QUOTE (iseason+Oct 2 2008, 07:00 PM)
Welcome Laidback, all
As you can see there has been a lot of discussion on the subjects we were taking up in the gravity thread. This was one reason It was relevant to the thread. A displacement universe has a parallel to this discussion.
I have trouble with ANY study of the internal workings of the parameters until we decide on a container. It's not that I want to limit the universe in either direction, but rather, that I cannot agree with infinity .
Having said that , I am content to discuss reasons other DO see infinity as this can lead to behavioral considerations that I may have not considered. Conversely, I expect that others will honestly consider the points I make against infinity and not simply gloss over the facts.
Welcome Back guys.
Cheers
Iseason
I whole heartily agree, that Infinity simply is impossible..
And here are some of the reasons we need to consider if one does not agree..
But first lets consider, what is possible and what is not..
Now I know this may seem way of topic, but its a finer point that if overlooked leads one to be with a closed mind rather to be willing to except only an exact and precise expression that is unchangeable due to the combined agreement of what ever it is, is simply exactly just as presented..
I am referring to truth statements, and no where is there a better example to truth than maths and or an equation that has a single dimension on one side of the equation and two or more dimensions (expressions) on the other side, with their APPROPRIATE operations and or an agreed rule as to how each quantity {be it a variable or constant} is and or has been derived from its Parent expression and or dimension on the other side of the equation..
Put simply If one has a quantity of something and divides it, our first reciprocal rule would be - in the return of the quantity, we sum the two divisions..
For those mathematically inclined, it goes like this, yeah I know almost preschool maths, but some of us who are good at spacial concepts don't have the appropriate connecting synapses, so maths can be difficult or awkward and therefore simple maths can seem quite complex albeit dependant on the lack of mentioned connecting synapses..
Any~ho here's the basic mathematical truth expressions..
To divide 1 quantity or dimension into two portions {quantities or dimensions} we have {1/2} = {one divided into two} and to return the two portions back to one Portion {2*1/2=1} or {the two divisions or half portions are placed together to present as one whole portion..
If I refer to percentages and insist 1 was in fact 100 as in one dollar or (100 Australian cents) then obviously each half would equate to 50 cents or replace your local denominations and or sub units with their implied divisions and or multiples and compare it to its parent denomination.. err~does that make any sense?
Eh?!
Moving on, maths therefore can be a tool in proving if a truth statement is indeed being expressed..
Now lets consider some other Rules, like what does the Universe consist of?
My reasoning prefers to refer to Energy, so lets now consider some of the basic laws that define Energy and what I am bound by.. Err~ if I have omitted some critical law please let me or should I say us know so that we are all referring to the same facts and or truthful expressions..
1/. Energy CAN NOT be destroyed.
2/. a/. Energy CAN NOT be created.
3/. b/. Ergo what energy exists right now has always existed..
4/. Energy is referred to either one of two states as in the prominent quantity.
5/. Energy may be implied as a Potential - Stored Kinetic Energy via Opposing velocities.
6/. Energy may be implied to be Kinetic bound by condition 7/.
7/. Kinetic Energy is a quanta of Potential energy in the process of being exchanged from one Potential to another Potential.. {Implied work or change- best referred to via velocity}
8/. A reference to Energy should be considered as a quantity of Energy that is with a ratio of the two states and never as "ALL Potential" or "ALL Kinetic"
9/. A Potential is Force, and a Force can only present via its velocities and or quantity of Kinetic energy. {A Potential therefore is the result of opposing velocities, ergo FORCE is repulsive via its opposing velocities}
10/. Kinetic implies Momentum or Motion..
Moving on.. I now must consider all that is possible must be bound by the above Laws..
Having established the above with my peers, I now can separate what is magic, a miracle or pure NON-sense or deceit such as any religious statements recorded opposed to when one is referring to the Universe or part of it which does conform to truth statements..
Put simply we can contain everything that is impossible into one NON-sense basket so to speak, so that outside the Truth basket only NO-thing or the impossible can exist within the Religious or Non-Sense basket. keep in mind these two baskets can not infringe on each other due to one being truth and the other contradiction and or deceit..
I therefore refer to the whole Universe as a closed system, as there is only the possible against the non-sense or impossible..
Our next dilemma is what quantity and of what?
ergo my inclusion of the above energy laws and truth statements..
so now lets contemplate what I or we are bound by..
?
It certainly isn't infinite is it - if the impossible opposed to the possible is to be a truth statement!..
Agreed ~ The friggin Universe is massive when compared from our scale and whats more we don't even know where we stand in the scale of the WHOLE universe..
so how do we overcome this?
Simple truth statements..
Using Percentages..
For example if I stated the universes energy consisted of 100% of the energy I would be expressing the truth.. Anyone that does not agree I beg of you to catch up to the rest of us here.. step one would be to toss out all that is with contradiction and or is open to the unexplainable due to it being NON-sense! or logical..
Anyway
Therefore, if I stated the Universe was infinite I would actually be expressing the impossible just may be possible, which contradicts truth, as truth is an expression and or inference to what is precise and or indisputable..
Nuff said and or waffled,
Any questions? yeah shoot!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
As you can see there has been a lot of discussion on the subjects we were taking up in the gravity thread. This was one reason It was relevant to the thread. A displacement universe has a parallel to this discussion.
I have trouble with ANY study of the internal workings of the parameters until we decide on a container. It's not that I want to limit the universe in either direction, but rather, that I cannot agree with infinity .
Having said that , I am content to discuss reasons other DO see infinity as this can lead to behavioral considerations that I may have not considered. Conversely, I expect that others will honestly consider the points I make against infinity and not simply gloss over the facts.
Welcome Back guys.
Cheers
Iseason
I whole heartily agree, that Infinity simply is impossible..
And here are some of the reasons we need to consider if one does not agree..
But first lets consider, what is possible and what is not..
Now I know this may seem way of topic, but its a finer point that if overlooked leads one to be with a closed mind rather to be willing to except only an exact and precise expression that is unchangeable due to the combined agreement of what ever it is, is simply exactly just as presented..
I am referring to truth statements, and no where is there a better example to truth than maths and or an equation that has a single dimension on one side of the equation and two or more dimensions (expressions) on the other side, with their APPROPRIATE operations and or an agreed rule as to how each quantity {be it a variable or constant} is and or has been derived from its Parent expression and or dimension on the other side of the equation..
Put simply If one has a quantity of something and divides it, our first reciprocal rule would be - in the return of the quantity, we sum the two divisions..
For those mathematically inclined, it goes like this, yeah I know almost preschool maths, but some of us who are good at spacial concepts don't have the appropriate connecting synapses, so maths can be difficult or awkward and therefore simple maths can seem quite complex albeit dependant on the lack of mentioned connecting synapses..
Any~ho here's the basic mathematical truth expressions..
To divide 1 quantity or dimension into two portions {quantities or dimensions} we have {1/2} = {one divided into two} and to return the two portions back to one Portion {2*1/2=1} or {the two divisions or half portions are placed together to present as one whole portion..
If I refer to percentages and insist 1 was in fact 100 as in one dollar or (100 Australian cents) then obviously each half would equate to 50 cents or replace your local denominations and or sub units with their implied divisions and or multiples and compare it to its parent denomination.. err~does that make any sense?
Eh?!
Moving on, maths therefore can be a tool in proving if a truth statement is indeed being expressed..
Now lets consider some other Rules, like what does the Universe consist of?
My reasoning prefers to refer to Energy, so lets now consider some of the basic laws that define Energy and what I am bound by.. Err~ if I have omitted some critical law please let me or should I say us know so that we are all referring to the same facts and or truthful expressions..
1/. Energy CAN NOT be destroyed.
2/. a/. Energy CAN NOT be created.
3/. b/. Ergo what energy exists right now has always existed..
4/. Energy is referred to either one of two states as in the prominent quantity.
5/. Energy may be implied as a Potential - Stored Kinetic Energy via Opposing velocities.
6/. Energy may be implied to be Kinetic bound by condition 7/.
7/. Kinetic Energy is a quanta of Potential energy in the process of being exchanged from one Potential to another Potential.. {Implied work or change- best referred to via velocity}
8/. A reference to Energy should be considered as a quantity of Energy that is with a ratio of the two states and never as "ALL Potential" or "ALL Kinetic"
9/. A Potential is Force, and a Force can only present via its velocities and or quantity of Kinetic energy. {A Potential therefore is the result of opposing velocities, ergo FORCE is repulsive via its opposing velocities}
10/. Kinetic implies Momentum or Motion..
Moving on.. I now must consider all that is possible must be bound by the above Laws..
Having established the above with my peers, I now can separate what is magic, a miracle or pure NON-sense or deceit such as any religious statements recorded opposed to when one is referring to the Universe or part of it which does conform to truth statements..
Put simply we can contain everything that is impossible into one NON-sense basket so to speak, so that outside the Truth basket only NO-thing or the impossible can exist within the Religious or Non-Sense basket. keep in mind these two baskets can not infringe on each other due to one being truth and the other contradiction and or deceit..
I therefore refer to the whole Universe as a closed system, as there is only the possible against the non-sense or impossible..
Our next dilemma is what quantity and of what?
ergo my inclusion of the above energy laws and truth statements..
so now lets contemplate what I or we are bound by..
?
It certainly isn't infinite is it - if the impossible opposed to the possible is to be a truth statement!..
Agreed ~ The friggin Universe is massive when compared from our scale and whats more we don't even know where we stand in the scale of the WHOLE universe..
so how do we overcome this?
Simple truth statements..
Using Percentages..
For example if I stated the universes energy consisted of 100% of the energy I would be expressing the truth.. Anyone that does not agree I beg of you to catch up to the rest of us here.. step one would be to toss out all that is with contradiction and or is open to the unexplainable due to it being NON-sense! or logical..
Anyway
Therefore, if I stated the Universe was infinite I would actually be expressing the impossible just may be possible, which contradicts truth, as truth is an expression and or inference to what is precise and or indisputable..
Nuff said and or waffled,
Any questions? yeah shoot!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 2 2008, 07:25 PM)
hej guys
Yes I think as well non-defined , ill-defined, partially defined has broader and more correct meaning.
And size is relative all over the place- true.
However, there must be something that is not relative in Universe but is invariant as size and place changes in a certain ways- it can be e.g. shape, form, symmetry. The possible properties of space as they can be determine these shapes.
Undefined size and place together with invariant forms should be enough to create Universe.
Ergo impossible, opposed to possible..
As already mentioned on previous posts - Ratios are the key to the knowledge that the Universe is not Infinite, as a comparison is always possible and if no comparison was possible then what exists right now should also have no comparison and therefore is impossible or NON-Sense or illogical!..
If we consider the basic rule and its implications that the possible must be precise and therefore equate to truth statements opposed to the impossible which must never equate to a truth statement, our Universe if it is to be possible must adhere to some sort of truth statement as in {quantifiable}opposed to nothing and or ZERO, other wise it would be impossible and not exist, ergo the universe is a system and whats more a closed system to the impossible..
And because it is closed it must be with a definition that expresses the truth about it..
Therefore it is equatable and all else is not!
I guess what I am asking - what is ones own reality? A Logical one or an illogical one?
Put simply infinite is not a logical inference but rather it is illogical which allows ones perceptions open to non-Sense.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Yes I think as well non-defined , ill-defined, partially defined has broader and more correct meaning.
And size is relative all over the place- true.
However, there must be something that is not relative in Universe but is invariant as size and place changes in a certain ways- it can be e.g. shape, form, symmetry. The possible properties of space as they can be determine these shapes.
Undefined size and place together with invariant forms should be enough to create Universe.
Ergo impossible, opposed to possible..
As already mentioned on previous posts - Ratios are the key to the knowledge that the Universe is not Infinite, as a comparison is always possible and if no comparison was possible then what exists right now should also have no comparison and therefore is impossible or NON-Sense or illogical!..
If we consider the basic rule and its implications that the possible must be precise and therefore equate to truth statements opposed to the impossible which must never equate to a truth statement, our Universe if it is to be possible must adhere to some sort of truth statement as in {quantifiable}opposed to nothing and or ZERO, other wise it would be impossible and not exist, ergo the universe is a system and whats more a closed system to the impossible..
And because it is closed it must be with a definition that expresses the truth about it..
Therefore it is equatable and all else is not!
I guess what I am asking - what is ones own reality? A Logical one or an illogical one?
Put simply infinite is not a logical inference but rather it is illogical which allows ones perceptions open to non-Sense.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hej Laidback
I think most of the problems with understanding things about universe exactly stem from the logic we use. Boolean, Yes/no true /False statements.
In such logic, paradoxes appear and are unsolvable. But that is not necessarily the logic by which Universe operates. Universe uses logic that is comparable to its level of complexity, locally, and has continuous logic ( partial truth, qubit type logic) as a whole, with all degrees in between.
So asking a question : Does something exists or not ( like infinity) is unanswerable-and should not be since the notion of infinity belongs to the logic where it is natural, not to true/false logic. Infinity exists infinitesimally, so to say. Infinity existing infinitesimally leads to finite reality.
Other question- continuity of space. If we look at it as mathematical space, it is not really continuous without imaginary points, so in a sense each real point has its dual imaginary point somewhere in space. Only such combination of real and imaginary points creates truly continuous space. When we assume space itself as being continuous, where are the imaginary points in it? The same applies to higher dimensional spaces. Of the most interesting imaginary points are Absolute imaginary circle at infinity in space, circular imaginary points at infinity in plane, notion of distance as a log of cross ration between 2 points in plane and 2 points at infinity etc.
