion of infinites", if you will). However, the inconsistency is considerably deeper than the infinities - the very structures (of GR and QM) are incompatible. Or, if you prefer, there is no way to unite the two theories - we must abandon one, or both, and create a new theory (or theories) that have completely different structures (but which 'reduce to' GR and QM, respectively, in their limits). |
Singularity is just a term that is a Placeholder for what really happens there!
So, just like when Burt Ovrut, in Parallel Universes said..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...lunitrans.shtml
When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.
NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.
I believe whole heartedly that String/"M" Theory can be shown to to work!
But please allow me to to put forward a few of the dilemas and my take on them and go from there and just see what comes out.
It appears to me that the ONE question that is the MOST important when considering the Universe as a whole is...
Is the Universe operating according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN SYSTEM or a CLOSED SYSTEM?
Since there is absoluely no way to know this for sure, shouldn't everything be considered both ways to see which is working best???
Now your first thought is probably that this has been done because the QSSC was about an OPEN System universe and the BB is a closed system universe, and the BB appears to be on the right track. And for 50+ years the greatest minds on the planet have tried to figure out another way that Baryonic Matter could be getting here and Nada, Zilch, nothing has made enough of an impact to be considered seriously.
But what has really happened in this QSSC VS BB battle?
The BB has stuck to its guns and Hawking, Penrose, Thorne, and Preskill, just to name a few, have held fast and insisted (well, accept for the bets, but still only considered in a closed system) that Black Holes cannot loose information (Matter cannot be destroyed), and Naked Singularities cannot be seen, once the event horizon has formed.
QSSC on the other hand has said all along that Matter is being created (In enough volume to make the galaxies that we see), but considers that this cannot be happening as any kind of result of Einsteins General Relativity.
So, the BB has never even considered Open, and QSSC has never even considered GR.
SO, what would it mean if it could be shown that Baryonic Matter was being created on a galactic size basis, in a definite General Relativistic way???
First it would mean that the Universe is operating according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an Open System, and secondly, because of that, it would mean that Baryonic Matter crosing the event horizon of the MBH's could be destroyed, and that MBH's were *Burrowing* through space/time and that Matter could leave the system.
Where 'this' would then make total sense...
NARRATOR: Randall tried to calculate how gravity could leak from our membrane Universe into empty space, but she couldn't make it work. Then she heard the theory that there might be another membrane in the eleventh dimension. Now she had a really strange thought. What if gravity wasn't leaking from our Universe but to it? What if it came from that other universe? On that membrane, or brane, gravity would be as strong as the other forces, but by the time it reached us it would only be a faint signal. Now when she reworked her calculations everything fitted exactly. Our Bold.
Finite yet unbounded universe. Closed but infinite. For example-Universe is finitely large and it has no geometrical appearance as a whole. It is n-dimensional. Infinity is in its movement. The constant is dynamics or vibration which has no cause. Universe as described would be only possible to describe roughly. That -kind of -means that if we were going to describe it we would have a cube at first and the goal is to get to the ball. What happens is that we get finer and finer approxiamtions and we never quite get there. This is just analogy to what it seems we are actually doing. We cannot nail down the precise values because the very proccess we are using to measure is allready limited by its very point-like logic. Point cannot measure less than itself and you cannot even measure with "imaginary" smallest point because everything is made out of it. It doesnt work by logic and it doesnt work in reality. It is kind of obvious that we cannot describe actual universe with points which are only thing we got really. Universe therefore can only be approximated.
Another point is that it seems we are not outside of universe surface but on inside of universe surface.
Another point is that it seems we are not outside of universe surface but on inside of universe surface.
QUOTE (Majkl+Jul 9 2007, 06:51 AM)
Finite yet unbounded universe. Closed but infinite. For example-Universe is finitely large and it has no geometrical appearance as a whole. It is n-dimensional. Infinity is in its movement. The constant is dynamics or vibration which has no cause. Universe as described would be only possible to describe roughly. That -kind of -means that if we were going to describe it we would have a cube at first and the goal is to get to the ball. What happens is that we get finer and finer approxiamtions and we never quite get there. This is just analogy to what it seems we are actually doing. We cannot nail down the precise values because the very proccess we are using to measure is allready limited by its very point-like logic. Point cannot measure less than itself and you cannot even measure with "imaginary" smallest point because everything is made out of it. It doesnt work by logic and it doesnt work in reality. It is kind of obvious that we cannot describe actual universe with points which are only thing we got really. Universe therefore can only be approximated.
Another point is that it seems we are not outside of universe surface but on inside of universe surface.
There's nothing inherently wrong with point-like logic. It's necessary. It's just the problem, as you point out, of getting down to the point. We cheat, is what it boils down to. We see an ad infinitum of approximation and arbitrarily cut it off and use proofs to convince ourselves it's the proper thing to do.
Yes, we're always inside the universe trying to figure it out. Can't see the whole elephant from inside of itself.
All finite points are a movement in themselves. A growth from a center point takes space and time. The center point is another point, ad infinitum. The point is in a larger point, ad infinitum. All are movements of and in, space and time. As Einstein said, they are extensions of the field and not in the field.
So there is no defined center point in the finite field. Just an ad infinitum.
The center point is in the infinite field. This is where you're seeing "infinity in its movemet". The only defined center point never moves at all. It's always everywhere to begin with. Every "movement" from or about the center point, is an equal and opposite movement in the other direction. It doesn't "appear" as such, but that's what it is. From center point to center point there is no distance or direction, although that's what we see as the finite universe.
Gravity is just another way of saying that all finite points are "off-center", but never actually leave center, because the center is everywhere.
Another point is that it seems we are not outside of universe surface but on inside of universe surface.
There's nothing inherently wrong with point-like logic. It's necessary. It's just the problem, as you point out, of getting down to the point. We cheat, is what it boils down to. We see an ad infinitum of approximation and arbitrarily cut it off and use proofs to convince ourselves it's the proper thing to do.
Yes, we're always inside the universe trying to figure it out. Can't see the whole elephant from inside of itself.
All finite points are a movement in themselves. A growth from a center point takes space and time. The center point is another point, ad infinitum. The point is in a larger point, ad infinitum. All are movements of and in, space and time. As Einstein said, they are extensions of the field and not in the field.
So there is no defined center point in the finite field. Just an ad infinitum.
The center point is in the infinite field. This is where you're seeing "infinity in its movemet". The only defined center point never moves at all. It's always everywhere to begin with. Every "movement" from or about the center point, is an equal and opposite movement in the other direction. It doesn't "appear" as such, but that's what it is. From center point to center point there is no distance or direction, although that's what we see as the finite universe.
Gravity is just another way of saying that all finite points are "off-center", but never actually leave center, because the center is everywhere.
QUOTE (Eric England+Jul 11 2007, 06:07 PM)
There's nothing inherently wrong with point-like logic. It's necessary. It's just the problem, as you point out, of getting down to the point. We cheat, is what it boils down to. We see an ad infinitum of approximation and arbitrarily cut it off and use proofs to convince ourselves it's the proper thing to do.
Yes, we're always inside the universe trying to figure it out. Can't see the whole elephant from inside of itself.
All finite points are a movement in themselves. A growth from a center point takes space and time. The center point is another point, ad infinitum. The point is in a larger point, ad infinitum. All are movements of and in, space and time. As Einstein said, they are extensions of the field and not in the field.
So there is no defined center point in the finite field. Just an ad infinitum.
The center point is in the infinite field. This is where you're seeing "infinity in its movemet". The only defined center point never moves at all. It's always everywhere to begin with. Every "movement" from or about the center point, is an equal and opposite movement in the other direction. It doesn't "appear" as such, but that's what it is. From center point to center point there is no distance or direction, although that's what we see as the finite universe.
Gravity is just another way of saying that all finite points are "off-center", but never actually leave center, because the center is everywhere.
Hi Eric, Mjkl, everyone!
I've bolded that bit in your post, Eric, as it seems to confirm something which the 'physical only' TOE process has ALSO arrived at.
Your observation above seems to describe the DUALITY 'potential' of 'observable effectiveness' INHERENTLY and LOGICALLY attaching to ANY 'point' concept.
Or should that more correctly be OMNIALITY 'potential', since our starting concept has so far 'identified' a FUNDAMENTAL MATRIX of OMNI-DIRECTIONAL/ORIENTRATIONABLE 'coincidence points, hehehe.
And of course, since that identified MATRIX of omni-'dimensionable' coincidence points from any of which can arise/subside any 'effectiveness' cascade/reverse-cascade is a-priori UNBOUNDED and therefore effectively INFINITE', then ANY ONE SUCH POINT may be, FOR ANY ONE SUCH 'duality/omniality' MOVEMENT as you posited, effectively THE CURRENT 'CENTRE' for THE PARTICULAR MOVEMENT at any one instance at any one location within that infinite (in time and spatial extent) INFINITIES PER SE from MOMENT TO MOMENT.
So it seems that your 'parallel process' work/results have arrived at much the same 'starting/early' conclusions as the original process....because they so far seem 'compatible' both in principle and derivation of the work/results!
What do you think, matey!....do your above observations 'gel' with the main TOE thread's thrust/logics as I have 'correlated' between the two sets of results/logics?
Cheers all until later today!
RC.
.
Yes, we're always inside the universe trying to figure it out. Can't see the whole elephant from inside of itself.
All finite points are a movement in themselves. A growth from a center point takes space and time. The center point is another point, ad infinitum. The point is in a larger point, ad infinitum. All are movements of and in, space and time. As Einstein said, they are extensions of the field and not in the field.
So there is no defined center point in the finite field. Just an ad infinitum.
The center point is in the infinite field. This is where you're seeing "infinity in its movemet". The only defined center point never moves at all. It's always everywhere to begin with. Every "movement" from or about the center point, is an equal and opposite movement in the other direction. It doesn't "appear" as such, but that's what it is. From center point to center point there is no distance or direction, although that's what we see as the finite universe.
Gravity is just another way of saying that all finite points are "off-center", but never actually leave center, because the center is everywhere.
Hi Eric, Mjkl, everyone!
I've bolded that bit in your post, Eric, as it seems to confirm something which the 'physical only' TOE process has ALSO arrived at.
Your observation above seems to describe the DUALITY 'potential' of 'observable effectiveness' INHERENTLY and LOGICALLY attaching to ANY 'point' concept.
Or should that more correctly be OMNIALITY 'potential', since our starting concept has so far 'identified' a FUNDAMENTAL MATRIX of OMNI-DIRECTIONAL/ORIENTRATIONABLE 'coincidence points, hehehe.
And of course, since that identified MATRIX of omni-'dimensionable' coincidence points from any of which can arise/subside any 'effectiveness' cascade/reverse-cascade is a-priori UNBOUNDED and therefore effectively INFINITE', then ANY ONE SUCH POINT may be, FOR ANY ONE SUCH 'duality/omniality' MOVEMENT as you posited, effectively THE CURRENT 'CENTRE' for THE PARTICULAR MOVEMENT at any one instance at any one location within that infinite (in time and spatial extent) INFINITIES PER SE from MOMENT TO MOMENT.
So it seems that your 'parallel process' work/results have arrived at much the same 'starting/early' conclusions as the original process....because they so far seem 'compatible' both in principle and derivation of the work/results!
What do you think, matey!....do your above observations 'gel' with the main TOE thread's thrust/logics as I have 'correlated' between the two sets of results/logics?
Cheers all until later today!
RC.
.
Hi RC,
Yes, there is a "gelling", but not as a starting point. I actually start with Absolute.
Yes, there is a "gelling", but not as a starting point. I actually start with Absolute.
QUOTE
Is the Universe operating according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN SYSTEM or a CLOSED SYSTEM?
Gravity leak and similar.I am not even close to being an expert on the details of these matters but since i was thinking along these lines especially from the point of energy cannot be destroyed nor created one comes across variation of our universe being a portion of larger one. This variation doesn't claim separate universes but one Giant Universe being extended into new directions. Our universe is a branch or more precisely a new direction bubble which represents a movement of the whole into all kinds of directions. Random movement. Amoeba like. So conclusively universe is finitely large and is complete or closed structure. Additionally we cannot get out of it because we are this stuff. The gravity leak is in my cranky opinion movement of space-time structure. It is the actual stretching and twisting and rotating of this stuff. Its inner structure is vibrational density. If one imagines a reactive jelly in a zero gravity field. Its not a good analogy but it kind of has a point. This jelly is amoeba like and it moves but it doesn't go anywhere really. Any new direction is a black hole which is temporary stretching of the structure which can pull it. The problem is that this structure is in the middle of nowhere. So the pull if one could see it outside of itself doesn't really move it anywhere. Its more like change of always temporary shape. The energy is conserved because there is nothing that could absorb its energy consequently take it away. But it has to go somewhere. And somewhere is always inside. Black hole doesn't go outside. Its new direction of inside.1
-This doesn't mean infinitely inward. Fundamental space-time doesn't change. It only changes direction. Part of amoeba pops out and pops in. Amoeba hasn't lost integrity by that.-
1And if that means counter-forcing itself that is what it means. So each black hole is actually a pull which pushes itself from the existing black hole. Large black hole doesn't have the original pull anymore. Because the basic fiber is not infinitely and smoothly stretchable. This small difference is enough for any new black hole to counter-force the basic black hole pull. Fibres could be enormous closed strings which vibrate inwards only. If they get too close to each other black hole forms.
Additional assumptions are that we are talking indestructible and inseparable substance-fibers. So basically only a black hole can counterforce a black hole. But black hole is not something out of the universe. Black hole is space-time like the one we are living in. If pull is not strong enough you get blurry-fuzzy image Because boundaries or fibres vibrate so close to each other it simply doesnt make time to form anything stable.
Black holes as a sub assumption could have very random angles which is at least a hint towards such reality.
This is nothing new right? Well the only difference is that universe in question here is not capable of producing infinity of black holes at the same time. Because there is always a stronger pull or "perpetual imbalance". Universe can never uniformly segment itself into billions of exactly the same black holes. FUndamental fibers are so sensitive its impossible to imagine "resting"vibration. Stretching of these fibers results in different vibrations and they are not fusable. You cannot shrink these fibers into less than they are. Fibers vibrate fundamentally. Its pretty messy to explain.
Universe doesn't get bigger in any way. New direction when connected with integrity means that -basic fiber stretches until it starts to pull the rest of the structure with it -because it is inseparable. So basically nothing disappears really. But it gets pulled. Things which are matter have their own life-times. They do dissolve because of movement which basically forms matter. The same thing that "creates" is the same thing that "destroys". It is a kind of-fundamental vibration is eternal but derived or compunded vibrations have finite echo.
The closest analogy is therefore a jelly like structure which randomly "moves" in empty space.
