Gorgeous
QUOTE: " (prometheus @ Jun 7 2008, 05:27 AM)
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
Gorgeous: How so? "
Among others because spherical waves are being looked upon as something fundamental - something that can be created out of nothing -
A wavestructure should be looked upon as something that is being created by discreteness - a wave is a dynamic structure and it is diificult to imagine how dynamic can be created out from a continuous medium.
You have since long ago made this statement:
QUOTE: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your (bukh) propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you seeing the Reality."
Allow me to backfire saying that it is your propensity not to separate things that stops you seeing the deepnes in Nature.
You start your point zero in thinking about Nature, at an already established wave-level (and waves are probably nothing but a neat way for us humans to see / express dynamic), I (we - Ivars, Iseason et al) try to imagine the problem one stick deeper.
I do not follow your conviction that WSM explains the Origin conditions -
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 7 2008, 10:34 AM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: " (prometheus @ Jun 7 2008, 05:27 AM)
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
Gorgeous: How so? "
Among others because spherical waves are being looked upon as something fundamental - something that can be created out of nothing -
A wavestructure should be looked upon as something that is being created by discreteness - a wave is a dynamic structure and it is diificult to imagine how dynamic can be created out from a continuous medium.
You have since long ago made this statement:
QUOTE: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your (bukh) propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you seeing the Reality."
Allow me to backfire saying that it is your propensity not to separate things that stops you seeing the deepnes in Nature.
You start your point zero in thinking about Nature, at an already established wave-level (and waves are probably nothing but a neat way for us humans to see / express dynamic), I (we - Ivars, Iseason et al) try to imagine the problem one stick deeper.
I do not follow your conviction that WSM explains the Origin conditions -
That is because you are still not understanding that there is no such thing as 'origin conditions', and thus your assumption that 'something can be created out of nothing' is also wrong. There is no such thing as 'nothing', despite however YOU look upon things. ~ This is not what WSM is saying.
There is just energy. Energy is what exists. It does not have to have an 'origin'. The idea of an 'origin' is a fundamental mistake in general Human thinking. Existence is what exists, and whatever idea ('God' or 'Big Bang') you use, it always comes back to this Infinite aspect.
It is either simple logic or wilful (political) denial.
And how come YOU are now answering for prometheus?
g.
QUOTE: " (prometheus @ Jun 7 2008, 05:27 AM)
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
Gorgeous: How so? "
Among others because spherical waves are being looked upon as something fundamental - something that can be created out of nothing -
A wavestructure should be looked upon as something that is being created by discreteness - a wave is a dynamic structure and it is diificult to imagine how dynamic can be created out from a continuous medium.
You have since long ago made this statement:
QUOTE: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing. It is your (bukh) propensity to 'separate' existence into 'things' that stops you seeing the Reality."
Allow me to backfire saying that it is your propensity not to separate things that stops you seeing the deepnes in Nature.
You start your point zero in thinking about Nature, at an already established wave-level (and waves are probably nothing but a neat way for us humans to see / express dynamic), I (we - Ivars, Iseason et al) try to imagine the problem one stick deeper.
I do not follow your conviction that WSM explains the Origin conditions -
That is because you are still not understanding that there is no such thing as 'origin conditions', and thus your assumption that 'something can be created out of nothing' is also wrong. There is no such thing as 'nothing', despite however YOU look upon things. ~ This is not what WSM is saying.
There is just energy. Energy is what exists. It does not have to have an 'origin'. The idea of an 'origin' is a fundamental mistake in general Human thinking. Existence is what exists, and whatever idea ('God' or 'Big Bang') you use, it always comes back to this Infinite aspect.
It is either simple logic or wilful (political) denial.
And how come YOU are now answering for prometheus?
g.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 8 2008, 10:12 AM)
Hej Iseason
QUOTE: "You will find motion to be an impossible obstacle and hence first step or "cause"."
Happy to see your notion about motion -
In my mind motion IS impossible in the sense that something cannot move relative to something else - because there is no void - no free room to move around in.
Motion IS the illusion created cinematographically by oscillating changing dimensional expressions in space - created by aggregations of smallest things, and the gowerning mechanism is lastingness - lastingness defined by how long a period such a dimensionality is expressed at said location when calculated in number of smallest time-ticks - a completely relative measurement as any universal measurement, everything is being expressed in ratios of smallest (or biggest) from 0 to 1.
The transistion into physical happens when smallest things express themselves in a dimensionality positioned in space - exactly according to Ivars idea about lastingness correlated to complexion.
hi Guys
I must say that I agree with most of this.
I postulated some time ago that light was DRAWN , not pushed. This may seem trivial, but the expression "light speed" is one of the biggest mistakes in measurement. It ignores relativity in order to right our view of the world. If I were seeing the world from a photon's point of view,everything else would be traveling at "light speed. This presumes I could see larger "objects". A photon cannot be both the governor of time and exist in it. So we are looking at light wrongly.(so to speak).
I need to be clear about my view of motion. I agree with the cinematic viewpoint right down to the originating energy, but I disagree that there are points in space being switched on or changed. My view is that each point of "occurrence of energy" is in a given sequence. This agrees with what you are saying.
What is different is the way the order is actually legal in truthful "causality". When you skip "first cause" to continue a thought mistakes increase in magnitude .
Step one = Singular energy
Step two = ?
I don't think you can go past here without leaving a huge gap. Many examples of theory have gone to first cause and then skipped because the second step eludes explanation. Even when you pursue a mirror theory energy cannot exceed the original value and cannot be split. Infinity has been used to bridge this gap and exclude a problematic "probability".
The solution I came to was to keep the value of one as an absolute. This is not only important, but essential to an honest interpretation of energy. "what energy there was is all there will ever be." If this was to be correct then , "from a position of first cause", energy could not be changeable in basic substance. In other words, It was the same from any perspective.
So I then gave "the whole universe" the value of one and tried to see how it could work backwards. I tried mirroring, but it still requires "a trigger" to keep sequence. This was unacceptable because "something" which can affect one or whole was "outside it".
Then there was the need to describe motion and space without huge amounts of energy and without creating clones of the original energy. This was the hardest "truthfulness to keep" because it tended to be a similar problem to "smallest energy " when describing "largest energy."
The trick was to link everything at once.
Smallest .....largest
Beginning....end
Which changes the complete picture.
First cause "an Event" or "an Occurrence". Nothing moves or alters. Each following occurrence then alters "first cause".....This is not unlike the positions you want to inhabit 0 - 1. But allows PHYSICAL REALITY to come AFTER "the event".
In this way every energy position is sequenced to always equal one and means that a time line can become balanced with energy.
Beginning(smallest) = one measurement in the sequence
End (universal) = One measurement in the sequence
What is disputed is the middle ground, or "perceiving more than one variation at a time". This value is by far the easiest explanation of mass.
I am a definable number of occurrences within the whole. When I look outwards, I can discern the order of occurrence. Those which occur "during a time line structure" in one second (as an example) are measured against the number in my own . This allows me to SEE things and Things to see me. It also prevents me from encroaching on their "space" because time and motion are joined with space.
Each "second" snapshots the picture again and this is your cinematography in action. This also keeps the rule of "not being able to measure " because the next energy event is NOWHERE NEAR this one in time or space.
Beginning end
beginning middle end
beginning middle middle end
beginning middle middle middle end
The actual positions are a sequence (rather than a position) but in space we measure against time and motion so it makes sense to us to do it as picture or movie. But in reality all the Positions happened at the same time , and we put them in another order which must keep balance (because if we saw that fast all we could see is a blur)
It is also an order which we can affect. If I move my hand in this "time" and shift occurrences , another part will be affected .
For example
Think of a circle with rings. to represent everything I would need an awful lot of rings. But let's say I am on one side and touched an outside ring and this was the first second in the sequence. The End would now be affected . Balance is essential and is why maths works so well. From the outer ring I could only affect the events at the end. From one ring in I can affect not only the end but the beginning and events represented by "one ring in ".
So it is more likely that the beginning and end will be the center point. One ring out (from center) cannot affect beginning and end since the positions are already changed. This also equals your mirrored point of view. Each "time event " locks out changes, but not only to NOW but also THEN. If I do this now, This will become my future.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE: "You will find motion to be an impossible obstacle and hence first step or "cause"."
Happy to see your notion about motion -
In my mind motion IS impossible in the sense that something cannot move relative to something else - because there is no void - no free room to move around in.
Motion IS the illusion created cinematographically by oscillating changing dimensional expressions in space - created by aggregations of smallest things, and the gowerning mechanism is lastingness - lastingness defined by how long a period such a dimensionality is expressed at said location when calculated in number of smallest time-ticks - a completely relative measurement as any universal measurement, everything is being expressed in ratios of smallest (or biggest) from 0 to 1.
The transistion into physical happens when smallest things express themselves in a dimensionality positioned in space - exactly according to Ivars idea about lastingness correlated to complexion.
hi Guys
I must say that I agree with most of this.
I postulated some time ago that light was DRAWN , not pushed. This may seem trivial, but the expression "light speed" is one of the biggest mistakes in measurement. It ignores relativity in order to right our view of the world. If I were seeing the world from a photon's point of view,everything else would be traveling at "light speed. This presumes I could see larger "objects". A photon cannot be both the governor of time and exist in it. So we are looking at light wrongly.(so to speak).
I need to be clear about my view of motion. I agree with the cinematic viewpoint right down to the originating energy, but I disagree that there are points in space being switched on or changed. My view is that each point of "occurrence of energy" is in a given sequence. This agrees with what you are saying.
What is different is the way the order is actually legal in truthful "causality". When you skip "first cause" to continue a thought mistakes increase in magnitude .
Step one = Singular energy
Step two = ?
I don't think you can go past here without leaving a huge gap. Many examples of theory have gone to first cause and then skipped because the second step eludes explanation. Even when you pursue a mirror theory energy cannot exceed the original value and cannot be split. Infinity has been used to bridge this gap and exclude a problematic "probability".
The solution I came to was to keep the value of one as an absolute. This is not only important, but essential to an honest interpretation of energy. "what energy there was is all there will ever be." If this was to be correct then , "from a position of first cause", energy could not be changeable in basic substance. In other words, It was the same from any perspective.
So I then gave "the whole universe" the value of one and tried to see how it could work backwards. I tried mirroring, but it still requires "a trigger" to keep sequence. This was unacceptable because "something" which can affect one or whole was "outside it".
Then there was the need to describe motion and space without huge amounts of energy and without creating clones of the original energy. This was the hardest "truthfulness to keep" because it tended to be a similar problem to "smallest energy " when describing "largest energy."
The trick was to link everything at once.
Smallest .....largest
Beginning....end
Which changes the complete picture.
First cause "an Event" or "an Occurrence". Nothing moves or alters. Each following occurrence then alters "first cause".....This is not unlike the positions you want to inhabit 0 - 1. But allows PHYSICAL REALITY to come AFTER "the event".
In this way every energy position is sequenced to always equal one and means that a time line can become balanced with energy.
Beginning(smallest) = one measurement in the sequence
End (universal) = One measurement in the sequence
What is disputed is the middle ground, or "perceiving more than one variation at a time". This value is by far the easiest explanation of mass.
I am a definable number of occurrences within the whole. When I look outwards, I can discern the order of occurrence. Those which occur "during a time line structure" in one second (as an example) are measured against the number in my own . This allows me to SEE things and Things to see me. It also prevents me from encroaching on their "space" because time and motion are joined with space.
Each "second" snapshots the picture again and this is your cinematography in action. This also keeps the rule of "not being able to measure " because the next energy event is NOWHERE NEAR this one in time or space.
Beginning end
beginning middle end
beginning middle middle end
beginning middle middle middle end
The actual positions are a sequence (rather than a position) but in space we measure against time and motion so it makes sense to us to do it as picture or movie. But in reality all the Positions happened at the same time , and we put them in another order which must keep balance (because if we saw that fast all we could see is a blur)
It is also an order which we can affect. If I move my hand in this "time" and shift occurrences , another part will be affected .
For example
Think of a circle with rings. to represent everything I would need an awful lot of rings. But let's say I am on one side and touched an outside ring and this was the first second in the sequence. The End would now be affected . Balance is essential and is why maths works so well. From the outer ring I could only affect the events at the end. From one ring in I can affect not only the end but the beginning and events represented by "one ring in ".
So it is more likely that the beginning and end will be the center point. One ring out (from center) cannot affect beginning and end since the positions are already changed. This also equals your mirrored point of view. Each "time event " locks out changes, but not only to NOW but also THEN. If I do this now, This will become my future.
Cheers
Iseason
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "And how come YOU are now answering for prometheus?"
Sorry - bad Netiquette - my apology
Nearly as bad as people entering a page like an elephant in a glasshop, spouting non-argued hostile comments.
QUOTE: "And how come YOU are now answering for prometheus?"
Sorry - bad Netiquette - my apology
Nearly as bad as people entering a page like an elephant in a glasshop, spouting non-argued hostile comments.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 7 2008, 11:52 PM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "And how come YOU are now answering for prometheus?"
Sorry - bad Netiquette - my apology
Nearly as bad as people entering a page like an elephant in a glasshop, spouting non-argued hostile comments.
There, see, it is not so difficult for us to agree...
Still waiting for an answer to 'How so?' ....
g.
QUOTE: "And how come YOU are now answering for prometheus?"
Sorry - bad Netiquette - my apology
Nearly as bad as people entering a page like an elephant in a glasshop, spouting non-argued hostile comments.
There, see, it is not so difficult for us to agree...
QUOTE
prometheus
Posted: Yesterday at 5:27 AM
QUOTE (Gorgeous @ Jun 7 2008, 11:49 AM)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-...ory-Reality.htm
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
Posted: Yesterday at 5:27 AM
QUOTE (Gorgeous @ Jun 7 2008, 11:49 AM)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-...ory-Reality.htm
This site is truly awful. It's one crank theory after another.
Still waiting for an answer to 'How so?' ....
g.
Based on the first section of this page and using the crackpot index.
-5 starting credit
False statements: 3 x 1 point
An example: "to try and describe an interconnected reality from the foundation of many discrete and separate things, matter 'particles' moving around in space and time, which then required the invention of continuous forces / fields to connect the discrete 'particles'. This was always just a mathematical approach which never explained how matter was physically interconnected in Space."
Vacuous statements: 5 x 2 points
Logically inconsistent statements: 2 x 3 points
Favorable comparisons to many scientists : 10 points
Claim that current science is a sham: 40 points
quote: "I appreciate that after several thousand years of failure to understand truth and reality..."
Claim that the theory is revolutionary but providing no predictions: 50 points
total: 114
-5 starting credit
False statements: 3 x 1 point
An example: "to try and describe an interconnected reality from the foundation of many discrete and separate things, matter 'particles' moving around in space and time, which then required the invention of continuous forces / fields to connect the discrete 'particles'. This was always just a mathematical approach which never explained how matter was physically interconnected in Space."
Vacuous statements: 5 x 2 points
Logically inconsistent statements: 2 x 3 points
Favorable comparisons to many scientists : 10 points
Claim that current science is a sham: 40 points
quote: "I appreciate that after several thousand years of failure to understand truth and reality..."
Claim that the theory is revolutionary but providing no predictions: 50 points
total: 114
Yeah, I thought so...Same old 'crackpot' mantra, and nothing of substance.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
g.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
QUOTE
Hi Everyone,
It is obvious that there are a lot of crackpots on the internet posting their pet ideas.
However, there are also a lot of crackpot critics on the internet too.
How do we resolve this? By abiding by the rules of science.
Thus it is very interesting that in the criticism above of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) there is a complete lack of science in the criticism. i.e. There are no reasons given for why the Wave Structure of Matter is wrong - other than to say that it makes no testable predictions.
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).
Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.
Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.
Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube
Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
Further, the Wave Structure of Matter is deduced as the most simple science theory for describing reality - founded on the one and only thing that we all commonly experience, Space (mind and matter are many things, space is always one thing).
This not only satisfies the central principle of Science, Occam's razor, but also explains the foundations of Metaphysics and Philosophy, that reality must be described from only one thing existing to explain the interconnection of all things in the universe.
What else does it predict / deduce.
1. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
2. Mach's Principle.
3. The size of our observable universe within infinite Space (thus the motion of distant galaxies will behave as if they are surrounded by matter).
4. Curvature of the space-time continuum in Einstein's general relativity.
5. That light is due to resonant coupling - and thus is discrete. i.e. The electron can only exist in discrete wave functions thus discrete energy states in an atom or molecule.
6. That the de Broglie wave is a phase wave with high velocity for low relative motion, where de Broglie phase wave has velocity c^2 / relative velocity. This provides a simple explanation for non-locality as found in the EPR experiment.
Given the nature of the above criticism I think they should provide some examples from the site where I have written something that is not true - and that they must back this up using rules of science. Perhaps a list of ten things would be good - as OJones writes;
"I was horrified by the sheer scale and volume of the unscientific, unfounded, misinterpreted rubbish that the site's creator (Geoff Haselhurst) had published."
The Wave Structure of Matter can be deduced by anyone as the most simple science theory for describing reality. As Occam's razor is a fundamental principle of science, scientists must show why this deduction is not true. Specifically;
1. Does anyone have any evidence that the space we all commonly experience existing in does not exist.
2. That all matter interactions are not wave interactions in this space.
Again - scientists must use rules of science in answering this.
Finally, are they also saying that Erwin Schrodinger and Carver Mead are crackpots?
"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead
'It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.' (Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics)
'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements
of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.' (Erwin Schrodinger)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Erwin-Schrodinger.htm
In hindsight it is obvious that the 'particle' conception of matter does not work and is the cause of the the problems and paradoxes found in physics. Yet until recently no one seriously thought about a pure Wave Structure of Matter in Space. Physicists just went with the particle / wave duality and treated the wave as a 'probability' wave to determine the location of the 'particle'. And they completely ignored any explanation as to why the probability is determined by a wave function, and why the allowed energy states of electrons are discrete (the cause of light quanta) as determined by Schrodinger's wave equations.
The Wave Structure of Matter explains the particle properties of light and matter perfectly. It also explains and solves the central problems of metaphysics and philosophy by explaining how matter is interconnected across the universe.
Given the state of our world, how desperately we need to know the truth about reality as a foundation for thinking and acting wisely, well for scientists to ignore this would be gross negligence (to say the least).
But most will ignore this - as like all humans they are programmed to believe in the dogma / paradigm of their time, i.e. the Standard Model of particle physics, particle / probability wave interpretation of quantum theory, the Big Bang cosmology, ...)
There is much more. But this is a good start.
Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst
It is obvious that there are a lot of crackpots on the internet posting their pet ideas.
However, there are also a lot of crackpot critics on the internet too.
How do we resolve this? By abiding by the rules of science.
Thus it is very interesting that in the criticism above of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) there is a complete lack of science in the criticism. i.e. There are no reasons given for why the Wave Structure of Matter is wrong - other than to say that it makes no testable predictions.
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).
Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.
Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.
Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube
Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
Further, the Wave Structure of Matter is deduced as the most simple science theory for describing reality - founded on the one and only thing that we all commonly experience, Space (mind and matter are many things, space is always one thing).
This not only satisfies the central principle of Science, Occam's razor, but also explains the foundations of Metaphysics and Philosophy, that reality must be described from only one thing existing to explain the interconnection of all things in the universe.
What else does it predict / deduce.
1. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
2. Mach's Principle.
3. The size of our observable universe within infinite Space (thus the motion of distant galaxies will behave as if they are surrounded by matter).
4. Curvature of the space-time continuum in Einstein's general relativity.
5. That light is due to resonant coupling - and thus is discrete. i.e. The electron can only exist in discrete wave functions thus discrete energy states in an atom or molecule.
6. That the de Broglie wave is a phase wave with high velocity for low relative motion, where de Broglie phase wave has velocity c^2 / relative velocity. This provides a simple explanation for non-locality as found in the EPR experiment.
Given the nature of the above criticism I think they should provide some examples from the site where I have written something that is not true - and that they must back this up using rules of science. Perhaps a list of ten things would be good - as OJones writes;
"I was horrified by the sheer scale and volume of the unscientific, unfounded, misinterpreted rubbish that the site's creator (Geoff Haselhurst) had published."
The Wave Structure of Matter can be deduced by anyone as the most simple science theory for describing reality. As Occam's razor is a fundamental principle of science, scientists must show why this deduction is not true. Specifically;
1. Does anyone have any evidence that the space we all commonly experience existing in does not exist.
2. That all matter interactions are not wave interactions in this space.
Again - scientists must use rules of science in answering this.
Finally, are they also saying that Erwin Schrodinger and Carver Mead are crackpots?
"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead
'It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.' (Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics)
'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements
of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.' (Erwin Schrodinger)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Erwin-Schrodinger.htm
In hindsight it is obvious that the 'particle' conception of matter does not work and is the cause of the the problems and paradoxes found in physics. Yet until recently no one seriously thought about a pure Wave Structure of Matter in Space. Physicists just went with the particle / wave duality and treated the wave as a 'probability' wave to determine the location of the 'particle'. And they completely ignored any explanation as to why the probability is determined by a wave function, and why the allowed energy states of electrons are discrete (the cause of light quanta) as determined by Schrodinger's wave equations.
The Wave Structure of Matter explains the particle properties of light and matter perfectly. It also explains and solves the central problems of metaphysics and philosophy by explaining how matter is interconnected across the universe.
Given the state of our world, how desperately we need to know the truth about reality as a foundation for thinking and acting wisely, well for scientists to ignore this would be gross negligence (to say the least).
But most will ignore this - as like all humans they are programmed to believe in the dogma / paradigm of their time, i.e. the Standard Model of particle physics, particle / probability wave interpretation of quantum theory, the Big Bang cosmology, ...)
There is much more. But this is a good start.
Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst
g.
I'm tempted to give him another 10 points for the "someone else do the maths" comment.
The very dodgy thing is he says the equations are wonderful but he doesn't tell us what they are. I may be able to hold my own with elementary mathematics but I certainly can't solve equations I haven't seen.
Total: 124
QUOTE
Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
The very dodgy thing is he says the equations are wonderful but he doesn't tell us what they are. I may be able to hold my own with elementary mathematics but I certainly can't solve equations I haven't seen.
Total: 124
He gets another 40 for claiming the inquisition is onto him:
total: 164
total: 164
Well, here is MY definition of a 'crackpot'...
QUOTE (prometheus+)
Posted on: Mar 27 2008, 09:28 AM
If you're into the maths of relativity, you'll find that the time component of the metric is always negative while the space ones are positive (you can choose it to be the other way round though - the point is that space and time are different)...
People talk about imaginary time. In imaginary time, the time dimension becomes just like the space ones.
If you're into the maths of relativity, you'll find that the time component of the metric is always negative while the space ones are positive (you can choose it to be the other way round though - the point is that space and time are different)...
People talk about imaginary time. In imaginary time, the time dimension becomes just like the space ones.
QUOTE (prometheus+)
Posted on: Apr 4 2008, 08:44 AM
Ahh, OK. I'm not a mathematician and I'm quite happy to say I didn't get the question.
...someone who tells people what they will find if they are 'into' the maths of relativity, and then a week later declares that they are 'not a mathematician'.
So, perhaps you can explain how people are supposed to trust the words of someone so contradictory as yourself?
You could, of course, prove yourself correct by taking the challenge...
"Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves."
...or just continue with the slander, if that's all you have. Here is your chance to make yourself look either stupid or clever.
Personally, I'm happy either way!
g.
Ahh, OK. I'm not a mathematician and I'm quite happy to say I didn't get the question.
...someone who tells people what they will find if they are 'into' the maths of relativity, and then a week later declares that they are 'not a mathematician'.
So, perhaps you can explain how people are supposed to trust the words of someone so contradictory as yourself?
You could, of course, prove yourself correct by taking the challenge...
"Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves."
...or just continue with the slander, if that's all you have. Here is your chance to make yourself look either stupid or clever.
Personally, I'm happy either way!
g.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 8 2008, 08:29 AM)
I need to be clear about my view of motion. I agree with the cinematic viewpoint right down to the originating energy, but I disagree that there are points in space being switched on or changed. My view is that each point of "occurrence of energy" is in a given sequence. This agrees with what you are saying.
Hi Iseason
Interesting post. But being little short of time, what do You (I have asked this also to bukh several times) make of rotation of a homogenous object? Practically, since nothing changes, there is no need to switch anything on or off, or push, or pull. Everything can be in the same place in same state. So where does the "illusion" of rotation comes from?
Another question, what happens on the axis of rotation if we apply cinematic ( kinematic
) picture of reality.
I am asking since rotation is the main puzzle. Translational motion is easy.
I will discuss energy question later. Energy sometimes is used like infinity - no questions asked, everything is solved by the undefined content of these words that can sastisfy any logical demands. It is just another name for miracle- so we have to look deeper. What is energy? I mean, explaining infinity by infinite energy is a logical loop. How comes its infinite? What creates it? Why does it lead to increase in complexity as opposed to second law?
Hi Iseason
Interesting post. But being little short of time, what do You (I have asked this also to bukh several times) make of rotation of a homogenous object? Practically, since nothing changes, there is no need to switch anything on or off, or push, or pull. Everything can be in the same place in same state. So where does the "illusion" of rotation comes from?