As I have learned lately, hypothesis of continuity of real numbers and synthetic projective geometry both so far lead to same results, but it is not possible to prove which approach is correct to move forward.
By the way, have You tried to solve line equation in imaginary dimensions? Interesting results. You get an infinite series of discrete points.
(a* z)^i+b* i=0 , solve for z. I- imaginary unit.
I think most of the problems with understanding things about universe exactly stem from the logic we use. Boolean, Yes/no true /False statements.
In such logic, paradoxes appear and are unsolvable. But that is not necessarily the logic by which Universe operates. Universe uses logic that is comparable to its level of complexity, locally, and has continuous logic ( partial truth, qubit type logic) as a whole, with all degrees in between.
So asking a question : Does something exists or not ( like infinity) is unanswerable-and should not be since the notion of infinity belongs to the logic where it is natural, not to true/false logic. Infinity exists infinitesimally, so to say. Infinity existing infinitesimally leads to finite reality.
Other question- continuity of space. If we look at it as mathematical space, it is not really continuous without imaginary points, so in a sense each real point has its dual imaginary point somewhere in space. Only such combination of real and imaginary points creates truly continuous space. When we assume space itself as being continuous, where are the imaginary points in it? The same applies to higher dimensional spaces. Of the most interesting imaginary points are Absolute imaginary circle at infinity in space, circular imaginary points at infinity in plane, notion of distance as a log of cross ration between 2 points in plane and 2 points at infinity etc.
As I have learned lately, hypothesis of continuity of real numbers and synthetic projective geometry both so far lead to same results, but it is not possible to prove which approach is correct to move forward.
By the way, have You tried to solve line equation in imaginary dimensions? Interesting results. You get an infinite series of discrete points.
(a* z)^i+b* i=0 , solve for z. I- imaginary unit.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 3 2008, 11:04 AM)
I whole heartily agree, that Infinity simply is impossible..
And here are some of the reasons we need to consider if one does not agree..
But first lets consider, what is possible and what is not..
Now I know this may seem way of topic, but its a finer point that if overlooked leads one to be with a closed mind rather to be willing to except only an exact and precise expression that is unchangeable due to the combined agreement of what ever it is, is simply exactly just as presented..
I am referring to truth statements, and no where is there a better example to truth than maths and or an equation that has a single dimension on one side of the equation and two or more dimensions (expressions) on the other side, with their APPROPRIATE operations and or an agreed rule as to how each quantity {be it a variable or constant} is and or has been derived from its Parent expression and or dimension on the other side of the equation..
Put simply If one has a quantity of something and divides it, our first reciprocal rule would be - in the return of the quantity, we sum the two divisions..
For those mathematically inclined, it goes like this, yeah I know almost preschool maths, but some of us who are good at spacial concepts don't have the appropriate connecting synapses, so maths can be difficult or awkward and therefore simple maths can seem quite complex albeit dependant on the lack of mentioned connecting synapses..
Any~ho here's the basic mathematical truth expressions..
To divide 1 quantity or dimension into two portions {quantities or dimensions} we have {1/2} = {one divided into two} and to return the two portions back to one Portion {2*1/2=1} or {the two divisions or half portions are placed together to present as one whole portion..
If I refer to percentages and insist 1 was in fact 100 as in one dollar or (100 Australian cents) then obviously each half would equate to 50 cents or replace your local denominations and or sub units with their implied divisions and or multiples and compare it to its parent denomination.. err~does that make any sense?
Eh?!
Moving on, maths therefore can be a tool in proving if a truth statement is indeed being expressed..
Now lets consider some other Rules, like what does the Universe consist of?
My reasoning prefers to refer to Energy, so lets now consider some of the basic laws that define Energy and what I am bound by.. Err~ if I have omitted some critical law please let me or should I say us know so that we are all referring to the same facts and or truthful expressions..
1/. Energy CAN NOT be destroyed.
2/. a/. Energy CAN NOT be created.
3/. b/. Ergo what energy exists right now has always existed..
4/. Energy is referred to either one of two states as in the prominent quantity.
5/. Energy may be implied as a Potential - Stored Kinetic Energy via Opposing velocities.
6/. Energy may be implied to be Kinetic bound by condition 7/.
7/. Kinetic Energy is a quanta of Potential energy in the process of being exchanged from one Potential to another Potential.. {Implied work or change- best referred to via velocity}
8/. A reference to Energy should be considered as a quantity of Energy that is with a ratio of the two states and never as "ALL Potential" or "ALL Kinetic"
9/. A Potential is Force, and a Force can only present via its velocities and or quantity of Kinetic energy. {A Potential therefore is the result of opposing velocities, ergo FORCE is repulsive via its opposing velocities}
10/. Kinetic implies Momentum or Motion..
Moving on.. I now must consider all that is possible must be bound by the above Laws..
Having established the above with my peers, I now can separate what is magic, a miracle or pure NON-sense or deceit such as any religious statements recorded opposed to when one is referring to the Universe or part of it which does conform to truth statements..
Put simply we can contain everything that is impossible into one NON-sense basket so to speak, so that outside the Truth basket only NO-thing or the impossible can exist within the Religious or Non-Sense basket. keep in mind these two baskets can not infringe on each other due to one being truth and the other contradiction and or deceit..
I therefore refer to the whole Universe as a closed system, as there is only the possible against the non-sense or impossible..
Our next dilemma is what quantity and of what?
ergo my inclusion of the above energy laws and truth statements..
so now lets contemplate what I or we are bound by..
?
It certainly isn't infinite is it - if the impossible opposed to the possible is to be a truth statement!..
Agreed ~ The friggin Universe is massive when compared from our scale and whats more we don't even know where we stand in the scale of the WHOLE universe..
so how do we overcome this?
Simple truth statements..
Using Percentages..
For example if I stated the universes energy consisted of 100% of the energy I would be expressing the truth.. Anyone that does not agree I beg of you to catch up to the rest of us here.. step one would be to toss out all that is with contradiction and or is open to the unexplainable due to it being NON-sense! or logical..
Anyway
Therefore, if I stated the Universe was infinite I would actually be expressing the impossible just may be possible, which contradicts truth, as truth is an expression and or inference to what is precise and or indisputable..
Nuff said and or waffled,
Any questions? yeah shoot!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi laidback
Impressive answer. Quite within the vein of this thread. I am happy with the reasoning that you have put forwards and enthusiastically agree with the honesty or bullshit measure/baskets.
However I want to caution against not returning to the bullshit basket every now and then to check we didn't throw something really useful in there. I can already see something that I can use in later discussions. OK in there for now though.
I intend to change my signature to reflect the "truths" that we state as we go along.So as we establish something , I will add this to my signature so we can refer to this check point of what we have agreed on.
Cheers
Iseason
And here are some of the reasons we need to consider if one does not agree..
But first lets consider, what is possible and what is not..
Now I know this may seem way of topic, but its a finer point that if overlooked leads one to be with a closed mind rather to be willing to except only an exact and precise expression that is unchangeable due to the combined agreement of what ever it is, is simply exactly just as presented..
I am referring to truth statements, and no where is there a better example to truth than maths and or an equation that has a single dimension on one side of the equation and two or more dimensions (expressions) on the other side, with their APPROPRIATE operations and or an agreed rule as to how each quantity {be it a variable or constant} is and or has been derived from its Parent expression and or dimension on the other side of the equation..
Put simply If one has a quantity of something and divides it, our first reciprocal rule would be - in the return of the quantity, we sum the two divisions..
For those mathematically inclined, it goes like this, yeah I know almost preschool maths, but some of us who are good at spacial concepts don't have the appropriate connecting synapses, so maths can be difficult or awkward and therefore simple maths can seem quite complex albeit dependant on the lack of mentioned connecting synapses..
Any~ho here's the basic mathematical truth expressions..
To divide 1 quantity or dimension into two portions {quantities or dimensions} we have {1/2} = {one divided into two} and to return the two portions back to one Portion {2*1/2=1} or {the two divisions or half portions are placed together to present as one whole portion..
If I refer to percentages and insist 1 was in fact 100 as in one dollar or (100 Australian cents) then obviously each half would equate to 50 cents or replace your local denominations and or sub units with their implied divisions and or multiples and compare it to its parent denomination.. err~does that make any sense?
Eh?!
Moving on, maths therefore can be a tool in proving if a truth statement is indeed being expressed..
Now lets consider some other Rules, like what does the Universe consist of?
My reasoning prefers to refer to Energy, so lets now consider some of the basic laws that define Energy and what I am bound by.. Err~ if I have omitted some critical law please let me or should I say us know so that we are all referring to the same facts and or truthful expressions..
1/. Energy CAN NOT be destroyed.
2/. a/. Energy CAN NOT be created.
3/. b/. Ergo what energy exists right now has always existed..
4/. Energy is referred to either one of two states as in the prominent quantity.
5/. Energy may be implied as a Potential - Stored Kinetic Energy via Opposing velocities.
6/. Energy may be implied to be Kinetic bound by condition 7/.
7/. Kinetic Energy is a quanta of Potential energy in the process of being exchanged from one Potential to another Potential.. {Implied work or change- best referred to via velocity}
8/. A reference to Energy should be considered as a quantity of Energy that is with a ratio of the two states and never as "ALL Potential" or "ALL Kinetic"
9/. A Potential is Force, and a Force can only present via its velocities and or quantity of Kinetic energy. {A Potential therefore is the result of opposing velocities, ergo FORCE is repulsive via its opposing velocities}
10/. Kinetic implies Momentum or Motion..
Moving on.. I now must consider all that is possible must be bound by the above Laws..
Having established the above with my peers, I now can separate what is magic, a miracle or pure NON-sense or deceit such as any religious statements recorded opposed to when one is referring to the Universe or part of it which does conform to truth statements..
Put simply we can contain everything that is impossible into one NON-sense basket so to speak, so that outside the Truth basket only NO-thing or the impossible can exist within the Religious or Non-Sense basket. keep in mind these two baskets can not infringe on each other due to one being truth and the other contradiction and or deceit..
I therefore refer to the whole Universe as a closed system, as there is only the possible against the non-sense or impossible..
Our next dilemma is what quantity and of what?
ergo my inclusion of the above energy laws and truth statements..
so now lets contemplate what I or we are bound by..
?
It certainly isn't infinite is it - if the impossible opposed to the possible is to be a truth statement!..
Agreed ~ The friggin Universe is massive when compared from our scale and whats more we don't even know where we stand in the scale of the WHOLE universe..
so how do we overcome this?
Simple truth statements..
Using Percentages..
For example if I stated the universes energy consisted of 100% of the energy I would be expressing the truth.. Anyone that does not agree I beg of you to catch up to the rest of us here.. step one would be to toss out all that is with contradiction and or is open to the unexplainable due to it being NON-sense! or logical..
Anyway
Therefore, if I stated the Universe was infinite I would actually be expressing the impossible just may be possible, which contradicts truth, as truth is an expression and or inference to what is precise and or indisputable..
Nuff said and or waffled,
Any questions? yeah shoot!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi laidback
Impressive answer. Quite within the vein of this thread. I am happy with the reasoning that you have put forwards and enthusiastically agree with the honesty or bullshit measure/baskets.
However I want to caution against not returning to the bullshit basket every now and then to check we didn't throw something really useful in there. I can already see something that I can use in later discussions. OK in there for now though.
I intend to change my signature to reflect the "truths" that we state as we go along.So as we establish something , I will add this to my signature so we can refer to this check point of what we have agreed on.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 3 2008, 07:57 AM)
iseason -
QUOTE: "yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact."
Yes, - Container is both shape and form - and the non-defined size out from which ratios are being segregated.
That is what we "know" about container - fortunately we do not need to know size - and as to form/shape I am afraid that this is a true mission impossiple to hope that we will know its shape - because shape is the deepest and innermost secret of universe -
We tend to belive that dimensionality is what we see - that dimensionality is a reflection of shapes that we see them in universe - but shape is a quality that is hidden to us - we percept / understand universe via the re-arranging patterns that dimensionalities play - and such patterns are secondary - derived functions of the shapes - how they constantly re-arrange in order to achieve the best overall fit to fill out container in the most optimal way - with as little free void or as little vacuum gradient - which ever of the two definitions one prefer to use - .
I would like to propose that we delve a little on this very concept of dimensionality - how can we define - describe a dimensionality -
And I say that it takes a dimensionality to describe a dimensionality - it is not possible to use mainstream mathematics - irrespective how much mathematic we may have at hand - no mainstream mathematics can describe a dimension. In order to describe a dimension in a meaningful way - one need to map the dimension in a kind of space - and in order to map - one need a kind of ordinate - and in order to have an ordinate one need a kind of discreteness - a yardstick - and it is not possible to construct or define a yardstick out from dimensionless points - it is not possible to transform dimensionless points and continuity into discreteness.
Any suggestions ?
Hi Bukh
I have a lot of time for your view on dimensionalities. I tend to center my attention on the outer parameters because this is where I can reason best.
I see your dimensionalities having a parallel with occurrence theory in the manner of a SPIROGRAPH view of occurrence. This would be if we could track one balance pathway, then we could track where each next occurrence would be by using a SPIROGRAPH .
At FIXED intervals, a drawing by a Spirograph overlaps , but on the very next circuit the point of contact has moved one pixels space across. This is how I get motion in my model. They will be your dimensionalities. By seeing the completed picture, you can see where the lines MOST OFTEN or AS OFTEN overlapped compared to another section on the picture.