QUOTE (Eric England+Jul 12 2007, 05:45 AM)
Hi RC,
Yes, there is a "gelling", but not as a starting point. I actually start with Absolute.
Hi Eric!
I have no qualms with using what you have 'started' with....I just want to have a 'handle' on it so that I know how to 'go from there' (your absolute) to 'here' (the universe we observe and are a part of 'physically' as well as 'philosophically').
And as to 'absoluteness' per se of starting concepts......
Since our 'physical' TOE process started with an 'independent' concept, it is therefore considered IPSO FACTO 'absolute' UNTIL otherwise 'replaced' by another concept-------EITHER by some 'more independent' concept (if any) later identified by the logic train itself; OR by some 'more independent' concept from your 'philosophical' parallel process.
Let's not forget, the over-riding 'requirement' of any such concept/process that we DO use MUST be that it CAN hope to 'arrive' at a consistent theory of 'everything' that may be EXPLICABLE TO ALL in a self-verifiable way....and not in some 'bounded/subjective' way depending on 'interpretations' ad infinitum (you would agree that THAT way lies the path to what mathematics/number theory is AS IT IS NOW!hehehe).
The aim is real down-to-earth SELF-EVIDENT/CONTEXTUAL comprehension of at LEAST the physical universe; but ALSO, if it can be done, the philosophical universe as well.
I know it's difficult; and we have only just begun (and I have delayed matters because of illness etc!), but patience is a virtue in science/philosophy! And I am trying my hardest to catch up and solve some computer/scanner compatibility problems....but if I can't make them work, I'll give up and post without drawings/graphics for the time being.
Cheers!
RC.
Yes, there is a "gelling", but not as a starting point. I actually start with Absolute.
Hi Eric!
I have no qualms with using what you have 'started' with....I just want to have a 'handle' on it so that I know how to 'go from there' (your absolute) to 'here' (the universe we observe and are a part of 'physically' as well as 'philosophically').
And as to 'absoluteness' per se of starting concepts......
Since our 'physical' TOE process started with an 'independent' concept, it is therefore considered IPSO FACTO 'absolute' UNTIL otherwise 'replaced' by another concept-------EITHER by some 'more independent' concept (if any) later identified by the logic train itself; OR by some 'more independent' concept from your 'philosophical' parallel process.
Let's not forget, the over-riding 'requirement' of any such concept/process that we DO use MUST be that it CAN hope to 'arrive' at a consistent theory of 'everything' that may be EXPLICABLE TO ALL in a self-verifiable way....and not in some 'bounded/subjective' way depending on 'interpretations' ad infinitum (you would agree that THAT way lies the path to what mathematics/number theory is AS IT IS NOW!hehehe).
The aim is real down-to-earth SELF-EVIDENT/CONTEXTUAL comprehension of at LEAST the physical universe; but ALSO, if it can be done, the philosophical universe as well.
I know it's difficult; and we have only just begun (and I have delayed matters because of illness etc!), but patience is a virtue in science/philosophy! And I am trying my hardest to catch up and solve some computer/scanner compatibility problems....but if I can't make them work, I'll give up and post without drawings/graphics for the time being.
Cheers!
RC.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 12 2007, 03:49 PM)
I have no qualms with using what you have 'started' with....I just want to have a 'handle' on it so that I know how to 'go from there' (your absolute) to 'here' (the universe we observe and are a part of 'physically' as well as 'philosophically').
Since our 'physical' TOE process started with an 'independent' concept, it is therefore considered IPSO FACTO 'absolute' UNTIL otherwise 'replaced' by another concept-------EITHER by some 'more independent' concept (if any) later identified by the logic train itself; OR by some 'more independent' concept from your 'philosophical' parallel process.
I'm going to offer you a very brief summary.
____________________
1. It began on page 9 of the philosophy thread. No absolute nothing and something absolute.
2. The "absolute something" turned out to be an (in)dependent and non-relative point; with no source, environment, location, and size. The "Absolute Point of Principle"(AP).
3. Using the same implications gets us inside of the point and gives us the fundaments to continue on. So without affecting the initial point (AP), we came to an "Absolute Center Point of Prinicple"(CP) and the opposite of the initial point, the "Relative Point of Princple"(RP), at that center point.
4. The AP is focused inward at its CP from yes, "all directions". It is focused on the RP at the CP, which has no inside, because its the opposite of the AP. It doesn't focus inward, but reflects outward in yes, "all directions".
___________________
These are the first few prinicples. They establish both the "Arena" and the "Process", within and by which, the principles of Infinity and Finitity occur as a "3D Illusion" or "Image", that we perceive as the "physical universe".
Existence is about Principles before anything else. "The principle of"...
Name it and it's firstly that.
Since our 'physical' TOE process started with an 'independent' concept, it is therefore considered IPSO FACTO 'absolute' UNTIL otherwise 'replaced' by another concept-------EITHER by some 'more independent' concept (if any) later identified by the logic train itself; OR by some 'more independent' concept from your 'philosophical' parallel process.
I'm going to offer you a very brief summary.
____________________
1. It began on page 9 of the philosophy thread. No absolute nothing and something absolute.
2. The "absolute something" turned out to be an (in)dependent and non-relative point; with no source, environment, location, and size. The "Absolute Point of Principle"(AP).
3. Using the same implications gets us inside of the point and gives us the fundaments to continue on. So without affecting the initial point (AP), we came to an "Absolute Center Point of Prinicple"(CP) and the opposite of the initial point, the "Relative Point of Princple"(RP), at that center point.
4. The AP is focused inward at its CP from yes, "all directions". It is focused on the RP at the CP, which has no inside, because its the opposite of the AP. It doesn't focus inward, but reflects outward in yes, "all directions".
___________________
These are the first few prinicples. They establish both the "Arena" and the "Process", within and by which, the principles of Infinity and Finitity occur as a "3D Illusion" or "Image", that we perceive as the "physical universe".
Existence is about Principles before anything else. "The principle of"...
Name it and it's firstly that.
QUOTE (Eric England+Jul 16 2007, 12:35 AM)
I'm going to offer you a very brief summary.
____________________
1. It began on page 9 of the philosophy thread. No absolute nothing and something absolute.
2. The "absolute something" turned out to be an (in)dependent and non-relative point; with no source, environment, location, and size. The "Absolute Point of Principle"(AP).
3. Using the same implications gets us inside of the point and gives us the fundaments to continue on. So without affecting the initial point (AP), we came to an "Absolute Center Point of Prinicple"(CP) and the opposite of the initial point, the "Relative Point of Princple"(RP), at that center point.
4. The AP is focused inward at its CP from yes, "all directions". It is focused on the RP at the CP, which has no inside, because its the opposite of the AP. It doesn't focus inward, but reflects outward in yes, "all directions".
___________________
These are the first few prinicples. They establish both the "Arena" and the "Process", within and by which, the principles of Infinity and Finitity occur as a "3D Illusion" or "Image", that we perceive as the "physical universe".
Existence is about Principles before anything else. "The principle of"...
Name it and it's firstly that.
Hi Eric!
Great summary, mate. Very clear. Thanks for that!
From that, I infer that the logic train in the 'parallel' PHILOSOPHY 'project' BEGINS with a THE 'point'.
Is that so?
If so, the only 'difference' (as far as any 'point' concept per se goes) between that and the logic train of the original PHYSICAL TOE 'project' is that the latter BEGINS WITHOUT any such 'point' concept AT ALL.
BUT then IMMEDIATELY 'arrives at' and 'defines' the 'concept of INFINITELY MANY 'points' in a COINCIDENCE MATRIX 'derivation' from the original 'NON-point-involving' starting (and so far independent/absolute concept) of omni-direction per se.
As distinct from some THE 'point' (and in that project's context, ALSO an 'independent/absolute' PHILOSOPHICAL concept) which was your starting point.
As I see it, because the TOE physical logic train 'DERIVES' the point concept FROM a PRIOR independent/absolute, then it means (as far as the physical project goes) that the 'point' concept (whether THE 'one' point OR the 'infinitely many' points) is SO FAR a 'dependent/derived' ENTITY/CONCEPT following from a 'superior' STARTING ENTITY/CONCEPT.
But that is from the PHYSICAL project perspective.
Which brings me to the 'task' at hand, as far as meaningfully/consistently 'merging' the two project 'results' at this or any later stage; ie.....
Is there a way to do this AS THINGS STAND SO FAR; in view of the fact that the 'physical' project logic train BEGINS 'further back'...and has 'arrived' at a RELATIVE (to the scalar omni-direction starting concept) MANY-'points' MATRIX of INFINITE nature/extent; rather than the SOLE 'stand-alone' THE-'point' of UN-KNOWN nature/extent of the parallel 'philosophy' project.
See the task that confronts us if we are to make consistent sense of the 'combination'?
HOWEVER, as you and others have so rightly pointed out many times, the ACTUAL NATURE/PROPERTIES of the 'point' concept per se (whether 'absolute' or 'relative' or whether ONE or MANY) will STILL probably be 'at the heart' of all FUTURE developments in BOTH projects. It only remains for both projects to explore that nature/properties further to see what we come up with FROM THERE in our respective PHILO/PHYSICS ways. Carry on in the respective 'projects', guys and gal!
Cheers all!
RC.
____________________
1. It began on page 9 of the philosophy thread. No absolute nothing and something absolute.
2. The "absolute something" turned out to be an (in)dependent and non-relative point; with no source, environment, location, and size. The "Absolute Point of Principle"(AP).
3. Using the same implications gets us inside of the point and gives us the fundaments to continue on. So without affecting the initial point (AP), we came to an "Absolute Center Point of Prinicple"(CP) and the opposite of the initial point, the "Relative Point of Princple"(RP), at that center point.
4. The AP is focused inward at its CP from yes, "all directions". It is focused on the RP at the CP, which has no inside, because its the opposite of the AP. It doesn't focus inward, but reflects outward in yes, "all directions".
___________________
These are the first few prinicples. They establish both the "Arena" and the "Process", within and by which, the principles of Infinity and Finitity occur as a "3D Illusion" or "Image", that we perceive as the "physical universe".
Existence is about Principles before anything else. "The principle of"...
Name it and it's firstly that.
Hi Eric!
Great summary, mate. Very clear. Thanks for that!
From that, I infer that the logic train in the 'parallel' PHILOSOPHY 'project' BEGINS with a THE 'point'.
Is that so?
If so, the only 'difference' (as far as any 'point' concept per se goes) between that and the logic train of the original PHYSICAL TOE 'project' is that the latter BEGINS WITHOUT any such 'point' concept AT ALL.
BUT then IMMEDIATELY 'arrives at' and 'defines' the 'concept of INFINITELY MANY 'points' in a COINCIDENCE MATRIX 'derivation' from the original 'NON-point-involving' starting (and so far independent/absolute concept) of omni-direction per se.
As distinct from some THE 'point' (and in that project's context, ALSO an 'independent/absolute' PHILOSOPHICAL concept) which was your starting point.
As I see it, because the TOE physical logic train 'DERIVES' the point concept FROM a PRIOR independent/absolute, then it means (as far as the physical project goes) that the 'point' concept (whether THE 'one' point OR the 'infinitely many' points) is SO FAR a 'dependent/derived' ENTITY/CONCEPT following from a 'superior' STARTING ENTITY/CONCEPT.
But that is from the PHYSICAL project perspective.
Which brings me to the 'task' at hand, as far as meaningfully/consistently 'merging' the two project 'results' at this or any later stage; ie.....
Is there a way to do this AS THINGS STAND SO FAR; in view of the fact that the 'physical' project logic train BEGINS 'further back'...and has 'arrived' at a RELATIVE (to the scalar omni-direction starting concept) MANY-'points' MATRIX of INFINITE nature/extent; rather than the SOLE 'stand-alone' THE-'point' of UN-KNOWN nature/extent of the parallel 'philosophy' project.
See the task that confronts us if we are to make consistent sense of the 'combination'?
HOWEVER, as you and others have so rightly pointed out many times, the ACTUAL NATURE/PROPERTIES of the 'point' concept per se (whether 'absolute' or 'relative' or whether ONE or MANY) will STILL probably be 'at the heart' of all FUTURE developments in BOTH projects. It only remains for both projects to explore that nature/properties further to see what we come up with FROM THERE in our respective PHILO/PHYSICS ways. Carry on in the respective 'projects', guys and gal!
Cheers all!
RC.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 15 2007, 07:17 PM)
From that, I infer that the logic train in the 'parallel' PHILOSOPHY 'project' BEGINS with a THE 'point'.
If so, the only 'difference' (as far as any 'point' concept per se goes) between that and the logic train of the original PHYSICAL TOE 'project' is that the latter BEGINS WITHOUT any such 'point' concept AT ALL.
BUT then IMMEDIATELY 'arrives at' and 'defines' the 'concept of INFINITELY MANY 'points' in a COINCIDENCE MATRIX 'derivation' from the original 'NON-point-involving' starting (and so far independent/absolute concept) of omni-direction per se.
As distinct from some THE 'point' (and in that project's context, ALSO an 'independent/absolute' PHILOSOPHICAL concept) which was your starting point.
As I see it, because the TOE physical logic train 'DERIVES' the point concept FROM a PRIOR independent/absolute, then it means (as far as the physical project goes) that the 'point' concept (whether THE 'one' point OR the 'infinitely many' points) is SO FAR a 'dependent/derived' ENTITY/CONCEPT following from a 'superior' STARTING ENTITY/CONCEPT.
But that is from the PHYSICAL project perspective.
So it's begin with either no point or a point? Just "figuratively" speaking, I would rather begin a TOE by making a "point".
The physical theory (P1) begins with an endless field with no preferred direction. That is what "omni-direction" boils down to. A field of potential, upon which you build a matrix of points that are connected with lines of transmission and amount to infinitely many. Because they've already been connected by lines, they're some distance apart, so they all occur at different locations in the field. Is this a reasonably correct summary?
What is so "unknown" about my Point? It thought I just gave you a list of "knowns", including that it has no source?
If so, the only 'difference' (as far as any 'point' concept per se goes) between that and the logic train of the original PHYSICAL TOE 'project' is that the latter BEGINS WITHOUT any such 'point' concept AT ALL.
BUT then IMMEDIATELY 'arrives at' and 'defines' the 'concept of INFINITELY MANY 'points' in a COINCIDENCE MATRIX 'derivation' from the original 'NON-point-involving' starting (and so far independent/absolute concept) of omni-direction per se.
As distinct from some THE 'point' (and in that project's context, ALSO an 'independent/absolute' PHILOSOPHICAL concept) which was your starting point.
As I see it, because the TOE physical logic train 'DERIVES' the point concept FROM a PRIOR independent/absolute, then it means (as far as the physical project goes) that the 'point' concept (whether THE 'one' point OR the 'infinitely many' points) is SO FAR a 'dependent/derived' ENTITY/CONCEPT following from a 'superior' STARTING ENTITY/CONCEPT.