Another question, what happens on the axis of rotation if we apply cinematic ( kinematic
) picture of reality.I am asking since rotation is the main puzzle. Translational motion is easy.
I will discuss energy question later. Energy sometimes is used like infinity - no questions asked, everything is solved by the undefined content of these words that can sastisfy any logical demands. It is just another name for miracle- so we have to look deeper. What is energy? I mean, explaining infinity by infinite energy is a logical loop. How comes its infinite? What creates it? Why does it lead to increase in complexity as opposed to second law?
Iseason
QUOTE: "First cause "an Event" or "an Occurrence". Nothing moves or alters. Each following occurrence then alters "first cause".....This is not unlike the positions you want to inhabit 0 - 1. But allows PHYSICAL REALITY to come AFTER "the event"."
Physical reality and event are in my mind simultaneously occuring -
A physical reality is the "presence" of a "lasting" dimensional configuration in space. Said configuration can be experienced as a flash expression in Universal Space - infinite space - universal space has no definition - it is - and it has no defined size nor dimension.
What is defined - the only thing that is exactly defined - is the number of dimensionalities - ratios - in said space at a certaing moment - and the position of these dimensionalities relative to each other.
Universe exists only once - and its dynamic is such repeating (oscillating) expressions.
Energy is change - and the amount of energy is intimately related to the "size" of said change which is being measured or observed. The size of the change is being reflected in the number of dimensionalities taking part in change - as a relative amount out of total amount of dimensionalities present in space at that exact moment.
Then imagine that the first thing to happen is the segregation of pure space - infinite space - into two - that is the physical unfolding - where for the first time it is possible to say whether something belongs to this or to that. Energy is defined by the size of infinite space changing - so this first step is equivalent to total amount of energy in space being exposed - or being involved.
With further segregations into smaller and smaller dimensionalities it is possible to view smaller "parts" of pure space and how it changes - and such changes in smaller parts of pure space logically involve correspondingly smaller amaouns of total energy - and with the universal law that energy involved in any context is strictly related to the relative amount of space being investigated.
There is a one to one relation between the size (ratio) that characterizes the involved dimensions in a reconfiguration.
The trick that dimension is a universal quality - dimension is the only thing that has always existed - and it is the complexion of dimensionalities that define whole physical universe.
Irrespective how small a dimension may be - it is always possible to make it smaller. Points are not into existance.
And now we come to the very delicate thinking about smallest dimensionalities, and this has to do with the transistion from non-physical and into physical.
Pure space is being filled with smallest dimensionalities - and they are so small that they are not into existance except for part of their being - and this oscillating existance is the basic for the dynamic.
QUOTE: "The actual positions are a sequence (rather than a position) but in space we measure against time and motion so it makes sense to us to do it as picture or movie. But in reality all the Positions happened at the same time , and we put them in another order which must keep balance (because if we saw that fast all we could see is a blur)"
yes - obviously Nature use the trick that everything is being nicely ordered in sequences and in scales - and that is how "a particle" is being defined as a repeated sequence - and that is the underlying mechanism behind inertia - but everything would seem to behave well acoording to cellular automaton with smallest expressios oscillating presence - to build up more and more complex repeating patterns in increasingly higher scales.
I do not see your point in light being drawn not pushed - light is reflecting the reconfigurations taking place - nothing can be changed without rearranging everything at each oscillation, and because nature is scalewise arranged, (pixels being unit one in human scale) - any rearrangement will be "pushed around" in pieces corresponding to the informational bits that are being used as the "building blocks" in said scale - and photon is the building block being used in human scale. And a rearrangement is being recorded by the receptor - human eys - via interference to create a kind of repetition - a kind of cycling - otherwise it is not possible to freeze the signal and to be interfered with.
QUOTE: "First cause "an Event" or "an Occurrence". Nothing moves or alters. Each following occurrence then alters "first cause".....This is not unlike the positions you want to inhabit 0 - 1. But allows PHYSICAL REALITY to come AFTER "the event"."
Physical reality and event are in my mind simultaneously occuring -
A physical reality is the "presence" of a "lasting" dimensional configuration in space. Said configuration can be experienced as a flash expression in Universal Space - infinite space - universal space has no definition - it is - and it has no defined size nor dimension.
What is defined - the only thing that is exactly defined - is the number of dimensionalities - ratios - in said space at a certaing moment - and the position of these dimensionalities relative to each other.
Universe exists only once - and its dynamic is such repeating (oscillating) expressions.
Energy is change - and the amount of energy is intimately related to the "size" of said change which is being measured or observed. The size of the change is being reflected in the number of dimensionalities taking part in change - as a relative amount out of total amount of dimensionalities present in space at that exact moment.
Then imagine that the first thing to happen is the segregation of pure space - infinite space - into two - that is the physical unfolding - where for the first time it is possible to say whether something belongs to this or to that. Energy is defined by the size of infinite space changing - so this first step is equivalent to total amount of energy in space being exposed - or being involved.
With further segregations into smaller and smaller dimensionalities it is possible to view smaller "parts" of pure space and how it changes - and such changes in smaller parts of pure space logically involve correspondingly smaller amaouns of total energy - and with the universal law that energy involved in any context is strictly related to the relative amount of space being investigated.
There is a one to one relation between the size (ratio) that characterizes the involved dimensions in a reconfiguration.
The trick that dimension is a universal quality - dimension is the only thing that has always existed - and it is the complexion of dimensionalities that define whole physical universe.
Irrespective how small a dimension may be - it is always possible to make it smaller. Points are not into existance.
And now we come to the very delicate thinking about smallest dimensionalities, and this has to do with the transistion from non-physical and into physical.
Pure space is being filled with smallest dimensionalities - and they are so small that they are not into existance except for part of their being - and this oscillating existance is the basic for the dynamic.
QUOTE: "The actual positions are a sequence (rather than a position) but in space we measure against time and motion so it makes sense to us to do it as picture or movie. But in reality all the Positions happened at the same time , and we put them in another order which must keep balance (because if we saw that fast all we could see is a blur)"
yes - obviously Nature use the trick that everything is being nicely ordered in sequences and in scales - and that is how "a particle" is being defined as a repeated sequence - and that is the underlying mechanism behind inertia - but everything would seem to behave well acoording to cellular automaton with smallest expressios oscillating presence - to build up more and more complex repeating patterns in increasingly higher scales.
I do not see your point in light being drawn not pushed - light is reflecting the reconfigurations taking place - nothing can be changed without rearranging everything at each oscillation, and because nature is scalewise arranged, (pixels being unit one in human scale) - any rearrangement will be "pushed around" in pieces corresponding to the informational bits that are being used as the "building blocks" in said scale - and photon is the building block being used in human scale. And a rearrangement is being recorded by the receptor - human eys - via interference to create a kind of repetition - a kind of cycling - otherwise it is not possible to freeze the signal and to be interfered with.
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "what do You (I have asked this also to bukh several times) make of rotation of a homogenous object? Practically, since nothing changes, there is no need to switch anything on or off, or push, or pull. Everything can be in the same place in same state. So where does the "illusion" of rotation comes from?"
I imagine that any "particle" is being expressed via a sequence played in repetition, and if the particle is stationary relative to its frame in the said scale where it is being observed, the particle will be expressed via a "circular" standing wave-pattern - or the sequence will behave like such a pattern - it takes some time to express the particle - it is not a flash-presentation - it is not one glimp - it is a moviestrip of a certaing lenght - it takes the time of the inertia to expres such a particle.
QUOTE: "what do You (I have asked this also to bukh several times) make of rotation of a homogenous object? Practically, since nothing changes, there is no need to switch anything on or off, or push, or pull. Everything can be in the same place in same state. So where does the "illusion" of rotation comes from?"
I imagine that any "particle" is being expressed via a sequence played in repetition, and if the particle is stationary relative to its frame in the said scale where it is being observed, the particle will be expressed via a "circular" standing wave-pattern - or the sequence will behave like such a pattern - it takes some time to express the particle - it is not a flash-presentation - it is not one glimp - it is a moviestrip of a certaing lenght - it takes the time of the inertia to expres such a particle.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
...someone who tells people what they will find if they are 'into' the maths of relativity, and then a week later declares that they are 'not a mathematician'.
I'm not a mathematician, I'm a physicist. I believe the bit you quote was from one of eulers questions about the limit of a sequence. I misunderstood the question because it's not really relevant to what I do.
So, perhaps you can explain how people are supposed to trust the words of someone so contradictory as yourself?
I view mathematics is a tool, not as the end result. I know enough maths (maybe) to get by with my own research. It's hardly contradictory.
You could, of course, prove yourself correct by taking the challenge...
"Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves."
He doesn't tell us what equations he's talking about. If it's just regular wave equations then I'm pretty familiar with them and I can quite categorically say he is wrong. Wave equations don't have a particle interpretation when you apply Doppler shifts. All that happens is the frequency changes.
...or just continue with the slander, if that's all you have. Here is your chance to make yourself look either stupid or clever.
You call it slander, I call it pointing out that someone is both wrong and a crackpot.
Personally, I'm happy either way!
Good. I'm glad to hear it.
Something that is Infinite is not 'created'. Infinite is also 'Eternal', when we apply the concept of 'time', and thus an Infinite 'thing' must have always existed ~ always will do.
So, we know 'existence exists' (Doh!) It is then a question of 'How?'
Also, consider that if you posit 'God', then this too has a supposedly 'infinite aspect', and so you have to apply the same question...'What created 'God'?'
Something that is Infinite is not 'created'. Infinite is also 'Eternal', when we apply the concept of 'time', and thus an Infinite 'thing' must have always existed ~ always will do.
So, we know 'existence exists' (Doh!) It is then a question of 'How?'
Also, consider that if you posit 'God', then this too has a supposedly 'infinite aspect', and so you have to apply the same question...'What created 'God'?'
Universe exists only once - and its dynamic is such repeating (oscillating) expressions.
Yes, and the above conditions concerning Infinite Space is 'why'.
g.
Something that is Infinite is not 'created'. Infinite is also 'Eternal', when we apply the concept of 'time', and thus an Infinite 'thing' must have always existed ~ always will do.
Hi Gorgeous
Yes , call it God and forget about understanding it. Sounds like a political reason to me.
Just look in my previous post how non-oscillating indivisible can very simply create and infinite line, or fixed 1D dimension, point (if looked from above) of space.
Then there was the need to describe motion and space without huge amounts of energy and without creating clones of the original energy. This was the hardest "truthfulness to keep" because it tended to be a similar problem to "smallest energy " when describing "largest energy."
hi Iseason
I do not know what exactly do You mean by clones of energy, but in every scale energy is DIFFERENT qualitatively.
To put it other way, energy that exists in dynamic appearance of smallest scales is much subtler and weaker than energy involved in dynamic appearance of (infinite) aggregates of such smallest scales.
With every phase change, energy changes- I mean thermodynamical energy in a said scale. In each scale, there is temperature and thermodynamics- but between scales, energy conversion factors are such that what is big number in previous scale, will not move the next scale aggregate noticeably.
All scaled energies are present simultaneously as long as all scales of reality are present simultaneously- way beneath quantum, and they all represent a progressively weaker THERMAL energy in the scale of our measurements of temperature. So to say, the Boltzmann constant we observe, is an (infinite) summation of all Boltzmann constants at all scales. Energy is the same, but its quality -ability to move (express) things around =temperature- differs in each scale.
I'm not a mathematician, I'm a physicist. I believe the bit you quote was from one of eulers questions about the limit of a sequence. I misunderstood the question because it's not really relevant to what I do.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
So, perhaps you can explain how people are supposed to trust the words of someone so contradictory as yourself?
I view mathematics is a tool, not as the end result. I know enough maths (maybe) to get by with my own research. It's hardly contradictory.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
You could, of course, prove yourself correct by taking the challenge...
"Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves."
He doesn't tell us what equations he's talking about. If it's just regular wave equations then I'm pretty familiar with them and I can quite categorically say he is wrong. Wave equations don't have a particle interpretation when you apply Doppler shifts. All that happens is the frequency changes.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
...or just continue with the slander, if that's all you have. Here is your chance to make yourself look either stupid or clever.
You call it slander, I call it pointing out that someone is both wrong and a crackpot.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 8 2008, 01:49 PM)
Personally, I'm happy either way!
Good. I'm glad to hear it.
QUOTE
How comes its infinite? What creates it?
Something that is Infinite is not 'created'. Infinite is also 'Eternal', when we apply the concept of 'time', and thus an Infinite 'thing' must have always existed ~ always will do.
So, we know 'existence exists' (Doh!) It is then a question of 'How?'
Also, consider that if you posit 'God', then this too has a supposedly 'infinite aspect', and so you have to apply the same question...'What created 'God'?'
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How comes its infinite? What creates it? |
Something that is Infinite is not 'created'. Infinite is also 'Eternal', when we apply the concept of 'time', and thus an Infinite 'thing' must have always existed ~ always will do.
So, we know 'existence exists' (Doh!) It is then a question of 'How?'
Also, consider that if you posit 'God', then this too has a supposedly 'infinite aspect', and so you have to apply the same question...'What created 'God'?'
Universe exists only once - and its dynamic is such repeating (oscillating) expressions.
Yes, and the above conditions concerning Infinite Space is 'why'.
g.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 8 2008, 10:03 PM)
hej Ivars
I imagine that any "particle" is being expressed via a sequence played in repetition, and if the particle is stationary relative to its frame in the said scale where it is being observed, the particle will be expressed via a "circular" standing wave-pattern - or the sequence will behave like such a pattern - it takes some time to express the particle - it is not a flash-presentation - it is not one glimp - it is a moviestrip of a certaing lenght - it takes the time of the inertia to expres such a particle.
hej bukh
I understand particle, more or less. I do not think ( may be wrongly) that standing waves are responsible for particles- at least its not that simple when You look at smallest dimensionalities.
What I am asking is :
- is rotational object represented by some line, or rather, spiral signal front that switches on/of the right infinitesimals, just moves ( signal) infinitely fast
-what happens in the centre, once more- there are no standing waves in the center since in the center of smallest scale there is just oscillating infinitesimal dimension that is NOT oscilating-its present all the time ( we talk about smallest things, do not look in smaller scale) and for some reason we perceive/it establishes its presence as ifninite line of rotation axis.
In this sence, just following the logic step by step without running alll over the scales, the non-oscillating infinitesimal of a smallest scale give and infinite line in space which is usually a rotation axis of some object composed of more than one infinitesimal.
- How is the outside of a rotationg object defined- where does it ends and why?
I imagine that any "particle" is being expressed via a sequence played in repetition, and if the particle is stationary relative to its frame in the said scale where it is being observed, the particle will be expressed via a "circular" standing wave-pattern - or the sequence will behave like such a pattern - it takes some time to express the particle - it is not a flash-presentation - it is not one glimp - it is a moviestrip of a certaing lenght - it takes the time of the inertia to expres such a particle.
hej bukh
I understand particle, more or less. I do not think ( may be wrongly) that standing waves are responsible for particles- at least its not that simple when You look at smallest dimensionalities.
What I am asking is :
- is rotational object represented by some line, or rather, spiral signal front that switches on/of the right infinitesimals, just moves ( signal) infinitely fast
-what happens in the centre, once more- there are no standing waves in the center since in the center of smallest scale there is just oscillating infinitesimal dimension that is NOT oscilating-its present all the time ( we talk about smallest things, do not look in smaller scale) and for some reason we perceive/it establishes its presence as ifninite line of rotation axis.
In this sence, just following the logic step by step without running alll over the scales, the non-oscillating infinitesimal of a smallest scale give and infinite line in space which is usually a rotation axis of some object composed of more than one infinitesimal.
- How is the outside of a rotationg object defined- where does it ends and why?
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 8 2008, 10:25 PM)
Something that is Infinite is not 'created'. Infinite is also 'Eternal', when we apply the concept of 'time', and thus an Infinite 'thing' must have always existed ~ always will do.
Hi Gorgeous
Yes , call it God and forget about understanding it. Sounds like a political reason to me.
Just look in my previous post how non-oscillating indivisible can very simply create and infinite line, or fixed 1D dimension, point (if looked from above) of space.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 8 2008, 08:29 AM)
Then there was the need to describe motion and space without huge amounts of energy and without creating clones of the original energy. This was the hardest "truthfulness to keep" because it tended to be a similar problem to "smallest energy " when describing "largest energy."
hi Iseason
I do not know what exactly do You mean by clones of energy, but in every scale energy is DIFFERENT qualitatively.
To put it other way, energy that exists in dynamic appearance of smallest scales is much subtler and weaker than energy involved in dynamic appearance of (infinite) aggregates of such smallest scales.
With every phase change, energy changes- I mean thermodynamical energy in a said scale. In each scale, there is temperature and thermodynamics- but between scales, energy conversion factors are such that what is big number in previous scale, will not move the next scale aggregate noticeably.
All scaled energies are present simultaneously as long as all scales of reality are present simultaneously- way beneath quantum, and they all represent a progressively weaker THERMAL energy in the scale of our measurements of temperature. So to say, the Boltzmann constant we observe, is an (infinite) summation of all Boltzmann constants at all scales. Energy is the same, but its quality -ability to move (express) things around =temperature- differs in each scale.
Hi Guys
Quite a few points to reply to . gorgeous first. "infinite and finite."
These are time line concepts.The rule of thumb is measurement. Therefore , when I state That "An occurrence hap penned" I am Not using a time bound frame(neither is space or motion involved). But as a result of this , all the options and variances presented to a singular energy now become dictated by a time process where this was not the case before. It may be that chaos finally gave way to order or "harmony" was first developed. That , I can't answer. What I do know is that all occurred BEFORE a time constrained development.
This may be the same thing as saying infinity, but I dispute that because of it's connection with measuring. But the methodology which follows doesn't increase thew available energy , nor allow it to be in two places at once . It can never repeat in the same place in time.....EVER....This is why we have rotation and motion.
There would be an acceptable argument that before "harmony" Energy did not actually exist at all. But once energy WAS, It was bound by laws which were as unbreakable as anything could ever be.
Each Future occurrence does not PARTNER with any other. Your thoughts in terms of waves are far in ahead of this level of energy description. The laws only exist !!!
If it occurs ONCE, the next must balance within the "whole". Twice means both occurrences SHIFT to create balance.
adding a third changes the positions of where the other two have been . And so on until it get's so complex that it truly defies measuring. I showed how it is necessary to place the occurrences at opposite ends of both time and space. This becomes harder to do as more and more positions are used.
Where the ability used to mean that they could be "as far away as is possible " via beginning and end. With beginning , middle , end the distance actually halves in one stroke. Forth and ...........
When you finally see clustering of mass, the reason is because three occurrences over here must balance three occurrences in every time "snapshot"....So there are snapshots with "ALL the Universe in clusters of three" ...
Actually depicting the trend is not that difficult. A good algorithm could show this process. But universally I could not begin to write it up. Any number of sized clusters would be available as long as the balance was correct...
Not That IS what we see in physics. Mass does what mass does, and normally doesn't alter much on it's own. A density will be balanced by a volume. Hot By cold.Dark By light .
But al this is WITHIN the finite structure......Look , it may be that the first half creates the second half and the second half has no free will (because it's shape was already formed.
This is why it is important to connect smallest to largest , fastest to slowest. One gets locked by the other. beginning and end
Cheers
Iseason
Quite a few points to reply to . gorgeous first. "infinite and finite."
These are time line concepts.The rule of thumb is measurement. Therefore , when I state That "An occurrence hap penned" I am Not using a time bound frame(neither is space or motion involved). But as a result of this , all the options and variances presented to a singular energy now become dictated by a time process where this was not the case before. It may be that chaos finally gave way to order or "harmony" was first developed. That , I can't answer. What I do know is that all occurred BEFORE a time constrained development.
This may be the same thing as saying infinity, but I dispute that because of it's connection with measuring. But the methodology which follows doesn't increase thew available energy , nor allow it to be in two places at once . It can never repeat in the same place in time.....EVER....This is why we have rotation and motion.
There would be an acceptable argument that before "harmony" Energy did not actually exist at all. But once energy WAS, It was bound by laws which were as unbreakable as anything could ever be.
Each Future occurrence does not PARTNER with any other. Your thoughts in terms of waves are far in ahead of this level of energy description. The laws only exist !!!
If it occurs ONCE, the next must balance within the "whole". Twice means both occurrences SHIFT to create balance.
adding a third changes the positions of where the other two have been . And so on until it get's so complex that it truly defies measuring. I showed how it is necessary to place the occurrences at opposite ends of both time and space. This becomes harder to do as more and more positions are used.
Where the ability used to mean that they could be "as far away as is possible " via beginning and end. With beginning , middle , end the distance actually halves in one stroke. Forth and ...........
When you finally see clustering of mass, the reason is because three occurrences over here must balance three occurrences in every time "snapshot"....So there are snapshots with "ALL the Universe in clusters of three" ...
Actually depicting the trend is not that difficult. A good algorithm could show this process. But universally I could not begin to write it up. Any number of sized clusters would be available as long as the balance was correct...
Not That IS what we see in physics. Mass does what mass does, and normally doesn't alter much on it's own. A density will be balanced by a volume. Hot By cold.Dark By light .
But al this is WITHIN the finite structure......Look , it may be that the first half creates the second half and the second half has no free will (because it's shape was already formed.
This is why it is important to connect smallest to largest , fastest to slowest. One gets locked by the other. beginning and end
Cheers
Iseason
Iseason
QUOTE:
"Step one = Singular energy
Step two = ?
I don't think you can go past here without leaving a huge gap. Many examples of theory have gone to first cause and then skipped because the second step eludes explanation. Even when you pursue a mirror theory energy cannot exceed the original value and cannot be split. Infinity has been used to bridge this gap and exclude a problematic "probability". "
If I read you rightly - are you asking about the transistion from singularity - point-particle - no dimension and into dimension ? The question about how continuity transforms into discreteness ?
I would like to think that point is not into existance - that continuity is not into existance - that everything is about infinite scales -
that smallest always can be smaller
By rejecting the idea about the existance of points - and instead say that everything can be expressed as ratios of dimensionalities - that imply that everything can be smaller - there exist no limits -
Dimensionality is the requirement for being physical - so already here I say that there exist something which is not physical - physical is just one way of expressing Everything -
Dimensionality(ies) have always been and will always be - and the way - the system - the principle by which dimensionalties arrange themselves - in oscillating reconfigurations - that IS physical.
Physical IS dimensionality - and that is the same as saying that physical IS discreteness.
QUOTE:
"Step one = Singular energy
Step two = ?
I don't think you can go past here without leaving a huge gap. Many examples of theory have gone to first cause and then skipped because the second step eludes explanation. Even when you pursue a mirror theory energy cannot exceed the original value and cannot be split. Infinity has been used to bridge this gap and exclude a problematic "probability". "
If I read you rightly - are you asking about the transistion from singularity - point-particle - no dimension and into dimension ? The question about how continuity transforms into discreteness ?
I would like to think that point is not into existance - that continuity is not into existance - that everything is about infinite scales -
that smallest always can be smaller
By rejecting the idea about the existance of points - and instead say that everything can be expressed as ratios of dimensionalities - that imply that everything can be smaller - there exist no limits -
Dimensionality is the requirement for being physical - so already here I say that there exist something which is not physical - physical is just one way of expressing Everything -
Dimensionality(ies) have always been and will always be - and the way - the system - the principle by which dimensionalties arrange themselves - in oscillating reconfigurations - that IS physical.
Physical IS dimensionality - and that is the same as saying that physical IS discreteness.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 9 2008, 09:02 AM)
That smallest always can be smaller
hej bukh
No. Once You get to scale which size it whatever but it is such that its existence can not be stored in its own thoughts even as it stops existing while thinking that it exists, there are no smaller divisions.
I thought that was clear because that is the only reason that makes the smallest thing oscilate exactly 1/2 of its On/Off period. The impossibility for it to percept own existance.
Its Indivisible.
hej bukh
No. Once You get to scale which size it whatever but it is such that its existence can not be stored in its own thoughts even as it stops existing while thinking that it exists, there are no smaller divisions.
I thought that was clear because that is the only reason that makes the smallest thing oscilate exactly 1/2 of its On/Off period. The impossibility for it to percept own existance.
Its Indivisible.
Ivars
QUOTE: "All scaled energies are present simultaneously as long as all scales of reality are present simultaneously- way beneath quantum, and they all represent a progressively weaker THERMAL energy in the scale of our measurements of temperature. So to say, the Boltzmann constant we observe, is an (infinite) summation of all Boltzmann constants at all scales. Energy is the same, but its quality -ability to move (express) things around =temperature- differs in each scale."
Neat and nice and precise explained
And when coming to scale - I have this gutfeeling that scales are infinite - and repeating in a system where we humans just is being placed at a certain scale, and eventually our scale will be outgrown or nearly outgrown to establish next physical scale outwards and next mathematical scale inwards - meaning that smallest scales are the mathematical expressions - and will grow smaller and smaller and the physical expressioons outwards will be made of more and more complex arrangement of such smaller dimensions.
QUOTE: "All scaled energies are present simultaneously as long as all scales of reality are present simultaneously- way beneath quantum, and they all represent a progressively weaker THERMAL energy in the scale of our measurements of temperature. So to say, the Boltzmann constant we observe, is an (infinite) summation of all Boltzmann constants at all scales. Energy is the same, but its quality -ability to move (express) things around =temperature- differs in each scale."