As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionalities measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionalities is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study.
I DO feel it is an important study and give due consideration to how I can best interact with it and not be in conflict with it as I think it is a very true statement.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE: "yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact."
Yes, - Container is both shape and form - and the non-defined size out from which ratios are being segregated.
That is what we "know" about container - fortunately we do not need to know size - and as to form/shape I am afraid that this is a true mission impossiple to hope that we will know its shape - because shape is the deepest and innermost secret of universe -
We tend to belive that dimensionality is what we see - that dimensionality is a reflection of shapes that we see them in universe - but shape is a quality that is hidden to us - we percept / understand universe via the re-arranging patterns that dimensionalities play - and such patterns are secondary - derived functions of the shapes - how they constantly re-arrange in order to achieve the best overall fit to fill out container in the most optimal way - with as little free void or as little vacuum gradient - which ever of the two definitions one prefer to use - .
I would like to propose that we delve a little on this very concept of dimensionality - how can we define - describe a dimensionality -
And I say that it takes a dimensionality to describe a dimensionality - it is not possible to use mainstream mathematics - irrespective how much mathematic we may have at hand - no mainstream mathematics can describe a dimension. In order to describe a dimension in a meaningful way - one need to map the dimension in a kind of space - and in order to map - one need a kind of ordinate - and in order to have an ordinate one need a kind of discreteness - a yardstick - and it is not possible to construct or define a yardstick out from dimensionless points - it is not possible to transform dimensionless points and continuity into discreteness.
Any suggestions ?
Hi Bukh
I have a lot of time for your view on dimensionalities. I tend to center my attention on the outer parameters because this is where I can reason best.
I see your dimensionalities having a parallel with occurrence theory in the manner of a SPIROGRAPH view of occurrence. This would be if we could track one balance pathway, then we could track where each next occurrence would be by using a SPIROGRAPH .
At FIXED intervals, a drawing by a Spirograph overlaps , but on the very next circuit the point of contact has moved one pixels space across. This is how I get motion in my model. They will be your dimensionalities. By seeing the completed picture, you can see where the lines MOST OFTEN or AS OFTEN overlapped compared to another section on the picture.
As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionalities measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionalities is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study.
I DO feel it is an important study and give due consideration to how I can best interact with it and not be in conflict with it as I think it is a very true statement.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 3 2008, 06:47 PM)
Hej Laidback
I think most of the problems with understanding things about universe exactly stem from the logic we use. Boolean, Yes/no true /False statements.
In such logic, paradoxes appear and are unsolvable. But that is not necessarily the logic by which Universe operates. Universe uses logic that is comparable to its level of complexity, locally, and has continuous logic ( partial truth, qubit type logic) as a whole, with all degrees in between.
So asking a question : Does something exists or not ( like infinity) is unanswerable-and should not be since the notion of infinity belongs to the logic where it is natural, not to true/false logic. Infinity exists infinitesimally, so to say. Infinity existing infinitesimally leads to finite reality.
Other question- continuity of space. If we look at it as mathematical space, it is not really continuous without imaginary points, so in a sense each real point has its dual imaginary point somewhere in space. Only such combination of real and imaginary points creates truly continuous space. When we assume space itself as being continuous, where are the imaginary points in it? The same applies to higher dimensional spaces. Of the most interesting imaginary points are Absolute imaginary circle at infinity in space, circular imaginary points at infinity in plane, notion of distance as a log of cross ration between 2 points in plane and 2 points at infinity etc.
As I have learned lately, hypothesis of continuity of real numbers and synthetic projective geometry both so far lead to same results, but it is not possible to prove which approach is correct to move forward.
By the way, have You tried to solve line equation in imaginary dimensions? Interesting results. You get an infinite series of discrete points.
(a* z)^i+b* i=0 , solve for z. I- imaginary unit.
Hi Ivars
I like conversing with you but I get lost sometimes with the terms you use. (that is due to my lack of math ). I can see the use of imaginary space as you propose. I would flip this on it's head and refer to the "reality that we perceive as the imaginary space and the two other points that you described as being a mere mirroring of each other.
In other words, you need a logical limit to energy. Unfortunately there are in fact two of these.
1. The smallest division of "matter" to 1
2. The universe in it's entirety which is Whole
At each of these points we have a starting point from which we can derive the function of cause and effect.
IF energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then "the originating energy" MUST be the same where ever we find it. REGARDLESS of where we look. What is difficult is how the energy can also create the universal "whole" if it cannot EVEN clone itself. This is a challenge that I took very seriously. I STILL defend the singular energy quanta rule, but I must admit to updating the behavior when confronted with Bukh's arguments.
Cheers
Iseason
I think most of the problems with understanding things about universe exactly stem from the logic we use. Boolean, Yes/no true /False statements.
In such logic, paradoxes appear and are unsolvable. But that is not necessarily the logic by which Universe operates. Universe uses logic that is comparable to its level of complexity, locally, and has continuous logic ( partial truth, qubit type logic) as a whole, with all degrees in between.
So asking a question : Does something exists or not ( like infinity) is unanswerable-and should not be since the notion of infinity belongs to the logic where it is natural, not to true/false logic. Infinity exists infinitesimally, so to say. Infinity existing infinitesimally leads to finite reality.
Other question- continuity of space. If we look at it as mathematical space, it is not really continuous without imaginary points, so in a sense each real point has its dual imaginary point somewhere in space. Only such combination of real and imaginary points creates truly continuous space. When we assume space itself as being continuous, where are the imaginary points in it? The same applies to higher dimensional spaces. Of the most interesting imaginary points are Absolute imaginary circle at infinity in space, circular imaginary points at infinity in plane, notion of distance as a log of cross ration between 2 points in plane and 2 points at infinity etc.
As I have learned lately, hypothesis of continuity of real numbers and synthetic projective geometry both so far lead to same results, but it is not possible to prove which approach is correct to move forward.
By the way, have You tried to solve line equation in imaginary dimensions? Interesting results. You get an infinite series of discrete points.
(a* z)^i+b* i=0 , solve for z. I- imaginary unit.
Hi Ivars
I like conversing with you but I get lost sometimes with the terms you use. (that is due to my lack of math ). I can see the use of imaginary space as you propose. I would flip this on it's head and refer to the "reality that we perceive as the imaginary space and the two other points that you described as being a mere mirroring of each other.
In other words, you need a logical limit to energy. Unfortunately there are in fact two of these.
1. The smallest division of "matter" to 1
2. The universe in it's entirety which is Whole
At each of these points we have a starting point from which we can derive the function of cause and effect.
IF energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then "the originating energy" MUST be the same where ever we find it. REGARDLESS of where we look. What is difficult is how the energy can also create the universal "whole" if it cannot EVEN clone itself. This is a challenge that I took very seriously. I STILL defend the singular energy quanta rule, but I must admit to updating the behavior when confronted with Bukh's arguments.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 3 2008, 03:47 PM)
Hej Laidback
I think most of the problems with understanding things about universe exactly stem from the logic we use. Boolean, Yes/no true /False statements.
In such logic, paradoxes appear and are unsolvable. But that is not necessarily the logic by which Universe operates. Universe uses logic that is comparable to its level of complexity, locally, and has continuous logic ( partial truth, qubit type logic) as a whole, with all degrees in between.
So asking a question : Does something exists or not ( like infinity) is unanswerable-and should not be since the notion of infinity belongs to the logic where it is natural, not to true/false logic. Infinity exists infinitesimally, so to say. Infinity existing infinitesimally leads to finite reality.
Other question- continuity of space. If we look at it as mathematical space, it is not really continuous without imaginary points, so in a sense each real point has its dual imaginary point somewhere in space. Only such combination of real and imaginary points creates truly continuous space. When we assume space itself as being continuous, where are the imaginary points in it? The same applies to higher dimensional spaces. Of the most interesting imaginary points are Absolute imaginary circle at infinity in space, circular imaginary points at infinity in plane, notion of distance as a log of cross ration between 2 points in plane and 2 points at infinity etc.
As I have learned lately, hypothesis of continuity of real numbers and synthetic projective geometry both so far lead to same results, but it is not possible to prove which approach is correct to move forward.
By the way, have You tried to solve line equation in imaginary dimensions? Interesting results. You get an infinite series of discrete points.
(a* z)^i+b* i=0 , solve for z. I- imaginary unit.
I don't think anything that may be possible can ever be impossible, like wise what ever is impossible simply remains impossible..
The universe is all that is possible, so therefore its a one off deal..
ergo its a closed system that is closed to the impossible.
As such it is 100% of the Universe and or 100% of the Energy.. Granted the quanta may not be known, but never the less right now 100% of "the Universe", "100% of what is possible" or "100% of its Energy" can be accounted for if the universe had the means..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I think most of the problems with understanding things about universe exactly stem from the logic we use. Boolean, Yes/no true /False statements.
In such logic, paradoxes appear and are unsolvable. But that is not necessarily the logic by which Universe operates. Universe uses logic that is comparable to its level of complexity, locally, and has continuous logic ( partial truth, qubit type logic) as a whole, with all degrees in between.
So asking a question : Does something exists or not ( like infinity) is unanswerable-and should not be since the notion of infinity belongs to the logic where it is natural, not to true/false logic. Infinity exists infinitesimally, so to say. Infinity existing infinitesimally leads to finite reality.
Other question- continuity of space. If we look at it as mathematical space, it is not really continuous without imaginary points, so in a sense each real point has its dual imaginary point somewhere in space. Only such combination of real and imaginary points creates truly continuous space. When we assume space itself as being continuous, where are the imaginary points in it? The same applies to higher dimensional spaces. Of the most interesting imaginary points are Absolute imaginary circle at infinity in space, circular imaginary points at infinity in plane, notion of distance as a log of cross ration between 2 points in plane and 2 points at infinity etc.
As I have learned lately, hypothesis of continuity of real numbers and synthetic projective geometry both so far lead to same results, but it is not possible to prove which approach is correct to move forward.
By the way, have You tried to solve line equation in imaginary dimensions? Interesting results. You get an infinite series of discrete points.
(a* z)^i+b* i=0 , solve for z. I- imaginary unit.
I don't think anything that may be possible can ever be impossible, like wise what ever is impossible simply remains impossible..
The universe is all that is possible, so therefore its a one off deal..
ergo its a closed system that is closed to the impossible.
As such it is 100% of the Universe and or 100% of the Energy.. Granted the quanta may not be known, but never the less right now 100% of "the Universe", "100% of what is possible" or "100% of its Energy" can be accounted for if the universe had the means..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 3 2008, 03:47 PM)
Hej Laidback
(a* z)^i+b* i=0
My reasoning has "Nothing" or "Zero" is a reference to a waste of time..
A truth statement is about something, and something is always one or more, never less than one.. Also ~ at this point let me point out - To divide one means we are now referring to more than one.
The above equation therefore is not valid here..
Unless you can convince me other wise..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
(a* z)^i+b* i=0
My reasoning has "Nothing" or "Zero" is a reference to a waste of time..
A truth statement is about something, and something is always one or more, never less than one.. Also ~ at this point let me point out - To divide one means we are now referring to more than one.
The above equation therefore is not valid here..
Unless you can convince me other wise..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 3 2008, 09:40 AM)
I don't think anything that may be possible can ever be impossible, like wise what ever is impossible simply remains impossible..
Hi Laidback,
This is black/white logic. I agree that You can not accept such changes in logic, but please do not assume Universe works at all levels based on simple logic- yes or if not yes than no. It is Your mind that can not accept grey areas in logic- Universe does not care about what our mind can not accept.
I would imagine, that the statement Universe has infinite energy must have infinitesimal truth value.
Hi Laidback,
This is black/white logic. I agree that You can not accept such changes in logic, but please do not assume Universe works at all levels based on simple logic- yes or if not yes than no. It is Your mind that can not accept grey areas in logic- Universe does not care about what our mind can not accept.
I would imagine, that the statement Universe has infinite energy must have infinitesimal truth value.
hej iseason
Thanks for drawing attention to spirograph (actually first I thought it had something to do with spirometer
)
Yes spirograph in 3D comes very close to the patterns that Universe is playing.
One question that is almost never being put forward in any physical discussion is this: What IS a particle.
And that is a great mystery - everyone is occupied by discussing if it is a wave or a particle - and really no one care to define particle or just to ask in low voice - what IS a particle.
When I joined the Forum I asked this question and no attention -
Then I asked: what is a wave - and can a wave be expressed without having point particles - no attention
And lately I have asked - can a dimension be made out from dimensionless points - and again near silence -
To me it is obvious that particle and wave is BASICALLY exactly the same - but with slightly different kinetics.
And there is no such thing as true potential and true kinetic "energy" or "mass" . How we like to see these qualities require that we very carefully define the frame and carefully define how we like to see kinetic and potential, respectively. Because - again - they are two out of the same.
And this is elegantly visualized via spirograms. Imagine that one put a little wheel inside one of the "drawing-points" and that the drawing-point become the outer circel for the next scale - and if one like - so on - "downwards in scales -
Then any structure is according to scale and the relative kinetic of said scale to the next-following - will define if it is wave- or particle.
And as I mentioned in my former post - "wave" is a derived function of re-arranging dimensionalities.