But that is from the PHYSICAL project perspective.
So it's begin with either no point or a point? Just "figuratively" speaking, I would rather begin a TOE by making a "point".
The physical theory (P1) begins with an endless field with no preferred direction. That is what "omni-direction" boils down to. A field of potential, upon which you build a matrix of points that are connected with lines of transmission and amount to infinitely many. Because they've already been connected by lines, they're some distance apart, so they all occur at different locations in the field. Is this a reasonably correct summary?
QUOTE
... in view of the fact that the 'physical' project logic train BEGINS 'further back'...and has 'arrived' at a RELATIVE (to the scalar omni-direction starting concept) MANY-'points' MATRIX of INFINITE nature/extent; rather than the SOLE 'stand-alone' THE-'point' of UN-KNOWN nature/extent of the parallel 'philosophy' project.
What is so "unknown" about my Point? It thought I just gave you a list of "knowns", including that it has no source?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 15 2007, 10:17 PM)
If so, the only 'difference' (as far as any 'point' concept per se goes) between that and the logic train of the original PHYSICAL TOE 'project' is that the latter BEGINS WITHOUT any such 'point' concept AT ALL.
BUT then IMMEDIATELY 'arrives at' and 'defines' the 'concept of INFINITELY MANY 'points' in a COINCIDENCE MATRIX 'derivation' from the original 'NON-point-involving' starting (and so far independent/absolute concept) of omni-direction per se.
As distinct from some THE 'point' (and in that project's context, ALSO an 'independent/absolute' PHILOSOPHICAL concept) which was your starting point.
As I see it, because the TOE physical logic train 'DERIVES' the point concept FROM a PRIOR independent/absolute, then it means (as far as the physical project goes) that the 'point' concept (whether THE 'one' point OR the 'infinitely many' points) is SO FAR a 'dependent/derived' ENTITY/CONCEPT following from a 'superior' STARTING ENTITY/CONCEPT.
But that is from the PHYSICAL project perspective.
Which brings me to the 'task' at hand, as far as meaningfully/consistently 'merging' the two project 'results' at this or any later stage; ie.....
Is there a way to do this AS THINGS STAND SO FAR; in view of the fact that the 'physical' project logic train BEGINS 'further back'...and has 'arrived' at a RELATIVE (to the scalar omni-direction starting concept) MANY-'points' MATRIX of INFINITE nature/extent; rather than the SOLE 'stand-alone' THE-'point' of UN-KNOWN nature/extent of the parallel 'philosophy' project.
See the task that confronts us if we are to make consistent sense of the 'combination'?
HOWEVER, as you and others have so rightly pointed out many times, the ACTUAL NATURE/PROPERTIES of the 'point' concept per se (whether 'absolute' or 'relative' or whether ONE or MANY) will STILL probably be 'at the heart' of all FUTURE developments in BOTH projects. It only remains for both projects to explore that nature/properties further to see what we come up with FROM THERE in our respective PHILO/PHYSICS ways. Carry on in the respective 'projects', guys and gal!
Cheers all!
RC.
RC, if I understand this right, we are still refusing to confuse point with address. That may be a serious mistake. I will have no objections for the next 5 minutes.
I have a "proton" model where all the "on" points are exactly the same, and what varies their value is their coordinates, but all points seemed to have read the TOE already because they follow it excruciatingly close. It is so simple and so stupid a model that you will see at a glance why it can't be wrong. Sorry if I can't show you gravity, "strong force" or "weak" forces, I don't handle those concepts.
How do I copy and paste a drawing here? I have been unable to do it. Do take a look at this, however:
>http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/step5.html<
I can put this @#(%#(*&% in order so fast your head will spin
I just don't know how to post a drawing yet!
BUT then IMMEDIATELY 'arrives at' and 'defines' the 'concept of INFINITELY MANY 'points' in a COINCIDENCE MATRIX 'derivation' from the original 'NON-point-involving' starting (and so far independent/absolute concept) of omni-direction per se.
As distinct from some THE 'point' (and in that project's context, ALSO an 'independent/absolute' PHILOSOPHICAL concept) which was your starting point.
As I see it, because the TOE physical logic train 'DERIVES' the point concept FROM a PRIOR independent/absolute, then it means (as far as the physical project goes) that the 'point' concept (whether THE 'one' point OR the 'infinitely many' points) is SO FAR a 'dependent/derived' ENTITY/CONCEPT following from a 'superior' STARTING ENTITY/CONCEPT.
But that is from the PHYSICAL project perspective.
Which brings me to the 'task' at hand, as far as meaningfully/consistently 'merging' the two project 'results' at this or any later stage; ie.....
Is there a way to do this AS THINGS STAND SO FAR; in view of the fact that the 'physical' project logic train BEGINS 'further back'...and has 'arrived' at a RELATIVE (to the scalar omni-direction starting concept) MANY-'points' MATRIX of INFINITE nature/extent; rather than the SOLE 'stand-alone' THE-'point' of UN-KNOWN nature/extent of the parallel 'philosophy' project.
See the task that confronts us if we are to make consistent sense of the 'combination'?
HOWEVER, as you and others have so rightly pointed out many times, the ACTUAL NATURE/PROPERTIES of the 'point' concept per se (whether 'absolute' or 'relative' or whether ONE or MANY) will STILL probably be 'at the heart' of all FUTURE developments in BOTH projects. It only remains for both projects to explore that nature/properties further to see what we come up with FROM THERE in our respective PHILO/PHYSICS ways. Carry on in the respective 'projects', guys and gal!
Cheers all!
RC.
RC, if I understand this right, we are still refusing to confuse point with address. That may be a serious mistake. I will have no objections for the next 5 minutes.
I have a "proton" model where all the "on" points are exactly the same, and what varies their value is their coordinates, but all points seemed to have read the TOE already because they follow it excruciatingly close. It is so simple and so stupid a model that you will see at a glance why it can't be wrong. Sorry if I can't show you gravity, "strong force" or "weak" forces, I don't handle those concepts.
How do I copy and paste a drawing here? I have been unable to do it. Do take a look at this, however:
>http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/step5.html<
I can put this @#(%#(*&% in order so fast your head will spin
I just don't know how to post a drawing yet!
QUOTE (Eric England+Jul 17 2007, 03:33 AM)
So it's begin with either no point or a point? Just "figuratively" speaking, I would rather begin a TOE by making a "point".
The physical theory (P1) begins with an endless field with no preferred direction. That is what "omni-direction" boils down to. A field of potential, upon which you build a matrix of points that are connected with lines of transmission and amount to infinitely many. Because they've already been connected by lines, they're some distance apart, so they all occur at different locations in the field. Is this a reasonably correct summary?
What is so "unknown" about my Point? It thought I just gave you a list of "knowns", including that it has no source?
Hi Eric!
Yeah....except that the 'coincidence-points' matrix has NO 'logical' or 'natural' IMPERATIVE for anything ELSE but OTHER coincidence-points between them and distant points. There is no 'empty' or 'unvectored' omni-direction potential in-between those points.
That is, there are no 'gaps' PER SE in that particular derived matrix.
So any 'lines' are actually merely 'coincidence-points sequences' to infinity and in all possible 'radial direction vectors' along the infinite RADIAL SPREAD of such 'connected points' lines from any one point to any other distant point.
That's actually the REAL difference between the 'mathematical point/matrix' constructs and the 'physical concept' derived matrix in our TOE so far.
The question at this stage (for which I will post my answer soon as I can get my scanner to work with this old beast of mine!) is HOW does the inherent orientational/directional tendency/impetus (POTENTIAL MOTIVE ENERGY?) get REALISED or otherwise made EFFECTIVE (via some 'imbalance process/relativity etc?) to give the energy 'flows' features and structures that go to create OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA.
I think you and everyone will enjoy discussing/comparing my answer (when I can finally post the damned thing!).
.
.
About the 'knowns' attaching to your 'point' concept, I'm sorry I forgot to say that I accept what you HAVE, but I can't see where the IMPLIED 'consequential phenomena' can be identified/described/modelled AT THIS STAGE in a way that will quantitatively and in detail explain the MECHANISMS and PROCESSES that we ALSO observe SEQUENTIALLY and IN PARALLEL.
I stress that part because that EVOLUTIONARY 'effects/dynamics' is what gives the CAUSALITY and TIME and LOCATION and SCALING and GEOMETRIC/LOGICAL INTER-RELATIONSHIPS that PREVENTS the observed phenomena set (which I think you have implied is 'illusional'?) FROM HAPPENING ALL AT ONCE and so could NOT BE OBSERVED 'meanigfully' UNLESS WE ALREADY HAD the INSTANTANEOUS and FIXED PLAN' of it all 'imbedded/inherent' within all OBSERVERS and OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRUCTS alike ETERNALLY AND UNCHANGING.
And if the latter WERE the case, we would ALL have ALREADY the SAME PERSPECTIVE on 'it all'....and so there would not be the 'zone of different perspectives' which allows ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS/DISAGREEMENTS to 'exist' in any form/time as 'discrete perspectives' on SUPPOSEDLY the same 'illusion' that your point so far implies. No?
See where the difficulty lies for me to 'merge' the two projects AT THIS STAGE, mate?
But how do I post a drawing?
There are many ways of demonstrating it, I am sure. But with *ordered integers* there is only one way of doing it.
The knot, for instance, is the representation of the *singularity* that I am not trying to picture or otherwise bother with. I am saying that it is there, but I am not counting beans from now on
An electron would be exactly the same structure, but I didn't get the hang of it yet, other than "it's the number 2" --very convincing, uh?
Ever considered the possibility that YOU may fall into the ambit of that study? No? The 'ego' is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
Well then, please go 'study' your own original stuff (if you have any) and leave others to theirs. This project is not for ego-maniacal 'spoilers'...it is for grown-up types who have better things to do than make posts like yours above. Play elsewhere if you are so 'affronted' by it all, mate.
RC.
.
What more can be said -
The physical theory (P1) begins with an endless field with no preferred direction. That is what "omni-direction" boils down to. A field of potential, upon which you build a matrix of points that are connected with lines of transmission and amount to infinitely many. Because they've already been connected by lines, they're some distance apart, so they all occur at different locations in the field. Is this a reasonably correct summary?
What is so "unknown" about my Point? It thought I just gave you a list of "knowns", including that it has no source?
Hi Eric!
Yeah....except that the 'coincidence-points' matrix has NO 'logical' or 'natural' IMPERATIVE for anything ELSE but OTHER coincidence-points between them and distant points. There is no 'empty' or 'unvectored' omni-direction potential in-between those points.
That is, there are no 'gaps' PER SE in that particular derived matrix.
So any 'lines' are actually merely 'coincidence-points sequences' to infinity and in all possible 'radial direction vectors' along the infinite RADIAL SPREAD of such 'connected points' lines from any one point to any other distant point.
That's actually the REAL difference between the 'mathematical point/matrix' constructs and the 'physical concept' derived matrix in our TOE so far.
The question at this stage (for which I will post my answer soon as I can get my scanner to work with this old beast of mine!) is HOW does the inherent orientational/directional tendency/impetus (POTENTIAL MOTIVE ENERGY?) get REALISED or otherwise made EFFECTIVE (via some 'imbalance process/relativity etc?) to give the energy 'flows' features and structures that go to create OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA.
I think you and everyone will enjoy discussing/comparing my answer (when I can finally post the damned thing!).
.
.
About the 'knowns' attaching to your 'point' concept, I'm sorry I forgot to say that I accept what you HAVE, but I can't see where the IMPLIED 'consequential phenomena' can be identified/described/modelled AT THIS STAGE in a way that will quantitatively and in detail explain the MECHANISMS and PROCESSES that we ALSO observe SEQUENTIALLY and IN PARALLEL.
I stress that part because that EVOLUTIONARY 'effects/dynamics' is what gives the CAUSALITY and TIME and LOCATION and SCALING and GEOMETRIC/LOGICAL INTER-RELATIONSHIPS that PREVENTS the observed phenomena set (which I think you have implied is 'illusional'?) FROM HAPPENING ALL AT ONCE and so could NOT BE OBSERVED 'meanigfully' UNLESS WE ALREADY HAD the INSTANTANEOUS and FIXED PLAN' of it all 'imbedded/inherent' within all OBSERVERS and OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRUCTS alike ETERNALLY AND UNCHANGING.
And if the latter WERE the case, we would ALL have ALREADY the SAME PERSPECTIVE on 'it all'....and so there would not be the 'zone of different perspectives' which allows ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS/DISAGREEMENTS to 'exist' in any form/time as 'discrete perspectives' on SUPPOSEDLY the same 'illusion' that your point so far implies. No?
See where the difficulty lies for me to 'merge' the two projects AT THIS STAGE, mate?
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Jul 17 2007, 04:09 AM)
RC, if I understand this right, we are still refusing to confuse point with address. That may be a serious mistake. I will have no objections for the next 5 minutes.
I have a "proton" model where all the "on" points are exactly the same, and what varies their value is their coordinates, but all points seemed to have read the TOE already because they follow it excruciatingly close. It is so simple and so stupid a model that you will see at a glance why it can't be wrong. Sorry if I can't show you gravity, "strong force" or "weak" forces, I don't handle those concepts.
How do I copy and paste a drawing here? I have been unable to do it. Do take a look at this, however:
>http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/step5.html<
I can put this @#(%#(*&% in order so fast your head will spin
I just don't know how to post a drawing yet!
Hehehehe. Not only vary as to 'co-ordinates' values, but also as to 'orientation' (in 'series and in parallel') values of whatever energy vector/motion properties which are inherent in those points and 'exhibit' ONLY when EFFECTIVATED (hehe) somehow...to be SOON identified/decided by stage-II process we hope!
The addressability/point aspect.... that is another inherent property to any such point as described by TOE to date....and is an 'inter-relational' CONTEXTUAL property 'addressable' by the MATRIX from moment to moment depending on which point is physically active and which is not. I can't see whether WE can actually 'address' any 'points' as such, hehehe!
Anyhow, that's what I see at the moment...but things could change in later stages, and find that the points can BE 'addressed' ABSOLUTELY at ALL 'moments' in some way? To be seen. Stay tuned! hehehe.
.
.
Thanks Eric/IAM!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
I have a "proton" model where all the "on" points are exactly the same, and what varies their value is their coordinates, but all points seemed to have read the TOE already because they follow it excruciatingly close. It is so simple and so stupid a model that you will see at a glance why it can't be wrong. Sorry if I can't show you gravity, "strong force" or "weak" forces, I don't handle those concepts.
How do I copy and paste a drawing here? I have been unable to do it. Do take a look at this, however:
>http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Sun/step5.html<
I can put this @#(%#(*&% in order so fast your head will spin
I just don't know how to post a drawing yet!