Neat and nice and precise explained
And when coming to scale - I have this gutfeeling that scales are infinite - and repeating in a system where we humans just is being placed at a certain scale, and eventually our scale will be outgrown or nearly outgrown to establish next physical scale outwards and next mathematical scale inwards - meaning that smallest scales are the mathematical expressions - and will grow smaller and smaller and the physical expressioons outwards will be made of more and more complex arrangement of such smaller dimensions.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 8 2008, 05:59 PM)
hej bukh
I understand particle, more or less. I do not think ( may be wrongly) that standing waves are responsible for particles- at least its not that simple when You look at smallest dimensionalities.
What I am asking is :
- is rotational object represented by some line, or rather, spiral signal front that switches on/of the right infinitesimals, just moves ( signal) infinitely fast
-what happens in the centre, once more- there are no standing waves in the center since in the center of smallest scale there is just oscillating infinitesimal dimension that is NOT oscilating-its present all the time ( we talk about smallest things, do not look in smaller scale) and for some reason we perceive/it establishes its presence as ifninite line of rotation axis.
In this sence, just following the logic step by step without running alll over the scales, the non-oscillating infinitesimal of a smallest scale give and infinite line in space which is usually a rotation axis of some object composed of more than one infinitesimal.
- How is the outside of a rotationg object defined- where does it ends and why?
No, you have invented lots of rubbish because you do not accept a simple truth. Now THAT is 'politics'!
We do not observe 'infinite lines in space'. No such thing exists. You are just guessing at any old thing to fit something you do not understand.
You then talk about 'following logic step by step', but you have no Real 'logic' to begin with, and thus you remain infinitesimally wrong.
iseason's 'effort' is even worse. There is no base understanding whatsoever. Just any old garbled mess in no particular order...ironically, this is the only aspect of Cosmological Truth displayed. More evidence that Reality cannot be avoided, however we try to twist it into 'shapes' we prefer to see. So you see, your deliberate mis-information tactics will result in Chaos. Carry on!
From where do you get all your aggressions - You wish I had 'aggressions', like you wish I had 'religion', 'cos then you'd have something to fight with, eh? Instead of being proven wrong time and time again, you could just fight and argue then, isn't that how it works Mr. failed politician?
This is supposed to be a friendly and enjoying site for discussions - Then be 'friendly'. Stop posting gibberish about things you have no understanding of and playing such a political game.
And Please - please consider to use Truth and Reality with a bit more finesse - neither of them have been cutted in stone - and You are not the only person in the world possessing the key to the understanding of these concepts. - Stone most certainly IS a reality, and Truth = Reality. It remains for you to stop putting up barriers to such things (your pretence of 'finesse', for example). Therein lies 'the key', and it is free for anyone who avoids becoming political about it! I put it to you that it is this last aspect that worries you the most.
g.
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
g.
It is quite simple.
A truly good ability to communicate requires that the communication be based upon Reality. You three stooges haven't got the faintest idea, and THAT is what you will leave behind you...more rubbish.
You merely pretend to be 'good', but that is to hide the fact of how wrong you are.
Pretence of any kind is not conducive to good communication. So, sort yourselves out, and you too can become gorgeous, just like me!
g.
I understand particle, more or less. I do not think ( may be wrongly) that standing waves are responsible for particles- at least its not that simple when You look at smallest dimensionalities.
What I am asking is :
- is rotational object represented by some line, or rather, spiral signal front that switches on/of the right infinitesimals, just moves ( signal) infinitely fast
-what happens in the centre, once more- there are no standing waves in the center since in the center of smallest scale there is just oscillating infinitesimal dimension that is NOT oscilating-its present all the time ( we talk about smallest things, do not look in smaller scale) and for some reason we perceive/it establishes its presence as ifninite line of rotation axis.
In this sence, just following the logic step by step without running alll over the scales, the non-oscillating infinitesimal of a smallest scale give and infinite line in space which is usually a rotation axis of some object composed of more than one infinitesimal.
- How is the outside of a rotationg object defined- where does it ends and why?
No, you have invented lots of rubbish because you do not accept a simple truth. Now THAT is 'politics'!
We do not observe 'infinite lines in space'. No such thing exists. You are just guessing at any old thing to fit something you do not understand.
You then talk about 'following logic step by step', but you have no Real 'logic' to begin with, and thus you remain infinitesimally wrong.
QUOTE
Once You get to scale which size it whatever but it is such that its existence can not be stored in its own thoughts even as it stops existing while thinking that it exists
...pure gibberish.iseason's 'effort' is even worse. There is no base understanding whatsoever. Just any old garbled mess in no particular order...ironically, this is the only aspect of Cosmological Truth displayed. More evidence that Reality cannot be avoided, however we try to twist it into 'shapes' we prefer to see. So you see, your deliberate mis-information tactics will result in Chaos. Carry on!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once You get to scale which size it whatever but it is such that its existence can not be stored in its own thoughts even as it stops existing while thinking that it exists |
...pure gibberish.
iseason's 'effort' is even worse. There is no base understanding whatsoever. Just any old garbled mess in no particular order...ironically, this is the only aspect of Cosmological Truth displayed. More evidence that Reality cannot be avoided, however we try to twist it into 'shapes' we prefer to see. So you see, your deliberate mis-information tactics will result in Chaos. Carry on!
What I do know is that all occurred BEFORE a time constrained development.
iseason's 'effort' is even worse. There is no base understanding whatsoever. Just any old garbled mess in no particular order...ironically, this is the only aspect of Cosmological Truth displayed. More evidence that Reality cannot be avoided, however we try to twist it into 'shapes' we prefer to see. So you see, your deliberate mis-information tactics will result in Chaos. Carry on!
What I do know is that all occurred BEFORE a time constrained development.
...Pretty obvious when you realise that Humans invented the 'time constraints'.
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 9 2008, 10:56 AM)
No, you have invented lots of rubbish because you do not accept a simple truth. Now THAT is 'politics'!
We do not observe 'infinite lines in space'. No such thing exists. You are just guessing at any old thing to fit something you do not understand.
hi Gorgoeus
So how does Spaceandmotion marketing site explains the law of conservation of angular momentum? Or that is another thing that needs no explanations, and trying to understand it is rubberish? There must be many things, than, which are not understandable, and must be taken as belief.
Talking about infinite lines in space- what about axis of rotation? Do You know any limits to them? e.g. Earth axis of rotation- where does it stop? How many kilometers from Earth? Obviously it can not be infinite, since You say there exists no such thing.
So my previous question in form You might understand: How long is ANY axis of rotation? Why?
We do not observe 'infinite lines in space'. No such thing exists. You are just guessing at any old thing to fit something you do not understand.
hi Gorgoeus
So how does Spaceandmotion marketing site explains the law of conservation of angular momentum? Or that is another thing that needs no explanations, and trying to understand it is rubberish? There must be many things, than, which are not understandable, and must be taken as belief.
Talking about infinite lines in space- what about axis of rotation? Do You know any limits to them? e.g. Earth axis of rotation- where does it stop? How many kilometers from Earth? Obviously it can not be infinite, since You say there exists no such thing.
So my previous question in form You might understand: How long is ANY axis of rotation? Why?
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 9 2008, 12:25 AM)
hi Gorgoeus
So how does Spaceandmotion marketing site explains the law of conservation of angular momentum? Or that is another thing that needs no explanations, and trying to understand it is rubberish? There must be many things, than, which are not understandable, and must be taken as belief.
Talking about infinite lines in space- what about axis of rotation? Do You know any limits to them? e.g. Earth axis of rotation- where does it stop? How many kilometers from Earth? Obviously it can not be infinite, since You say there exists no such thing.
So my previous question in form You might understand: How long is ANY axis of rotation? Why?
Many things ARE understandable, but you have to work from a foundation of Reality first!
It is YOU who do not understand. You even admit this, on occasions, but still insist that you are not 'wrong'! Quite an amazing thing to watch..
You will not find any answers to your questions while you have such an attitiude. You are also not in a position to take in anything I offer, otherwise you would be at the WSM site reading instead of here spouting more of your own misunderstandings. So why ask me? Find out for yourself, instead of trying to show that you are 'correct' when the rest of the world can see for a fact that you are not.
You are not in a Latvian scout camp now ~ you have more than a few little boys to impress. And if you consider this 'rude' or 'impolite', be assured that this is nothing compared to how the 'physics community' will view what you have just written. There can surely be little else more 'impolite' than showing our future generations how to misinterpret what is Real? They will have to LIVE in this Reality, in Real 'time', with all of the mess we leave for them. There is enough garbage in the world already without filling cyber-space with more of the same.
If you do the world a favour and tidy yourself up, you will also be doing yourself the biggest possible favour at the same time. How things really are will be revealed to you, as you become more Realistic. It is the same motion of what (Really) exists.
g.
So how does Spaceandmotion marketing site explains the law of conservation of angular momentum? Or that is another thing that needs no explanations, and trying to understand it is rubberish? There must be many things, than, which are not understandable, and must be taken as belief.
Talking about infinite lines in space- what about axis of rotation? Do You know any limits to them? e.g. Earth axis of rotation- where does it stop? How many kilometers from Earth? Obviously it can not be infinite, since You say there exists no such thing.
So my previous question in form You might understand: How long is ANY axis of rotation? Why?
Many things ARE understandable, but you have to work from a foundation of Reality first!
It is YOU who do not understand. You even admit this, on occasions, but still insist that you are not 'wrong'! Quite an amazing thing to watch..
You will not find any answers to your questions while you have such an attitiude. You are also not in a position to take in anything I offer, otherwise you would be at the WSM site reading instead of here spouting more of your own misunderstandings. So why ask me? Find out for yourself, instead of trying to show that you are 'correct' when the rest of the world can see for a fact that you are not.
You are not in a Latvian scout camp now ~ you have more than a few little boys to impress. And if you consider this 'rude' or 'impolite', be assured that this is nothing compared to how the 'physics community' will view what you have just written. There can surely be little else more 'impolite' than showing our future generations how to misinterpret what is Real? They will have to LIVE in this Reality, in Real 'time', with all of the mess we leave for them. There is enough garbage in the world already without filling cyber-space with more of the same.
If you do the world a favour and tidy yourself up, you will also be doing yourself the biggest possible favour at the same time. How things really are will be revealed to you, as you become more Realistic. It is the same motion of what (Really) exists.
g.
Georgous
QUOTE: "Many things ARE understandable, but you have to work from a foundation of Reality first!
It is YOU who do not understand. You even admit this, on occasions, but still insist that you are not 'wrong'! Quite an amazing thing to watch..
You will not find any answers to your questions while you have such an attitiude. You are also not in a position to take in anything I offer, otherwise you would be at the WSM site reading instead of here spouting more of your own misunderstandings. So why ask me? Find out for yourself, instead of trying to show that you are 'correct' when the rest of the world can see for a fact that you are not.
You are not in a Latvian scout camp now ~ you have more than a few little boys to impress. And if you consider this 'rude' or 'impolite', be assured that this is nothing compared to how the 'physics community' will view what you have just written. There can surely be little else more 'impolite' than showing our future generations how to misinterpret what is Real? They will have to LIVE in this Reality, in Real 'time', with all of the mess we leave for them. There is enough garbage in the world already without filling cyber-space with more of the same.
If you do the world a favour and tidy yourself up, you will also be doing yourself the biggest possible favour at the same time. How things really are will be revealed to you, as you become more Realistic. It is the same motion of what (Really) exists."
Oh Dear Dear
From where do you get all your aggressions -
This is supposed to be a friendly and enjoying site for discussions -
And Please - please consider to use Truth and Reality with a bit more finesse - neither of them have been cutted in stone - and You are not the only person in the world possessing the key to the understanding of these concepts.
QUOTE: "Many things ARE understandable, but you have to work from a foundation of Reality first!
It is YOU who do not understand. You even admit this, on occasions, but still insist that you are not 'wrong'! Quite an amazing thing to watch..
You will not find any answers to your questions while you have such an attitiude. You are also not in a position to take in anything I offer, otherwise you would be at the WSM site reading instead of here spouting more of your own misunderstandings. So why ask me? Find out for yourself, instead of trying to show that you are 'correct' when the rest of the world can see for a fact that you are not.
You are not in a Latvian scout camp now ~ you have more than a few little boys to impress. And if you consider this 'rude' or 'impolite', be assured that this is nothing compared to how the 'physics community' will view what you have just written. There can surely be little else more 'impolite' than showing our future generations how to misinterpret what is Real? They will have to LIVE in this Reality, in Real 'time', with all of the mess we leave for them. There is enough garbage in the world already without filling cyber-space with more of the same.
If you do the world a favour and tidy yourself up, you will also be doing yourself the biggest possible favour at the same time. How things really are will be revealed to you, as you become more Realistic. It is the same motion of what (Really) exists."
Oh Dear Dear
From where do you get all your aggressions -
This is supposed to be a friendly and enjoying site for discussions -
And Please - please consider to use Truth and Reality with a bit more finesse - neither of them have been cutted in stone - and You are not the only person in the world possessing the key to the understanding of these concepts.
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 9 2008, 04:07 AM)
From where do you get all your aggressions - You wish I had 'aggressions', like you wish I had 'religion', 'cos then you'd have something to fight with, eh? Instead of being proven wrong time and time again, you could just fight and argue then, isn't that how it works Mr. failed politician?
This is supposed to be a friendly and enjoying site for discussions - Then be 'friendly'. Stop posting gibberish about things you have no understanding of and playing such a political game.
And Please - please consider to use Truth and Reality with a bit more finesse - neither of them have been cutted in stone - and You are not the only person in the world possessing the key to the understanding of these concepts. - Stone most certainly IS a reality, and Truth = Reality. It remains for you to stop putting up barriers to such things (your pretence of 'finesse', for example). Therein lies 'the key', and it is free for anyone who avoids becoming political about it!
I put it to you that it is this last aspect that worries you the most.g.
speaks for itsself
Yeah, lets stick to the point of discussion.
"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
g.
hej bukh
So what holds You back from answering on rotation how is it possible and what it means? I am becoming slightly nervous.
Or did You just not notice my questions as they lay somewhat outside Your scope of interest at the moment? Rotation is critical to understand world. Not standing waves which is just a sub case of traveling waves when wave lengths are rational to circumference, but rotation, and preferably infinite rotation, without loss of moment.
Then You get an engine=perpetum mobile= that has transformed the chaotic appearances of indivisibles ( do you call THEM dimensionalities? I have problems to understand what exactly is dimensionality in Your posts) into rotation and establishes also at least 1 spatial dimension along their infinite axis (infinite to be analyzed still, what does spatially infinite line means).
Or do we get oscillating vortexes that work like ratchet - so they oscillate with each appearance of indivisible and translate it in unidirectional rotation? Then their axis will be with holes since the center will disappear and appear again. I do not know yet, wanted to discuss the infinity of rotation, is that possible.
The bigger the rotating aggregate, the less holes/gaps in its axis.
So what holds You back from answering on rotation how is it possible and what it means? I am becoming slightly nervous.
Or did You just not notice my questions as they lay somewhat outside Your scope of interest at the moment? Rotation is critical to understand world. Not standing waves which is just a sub case of traveling waves when wave lengths are rational to circumference, but rotation, and preferably infinite rotation, without loss of moment.
Then You get an engine=perpetum mobile= that has transformed the chaotic appearances of indivisibles ( do you call THEM dimensionalities? I have problems to understand what exactly is dimensionality in Your posts) into rotation and establishes also at least 1 spatial dimension along their infinite axis (infinite to be analyzed still, what does spatially infinite line means).
Or do we get oscillating vortexes that work like ratchet - so they oscillate with each appearance of indivisible and translate it in unidirectional rotation? Then their axis will be with holes since the center will disappear and appear again. I do not know yet, wanted to discuss the infinity of rotation, is that possible.
The bigger the rotating aggregate, the less holes/gaps in its axis.
Hi Guys
I can't help but think you might be cheating in allowing motion(both in switching on and off and in rotation. )
Rotation cannot be relative to itself and must take place 'somewhere' so too for switching on and off. This also allows the base energy to be split, even if it is only by half. The half not on must still exist as energy even if it is of a differing nature.
to answer (or rather not answer questions about rotation) I am currently not investigating things which are already proven by measurement. I trust that those who do such work are skilled enough in those areas. My interest is in what has been glossed over, rather than investigated. I'm quite sure before most move on from base energy, they hit similar brick walls before deciding to work on what they feel they can use.
Motion is probably the greatest error. It creates a world where everything is explained via lot's of base energy and lot's of space. Without these two components every measurement in science has no meaning. The whole mathematical basis for science is ruled by measuring motion in space and time. Were it to be shown that none of these exist, it is as big a gap in current thinking as Newton's theories verses relativity and quantum.
I understand my critics and also understand why they think this way. But a time came when the motion of the planets gave way to the peculiarities in the atom and that sort of upheaval will happen again in science.
I agree with action at a distance......The distance is in time, not motion
I agree with conservation of energy.....Much more than does current theory
I agree with relativity....And show by "occurrence" that structure can be much more exact than any other methodology.
I agree energy cannot be measured and followed ....it is not there any more
I agree the universe is eternal......That does not mean infinite
I agree that geometry is key to the structure of the universe...Shapes repeating is only natural given the same "canvas and materials.
I agree with harmony....Without it geometry would be impossible
I do Not agree with God as a benevolent dictator....It is the natural evolution which would create it's own Law.
I do not agree with infinity....Because I can measure it's parts
I do not agree with light speed being the governor of time......or light is not here at all.
I don't agree that energy can repeat in the same frame....it is staggered throughout time.
There is very little that I can't relate to current measured thinking. The huge mistake , I believe , is to think that we need more than one instance of energy to do it . There are so many examples of cycles that it amazes me that it's so hard to believe.
The last thing that I want to say is that the end has already occurred. It had to do so for us to be measuring it's progression. We are doing this in a time line fashion. But the energy had already completed it's cycle Either at each moment of measured time or (depending on the past, ) has been predetermined by history.
In several of my previous posts I referred to the Beginning and end as being linked. It occurs to me that it is quite possible that the structure does not need to complete a second half. (since this way of thinking is by humans) It could reach conclusion without any warning at all for no other reason than that an average is reached. Since time lines are not the trigger, once "space is full" then it's full.
Cheers
Iseason
Ps: Yes Gorgeous, I wonder what it is that you are trying to leave our future generations. Certainly not a sense of good manners,and far less than a good ability communicate.
I can't help but think you might be cheating in allowing motion(both in switching on and off and in rotation. )
Rotation cannot be relative to itself and must take place 'somewhere' so too for switching on and off. This also allows the base energy to be split, even if it is only by half. The half not on must still exist as energy even if it is of a differing nature.
to answer (or rather not answer questions about rotation) I am currently not investigating things which are already proven by measurement. I trust that those who do such work are skilled enough in those areas. My interest is in what has been glossed over, rather than investigated. I'm quite sure before most move on from base energy, they hit similar brick walls before deciding to work on what they feel they can use.
Motion is probably the greatest error. It creates a world where everything is explained via lot's of base energy and lot's of space. Without these two components every measurement in science has no meaning. The whole mathematical basis for science is ruled by measuring motion in space and time. Were it to be shown that none of these exist, it is as big a gap in current thinking as Newton's theories verses relativity and quantum.
I understand my critics and also understand why they think this way. But a time came when the motion of the planets gave way to the peculiarities in the atom and that sort of upheaval will happen again in science.
I agree with action at a distance......The distance is in time, not motion
I agree with conservation of energy.....Much more than does current theory
I agree with relativity....And show by "occurrence" that structure can be much more exact than any other methodology.
I agree energy cannot be measured and followed ....it is not there any more
I agree the universe is eternal......That does not mean infinite
I agree that geometry is key to the structure of the universe...Shapes repeating is only natural given the same "canvas and materials.
I agree with harmony....Without it geometry would be impossible
I do Not agree with God as a benevolent dictator....It is the natural evolution which would create it's own Law.
I do not agree with infinity....Because I can measure it's parts
I do not agree with light speed being the governor of time......or light is not here at all.
I don't agree that energy can repeat in the same frame....it is staggered throughout time.
There is very little that I can't relate to current measured thinking. The huge mistake , I believe , is to think that we need more than one instance of energy to do it . There are so many examples of cycles that it amazes me that it's so hard to believe.
The last thing that I want to say is that the end has already occurred. It had to do so for us to be measuring it's progression. We are doing this in a time line fashion. But the energy had already completed it's cycle Either at each moment of measured time or (depending on the past, ) has been predetermined by history.
In several of my previous posts I referred to the Beginning and end as being linked. It occurs to me that it is quite possible that the structure does not need to complete a second half. (since this way of thinking is by humans) It could reach conclusion without any warning at all for no other reason than that an average is reached. Since time lines are not the trigger, once "space is full" then it's full.
Cheers
Iseason
Ps: Yes Gorgeous, I wonder what it is that you are trying to leave our future generations. Certainly not a sense of good manners,and far less than a good ability communicate.
Hej Ivars - iseason
rotation - motion - existance - dimension
On one hand motion is needed in order to build dimension and once dimension is being established - then motion is impossible to deal with -
Is the problem hidden in infinite scales ?
Or better - the potential - the ability to extend into a further scale when needed.
Oscillating existance of smallest "thing" - I tend to agree that the "physical" part of this oscillating existance in some way or another involves motion, and the non-physical existance per definition cannot involve motion - because without dimensionality - the concept of motion is meaningless.
So we are forced into infinite phase-transistions - where the transistion from non-physical and into physical - where the transistion from non-dimensionality and into dimensionalit - is being gowerned by the same principles in all scales
non-physical information - informational bits with no dimension attached to them - pure kinetic information - is the rawmaterial of universe, and this rawmaterial can be translated into a physical expression, and such a transformation involves the construction of a DIMENSIONALITY.
And not only a dimensionality - but an OSCILLATING dimensionality - because the mere existance of dimension is useless for the "construction" of a physical universe - because physical is DYNAMIC - ever changing - Universe being this odd existance of something which cannot be into existance because it is ever changing - or - better to say that Universe must be half into existance and half into no-existance. Right back to Zenons Paradox with the pile.
Once an oscillating dimensionality has been constructed - has been born - the rest is a piece of cake.
rotation - motion - existance - dimension
On one hand motion is needed in order to build dimension and once dimension is being established - then motion is impossible to deal with -
Is the problem hidden in infinite scales ?
Or better - the potential - the ability to extend into a further scale when needed.
Oscillating existance of smallest "thing" - I tend to agree that the "physical" part of this oscillating existance in some way or another involves motion, and the non-physical existance per definition cannot involve motion - because without dimensionality - the concept of motion is meaningless.
So we are forced into infinite phase-transistions - where the transistion from non-physical and into physical - where the transistion from non-dimensionality and into dimensionalit - is being gowerned by the same principles in all scales
non-physical information - informational bits with no dimension attached to them - pure kinetic information - is the rawmaterial of universe, and this rawmaterial can be translated into a physical expression, and such a transformation involves the construction of a DIMENSIONALITY.
And not only a dimensionality - but an OSCILLATING dimensionality - because the mere existance of dimension is useless for the "construction" of a physical universe - because physical is DYNAMIC - ever changing - Universe being this odd existance of something which cannot be into existance because it is ever changing - or - better to say that Universe must be half into existance and half into no-existance. Right back to Zenons Paradox with the pile.
Once an oscillating dimensionality has been constructed - has been born - the rest is a piece of cake.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 10 2008, 08:06 AM)
In several of my previous posts I referred to the Beginning and end as being linked. It occurs to me that it is quite possible that the structure does not need to complete a second half. (since this way of thinking is by humans) It could reach conclusion without any warning at all for no other reason than that an average is reached. Since time lines are not the trigger, once "space is full" then it's full.
Hi Iseason
Providing I understand what You mean by beginning and end they are most definitely linked as they can not exist without each other.
Personally, I think they are linked in rather simple way, via Observer. (not God, Observer is a mathematical function space) . Only observer can notice that indivisible that oscillates is on /off 1/2 of cycle. The same should apply to end, or Big which embodies harmony. It also can be observed only from outside.
The outside is a space which registers relations between small and big in all scales all combinations. At the same time it may dictate what is possible what is not in each scale by defining the logic of that scale.
I was able to understand what happens with indivisible only by applying its logic to it. Its logic is very simple- on/off, he does not know anything else, so he behaves according to his simple logic, that requires him to be on/of .
Now, in each scale and even in each configuration we might have different rules of logic, so understanding them is quite tedious as You have to switch logic on a go.
What I think observer does, it keeps the track of these changes in logic and allows one to follow patterns in that. If we are able to discern patterns in changes of logic following changes in spatial complexity and corresponding information mirror. we are able to understand all. If there are not patterns how logic changes or we can not figure them out, we are stuck.
To conclude in a constructive manner, I still think the things You deal with ( like energy) are too wide concepts to be understood and applied accurately. If energy is e.g information about spatial dimensionalities of matter than it can be calculated and explained in much more detailed ways.
As to the law of conservation of angular momentum, I have not seen any satisfactory explanation why it should hold and on how big/small scales does it hold,and does it hold absolutely or at small /big masses may have deviations.