So on the very bottom line EVERYTHING is kinetic - and kinetic patterns can "define" a particle - which is the basis for the waves in the next scale. EVERYTHING is into oscillating existance - but we can freeze and get the illusion of lastingness - an illusion of potential mass - by observing or percepting this universal kinetic flux in an appropiate scale - namely the scale that we humans are constructed out from - (the scale of our physical senses). Our mind can "communicate" with smaller scales - more "frequent" wave-structures - so our mind is into contact with the UNIVERSAL FLUX on a more refined way- looking or sampling the universal flux in a much more delicate way - extracting more information out of the Universal Flux - than can be extracted with the "clumpsy and big" perceptor like physical senses and our physical apparatus'
QUOTE: "As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionalities measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionalities is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study."
Dimensionalities - or pixels - THEY ARE THE SAME - and they are not measuring - they are EXPRESSING - they are expressing wave-structures - and wave-structures are defining the next scale of particle-structures -
so dimension is a truely dual concept - everything according to scale - wave-particle duality -
A particle cannot communicate or interphere with another particle - only wave-structures can interfere and "communicate" - so universal language is wave - but wave is being defined out from shape - so shape is the ultimate language - that is being translated into wave.
It is a question about how "INFORMATION" can be translated into a physical expression - how information can be translated into our physical universe.
So the translation of INFORMATION into shape - that IS the deepest mystery and probably immensely complex - in that I think that ALL INFORMATION - ALL INFORMATION needed to express physical universe is being put into shape - this immensely small part of universe is carrying / harboring the information needed to express all physical.
Thanks for drawing attention to spirograph (actually first I thought it had something to do with spirometer
) Yes spirograph in 3D comes very close to the patterns that Universe is playing.
One question that is almost never being put forward in any physical discussion is this: What IS a particle.
And that is a great mystery - everyone is occupied by discussing if it is a wave or a particle - and really no one care to define particle or just to ask in low voice - what IS a particle.
When I joined the Forum I asked this question and no attention -
Then I asked: what is a wave - and can a wave be expressed without having point particles - no attention
And lately I have asked - can a dimension be made out from dimensionless points - and again near silence -
To me it is obvious that particle and wave is BASICALLY exactly the same - but with slightly different kinetics.
And there is no such thing as true potential and true kinetic "energy" or "mass" . How we like to see these qualities require that we very carefully define the frame and carefully define how we like to see kinetic and potential, respectively. Because - again - they are two out of the same.
And this is elegantly visualized via spirograms. Imagine that one put a little wheel inside one of the "drawing-points" and that the drawing-point become the outer circel for the next scale - and if one like - so on - "downwards in scales -
Then any structure is according to scale and the relative kinetic of said scale to the next-following - will define if it is wave- or particle.
And as I mentioned in my former post - "wave" is a derived function of re-arranging dimensionalities.
So on the very bottom line EVERYTHING is kinetic - and kinetic patterns can "define" a particle - which is the basis for the waves in the next scale. EVERYTHING is into oscillating existance - but we can freeze and get the illusion of lastingness - an illusion of potential mass - by observing or percepting this universal kinetic flux in an appropiate scale - namely the scale that we humans are constructed out from - (the scale of our physical senses). Our mind can "communicate" with smaller scales - more "frequent" wave-structures - so our mind is into contact with the UNIVERSAL FLUX on a more refined way- looking or sampling the universal flux in a much more delicate way - extracting more information out of the Universal Flux - than can be extracted with the "clumpsy and big" perceptor like physical senses and our physical apparatus'
QUOTE: "As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionalities measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionalities is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study."
Dimensionalities - or pixels - THEY ARE THE SAME - and they are not measuring - they are EXPRESSING - they are expressing wave-structures - and wave-structures are defining the next scale of particle-structures -
so dimension is a truely dual concept - everything according to scale - wave-particle duality -
A particle cannot communicate or interphere with another particle - only wave-structures can interfere and "communicate" - so universal language is wave - but wave is being defined out from shape - so shape is the ultimate language - that is being translated into wave.
It is a question about how "INFORMATION" can be translated into a physical expression - how information can be translated into our physical universe.
So the translation of INFORMATION into shape - that IS the deepest mystery and probably immensely complex - in that I think that ALL INFORMATION - ALL INFORMATION needed to express physical universe is being put into shape - this immensely small part of universe is carrying / harboring the information needed to express all physical.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 3 2008, 04:00 PM)
Hi laidback
I want to caution against not returning to the bullshit basket every now and then to check we didn't throw something really useful in there. I can already see something that I can use in later discussions. OK in there for now though.
Cheers
Iseason
I almost forgot about the above comment, and its just as well I was doing a review of this thread..
Now to that comment of yours,
Why in the universe have you placed what is possible in the basket which should simply hold ONLY what is obvious Deceit and or is NON-conforming to Physical Rules bound by a Closed system?
Let me begin again by accounting the Universe is something, and everything that is possible is it, all else simply is nothing or zero..
One could say All the universe is everything even the unknown to us, and because we don't know all, the only way we can refer to all of the universe is to refer to it as 100% all else is 0% and or zero.
The above is our first truth statement.
something opposed to nothing..
So lets start filling our other basket, and let me point no matter what stage we are up to our truth statement will remain as a truth statement no matter how much has been processed..
So whatever we are processing it can only be from the realm of something as all else is nothing or No-Thing as in zero and or void!
Put simply our Universe is a ONE OFF deal!
That consists 100% of everything..
And this knowledge gives us the power to work out anything that is possible, whether it be black white or any ratio of the two, where the more we start dividing up the universe into dimensions with various ratios we have as many shades of grey we can handle, but if we are to be accurate we NEVER EVER refer to a ratio that is infinitely beyond our calculus and or logic.. To do so the intent is more than likely one of deceit - Perhaps in the pursuit of justifying ones theory that is in fact impossible, due to some NON-Conformance..
Anyway ~ moving on, because we don't know everything about the Universe our only option is to insist the Universe is 100% of everything..
And then from this number divide it to construct allowed laws..
And if our tools {divisions} are used correctly we can explain {PROVE} all observations, as in how mass, density, energy, existence and or change is possible.. and yes even how Gravity ties in with Electromotive Forces or Potentials!
In fact we can even calculate models that can predict the future and it should be said the more we know how all involved physics conforms the greater our accuracy..
Put simply the various shades of grey can be as many as one needs, but when all is said and done once one understands how two opposing shades of grey are possible we don't need to concern ourselves any further, as we can imply black as zero or one and white as 255 or more, in fact yes, the greater the number the finer the change from one shade to the next, to which if one wishes to be illogical we can have a scale that is beyond practicalities and or illogical, the key here is how logical does one wish to be?
In use today Black is more than likely zero, I have seen some inferences that go minus 255, but the norm is 0~255 where 0 is black and 255 being white and any other shade in between is a ratio of the two implying a shade of grey, so when when one wishes to depict Black a shade of grey or white we really don't need the extra numbers in trying to understand the basic rules about it..
Oh sure if one needs to refer to a number that is so great in magnitude the exercise defeats the purpose by all means let the poor individual have the luxury of catching up to those who can get an accurate result with far less shades of grey and or if working with color an array of three variables each with a number from 0~255 are used..
And it should be noted this goes for everything, including how density is bound by the ratio of Potential to kinetic, YES all ratio's and or shade of grey are bound by the Whole Universes Quantity, but because we don't know it we simply cant really refer to a logical scale that has been appropriately defined as in tens to hundreds to thousands to millions to billions to trillions so on and so on until our definition equates to a scale that refers to a tenth, quarter half or one Universe to which has the Universe closed to all but no-thing or zero.. so on our scale nothing is zero and something is with a quanta more than zero but less than The whole Universe, so on and so on and so forth..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I want to caution against not returning to the bullshit basket every now and then to check we didn't throw something really useful in there. I can already see something that I can use in later discussions. OK in there for now though.
Cheers
Iseason
I almost forgot about the above comment, and its just as well I was doing a review of this thread..
Now to that comment of yours,
Why in the universe have you placed what is possible in the basket which should simply hold ONLY what is obvious Deceit and or is NON-conforming to Physical Rules bound by a Closed system?
Let me begin again by accounting the Universe is something, and everything that is possible is it, all else simply is nothing or zero..
One could say All the universe is everything even the unknown to us, and because we don't know all, the only way we can refer to all of the universe is to refer to it as 100% all else is 0% and or zero.
The above is our first truth statement.
something opposed to nothing..
So lets start filling our other basket, and let me point no matter what stage we are up to our truth statement will remain as a truth statement no matter how much has been processed..
So whatever we are processing it can only be from the realm of something as all else is nothing or No-Thing as in zero and or void!
Put simply our Universe is a ONE OFF deal!
That consists 100% of everything..
And this knowledge gives us the power to work out anything that is possible, whether it be black white or any ratio of the two, where the more we start dividing up the universe into dimensions with various ratios we have as many shades of grey we can handle, but if we are to be accurate we NEVER EVER refer to a ratio that is infinitely beyond our calculus and or logic.. To do so the intent is more than likely one of deceit - Perhaps in the pursuit of justifying ones theory that is in fact impossible, due to some NON-Conformance..
Anyway ~ moving on, because we don't know everything about the Universe our only option is to insist the Universe is 100% of everything..
And then from this number divide it to construct allowed laws..
And if our tools {divisions} are used correctly we can explain {PROVE} all observations, as in how mass, density, energy, existence and or change is possible.. and yes even how Gravity ties in with Electromotive Forces or Potentials!
In fact we can even calculate models that can predict the future and it should be said the more we know how all involved physics conforms the greater our accuracy..
Put simply the various shades of grey can be as many as one needs, but when all is said and done once one understands how two opposing shades of grey are possible we don't need to concern ourselves any further, as we can imply black as zero or one and white as 255 or more, in fact yes, the greater the number the finer the change from one shade to the next, to which if one wishes to be illogical we can have a scale that is beyond practicalities and or illogical, the key here is how logical does one wish to be?
In use today Black is more than likely zero, I have seen some inferences that go minus 255, but the norm is 0~255 where 0 is black and 255 being white and any other shade in between is a ratio of the two implying a shade of grey, so when when one wishes to depict Black a shade of grey or white we really don't need the extra numbers in trying to understand the basic rules about it..
Oh sure if one needs to refer to a number that is so great in magnitude the exercise defeats the purpose by all means let the poor individual have the luxury of catching up to those who can get an accurate result with far less shades of grey and or if working with color an array of three variables each with a number from 0~255 are used..
And it should be noted this goes for everything, including how density is bound by the ratio of Potential to kinetic, YES all ratio's and or shade of grey are bound by the Whole Universes Quantity, but because we don't know it we simply cant really refer to a logical scale that has been appropriately defined as in tens to hundreds to thousands to millions to billions to trillions so on and so on until our definition equates to a scale that refers to a tenth, quarter half or one Universe to which has the Universe closed to all but no-thing or zero.. so on our scale nothing is zero and something is with a quanta more than zero but less than The whole Universe, so on and so on and so forth..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Infinity is tue if time is an abstraction of the mind. Bigfatassfairy, please comment.
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 3 2008, 09:17 PM)
Hi Laidback,
This is black/white logic. I agree that You can not accept such changes in logic, but please do not assume Universe works at all levels based on simple logic- yes or if not yes than no. It is Your mind that can not accept grey areas in logic- Universe does not care about what our mind can not accept.
I would imagine, that the statement Universe has infinite energy must have infinitesimal truth value.
Agreed but please read my previous post where something is more than nothing and Everything is the Universe, this means The whole Universe is something, a massive Quantity, but importantly a quantity, and if we divide the universe into two we have two portions, and the key is the smaller ONE portion is to the Rest of the Universe the greater our ratio and or scale..
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
This is black/white logic. I agree that You can not accept such changes in logic, but please do not assume Universe works at all levels based on simple logic- yes or if not yes than no. It is Your mind that can not accept grey areas in logic- Universe does not care about what our mind can not accept.
I would imagine, that the statement Universe has infinite energy must have infinitesimal truth value.
Agreed but please read my previous post where something is more than nothing and Everything is the Universe, this means The whole Universe is something, a massive Quantity, but importantly a quantity, and if we divide the universe into two we have two portions, and the key is the smaller ONE portion is to the Rest of the Universe the greater our ratio and or scale..
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (BigFairy+Oct 3 2008, 09:54 PM)
LOL SAYS THE JEW HATER
POST REPORTED
POST REPORTED
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 3 2008, 04:57 AM)
iseason -
QUOTE: "yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact."
Yes, - Container is both shape and form - and the non-defined size out from which ratios are being segregated.
That is what we "know" about container - fortunately we do not need to know size - and as to form/shape I am afraid that this is a true mission impossible to hope that we will know its shape - because shape is the deepest and innermost secret of universe -
We tend to believe that dimensionality is what we see - that dimensionality is a reflection of shapes that we see them in universe - but shape is a quality that is hidden to us - we perceive / understand universe via the re-arranging patterns that dimensionality's play - and such patterns are secondary - derived functions of the shapes - how they constantly re-arrange in order to achieve the best overall fit to fill out container in the most optimal way - with as little free void or as little vacuum gradient - which ever of the two definitions one prefer to use - .
I would like to propose that we delve a little on this very concept of dimensionality - how can we define - describe a dimensionality -
And I say that it takes a dimensionality to describe a dimensionality - it is not possible to use mainstream mathematics - irrespective how much mathematics we may have at hand - no mainstream mathematics can describe a dimension. In order to describe a dimension in a meaningful way - one need to map the dimension in a kind of space - and in order to map - one need a kind of ordinate - and in order to have an ordinate one need a kind of discreteness - a yardstick - and it is not possible to construct or define a yardstick out from dimensionless points - it is not possible to transform dimensionless points and continuity into discreteness.