Hehehehe. Not only vary as to 'co-ordinates' values, but also as to 'orientation' (in 'series and in parallel') values of whatever energy vector/motion properties which are inherent in those points and 'exhibit' ONLY when EFFECTIVATED (hehe) somehow...to be SOON identified/decided by stage-II process we hope!
The addressability/point aspect.... that is another inherent property to any such point as described by TOE to date....and is an 'inter-relational' CONTEXTUAL property 'addressable' by the MATRIX from moment to moment depending on which point is physically active and which is not. I can't see whether WE can actually 'address' any 'points' as such, hehehe!
Anyhow, that's what I see at the moment...but things could change in later stages, and find that the points can BE 'addressed' ABSOLUTELY at ALL 'moments' in some way? To be seen. Stay tuned! hehehe.
.
.
Thanks Eric/IAM!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
But how do I post a drawing?
QUOTE (Guest_IAMoraes+Jul 17 2007, 05:38 AM)
But how do I post a drawing?
I haven't done that myself yet! I have to get my scanner working first!
But I think you have to upload your mpeg/giff/whatever to some website and then ADDRESS it using its http://.....URL 'link' from within your post.
I think there is some topic heading in the suggestions part of the main board (at bottom of opening page) that covers these things.
I haven't yet had need to read about this...but I will soon, hehehe.
Good luck, mate!
Or if you pose your question in the main forums somewhere, I'm sure someone will come to the rescue!
Goodnight now!
RC.
I haven't done that myself yet! I have to get my scanner working first!
But I think you have to upload your mpeg/giff/whatever to some website and then ADDRESS it using its http://.....URL 'link' from within your post.
I think there is some topic heading in the suggestions part of the main board (at bottom of opening page) that covers these things.
I haven't yet had need to read about this...but I will soon, hehehe.
Good luck, mate!
Or if you pose your question in the main forums somewhere, I'm sure someone will come to the rescue!
Goodnight now!
RC.
QUOTE (Guest_IAMoraes+Jul 17 2007, 01:38 AM)
if you pose your question in the main forums somewhere, I'm sure someone will come to the rescue!
Nah, I don't want to ask, I just wanted to post the drawing so it would make me look really important!
Following the numbers from 1 to 11 in prime base, color a hexagonal board.
1111111111111111111...
1010101010101010101...
1101101101101101101...
1010101010101010101...
1111011110111101111...
1000101000101000101...
1111110111111011111...
1010101010101010101...
1101101101101101101...
1010001010101000101...
1111111111011111111...
Discard the top half (that is the 1.0r line, on the diagonal above) along with the first 1. (Well, you discarded half plus an infinitesimal, the first 1 point, of course.) That gives what is left a permanent "spin" of 1/2.
What you are looking at is a proton. The first unit on top is a quark, a triple-connected gluon in the middle, and two additional quarks on the bottom connected by another gluon.
My proton. It turns towards the inside of the atom. It has no end, of course, it is just that this is what we recognize of it so far, as far as mathematics is concerned.
Nah, I don't want to ask, I just wanted to post the drawing so it would make me look really important!
Following the numbers from 1 to 11 in prime base, color a hexagonal board.
1111111111111111111...
1010101010101010101...
1101101101101101101...
1010101010101010101...
1111011110111101111...
1000101000101000101...
1111110111111011111...
1010101010101010101...
1101101101101101101...
1010001010101000101...
1111111111011111111...
Discard the top half (that is the 1.0r line, on the diagonal above) along with the first 1. (Well, you discarded half plus an infinitesimal, the first 1 point, of course.) That gives what is left a permanent "spin" of 1/2.
What you are looking at is a proton. The first unit on top is a quark, a triple-connected gluon in the middle, and two additional quarks on the bottom connected by another gluon.
My proton. It turns towards the inside of the atom. It has no end, of course, it is just that this is what we recognize of it so far, as far as mathematics is concerned.
I can demonstrate that proton with a picture.
The ends of the string tie against each other inside. The resultant charge of the three stress points causes the electron charge to leak out, allowing it to be bound without being in somewhat of an epicycle 'orbit'.
The ends of the string tie against each other inside. The resultant charge of the three stress points causes the electron charge to leak out, allowing it to be bound without being in somewhat of an epicycle 'orbit'.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jul 17 2007, 03:29 PM)
There are many ways of demonstrating it, I am sure. But with *ordered integers* there is only one way of doing it.
The knot, for instance, is the representation of the *singularity* that I am not trying to picture or otherwise bother with. I am saying that it is there, but I am not counting beans from now on
An electron would be exactly the same structure, but I didn't get the hang of it yet, other than "it's the number 2" --very convincing, uh?
QUOTE (Guest_IAMoraes+Jul 17 2007, 03:43 PM)
it is there, but I am not counting beans from now on
1/2 minus an infinitesimal was the "singularity". There is another aleph between aleph one and aleph zero. (gee, do I look like I count alephs?
)
1/2 minus an infinitesimal was the "singularity". There is another aleph between aleph one and aleph zero. (gee, do I look like I count alephs?
)
If instead of stopping at 11 you stop at 17 or 19 you get a different zoom on physical matter.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 16 2007, 10:26 PM)
Yeah....except that the 'coincidence-points' matrix has NO 'logical' or 'natural' IMPERATIVE for anything ELSE but OTHER coincidence-points between them and distant points. There is no 'empty' or 'unvectored' omni-direction potential in-between those points.
That is, there are no 'gaps' PER SE in that particular derived matrix.
So any 'lines' are actually merely 'coincidence-points sequences' to infinity and in all possible 'radial direction vectors' along the infinite RADIAL SPREAD of such 'connected points' lines from any one point to any other distant point.
That's actually the REAL difference between the 'mathematical point/matrix' constructs and the 'physical concept' derived matrix in our TOE so far.
If you have an endless number of points between any two points and an endless number of points in total, then what do you have?
Don't you have all points AT INFINITY?
I believe you're using TO INFINITY just like conventional thinking does. Same old problem all over again. Mathematical or physical, it doesn't matter.
If you can't accept "at infinity" and understand it from beyond it, you'll just be rehashing what's already been done.
That is, there are no 'gaps' PER SE in that particular derived matrix.
So any 'lines' are actually merely 'coincidence-points sequences' to infinity and in all possible 'radial direction vectors' along the infinite RADIAL SPREAD of such 'connected points' lines from any one point to any other distant point.
That's actually the REAL difference between the 'mathematical point/matrix' constructs and the 'physical concept' derived matrix in our TOE so far.
If you have an endless number of points between any two points and an endless number of points in total, then what do you have?
Don't you have all points AT INFINITY?
I believe you're using TO INFINITY just like conventional thinking does. Same old problem all over again. Mathematical or physical, it doesn't matter.
If you can't accept "at infinity" and understand it from beyond it, you'll just be rehashing what's already been done.
QUOTE (Eric England+Jul 20 2007, 02:55 PM)
If you have an endless number of points between any two points and an endless number of points in total, then what do you have?
Don't you have all points AT INFINITY?
I believe you're using TO INFINITY just like conventional thinking does. Same old problem all over again. Mathematical or physical, it doesn't matter.
If you can't accept "at infinity" and understand it from beyond it, you'll just be rehashing what's already been done.
Hi Eric!
You're lucky I am here and not in Sydney today. My Sydney trip was cancelled, so I logged on and found your post! Now.....
Ahhh, I think I see how that cross-purpose conclusion has been reached, mate.
That assumption regarding "any two points" may be OK for ANY TWO INFINITELY DISTANT (whatever THAT may end up 'meaning', hehehe) points along their common radial vector (as affected in/by intervening Matrix processes of course....which are yet to be 'arrived at' by the TOE logic train!), but the assumption is NOT OK for any other case.
For, according to our 'primary' TOE matrix concept, there may actually be NO, repeat NO OTHER POINTS BETWEEN TWO CONTIGUOUSLY ADJACENT points.
Or there may be ONE such adjacent in-between point CONNECTING BOTH points that are ONE POINT'S DISTANCE AWAY from each other in the matrix.
Or even MANY such intervening points.
Or even, as indicated earlier, an INFINITE NUMBER of such intervening 'contact' points' between two infinitely distant points; which would be the ONLY cvase where any 'infinite line of points' would come into play as you described....but repeat, ONLY for two infinitely distant points....and NOT for any points line contiguously connecting points constituting a SUB-infinite line of 'contacting' points.
So you see, that assumption of ALWAYS being an INFINITE number of points between any two FINITELY DISTANT or ADJACENT points is NOT any 'derivation/definition' of our TOE or the its PRIMARY matrix CONTEXT/ARENA concept at all.
That is, OUR UNCONVENTIONAL 'physical' TOE omni-directional coincidence-point MATRIX as described so far, has NEVER involved:
"...an endless number of points between any two points..."!
UNLESS those two points ARE THEMSELVES INFINITELY DISTANT (which we have so far not identified as to what two mutually infinitely distant points may BE or MEAN in the context of that matrix configuration/properties!hehehe).
See?
As far as I can judge, the extant relevant TOE implications so far are that OMNI-DIMENSIONAL coincidence points are in contiguous connection to unbounded extent throughout the matrix in all radial direction from each point to every other point along a LINE (be it finite or infinite) THROUGH every point IN BETWEEN via their common dimensional radial.
No more, no less.
Now since every point is OMNI-dimensional (as opposed to the ZERO-dimensional of the conventional mathematical/physical/philosophical views), then THIS matrix of our TOE to date is UNIQUE and MUST by implication consists of INFINITESIMAL points of omni-dimensional potential which may become 'unbalanced' at any 'omni-directional point' to REALISE/ACTIVATE an 'infinitesimal ORIENTATION/MOTIVE DUALITY EFFECTIVENESS one orientation or another along the affected 'radial' which gives the INFINITESIMAL QUANTUM of ACTIVE (or 'observable') physicality.....whereafter that QUANTUM OF EFFECTIVENESS may THEN interact/aggregate via/with other adjacent/in-line/parallel etc points similarly unbalanced (activated).
So, no, mate.....OUR matrix and point and dimensional-number concepts are UNIQUE....and give pathways and mechanism possibilities that SIMPLY DON'T EXIST FOR CONVENTIONAL (mathemnatical/physical/philosophical) CONCEPTS OF THESE THINGS.
That is why I hold great hope for something BIG from our TOE project....simply because we have something NO OTHER past/present theory/hypothesis/model of reality has EVER had! hehehe.
......which is, a Matrix of points that HAS the potential to give the observed phenomena by providing the logical, philosophical AND physical means to become COMPLETE and OBSERVABLE while being BOTH FINITE AND INFINITE at the same time BUT in different CONTEXTS of 'effectiveness levels/states; namely:
INFINITE AND PASSIVE 'fixed' point MATRIX and.....
TRANSIENTLY FINITE ACTIVE 'fluid' points AGGREGATION/INTERACTION WAVES/REGIONS of/between any such temporarily 'unbalanced' points within that 'fixed' matrix via the QUANTUM AXIS of SPECIFIC ONE-WAY ORIENTATION and RELATIVITIES/PROPERTIES in their point vector duality.
That DUAL LEVEL construct of PASSIVE (UNOBSERVABLE) AND ACTIVE (OBSERVABLE) CONTEXTUAL ARENA/PHYSICS dynamics is something that no other 'construct' of any sort has so far ever approached within a mile of....especially that part of it which keeps BOTH contexts CONNECTED logically and physically via BALANCE/UNBALANCE processes and the phenomena that ensues wherever UNBALANCE state is affecting any points in the otherwise 'balanced state!
Anyhow, mate, I hope this clarifies things and gives you more insight and confidence in the NOVEL AND UNIQUE process we are engaged in here.
I will soon be posting what I consider to be the next logical step/answers in the STAGE-II (TOE thread) process proper.
See ya there soon, everyone!
RC.
.
Don't you have all points AT INFINITY?
I believe you're using TO INFINITY just like conventional thinking does. Same old problem all over again. Mathematical or physical, it doesn't matter.
If you can't accept "at infinity" and understand it from beyond it, you'll just be rehashing what's already been done.
Hi Eric!
You're lucky I am here and not in Sydney today. My Sydney trip was cancelled, so I logged on and found your post! Now.....
Ahhh, I think I see how that cross-purpose conclusion has been reached, mate.
That assumption regarding "any two points" may be OK for ANY TWO INFINITELY DISTANT (whatever THAT may end up 'meaning', hehehe) points along their common radial vector (as affected in/by intervening Matrix processes of course....which are yet to be 'arrived at' by the TOE logic train!), but the assumption is NOT OK for any other case.
For, according to our 'primary' TOE matrix concept, there may actually be NO, repeat NO OTHER POINTS BETWEEN TWO CONTIGUOUSLY ADJACENT points.
Or there may be ONE such adjacent in-between point CONNECTING BOTH points that are ONE POINT'S DISTANCE AWAY from each other in the matrix.
Or even MANY such intervening points.
Or even, as indicated earlier, an INFINITE NUMBER of such intervening 'contact' points' between two infinitely distant points; which would be the ONLY cvase where any 'infinite line of points' would come into play as you described....but repeat, ONLY for two infinitely distant points....and NOT for any points line contiguously connecting points constituting a SUB-infinite line of 'contacting' points.
So you see, that assumption of ALWAYS being an INFINITE number of points between any two FINITELY DISTANT or ADJACENT points is NOT any 'derivation/definition' of our TOE or the its PRIMARY matrix CONTEXT/ARENA concept at all.
That is, OUR UNCONVENTIONAL 'physical' TOE omni-directional coincidence-point MATRIX as described so far, has NEVER involved:
"...an endless number of points between any two points..."!
UNLESS those two points ARE THEMSELVES INFINITELY DISTANT (which we have so far not identified as to what two mutually infinitely distant points may BE or MEAN in the context of that matrix configuration/properties!hehehe).
See?
As far as I can judge, the extant relevant TOE implications so far are that OMNI-DIMENSIONAL coincidence points are in contiguous connection to unbounded extent throughout the matrix in all radial direction from each point to every other point along a LINE (be it finite or infinite) THROUGH every point IN BETWEEN via their common dimensional radial.
No more, no less.
Now since every point is OMNI-dimensional (as opposed to the ZERO-dimensional of the conventional mathematical/physical/philosophical views), then THIS matrix of our TOE to date is UNIQUE and MUST by implication consists of INFINITESIMAL points of omni-dimensional potential which may become 'unbalanced' at any 'omni-directional point' to REALISE/ACTIVATE an 'infinitesimal ORIENTATION/MOTIVE DUALITY EFFECTIVENESS one orientation or another along the affected 'radial' which gives the INFINITESIMAL QUANTUM of ACTIVE (or 'observable') physicality.....whereafter that QUANTUM OF EFFECTIVENESS may THEN interact/aggregate via/with other adjacent/in-line/parallel etc points similarly unbalanced (activated).