In galaxy rotation curves, has it been singled out is it Newtons law of attraction or conservation of angular moment that does not hold? It is assumed its either Newton law(MOND) , or there is extra dark matter ( which is the same- correction due to Newton gravitation law). But what if angular moment conservation of such galaxies does not hold?
Hi Iseason
Providing I understand what You mean by beginning and end they are most definitely linked as they can not exist without each other.
Personally, I think they are linked in rather simple way, via Observer. (not God, Observer is a mathematical function space) . Only observer can notice that indivisible that oscillates is on /off 1/2 of cycle. The same should apply to end, or Big which embodies harmony. It also can be observed only from outside.
The outside is a space which registers relations between small and big in all scales all combinations. At the same time it may dictate what is possible what is not in each scale by defining the logic of that scale.
I was able to understand what happens with indivisible only by applying its logic to it. Its logic is very simple- on/off, he does not know anything else, so he behaves according to his simple logic, that requires him to be on/of .
Now, in each scale and even in each configuration we might have different rules of logic, so understanding them is quite tedious as You have to switch logic on a go.
What I think observer does, it keeps the track of these changes in logic and allows one to follow patterns in that. If we are able to discern patterns in changes of logic following changes in spatial complexity and corresponding information mirror. we are able to understand all. If there are not patterns how logic changes or we can not figure them out, we are stuck.
To conclude in a constructive manner, I still think the things You deal with ( like energy) are too wide concepts to be understood and applied accurately. If energy is e.g information about spatial dimensionalities of matter than it can be calculated and explained in much more detailed ways.
As to the law of conservation of angular momentum, I have not seen any satisfactory explanation why it should hold and on how big/small scales does it hold,and does it hold absolutely or at small /big masses may have deviations.
In galaxy rotation curves, has it been singled out is it Newtons law of attraction or conservation of angular moment that does not hold? It is assumed its either Newton law(MOND) , or there is extra dark matter ( which is the same- correction due to Newton gravitation law). But what if angular moment conservation of such galaxies does not hold?
Ivars
Perhaps we are seeing the same thing differently. My picture of Beginning could be like a cd which plays both the sides simultaneously.
you refer to on/off while I refer to Beginning / end......Perhaps a compact disc can be a visual picture
.Side 1 cd..one note......side2 cd..one note...side 1 cd...one note...And so on . This is why I said that perhaps we expect things to go in a like direction when the cd might be about to finish. With beginning and end linked , the middle function is finite. Each step towards the outside means a little more of the future is no longer controllable because a law (created as it moved outwards ) Doesn't require that the end and future will link up again.
Cheers
Iseason
Perhaps we are seeing the same thing differently. My picture of Beginning could be like a cd which plays both the sides simultaneously.
you refer to on/off while I refer to Beginning / end......Perhaps a compact disc can be a visual picture
.Side 1 cd..one note......side2 cd..one note...side 1 cd...one note...And so on . This is why I said that perhaps we expect things to go in a like direction when the cd might be about to finish. With beginning and end linked , the middle function is finite. Each step towards the outside means a little more of the future is no longer controllable because a law (created as it moved outwards ) Doesn't require that the end and future will link up again.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
Ps: Yes Gorgeous, I wonder what it is that you are trying to leave our future generations. Certainly not a sense of good manners,and far less than a good ability communicate.
It is quite simple.
A truly good ability to communicate requires that the communication be based upon Reality. You three stooges haven't got the faintest idea, and THAT is what you will leave behind you...more rubbish.
You merely pretend to be 'good', but that is to hide the fact of how wrong you are.
Pretence of any kind is not conducive to good communication. So, sort yourselves out, and you too can become gorgeous, just like me!
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "So, sort yourselves out, and you too can become gorgeous, just like me!"
Admittedly - if nothing else - you express humor
QUOTE: "So, sort yourselves out, and you too can become gorgeous, just like me!"
Admittedly - if nothing else - you express humor
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 10 2008, 12:12 AM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "So, sort yourselves out, and you too can become gorgeous, just like me!"
Admittedly - if nothing else - you express humor
It's a sign of intelligence, don't you know?!!
Where's yours?
When reason is dismissed, there is only 'entertainment' left.
g.
QUOTE: "So, sort yourselves out, and you too can become gorgeous, just like me!"
Admittedly - if nothing else - you express humor
It's a sign of intelligence, don't you know?!!
Where's yours?
When reason is dismissed, there is only 'entertainment' left.
g.
hej bukh, Iseason
As to the law of conservation of angular momentum, I have not seen any satisfactory explanation why it should hold and on how big/small scales does it hold,and does it hold absolutely or at small /big masses may have deviations.
In galaxy rotation curves, has it been singled out is it Newtons law of attraction or conservation of angular moment that does not hold? It is assumed its either Newton law(MOND) , or there is extra dark matter ( which is the same- correction due to Newton gravitation law). But what if angular moment conservation of such galaxies does not hold?
If we consider galaxies are actually SMALL in the locality they exist, it may be that their angular moment is not conserved there fore the force trying to throw matter away from center is weaker so that f=mv/r is replaced with f=mv/r^2. in such case, radius will disappear if equaled with Newtons law and speed will be constant independent of r.
Why I think it is possible is because of the same oscillations of indivisible, or point. When we have a rotation motion we would like to mark the axis of rotation in space somehow. Since space appears in forms of indivisibles, irregular, random appearances, then, if some part of space would repeat it we would like to have that point in space fixed, so it can not randomly oscillate or disappear.
But we need not it fixed all the time. Imagine we have 3 indivisibles rotating around middle one. The only requirement is, that in a process of appearance and disappearance of indivisibles, at each appearance the central indivisible also appears. So such rotating aggregate would have more constraints on central indivisible, but not that it should be permanently there, its enough if it oscillates synchronously with every possible change in aggregate.
This means, that are small rotating aggregates the axis will be present longer than any other indivisible in aggregate, but there will be also periods when middle indivisible can also disappear to register its existence. So the axis of rotation which in limit case is infinite presence of central point in space will be interrupted, like a stream of bits coming out of center, mostly on, sometimes of. Long beeps.
If the aggregate will have large amount of indivisibles, most of the time axis will be on, interrupted only rarely- ALMOST perfect conservation of momentum.
In smaller cases ( may be galaxy in its surroundings) the axis will be pulsating, as central point will be off also quite a long time. During the time when its off, the law of conservation of angular momentum is not perfect, so the object can precess if there is influence from any surroundings.
That could be the reason why quasars whose rotation axis we see,as SMALL objects in own locality, demonstrate slightly precessing pulsating rotation axis, as in any moment when central indivisible has departed to think about its existence, there is possibility to offset the other indivisibles participating in the rotation, so axis also demonstrate precession.
If we now look for an indivisible that exists all the time, then it can only be a center of rotation of all indivisibles appearing in Universe. So , if such existing indivisible exists;), it has to be a center of rotation of Universe.
This means that via this indivisible there are infinity (perhaps) of rotation axis , which define the underlying properties of space in which other indivisibles appear and aggregate.
Such construction implies that Universe has a symmetry of a sphere which rotates about infinite number of axis. As these axis spread out from the center, the density of underlying space dimensions is reduced, or space is stretched.
This then leads to the increase in G and decrease of c as we move further from center of Universe, because it leads to increase in metric or length scale, so that Galaxies which appear big are actually smaller than electron in their respective scale.
This plus the rotation axis propagated in space also explains noticed "expansion of space " and , because metric increases increasing length of waves, redshifts, at least first order. And this is SIMPLE.
The axis serve as anchoring places around whom aggregates of matter may rotate, with their imperfect angular moments, creating secondary etc rotation axis that are not infinite , aligned more or less with the main axis of Universe.
If we now ask is there a place in Universe where no oscillating indivisibles never appear, its obviously a spherical shell infinitely far from the center. Such shell contains nothing. However, on this shell we may see the projections of all that is going on in Universe, immensely magnified along rays, or axis that stretch out. These are images, or purely informational representations of reality. Since indivisibles on the rays appear and disappear inside sphere, the picture on sphere is changing. Since there are infinitely many rays, on the sphere we can see the life history of each separate indivisible if we choose the projection sphere far enough.
Moving closer blurs the vision, however, if we think that space forms matter in scales, there has to be sphere on certain distance from center on which any scale can be discernible- e.g. there has to be a sphere showing all electrons, all fishes, etc, etc.
The stretching of space due to rotation axis going outwards from a point, also explains that maximum complexity of spatial structures is possible only near the center. The further away, the simpler the structures become, so there is no comparable complexity to what is possible near center anywhere in Universe, except on infinite sphere.
I like this construct, It explains why galaxies and everything rotates .
As to the law of conservation of angular momentum, I have not seen any satisfactory explanation why it should hold and on how big/small scales does it hold,and does it hold absolutely or at small /big masses may have deviations.
In galaxy rotation curves, has it been singled out is it Newtons law of attraction or conservation of angular moment that does not hold? It is assumed its either Newton law(MOND) , or there is extra dark matter ( which is the same- correction due to Newton gravitation law). But what if angular moment conservation of such galaxies does not hold?
If we consider galaxies are actually SMALL in the locality they exist, it may be that their angular moment is not conserved there fore the force trying to throw matter away from center is weaker so that f=mv/r is replaced with f=mv/r^2. in such case, radius will disappear if equaled with Newtons law and speed will be constant independent of r.
Why I think it is possible is because of the same oscillations of indivisible, or point. When we have a rotation motion we would like to mark the axis of rotation in space somehow. Since space appears in forms of indivisibles, irregular, random appearances, then, if some part of space would repeat it we would like to have that point in space fixed, so it can not randomly oscillate or disappear.
But we need not it fixed all the time. Imagine we have 3 indivisibles rotating around middle one. The only requirement is, that in a process of appearance and disappearance of indivisibles, at each appearance the central indivisible also appears. So such rotating aggregate would have more constraints on central indivisible, but not that it should be permanently there, its enough if it oscillates synchronously with every possible change in aggregate.
This means, that are small rotating aggregates the axis will be present longer than any other indivisible in aggregate, but there will be also periods when middle indivisible can also disappear to register its existence. So the axis of rotation which in limit case is infinite presence of central point in space will be interrupted, like a stream of bits coming out of center, mostly on, sometimes of. Long beeps.
If the aggregate will have large amount of indivisibles, most of the time axis will be on, interrupted only rarely- ALMOST perfect conservation of momentum.
In smaller cases ( may be galaxy in its surroundings) the axis will be pulsating, as central point will be off also quite a long time. During the time when its off, the law of conservation of angular momentum is not perfect, so the object can precess if there is influence from any surroundings.
That could be the reason why quasars whose rotation axis we see,as SMALL objects in own locality, demonstrate slightly precessing pulsating rotation axis, as in any moment when central indivisible has departed to think about its existence, there is possibility to offset the other indivisibles participating in the rotation, so axis also demonstrate precession.
If we now look for an indivisible that exists all the time, then it can only be a center of rotation of all indivisibles appearing in Universe. So , if such existing indivisible exists;), it has to be a center of rotation of Universe.
This means that via this indivisible there are infinity (perhaps) of rotation axis , which define the underlying properties of space in which other indivisibles appear and aggregate.
Such construction implies that Universe has a symmetry of a sphere which rotates about infinite number of axis. As these axis spread out from the center, the density of underlying space dimensions is reduced, or space is stretched.
This then leads to the increase in G and decrease of c as we move further from center of Universe, because it leads to increase in metric or length scale, so that Galaxies which appear big are actually smaller than electron in their respective scale.
This plus the rotation axis propagated in space also explains noticed "expansion of space " and , because metric increases increasing length of waves, redshifts, at least first order. And this is SIMPLE.
The axis serve as anchoring places around whom aggregates of matter may rotate, with their imperfect angular moments, creating secondary etc rotation axis that are not infinite , aligned more or less with the main axis of Universe.
If we now ask is there a place in Universe where no oscillating indivisibles never appear, its obviously a spherical shell infinitely far from the center. Such shell contains nothing. However, on this shell we may see the projections of all that is going on in Universe, immensely magnified along rays, or axis that stretch out. These are images, or purely informational representations of reality. Since indivisibles on the rays appear and disappear inside sphere, the picture on sphere is changing. Since there are infinitely many rays, on the sphere we can see the life history of each separate indivisible if we choose the projection sphere far enough.
Moving closer blurs the vision, however, if we think that space forms matter in scales, there has to be sphere on certain distance from center on which any scale can be discernible- e.g. there has to be a sphere showing all electrons, all fishes, etc, etc.
The stretching of space due to rotation axis going outwards from a point, also explains that maximum complexity of spatial structures is possible only near the center. The further away, the simpler the structures become, so there is no comparable complexity to what is possible near center anywhere in Universe, except on infinite sphere.
I like this construct, It explains why galaxies and everything rotates .
hej bukh, iseason
I have left out the information space in previous post because I have a strong feeling that the infinite sphere is the information space that is the mirror of matter .
If any indivisible exists in space, there will be a shadow on that sphere, so no indivisible , 0 there. If there is a ray on which no indivisible exists, the sphere will show the end of the ray, or 1.
This corresponds very well to the properties of mirroring required from thoughts of indivisible, or information space. If indivisible exists spatially, it does not exist in information space. If it does not exist spatially, it exists on information sphere. Crystal globe.
There has to be mathematics that deals with these things so properties of empty space , potential space becomes clearly definable, and we have an obvious reason for rotation and harmony in the projection sphere and rays that constitute axis of rotation with decreasing density when we move away from the center.
I have left out the information space in previous post because I have a strong feeling that the infinite sphere is the information space that is the mirror of matter .
If any indivisible exists in space, there will be a shadow on that sphere, so no indivisible , 0 there. If there is a ray on which no indivisible exists, the sphere will show the end of the ray, or 1.
This corresponds very well to the properties of mirroring required from thoughts of indivisible, or information space. If indivisible exists spatially, it does not exist in information space. If it does not exist spatially, it exists on information sphere. Crystal globe.
There has to be mathematics that deals with these things so properties of empty space , potential space becomes clearly definable, and we have an obvious reason for rotation and harmony in the projection sphere and rays that constitute axis of rotation with decreasing density when we move away from the center.
hej bukh, iseason
time for numbers:
Once we have geometry of potential space thought out as a center indivisible with rays that are absolute rotation axis of Universe as whole emanating from it to end in projections on infinite sphere that rotates around all these axis , and the shadows of infinitesimals representing their thoughts of their own existance in on the sphere. we get quite a few infinite dimensional spaces:
like :
Space of all rotation axis emanating from center
Space on sphere at infinity
may be more.
I would like to speculate on what numbers should be used where.
Let us assume that counting of indivisibles for time being is done by integers ( though it may be we need transfinite numbers, but I am not yet good enough to use them).
1) If there is spatial presence of indivisible, the number to count it would be positive, since it exists.
2) If it exists, and thought about it does not exist, fine. However, as thought about indivisible appears on the sphere on infinity projected by ray or VIA PROCESSES defined on sphere itself ( information space) , indivisible vanishes. That means that thoughts about existence of indivisible on sphere at infinity has to be counted by negative numbers, since they have the POTENTIAL to destroy , cancel indivisible that exists , positive number. 1+(-1)= 0 in spatial part. The notion of negative numbers as Potential to destroy reality has been long ago noticed by e.g character of a loan- if you have it , the money that will come in really will be cancelled by it, and you will possess nothing.
3) There are many indivisbles spatially present, or not, but all of them EXCEPT one has exactly 1 ray going through them. All these are counted by positive integers ( may be reals,but for example i will not delve into it -not ready yet), while thoughts about them by negative integers on sphere. Any scale of objects can be counted in such was provided we choose the right sphere at infinity where projections of that scale are the smallest discernable.
However, the point in the center, where all rotation axis of infinite sphere meet, we have a different kinf of indivisible, which is present all the time. In fact, it is infinitely DIVISIBLE as infinite number of lines cross it. It is divisible because we can have infinite number of spheres at infinity, all of which are reciprocal to the points in the middle, but at different infinite (or finite) distances from it.
To count such points, or give it a symbol, rather, we need I, imaginary unit. Its reciprocal then, 1/I , represents all the possible spheres at infinity in one symbol, while i represents all the lines -axis of rotation going via the center. having -I represent the spheres follows the same logic with + and - as with indivisibles and thoughts on sphere. So these 2 are not normal points, at all. The center divisible has inner structure comprised of lines crossing in it, while 1/i =-i has inner structure of infinite spherical shells.
4) On the spheres at infinity, we may develop another set of numbers, binary. They will follow the rule that if a thought exists, its 1, if it does not exist, its 0. That also means at the same time that on that particular ray, no indivisible exists (1) or it exists ( 0) somewhere in space, but we do not know where, so binary information gives full picture.
Agains, since we can choose any sphere at infinity so that we will get only projections of things we want to consider integers, binary logic can be applied to objects bigger than indivisibles as well as long as on a given sphere their projections are smallest discernible scale.
5) Once we know that information about conditions of each of infinite scales from indivisibles up can be stored /exist as bits (thougths) on some sphere, the total bits on all spheres will contain information about flash picture of all what goes on in Universe at all scales.
6) The interesting part is , since we have I and -I including all rays and all spheres, there has to be a possibility to link the information bits on a certain sphere and the reality it represents via complex numbers/functions.
That is how far I have got. To make this stick, the counting methods proposed and storage fo information about any spatial configuration has to generalized so that it does not contradict the usual finite counting and use of numbers.
7) The tetration with its strange property that i^(1/) = e^pi/2 infinitely exponentiated = I means in this context that tetration performs the rotations of e^pi/2 which must be related to sphere and indivisibles ( I do not now yet the exact answer, e coming from poisson, 1/2 from division of lines in 2, pi from sphere most likely) across or around all the axis that pass via center I, so it kind naturally spirals into the center point and ends up being I and - I at the same time since tetration does not specify in which direction do we perform the turns- left or right, inward towards I (should be clockwise) , outwards towards -I (should be anticlockwise) .(this I item is also not clear yet where in this Universe one direction may dominate other. ) As long as its empty=no spatial formations, both directions are equally possible, probably.
Alternatively, we can say that self root of I , or -I, meaning we start from center outwards creates e^pi/2. this is not clear yet what is primary.
It might be that the drive towards increasing complexity (caused by ? ) means that inward rotation dominates the spatial development of such universe,hence matter dominates antimatter.
8) There are at least 2 if not 3 rules what happens:
Rules on spatial interactions of indivisibles (perhaps platonic solids , K-vortexes etc geometry)
Rules on binaries on infinite spheres
Rules linking both via I, -I - complex function theory
To this we have to add geometries of sphere at infinity ( hyperbolic) , finite spheres, geometry complex manifolds, of I and -I, more things.
Again, i am trying to understand the internal structure of mathematics. If properly placed on infinite numbers spheres at infinity (the counting of these spheres must be the true place for transfinite ordinals, while surreal numebrs will count the binary path from sphere to sphere starting with OUTMOST that contains the image of indivisible, smallest, with biggest resolution,) It can not but represent all that happens, in one to one resemblance as there is no space left neither spatially, nor informationally for anything else.
The scale wise formations on spheres at infinity will produce TIME , as we progressively follow the path of any image of indivisible from the place where it first appears on outer sphere to the aggregate it ends up in. Such time lines are infinite as well, one for each indivisible. They may form plaits etc, spiral as they progress towards center but are still at infinity, and their interaction will influence what happens with spatial indivisibles. Boolean logic on such sphere may destroy an indivisible in space without much warning.
time for numbers:
Once we have geometry of potential space thought out as a center indivisible with rays that are absolute rotation axis of Universe as whole emanating from it to end in projections on infinite sphere that rotates around all these axis , and the shadows of infinitesimals representing their thoughts of their own existance in on the sphere. we get quite a few infinite dimensional spaces:
like :
Space of all rotation axis emanating from center
Space on sphere at infinity
may be more.
I would like to speculate on what numbers should be used where.
Let us assume that counting of indivisibles for time being is done by integers ( though it may be we need transfinite numbers, but I am not yet good enough to use them).
1) If there is spatial presence of indivisible, the number to count it would be positive, since it exists.
2) If it exists, and thought about it does not exist, fine. However, as thought about indivisible appears on the sphere on infinity projected by ray or VIA PROCESSES defined on sphere itself ( information space) , indivisible vanishes. That means that thoughts about existence of indivisible on sphere at infinity has to be counted by negative numbers, since they have the POTENTIAL to destroy , cancel indivisible that exists , positive number. 1+(-1)= 0 in spatial part. The notion of negative numbers as Potential to destroy reality has been long ago noticed by e.g character of a loan- if you have it , the money that will come in really will be cancelled by it, and you will possess nothing.
3) There are many indivisbles spatially present, or not, but all of them EXCEPT one has exactly 1 ray going through them. All these are counted by positive integers ( may be reals,but for example i will not delve into it -not ready yet), while thoughts about them by negative integers on sphere. Any scale of objects can be counted in such was provided we choose the right sphere at infinity where projections of that scale are the smallest discernable.
However, the point in the center, where all rotation axis of infinite sphere meet, we have a different kinf of indivisible, which is present all the time. In fact, it is infinitely DIVISIBLE as infinite number of lines cross it. It is divisible because we can have infinite number of spheres at infinity, all of which are reciprocal to the points in the middle, but at different infinite (or finite) distances from it.
To count such points, or give it a symbol, rather, we need I, imaginary unit. Its reciprocal then, 1/I , represents all the possible spheres at infinity in one symbol, while i represents all the lines -axis of rotation going via the center. having -I represent the spheres follows the same logic with + and - as with indivisibles and thoughts on sphere. So these 2 are not normal points, at all. The center divisible has inner structure comprised of lines crossing in it, while 1/i =-i has inner structure of infinite spherical shells.
4) On the spheres at infinity, we may develop another set of numbers, binary. They will follow the rule that if a thought exists, its 1, if it does not exist, its 0. That also means at the same time that on that particular ray, no indivisible exists (1) or it exists ( 0) somewhere in space, but we do not know where, so binary information gives full picture.
Agains, since we can choose any sphere at infinity so that we will get only projections of things we want to consider integers, binary logic can be applied to objects bigger than indivisibles as well as long as on a given sphere their projections are smallest discernible scale.
5) Once we know that information about conditions of each of infinite scales from indivisibles up can be stored /exist as bits (thougths) on some sphere, the total bits on all spheres will contain information about flash picture of all what goes on in Universe at all scales.
6) The interesting part is , since we have I and -I including all rays and all spheres, there has to be a possibility to link the information bits on a certain sphere and the reality it represents via complex numbers/functions.
That is how far I have got. To make this stick, the counting methods proposed and storage fo information about any spatial configuration has to generalized so that it does not contradict the usual finite counting and use of numbers.
7) The tetration with its strange property that i^(1/) = e^pi/2 infinitely exponentiated = I means in this context that tetration performs the rotations of e^pi/2 which must be related to sphere and indivisibles ( I do not now yet the exact answer, e coming from poisson, 1/2 from division of lines in 2, pi from sphere most likely) across or around all the axis that pass via center I, so it kind naturally spirals into the center point and ends up being I and - I at the same time since tetration does not specify in which direction do we perform the turns- left or right, inward towards I (should be clockwise) , outwards towards -I (should be anticlockwise) .(this I item is also not clear yet where in this Universe one direction may dominate other. ) As long as its empty=no spatial formations, both directions are equally possible, probably.
Alternatively, we can say that self root of I , or -I, meaning we start from center outwards creates e^pi/2. this is not clear yet what is primary.
It might be that the drive towards increasing complexity (caused by ? ) means that inward rotation dominates the spatial development of such universe,hence matter dominates antimatter.
8) There are at least 2 if not 3 rules what happens:
Rules on spatial interactions of indivisibles (perhaps platonic solids , K-vortexes etc geometry)
Rules on binaries on infinite spheres
Rules linking both via I, -I - complex function theory
To this we have to add geometries of sphere at infinity ( hyperbolic) , finite spheres, geometry complex manifolds, of I and -I, more things.
Again, i am trying to understand the internal structure of mathematics. If properly placed on infinite numbers spheres at infinity (the counting of these spheres must be the true place for transfinite ordinals, while surreal numebrs will count the binary path from sphere to sphere starting with OUTMOST that contains the image of indivisible, smallest, with biggest resolution,) It can not but represent all that happens, in one to one resemblance as there is no space left neither spatially, nor informationally for anything else.
The scale wise formations on spheres at infinity will produce TIME , as we progressively follow the path of any image of indivisible from the place where it first appears on outer sphere to the aggregate it ends up in. Such time lines are infinite as well, one for each indivisible. They may form plaits etc, spiral as they progress towards center but are still at infinity, and their interaction will influence what happens with spatial indivisibles. Boolean logic on such sphere may destroy an indivisible in space without much warning.
All of the ^above^ is absolutely wrong, untrue, rubbish.
g.
g.
Infinity can not be proven to exist. How would you measure it? It is really a philosophical concept that is as easy to prove as God. The concept of infinity is important to science and math. But in terms of reality, it is metaphysics, being treated as a fact of nature without any proof, only faith. To put it in perspective, we will find a unicorn before infinity. If is very likely infinity came from a God concept in an attempt to explain boundless attributes. Infinity is in that gray area between science and religion, but closer to religion than unicorns. Don't get me wrong I like infinity and use it all the time.