Any suggestions ?
It's for this reason I prefer to refer to comparisons..
Or references to constants such as "c" or C^2 meters for {potentials} or seconds if changes or work {Kinetic} is implied..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE: "yes, but the container in the form of greatest ratio needs to be considered seriously before we can move on to how the latter interact."
Yes, - Container is both shape and form - and the non-defined size out from which ratios are being segregated.
That is what we "know" about container - fortunately we do not need to know size - and as to form/shape I am afraid that this is a true mission impossible to hope that we will know its shape - because shape is the deepest and innermost secret of universe -
We tend to believe that dimensionality is what we see - that dimensionality is a reflection of shapes that we see them in universe - but shape is a quality that is hidden to us - we perceive / understand universe via the re-arranging patterns that dimensionality's play - and such patterns are secondary - derived functions of the shapes - how they constantly re-arrange in order to achieve the best overall fit to fill out container in the most optimal way - with as little free void or as little vacuum gradient - which ever of the two definitions one prefer to use - .
I would like to propose that we delve a little on this very concept of dimensionality - how can we define - describe a dimensionality -
And I say that it takes a dimensionality to describe a dimensionality - it is not possible to use mainstream mathematics - irrespective how much mathematics we may have at hand - no mainstream mathematics can describe a dimension. In order to describe a dimension in a meaningful way - one need to map the dimension in a kind of space - and in order to map - one need a kind of ordinate - and in order to have an ordinate one need a kind of discreteness - a yardstick - and it is not possible to construct or define a yardstick out from dimensionless points - it is not possible to transform dimensionless points and continuity into discreteness.
Any suggestions ?
It's for this reason I prefer to refer to comparisons..
Or references to constants such as "c" or C^2 meters for {potentials} or seconds if changes or work {Kinetic} is implied..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 4 2008, 01:09 PM)
Why in the universe have you placed what is possible in the basket which should simply hold ONLY what is obvious Deceit and or is NON-conforming to Physical Rules bound by a Closed system?
Hi All
Laidback
I have not put anything into the bullshit basket at this stage. we are currently discussing things that have been relegated to the bullshit basket for decades. This is my point of returning to the basket.
I can see reason in keeping the numbers down , however I am unsure how useful 255 numbers will be. I am not a mathematician and perhaps this will count against me being able to be clear enough .
I chose three "levels" of interaction deliberately. One , we can measure. This is relativity which traps/enforces laws of constants. but there are two that we can't measure.
We can measure
1. Speed of light
2. Thermodynamics
3. Time
While we are considering relativity at a human interaction level, these laws are in play. Even when we are considering the other two levels, we must always be mindful that cause and effect are in force and what we consider must result in the constants being correct.
We can't measure
1. The whole universe
2. The smallest energy
While considering these , even though we can only do so by comparing each one to "relativity" we can balance cause and effect by duly allowing behaviors that are mirror repeats.
For example. The statement.
One photon is made up of "a photon divided into the are of space",
Has it's balance in mirroring this number in the higher order. "a universe as if it were a photon".
Both equal EXACTLY the same number of "positions" and therefore the same potential. If a photon were made up of the equal number of positions, then all three equal one/whole/100%.
The ideal differences are that the smaller has a single positional change within it when it solidifies to become a photon, which is exactly mapped by the Larger "universe as a photon"......But reversed.
Instead of the area being FULL (less one position), in the larger it is one position FULL while the balance is 'potential'.
Cheers
Iseason
It is a question about how "INFORMATION" can be translated into a physical expression - how information can be translated into our physical universe.
So the translation of INFORMATION into shape - that IS the deepest mystery and probably immensely complex - in that I think that ALL INFORMATION - ALL INFORMATION needed to express physical universe is being put into shape - this immensely small part of universe is carrying / harboring the information needed to express all physical. [/QUOTE]
Hi Bukh/Ivars
I am concerned by "seeing" ratios ABOVE informational EXCEPT in a timeline structure. I certainly agree with ratios in a timeline structure. In occurrence, they exist but only one as "the next logical position".
To use Laidback's analogy of 255 shades of grey.
White = informational
Black = universal
Grey = Photon/relativity
The grey (relativity) will never change but will always be the EXACT same shade (constant), but informational will swap shades until they both become an equal shade of grey..
Then time is started and the universe can become self aware.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi all
I like to make a little comment on this issue of "being"
What is "into existance" - what is the determining factor to define if something is "real" - is it possible to decide "objectively" whether something "is or is-not"
To me everything become a question of axioms -
We as humans decide our axioms - and existance is bound up on these decisions or definitions -
If we want to describe, communicate and understand Universe, we need a kind of "tool" for our understanding - and then we axiomatically decide the premises.
And this is very central in our definitions of what "is" - and "is not" - there exist no such thing as
"a higher truth" - something that is over our axioms.
When I try to understand, communicate and describe Universe, then it must be with the outset in axioms that I choose as my tools.
And I like to select "dimension" as my axiom - because I think that dimension is a very useful tool, in that we can define and describe everything (my postulate) in universe by selecting dimension as modality - but this is definitely not the same as saying that dimension is into existance.
I like to make a little comment on this issue of "being"
What is "into existance" - what is the determining factor to define if something is "real" - is it possible to decide "objectively" whether something "is or is-not"
To me everything become a question of axioms -
We as humans decide our axioms - and existance is bound up on these decisions or definitions -
If we want to describe, communicate and understand Universe, we need a kind of "tool" for our understanding - and then we axiomatically decide the premises.
And this is very central in our definitions of what "is" - and "is not" - there exist no such thing as
"a higher truth" - something that is over our axioms.
When I try to understand, communicate and describe Universe, then it must be with the outset in axioms that I choose as my tools.
And I like to select "dimension" as my axiom - because I think that dimension is a very useful tool, in that we can define and describe everything (my postulate) in universe by selecting dimension as modality - but this is definitely not the same as saying that dimension is into existance.
Hej iseason
QUOTE: "I am concerned by "seeing" ratios ABOVE informational EXCEPT in a timeline structure."
No - I do not see ratios above information - ratio is a derived quality from "dimension" and dimension is the carrier of information. Likewise timeline is a derived function to dimension AND ratio - and time is both 2Objective" - defined as the universal ordering system - which dimensional configuration is following which - ordering system of these universal flashes - and of course one can ask - does ordering system matter as long as no one is observing
and subjective time is always "behind" objective and the result of an observer sampling in objective time and retrieving the data, in order to build a subjective time-line. Observer can be anything with a sufficiently high grade of complexity in order to have a higher complexity to "observe" a lower complexity - selfawareness is imtimately connected with smallest and simplest in universe - simplest meaning "put together of fewest items"
QUOTE: "I am concerned by "seeing" ratios ABOVE informational EXCEPT in a timeline structure."
No - I do not see ratios above information - ratio is a derived quality from "dimension" and dimension is the carrier of information. Likewise timeline is a derived function to dimension AND ratio - and time is both 2Objective" - defined as the universal ordering system - which dimensional configuration is following which - ordering system of these universal flashes - and of course one can ask - does ordering system matter as long as no one is observing
and subjective time is always "behind" objective and the result of an observer sampling in objective time and retrieving the data, in order to build a subjective time-line. Observer can be anything with a sufficiently high grade of complexity in order to have a higher complexity to "observe" a lower complexity - selfawareness is imtimately connected with smallest and simplest in universe - simplest meaning "put together of fewest items"
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 4 2008, 04:18 PM)
Hi All
Laidback
I have not put anything into the bullshit basket at this stage.
Oh!??
Then why do we need to go and retrieve whatever from the bull's-hit basket, when as far as I can see it is still void as opposed to our other basket which is with a massive number or other end of the Universes scale as in the whole Universe?
As in not even the smallest portion of the universe has been divided..
If the universe were divided into two where one is the largest portion of the universe, then the other would have to be the smallest portion ever, so when the two are combined we have the whole Universe again..
Obviously the greater the differences in the proportions the greater the number of divisions can be further made to that larger portion in ensuring we have the absolute maximum count of portions equal to the smallest portion possible..
And this is where acceptable tolerances need to be considered over the economy of how complex are we willing to go..
I should point out that's only with an array of three variables in presenting color..
what if we added an extra array or increased a variables maximum from 255 to say million?
Thats because you ARE the bullshit basket (case).
Hi Bukh/Ivars
I am concerned by "seeing" ratios ABOVE informational EXCEPT in a timeline structure. I certainly agree with ratios in a timeline structure. In occurrence, they exist but only one as "the next logical position".
To use Laidback's analogy of 255 shades of grey.
White = informational
Black = universal
Grey = Photon/relativity
The grey (relativity) will never change but will always be the EXACT same shade (constant), but informational will swap shades until they both become an equal shade of grey..
Then time is started and the universe can become self aware.
Cheers
Iseason
I don't think you have grasped what I intended to express and or explain, and I do apologize for my bad grammar..
with respects to grey scale I was referring to the following..
If we purchase 255 tins of Black paint and 255 tins of white paint and then portion each can of paint into 255 equal {drops} portions or {grey potentials} and then mixed the following portions for a shade of grey, we should be able to get 253 different shades of grey plus one all white and one All black presentation..
If Black was implied as zero and white implied as 255 we would have a 255 grey scale, and if we could make the drops of paint even smaller, then we could make an even smoother scale with many more shades, but we should note with this comes the price of complexity and or what I would call bad economics unless it really is to some massive advantage we do this, much like the Standard model is amazing, but has no real use, so its economy is for a limited audience and a very limited one at that.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
DAMN I AM frigg~N Late!
Ok I really must go!
Oh bloy, another t-shirt salesman.
BTW, at the time of this edit you are still online.
mathematical example being..
1 & 9 = 10
2 & 8 = 10
3 & 7 = 10
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi guys
The above is incorrect.
IF you said that the numbers refer to a positional grid, Then I agree.
Smallest has 1 million positions 999,999 white + 1 black = 1 quanta
Largest has 1 million positions 999,999 black + 1 white = 1 quanta
Note* they are only reflections of the same thing =1 quanta
Every time we see a position black in "smallest", it is in white in "largest".
I want to go back on what I wrote a couple of posts ago referring to colour changes. Neither EVER changes from white to black or Grey(these colours are for the discussion only anyway) Energy is not traded / Known by each of these parameters. They can only EVER contain one point of difference and they will mirror (white/black) that which the other is showing EVERY time.
Laidback's call for clarity and agree with Most of his last post. I'm sure we want to agree on the same things. I just wish we could be clearer, but this is quite difficult to explain since you are repeating two behaviors (smallest and largest) to describe reality which IS the two descriptions you just finished
Cheers
Iseason
Laidback
I have not put anything into the bullshit basket at this stage.
Oh!??
Then why do we need to go and retrieve whatever from the bull's-hit basket, when as far as I can see it is still void as opposed to our other basket which is with a massive number or other end of the Universes scale as in the whole Universe?As in not even the smallest portion of the universe has been divided..
If the universe were divided into two where one is the largest portion of the universe, then the other would have to be the smallest portion ever, so when the two are combined we have the whole Universe again..
Obviously the greater the differences in the proportions the greater the number of divisions can be further made to that larger portion in ensuring we have the absolute maximum count of portions equal to the smallest portion possible..
And this is where acceptable tolerances need to be considered over the economy of how complex are we willing to go..
QUOTE
we are currently discussing things that have been relegated to the bullshit basket for decades. This is my point of returning to the basket.
I can see reason in keeping the numbers down , however I am unsure how useful 255 numbers will be. I am not a mathematician and perhaps this will count against me being able to be clear enough .
If one has a good paint program the array of 3 numbers limited to 255 does a good Job, but mind you this only covers the visible color spectrum.. 24 million possibilities if memory serves me well.. I can see reason in keeping the numbers down , however I am unsure how useful 255 numbers will be. I am not a mathematician and perhaps this will count against me being able to be clear enough .
I should point out that's only with an array of three variables in presenting color..
what if we added an extra array or increased a variables maximum from 255 to say million?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| we are currently discussing things that have been relegated to the bullshit basket for decades. This is my point of returning to the basket. I can see reason in keeping the numbers down , however I am unsure how useful 255 numbers will be. I am not a mathematician and perhaps this will count against me being able to be clear enough . |
If one has a good paint program the array of 3 numbers limited to 255 does a good Job, but mind you this only covers the visible color spectrum.. 24 million possibilities if memory serves me well..
I should point out that's only with an array of three variables in presenting color..
what if we added an extra array or increased a variables maximum from 255 to say million?
I chose three "levels" of interaction deliberately. One , we can measure. This is relativity which traps/enforces laws of constants. but there are two that we can't measure.
We can measure
1. Speed of light
2. Thermodynamics
3. Time
While we are considering relativity at a human interaction level, these laws are in play. Even when we are considering the other two levels, we must always be mindful that cause and effect are in force and what we consider must result in the constants being correct.
We can't measure
1. The whole universe
2. The smallest energy
While considering these , even though we can only do so by comparing each one to "relativity" we can balance cause and effect by duly allowing behaviors that are mirror repeats.
For example. The statement.
One photon is made up of "a photon divided into the are of space",
Has it's balance in mirroring this number in the higher order. "a universe as if it were a photon".