So, no, mate.....OUR matrix and point and dimensional-number concepts are UNIQUE....and give pathways and mechanism possibilities that SIMPLY DON'T EXIST FOR CONVENTIONAL (mathemnatical/physical/philosophical) CONCEPTS OF THESE THINGS.
That is why I hold great hope for something BIG from our TOE project....simply because we have something NO OTHER past/present theory/hypothesis/model of reality has EVER had! hehehe.
......which is, a Matrix of points that HAS the potential to give the observed phenomena by providing the logical, philosophical AND physical means to become COMPLETE and OBSERVABLE while being BOTH FINITE AND INFINITE at the same time BUT in different CONTEXTS of 'effectiveness levels/states; namely:
INFINITE AND PASSIVE 'fixed' point MATRIX and.....
TRANSIENTLY FINITE ACTIVE 'fluid' points AGGREGATION/INTERACTION WAVES/REGIONS of/between any such temporarily 'unbalanced' points within that 'fixed' matrix via the QUANTUM AXIS of SPECIFIC ONE-WAY ORIENTATION and RELATIVITIES/PROPERTIES in their point vector duality.
That DUAL LEVEL construct of PASSIVE (UNOBSERVABLE) AND ACTIVE (OBSERVABLE) CONTEXTUAL ARENA/PHYSICS dynamics is something that no other 'construct' of any sort has so far ever approached within a mile of....especially that part of it which keeps BOTH contexts CONNECTED logically and physically via BALANCE/UNBALANCE processes and the phenomena that ensues wherever UNBALANCE state is affecting any points in the otherwise 'balanced state!
Anyhow, mate, I hope this clarifies things and gives you more insight and confidence in the NOVEL AND UNIQUE process we are engaged in here.
I will soon be posting what I consider to be the next logical step/answers in the STAGE-II (TOE thread) process proper.
See ya there soon, everyone!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 20 2007, 07:58 PM)
I will soon be posting what I consider to be the next logical step/answers in the STAGE-II (TOE thread) process proper.
There come the light issues...
And we wanted heavy ones
We are soooooo eager to get to them...
(If the uncertainty principle is an equation then the serial-output side is light, and the chaotic-output side is an electron. Thus, the serial-output side is about surface, and the chaotic-output side is radial... and radial belongs to another aleph, meaning it's not just as "infinitesimal" as the surface-side because of its orthogonality.)
But don't take my word for it
There come the light issues...
And we wanted heavy ones
We are soooooo eager to get to them...
(If the uncertainty principle is an equation then the serial-output side is light, and the chaotic-output side is an electron. Thus, the serial-output side is about surface, and the chaotic-output side is radial... and radial belongs to another aleph, meaning it's not just as "infinitesimal" as the surface-side because of its orthogonality.)
But don't take my word for it
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Jul 21 2007, 03:11 AM)
There come the light issues...
And we wanted heavy ones
We are soooooo eager to get to them...
(If the uncertainty principle is an equation then the serial-output side is light, and the chaotic-output side is an electron. Thus, the serial-output side is about surface, and the chaotic-output side is radial.)
But don't take my word for it
Hehehe.
Everyone: I will be trying one last time to get my scanner working with my poor, old, old (but safe) computer beast...not only for purposes of my stage-two input, but also for another job I promised to TRoc, Good Elf, Zephir et al.....some time ago now, and well overdue!
See ya in a couple of days!
RC.
.
And we wanted heavy ones
We are soooooo eager to get to them...
(If the uncertainty principle is an equation then the serial-output side is light, and the chaotic-output side is an electron. Thus, the serial-output side is about surface, and the chaotic-output side is radial.)
But don't take my word for it
Hehehe.
Everyone: I will be trying one last time to get my scanner working with my poor, old, old (but safe) computer beast...not only for purposes of my stage-two input, but also for another job I promised to TRoc, Good Elf, Zephir et al.....some time ago now, and well overdue!
See ya in a couple of days!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 20 2007, 11:33 PM)
trying one last time to get my scanner working with my poor, old, old (but safe) computer beast...
Gee, in Australia they run in the thousands of dollars! I am sure you can afford it... (Don't even think "Epson"!)
Wait, you are FROM Australia? My Australian sister lives there, in Brisbane, that is why she is Australian! Do you know her? Her name is Maria.
Gee, in Australia they run in the thousands of dollars! I am sure you can afford it... (Don't even think "Epson"!)
Wait, you are FROM Australia? My Australian sister lives there, in Brisbane, that is why she is Australian! Do you know her? Her name is Maria.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 20 2007, 04:58 PM)
That assumption regarding "any two points" may be OK for ANY TWO INFINITELY DISTANT (whatever THAT may end up 'meaning', hehehe) points along their common radial vector (as affected in/by intervening Matrix processes of course....which are yet to be 'arrived at' by the TOE logic train!), but the assumption is NOT OK for any other case.
For, according to our 'primary' TOE matrix concept, there may actually be NO, repeat NO OTHER POINTS BETWEEN TWO CONTIGUOUSLY ADJACENT points.
Or there may be ONE such adjacent in-between point CONNECTING BOTH points that are ONE POINT'S DISTANCE AWAY from each other in the matrix.
Or even MANY such intervening points.
Or even, as indicated earlier, an INFINITE NUMBER of such intervening 'contact' points' between two infinitely distant points; which would be the ONLY cvase where any 'infinite line of points' would come into play as you described....but repeat, ONLY for two infinitely distant points....and NOT for any points line contiguously connecting points constituting a SUB-infinite line of 'contacting' points.
So you see, that assumption of ALWAYS being an INFINITE number of points between any two FINITELY DISTANT or ADJACENT points is NOT any 'derivation/definition' of our TOE or the its PRIMARY matrix CONTEXT/ARENA concept at all.
That is, OUR UNCONVENTIONAL 'physical' TOE omni-directional coincidence-point MATRIX as described so far, has NEVER involved:
"...an endless number of points between any two points..."!
UNLESS those two points ARE THEMSELVES INFINITELY DISTANT (which we have so far not identified as to what two mutually infinitely distant points may BE or MEAN in the context of that matrix configuration/properties!hehehe).
See?
I don't know what to say RC. You seem to think you've started with something novel, absolute, and arrived somewhere called "stage-one". After a year and a half this project is "special"? What's been done so far is as "conventional" as can be.
What you just described has identical points at every location, in all directions, at all scales, and with no distance between them. If they "contact", there's no distance between them. If you want to say they contact, then where's their surface? If you want to add or multiply points and say there's distance because of them, then where do you state they have a size, and what size, if any? What matrix? Again... "what you just described has identical points at every location, in all directions, at all scales, and with no distance between them."
The "logical train" you're always referring to, is somewhere between conventional and non-existent. The mathematics and physics you're using, are what you would otherwise find fault with in another area of the forum and have.
You have a POINT/LOCATION. You're AT INFINITY. You say you're headed towards it in FINITE STEPS. Nothing new there.
What has been going on while you were gone, is so far past where you are right now, that to continue to essentially disregard it, is what? You tell me.
Stage-Two? What do you have? Just tell me one thing. No scanner needed. Just a few sentences.
Sorry to be so brusk, but I've earned it. People may not agree with me, but this project was gathering dust when I joined it. I've been patiently working this for a year, 467 posts, and tens of thousands of hits. Others, especially SSU have been working it too in the philosophy thread.
Since this is the "COMPARISONS between OUR TOE and OTHER THEORIES" thread, I will finish by saying that Stage-One is no different and less concise, than all the other theories that have ever been presented.
For, according to our 'primary' TOE matrix concept, there may actually be NO, repeat NO OTHER POINTS BETWEEN TWO CONTIGUOUSLY ADJACENT points.
Or there may be ONE such adjacent in-between point CONNECTING BOTH points that are ONE POINT'S DISTANCE AWAY from each other in the matrix.
Or even MANY such intervening points.
Or even, as indicated earlier, an INFINITE NUMBER of such intervening 'contact' points' between two infinitely distant points; which would be the ONLY cvase where any 'infinite line of points' would come into play as you described....but repeat, ONLY for two infinitely distant points....and NOT for any points line contiguously connecting points constituting a SUB-infinite line of 'contacting' points.
So you see, that assumption of ALWAYS being an INFINITE number of points between any two FINITELY DISTANT or ADJACENT points is NOT any 'derivation/definition' of our TOE or the its PRIMARY matrix CONTEXT/ARENA concept at all.
That is, OUR UNCONVENTIONAL 'physical' TOE omni-directional coincidence-point MATRIX as described so far, has NEVER involved:
"...an endless number of points between any two points..."!
UNLESS those two points ARE THEMSELVES INFINITELY DISTANT (which we have so far not identified as to what two mutually infinitely distant points may BE or MEAN in the context of that matrix configuration/properties!hehehe).
See?
I don't know what to say RC. You seem to think you've started with something novel, absolute, and arrived somewhere called "stage-one". After a year and a half this project is "special"? What's been done so far is as "conventional" as can be.
What you just described has identical points at every location, in all directions, at all scales, and with no distance between them. If they "contact", there's no distance between them. If you want to say they contact, then where's their surface? If you want to add or multiply points and say there's distance because of them, then where do you state they have a size, and what size, if any? What matrix? Again... "what you just described has identical points at every location, in all directions, at all scales, and with no distance between them."
The "logical train" you're always referring to, is somewhere between conventional and non-existent. The mathematics and physics you're using, are what you would otherwise find fault with in another area of the forum and have.
You have a POINT/LOCATION. You're AT INFINITY. You say you're headed towards it in FINITE STEPS. Nothing new there.
What has been going on while you were gone, is so far past where you are right now, that to continue to essentially disregard it, is what? You tell me.
Stage-Two? What do you have? Just tell me one thing. No scanner needed. Just a few sentences.
Sorry to be so brusk, but I've earned it. People may not agree with me, but this project was gathering dust when I joined it. I've been patiently working this for a year, 467 posts, and tens of thousands of hits. Others, especially SSU have been working it too in the philosophy thread.
Since this is the "COMPARISONS between OUR TOE and OTHER THEORIES" thread, I will finish by saying that Stage-One is no different and less concise, than all the other theories that have ever been presented.
Actually, a branch of RC's thinking matches up well with certain concepts we've already described.
My original point of the nature of orthogonal identity matrix set of 'i', which arises from the existence of the two principle points and motion. Eric, you've also hit on the same point with your INFINITE FIELD.
The problem is that we've attempted to define two points, the relative and the absolute, (which must be orthogonal) without establishing the basis for the finite or infinite relationships between the two.
Just because there is an infinitesimal distance between two points does not mean that it is the path of least resistance.
The problem with constructing a universe from these two points and an infinite orthogonal identity set (each with their own othogonal identity set... and so on) is it's not something done over a progressive period. Once you've introduced 'being', the entire project spontaneously creates itself using a predesigned blueprint. You can't pinpoint a 'beginning', because it doesn't have one. There is no moment between the Universe being or not being. One doesn't speak of time 'beginning' because time is circular and cannot begin. Instead, time 'inflates' and space begins.
My original point of the nature of orthogonal identity matrix set of 'i', which arises from the existence of the two principle points and motion. Eric, you've also hit on the same point with your INFINITE FIELD.
The problem is that we've attempted to define two points, the relative and the absolute, (which must be orthogonal) without establishing the basis for the finite or infinite relationships between the two.
Just because there is an infinitesimal distance between two points does not mean that it is the path of least resistance.
The problem with constructing a universe from these two points and an infinite orthogonal identity set (each with their own othogonal identity set... and so on) is it's not something done over a progressive period. Once you've introduced 'being', the entire project spontaneously creates itself using a predesigned blueprint. You can't pinpoint a 'beginning', because it doesn't have one. There is no moment between the Universe being or not being. One doesn't speak of time 'beginning' because time is circular and cannot begin. Instead, time 'inflates' and space begins.
It matches up quite well with conventional thinking, doesn't begin with an "absolute concept", and lacks the necessary step-by-step proceedures of logical implication.
I can be anything from extremely gracious to pissed-off. Right now I'm leaning toward the latter, for reasons RC should be fully aware of, if he recalls my email to him a year ago.
As for the rest of your post, I'm going to quote it in the philosophy thread and respond to it there.
I can be anything from extremely gracious to pissed-off. Right now I'm leaning toward the latter, for reasons RC should be fully aware of, if he recalls my email to him a year ago.
As for the rest of your post, I'm going to quote it in the philosophy thread and respond to it there.
Weeeellll...
(Since my pm privileges have been deleted for excessive badmouthing of people who deserve it, I have to say it here)
RC, just checking: what outputs 2 uncertainties outputs easily outputs 4 uncertainties. Or 6.
Have you figured out how to do it yet? I know it is possible, I just can't do math... I only pretend to
(Since my pm privileges have been deleted for excessive badmouthing of people who deserve it, I have to say it here)
RC, just checking: what outputs 2 uncertainties outputs easily outputs 4 uncertainties. Or 6.
Have you figured out how to do it yet? I know it is possible, I just can't do math... I only pretend to
we search for a begining and an end,unravelling the minutia with amazingly complex calculation and experiment, giving insight into things never dreamed of and bewildering in their complexity and we, all society are greater with the knowledge, these are good and most worthy ends to aim for,but it is of course like searching out the secrets of the ingredients of a bowl of stew, in the hope that that it will tell us the reason for the bowl, we know that the bowl holds the stew! and that contents are from elswhere, similarly there is a constant which holds everything that is, or will be, that something is not omnipitent or omniscient,but it is surely omnipresent, it is of course eternal SPACE!, without beginning or end, containing all within its bosum, and not a spark of intellegence to to cause worry, nor compassion to stir a single emotion in it, there is nowhere else for the contents to come from!.........there are those who count dimensions by number, would they be in space,or space within the dimensions? I believe it must be the former, AND now GOD,or the plural, god in space, or space in god? as there appears to be nowhere for gods to be and nothing to be in,other than space, then sadly, I am with the first answer, gods unfortunately had a purpose and we cannot count the dead! it grieves me that for you and I, no benign redemption and no everlasting perfection. instead I feel that we do right to understand the contents and marvel at that knowledge, supplied by the more gifted among us,by such of course, i mean yourselves. who knows,at some time we may clean out the bowl, and then what?. . best regards. rondor.
Chicken scratch,
idea hatches,
triangles match,
laid flat,
equal sided,
in rows.
Rows two,
hexagons show,
six rows,
folded together,
parallel strips
inside separate,
square structured,
seeking helical.
Solid, flexible,
binary, try-nary,
tube wobbly,
workers unite,
knowledge hardens,
minds blinded.