Someone mentioned "eternal Truth" thank goodness that's not true otherwise the earth would still be flat.
As to infinity, practically it does not exist because we are limited by our tools of observation. If we cannot observe or detect something to all intents and purposes it does not exist.
As to infinity, practically it does not exist because we are limited by our tools of observation. If we cannot observe or detect something to all intents and purposes it does not exist.
QUOTE (MDT+Jun 12 2008, 01:14 PM)
Infinity can not be proven to exist. How would you measure it? It is really a philosophical concept that is as easy to prove as God. The concept of infinity is important to science and math. But in terms of reality, it is metaphysics, being treated as a fact of nature without any proof, only faith. To put it in perspective, we will find a unicorn before infinity. If is very likely infinity came from a God concept in an attempt to explain boundless attributes. Infinity is in that gray area between science and religion, but closer to religion than unicorns. Don't get me wrong I like infinity and use it all the time.
exactly!
Cheers
Iseason
exactly!
Cheers
Iseason
Infinity is itself an ideal. Otherwise it would be a number and not a word. It covers "everything else that we couldn't explain by measuring". But When Infinity is challenged as a true concept, it has a gaping flaw.
IT MEANS IT CANNOT BE MEASURED
Every point along an infinite line is it's centre. There is no limit in this direction and no limit in any direction......So nothing in which to allow "reality to inhabit"...For that you need infinity to NOT inhabit your reality.
As well as this it violates every physical law
Conservation of energy
Rate of propagation
Gravity
Statistical possibilities in quantum
Time....Time has breaks......infinity has none.
Cheers
Iseason
IT MEANS IT CANNOT BE MEASURED
Every point along an infinite line is it's centre. There is no limit in this direction and no limit in any direction......So nothing in which to allow "reality to inhabit"...For that you need infinity to NOT inhabit your reality.
As well as this it violates every physical law
Conservation of energy
Rate of propagation
Gravity
Statistical possibilities in quantum
Time....Time has breaks......infinity has none.
Cheers
Iseason
If you do not understand the concept, as proven by this very thread, you are in no position to either deny or accept it.
You simply do not understand. Rather, you pretend to converse with people who afraid of dictionaries regarding topics that you are also afraid of, and are thus trying to 'fight', instead of gain knowledge thereof.
This is just poor politics. Why start a thread about something you already believe not to exist?
g.
You simply do not understand. Rather, you pretend to converse with people who afraid of dictionaries regarding topics that you are also afraid of, and are thus trying to 'fight', instead of gain knowledge thereof.
This is just poor politics. Why start a thread about something you already believe not to exist?
g.
QUOTE (prometheus+Jun 8 2008, 11:20 AM)
If it's just regular wave equations then I'm pretty familiar with them and I can quite categorically say he is wrong.
Ah, I missed this gem...
How are you able to catagorically say 'crackpot' without even knowing which wave equations are being posited?
I can see you have gone in depth with your 'investigation'!
You people are going to have to do better than this!
g.
Ah, I missed this gem...
How are you able to catagorically say 'crackpot' without even knowing which wave equations are being posited?
QUOTE
He doesn't tell us what equations he's talking about.
I can see you have gone in depth with your 'investigation'!
You people are going to have to do better than this!
g.
[QUOTE]All of the ^above^ is absolutely wrong, untrue, rubbish.
Interesting. I wish I had your conviction. You sound like a teacher. I might have agreed if you said it was illogical and did not agree the best and most recent scientific observation.
Interesting. I wish I had your conviction. You sound like a teacher. I might have agreed if you said it was illogical and did not agree the best and most recent scientific observation.
Well now, neilrowe, let's see...
You've been here since Sept. 06 and made only 11 posts, 5 of which have been to this thread in the recent past. That must mean you have quite some keen interest in the topic...
...but sadly, not a single mention of it. Now what are we to make of this?
Is this the elusive 'fourth stooge'?
I agree that it is an interesting topic though. It's certainly attracting great attention at the moment.
Perhaps you and I could thrash out a true definition?
g.
You've been here since Sept. 06 and made only 11 posts, 5 of which have been to this thread in the recent past. That must mean you have quite some keen interest in the topic...
...but sadly, not a single mention of it. Now what are we to make of this?
Is this the elusive 'fourth stooge'?
I agree that it is an interesting topic though. It's certainly attracting great attention at the moment.
Perhaps you and I could thrash out a true definition?
g.
[QUOTE]Someone mentioned "eternal Truth" thank goodness that's not true otherwise the earth would still be flat.
As to infinity, practically it does not exist because we are limited by our tools of observation. If we cannot observe or detect something to all intents and purposes it does not exist.
I thought the above was on the topic.
As to a definition the dictionary will do.
As to my number posts "tempus fugit".
I find the topic quite boring but people's ideas are interesting as are their interactions and philosophical bents.
As to infinity, practically it does not exist because we are limited by our tools of observation. If we cannot observe or detect something to all intents and purposes it does not exist.
I thought the above was on the topic.
As to a definition the dictionary will do.
As to my number posts "tempus fugit".
I find the topic quite boring but people's ideas are interesting as are their interactions and philosophical bents.
Well, if you are so pushed for time, why spend it on a subject you find quite boring? Surely there are plenty of philosophy sites that would interest you more?
You and iseason have fallen into the same trap...
It is true that something infinite can never be measured, in its entirety (this is where we get 'mystery' from) ~ however, this is not the same thing as deducing how it necessarily operates. We know how a tree exists, but we have not investigated every leaf, or measured them to see if they conform to our pre-conceived ideas of 'leafiness'.
There is a common misconception that once a thing is measured it becomes known, or understood. Once a thing is measured, its measurements are known and understood. We know there is such a thing as 'consciousness', and we have tried to measure it in many ways, yet it still remains elusive in many respects.
g.
You and iseason have fallen into the same trap...
It is true that something infinite can never be measured, in its entirety (this is where we get 'mystery' from) ~ however, this is not the same thing as deducing how it necessarily operates. We know how a tree exists, but we have not investigated every leaf, or measured them to see if they conform to our pre-conceived ideas of 'leafiness'.
There is a common misconception that once a thing is measured it becomes known, or understood. Once a thing is measured, its measurements are known and understood. We know there is such a thing as 'consciousness', and we have tried to measure it in many ways, yet it still remains elusive in many respects.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 13 2008, 12:59 AM)
Ah, I missed this gem...
How are you able to catagorically say 'crackpot' without even knowing which wave equations are being posited?
I can see you have gone in depth with your 'investigation'!
You people are going to have to do better than this!
g.
Gorgeous,
I can't open the link. Would you justify your criticism of Prometheus by posting the equations which you seem to imply are within the link?
If the link really doesn't say what equations are used then unfortunately it holds no water and sounds more like religion than science.
Hopefully you will show us the equations fundamental to this theory...
How are you able to catagorically say 'crackpot' without even knowing which wave equations are being posited?
I can see you have gone in depth with your 'investigation'!
You people are going to have to do better than this!
g.
Gorgeous,
I can't open the link. Would you justify your criticism of Prometheus by posting the equations which you seem to imply are within the link?
If the link really doesn't say what equations are used then unfortunately it holds no water and sounds more like religion than science.
Hopefully you will show us the equations fundamental to this theory...
Interesting alliance you have there! ~ Have you been having a conference?
Posters such as prometheus (the 'trickster' of greek mythology) declare something 'crackpot' without even reading it, and in so doing also call respected Real physicists like Carver Mead and Erwin Shroedinger 'crackpot'. This exposes just one aspect of how much of an actual 'physicist' they are. Does prometheus need you to ask for him? Is his pc also having the same problems as yours? ~ so, it is up to you supposed 'physicists' to show that you really do know anything about text-book standard wave~equations, and apply them using the Doppler shifts, as mentioned. But you won't be doing it for my benefit, it will be for your own benefit, because you truly want to understand, by elimination or acceptance.
Posters such as prometheus (the 'trickster' of greek mythology) declare something 'crackpot' without even reading it, and in so doing also call respected Real physicists like Carver Mead and Erwin Shroedinger 'crackpot'. This exposes just one aspect of how much of an actual 'physicist' they are. Does prometheus need you to ask for him? Is his pc also having the same problems as yours? ~ so, it is up to you supposed 'physicists' to show that you really do know anything about text-book standard wave~equations, and apply them using the Doppler shifts, as mentioned. But you won't be doing it for my benefit, it will be for your own benefit, because you truly want to understand, by elimination or acceptance.
"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead
'It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.' (Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics)
'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements
of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.' (Erwin Schrodinger)
And here, on such a 'forum', anyone could be anyone, regardless of whatever they say. Your understanding is your own, therefore it is for you to search for, so that you appreciate your own powers of deduction instead of relying on others to agree with you, or not. Because it is correct that you should not just 'believe' someone from an internet forum. Even me. ~ Oh, unless of course it is YOU who wishes to turn science into some religion?
Your (collective) excuses are becoming rather sad and pathetic, I'm afraid. This is one of the great discoveries of modern science, so it is just a bit alarming that you seem so disinterested, and would rather concentrate on character assassination of people simply trying to pass on information, and willing to let others decide for themselves.
All of the links work. And you have linked to get here, so it is not the fault of your pc. Here are a few relevant ones...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...y.htm#wsm.maths
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-S...ture-Matter.htm
...at the top of these pages you can navigate to all other sections, being that it has NOT been thrown together by some 'crackpot'. If you are serious enough you will not rest until you have found what you are looking for, just like Milo Wolff (a Real physicist) was. This last page is where the Milo Wolff wave~equations and deductions are.
For my own part, it would be an advancement of my understanding, should anyone be able to prove the WSM wrong, and so would be happy to see such an attempt made. This is also the feeling of people concerned with the WSM itself, being as they are NOT 'crackpots', but Real people who are Really seeking a true understanding of how things necessarily exist. Thus, when proven wrong, they are happy to accept it, unlike those who do things for 'other' reasons.
g.
perhaps - we have reached Your limit of responding
Still living in the land of hope instead of Reality, I see!
How about posting something on Infinity that males sense?
Go on, I dare you!
(Interesting reference to 'we', though. ~ Thanks for that. )
g.
There is no 'removal', just constant change. There is only One possibility to consider when talking of things 'standing alone', and that is One thing, existing infinitely.
All of the above references to 'empty space' and 'nothingness' are in error. What does not exist plays no part in the consideration of how Reality is...i.e. 'existing'.
Take away what cannot be and you are left only with what is so.
g.
Here one should add: mentally constructed by whom?
If by human mind ( remember Russels paradox, it requires 3 things to state "it exists" :"it", "existence" and MIND that perform this operation of stating, connecting these terms.
What I am trying to point out is that MIND in terms Human mind or whoever almost omnipotent MIND is not available for spatial indivisibles I mentioned earlier. Their mind is primitive and has 1/2 bit capacity, and takes their whole structure to express a thought. So with THEIR mind, there is not possible to have a though about own existence and exist at the same time.
For them it exists is a 2 step process: First they exist, but have no thought about it- so 1/2 bit is created. Second, they think they exist- thought is there- but it has used spatial body for thought, so it disappears spatially to be present informationally.
Indivisible have own logic and own mathematics which their minds can construct. it turns out, that their mathematics (thoughts) is also equivalent to their physics (reality) , so suspicions arise that this might be true also in bigger scales of aggregates of indivisibles.
At this stage, there is not need to add notions of energy, time, motion or other complex things to the issue. It is just spatial vs. ideal existence and to what it leads if we want to resolve the paradox by SU using logic (mind) available at the scale at hand, without human minds INVOLVED, but just observing the eternal mental struggle of indivisible to register itself.
One of the indivisible can register itself by becoming the center of rotation of all other indivisibles-and that also coincides with Iseason evolution principle.
Later we see that direct result of this oscillating indivisible is Iseason's we can not exist if we do not move= we can not exist if indivisibles do not rearrange at each cycle. Perfectly true.
'Cause' and 'effect' are the same thing ~ motion of Space (what exists).
We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion.
'Time' is a description of sequence ~ motion of Space (what exists).
g.
'Cause' and 'effect' are the same thing ~ motion of Space (what exists).
We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion.
'Time' is a description of sequence ~ motion of Space (what exists).
g.
'Cause' and 'effect' are the same thing ~ motion of Space (what exists).
We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion.
'Time' is a description of sequence ~ motion of Space (what exists).
g.
I know you CHOOSE to split hairs in every answer to my posts . Get over yourself!
Science has been "fixing points in space" in every measurement that ever was. There IS no terminology that I can use which will adequately describe this. It is nearly impossible to create any 'picture' without referring to a "time line structure terminology".
Pixel describes a fixed point in a finite space. Or would you rather I made up words? Yes you would. All the better to Bang you stick against you droning pot. I've seen you post things on this forum that are so close to what I'm saying that it makes me sick to read your hypocrisy.
evolve some more into a human concienceness that gives a damn, because at the moment you are just pure spiteful ramblings. I haven't actually seen you celebrate the regions within our thinking which matches your own. You are dishonest and deceitful and full of yourself.
I saw you become gleeful when a poster gave you back spite for spite and say " see, you CAN do it".
CHeers
iseason
I know you CHOOSE to split hairs in every answer to my posts . Get over yourself!
Science has been "fixing points in space" in every measurement that ever was. There IS no terminology that I can use which will adequately describe this. It is nearly impossible to create any 'picture' without referring to a "time line structure terminology".
Pixel describes a fixed point in a finite space. Or would you rather I made up words? Yes you would. All the better to Bang you stick against you droning pot. I've seen you post things on this forum that are so close to what I'm saying that it makes me sick to read your hypocrisy.
evolve some more into a human concienceness that gives a damn, because at the moment you are just pure spiteful ramblings. I haven't actually seen you celebrate the regions within our thinking which matches your own. You are dishonest and deceitful and full of yourself.
I saw you become gleeful when a poster gave you back spite for spite and say " see, you CAN do it".
CHeers
iseason
Getting very desperate now, iseason. Just a matter of 'time' (motion of what exists) before the real you is shown.
I prove you totally wrong, and you have nothing but abuse in return. Yes those 'spiteful ramblings' you can detect really are coming from you! No change there, then.
Surely you can understand that anyone with a semi-functioning brain can see how completely non-sensical this is?
I can only assume that your English teacher had a wicked sense of humour!
g.
QUOTE
There are no reasons given for why the Wave Structure of Matter is wrong - other than to say that it makes no testable predictions.
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).
Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.
Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.
Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube
Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).
Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.
Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.
Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube
Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.
And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.
Posters such as prometheus (the 'trickster' of greek mythology) declare something 'crackpot' without even reading it, and in so doing also call respected Real physicists like Carver Mead and Erwin Shroedinger 'crackpot'. This exposes just one aspect of how much of an actual 'physicist' they are. Does prometheus need you to ask for him? Is his pc also having the same problems as yours? ~ so, it is up to you supposed 'physicists' to show that you really do know anything about text-book standard wave~equations, and apply them using the Doppler shifts, as mentioned. But you won't be doing it for my benefit, it will be for your own benefit, because you truly want to understand, by elimination or acceptance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are no reasons given for why the Wave Structure of Matter is wrong - other than to say that it makes no testable predictions. However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave). Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory. Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e. 1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory. 2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity. Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves. And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy. |
Posters such as prometheus (the 'trickster' of greek mythology) declare something 'crackpot' without even reading it, and in so doing also call respected Real physicists like Carver Mead and Erwin Shroedinger 'crackpot'. This exposes just one aspect of how much of an actual 'physicist' they are. Does prometheus need you to ask for him? Is his pc also having the same problems as yours? ~ so, it is up to you supposed 'physicists' to show that you really do know anything about text-book standard wave~equations, and apply them using the Doppler shifts, as mentioned. But you won't be doing it for my benefit, it will be for your own benefit, because you truly want to understand, by elimination or acceptance.
"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carver_Mead
'It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.' (Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics)
'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements
of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.' (Erwin Schrodinger)
And here, on such a 'forum', anyone could be anyone, regardless of whatever they say. Your understanding is your own, therefore it is for you to search for, so that you appreciate your own powers of deduction instead of relying on others to agree with you, or not. Because it is correct that you should not just 'believe' someone from an internet forum. Even me.
~ Oh, unless of course it is YOU who wishes to turn science into some religion? Your (collective) excuses are becoming rather sad and pathetic, I'm afraid. This is one of the great discoveries of modern science, so it is just a bit alarming that you seem so disinterested, and would rather concentrate on character assassination of people simply trying to pass on information, and willing to let others decide for themselves.
All of the links work. And you have linked to get here, so it is not the fault of your pc. Here are a few relevant ones...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...sics-forums.htm
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/mathematical...y.htm#wsm.maths
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-S...ture-Matter.htm
...at the top of these pages you can navigate to all other sections, being that it has NOT been thrown together by some 'crackpot'. If you are serious enough you will not rest until you have found what you are looking for, just like Milo Wolff (a Real physicist) was. This last page is where the Milo Wolff wave~equations and deductions are.
For my own part, it would be an advancement of my understanding, should anyone be able to prove the WSM wrong, and so would be happy to see such an attempt made. This is also the feeling of people concerned with the WSM itself, being as they are NOT 'crackpots', but Real people who are Really seeking a true understanding of how things necessarily exist. Thus, when proven wrong, they are happy to accept it, unlike those who do things for 'other' reasons.
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE WSM: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances)"
Shapes and variations in the structure of space - "Structure"
And Gorgeous, You have consistently argued that: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing"
"Same Thing" - "Structure" - In my mind this is not logic - this does not make any sense in my head -
I would like Gorgeous in plain simple words explaining the meaning behind - not a copy paste please. Just your OWN thinking behind - I think you owe us something - just something that is not copying WSM website - just something that indicate that you have been considering the problem and I feel confident that You will come up with a gorgeous convincing explanation
QUOTE WSM: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances)"
Shapes and variations in the structure of space - "Structure"
And Gorgeous, You have consistently argued that: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing"
"Same Thing" - "Structure" - In my mind this is not logic - this does not make any sense in my head -
I would like Gorgeous in plain simple words explaining the meaning behind - not a copy paste please. Just your OWN thinking behind - I think you owe us something - just something that is not copying WSM website - just something that indicate that you have been considering the problem and I feel confident that You will come up with a gorgeous convincing explanation
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 18 2008, 10:05 AM)
Gorgeous
QUOTE WSM: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances)"
Shapes and variations in the structure of space - "Structure"
And Gorgeous, You have consistently argued that: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing"
"Same Thing" - "Structure" - In my mind this is not logic - this does not make any sense in my head -
I would like Gorgeous in plain simple words explaining the meaning behind - not a copy paste please. Just your OWN thinking behind - I think you owe us something - just something that is not copying WSM website - just something that indicate that you have been considering the problem and I feel confident that You will come up with a gorgeous convincing explanation
Your maggot is shrinking daily, Mr. fakh. You have absolutely no interest in the topic whatsoever. Just another 'god-botherer' with a grudge.
(And you are quoting Shroedinger, by the way, not me or WSM. This is another measure of your 'ability'.)
g.
QUOTE WSM: "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances)"
Shapes and variations in the structure of space - "Structure"
And Gorgeous, You have consistently argued that: "Waves, medium and background are all the same thing"
"Same Thing" - "Structure" - In my mind this is not logic - this does not make any sense in my head -
I would like Gorgeous in plain simple words explaining the meaning behind - not a copy paste please. Just your OWN thinking behind - I think you owe us something - just something that is not copying WSM website - just something that indicate that you have been considering the problem and I feel confident that You will come up with a gorgeous convincing explanation
Your maggot is shrinking daily, Mr. fakh. You have absolutely no interest in the topic whatsoever. Just another 'god-botherer' with a grudge.
(And you are quoting Shroedinger, by the way, not me or WSM. This is another measure of your 'ability'.)
g.
"gorgeous convincing explanation"
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 18 2008, 10:46 AM)
"gorgeous convincing explanation of the fakh"
Yes, you have it at last!
g.
Yes, you have it at last!
g.
QUOTE (bukh @ Jun 18 2008, 10:46 AM)
"gorgeous convincing explanation of the fakh"
Oh Dear - Your old trick of mis-quoting - seen at many occasions -
perhaps - we have reached Your limit of responding
"gorgeous convincing explanation of the fakh"
Oh Dear - Your old trick of mis-quoting - seen at many occasions -
perhaps - we have reached Your limit of responding
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 18 2008, 11:03 AM)
perhaps - we have reached Your limit of responding
Still living in the land of hope instead of Reality, I see!
How about posting something on Infinity that males sense?
Go on, I dare you!
(Interesting reference to 'we', though. ~ Thanks for that.
)g.
[QUOTE]There is a common misconception that once a thing is measured it becomes known, or understood. Once a thing is measured, its measurements are known and understood. We know there is such a thing as 'consciousness', and we have tried to measure it in many ways, yet it still remains elusive in many respects.
the misconception is that you CAN measure 'that which has no end'. Because it has no variance to measure. Even a simple look at friction would tell you that unless you can slow,trap,contain,or statistically analise a medium, then you cannot measure it.
Here is a simplified reasoning for you. Between 0 and one is mathematical infinity. This is the only reasoned argument I have seen. But it is based on not wanting to or needing to know what is in between . If I allowed that between 0 and one is infinity, there is no difference between the number 0.1 and 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999, because there is no end , so I cannot know what the variance value is . EVER. As far as the string goes the next number may as well be ELEPHANT, because that wouldn't change the sum either.
If this were how relativity worked , then the ever increasing would move any perceptions I tried to make away from me INFINITELY. So I could not perceive any difference. This apparently is the mathematical proof that infinity exists, but it could not be said to be a viable possibility in reality for the reasons stated above.
Cheers
Iseason
the misconception is that you CAN measure 'that which has no end'. Because it has no variance to measure. Even a simple look at friction would tell you that unless you can slow,trap,contain,or statistically analise a medium, then you cannot measure it.
Here is a simplified reasoning for you. Between 0 and one is mathematical infinity. This is the only reasoned argument I have seen. But it is based on not wanting to or needing to know what is in between . If I allowed that between 0 and one is infinity, there is no difference between the number 0.1 and 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999, because there is no end , so I cannot know what the variance value is . EVER. As far as the string goes the next number may as well be ELEPHANT, because that wouldn't change the sum either.
If this were how relativity worked , then the ever increasing would move any perceptions I tried to make away from me INFINITELY. So I could not perceive any difference. This apparently is the mathematical proof that infinity exists, but it could not be said to be a viable possibility in reality for the reasons stated above.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason,
If it is difficult to imagine infinity in reality, try imagining absolute nothingness and then explain how it can exist without existence.
For me the puzzle is figuring out how infinity exists as opposed to whether it does or not.
If it is difficult to imagine infinity in reality, try imagining absolute nothingness and then explain how it can exist without existence.
For me the puzzle is figuring out how infinity exists as opposed to whether it does or not.
Real Infinite Space can not have 'mathematical' proof because its very nature. We cannot 'fix a point in Space' in Reality, only in concept, which is why we have such ideas as 'relativity', 'quantumness' and 'uncertainty'. There is no dispute within the field of mathematics either, so why anyone should go down this path is rather strange.
So, SU is correct in that it is a question of 'How?', not 'if'.
g.
So, SU is correct in that it is a question of 'How?', not 'if'.
g.
If "infinite" could be "measured" it would not be infinite -
I like to think that infinite is the concept of being without limits -
When it comes to Physical - I like to think that physical in its very nature IS discrete and not continued - and discreteness is limited - so the very "Being Physical" has a well defined size at the very moment of observing - Universe has a well-defined complexion - a well-defined number of dimensionalities at a well-defined moment of observation, but with the potential of being ever bigger and bigger - it is an open system.
I like to think that infinite is the concept of being without limits -
When it comes to Physical - I like to think that physical in its very nature IS discrete and not continued - and discreteness is limited - so the very "Being Physical" has a well defined size at the very moment of observing - Universe has a well-defined complexion - a well-defined number of dimensionalities at a well-defined moment of observation, but with the potential of being ever bigger and bigger - it is an open system.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 19 2008, 08:59 AM)
If it is difficult to imagine infinity in reality, try imagining absolute nothingness and then explain how it can exist without existence.
For me the puzzle is figuring out how infinity exists as opposed to whether it does or not.
Hi SU
Infinity is something that is not permanently reachable in a given scale. Simple and easy. The same with nothingness- You can not have a permanent idea about it. The paradoxes just prove the oscillating nature of such thoughts and existence, but do not make them impossible.
Infinity and nothingness are by definition evading concepts, and that is their whole essence. When You nail them, it does not exist, when it exists, its not infinity anymore. Nothingness is small, infinity big, so they are reciprocal.
It is possible to imagine infinity,and use the concept , but not reach it.
e.g. if You stay within integers, You can not reach integer infinity. However, You may briefly imagine that if we could reach number n, there would always be n+1 bigger than n. As long as You do not REACH number n, this defines infinity pretty well and it exists. As soon as You reach n, n+1 is just n+1 and no infinity . And so one.
However, You can jump over infinity. If You extend naturals to transfinite numbers, you can construct reals which exist, so is a new scale beyond the scale of integers (cardinality of reals is bigger, infinitely ) where infinity is again unreachable- as in the famous example with 0.9r.