Both equal EXACTLY the same number of "positions" and therefore the same potential. If a photon were made up of the equal number of positions, then all three equal one/whole/100%.
The ideal differences are that the smaller has a single positional change within it when it solidifies to become a photon, which is exactly mapped by the Larger "universe as a photon"......But reversed.
Instead of the area being FULL (less one position), in the larger it is one position FULL while the balance is 'potential'.
Cheers
Iseason
I should point out that's only with an array of three variables in presenting color..
what if we added an extra array or increased a variables maximum from 255 to say million?
I chose three "levels" of interaction deliberately. One , we can measure. This is relativity which traps/enforces laws of constants. but there are two that we can't measure.
We can measure
1. Speed of light
2. Thermodynamics
3. Time
While we are considering relativity at a human interaction level, these laws are in play. Even when we are considering the other two levels, we must always be mindful that cause and effect are in force and what we consider must result in the constants being correct.
We can't measure
1. The whole universe
2. The smallest energy
While considering these , even though we can only do so by comparing each one to "relativity" we can balance cause and effect by duly allowing behaviors that are mirror repeats.
For example. The statement.
One photon is made up of "a photon divided into the are of space",
Has it's balance in mirroring this number in the higher order. "a universe as if it were a photon".
Both equal EXACTLY the same number of "positions" and therefore the same potential. If a photon were made up of the equal number of positions, then all three equal one/whole/100%.
The ideal differences are that the smaller has a single positional change within it when it solidifies to become a photon, which is exactly mapped by the Larger "universe as a photon"......But reversed.
Instead of the area being FULL (less one position), in the larger it is one position FULL while the balance is 'potential'.
Cheers
Iseason
I have run out of time, for the time being, but before I close, That smallest quanta of energy we can measure that you mention needs to be considered - it is due to our current limits in technology..
Sorry about not remarking about the rest as there is some important points that you have made GOOD ONES at that! so maybe some one else can comment instead of me..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Sorry about not remarking about the rest as there is some important points that you have made GOOD ONES at that! so maybe some one else can comment instead of me..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE
QUOTE (iseason @ Oct 4 2008, 04:18 PM)
I have not put anything into the bullshit basket at this stage.
I have not put anything into the bullshit basket at this stage.
Thats because you ARE the bullshit basket (case).
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 4 2008, 04:28 PM)
Hi Bukh/Ivars
I am concerned by "seeing" ratios ABOVE informational EXCEPT in a timeline structure. I certainly agree with ratios in a timeline structure. In occurrence, they exist but only one as "the next logical position".
To use Laidback's analogy of 255 shades of grey.
White = informational
Black = universal
Grey = Photon/relativity
The grey (relativity) will never change but will always be the EXACT same shade (constant), but informational will swap shades until they both become an equal shade of grey..
Then time is started and the universe can become self aware.
Cheers
Iseason
I don't think you have grasped what I intended to express and or explain, and I do apologize for my bad grammar..
with respects to grey scale I was referring to the following..
If we purchase 255 tins of Black paint and 255 tins of white paint and then portion each can of paint into 255 equal {drops} portions or {grey potentials} and then mixed the following portions for a shade of grey, we should be able to get 253 different shades of grey plus one all white and one All black presentation..
If Black was implied as zero and white implied as 255 we would have a 255 grey scale, and if we could make the drops of paint even smaller, then we could make an even smoother scale with many more shades, but we should note with this comes the price of complexity and or what I would call bad economics unless it really is to some massive advantage we do this, much like the Standard model is amazing, but has no real use, so its economy is for a limited audience and a very limited one at that.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
DAMN I AM frigg~N Late!
Ok I really must go!
QUOTE
Peter J Schoen..
DAMN I AM frigg~N Late!
Ok I really must go!
DAMN I AM frigg~N Late!
Ok I really must go!
Oh bloy, another t-shirt salesman.
BTW, at the time of this edit you are still online.
ll
ll
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 4 2008, 08:46 PM)
I don't think you have grasped what I intended to express and or explain, and I do apologize for my bad grammar..
with respects to grey scale I was referring to the following..
If we purchase 255 tins of Black paint and 255 tins of white paint and then portion each can of paint into 255 equal {drops} portions or {grey potentials} and then mixed the following portions for a shade of grey, we should be able to get 253 different shades of grey plus one all white and one All black presentation..
If Black was implied as zero and white implied as 255 we would have a 255 grey scale, and if we could make the drops of paint even smaller, then we could make an even smoother scale with many more shades, but we should note with this comes the price of complexity and or what I would call bad economics unless it really is to some massive advantage we do this, much like the Standard model is amazing, but has no real use, so its economy is for a limited audience and a very limited one at that.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
DAMN I AM frigg~N Late!
Ok I really must go!
Hi guys
Laidback.....Gloss or enamal...This will have a huge impact on the reflective properties once we track light's reflection on a surface...LOL
Bukh
I agree with the your post
Cheers
Iseason
with respects to grey scale I was referring to the following..
If we purchase 255 tins of Black paint and 255 tins of white paint and then portion each can of paint into 255 equal {drops} portions or {grey potentials} and then mixed the following portions for a shade of grey, we should be able to get 253 different shades of grey plus one all white and one All black presentation..
If Black was implied as zero and white implied as 255 we would have a 255 grey scale, and if we could make the drops of paint even smaller, then we could make an even smoother scale with many more shades, but we should note with this comes the price of complexity and or what I would call bad economics unless it really is to some massive advantage we do this, much like the Standard model is amazing, but has no real use, so its economy is for a limited audience and a very limited one at that.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
DAMN I AM frigg~N Late!
Ok I really must go!
Hi guys
Laidback.....Gloss or enamal...This will have a huge impact on the reflective properties once we track light's reflection on a surface...LOL
Bukh
I agree with the your post
Cheers
Iseason
Hi
A little comment to particle vs wave from my former post.
I like to think that wave is a straigt trajectory - and a particle is a bend - circular - repetitive trajectory
This implicate that there is no 100 % way of saying whether a trajectory is a wave- or a particle trajectory - it depends on the frame in which we see the trajectory - how big a frame are we using.
No trajectory will be absolutely straigt - provided an enough "long" trajectory there wil be aberrations from straigt (universal frame) - so it is solely a matter about the frame whether we define something as wave(bosonic) or particle (fermionic).
A little comment to particle vs wave from my former post.
I like to think that wave is a straigt trajectory - and a particle is a bend - circular - repetitive trajectory
This implicate that there is no 100 % way of saying whether a trajectory is a wave- or a particle trajectory - it depends on the frame in which we see the trajectory - how big a frame are we using.
No trajectory will be absolutely straigt - provided an enough "long" trajectory there wil be aberrations from straigt (universal frame) - so it is solely a matter about the frame whether we define something as wave(bosonic) or particle (fermionic).
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 5 2008, 10:42 PM)
Hi
A little comment to particle vs wave from my former post.
I like to think that wave is a straigt trajectory - and a particle is a bend - circular - repetitive trajectory
This implicate that there is no 100 % way of saying whether a trajectory is a wave- or a particle trajectory - it depends on the frame in which we see the trajectory - how big a frame are we using.
No trajectory will be absolutely straigt - provided an enough "long" trajectory there wil be aberrations from straigt (universal frame) - so it is solely a matter about the frame whether we define something as wave(bosonic) or particle (fermionic).
HI Bukh
Referring back to ensuring behaviors that we attribute to smallest and largest, Several varieties of waves become apparently possible. Those we can map directly must be above informational. Those under are Pre-photon or below photon.
Configurations will come up again and again which appear to be related to cause. We need to return to informational to find cause , then extend to universal to map effect. Within human level it will be an accumulation of multiple series from those unmeasurable regions that give us our clues.
Using the Spirograph analogy, ONLY count the crossovers as being a photon event. The lines of travel lead to the next logical position that a photon event will occur.
First occurrence will be center. Second moves the first position and separates the two events as far as possible. The only place they can be mapped is in universal. Despite an order being present,"they occur as if at once" . So to does every following occurrence.
The universal graph will never pass a certain measure of "Grey" . This IS where time begins and separates . So we have a new cycle to follow. The previous stage could be described as a universal second. NOT as we measure a second, which is beginning 1,2,3. every potential period of time now has a single energy quanta in it.
After that the overlapping begins whereby the universal second builds. If you snapshot any moment along the time line it would have two occurrences of quanta.We see time (in current science as building in a straight line and expect that energy is dropped along the same. However, If I look outside my window, Time has been built on every part of the universe evenly. I can see events from the past(starlight) and can expect that the photon traveled along a line that needed to have an order which took this side of the universe into account in the order.
So it is insensible that the time line began here or there, but by necessity, was across the whole universal/beginning/end . Thus ensuring that time itself was finite.
The laws of thermodynamics themselves are also in play. We see a quantity of energy which is constant now as well as then , so the level we measure energy in the universe is the same as it was always measurable. To prevent 1990 having more energy than 2008 the universe has reserved the positions by filling each up together ..
Once again the governors of this are not in our level. We are observing not cause and effect(at least not at the basic level) but a result which is already beyond our affecting.
Cheers
Iseason
A little comment to particle vs wave from my former post.
I like to think that wave is a straigt trajectory - and a particle is a bend - circular - repetitive trajectory
This implicate that there is no 100 % way of saying whether a trajectory is a wave- or a particle trajectory - it depends on the frame in which we see the trajectory - how big a frame are we using.
No trajectory will be absolutely straigt - provided an enough "long" trajectory there wil be aberrations from straigt (universal frame) - so it is solely a matter about the frame whether we define something as wave(bosonic) or particle (fermionic).
HI Bukh
Referring back to ensuring behaviors that we attribute to smallest and largest, Several varieties of waves become apparently possible. Those we can map directly must be above informational. Those under are Pre-photon or below photon.
Configurations will come up again and again which appear to be related to cause. We need to return to informational to find cause , then extend to universal to map effect. Within human level it will be an accumulation of multiple series from those unmeasurable regions that give us our clues.
Using the Spirograph analogy, ONLY count the crossovers as being a photon event. The lines of travel lead to the next logical position that a photon event will occur.
First occurrence will be center. Second moves the first position and separates the two events as far as possible. The only place they can be mapped is in universal. Despite an order being present,"they occur as if at once" . So to does every following occurrence.
The universal graph will never pass a certain measure of "Grey" . This IS where time begins and separates . So we have a new cycle to follow. The previous stage could be described as a universal second. NOT as we measure a second, which is beginning 1,2,3. every potential period of time now has a single energy quanta in it.
After that the overlapping begins whereby the universal second builds. If you snapshot any moment along the time line it would have two occurrences of quanta.We see time (in current science as building in a straight line and expect that energy is dropped along the same. However, If I look outside my window, Time has been built on every part of the universe evenly. I can see events from the past(starlight) and can expect that the photon traveled along a line that needed to have an order which took this side of the universe into account in the order.
So it is insensible that the time line began here or there, but by necessity, was across the whole universal/beginning/end . Thus ensuring that time itself was finite.
The laws of thermodynamics themselves are also in play. We see a quantity of energy which is constant now as well as then , so the level we measure energy in the universe is the same as it was always measurable. To prevent 1990 having more energy than 2008 the universe has reserved the positions by filling each up together ..
Once again the governors of this are not in our level. We are observing not cause and effect(at least not at the basic level) but a result which is already beyond our affecting.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason - Ivars - Laidback et al -
QUOTE iseason: "As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionalities measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionalities is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study."
Saying "more than once" is relative to the dynamics.
A pixel cannot re-arrange more often than the "tick tact" of the Universe (in respective scale) meaning that pixel-re-arrangement can be "overplayed" - being met by in-coming signals to start a re-arrangement more frequently than the Tick Rate.
And that could be an explanation for BH's, that incoming waves in this way become anihilated - that matter-formation is this way are being anihilated. BH's will apeear in regions where in-coming waves become too intense - more frequent and from more directions than the pixel-playing can play - and such regions will appear all over the grid on a somewhat haphazard way - and most BH's are so small and so shortlasting that they are insignificant in the big picture - but sometimes the in-coming patterns are so massive that BH's increase and because of no back-play they attract even more so of incoming - the balance between in- and out-going wave-patterns become grossly disturbed.
QUOTE iseason: "As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionalities measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionalities is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study."
Saying "more than once" is relative to the dynamics.
A pixel cannot re-arrange more often than the "tick tact" of the Universe (in respective scale) meaning that pixel-re-arrangement can be "overplayed" - being met by in-coming signals to start a re-arrangement more frequently than the Tick Rate.
And that could be an explanation for BH's, that incoming waves in this way become anihilated - that matter-formation is this way are being anihilated. BH's will apeear in regions where in-coming waves become too intense - more frequent and from more directions than the pixel-playing can play - and such regions will appear all over the grid on a somewhat haphazard way - and most BH's are so small and so shortlasting that they are insignificant in the big picture - but sometimes the in-coming patterns are so massive that BH's increase and because of no back-play they attract even more so of incoming - the balance between in- and out-going wave-patterns become grossly disturbed.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 5 2008, 04:39 PM)
Hi guys
Laidback.....Gloss or enamal...This will have a huge impact on the reflective properties once we track light's reflection on a surface...LOL
Bukh
I agree with the your post
Cheers
Iseason
B~wha~ha~ha~ha~ha
Indeed, but we still would only have 255 presentations and or references..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Laidback.....Gloss or enamal...This will have a huge impact on the reflective properties once we track light's reflection on a surface...LOL
Bukh
I agree with the your post
Cheers
Iseason
B~wha~ha~ha~ha~ha Indeed, but we still would only have 255 presentations and or references..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 5 2008, 09:51 PM)
iseason - Ivars - Laidback et al -
QUOTE iseason: "As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionality's measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionality's is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study."