Hello, New Year nears, so a report on the Roger's Connections, a set of six rows of magnetic rods and steel balls, trying make progression of the classic polyhedra with equal length edges, and this did reveal, that the Calcium 3-pentagons that from a 20 face (three rod edges connected with three steel ball) polyhedron with the vertices (steel balls) is the way to go.
Confusion rains mostly in the plane, in the plain, hands on explain Nation.
First, you might guess that the hexagon, six faces, lies flat, but the pentagon, five faces flat, does not when connected. Some call a cap (me), other coupla (or tent).
Calcium nucleus has a range of nuclear weights (protons plus neutrons, A), the protons at Z=20, the Neutrons plus and minus 20, with an empty space, so I climb the Z vrs A, a stairway of the Stars, in doing so leading to very model of a modern major generalization.
Most recently arXiv:astro-ph/0611706v1 22 Nov 200"(Sub)mm Interferometry Applications in Star Formation Research", Henrik Beuther, Max-Plank-Institute for Astronomy, Heidelherg, Germany, examines the data of others of a forming sun at the center of an accretion disk, the edge view of which gives the disk axial ejections of energy and matter receding and approaching the observations roughly to the left and right but rotating (red receding, blue approaching the reader) perpendicular to the accretion disks.
The method the essay uses made sense to me with the help of the Dehmelt triplet 1/3 charge leptons, electrons (conjectured) and positrons (measured) in a laboratory.
That is, using flat equal lateral triangles (felts). So a 20 felt model (Roger's Connections) forms a classic (Johnson) polyhedron (equal edges) of which is given in the literature as the smallest cross section nucleus for the Neutron Number, N=20, for neutrons scattering.
In short, three pentagons, caps or couplas, form a polyhedron with the vertices that are circumscribed by a sphere. http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/graphics/polyhedra/
Also known as an isocohedron.
My goal is to move along the stair of the stars (Z vrs A) and cover the stages of star formation, starting from the conjectured Dehmelt's Cosmonium (triplet black holes) and maybe it's super-symmetric partner so as to gather all the models that the essays seem to be putting forth to us readers, lay people at that.
As well as to argue that the Binding Energy vrs. Atomic Weight (BE v. A) which Helium to Lithium to Boron is shaped "N" can be used to convert the change of, say Boron to Deuterium charge changes into direct electrical energy. To push this argument is to place before others the importance of open sharing between classes of people (science professions included) across national boundaries that energy needs can be made relatively clean by tapping the B to D resonances and the green house gasses be reduced and the great harm to peoples of radical environmental changes be moderated.
Have a happy new year fear, from rmuldavin
idea hatches,
triangles match,
laid flat,
equal sided,
in rows.
Rows two,
hexagons show,
six rows,
folded together,
parallel strips
inside separate,
square structured,
seeking helical.
Solid, flexible,
binary, try-nary,
tube wobbly,
workers unite,
knowledge hardens,
minds blinded.
Hello, New Year nears, so a report on the Roger's Connections, a set of six rows of magnetic rods and steel balls, trying make progression of the classic polyhedra with equal length edges, and this did reveal, that the Calcium 3-pentagons that from a 20 face (three rod edges connected with three steel ball) polyhedron with the vertices (steel balls) is the way to go.
Confusion rains mostly in the plane, in the plain, hands on explain Nation.
First, you might guess that the hexagon, six faces, lies flat, but the pentagon, five faces flat, does not when connected. Some call a cap (me), other coupla (or tent).
Calcium nucleus has a range of nuclear weights (protons plus neutrons, A), the protons at Z=20, the Neutrons plus and minus 20, with an empty space, so I climb the Z vrs A, a stairway of the Stars, in doing so leading to very model of a modern major generalization.
Most recently arXiv:astro-ph/0611706v1 22 Nov 200"(Sub)mm Interferometry Applications in Star Formation Research", Henrik Beuther, Max-Plank-Institute for Astronomy, Heidelherg, Germany, examines the data of others of a forming sun at the center of an accretion disk, the edge view of which gives the disk axial ejections of energy and matter receding and approaching the observations roughly to the left and right but rotating (red receding, blue approaching the reader) perpendicular to the accretion disks.
The method the essay uses made sense to me with the help of the Dehmelt triplet 1/3 charge leptons, electrons (conjectured) and positrons (measured) in a laboratory.
That is, using flat equal lateral triangles (felts). So a 20 felt model (Roger's Connections) forms a classic (Johnson) polyhedron (equal edges) of which is given in the literature as the smallest cross section nucleus for the Neutron Number, N=20, for neutrons scattering.
In short, three pentagons, caps or couplas, form a polyhedron with the vertices that are circumscribed by a sphere. http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~anthony/graphics/polyhedra/
Also known as an isocohedron.
My goal is to move along the stair of the stars (Z vrs A) and cover the stages of star formation, starting from the conjectured Dehmelt's Cosmonium (triplet black holes) and maybe it's super-symmetric partner so as to gather all the models that the essays seem to be putting forth to us readers, lay people at that.
As well as to argue that the Binding Energy vrs. Atomic Weight (BE v. A) which Helium to Lithium to Boron is shaped "N" can be used to convert the change of, say Boron to Deuterium charge changes into direct electrical energy. To push this argument is to place before others the importance of open sharing between classes of people (science professions included) across national boundaries that energy needs can be made relatively clean by tapping the B to D resonances and the green house gasses be reduced and the great harm to peoples of radical environmental changes be moderated.
Have a happy new year fear, from rmuldavin
Well, my third post of the day, having worked my way down the TOE threads. This thread seemed to stick to the point initially, but it was not to last.
When you say 'Our' TOE, where can I see it? Is it hidden, embedded deep in Thread One?
Guys, overall I cannot say that I am impressed.
When you say 'Our' TOE, where can I see it? Is it hidden, embedded deep in Thread One?
Guys, overall I cannot say that I am impressed.
Pretty much anything started by Realitycheck is a waste of time.
QUOTE (retaskeeter+Oct 21 2010, 09:09 PM)
Well, my third post of the day, having worked my way down the TOE threads. This thread seemed to stick to the point initially, but it was not to last.
When you say 'Our' TOE, where can I see it? Is it hidden, embedded deep in Thread One?
Guys, overall I cannot say that I am impressed.
It's a public forum frequented by crackpots, cranks, and every other type with minimal training. What do you expect? Show me the public science forum where useful science is being developed?
When you say 'Our' TOE, where can I see it? Is it hidden, embedded deep in Thread One?
Guys, overall I cannot say that I am impressed.
It's a public forum frequented by crackpots, cranks, and every other type with minimal training. What do you expect? Show me the public science forum where useful science is being developed?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 21 2010, 11:24 PM)
.
And you would know, right?....even though you have not bothered to follow through. Says more about you than me AlexG. You are busy 'poisoning' while not engaging fairly. Some scientist. Look to your integrity mate.
And I have explained in my post to retaskeeter (in the "THEORY BEGUN..." thread) the reason why the project has not been further along than it is.
Acquaint yourself with the facts before making such personally-motivated ungenerous and petty posts like your latest here. The only purpose such posts serve is your vanity....not science.
RC.
.
Can't decide whether you're a crackpot or crank. Probably both with a severe lack of training to boot. Unfortunately it's beyond your capacity to realize that.
And you would know, right?....even though you have not bothered to follow through. Says more about you than me AlexG. You are busy 'poisoning' while not engaging fairly. Some scientist. Look to your integrity mate.
And I have explained in my post to retaskeeter (in the "THEORY BEGUN..." thread) the reason why the project has not been further along than it is.
Acquaint yourself with the facts before making such personally-motivated ungenerous and petty posts like your latest here. The only purpose such posts serve is your vanity....not science.
RC.
.
Can't decide whether you're a crackpot or crank. Probably both with a severe lack of training to boot. Unfortunately it's beyond your capacity to realize that.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 21 2010, 11:46 PM)
...and look to your own motivations.
What are yours?
What are yours?
Sounds to me like you have regret in your life. Many on this forum show that kind of symptom. Its sad really. To say you dismiss history is like saying you wish you had made other choices in your life. You want to live for the present and start anew. Well good, but you will never get anywhere unless you change.
"Complete cosmological theory from scratch" is silly. What are trying to do, assuage that you've learned nothing from the past by seeing what you can scrape up from the present? Go back to school instead of pretend science on Internet forums.
As for my motivations - I would like to say that the above statements were not dishonest.
"Complete cosmological theory from scratch" is silly. What are trying to do, assuage that you've learned nothing from the past by seeing what you can scrape up from the present? Go back to school instead of pretend science on Internet forums.
As for my motivations - I would like to say that the above statements were not dishonest.
What a total waste of time reading this has been.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 01:19 AM)
And 're-do from scratch' is a time honored and successful strategy in many areas.....including science. Just because your own vision/ambition/originality etc may be limited at this stage in your career, it is no reason for you to rubbish things you yourself have not the slightest intention of doing YET....ie, thinking for yourself 'from scratch'. That's OK, not everyone has the interest, capacity or originality of mind to do something like that. We all have our part to play in the scientific endeavour......you go your way and I'll go mine. Perhaps in time you will come to have recourse to 're-do from scratch' approach in your future work/researches.
.
What makes you think your qualified?
.
What makes you think your qualified?
To make a TOE.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 22 2010, 03:56 AM)
What makes you think your qualified?
This is a pretty interesting study. Fits crackpots and cranks to a tee.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../18/MN73840.DTL
This is a pretty interesting study. Fits crackpots and cranks to a tee.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../18/MN73840.DTL
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 07:15 AM)
.
Well then please go 'study' your own original stuff (if you have any) and leave others to theirs. This project is not for ego-maniacal 'spoilers'...it is fro grown-up types who have better things to do than make posts like yours above. Play elsewhere if you are so 'affronted' by it all, mate.
RC.
.
Fits you to a tee and explains why your thought process seem so profound to you, or somebody like United Physics, but are scoffed at by competent folk.
Well then please go 'study' your own original stuff (if you have any) and leave others to theirs. This project is not for ego-maniacal 'spoilers'...it is fro grown-up types who have better things to do than make posts like yours above. Play elsewhere if you are so 'affronted' by it all, mate.
RC.
.
Fits you to a tee and explains why your thought process seem so profound to you, or somebody like United Physics, but are scoffed at by competent folk.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 07:35 AM)
.
What's wrong with you? Just listen to yourself: "...'scoffed at' by 'competent folk'"? Are you 'competent folk'? Ego again? It must be wondeful in your comfy world where new ideas/approaches don't exist to trouble your complacency. Get real, mate.....start thinking for yourself....be a 'little bit cranky' once in a while, you never know what you may achieve with some original/lateral thinking. I shall follow your future career with interest to see what original scientific works you accomplish with that attitude and ego of yours. Cheers.
RC.
.
The crackpot admonish adversaries for not thinking for themselves. BTW can;t you write a sentence without this nonsense ....../......?
What's wrong with you? Just listen to yourself: "...'scoffed at' by 'competent folk'"? Are you 'competent folk'? Ego again? It must be wondeful in your comfy world where new ideas/approaches don't exist to trouble your complacency. Get real, mate.....start thinking for yourself....be a 'little bit cranky' once in a while, you never know what you may achieve with some original/lateral thinking. I shall follow your future career with interest to see what original scientific works you accomplish with that attitude and ego of yours. Cheers.
RC.
.
The crackpot admonish adversaries for not thinking for themselves. BTW can;t you write a sentence without this nonsense ....../......?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 07:15 AM)
Ever considered the possibility that YOU may fall into the ambit of that study? No? The 'ego' is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
Well then, please go 'study' your own original stuff (if you have any) and leave others to theirs. This project is not for ego-maniacal 'spoilers'...it is for grown-up types who have better things to do than make posts like yours above. Play elsewhere if you are so 'affronted' by it all, mate.
RC.
.
CODE
QUOTE (brucep @ Oct 22 2010, 07:10 AM)
This is a pretty interesting study. Fits crackpots and cranks to a tee.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../18/MN73840.DTL
Ever considered the possibility that YOU may fall into the ambit of that study? No? The 'ego' is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
This is a pretty interesting study. Fits crackpots and cranks to a tee.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../18/MN73840.DTL
Ever considered the possibility that YOU may fall into the ambit of that study? No? The 'ego' is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
What more can be said -
So, RC, you are not a scientist, neither will you educate yourself to become one, but you are a 'guru' for the direction of physics.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 22 2010, 09:35 AM)
So, RC, you are not a scientist, neither will you educate yourself to become one, but you are a 'guru' for the direction of physics.
LOL
LOL
In the entire history of the internet, I daresay that no crackpot has ever acknowledged that he knows no physics.
It won't happen now with RC either.
It won't happen now with RC either.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 01:52 PM)
Anyone can "do science" if they follow the scientific method and observe the phenomena and logics HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY
I have yet to see you do anything that remotely resembles this.
It's legitimate criticism. "Thought experiments" are not supposed to be the primary method of scientific inquiry.
I have yet to see you do anything that remotely resembles this.
QUOTE
You are mindlessly 'cheerleading', trolling and baiting (the mods don't like it when people do that), so please leave and take your mindless bias and ego with you.
It's legitimate criticism. "Thought experiments" are not supposed to be the primary method of scientific inquiry.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 02:20 PM)
In your opinion? What is your opinion worth when subjective and incomplete research on your part leads you to make such self-evidently false and excruciatingly biased statements?
Not my opinion:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Which stage are you at? I don't see any reference to "thought experiments" in this list.
Not my opinion:
QUOTE
Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Which stage are you at? I don't see any reference to "thought experiments" in this list.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 02:53 PM)
In case it escapes you, this LONG TERM special project is just started; and at this juncture involving the first three items on your quoted list; namely:
- Define the question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form hypothesis.
See? It is a long term project.
As the project outputs comparable/testable concepts/predictions, the remaining items on your list come into play.
What information and resources are you gathering? As far as I am aware, the data matches up with modern scientific models quite nicely. Have you found new data which contradicts current models?
- Define the question
- Gather information and resources (observe)
- Form hypothesis.
See? It is a long term project.
As the project outputs comparable/testable concepts/predictions, the remaining items on your list come into play.
What information and resources are you gathering? As far as I am aware, the data matches up with modern scientific models quite nicely. Have you found new data which contradicts current models?
What a crank.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 03:20 PM)
The project process is looking 'from scratch' at ALL current concepts, data, hypotheses, ideas etc and applying it to the 'winnowing process' discussions/comparisons for inputs to each Q & A stage...the respective outputs of which will be the 'surviving' input concept that passes the logical and real-world-reference 'gauntlet' applied to the 'competing' input idea/concept. This process allows the 'surviving concept' from one stage to indicate the logics/questions for the next stage and so on until completion of this 'hypothesising-theorising-from-scratch' project.
Why?
Perhaps we should go back to living in caves and "rethink" civilization? Perhaps your 'ego' will get in the way of that?