Limit taking is jumping over infinity, a needed and natural thing but it does not bring infinity any more reachable- it shows that there is something after infinity, and that is it.
For me the puzzle is figuring out how infinity exists as opposed to whether it does or not.
Hi SU
Infinity is something that is not permanently reachable in a given scale. Simple and easy. The same with nothingness- You can not have a permanent idea about it. The paradoxes just prove the oscillating nature of such thoughts and existence, but do not make them impossible.
Infinity and nothingness are by definition evading concepts, and that is their whole essence. When You nail them, it does not exist, when it exists, its not infinity anymore. Nothingness is small, infinity big, so they are reciprocal.
It is possible to imagine infinity,and use the concept , but not reach it.
e.g. if You stay within integers, You can not reach integer infinity. However, You may briefly imagine that if we could reach number n, there would always be n+1 bigger than n. As long as You do not REACH number n, this defines infinity pretty well and it exists. As soon as You reach n, n+1 is just n+1 and no infinity . And so one.
However, You can jump over infinity. If You extend naturals to transfinite numbers, you can construct reals which exist, so is a new scale beyond the scale of integers (cardinality of reals is bigger, infinitely ) where infinity is again unreachable- as in the famous example with 0.9r.
Limit taking is jumping over infinity, a needed and natural thing but it does not bring infinity any more reachable- it shows that there is something after infinity, and that is it.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 19 2008, 12:58 PM)
Hi SU
Infinity is something that is not permanently reachable in a given scale. Simple and easy. The same with nothingness- You can not have a permanent idea about it. The paradoxes just prove the oscillating nature of such thoughts and existence, but do not make them impossible.
Infinity and nothingness are by definition evading concepts, and that is their whole essence. When You nail them, it does not exist, when it exists, its not infinity anymore. Nothingness is small, infinity big, so they are reciprocal.
It is possible to imagine infinity,and use the concept , but not reach it.
e.g. if You stay within integers, You can not reach integer infinity. However, You may briefly imagine that if we could reach number n, there would always be n+1 bigger than n. As long as You do not REACH number n, this defines infinity pretty well and it exists. As soon as You reach n, n+1 is just n+1 and no infinity . And so one.
However, You can jump over infinity. If You extend naturals to transfinite numbers, you can construct reals which exist, so is a new scale beyond the scale of integers (cardinality of reals is bigger, infinitely ) where infinity is again unreachable- as in the famous example with 0.9r.
Limit taking is jumping over infinity, a needed and natural thing but it does not bring infinity any more reachable- it shows that there is something after infinity, and that is it.
Hi Ivars,
My maths is not up to the standard nessasary for explanation so I have to rely on basic logical principles of description. Perhaps to clarify I do not have any problems imagining infinity in principle, what is impossible to imagine is absolute nothingness. In maths zero represents something, in reality it represents nothing.
Nothingness isn't small, it does not exist by definition. I don't mean almost nothing or just a little bit of something, I mean absolute nothingness, absent of existence, absence of absolutely anything, nothing, zero, zilch.
Both nothingness and somethingness are infinite, but only one can actually exist. so because the human mind seeks the beginning of something we try to make room for nothingness and explain how it can possibly become somethingness which is impossible, therefore the logical (if counter intuitive) conclusion is infinite somethingness, which means no beginning and no end.
Now I don't know how existence does this, but the alternative is to explain how nothingness can exist without existence?
And how existence can do anything other than at least exist?
regards.
Infinity is something that is not permanently reachable in a given scale. Simple and easy. The same with nothingness- You can not have a permanent idea about it. The paradoxes just prove the oscillating nature of such thoughts and existence, but do not make them impossible.
Infinity and nothingness are by definition evading concepts, and that is their whole essence. When You nail them, it does not exist, when it exists, its not infinity anymore. Nothingness is small, infinity big, so they are reciprocal.
It is possible to imagine infinity,and use the concept , but not reach it.
e.g. if You stay within integers, You can not reach integer infinity. However, You may briefly imagine that if we could reach number n, there would always be n+1 bigger than n. As long as You do not REACH number n, this defines infinity pretty well and it exists. As soon as You reach n, n+1 is just n+1 and no infinity . And so one.
However, You can jump over infinity. If You extend naturals to transfinite numbers, you can construct reals which exist, so is a new scale beyond the scale of integers (cardinality of reals is bigger, infinitely ) where infinity is again unreachable- as in the famous example with 0.9r.
Limit taking is jumping over infinity, a needed and natural thing but it does not bring infinity any more reachable- it shows that there is something after infinity, and that is it.
Hi Ivars,
My maths is not up to the standard nessasary for explanation so I have to rely on basic logical principles of description. Perhaps to clarify I do not have any problems imagining infinity in principle, what is impossible to imagine is absolute nothingness. In maths zero represents something, in reality it represents nothing.
Nothingness isn't small, it does not exist by definition. I don't mean almost nothing or just a little bit of something, I mean absolute nothingness, absent of existence, absence of absolutely anything, nothing, zero, zilch.
Both nothingness and somethingness are infinite, but only one can actually exist. so because the human mind seeks the beginning of something we try to make room for nothingness and explain how it can possibly become somethingness which is impossible, therefore the logical (if counter intuitive) conclusion is infinite somethingness, which means no beginning and no end.
Now I don't know how existence does this, but the alternative is to explain how nothingness can exist without existence?
And how existence can do anything other than at least exist?
regards.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 19 2008, 09:04 PM)
Hi Ivars,
Both nothingness and somethingness are infinite, but only one can actually exist. so because the human mind seeks the beginning of something we try to make room for nothingness and explain how it can possibly become somethingness which is impossible, therefore the logical (if counter intuitive) conclusion is infinite somethingness, which means no beginning and no end.
hi SU,
When we apply our logic it seems impossible to comprehend. When You apply logic what is available to small things obtained by infinite division of space, things get easy.
Existence is a logical conclusion we make. To make this we need exactly 1 bit of our mind, so our mind continues to operate while contemplating existence vs. non-existence.
As You say, nothingness is infinite. In my language that is unreachable. If You try to reach nothingness by e.g. making something smaller and smaller, You have to keep in mind that there is a stage where this smaller will reach state where it can store Totally no more than 1 bit- that is thought about own existence.
For such a smallest indivisible, closest to nothingness we can get, logic is simple. When it exists, it can not think, so can not register the fact of its existance, can not have a thought about it. But since it exists, the thought appears, however, it takes all the physical presence of this to think this thought that it exists. As it thinks the thought that is exists, it does not exist anymore spatially, only as thought. Since it exists as thought that it exists ( 1 bit still) it must exist, so it appears spatially, but the though disappears.
The net result is, that nothingness in space exists only 1/2 of the time when thought exists, while somethingness exists also 1/2 of time( cycle since time is not defined there in absolute units ) when though does not exist.
Similar reasoning can be applied to infinity, or "big" end of it.
This so called dualistic idea, that spatial and information (consciousness) spaces are dual, and in ultimate level , truly dual.
This is just logic. There is no reason to think that as we approach nothingness we can still freely apply our logic-and that is the cause of paradoxes. When we approach nothingness, logic has to be reduced as well to the level possible near nothingness- and there is definitely no human minds around in nothingness to observe it.
So instead of nothingness, we get oscillating spatial nothingess (thought about somethiness in information space/no spatial existance) /spatial somethingness ( spatial existance/no thought) .
Human mind is not available at nothingness, sorry
Both nothingness and somethingness are infinite, but only one can actually exist. so because the human mind seeks the beginning of something we try to make room for nothingness and explain how it can possibly become somethingness which is impossible, therefore the logical (if counter intuitive) conclusion is infinite somethingness, which means no beginning and no end.
hi SU,
When we apply our logic it seems impossible to comprehend. When You apply logic what is available to small things obtained by infinite division of space, things get easy.
Existence is a logical conclusion we make. To make this we need exactly 1 bit of our mind, so our mind continues to operate while contemplating existence vs. non-existence.
As You say, nothingness is infinite. In my language that is unreachable. If You try to reach nothingness by e.g. making something smaller and smaller, You have to keep in mind that there is a stage where this smaller will reach state where it can store Totally no more than 1 bit- that is thought about own existence.
For such a smallest indivisible, closest to nothingness we can get, logic is simple. When it exists, it can not think, so can not register the fact of its existance, can not have a thought about it. But since it exists, the thought appears, however, it takes all the physical presence of this to think this thought that it exists. As it thinks the thought that is exists, it does not exist anymore spatially, only as thought. Since it exists as thought that it exists ( 1 bit still) it must exist, so it appears spatially, but the though disappears.
The net result is, that nothingness in space exists only 1/2 of the time when thought exists, while somethingness exists also 1/2 of time( cycle since time is not defined there in absolute units ) when though does not exist.
Similar reasoning can be applied to infinity, or "big" end of it.
This so called dualistic idea, that spatial and information (consciousness) spaces are dual, and in ultimate level , truly dual.
This is just logic. There is no reason to think that as we approach nothingness we can still freely apply our logic-and that is the cause of paradoxes. When we approach nothingness, logic has to be reduced as well to the level possible near nothingness- and there is definitely no human minds around in nothingness to observe it.
So instead of nothingness, we get oscillating spatial nothingess (thought about somethiness in information space/no spatial existance) /spatial somethingness ( spatial existance/no thought) .
Human mind is not available at nothingness, sorry
Ivars,
Sorry you seem to misunderstand me.
I am not talking about big or small. I am talking about nothingness and infinity.
In regard to nothingness - it has no size!, It has nothing! whatever you add I will subtract. keep dividing as much as you like until you have virtually nothing, that is still something however small and is not absolute nothingness.
The only paradox is that it has a name.
Sorry you seem to misunderstand me.
I am not talking about big or small. I am talking about nothingness and infinity.
In regard to nothingness - it has no size!, It has nothing! whatever you add I will subtract. keep dividing as much as you like until you have virtually nothing, that is still something however small and is not absolute nothingness.
The only paradox is that it has a name.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jun 19 2008, 10:23 AM)
hi SU,
When we apply our logic it seems impossible to comprehend. When You apply logic what is available to small things obtained by infinite division of space, things get easy.
Existence is a logical conclusion we make. To make this we need exactly 1 bit of our mind, so our mind continues to operate while contemplating existence vs. non-existence.
As You say, nothingness is infinite. In my language that is unreachable. If You try to reach nothingness by e.g. making something smaller and smaller, You have to keep in mind that there is a stage where this smaller will reach state where it can store Totally no more than 1 bit- that is thought about own existence.
For such a smallest indivisible, closest to nothingness we can get, logic is simple. When it exists, it can not think, so can not register the fact of its existance, can not have a thought about it. But since it exists, the thought appears, however, it takes all the physical presence of this to think this thought that it exists. As it thinks the thought that is exists, it does not exist anymore spatially, only as thought. Since it exists as thought that it exists ( 1 bit still) it must exist, so it appears spatially, but the though disappears.
The net result is, that nothingness in space exists only 1/2 of the time when thought exists, while somethingness exists also 1/2 of time( cycle since time is not defined there in absolute units ) when though does not exist.
Similar reasoning can be applied to infinity, or "big" end of it.
This so called dualistic idea, that spatial and information (consciousness) spaces are dual, and in ultimate level , truly dual.
This is just logic. There is no reason to think that as we approach nothingness we can still freely apply our logic-and that is the cause of paradoxes. When we approach nothingness, logic has to be reduced as well to the level possible near nothingness- and there is definitely no human minds around in nothingness to observe it.
So instead of nothingness, we get oscillating spatial nothingess (thought about somethiness in information space/no spatial existance) /spatial somethingness ( spatial existance/no thought) .
Human mind is not available at nothingness, sorry
One error is to assume that your current 'logic' is correct, and that you are capable of understanding from a view which begins in error. Thus YOU find it 'impossible to comprehend' because YOU are not advancing YOUR knowledge of the subject.
Statements like this are the result of NON-thinking, but stabbing vaguely at something you have no coherent grasp of.
If you begin by thinking that infinity is a kind of 'thing' that exists 'elsewhere', you are in error.
Space (energy) exists infinitely, thus ALL 'things' are Space/energy vibrating at different frequencies to produce the apparent 'finiteness' or 'physicalness' we observe and are. Always have been and always will be. Vibration is 'motion', and motion means change. Thus all 'things' change relative to all other parts of Space, as we observe.
g.
When we apply our logic it seems impossible to comprehend. When You apply logic what is available to small things obtained by infinite division of space, things get easy.
Existence is a logical conclusion we make. To make this we need exactly 1 bit of our mind, so our mind continues to operate while contemplating existence vs. non-existence.
As You say, nothingness is infinite. In my language that is unreachable. If You try to reach nothingness by e.g. making something smaller and smaller, You have to keep in mind that there is a stage where this smaller will reach state where it can store Totally no more than 1 bit- that is thought about own existence.
For such a smallest indivisible, closest to nothingness we can get, logic is simple. When it exists, it can not think, so can not register the fact of its existance, can not have a thought about it. But since it exists, the thought appears, however, it takes all the physical presence of this to think this thought that it exists. As it thinks the thought that is exists, it does not exist anymore spatially, only as thought. Since it exists as thought that it exists ( 1 bit still) it must exist, so it appears spatially, but the though disappears.
The net result is, that nothingness in space exists only 1/2 of the time when thought exists, while somethingness exists also 1/2 of time( cycle since time is not defined there in absolute units ) when though does not exist.
Similar reasoning can be applied to infinity, or "big" end of it.
This so called dualistic idea, that spatial and information (consciousness) spaces are dual, and in ultimate level , truly dual.
This is just logic. There is no reason to think that as we approach nothingness we can still freely apply our logic-and that is the cause of paradoxes. When we approach nothingness, logic has to be reduced as well to the level possible near nothingness- and there is definitely no human minds around in nothingness to observe it.
So instead of nothingness, we get oscillating spatial nothingess (thought about somethiness in information space/no spatial existance) /spatial somethingness ( spatial existance/no thought) .
Human mind is not available at nothingness, sorry
One error is to assume that your current 'logic' is correct, and that you are capable of understanding from a view which begins in error. Thus YOU find it 'impossible to comprehend' because YOU are not advancing YOUR knowledge of the subject.
QUOTE
Nothingness is small, infinity big, so they are reciprocal.
Statements like this are the result of NON-thinking, but stabbing vaguely at something you have no coherent grasp of.
If you begin by thinking that infinity is a kind of 'thing' that exists 'elsewhere', you are in error.
Space (energy) exists infinitely, thus ALL 'things' are Space/energy vibrating at different frequencies to produce the apparent 'finiteness' or 'physicalness' we observe and are. Always have been and always will be. Vibration is 'motion', and motion means change. Thus all 'things' change relative to all other parts of Space, as we observe.
g.
I think there are differing levels to what is being said.
In one case it could be argued that infinity seems to exist while we measuring it.(we cannot reach either end)
In another case it could be argued as to what there is while we are not measuring it .
The latter is the branch that I am talking about. While time is a component of the energy cycle, we are using media (motion, space) to justify time. When the time component is removed, nothing can stand alone.
Since we cannot have nothing, we must have a finite measure that justifies the measurements we can make. If that component is seen via thermodynamics and conservation, it must be all the energy ever to be available.
So taking one dimension away negates the "scaling " which is necessary for measuring. It is not intended , and I am less concerned with what is happening in the middle ground than I am about finding the truth about this area.
It is extremely helpful that the behaviors that are "unusual" , such as constants, action at a distance,conservatism and many others are 'not impossible' or 'more likely' when seen in this way.
Cheers
Iseason
In one case it could be argued that infinity seems to exist while we measuring it.(we cannot reach either end)
In another case it could be argued as to what there is while we are not measuring it .
The latter is the branch that I am talking about. While time is a component of the energy cycle, we are using media (motion, space) to justify time. When the time component is removed, nothing can stand alone.
Since we cannot have nothing, we must have a finite measure that justifies the measurements we can make. If that component is seen via thermodynamics and conservation, it must be all the energy ever to be available.
So taking one dimension away negates the "scaling " which is necessary for measuring. It is not intended , and I am less concerned with what is happening in the middle ground than I am about finding the truth about this area.
It is extremely helpful that the behaviors that are "unusual" , such as constants, action at a distance,conservatism and many others are 'not impossible' or 'more likely' when seen in this way.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 19 2008, 09:51 PM)
Ivars,
Sorry you seem to misunderstand me.
I am not talking about big or small. I am talking about nothingness and infinity.
In regard to nothingness - it has no size!, It has nothing! whatever you add I will subtract. keep dividing as much as you like until you have virtually nothing, that is still something however small and is not absolute nothingness.
The only paradox that it has a name.
Hi SU
Not quite. I know what You mean by nothingness, and You are right it can not exist permanently.
But spatial nothingness can exist for a period when thought about it exists. So also logical, thought nothingness can exist for a period when spatial presence of something exists.
Please understand that human logic can not be applied to nothingness, or any small scale. It is NOT availble when nothing is available. Permanent thoughts are NOT available there.
Exactly I agree that by division You can not end into nothing, You end into something that oscilates between spatial ( "real") and logical ("thought, imaginary) presence. And oscillates very regularly, exactly, 1/2 of total cycle spatial presence-1 bit thought=spatial presence- 1 bit thought etc.
Sorry you seem to misunderstand me.
I am not talking about big or small. I am talking about nothingness and infinity.
In regard to nothingness - it has no size!, It has nothing! whatever you add I will subtract. keep dividing as much as you like until you have virtually nothing, that is still something however small and is not absolute nothingness.
The only paradox that it has a name.
Hi SU
Not quite. I know what You mean by nothingness, and You are right it can not exist permanently.
But spatial nothingness can exist for a period when thought about it exists. So also logical, thought nothingness can exist for a period when spatial presence of something exists.
Please understand that human logic can not be applied to nothingness, or any small scale. It is NOT availble when nothing is available. Permanent thoughts are NOT available there.
Exactly I agree that by division You can not end into nothing, You end into something that oscilates between spatial ( "real") and logical ("thought, imaginary) presence. And oscillates very regularly, exactly, 1/2 of total cycle spatial presence-1 bit thought=spatial presence- 1 bit thought etc.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 20 2008, 01:56 AM)
In one case it could be argued that infinity seems to exist while we measuring it.(we cannot reach either end)
In another case it could be argued as to what there is while we are not measuring it .
The latter is the branch that I am talking about. While time is a component of the energy cycle, we are using media (motion, space) to justify time. When the time component is removed, nothing can stand alone.
So taking one dimension away negates the "scaling " which is necessary for measuring. It is not intended , and I am less concerned with what is happening in the middle ground than I am about finding the truth about this area.
hi iseason
That is what I understand as existance /logic duality. Its inherent in infinity of any kind. That is also the source of motion, or rather, information, negative entropy, energy, since motion according to bukh ( and I tend to agree with him now is) replacing all space dimensions in each cycle via informational rearrangements and interactions.
Time appears in ideal form as the lenght of cycle i mentioned in previous post. Though it is not defined in units ( not definable) it serves as internal clock so all other clock scales are in some ratio to this fundamental scale which is not defined, but, since its definition (cycling 1/2-1/2) involves both spatial and information sides of existence, it is obvious that time and spatial reality ( matter) are closely and exactly interlinked ( as also shown by GR as far as it is working), so this relationship develops through scales allowing to have LAWS connecting time and spatial changes.
As spatial appearances of indivisibles ( oscillating smallest things) aggregate, glue together, they form spatial dimensions that has increasing inertia ( that is = spatial presence in the same place after each cycle, or lastingness), at some stage they form rotating agregates with defined centers.
These aggregates that show rotation has centers the are spatially most fixed. At some stage they can form a lattice( provided there is enough rotating units of indivisibles) .
Rotation in terms of oscillating indivisibles is also simple. The one in the center has the longest spatial presence, lastingness, while the next surrounding it has smaller as they disappear more often, and so on.
The ideal approximation of such oscillating indivisible is binary oscillator with 1/2 period. However, it is not quite clear what are spatial size and form of such things, initially.
It seems they should be small as they must be many. On other hand, they must be able to form aggregates, so they must have form that allows to fill space, or many potential forms depending on cicumstances.
So time (cyclic process) is available once we agree to the oscillating nature of indivisibles ( aka infinitesimals ). That time is ideal, or simple as it does not yet involve any aggregates. As soon as indivisbles aggregate spatially and/or interact informationally, time gets complicated, and local.
In another case it could be argued as to what there is while we are not measuring it .
The latter is the branch that I am talking about. While time is a component of the energy cycle, we are using media (motion, space) to justify time. When the time component is removed, nothing can stand alone.
So taking one dimension away negates the "scaling " which is necessary for measuring. It is not intended , and I am less concerned with what is happening in the middle ground than I am about finding the truth about this area.
hi iseason
That is what I understand as existance /logic duality. Its inherent in infinity of any kind. That is also the source of motion, or rather, information, negative entropy, energy, since motion according to bukh ( and I tend to agree with him now is) replacing all space dimensions in each cycle via informational rearrangements and interactions.
Time appears in ideal form as the lenght of cycle i mentioned in previous post. Though it is not defined in units ( not definable) it serves as internal clock so all other clock scales are in some ratio to this fundamental scale which is not defined, but, since its definition (cycling 1/2-1/2) involves both spatial and information sides of existence, it is obvious that time and spatial reality ( matter) are closely and exactly interlinked ( as also shown by GR as far as it is working), so this relationship develops through scales allowing to have LAWS connecting time and spatial changes.
As spatial appearances of indivisibles ( oscillating smallest things) aggregate, glue together, they form spatial dimensions that has increasing inertia ( that is = spatial presence in the same place after each cycle, or lastingness), at some stage they form rotating agregates with defined centers.
These aggregates that show rotation has centers the are spatially most fixed. At some stage they can form a lattice( provided there is enough rotating units of indivisibles) .
Rotation in terms of oscillating indivisibles is also simple. The one in the center has the longest spatial presence, lastingness, while the next surrounding it has smaller as they disappear more often, and so on.
The ideal approximation of such oscillating indivisible is binary oscillator with 1/2 period. However, it is not quite clear what are spatial size and form of such things, initially.
It seems they should be small as they must be many. On other hand, they must be able to form aggregates, so they must have form that allows to fill space, or many potential forms depending on cicumstances.
So time (cyclic process) is available once we agree to the oscillating nature of indivisibles ( aka infinitesimals ). That time is ideal, or simple as it does not yet involve any aggregates. As soon as indivisbles aggregate spatially and/or interact informationally, time gets complicated, and local.
Hi Ivars
While forging ahead there are some things to keep in mind. When the change in the way we measure 'reality' is from a chronological methodology to an occurrence methodology, much overlapping occurs (or similar possible outcomes). Time is a personal relativity, where occurrence is all encompassing. This allows and disallows two sets of rules.
In a time/space/motion methodology, space can be (or appear to be ) inhabited more than once. But in occurrence, space is seen as used or potential. This means that although we can see nothing between here and the distant stars, that is only because we are not looking at the time the events in between occurs. If we stood for long enough the centre would be completely filled in . Though our view would not change because we look using the chronological method.
So we move through space because we cannot remain motionless and exist. The space we use is mostly empty(think of the empty space around an atom) but time again works there also. There is no way for us to break out of a chronological relativity, but that is no reason to not see how 'occurrence based relativity' works to create chronological.
Without time/space the order of occurrence works in balance. Certain behaviors are inevitable and 'switching on and off' would be discernable given the small nature of the variance. Also vortex behaviors and repeating constants makes sense. This was one of the areas I struggled with when I considered time measured relativity. Mirroring behaviors are an unlikely outcome from that methodology alone. In fact it needed the same source to have 'cloned' every same or similar behavior.
Evolution does not mean that an even distribution of 'similar behaviors' is likely. In fact it would mean that at some point one behavior would increase to overpower everything else. But I've gone ahead.
Space (empty space) is energy potential. Somewhere along the time line all space is used. But only once.
Cheers
Iseason
While forging ahead there are some things to keep in mind. When the change in the way we measure 'reality' is from a chronological methodology to an occurrence methodology, much overlapping occurs (or similar possible outcomes). Time is a personal relativity, where occurrence is all encompassing. This allows and disallows two sets of rules.
In a time/space/motion methodology, space can be (or appear to be ) inhabited more than once. But in occurrence, space is seen as used or potential. This means that although we can see nothing between here and the distant stars, that is only because we are not looking at the time the events in between occurs. If we stood for long enough the centre would be completely filled in . Though our view would not change because we look using the chronological method.
So we move through space because we cannot remain motionless and exist. The space we use is mostly empty(think of the empty space around an atom) but time again works there also. There is no way for us to break out of a chronological relativity, but that is no reason to not see how 'occurrence based relativity' works to create chronological.
Without time/space the order of occurrence works in balance. Certain behaviors are inevitable and 'switching on and off' would be discernable given the small nature of the variance. Also vortex behaviors and repeating constants makes sense. This was one of the areas I struggled with when I considered time measured relativity. Mirroring behaviors are an unlikely outcome from that methodology alone. In fact it needed the same source to have 'cloned' every same or similar behavior.
Evolution does not mean that an even distribution of 'similar behaviors' is likely. In fact it would mean that at some point one behavior would increase to overpower everything else. But I've gone ahead.
Space (empty space) is energy potential. Somewhere along the time line all space is used. But only once.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
When the time component is removed, nothing can stand alone.