Saying "more than once" is relative to the dynamics.
A pixel cannot re-arrange more often than the "tick tact" of the Universe (in respective scale) meaning that pixel-re-arrangement can be "overplayed" - being met by in-coming signals to start a re-arrangement more frequently than the Tick Rate.
And that could be an explanation for BH's, that incoming waves in this way become annihilated - that matter-formation is this way are being annihilated. BH's will appear in regions where in-coming waves become too intense - more frequent and from more directions than the pixel-playing can play - and such regions will appear all over the grid on a somewhat haphazard way - and most BH's are so small and so short-lasting that they are insignificant in the big picture - but sometimes the in-coming patterns are so massive that BH's increase and because of no back-play they attract even more so of incoming - the balance between in- and out-going wave-patterns become grossly disturbed.
Let me see if I am getting this right..
Please answer with an appropriate answer.. if the answer does not comply to a yes or no then please explain?
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no?
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
Looking forward to holding exactly your concept and construct as you reason it..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE iseason: "As you know, I see that EVERY pixel has an equal potential within the order of occurrence and WILL become filled SOMEWHERE along the time/space measurement. What your view of dimensionality's measures IMHO is the Pathway. Since it is my view that a pixel can not be occupied more than once or that two can be occupied at the same time, Dimensionality's is (aside from the three I mention) a middle ground study."
Saying "more than once" is relative to the dynamics.
A pixel cannot re-arrange more often than the "tick tact" of the Universe (in respective scale) meaning that pixel-re-arrangement can be "overplayed" - being met by in-coming signals to start a re-arrangement more frequently than the Tick Rate.
And that could be an explanation for BH's, that incoming waves in this way become annihilated - that matter-formation is this way are being annihilated. BH's will appear in regions where in-coming waves become too intense - more frequent and from more directions than the pixel-playing can play - and such regions will appear all over the grid on a somewhat haphazard way - and most BH's are so small and so short-lasting that they are insignificant in the big picture - but sometimes the in-coming patterns are so massive that BH's increase and because of no back-play they attract even more so of incoming - the balance between in- and out-going wave-patterns become grossly disturbed.
Let me see if I am getting this right..
Please answer with an appropriate answer.. if the answer does not comply to a yes or no then please explain?
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no?
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
Looking forward to holding exactly your concept and construct as you reason it..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
hej Laidback
Well - quiet a list !
First - let me clarify that a pixel is strictly defined out from its said scale. A pixel means essentially a dimensionality - and dimensionalities can be of varying ratios of the space. So normally when I refer to pixel - it is meant as a dimensionality of space and when I refer to Pixel (capital) it is the scale of human physical senses (photon scale), and the scale that compose our frame of reference for motion - and the scale for our physical world - "photon, electron" - the 3D Pixel grid.
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
Closed in the sense that there is a fixed number (at time of measurement) - and open in the sense that pixel has no defined size - everything is in accordance to ratios.
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
A pixel will always be a composition of many smaller pixels - that again will - and so on - and any and all of the dimensionalities will be in oscillating existance - ON - OFF - as a consequence of the oscillating presense of smallest pixels - or smallest dimensionalities - - so a pixel will as a consequence of this together with its scalewise construction - have an ever changing oscillating expression up in the scales - and its "outer Russian doll = biggest scale-expression - will be deeply affected of this behavior. Giving rise to a ver complicated flux of "vacuum" in each and any scale - and this vacuum fluctuations are the driving force for the communication up-wards and down-wards in the pixel system. The vacuum is the effect of least void - and one can freely translate free void into vacuum-gradients. It is the driving force of universal dynamic - the mother of changes - the mother of "energy".
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no? -
yes -
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
yes -
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
Physical world is 3D (physical world is an antropocentric concept and human is 3D so is physical world or vers vica)
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
yes - extreme flux in all scales - frequencies near infinitely high in smallest scales and then downwards towards photon-like frequencies in Pixel-scale (human)
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
yes - communicate up-and down within pixel and with neighboring pixels -
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
yes - from outside via least void principle
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
scale-wise all the pixels have same dimensionality in each respective scale - informationally no two pixels are the same - but pixel information is being propagated up-and down in the system so the informational unit or qubit of for instance a human is being propagated when pixel-information is being propagated over the grid - (it is so immensely complex that we humans have great resistance to accept the amount of complexity going on)
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
I do not understand what you are indicating by reciprocal in this context
I see it as a very usefull exercise to construct Q&A like this - so please elaborate with further questions where needed.
Well - quiet a list !
First - let me clarify that a pixel is strictly defined out from its said scale. A pixel means essentially a dimensionality - and dimensionalities can be of varying ratios of the space. So normally when I refer to pixel - it is meant as a dimensionality of space and when I refer to Pixel (capital) it is the scale of human physical senses (photon scale), and the scale that compose our frame of reference for motion - and the scale for our physical world - "photon, electron" - the 3D Pixel grid.
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
Closed in the sense that there is a fixed number (at time of measurement) - and open in the sense that pixel has no defined size - everything is in accordance to ratios.
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
A pixel will always be a composition of many smaller pixels - that again will - and so on - and any and all of the dimensionalities will be in oscillating existance - ON - OFF - as a consequence of the oscillating presense of smallest pixels - or smallest dimensionalities - - so a pixel will as a consequence of this together with its scalewise construction - have an ever changing oscillating expression up in the scales - and its "outer Russian doll = biggest scale-expression - will be deeply affected of this behavior. Giving rise to a ver complicated flux of "vacuum" in each and any scale - and this vacuum fluctuations are the driving force for the communication up-wards and down-wards in the pixel system. The vacuum is the effect of least void - and one can freely translate free void into vacuum-gradients. It is the driving force of universal dynamic - the mother of changes - the mother of "energy".
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no? -
yes -
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
yes -
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
Physical world is 3D (physical world is an antropocentric concept and human is 3D so is physical world or vers vica)
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
yes - extreme flux in all scales - frequencies near infinitely high in smallest scales and then downwards towards photon-like frequencies in Pixel-scale (human)
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
yes - communicate up-and down within pixel and with neighboring pixels -
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
yes - from outside via least void principle
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
scale-wise all the pixels have same dimensionality in each respective scale - informationally no two pixels are the same - but pixel information is being propagated up-and down in the system so the informational unit or qubit of for instance a human is being propagated when pixel-information is being propagated over the grid - (it is so immensely complex that we humans have great resistance to accept the amount of complexity going on)
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
I do not understand what you are indicating by reciprocal in this context
I see it as a very usefull exercise to construct Q&A like this - so please elaborate with further questions where needed.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 6 2008, 11:37 AM)
hej Laidback
Well - quiet a list !
First - let me clarify that a pixel is strictly defined out from its said scale. A pixel means essentially a dimensionality - and dimensionality's can be of varying ratios of the space. So normally when I refer to pixel - it is meant as a dimensionality of space and when I refer to Pixel (capital) it is the scale of human physical senses (photon scale), and the scale that compose our frame of reference for motion - and the scale for our physical world - "photon, electron" - the 3D Pixel grid.
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
Closed in the sense that there is a fixed number (at time of measurement) - and open in the sense that pixel has no defined size - everything is in accordance to ratios.
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
A pixel will always be a composition of many smaller pixels - that again will - and so on - and any and all of the dimensionality's will be in oscillating existence - ON - OFF - as a consequence of the oscillating presence of smallest pixels - or smallest dimensionality's - - so a pixel will as a consequence of this together with its scale-wise construction - have an ever changing oscillating expression up in the scales - and its "outer Russian doll = biggest scale-expression - will be deeply affected of this behavior. Giving rise to a very complicated flux of "vacuum" in each and any scale - and this vacuum fluctuations are the driving force for the communication up-wards and down-wards in the pixel system. The vacuum is the effect of least void - and one can freely translate free void into vacuum-gradients. It is the driving force of universal dynamic - the mother of changes - the mother of "energy".
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no? -
yes -
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
yes -
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
Physical world is 3D (physical world is an anthropocentric concept and human is 3D so is physical world or Vice Vs )
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
yes - extreme flux in all scales - frequencies near infinitely high in smallest scales and then downwards towards photon-like frequencies in Pixel-scale (human)
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
yes - communicate up-and down within pixel and with neighboring pixels -
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
yes - from outside via least void principle
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
scale-wise all the pixels have same dimensionality in each respective scale - information-ally no two pixels are the same - but pixel information is being propagated up-and down in the system so the informational unit or cubit of for instance a human is being propagated when pixel-information is being propagated over the grid - (it is so immensely complex that we humans have great resistance to accept the amount of complexity going on)
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
I do not understand what you are indicating by reciprocal in this context
I see it as a very useful exercise to construct Q&A like this - so please elaborate with further questions where needed.
I have asked such questions, not only for my sake but, also for your sake..
They more or less have "you" and "I" grappling with the details..
Lets now examine a Pixel that you insist is closed one moment and then open at some other moment.. SEE ABOVE BOLDED STATEMENT..
To which - my reasoning has your Pixel must then be open..
Even if this is for but a brief moment.. it is an open system..
As a closed system means exactly that, it is closed.. in fact the only real closed system is the Universe, meaning it is the master Pixel..
This also means as far as I am concerned a sub-pixel is a reference to it and other like and smaller than it, to which they may interact with our sub-pixel..
And whats more if a pixel were to interact with another pixel whatever is being exchanged will either increase one dimension and or all of the pixels dimension/s or decrease one or more of its dimensions..
My reasoning therefore also recognizes that if our subject Pixel is further divided and or pixelated each sub-pixel may have one or more of its dimensions rise or fall in value and if not all at least one of its sub-pixels must be with change to it..
There is no escaping this fact as all physics must conform in some way to a reality that expresses truth as truth implies to a logical reality, and if truth is really being expressed then we can quantify it!..
Especially when dimensions are involved..
So we now come to grapple with what I think is the pixels medium, and my reasoning has the pixel is simply pure energy to which can also be quantified and then divided into two or more dimensions to express physical attributes via two or more Dimensions.. Energy by me is treated as either "force or motion" but as well as that a Force is in fact a Potential or stored Kinetic energy and kinetic energy is Motion or a potential expressing change.. eg PE/KE=V
So really your Model is just like any other model that the Electronics industries are keeping from each other, with much more complexity mind you, which with your terms and or terminology it reminds me of "Fairchild Semiconductors or was that Fairchild Industries?" {Forgot?} anyway lets say "Fairchilds" models? Am I correct?
Anyway the point is your model is valid and all it needs is for your definitions to be in line with mainstream physics rather than the obscure terminology used by Fairchild...
Also
Another model that comes close is one that has been used by Digital Artists in the film industries where Motion is implied by the Video pixels signal, but this model doesn't consider the dynamics as to how a signal changes each pixels representation, while Fairchilds model mainly deals with manipulating the Atom or to be precise their Silicon Wafers, I wish I could say more but such information is confidential, anyway in reality their models are with the intent of messing around with the four basic dimensions of the mass they use in their production line..
Now
If the universe consisted of only two Pixels or dimensions mind you I only suggest "IF", then as one pixel or value rises the other Pixel or value must fall in value, this is what I refer to as a reciprocal action.. and this has to happen if we wish our expression of the Universe to be a truth statement..
mathematical example being..
1 & 9 = 10
2 & 8 = 10
3 & 7 = 10
All are truth statements. and if any value changes then some other value/s MUST change if we want our expression to remain truthful..
So in the above three examples the value of 10 is our master and or closed systems value, so if it is indeed closed it remains as is and the two divisions are its smaller Pixels current value so that if one presents itself the other receives its expression.. so for the one expressing it has to impart something which implies change via velocities or mathematically PE/KE=V to which it decreases in value as it imparts something and in releasing said velocities the other Pixel receives the value Kinetic energy and or velocities so it must increase..
So in reality all you need do is to correlate energy concepts and or constructs with the pixels dynamics.. to which may I suggest some field theory {magnetic or electromagnetic} may be most helpful..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Well - quiet a list !
First - let me clarify that a pixel is strictly defined out from its said scale. A pixel means essentially a dimensionality - and dimensionality's can be of varying ratios of the space. So normally when I refer to pixel - it is meant as a dimensionality of space and when I refer to Pixel (capital) it is the scale of human physical senses (photon scale), and the scale that compose our frame of reference for motion - and the scale for our physical world - "photon, electron" - the 3D Pixel grid.
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
Closed in the sense that there is a fixed number (at time of measurement) - and open in the sense that pixel has no defined size - everything is in accordance to ratios.
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
A pixel will always be a composition of many smaller pixels - that again will - and so on - and any and all of the dimensionality's will be in oscillating existence - ON - OFF - as a consequence of the oscillating presence of smallest pixels - or smallest dimensionality's - - so a pixel will as a consequence of this together with its scale-wise construction - have an ever changing oscillating expression up in the scales - and its "outer Russian doll = biggest scale-expression - will be deeply affected of this behavior. Giving rise to a very complicated flux of "vacuum" in each and any scale - and this vacuum fluctuations are the driving force for the communication up-wards and down-wards in the pixel system. The vacuum is the effect of least void - and one can freely translate free void into vacuum-gradients. It is the driving force of universal dynamic - the mother of changes - the mother of "energy".