Maybe we should "rethink" medicine? Who needs those know-it-all doctors right?
Who needs all this "progress" stuff, right? It just gets in the way of what's REALLY important: building up RealityCheck's sense of self-importance.
Why?
QUOTE
Since it is a novel 'from scratch' approach, and since it is a long-term 'measured' approach, it is hard for those not having the 'audacity to 're-think' (nor the patient selflessness which would enable/attract them to go through such a process without 'ego' getting in the way) to understand/tolerate this way of re-doing ALL cosmological theory from scratch and from a novel starting (strictly physical) concept that is totally independent of any and all other physical concepts.
Perhaps we should go back to living in caves and "rethink" civilization? Perhaps your 'ego' will get in the way of that?
Maybe we should "rethink" medicine? Who needs those know-it-all doctors right?
Who needs all this "progress" stuff, right? It just gets in the way of what's REALLY important: building up RealityCheck's sense of self-importance.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 03:48 PM)
That is how ADVANCES are made in ALL fields of endeavour.
No, advances are made by standing on the shoulders of those who come before you. "Rethinking" entire fields of study is just a waste of time.
Einstein built on what was already established. There wouldn't have been an Einstein without a Newton or a Maxwell. He didn't rethink, he built.
Einstein built on what was already established. There wouldn't have been an Einstein without a Newton or a Maxwell. He didn't rethink, he built.
And until you have come up with an original idea/concept of your own it hardly behoves you to talk rubbish like that.
If you want to be creative, become an artist. You clearly don't have a knack for science.
You can call me whatever you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you're just another crank.
RC, well lets see the fruits of your endeavor thus far. Don't insult me and then maybe later say you haven't. I'm lead to guess cause all you seem to be is full of hot air. Show something tangible. If you say the project has just begun and you have nothing to show for it, it defeats the point in conversing with you doesn't it?
No, advances are made by standing on the shoulders of those who come before you. "Rethinking" entire fields of study is just a waste of time.
QUOTE
You are trying to paint it as something 'negative'. Which planet are you on. Don't you know your history of science where MANY of the major breakthroughs have come from 'wholelsale re-thinking' (a la Einstein and others like him at various times in history).
Einstein built on what was already established. There wouldn't have been an Einstein without a Newton or a Maxwell. He didn't rethink, he built.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are trying to paint it as something 'negative'. Which planet are you on. Don't you know your history of science where MANY of the major breakthroughs have come from 'wholelsale re-thinking' (a la Einstein and others like him at various times in history). |
Einstein built on what was already established. There wouldn't have been an Einstein without a Newton or a Maxwell. He didn't rethink, he built.
And until you have come up with an original idea/concept of your own it hardly behoves you to talk rubbish like that.
If you want to be creative, become an artist. You clearly don't have a knack for science.
QUOTE
You need to switch off your 'trolling' and 'biased elitist' modes and get real/honest, mate.
You can call me whatever you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you're just another crank.
RC, well lets see the fruits of your endeavor thus far. Don't insult me and then maybe later say you haven't. I'm lead to guess cause all you seem to be is full of hot air. Show something tangible. If you say the project has just begun and you have nothing to show for it, it defeats the point in conversing with you doesn't it?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 05:52 PM)
.
I just described to you my toe special project setup and 'self-directing' process for rethinking everything from scratch so that there is the minimum of distraction from subjective factors....
.....and all you 'heard' was "...not a scientist..."?
What's the matter with you? Can't your rampant 'bias' and 'prejudice' let you read anything honestly for once?
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is designed and aimed at removing 'subjective' factors. That is what I designed into this special project method. No more; no less.
Personal "qualifications" don't come into it. Anyone can "do science" if they follow the scientific method and observe the phenomena and logics HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY....which apparently you are determined NOT to do.....since you obviously prefer "prejudiced reading" to actual scientific integrity.
Come back when you can contribute some original scientific ideas/concepts rather than TROLL and BAIT with your 'false' comprehension that panders to you and your 'cheerleaders' obviously egotistical biases.
And elitism and arrogance rule supreme.....while you have no original/honest ideas/concepts to offer.
You are mindlessly 'cheerleading', trolling and baiting (the mods don't like it when people do that), so please leave and take your mindless bias and ego with you. Thanks.
.
So anybody can do physics? That's a good reason why you're a crackpot. If you don't have the training to perform a competent empirical analysis then you can't contribute to science. Crackpots delude themselves into thinking they can since their naturally brilliant thinkers. Basically you're a delusional, incompetent crackpot.
I just described to you my toe special project setup and 'self-directing' process for rethinking everything from scratch so that there is the minimum of distraction from subjective factors....
.....and all you 'heard' was "...not a scientist..."?
What's the matter with you? Can't your rampant 'bias' and 'prejudice' let you read anything honestly for once?
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is designed and aimed at removing 'subjective' factors. That is what I designed into this special project method. No more; no less.
Personal "qualifications" don't come into it. Anyone can "do science" if they follow the scientific method and observe the phenomena and logics HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY....which apparently you are determined NOT to do.....since you obviously prefer "prejudiced reading" to actual scientific integrity.
Come back when you can contribute some original scientific ideas/concepts rather than TROLL and BAIT with your 'false' comprehension that panders to you and your 'cheerleaders' obviously egotistical biases.
And elitism and arrogance rule supreme.....while you have no original/honest ideas/concepts to offer.
You are mindlessly 'cheerleading', trolling and baiting (the mods don't like it when people do that), so please leave and take your mindless bias and ego with you. Thanks.
.
So anybody can do physics? That's a good reason why you're a crackpot. If you don't have the training to perform a competent empirical analysis then you can't contribute to science. Crackpots delude themselves into thinking they can since their naturally brilliant thinkers. Basically you're a delusional, incompetent crackpot.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 04:01 PM)
That didn't stop Einstein from RADICALLY 're-tinking' all that came before and RE_DOING it BETTER. Yes?
No, Einstein did not "rethink" physics from scratch. He built on the work of hundreds of other scientists and came up with a new model that accounted for all known data. He did it because there was something WRONG with the existing models, not because he felt like it.
How can you build on something that you clearly don't understand?
How can you build on something that you clearly don't understand?
It would help your comprehension a lot if you actully read what went before instead of coming up with non-sequitur rubbish outburst like that.
I haven't read anything you have written that fails to justify what I wrote.
If I was looking for fun, I wouldn't be conversing with you, now would I?
If I was looking for fun, I wouldn't be conversing with you, now would I?
If you insist on talking rubbish in order to troll and bait, please leave (the mods don't like people trolling and baiting).
Keep saying it, it might come true!
No, Einstein did not "rethink" physics from scratch. He built on the work of hundreds of other scientists and came up with a new model that accounted for all known data. He did it because there was something WRONG with the existing models, not because he felt like it.
QUOTE
And where did you get the idea that I was NOT standing on the shoulders of those who came before? I just finished telling you in my previous posts that we are using ALL current concepts/theories and real-world-reference tests to 'winnow out' the inputs to the Q & A stages.
How can you build on something that you clearly don't understand?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And where did you get the idea that I was NOT standing on the shoulders of those who came before? I just finished telling you in my previous posts that we are using ALL current concepts/theories and real-world-reference tests to 'winnow out' the inputs to the Q & A stages. |
How can you build on something that you clearly don't understand?
It would help your comprehension a lot if you actully read what went before instead of coming up with non-sequitur rubbish outburst like that.
I haven't read anything you have written that fails to justify what I wrote.
QUOTE
Or is it you are not intersted in the facts but want to continue trolling and baiting under a veneer of honesty (which veneer is fast rubbing off you and your posts).
If I was looking for fun, I wouldn't be conversing with you, now would I?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or is it you are not intersted in the facts but want to continue trolling and baiting under a veneer of honesty (which veneer is fast rubbing off you and your posts). |
If I was looking for fun, I wouldn't be conversing with you, now would I?
If you insist on talking rubbish in order to troll and bait, please leave (the mods don't like people trolling and baiting).
Keep saying it, it might come true!
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 04:27 PM)
You are assuming too much by that statement. Amateurs have embarrassed many elitist numbskulls in the past; and will no doubt do so again in the future.
Amateurs are not necessarily untrained. Since there are many more graduates with advanced degrees in astrophysics than there are jobs in that particular profession, you can expect at least a few "amateurs" to be fully qualified. On the other hand, you will find exactly zero amateurs with no related education that can go toe-to-toe with professional scientists.
How do you get through life without understanding the basic principle of "expertise?"
How do you get through life without understanding the basic principle of "expertise?"
Stop trolling and baiting with your nonsense assertions (the mods don't like people doing that).
You're just sad because you lost mod privileges (and you'll never get them back).
Amateurs are not necessarily untrained. Since there are many more graduates with advanced degrees in astrophysics than there are jobs in that particular profession, you can expect at least a few "amateurs" to be fully qualified. On the other hand, you will find exactly zero amateurs with no related education that can go toe-to-toe with professional scientists.
QUOTE
You seem to think that because someone 'doesn't belong in the club' he is 'unqualified'. What patent hubris. There are amateurs who by dint of BEING amateurs have been able to re-think and re-do many things in science which leave elitist pedants in the dust....simply because they are MORE qualified to do so by dint of hard work and proper objective study/comprehension that sometimes SURPASSES the mediocre 'qualifications' of those in the 'profession' who FAILED to see what the well-versed amateur saw.
How do you get through life without understanding the basic principle of "expertise?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You seem to think that because someone 'doesn't belong in the club' he is 'unqualified'. What patent hubris. There are amateurs who by dint of BEING amateurs have been able to re-think and re-do many things in science which leave elitist pedants in the dust....simply because they are MORE qualified to do so by dint of hard work and proper objective study/comprehension that sometimes SURPASSES the mediocre 'qualifications' of those in the 'profession' who FAILED to see what the well-versed amateur saw. |
How do you get through life without understanding the basic principle of "expertise?"
Stop trolling and baiting with your nonsense assertions (the mods don't like people doing that).
You're just sad because you lost mod privileges (and you'll never get them back).
RC, why don't you come back when you have something to say. Or, at least take more than 5 seconds to make a reply.
You're becoming way too boring.
You're becoming way too boring.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 04:44 PM)
Note well that Christofilos was an amateur scientist and a salesman by profession. So all your bluster and fury is just empty rhetoric bias. And there are many instances where amateurs have outdone the professional simply because they are TRYING to make sense of the orthodoxy that sometimes does not make sense without a 're-think' to clarify/advance the matter.
And ANYONE can have all sorts of training in the sciences WITHOUT choosing it as a 'profession'. That does not imply they are 'not qualified'; which is the obviously erroneous assumptions you are making all the time.
That's exactly what I just said. I said that people with appropriate training can be successful amateurs. My point was that you do not fall into this category. You are not a "skilled amateur," you are an unskilled crank.
And ANYONE can have all sorts of training in the sciences WITHOUT choosing it as a 'profession'. That does not imply they are 'not qualified'; which is the obviously erroneous assumptions you are making all the time.
That's exactly what I just said. I said that people with appropriate training can be successful amateurs. My point was that you do not fall into this category. You are not a "skilled amateur," you are an unskilled crank.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 04:56 PM)
By definition, if an amateur is not a professional, then his science training is NOT in the professional mould. And THAT is the critical point. Also, an amateur may EXPAND on his training by his own EXTRA-CURRICULAR efforts/researches....and sometimes SURPASS the expertise in an area which the professionals have missed.
That's not a valid assumption. The "professional mould" IS the university education system. If you don't have a degree in science or mathematics, then you are no amateur scientist. Do you have a degree in science or mathematics RC?
No, I'm saying that you are incompetent. That is not a matter of semantics.
That's not a valid assumption. The "professional mould" IS the university education system. If you don't have a degree in science or mathematics, then you are no amateur scientist. Do you have a degree in science or mathematics RC?
QUOTE
Since you cannot recognise the straightforward refutation of your rubbish elitist assertions, it is obvious you are now playing semantics and splitting hairs and otherwise trolling and baiting.
No, I'm saying that you are incompetent. That is not a matter of semantics.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 09:02 PM)
.
This is my project thread. And it is you who have no original contribution to offer.
Stop trolling and baiting; it's boring.....and it only embarrasses yourself.
.
I didn't come here to offer anything.
I'm asking you questions which you won't directly answer. So I said to take a break.
But if you can't actually answer my questions it would then follow my assumption that your just all talk and nothing else.
This is my project thread. And it is you who have no original contribution to offer.
Stop trolling and baiting; it's boring.....and it only embarrasses yourself.
.
I didn't come here to offer anything.
I'm asking you questions which you won't directly answer. So I said to take a break.
But if you can't actually answer my questions it would then follow my assumption that your just all talk and nothing else.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 05:25 PM)
I just underlined your most stupid comment to date.
You were kidding, right? Or is it just more trolling and baiting?
Really? Why do you think that statement was stupid? Explain.
You were kidding, right? Or is it just more trolling and baiting?
Really? Why do you think that statement was stupid? Explain.
No, why don't you go and read my question again.
All I got from you, RC, is pretentious "blah blah blah."
But you are distracted.
All I got from you, RC, is pretentious "blah blah blah."
But you are distracted.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 22 2010, 07:58 PM)
RC, well lets see the fruits of your endeavor thus far. Don't insult me and then maybe later say you haven't. I'm lead to guess cause all you seem to be is full of hot air. Show something tangible. If you say the project has just begun and you have nothing to show for it, it defeats the point in conversing with you doesn't it?
Show something tangible.
Show something tangible.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 06:01 PM)
If you honestly can't see why that statement was stupid, then it's someone else you should be asking for help.
You are trolling/baiting.
So, you are stating that it is possible for someone with no university science education to come up with a solution to a problem that the entire scientific community couldn't figure out?
Examples please.
So far, your examples of "amateurs" are people with technical knowledge who are not employed in the scientific field. For the record, those don't count.
You are trolling/baiting.
So, you are stating that it is possible for someone with no university science education to come up with a solution to a problem that the entire scientific community couldn't figure out?
Examples please.
So far, your examples of "amateurs" are people with technical knowledge who are not employed in the scientific field. For the record, those don't count.
RC, its almost painful for me to think about.
I've had schemes in my pre-pubescence for total awesomeness that could be deflated with a single thought. Leaving me depressed and feeling stupid.
But you are what, like 60? You're like a neurosis I've been poking with stick out of curiosity and I've just got whiff of a really yucky part.
Should I converse with you or let you be?
I've had schemes in my pre-pubescence for total awesomeness that could be deflated with a single thought. Leaving me depressed and feeling stupid.
But you are what, like 60? You're like a neurosis I've been poking with stick out of curiosity and I've just got whiff of a really yucky part.
Should I converse with you or let you be?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 11:13 PM)
But while you're at it, HAVE you anything tangible to offer on anything anywhere that may be of interest to science?