There is no 'removal', just constant change. There is only One possibility to consider when talking of things 'standing alone', and that is One thing, existing infinitely.
All of the above references to 'empty space' and 'nothingness' are in error. What does not exist plays no part in the consideration of how Reality is...i.e. 'existing'.
Take away what cannot be and you are left only with what is so.
g.
QUOTE
In Brouwer's philosophy, known as intuitionism, mathematics is a free creation of the human mind, and an object exists if and only if it can be (mentally) constructed.
Here one should add: mentally constructed by whom?
If by human mind ( remember Russels paradox, it requires 3 things to state "it exists" :"it", "existence" and MIND that perform this operation of stating, connecting these terms.
What I am trying to point out is that MIND in terms Human mind or whoever almost omnipotent MIND is not available for spatial indivisibles I mentioned earlier. Their mind is primitive and has 1/2 bit capacity, and takes their whole structure to express a thought. So with THEIR mind, there is not possible to have a though about own existence and exist at the same time.
For them it exists is a 2 step process: First they exist, but have no thought about it- so 1/2 bit is created. Second, they think they exist- thought is there- but it has used spatial body for thought, so it disappears spatially to be present informationally.
Indivisible have own logic and own mathematics which their minds can construct. it turns out, that their mathematics (thoughts) is also equivalent to their physics (reality) , so suspicions arise that this might be true also in bigger scales of aggregates of indivisibles.
At this stage, there is not need to add notions of energy, time, motion or other complex things to the issue. It is just spatial vs. ideal existence and to what it leads if we want to resolve the paradox by SU using logic (mind) available at the scale at hand, without human minds INVOLVED, but just observing the eternal mental struggle of indivisible to register itself.
One of the indivisible can register itself by becoming the center of rotation of all other indivisibles-and that also coincides with Iseason evolution principle.
Later we see that direct result of this oscillating indivisible is Iseason's we can not exist if we do not move= we can not exist if indivisibles do not rearrange at each cycle. Perfectly true.
Nope, nothing 'true' about it whatsoever.
There is no 'omnipotent mind'. 'Mind' is an aspect of Infinite Space which must evolve under certain (relative) conditions, and is thus localised to wherever these conditions may be found.
'Spatial vs ideal existence' is more gibberish. The One thing that exists ultimately (infinitely) is Space, which is therefore as 'ideal' as anything can ever be. Thus, you have created the 'paradox' (a contradiction in your own mind) that does not exist in Reality.
g.
There is no 'omnipotent mind'. 'Mind' is an aspect of Infinite Space which must evolve under certain (relative) conditions, and is thus localised to wherever these conditions may be found.
'Spatial vs ideal existence' is more gibberish. The One thing that exists ultimately (infinitely) is Space, which is therefore as 'ideal' as anything can ever be. Thus, you have created the 'paradox' (a contradiction in your own mind) that does not exist in Reality.
g.
Yes, information. Further development of the idea of indivisibles was the existence of "shadow" of its spatial presence on informational space via a infinitely present ray, e.g. from center of Universe which also follows from the infinities of number of indivisibles.
These rays project each indivisible on some shell at infinity. Now, if indivisible spatially is present, its shadow ( information) will exist so information is 1 on that shell. If it does not exist, ray passes through, information about that indivisible is 0.
The question of spatial presence as a point in space is discussable in this point, because I see indivisibles not existing as a point in space, but being infinitesimal dimensions of space itself (physical where matter forms or is formed by space dimensions as opposed to informational or potential space) . So indivisible does not have to be relative to anything except own cycle and size- which is arbitrary, but the aggregates will be e.g 2 times bigger than single indivisible. I can also imagine that since potential space is infinite, the indivisibles should appear all over place, so their size would be a relative measure of scale, whatever, and shapes would depend on space filling needs of geometry, not clear to me yet.
The only difference with common infinite space is that this space has 2 faces:
1) information space, infinite, with certain harmonic geometry (perhaps infinite layers of spheres at infinity + center point, rays, perhaps 4D- can not say, perhaps all infinite dimensions together )
2) physical space, whose dimensions itself appear CHAOTICALLY, as indivisibles oscillate perhaps independently. This physical space is not present as a reference place all the time, it is created by aggregates of indivisibels as they clutch together and try to become centers of rotation.
It could be that at some level of aggregation ( e.g K-vortexes ) one obtains physical space with certain dimensions - 2D seems most likely- but the underlaying structure is rotational, and that affects what can happen in it. Of course, the indivisibles not caught in permanently rotating aggregates, still continue to pop in spatial existence and their shadows (information) may have some say about what happens.
So I do not think the information is inside indivisible, no, its on relevant sphere which can discern that scale of Universe via projection.
What I am saying that if indivisible has to self percept, that outside information is of no big help- he has to disappear spatially to think about own existence. Total effect would be some joint efforts of both there mechanisms- pure motion ( which is oscillations of indivisibles and chaotic appearance=chaos) and pure space=potential space=information space of certain geometry=pure consciousness.
That consciousness definitely can percept indivisibles in both states and other their relational properties but I think also can not physically present itself because such presentation would take all its mind into spatial form. Perhaps the spatial form of this information space IS infinite dimensional Euclidean physical space- if so , it also MUST have oscillating appearance. The same point about clock of Universe.
These rays project each indivisible on some shell at infinity. Now, if indivisible spatially is present, its shadow ( information) will exist so information is 1 on that shell. If it does not exist, ray passes through, information about that indivisible is 0.
The question of spatial presence as a point in space is discussable in this point, because I see indivisibles not existing as a point in space, but being infinitesimal dimensions of space itself (physical where matter forms or is formed by space dimensions as opposed to informational or potential space) . So indivisible does not have to be relative to anything except own cycle and size- which is arbitrary, but the aggregates will be e.g 2 times bigger than single indivisible. I can also imagine that since potential space is infinite, the indivisibles should appear all over place, so their size would be a relative measure of scale, whatever, and shapes would depend on space filling needs of geometry, not clear to me yet.
The only difference with common infinite space is that this space has 2 faces:
1) information space, infinite, with certain harmonic geometry (perhaps infinite layers of spheres at infinity + center point, rays, perhaps 4D- can not say, perhaps all infinite dimensions together )
2) physical space, whose dimensions itself appear CHAOTICALLY, as indivisibles oscillate perhaps independently. This physical space is not present as a reference place all the time, it is created by aggregates of indivisibels as they clutch together and try to become centers of rotation.
It could be that at some level of aggregation ( e.g K-vortexes ) one obtains physical space with certain dimensions - 2D seems most likely- but the underlaying structure is rotational, and that affects what can happen in it. Of course, the indivisibles not caught in permanently rotating aggregates, still continue to pop in spatial existence and their shadows (information) may have some say about what happens.
So I do not think the information is inside indivisible, no, its on relevant sphere which can discern that scale of Universe via projection.
What I am saying that if indivisible has to self percept, that outside information is of no big help- he has to disappear spatially to think about own existence. Total effect would be some joint efforts of both there mechanisms- pure motion ( which is oscillations of indivisibles and chaotic appearance=chaos) and pure space=potential space=information space of certain geometry=pure consciousness.
That consciousness definitely can percept indivisibles in both states and other their relational properties but I think also can not physically present itself because such presentation would take all its mind into spatial form. Perhaps the spatial form of this information space IS infinite dimensional Euclidean physical space- if so , it also MUST have oscillating appearance. The same point about clock of Universe.
More drivel.
There is no such thing as the centre of the Universe. Neither are there 'infinite dimensions'. Neither is there any such thing as 'potential space'.
All is Space, and thus it exists infinitely.
g.
There is no such thing as the centre of the Universe. Neither are there 'infinite dimensions'. Neither is there any such thing as 'potential space'.
All is Space, and thus it exists infinitely.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 20 2008, 04:46 PM)
More drivel.
There is no such thing as the centre of the Universe. Neither are there 'infinite dimensions'. Neither is there any such thing as 'potential space'.
All is Space, and thus it exists infinitely.
g.
I disagree g - everywhere is the centre of the universe.
Yours, in bed with a big 'stiffy' - me.
There is no such thing as the centre of the Universe. Neither are there 'infinite dimensions'. Neither is there any such thing as 'potential space'.
All is Space, and thus it exists infinitely.
g.
I disagree g - everywhere is the centre of the universe.
Yours, in bed with a big 'stiffy' - me.
QUOTE (Delia+Jun 20 2008, 07:19 AM)
I disagree g - everywhere is the centre of the universe.
Yours, in bed with a big 'stiffy' - me.
How can 'everywhere' be at the centre?
You may indicate a certain chosen 'point' of Space, and call that a 'centre' ~ maybe your bed with a large dead person in it, whereby the large dead person becomes the 'centre' of whatever it can detect around it ~ but Infinite Space itself has no centre.
Anyway, get back to the kitchen and stop disruptin' the flow of some of the wisest minds on the internet. ~ I'll be in with the embalming fluid in a minute!
g.
Yours, in bed with a big 'stiffy' - me.
How can 'everywhere' be at the centre?
You may indicate a certain chosen 'point' of Space, and call that a 'centre' ~ maybe your bed with a large dead person in it, whereby the large dead person becomes the 'centre' of whatever it can detect around it ~ but Infinite Space itself has no centre.
Anyway, get back to the kitchen and stop disruptin' the flow of some of the wisest minds on the internet.
~ I'll be in with the embalming fluid in a minute!g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 20 2008, 06:44 PM)
How can 'everywhere' be at the centre?
You may indicate a certain chosen 'point' of Space, and call that a 'centre' ~ maybe your bed with a large dead person in it, whereby the large dead person becomes the 'centre' of whatever it can detect around it ~ but Infinite Space itself has no centre.
Anyway, get back to the kitchen and stop disruptin' the flow of some of the wisest minds on the internet. ~ I'll be in with the embalming fluid in a minute!
g.
How can you be @ the centre of the surface of a sphere (for instance)?
Hey babe, listen to your over-developed instincts!
p.s hope your breasts are likewise in humongousness.
You may indicate a certain chosen 'point' of Space, and call that a 'centre' ~ maybe your bed with a large dead person in it, whereby the large dead person becomes the 'centre' of whatever it can detect around it ~ but Infinite Space itself has no centre.
Anyway, get back to the kitchen and stop disruptin' the flow of some of the wisest minds on the internet.
~ I'll be in with the embalming fluid in a minute!g.
How can you be @ the centre of the surface of a sphere (for instance)?
Hey babe, listen to your over-developed instincts!
p.s hope your breasts are likewise in humongousness.
QUOTE (Delia+Jun 20 2008, 07:58 AM)
How can you be @ the centre of the surface of a sphere (for instance)?
It is 'you' that becomes the centre... 'you be @' ~ then part of your surroundings become the surface of a sphere. There is no 'centre' of the surface of a sphere until YOU indicate/choose/become one.
My instincts still need some work...I thought YOU were going to be 'the bitch' this week?
g.
It is 'you' that becomes the centre... 'you be @' ~ then part of your surroundings become the surface of a sphere. There is no 'centre' of the surface of a sphere until YOU indicate/choose/become one.
My instincts still need some work...I thought YOU were going to be 'the bitch' this week?
g.
Hej Ivars et al
QUOTE:
hi iseason
That is what I understand as existance /logic duality. Its inherent in infinity of any kind. That is also the source of motion, or rather, information, negative entropy, energy, since motion according to bukh ( and I tend to agree with him now is) replacing all space dimensions in each cycle via informational rearrangements and interactions.
Time appears in ideal form as the lenght of cycle i mentioned in previous post. Though it is not defined in units ( not definable) it serves as internal clock so all other clock scales are in some ratio to this fundamental scale which is not defined, but, since its definition (cycling 1/2-1/2) involves both spatial and information sides of existence, it is obvious that time and spatial reality ( matter) are closely and exactly interlinked ( as also shown by GR as far as it is working), so this relationship develops through scales allowing to have LAWS connecting time and spatial changes.
As spatial appearances of indivisibles ( oscillating smallest things) aggregate, glue together, they form spatial dimensions that has increasing inertia ( that is = spatial presence in the same place after each cycle, or lastingness), at some stage they form rotating agregates with defined centers.
These aggregates that show rotation has centers the are spatially most fixed. At some stage they can form a lattice( provided there is enough rotating units of indivisibles) .
Rotation in terms of oscillating indivisibles is also simple. The one in the center has the longest spatial presence, lastingness, while the next surrounding it has smaller as they disappear more often, and so on.
The ideal approximation of such oscillating indivisible is binary oscillator with 1/2 period. However, it is not quite clear what are spatial size and form of such things, initially.
It seems they should be small as they must be many. On other hand, they must be able to form aggregates, so they must have form that allows to fill space, or many potential forms depending on cicumstances.
So time (cyclic process) is available once we agree to the oscillating nature of indivisibles ( aka infinitesimals ). That time is ideal, or simple as it does not yet involve any aggregates. As soon as indivisbles aggregate spatially and/or interact informationally, time gets complicated, and local."
I almost agree - except direction - it is from "big" to "small"
First the concept of infinity.
Infinity as a concept can only exist in relation to something that cannot be measured - to something that is not gowerned by principles and laws. And there exist only one such thing in physical universe - namely the very concept of dimension.
Pure space is infinite - it has only one quality or one characteristic - the very concept of showing a dimension. Non-defined - no limits - no form. Pure space is the very essence of physical universe - it is the only requirement that is a must - (has always been into existance and will always be into existance) - together with the binary principle. When the binary principle is being applied onto pure space - the resultant is physical universe.
In order better to imagine how the binary principle acts on pure space, it is important to define DIRECTION rightly. (one can imagine how the proces is being infinitely repeated - and one can imagine how everything is being viewed and understood out from an anthropocentric point of view - but one have to start at a well-defined point - and then let the universal cyclus develop out from that choosen starting point)
Pure space - formless and infinite - is being divided by the binary principle (2-4-8---) in increasingly more and more dimensionalities -
But there is one important characteristic at each "division": One is Black the Other is White. And each dimesionality knows exactly where it is placed relative to its counterpart - just this knowledge about its color and its placing relative to its counterpart.
And another principle is that the color of a dimensionaćity is being influenced by the color of its neighbors - cellular automaton -
when such a system reaches a certain complexion - (a certain amount of dimensionalities) - it will start to form repeating patterns - stable repeating patterns - and this is the same as lastingness of an expression. As long as the dimensionalities is not being repeated in a pattern they have no physical existance - because they have no lastingness. They have a lasting which is equal to the Universal Tick - the rate by which the binary principle acts. It is a dimensionless time-tick - cannot be measured against anything - has no physical existance.
When the first repeating pattern is being established , there is a lasting expression - there is a cinematographic moviestrip of dimensional configurations that repeat themselves in a pattern and taking a certain amount of time-ticks - there is suddenly something that can be measured relative to something else. And this essentially is what physical is about - dynamically oscillating dimensional reconfigurations in characteristic repeating patterns.
And this is the principles behind scaling. When infinite pure space has been partitioned into a sufficient amount of such (smaller) dimensionalities - to establish repeating patterns - at that moment a kind of lattice of such stable repeating patterns (particles) is being formed - and from now on further partition will take place in second generation - which is not partition of primary pure space but further partition of the individual smaller dimensionalities. An infolding so to speak. And at a certain point there will be a sufficient amount of such second generation smaller dimensions within first generation dimensionalities that a new lattice of repeating stable particle formation takes place. And so on --
The color of any given dimensionality in any given scale is being determined out from its "mother origin" - one black one white - and secondary out from its internal and deeper configurations of dimensionalities. So is is not only the neighbouring dimensionalities in its own scale that determines color, but the internal information will also determine color - although much weaker.
I imagine that such simple principles can lead to the kind of complexity which is the underlying gowerning mechanism for mother nature.
Physical Universe is gowerned by binary mathematical rules and principles - and can be measured and forecastet, so physical universe is not harboring infinite dimensions - but it is an open system that is ever increasing in complexion. And by having everything defined out from ratios af dimensionalities mother nature will never run short in the possibility of further complexion.
Continuity and points (dimensionless points) cannot exist - and in mathematics there exist no such thing as a point - any number has a dimension associated - and any number can be further extended in and infinite number of extensions, and any number is an approximation in its relevant scale.
QUOTE:
hi iseason
That is what I understand as existance /logic duality. Its inherent in infinity of any kind. That is also the source of motion, or rather, information, negative entropy, energy, since motion according to bukh ( and I tend to agree with him now is) replacing all space dimensions in each cycle via informational rearrangements and interactions.
Time appears in ideal form as the lenght of cycle i mentioned in previous post. Though it is not defined in units ( not definable) it serves as internal clock so all other clock scales are in some ratio to this fundamental scale which is not defined, but, since its definition (cycling 1/2-1/2) involves both spatial and information sides of existence, it is obvious that time and spatial reality ( matter) are closely and exactly interlinked ( as also shown by GR as far as it is working), so this relationship develops through scales allowing to have LAWS connecting time and spatial changes.
As spatial appearances of indivisibles ( oscillating smallest things) aggregate, glue together, they form spatial dimensions that has increasing inertia ( that is = spatial presence in the same place after each cycle, or lastingness), at some stage they form rotating agregates with defined centers.
These aggregates that show rotation has centers the are spatially most fixed. At some stage they can form a lattice( provided there is enough rotating units of indivisibles) .
Rotation in terms of oscillating indivisibles is also simple. The one in the center has the longest spatial presence, lastingness, while the next surrounding it has smaller as they disappear more often, and so on.
The ideal approximation of such oscillating indivisible is binary oscillator with 1/2 period. However, it is not quite clear what are spatial size and form of such things, initially.
It seems they should be small as they must be many. On other hand, they must be able to form aggregates, so they must have form that allows to fill space, or many potential forms depending on cicumstances.
So time (cyclic process) is available once we agree to the oscillating nature of indivisibles ( aka infinitesimals ). That time is ideal, or simple as it does not yet involve any aggregates. As soon as indivisbles aggregate spatially and/or interact informationally, time gets complicated, and local."
I almost agree - except direction - it is from "big" to "small"
First the concept of infinity.
Infinity as a concept can only exist in relation to something that cannot be measured - to something that is not gowerned by principles and laws. And there exist only one such thing in physical universe - namely the very concept of dimension.
Pure space is infinite - it has only one quality or one characteristic - the very concept of showing a dimension. Non-defined - no limits - no form. Pure space is the very essence of physical universe - it is the only requirement that is a must - (has always been into existance and will always be into existance) - together with the binary principle. When the binary principle is being applied onto pure space - the resultant is physical universe.
In order better to imagine how the binary principle acts on pure space, it is important to define DIRECTION rightly. (one can imagine how the proces is being infinitely repeated - and one can imagine how everything is being viewed and understood out from an anthropocentric point of view - but one have to start at a well-defined point - and then let the universal cyclus develop out from that choosen starting point)
Pure space - formless and infinite - is being divided by the binary principle (2-4-8---) in increasingly more and more dimensionalities -
But there is one important characteristic at each "division": One is Black the Other is White. And each dimesionality knows exactly where it is placed relative to its counterpart - just this knowledge about its color and its placing relative to its counterpart.
And another principle is that the color of a dimensionaćity is being influenced by the color of its neighbors - cellular automaton -
when such a system reaches a certain complexion - (a certain amount of dimensionalities) - it will start to form repeating patterns - stable repeating patterns - and this is the same as lastingness of an expression. As long as the dimensionalities is not being repeated in a pattern they have no physical existance - because they have no lastingness. They have a lasting which is equal to the Universal Tick - the rate by which the binary principle acts. It is a dimensionless time-tick - cannot be measured against anything - has no physical existance.
When the first repeating pattern is being established , there is a lasting expression - there is a cinematographic moviestrip of dimensional configurations that repeat themselves in a pattern and taking a certain amount of time-ticks - there is suddenly something that can be measured relative to something else. And this essentially is what physical is about - dynamically oscillating dimensional reconfigurations in characteristic repeating patterns.
And this is the principles behind scaling. When infinite pure space has been partitioned into a sufficient amount of such (smaller) dimensionalities - to establish repeating patterns - at that moment a kind of lattice of such stable repeating patterns (particles) is being formed - and from now on further partition will take place in second generation - which is not partition of primary pure space but further partition of the individual smaller dimensionalities. An infolding so to speak. And at a certain point there will be a sufficient amount of such second generation smaller dimensions within first generation dimensionalities that a new lattice of repeating stable particle formation takes place. And so on --
The color of any given dimensionality in any given scale is being determined out from its "mother origin" - one black one white - and secondary out from its internal and deeper configurations of dimensionalities. So is is not only the neighbouring dimensionalities in its own scale that determines color, but the internal information will also determine color - although much weaker.
I imagine that such simple principles can lead to the kind of complexity which is the underlying gowerning mechanism for mother nature.
Physical Universe is gowerned by binary mathematical rules and principles - and can be measured and forecastet, so physical universe is not harboring infinite dimensions - but it is an open system that is ever increasing in complexion. And by having everything defined out from ratios af dimensionalities mother nature will never run short in the possibility of further complexion.
Continuity and points (dimensionless points) cannot exist - and in mathematics there exist no such thing as a point - any number has a dimension associated - and any number can be further extended in and infinite number of extensions, and any number is an approximation in its relevant scale.
There is no such thing as a 'dimensionless time-tick'.
Another series of contradictory drivel.
g.
QUOTE
Pure space is infinite
Pure space is the very essence of physical universe
...physical universe is not harboring infinite dimensions
Pure space is the very essence of physical universe
...physical universe is not harboring infinite dimensions
Another series of contradictory drivel.
g.
Gorgeous
Thank you -
I may have expressed myself inaccurate - the meaning is that physical universe is discrete - and measurable and expressable in exact numbers, and there exists no infinite "numbers" in physical universe - it is an open system - but physical exists in the very act of being measured and compared and expressed relatively. Dimensionality has no exact "size" - dimensionality is totally relative - expressed as an exact ratio. Dimensionality is the infinite undefined relative in universe.
"There is no such thing as a 'dimensionless time-tick'."
OK - perhaps it is better to define the universal time-ticks as "UNIT ONE" ticks.
Thank you -
I may have expressed myself inaccurate - the meaning is that physical universe is discrete - and measurable and expressable in exact numbers, and there exists no infinite "numbers" in physical universe - it is an open system - but physical exists in the very act of being measured and compared and expressed relatively. Dimensionality has no exact "size" - dimensionality is totally relative - expressed as an exact ratio. Dimensionality is the infinite undefined relative in universe.
"There is no such thing as a 'dimensionless time-tick'."
OK - perhaps it is better to define the universal time-ticks as "UNIT ONE" ticks.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 20 2008, 11:50 PM)
Another series of contradictory drivel.
g.
My thoughts exactly.
g.
My thoughts exactly.
hej bukh
I have not given any directions of process. The fact that oscillating indivisibles aggregate in spatial dimensions only means they DO IT while they exist spatially. This aggregation is governed by rules of harmonic pure space ( potential), which is NOT binary information as it decides what shapes in each case indivisibls would get as to glue together they must have rather regular but still rich forms , infinitely many.
However, when they disappear spatially into world of binary information , their destinies are calculated there.
So there are separate parts of CYCLE, 2 or 4 as we hypothesized earlier, and in these separate parts separate processes happen and govern, so You can not say there is direction as that would imply there is time which is NOT present. There are only parts of cycle, and in each of them something happens, most likely governed by appropriate laws of harmony and logic.
It is the interaction of these processes which happen in different parts of cycle that leads to direction and time, aggregation which allows to detect change. But in
ONE cycle direction has no meaning. It is just rules, including chaotic rules which in the cycle when indivisibles disappear messes with their existence so that chaos as source of motion( apparent) is maintained.
I have not given any directions of process. The fact that oscillating indivisibles aggregate in spatial dimensions only means they DO IT while they exist spatially. This aggregation is governed by rules of harmonic pure space ( potential), which is NOT binary information as it decides what shapes in each case indivisibls would get as to glue together they must have rather regular but still rich forms , infinitely many.
However, when they disappear spatially into world of binary information , their destinies are calculated there.
So there are separate parts of CYCLE, 2 or 4 as we hypothesized earlier, and in these separate parts separate processes happen and govern, so You can not say there is direction as that would imply there is time which is NOT present. There are only parts of cycle, and in each of them something happens, most likely governed by appropriate laws of harmony and logic.
It is the interaction of these processes which happen in different parts of cycle that leads to direction and time, aggregation which allows to detect change. But in
ONE cycle direction has no meaning. It is just rules, including chaotic rules which in the cycle when indivisibles disappear messes with their existence so that chaos as source of motion( apparent) is maintained.
Infinite Space appears to be 'closed' to us because it is the One thing that exists absolutely, and therefore can have no 'outside' to it.
g,
g,
Ivars
"I have not given any directions of process. The fact that oscillating indivisible aggregate in spatial dimensions only means they DO IT while they exist spatially. This aggregation is governed by rules of harmonic pure space ( potential), which is NOT binary information as it decides what shapes in each case indivisible would get as to glue together they must have rather regular but still rich forms , infinitely many." ...(Note...I'm leaving 'infinitely ' in but not agreeing with it)
To see how 'universal shapes' would form . there is an easy methodology that would mimic the same. to get any accuracy, the higher number of pixels. The less pixels = greater margin of error. Since every 'space' would eventually be used, try looking at an honestly even distribution, one pixel at a time. a billion pixels would begin to shape something.