Yes.
Me.
Yes.
Me.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 07:07 PM)
What are you on about? People can attain university-level EQUIVALENT knowledge and skills by amateur study in any area of interest. That is the whole point of 'amateur'. You need to get away from that 'anointed ones' mentality and see what the point of being amateur is; and how it contributes to science and other fields in many ways precisely because they have acquired the necessary knowledge/skills in other ways....and so bring a different and sometimes startingly effective new perspective....as history shows.
No, not really. It's pretty obvious that you've never studied science at a university. It sounds like you are trying to justify a whole lot of wasted time. Every single (actual) scientist you have talked to on this forum has denounced your theories as drivel. It's not prejudice, it's an accurate assessment.
You did no such thing. The "amateur" you were referring to actually had appropriate education.
You did no such thing. The "amateur" you were referring to actually had appropriate education.
This particular discussion with you is at an end and no further correspondence will be entered into with you unless you concede the point made gracefully. Bye.
You are truly terrible at debate. You gave one example and now you're giving up. A+
No, not really. It's pretty obvious that you've never studied science at a university. It sounds like you are trying to justify a whole lot of wasted time. Every single (actual) scientist you have talked to on this forum has denounced your theories as drivel. It's not prejudice, it's an accurate assessment.
QUOTE
I gave just one example to falsify your assertions before
You did no such thing. The "amateur" you were referring to actually had appropriate education.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I gave just one example to falsify your assertions before |
You did no such thing. The "amateur" you were referring to actually had appropriate education.
This particular discussion with you is at an end and no further correspondence will be entered into with you unless you concede the point made gracefully. Bye.
You are truly terrible at debate. You gave one example and now you're giving up. A+
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 22 2010, 08:32 PM)
Amateurs are not necessarily untrained. Since there are many more graduates with advanced degrees in astrophysics than there are jobs in that particular profession, you can expect at least a few "amateurs" to be fully qualified. On the other hand, you will find exactly zero amateurs with no related education that can go toe-to-toe with professional scientists.
How do you get through life without understanding the basic principle of "expertise?"
You're just sad because you lost mod privileges (and you'll never get them back).
This bonehead was a moderator in a science forum? Whose idea was it to make an unskilled/delusional/untrained/blowhard a moderator? Don't bother to answer because I really don't want to know.
How do you get through life without understanding the basic principle of "expertise?"
You're just sad because you lost mod privileges (and you'll never get them back).
This bonehead was a moderator in a science forum? Whose idea was it to make an unskilled/delusional/untrained/blowhard a moderator? Don't bother to answer because I really don't want to know.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 07:24 PM)
Wrong. I have studied the physical sciences at Uni.....both part time and full time as my work/health commitments and responsibilities allowed.
Congratulations. It's certainly not apparent.
Your endeavor is foolhardy at best. You don't seem to understand how science works, which is why I assumed that you had no education on that subject.
Congratulations. It's certainly not apparent.
QUOTE
Just because I choose to go a different approach to re-think things from scratch is no excuse for you makig such uninformed assumptions about the person.
Your endeavor is foolhardy at best. You don't seem to understand how science works, which is why I assumed that you had no education on that subject.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 11:24 PM)
.
Wrong. I have studied the physical sciences at Uni.....both part time and full time as my work/health commitments and responsibilities allowed.
Just because I choose to go a different approach to re-think things from scratch is no excuse for you making such uninformed assumptions about the person. And your cheerleading 'appeal to authority' without you yourself understanding what has actually been discussed is also telling.
By that you have demonstrated you have no regard for facts, but only for your biased trolling/baiting.
This conversation with you is at an end until you concede the point gracefully.
No trolling/baiting allowed here. Bye.
.
What have you studied? Mathematical physics? What theoretical domains?
Wrong. I have studied the physical sciences at Uni.....both part time and full time as my work/health commitments and responsibilities allowed.
Just because I choose to go a different approach to re-think things from scratch is no excuse for you making such uninformed assumptions about the person. And your cheerleading 'appeal to authority' without you yourself understanding what has actually been discussed is also telling.
By that you have demonstrated you have no regard for facts, but only for your biased trolling/baiting.
This conversation with you is at an end until you concede the point gracefully.
No trolling/baiting allowed here. Bye.
.
What have you studied? Mathematical physics? What theoretical domains?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 07:46 PM)
You will note that Christofilos had nothing to do with the professionals in the field, nor was he trained 'professionally' beforehand. Only AFTER SOME YEARS was his work 'rediscovered' and he was offered a 'professional' position/status.
It sounds like he had a background in engineering, which requires advanced science and mathematics. This is not a valid example of someone such as yourself coming up with a groundbreaking theory.
You seem to think that stating that over and over again will actually do something.
It sounds like he had a background in engineering, which requires advanced science and mathematics. This is not a valid example of someone such as yourself coming up with a groundbreaking theory.
QUOTE
By such blatant disregard for fact and dishonest attempt to 'con' the forum, you have demonstrated you have no regard for scientific integrity, but only for your biased trolling/baiting.
You seem to think that stating that over and over again will actually do something.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 08:08 PM)
Now you're stretching yourself into all sorts of semantics and evasions.
Not really. You said that you don't need formal education to develop groundbreaking theories, and I'm just asking you for an example.
That hasn't been my position at any point. My position is that you need the education in order to develop new theories. This guy obviously knew his advanced mathematics. Do you?
That hasn't been my position at any point. My position is that you need the education in order to develop new theories. This guy obviously knew his advanced mathematics. Do you?
And the fact that he had other qualifications is a common fact of life....since any amateur may have a 'basic' level of occupational training in any field (even as a hairdresser!) while the point remains that he went on ON HIS OWN to research/rethink certain aspects of high-energy physics orthodoxy/practice....and came up with a major contribution which the professionals had missed all along despite the FULL TRAINING in the field they were supposed to be 'experts' in.
Some professions have a greater ability to "cross over" into science than others. Engineering is a good one because it requires frequent use of advanced mathematics.
As soon as you provide a legitimate example.
Not really. You said that you don't need formal education to develop groundbreaking theories, and I'm just asking you for an example.
QUOTE
The point was he was NOT a 'professional' high-energy particle physicist, nor had he any 'professional training' in the field. And yet he outdid by miles some of the 'professionals' in that field'. Can't you accept gracefully that he had nothing to do with 'professionals' in the field he contributed so brilliantly to.
That hasn't been my position at any point. My position is that you need the education in order to develop new theories. This guy obviously knew his advanced mathematics. Do you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point was he was NOT a 'professional' high-energy particle physicist, nor had he any 'professional training' in the field. And yet he outdid by miles some of the 'professionals' in that field'. Can't you accept gracefully that he had nothing to do with 'professionals' in the field he contributed so brilliantly to. |
That hasn't been my position at any point. My position is that you need the education in order to develop new theories. This guy obviously knew his advanced mathematics. Do you?
And the fact that he had other qualifications is a common fact of life....since any amateur may have a 'basic' level of occupational training in any field (even as a hairdresser!) while the point remains that he went on ON HIS OWN to research/rethink certain aspects of high-energy physics orthodoxy/practice....and came up with a major contribution which the professionals had missed all along despite the FULL TRAINING in the field they were supposed to be 'experts' in.
Some professions have a greater ability to "cross over" into science than others. Engineering is a good one because it requires frequent use of advanced mathematics.
QUOTE
When will you concede gracefully? Ever?
As soon as you provide a legitimate example.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 11:59 PM)
.
Read my post above to (and the one following this post) to fbm.
And its not about the person, but about the process and perspectives and original ideas/concepts one can bring irrespective of educational/training pathway. When will that get through to you? Who cares about me or anyone else; it's the ideas/process that count.
Stop trolling/baiting and asking irrelevant personal questions and just get on with doing something original with your brain instead of trying to satisfy vanity and ego. It cab be done you know.
.
I just asked a question since you said you've studied at university and on your own. I'll ask again. What have you studied? Mathematical physics? What theoretical domains? If you can't give me an answer I'm just going to assume you're a liar.
Read my post above to (and the one following this post) to fbm.
And its not about the person, but about the process and perspectives and original ideas/concepts one can bring irrespective of educational/training pathway. When will that get through to you? Who cares about me or anyone else; it's the ideas/process that count.
Stop trolling/baiting and asking irrelevant personal questions and just get on with doing something original with your brain instead of trying to satisfy vanity and ego. It cab be done you know.
.
I just asked a question since you said you've studied at university and on your own. I'll ask again. What have you studied? Mathematical physics? What theoretical domains? If you can't give me an answer I'm just going to assume you're a liar.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 08:19 PM)
Show me where I said that.
Said what?
And you have yet to back that up with any valid examples.
And you have yet to back that up with any valid examples.
And as has often been the case in the main forum, 'engineers' have been dismissed with disdain because they have 'no training in the field' they are hypothesising in.
They often don't, but some may know what they are talking about.
As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder for laymen to understand the cutting edge of science, let alone contribute to it. What was possible for an elevator engineer 60 years ago may now be out of reach. Science marches on, but the average layman does not.
As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder for laymen to understand the cutting edge of science, let alone contribute to it. What was possible for an elevator engineer 60 years ago may now be out of reach. Science marches on, but the average layman does not.
Let's face it, fbm, you are starting to sound like ubavontuba by redefining and redefining and redefining until you don't know where you're coming from or going to.
Maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying. Let me make this really clear:
YOU ARE INCOMPETENT.
Said what?
QUOTE
My continuing and general stance on the matter is that ANYONE irrespective of 'training' can come up with new ideas/concepts once they apply whatever formal AND extracurricular (self-education) to a problem they are interested in.
And you have yet to back that up with any valid examples.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My continuing and general stance on the matter is that ANYONE irrespective of 'training' can come up with new ideas/concepts once they apply whatever formal AND extracurricular (self-education) to a problem they are interested in. |
And you have yet to back that up with any valid examples.
And as has often been the case in the main forum, 'engineers' have been dismissed with disdain because they have 'no training in the field' they are hypothesising in.
They often don't, but some may know what they are talking about.
QUOTE
So you can't have it both ways; either engineers and educated people of all sorts ARE 'acceptable' when 'doing science' in fields outside their formal training...or they are not....in which case you too would probably 'professionally' have ignored Christofilos' amateur work all those years because of the rash and unfair attitudes you display here.
As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder for laymen to understand the cutting edge of science, let alone contribute to it. What was possible for an elevator engineer 60 years ago may now be out of reach. Science marches on, but the average layman does not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So you can't have it both ways; either engineers and educated people of all sorts ARE 'acceptable' when 'doing science' in fields outside their formal training...or they are not....in which case you too would probably 'professionally' have ignored Christofilos' amateur work all those years because of the rash and unfair attitudes you display here. |
As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder for laymen to understand the cutting edge of science, let alone contribute to it. What was possible for an elevator engineer 60 years ago may now be out of reach. Science marches on, but the average layman does not.
Let's face it, fbm, you are starting to sound like ubavontuba by redefining and redefining and redefining until you don't know where you're coming from or going to.
Maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying. Let me make this really clear:
YOU ARE INCOMPETENT.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 23 2010, 12:48 AM)
Is this what you refer to?....
.
.
What exactly did you glean from "...physical sciences"....that it was flower arranging and yoga?
You can't be that obtuse in reality.
You are obviously baitying/trolling. Please desist.
.
You're a liar, but I already knew that.
.
.
What exactly did you glean from "...physical sciences"....that it was flower arranging and yoga?
You can't be that obtuse in reality.
You are obviously baitying/trolling. Please desist.
.
You're a liar, but I already knew that.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 23 2010, 01:00 AM)
.
Yeah, right. You've failed to bait me; and fbm has failed to concede gracefully. I'll leave the forum to decide for themselves having regard to the actual facts of the discussion.
PS:...To whom it may concern:....No trolls/baiters allowed here (the mods don't like it when people do that).
.
At least you're clever enough to realize claiming some training was a mistake. Still a liar/delusionalpeanutbrain.
Yeah, right. You've failed to bait me; and fbm has failed to concede gracefully. I'll leave the forum to decide for themselves having regard to the actual facts of the discussion.
PS:...To whom it may concern:....No trolls/baiters allowed here (the mods don't like it when people do that).
.
At least you're clever enough to realize claiming some training was a mistake. Still a liar/delusionalpeanutbrain.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 23 2010, 01:08 AM)
.
How do you 'read' that into it? Have you no scientific/pesonal integrity left at all?
Go troll/bait elsewhere, you've failed here in more ways than one.
No further discussions will be had with trolls/baiters.
.
No further baiting the troll.
How do you 'read' that into it? Have you no scientific/pesonal integrity left at all?
Go troll/bait elsewhere, you've failed here in more ways than one.
No further discussions will be had with trolls/baiters.
.
No further baiting the troll.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 23 2010, 01:15 AM)
.
Just in case the trolls/baiters missed it, I repeat....
No further discussions will be had with trolls/baiters.
.
No further baiting delusional trolls.
Just in case the trolls/baiters missed it, I repeat....
No further discussions will be had with trolls/baiters.
.
No further baiting delusional trolls.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 08:55 PM)
You fail to recognise a fair rebuttal of your assertions and you call me incompetent. OK. Thanks. Bye.
Are you competent? If you are, you are hiding it very well.
Are you competent? If you are, you are hiding it very well.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 23 2010, 01:30 AM)
.
The question begged by what has transpired is "Are YOU, fbm, competent?", don't you think?
Will you concede gracefully or will you be ignored as a baiter/troll? Your choice, mate.
.
You keep making childish threats about who you're going to have discourse with. Everybody talking to you thinks you're a booger eating nitwit. Duh/mate!!
The question begged by what has transpired is "Are YOU, fbm, competent?", don't you think?
Will you concede gracefully or will you be ignored as a baiter/troll? Your choice, mate.
.
You keep making childish threats about who you're going to have discourse with. Everybody talking to you thinks you're a booger eating nitwit. Duh/mate!!
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2010, 09:30 PM)
The question begged by what has transpired is "Are YOU, fbm, competent?", don't you think?
I know my limitations, thank you very much. You, on the other hand, have illusions of competence (which is a major side-effect of incompetence). What I am good at, however, is spotting cranks. Cranks have certain tendencies to overestimate their own skill and self-worth. I haven't seen you post anything that resembles science in any way. I've seen you post self-congratulatory posts, but nothing resembling science. I do know what science looks like, by the way.
I know my limitations, thank you very much. You, on the other hand, have illusions of competence (which is a major side-effect of incompetence). What I am good at, however, is spotting cranks. Cranks have certain tendencies to overestimate their own skill and self-worth. I haven't seen you post anything that resembles science in any way. I've seen you post self-congratulatory posts, but nothing resembling science. I do know what science looks like, by the way.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.