1=centre...2=line...three=triangle.... 4=square.........eventually, a circle will be the best shape....remembering that there will be 'no free space' while it is being built up, but the outer borders will be continually pushed out from centre. When uneven shapes occur (non-prime)Balance is affected. Those pixels will be linking pixels(action at a distance)Balanced at another part of the sequence.
Remember, that time is not a component of the sequence, so cause and affect are not necessarily close together. They can be corrected at any point in the sequence, but the balancing will occur an equal distance into the latter part of the run.Another thing to keep in mind is that the laying or the sequence has an order BUT happened without the usage of a measuring /time/motion component and so hap penned as if all at once. The revision as time is what "creates balance". As a sequence balance exists as simply an order potential.
So what happens?
The occurrence is random in terms of order(time and occurrence), but occurs one pixel at a time (occurrence only) and all at once(time/space/motion). What is happening is dependant on what you are choosing to measure by.
Similarly, I could choose to measure each drop of water in a bucket, or the order they go into a bucket or how they finally act as a body of water.
Cheers
Iseason
"I have not given any directions of process. The fact that oscillating indivisible aggregate in spatial dimensions only means they DO IT while they exist spatially. This aggregation is governed by rules of harmonic pure space ( potential), which is NOT binary information as it decides what shapes in each case indivisible would get as to glue together they must have rather regular but still rich forms , infinitely many." ...(Note...I'm leaving 'infinitely ' in but not agreeing with it)
To see how 'universal shapes' would form . there is an easy methodology that would mimic the same. to get any accuracy, the higher number of pixels. The less pixels = greater margin of error. Since every 'space' would eventually be used, try looking at an honestly even distribution, one pixel at a time. a billion pixels would begin to shape something.
1=centre...2=line...three=triangle.... 4=square.........eventually, a circle will be the best shape....remembering that there will be 'no free space' while it is being built up, but the outer borders will be continually pushed out from centre. When uneven shapes occur (non-prime)Balance is affected. Those pixels will be linking pixels(action at a distance)Balanced at another part of the sequence.
Remember, that time is not a component of the sequence, so cause and affect are not necessarily close together. They can be corrected at any point in the sequence, but the balancing will occur an equal distance into the latter part of the run.Another thing to keep in mind is that the laying or the sequence has an order BUT happened without the usage of a measuring /time/motion component and so hap penned as if all at once. The revision as time is what "creates balance". As a sequence balance exists as simply an order potential.
So what happens?
The occurrence is random in terms of order(time and occurrence), but occurs one pixel at a time (occurrence only) and all at once(time/space/motion). What is happening is dependant on what you are choosing to measure by.
Similarly, I could choose to measure each drop of water in a bucket, or the order they go into a bucket or how they finally act as a body of water.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
(Note...I'm leaving 'infinitely ' in but not agreeing with it)
'Cause' and 'effect' are the same thing ~ motion of Space (what exists).
We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion.
'Time' is a description of sequence ~ motion of Space (what exists).
g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE: "We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion."
No we do not observe pixels - anyhow - How would you like with your OWN words to explain / describe what we are observing ? Or even better to come up with something that could be the very basis for what we are observing.
QUOTE: "We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion."
No we do not observe pixels - anyhow - How would you like with your OWN words to explain / describe what we are observing ? Or even better to come up with something that could be the very basis for what we are observing.
Making up our OWN words and phrases is what gets us all into contradictory states in the first place. Society, thus its languages, is another accumulating effect of the motions of Space, and so we must build on what has been established before hand, and also whatever becomes consequently understood as error can be rejected.
We communicate so that we can understand each other and our surroundings more efficiently. We therefore must endeavour to use terms that we all find agreeable.
As far as the understanding of how Reality 'operates' goes, I like the WSM because it has no contradictions with other forms of understanding, but just enhances that which Humans have already worked very hard for, collectively.
Also, virtually all of my posts are my own work, unless stated by the use of the author's name afterwards, so your request has already been met many times over, if only you would actually read some of it instead of just reacting against words you do not personally like.
You may need to re-read this thread several times in order to understand where this is all going. You seem to think it is just a game where people can invent whatever they like and pronounce it 'true'! Science exists to prove this kind of blind 'toying' wrong as much as to prove a theory 'right'.
But it all comes down to our individual understanding, and whether this is actually what we are trying to do, or whether we just like 'toying'.
I agree with the WSM statement that Truth is important to Humanity and our chances of further survival within it, but Humanity itself is only important to Humans; is the root of our 'selfishness'. So it is not just about how 'physical things' come into being. It is also about what they do once they are in existence. This is almost the whole 'gist' of the 'religion vs science' divide; the self-interest vs objective understanding, where people think they have to pick one 'side' or the 'other', but in reality, to know anything of worth, we must simply understand as many aspects as we possibly can, to gain a greater understanding. If we want to know Truth, we must BE Truthful.
Being against something does not allow us to understand it, and opposing 'infinity' is no exception. Understand first, and then reject, if found to be in error. This is the true scientific method, the language of our age. So, calling something 'crackpot' before understanding it, is a gross misuse of the scientific method. You cannot just say something is 'wrong', but must explain how it is wrong, then there is understanding, not just blind opposition.
The Shroedinger and de Broglie wave equations are established elements of our collective understanding, so it is appropriate to use these and build upon them, as Milo Wolff has done.
Recently, I also posted this...
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=349639
Perhaps you have something to contribute to it?
g.
We communicate so that we can understand each other and our surroundings more efficiently. We therefore must endeavour to use terms that we all find agreeable.
As far as the understanding of how Reality 'operates' goes, I like the WSM because it has no contradictions with other forms of understanding, but just enhances that which Humans have already worked very hard for, collectively.
Also, virtually all of my posts are my own work, unless stated by the use of the author's name afterwards, so your request has already been met many times over, if only you would actually read some of it instead of just reacting against words you do not personally like.
You may need to re-read this thread several times in order to understand where this is all going. You seem to think it is just a game where people can invent whatever they like and pronounce it 'true'! Science exists to prove this kind of blind 'toying' wrong as much as to prove a theory 'right'.
But it all comes down to our individual understanding, and whether this is actually what we are trying to do, or whether we just like 'toying'.
I agree with the WSM statement that Truth is important to Humanity and our chances of further survival within it, but Humanity itself is only important to Humans; is the root of our 'selfishness'. So it is not just about how 'physical things' come into being. It is also about what they do once they are in existence. This is almost the whole 'gist' of the 'religion vs science' divide; the self-interest vs objective understanding, where people think they have to pick one 'side' or the 'other', but in reality, to know anything of worth, we must simply understand as many aspects as we possibly can, to gain a greater understanding. If we want to know Truth, we must BE Truthful.
Being against something does not allow us to understand it, and opposing 'infinity' is no exception. Understand first, and then reject, if found to be in error. This is the true scientific method, the language of our age. So, calling something 'crackpot' before understanding it, is a gross misuse of the scientific method. You cannot just say something is 'wrong', but must explain how it is wrong, then there is understanding, not just blind opposition.
The Shroedinger and de Broglie wave equations are established elements of our collective understanding, so it is appropriate to use these and build upon them, as Milo Wolff has done.
Recently, I also posted this...
QUOTE
A lot depends on how much importance we put on 'consciousness', or an aspect of Universal self-awareness, as it actually is. In order for existence to be the way we observe it to be, does it need to be 'self-aware'? ~ Or is this just something that occasionally happens...because it can?
I tend to favour the latter example because of many other factors. For instance, surely no 'part' of existence can have any more importance than another, if we understand that we cannot evolve a supporting organism for the brain/mind without all of the other 'ingredients' that go to make up the whole organism, and so each and every aspect is just as 'important' as the other, being that the whole would not exist without them.
In cosmological terms, 'gas' has at least as much importance as 'consciousness' because without the aspect we call 'gas', the organism that is 'us' would not be able to exist either.
Back to our One 'Infinite thing', which must be 'Space', as this is what we observe everywhere, and it is established that we are talking about 'energy'. All things have 'energetic properties', and what is more this energy is proven to be neither 'created' nor 'destroyed'. As far as 'electrons sensing each other', we can say that this happens in a very rudimentary way, simply by default of certain similar wave-frequencies being 'attracted' to each other, as a form of 'harmonic' motion. If we understand that 'all things are in reality One thing' (infinite), then this explains why there is such a phenomenon as 'harmony' at source. However, this is far from the 'consciousness' that we use to do our understanding with. 'Harmonic wave-frequencies' are acceptable science, and that is our language of choice because it is relevant to the times in which we are conducting our process of investigation... 'now'.
'Now', we have a plausible explanation for the initial intuition of what we superstitiously 'believe' to be an 'omnipotent creator' ~ but it is not some 'separate entity' egotistically masquerading as a male of the Human species, but is Space itself, inherent in all things, and thus 'everywhere, always in the process of creating new forms of itself ('omnipotently', constantly re~creating, in infinity)'.
So, what exists (and remember this is regardless of whatever 'name' we give it) must do so;
a.) Infinitely
b.) Energetically
c.) Interconnectedly
Is it possible for us to agree with this? Or, is there any valid reason why it is not true? We cannot move forward until we have established a 'base-camp' of fundamentally necessary truth, as we will end up back in the realm of subjectivity and more speculation, leading to our old friend the 'semantic issue' again...
If we can agree upon terms and their meanings, we have a platform to work from.
The 'bottom line' is that we are trying to advance our understanding of our surroundings, our 'environment', so that we may more efficiently co-exist within it, and thus the most plausible understanding is what we seek, but this act of 'understanding' is a task, a motion, performed by the individual, and what we struggle with is a terminology that allows us to find a comfortable balance between our personal views, and the way in which existence necessarily 'operates'.
I tend to favour the latter example because of many other factors. For instance, surely no 'part' of existence can have any more importance than another, if we understand that we cannot evolve a supporting organism for the brain/mind without all of the other 'ingredients' that go to make up the whole organism, and so each and every aspect is just as 'important' as the other, being that the whole would not exist without them.
In cosmological terms, 'gas' has at least as much importance as 'consciousness' because without the aspect we call 'gas', the organism that is 'us' would not be able to exist either.
Back to our One 'Infinite thing', which must be 'Space', as this is what we observe everywhere, and it is established that we are talking about 'energy'. All things have 'energetic properties', and what is more this energy is proven to be neither 'created' nor 'destroyed'. As far as 'electrons sensing each other', we can say that this happens in a very rudimentary way, simply by default of certain similar wave-frequencies being 'attracted' to each other, as a form of 'harmonic' motion. If we understand that 'all things are in reality One thing' (infinite), then this explains why there is such a phenomenon as 'harmony' at source. However, this is far from the 'consciousness' that we use to do our understanding with. 'Harmonic wave-frequencies' are acceptable science, and that is our language of choice because it is relevant to the times in which we are conducting our process of investigation... 'now'.
'Now', we have a plausible explanation for the initial intuition of what we superstitiously 'believe' to be an 'omnipotent creator' ~ but it is not some 'separate entity' egotistically masquerading as a male of the Human species, but is Space itself, inherent in all things, and thus 'everywhere, always in the process of creating new forms of itself ('omnipotently', constantly re~creating, in infinity)'.
So, what exists (and remember this is regardless of whatever 'name' we give it) must do so;
a.) Infinitely
b.) Energetically
c.) Interconnectedly
Is it possible for us to agree with this? Or, is there any valid reason why it is not true? We cannot move forward until we have established a 'base-camp' of fundamentally necessary truth, as we will end up back in the realm of subjectivity and more speculation, leading to our old friend the 'semantic issue' again...
If we can agree upon terms and their meanings, we have a platform to work from.
The 'bottom line' is that we are trying to advance our understanding of our surroundings, our 'environment', so that we may more efficiently co-exist within it, and thus the most plausible understanding is what we seek, but this act of 'understanding' is a task, a motion, performed by the individual, and what we struggle with is a terminology that allows us to find a comfortable balance between our personal views, and the way in which existence necessarily 'operates'.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=349639
Perhaps you have something to contribute to it?
g.
Hi Gorgeous
What You have said implies there is 1 continuous time in which all things You mention happen smoothly, so there are no "blank" , unobservable periods.
I doubt this very seriously as it does not explain why there is such time nor it does explain the cause of motion. Infinity itself can not be cause of motion since You say IT exists energetically, so motion, or need to move to exist is already given besides infinity, do I understand right?
What I offer as explanation is cyclical existance of opposites and it is directly related to self awareness and self realization:
1) Indivisibles (infintiesimal space dimensions) self percept- do not exist spatially - thought exists, comes into being.
2) Thought about indivisble self realizes- indivisible exists spatially, comes into being.
3) MIND, pure consciosness exists- does not exist spatially
4) Omnipotent mind self realizes- does exist spatially as pure space
This is initial configuration, subjected to certain harmonic geometries of pure consciousness I have not yet found and shapes of indivisebles, most likely īnfinitely many.
The periods are like (1/2 1/2) or (1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4) or (1/2 1/2 1/2I 1/2I) -but anyway just numbers, no dimension.
As more complex spatial aggregates and more simple consciusnessess develop (since indivisible can be said to have ALL pure consciousness to himself, shared by all many of them) the cycles chnage there realtive lengths, but there is always periods (cycles, flashes) when nothing of OUR physical reality is spatially present, including us.
What You have said implies there is 1 continuous time in which all things You mention happen smoothly, so there are no "blank" , unobservable periods.
I doubt this very seriously as it does not explain why there is such time nor it does explain the cause of motion. Infinity itself can not be cause of motion since You say IT exists energetically, so motion, or need to move to exist is already given besides infinity, do I understand right?
What I offer as explanation is cyclical existance of opposites and it is directly related to self awareness and self realization:
1) Indivisibles (infintiesimal space dimensions) self percept- do not exist spatially - thought exists, comes into being.
2) Thought about indivisble self realizes- indivisible exists spatially, comes into being.
3) MIND, pure consciosness exists- does not exist spatially
4) Omnipotent mind self realizes- does exist spatially as pure space
This is initial configuration, subjected to certain harmonic geometries of pure consciousness I have not yet found and shapes of indivisebles, most likely īnfinitely many.
The periods are like (1/2 1/2) or (1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4) or (1/2 1/2 1/2I 1/2I) -but anyway just numbers, no dimension.
As more complex spatial aggregates and more simple consciusnessess develop (since indivisible can be said to have ALL pure consciousness to himself, shared by all many of them) the cycles chnage there realtive lengths, but there is always periods (cycles, flashes) when nothing of OUR physical reality is spatially present, including us.
Hej Ivars
If I read you correctly - are you suggesting that everything is gowerned by the 1): FORM that smallest things put together - and the corresponding 2: LASTINGNESS - so that every expression is lasting exactly for a well defined number of Unit-ONE times - which is reflected by a simple but yet very complex calculation out from the the number of smallest things included in said form.
If I read you correctly - are you suggesting that everything is gowerned by the 1): FORM that smallest things put together - and the corresponding 2: LASTINGNESS - so that every expression is lasting exactly for a well defined number of Unit-ONE times - which is reflected by a simple but yet very complex calculation out from the the number of smallest things included in said form.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 22 2008, 10:41 PM)
'Cause' and 'effect' are the same thing ~ motion of Space (what exists).
We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion.
'Time' is a description of sequence ~ motion of Space (what exists).
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 22 2008, 10:41 PM)
'Cause' and 'effect' are the same thing ~ motion of Space (what exists).
We observe no such thing as 'pixels', which is therefore an erroneous term without meaning in regard to the discussion.
'Time' is a description of sequence ~ motion of Space (what exists).
g.
I know you CHOOSE to split hairs in every answer to my posts . Get over yourself!
Science has been "fixing points in space" in every measurement that ever was. There IS no terminology that I can use which will adequately describe this. It is nearly impossible to create any 'picture' without referring to a "time line structure terminology".
Pixel describes a fixed point in a finite space. Or would you rather I made up words? Yes you would. All the better to Bang you stick against you droning pot. I've seen you post things on this forum that are so close to what I'm saying that it makes me sick to read your hypocrisy.
evolve some more into a human concienceness that gives a damn, because at the moment you are just pure spiteful ramblings. I haven't actually seen you celebrate the regions within our thinking which matches your own. You are dishonest and deceitful and full of yourself.
I saw you become gleeful when a poster gave you back spite for spite and say " see, you CAN do it".
CHeers
iseason
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 23 2008, 06:46 AM)
Hej Ivars
If I read you correctly - are you suggesting that everything is gowerned by the 1): FORM that smallest things put together - and the corresponding 2: LASTINGNESS - so that every expression is lasting exactly for a well defined number of Unit-ONE times - which is reflected by a simple but yet very complex calculation out from the the number of smallest things included in said form.
hej bukh
Not everything, but
1) the lastingness of spatial presence of aggregates of indivisibles which determines relative length of period of spatial existance of parts of aggregate and total, and spatial non- existance= binary( self -perception of existance) information.
2) the form of aggregates may be in harmony with pure space or not. Those fomrs that are not in harmony get aligned, corrected during the cycle of spatial existance while all forms get chaotic impacts during cycle of spatial non-existance.
It like a chess game between pure consciosness that affects form via pure space, and chaos that affects existance via binary information of existance. They never interact directly, but via playing field, which is spatial presence, where they make moves in turns.
So not everything is decided by form and lastingness spatially, but those may have bigger or smaller effect if played right.
In essence, there are 3 interdependent forces:
Pure consciousness as source of form and harmony, trying to prolong lastingness-> to resemble itself
pure motion or chaos as source of motion trying to destroy form and lastingness- >again trying to multiply itself
And the spatial Universe with all intermeadeate spatial forms above indivisibles and consciousnesses below pure space- our reality.
They exist in paralel tacts, so each has own time, or no time from our point of view, but seems that space is the place where results are calculated, and these changes in space allow to define and notice time by them.
For the game to go on, there has to be a fine balance, so that no one wins.
In this context, photon is a spatial aggregate of indivisibles that has stable form so that each cycle destoys some indivisibles "behind it" but also creates similar in front of it - so its kind of non-destructible harmonic portion of space - during chaos tact the destruction of aggregate is exactly matched by correction of pure space.
In this sense photon transports harmonious information fields over space,in general adding to harmony where it is joining existing aggregates.
In the spatial existence tact, there is no space before or after photon. When it not-exists, its space is taken by pure form which aligns its path to compensate for loss of harmony it suffers in chaotic binary information field.
If I read you correctly - are you suggesting that everything is gowerned by the 1): FORM that smallest things put together - and the corresponding 2: LASTINGNESS - so that every expression is lasting exactly for a well defined number of Unit-ONE times - which is reflected by a simple but yet very complex calculation out from the the number of smallest things included in said form.
hej bukh
Not everything, but
1) the lastingness of spatial presence of aggregates of indivisibles which determines relative length of period of spatial existance of parts of aggregate and total, and spatial non- existance= binary( self -perception of existance) information.
2) the form of aggregates may be in harmony with pure space or not. Those fomrs that are not in harmony get aligned, corrected during the cycle of spatial existance while all forms get chaotic impacts during cycle of spatial non-existance.
It like a chess game between pure consciosness that affects form via pure space, and chaos that affects existance via binary information of existance. They never interact directly, but via playing field, which is spatial presence, where they make moves in turns.
So not everything is decided by form and lastingness spatially, but those may have bigger or smaller effect if played right.
In essence, there are 3 interdependent forces:
Pure consciousness as source of form and harmony, trying to prolong lastingness-> to resemble itself
pure motion or chaos as source of motion trying to destroy form and lastingness- >again trying to multiply itself
And the spatial Universe with all intermeadeate spatial forms above indivisibles and consciousnesses below pure space- our reality.
They exist in paralel tacts, so each has own time, or no time from our point of view, but seems that space is the place where results are calculated, and these changes in space allow to define and notice time by them.
For the game to go on, there has to be a fine balance, so that no one wins.
In this context, photon is a spatial aggregate of indivisibles that has stable form so that each cycle destoys some indivisibles "behind it" but also creates similar in front of it - so its kind of non-destructible harmonic portion of space - during chaos tact the destruction of aggregate is exactly matched by correction of pure space.
In this sense photon transports harmonious information fields over space,in general adding to harmony where it is joining existing aggregates.
In the spatial existence tact, there is no space before or after photon. When it not-exists, its space is taken by pure form which aligns its path to compensate for loss of harmony it suffers in chaotic binary information field.
hej bukh,
I just read account of Leucippus and Democritus and, interestingly, we have managed in one part of our ( oscillating and their aggregates) to basically repeat their reasoning- which is no mean feat. We have graduated from first year in philosophy:)
You can read something from them , very interesting . I give a little rearranged quote to make it shorter.
More so, their elements- atoms- have infinity of shapes and glue together. WHAT IS is created when they aggregate, destroyed when the aggregates are separated.
The elements have FORM and SHAPES. Nothing else. Devoid of any property, as are indivisibles; devoid of volume.
What these guys miss is the fact that WHAT IS NOT is related to chaos , binary information and binary information spaces, also they have disregarded pure space ( which was present in earlier accounts of Universe as ONE).
I have not found their interpretation of time and importance of rotation to increase , overcome scales, jump over infinity. But I have to read more. Even vocabulary is the same- a big plus form Gorgeous to us - I used WHEN NOT EXISTS in previous post instead of their WHAT IS NOT.
Anyway, interesting.
I just read account of Leucippus and Democritus and, interestingly, we have managed in one part of our ( oscillating and their aggregates) to basically repeat their reasoning- which is no mean feat. We have graduated from first year in philosophy:)
You can read something from them , very interesting . I give a little rearranged quote to make it shorter.
QUOTE
The elements are WHAT IS, and WHAT is not. They exist separately- WHAT IS in FULL, WHAT IS NOT - in void
More so, their elements- atoms- have infinity of shapes and glue together. WHAT IS is created when they aggregate, destroyed when the aggregates are separated.
The elements have FORM and SHAPES. Nothing else. Devoid of any property, as are indivisibles; devoid of volume.
What these guys miss is the fact that WHAT IS NOT is related to chaos , binary information and binary information spaces, also they have disregarded pure space ( which was present in earlier accounts of Universe as ONE).
I have not found their interpretation of time and importance of rotation to increase , overcome scales, jump over infinity. But I have to read more. Even vocabulary is the same- a big plus form Gorgeous to us
- I used WHEN NOT EXISTS in previous post instead of their WHAT IS NOT.Anyway, interesting.
QUOTE (iseason+Jun 22 2008, 09:39 PM)
I know you CHOOSE to split hairs in every answer to my posts . Get over yourself!
Science has been "fixing points in space" in every measurement that ever was. There IS no terminology that I can use which will adequately describe this. It is nearly impossible to create any 'picture' without referring to a "time line structure terminology".
Pixel describes a fixed point in a finite space. Or would you rather I made up words? Yes you would. All the better to Bang you stick against you droning pot. I've seen you post things on this forum that are so close to what I'm saying that it makes me sick to read your hypocrisy.
evolve some more into a human concienceness that gives a damn, because at the moment you are just pure spiteful ramblings. I haven't actually seen you celebrate the regions within our thinking which matches your own. You are dishonest and deceitful and full of yourself.
I saw you become gleeful when a poster gave you back spite for spite and say " see, you CAN do it".
CHeers
iseason
Getting very desperate now, iseason. Just a matter of 'time' (motion of what exists) before the real you is shown.
I prove you totally wrong, and you have nothing but abuse in return. Yes those 'spiteful ramblings' you can detect really are coming from you! No change there, then.
QUOTE
What these guys miss is the fact that WHAT IS NOT is related to chaos
Surely you can understand that anyone with a semi-functioning brain can see how completely non-sensical this is?
I can only assume that your English teacher had a wicked sense of humour!
g.
Quote little "g"
"I prove you totally wrong, - - -"
Exquisit form of black humor - close to being the self-overestimation of the century -
"I prove you totally wrong, - - -"
Exquisit form of black humor - close to being the self-overestimation of the century -
QUOTE (bukh+Jun 23 2008, 10:59 AM)
Quote little "g"
"I prove you totally wrong, - - -"
Exquisit form of black humor - close to being the self-overestimation of the century -
Seeing as none of you stooges has come with any understanding whatsoever, and won't even read a dictionary...the truth of it is self evident. So it is not just 'I', but the entire English language you are attempting to trash!
You have nothing, just lots of garbled misunderstanding. I have continually posted explanations, attempts to get you to read something that makes sense, so that we can begin a Real conversation, but you are not interested in anything Real.
(bukh)iseason's best to date is 'Go away'!
Come on. Post something intelligable concerning Infinite Space.
g.
"I prove you totally wrong, - - -"
Exquisit form of black humor - close to being the self-overestimation of the century -
Seeing as none of you stooges has come with any understanding whatsoever, and won't even read a dictionary...the truth of it is self evident. So it is not just 'I', but the entire English language you are attempting to trash!
You have nothing, just lots of garbled misunderstanding. I have continually posted explanations, attempts to get you to read something that makes sense, so that we can begin a Real conversation, but you are not interested in anything Real.
(bukh)iseason's best to date is 'Go away'!
Come on. Post something intelligable concerning Infinite Space.
g.
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.