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no? -
yes -
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
yes -
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
Physical world is 3D (physical world is an anthropocentric concept and human is 3D so is physical world or Vice Vs )
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
yes - extreme flux in all scales - frequencies near infinitely high in smallest scales and then downwards towards photon-like frequencies in Pixel-scale (human)
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
yes - communicate up-and down within pixel and with neighboring pixels -
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
yes - from outside via least void principle
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
scale-wise all the pixels have same dimensionality in each respective scale - information-ally no two pixels are the same - but pixel information is being propagated up-and down in the system so the informational unit or cubit of for instance a human is being propagated when pixel-information is being propagated over the grid - (it is so immensely complex that we humans have great resistance to accept the amount of complexity going on)
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
I do not understand what you are indicating by reciprocal in this context
I see it as a very useful exercise to construct Q&A like this - so please elaborate with further questions where needed.
I have asked such questions, not only for my sake but, also for your sake..
They more or less have "you" and "I" grappling with the details..
Lets now examine a Pixel that you insist is closed one moment and then open at some other moment.. SEE ABOVE BOLDED STATEMENT..
To which - my reasoning has your Pixel must then be open..
Even if this is for but a brief moment.. it is an open system..
As a closed system means exactly that, it is closed.. in fact the only real closed system is the Universe, meaning it is the master Pixel..
This also means as far as I am concerned a sub-pixel is a reference to it and other like and smaller than it, to which they may interact with our sub-pixel..
And whats more if a pixel were to interact with another pixel whatever is being exchanged will either increase one dimension and or all of the pixels dimension/s or decrease one or more of its dimensions..
My reasoning therefore also recognizes that if our subject Pixel is further divided and or pixelated each sub-pixel may have one or more of its dimensions rise or fall in value and if not all at least one of its sub-pixels must be with change to it..
There is no escaping this fact as all physics must conform in some way to a reality that expresses truth as truth implies to a logical reality, and if truth is really being expressed then we can quantify it!..
Especially when dimensions are involved..
So we now come to grapple with what I think is the pixels medium, and my reasoning has the pixel is simply pure energy to which can also be quantified and then divided into two or more dimensions to express physical attributes via two or more Dimensions.. Energy by me is treated as either "force or motion" but as well as that a Force is in fact a Potential or stored Kinetic energy and kinetic energy is Motion or a potential expressing change.. eg PE/KE=V
So really your Model is just like any other model that the Electronics industries are keeping from each other, with much more complexity mind you, which with your terms and or terminology it reminds me of "Fairchild Semiconductors or was that Fairchild Industries?"
{Forgot?} anyway lets say "Fairchilds" models? Am I correct?Anyway the point is your model is valid and all it needs is for your definitions to be in line with mainstream physics rather than the obscure terminology used by Fairchild...
Also
Another model that comes close is one that has been used by Digital Artists in the film industries where Motion is implied by the Video pixels signal, but this model doesn't consider the dynamics as to how a signal changes each pixels representation, while Fairchilds model mainly deals with manipulating the Atom or to be precise their Silicon Wafers, I wish I could say more but such information is confidential, anyway in reality their models are with the intent of messing around with the four basic dimensions of the mass they use in their production line..
Now
If the universe consisted of only two Pixels or dimensions mind you I only suggest "IF", then as one pixel or value rises the other Pixel or value must fall in value, this is what I refer to as a reciprocal action.. and this has to happen if we wish our expression of the Universe to be a truth statement..
mathematical example being..
1 & 9 = 10
2 & 8 = 10
3 & 7 = 10
All are truth statements. and if any value changes then some other value/s MUST change if we want our expression to remain truthful..
So in the above three examples the value of 10 is our master and or closed systems value, so if it is indeed closed it remains as is and the two divisions are its smaller Pixels current value so that if one presents itself the other receives its expression.. so for the one expressing it has to impart something which implies change via velocities or mathematically PE/KE=V to which it decreases in value as it imparts something and in releasing said velocities the other Pixel receives the value Kinetic energy and or velocities so it must increase..
So in reality all you need do is to correlate energy concepts and or constructs with the pixels dynamics.. to which may I suggest some field theory {magnetic or electromagnetic} may be most helpful..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
hej Laidback
QUOTE: "So in reality all you need do is to correlate energy concepts and or constructs with the pixels dynamics.. to which may I suggest some field theory {magnetic or electromagnetic} may be most helpful.."
Thanks - now I see what you mean with reciprocal - which of course is a highly relevant point.
Yes - the system is reciprocal via the least void principle (pixel-vacuum)
You understand well that void and vacuum must be equivalent expressions - and the pixel dynamics is driven by this "force" - and free void OR vacuum is being distributed in such a way that is is always the same in total. It cannot be produced nor vanish - but it can be distributed equally all over the system so there is no more gradients (and in that case the universe looses its dynamic) - so really on the bottomline it IS a question whether energy is being conserved - I like to think that that when the whole universe is being calculated over a significant period of time - significant probably meaning billions and measuring whole universe - well that is and will never be possible - in that case we will see how energy is decreasing.
It is obvious that the reciprocability is not referring to neighboring pixels - it is effective over the entire field involved in the dynamics - actually it will be spreading borderless - it is an extremely sensitive tuning of distribution of free void - and its constant re-distribution. And it is quanticly expressed to us - in the amount of the photon - but it is being smoothlessly distributed within the entire system via redistribution into the deeper pixel-structures - well - not totally smoothless of course - continuity and infinity is not into existance in the physical world - so the ultimate discreteness in this smoothness, is being defined by smallest dimensionality which is being counted or mesured at said occasion - and practically we cannot measure more accurately than our present senses and instruments - like you say - we have to be economic.
QUOTE: "As a closed system means exactly that, it is closed.. in fact the only real closed system is the Universe, meaning it is the master Pixel.."
Open - closed ? - well I am a bit firm on this point that size IS open - size is non-defined - universe cannot have a border or a limit defined by its size - and it is also very accurately mentioned in the axiom: that physical is how dimensions - defined as ratios of whole space (whole universe) is being dynamically expressed in ever changing patterns in space - that dimension is being defined solely out from its ration - and that the shape of dimension is not and will never be known - shape is always beeing presented to us in a secondary / in a derived fashion - via the wave-like patterns that are being played when dimensions re-arranges so as to get a better overall fit -
And we have to accept that dimension (ratio of universe) is a very very deep mystery that we will never learn to know.
QUOTE: "So in reality all you need do is to correlate energy concepts and or constructs with the pixels dynamics.. to which may I suggest some field theory {magnetic or electromagnetic} may be most helpful.."
Thanks - now I see what you mean with reciprocal - which of course is a highly relevant point.
Yes - the system is reciprocal via the least void principle (pixel-vacuum)
You understand well that void and vacuum must be equivalent expressions - and the pixel dynamics is driven by this "force" - and free void OR vacuum is being distributed in such a way that is is always the same in total. It cannot be produced nor vanish - but it can be distributed equally all over the system so there is no more gradients (and in that case the universe looses its dynamic) - so really on the bottomline it IS a question whether energy is being conserved - I like to think that that when the whole universe is being calculated over a significant period of time - significant probably meaning billions and measuring whole universe - well that is and will never be possible - in that case we will see how energy is decreasing.
It is obvious that the reciprocability is not referring to neighboring pixels - it is effective over the entire field involved in the dynamics - actually it will be spreading borderless - it is an extremely sensitive tuning of distribution of free void - and its constant re-distribution. And it is quanticly expressed to us - in the amount of the photon - but it is being smoothlessly distributed within the entire system via redistribution into the deeper pixel-structures - well - not totally smoothless of course - continuity and infinity is not into existance in the physical world - so the ultimate discreteness in this smoothness, is being defined by smallest dimensionality which is being counted or mesured at said occasion - and practically we cannot measure more accurately than our present senses and instruments - like you say - we have to be economic.
QUOTE: "As a closed system means exactly that, it is closed.. in fact the only real closed system is the Universe, meaning it is the master Pixel.."
Open - closed ? - well I am a bit firm on this point that size IS open - size is non-defined - universe cannot have a border or a limit defined by its size - and it is also very accurately mentioned in the axiom: that physical is how dimensions - defined as ratios of whole space (whole universe) is being dynamically expressed in ever changing patterns in space - that dimension is being defined solely out from its ration - and that the shape of dimension is not and will never be known - shape is always beeing presented to us in a secondary / in a derived fashion - via the wave-like patterns that are being played when dimensions re-arranges so as to get a better overall fit -
And we have to accept that dimension (ratio of universe) is a very very deep mystery that we will never learn to know.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 6 2008, 12:30 PM)
Let me see if I am getting this right..
Please answer with an appropriate answer.. if the answer does not comply to a yes or no then please explain?
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no?
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
Looking forward to holding exactly your concept and construct as you reason it..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Guys
Although I read through Bukh's replies earlier today, I will not refer to them in the interest of variety of opinion.
1. The pixel is a closed system..yes
The event/occurrence of the arrangement of one pixel is closed. My reasoning is quite emphatic.........There IS no other ANYTHING. In order to have a multiple pixel view, it is necessary to be able to see multiple arrangements of the same pixel.
2. The pixel has only one expression. Yes...a photon (or similar constant/quanta)
Here "relativity" is in play. When seen from "human size" we must remember that we are seeing multiple arrangements of the same pixel.
3. The pixel has two or more expressions.... hard to answer specifically (refer to above. )
I AM made up of multiple representations of the arrangement. I can observe a specific number of other representations throughout "time". (meaning distance/space/motion). This number is not changeable unless I gain or lose mass . Be careful here! the "OBSERVING" is along the same lines as gravity laws (not seeing but being affected by)
4. The pixel is with dimensions ? dimensions only exist while we are measuring.
Consider Two different CDs and one player. The two CDs are smallest and largest and the player is relativity. Both CDs have differing formats and provide the same information but need the player to make sense of them.
In reality the three do exactly the same thing and we are actually talking about HOW WE MEASURE not WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. What actually happens is that a singular quanta has a finite number of variations of which we inhabit a relative number at any one MEASURE.
5. The pixel is with set dimensions? if we are measuring...Smallest = total quanta....Largest = total quanta (reversed/mirrored)....relativity= E=Mc2
6. the pixel is with change........Variety Yes
7. The pixel can communicate...No....only in review via relativity
8. the pixel can receive communication...no... a Law exists that not two arrangements can take place...In relativity this would equal two photons occupying the same space or being in two places at the same time. the appearance of communication is our review using multiple arrangements of the pixel (see above)
9. The pixel/photon never changes value. Neither increasing/cloning/sharing value
10. A given pixel is the same one every time.
It can be difficult to separate our view from actuality. Justifying via relativity gives the singular energy behaviors that should not be attributed to it. We can talk about how energy is expressed in one dimension AND THEN show how it interacts. But when we try to talk about "reality" we need to be careful WHICH reality we are talking about.
If I refer to ENERGY, I refer to a singular quantity of "somethings" which form together to become a photon/quanta. Since photon is the lowest energy that is measurable, the quanta (building blocks) must be the same every time. I do not agree that photons can be CLONES and still be a constant. I go back to logic.
If it can be divided, then I have not found the lowest energy. If there is two of them then cause and affect have already happened and I need to go back further. I happened to get stuck at the lowest energy statement (one) and was about to throw up my hands like everyone else when I took a look at the other extreme.
That's how smallest and largest got to feature in my discussions. Beginning/end. Time and space...
Cheers
Iseason
Please answer with an appropriate answer.. if the answer does not comply to a yes or no then please explain?
The Pixel is a closed system - yes? no?
The pixel has only one expression - yes? no?
The Pixel has two or more expressions - yes? no?
The pixel is with dimensions - yes? no?
The pixel is with set dimensions - yes? no?
The Pixel is with change - yes? no?
The pixel can communicate - yes? no?
The pixel can receive communications - yes? no?
The pixel is exactly the same as any other - yes? no?
A given pixel is a reciprocal to another pixel - yes? no?
Looking forward to holding exactly your concept and construct as you reason it..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Guys
Although I read through Bukh's replies earlier today, I will not refer to them in the interest of variety of opinion.
1. The pixel is a closed system..yes
The event/occurrence of the arrangement of one pixel is closed. My reasoning is quite emphatic.........There IS no other ANYTHING. In order to have a multiple pixel view, it is necessary to be able to see multiple arrangements of the same pixel.
2. The pixel has only one expression. Yes...a photon (or similar constant/quanta)
Here "relativity" is in play. When seen from "human size" we must remember that we are seeing multiple arrangements of the same pixel.
3. The pixel has two or more expressions.... hard to answer specifically (refer to above. )
I AM made up of multiple representations of the arrangement. I can observe a specific number of other representations throughout "time". (meaning distance/space/motion). This number is not changeable unless I gain or lose mass . Be careful here! the "OBSERVING" is along the same lines as gravity laws (not seeing but being affected by)
4. The pixel is with dimensions ? dimensions only exist while we are measuring.
Consider Two different CDs and one player. The two CDs are smallest and largest and the player is relativity. Both CDs have differing formats and provide the same information but need the player to make sense of them.
In reality the three do exactly the same thing and we are actually talking about HOW WE MEASURE not WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. What actually happens is that a singular quanta has a finite number of variations of which we inhabit a relative number at any one MEASURE.
5. The pixel is with set dimensions? if we are measuring...Smallest = total quanta....Largest = total quanta (reversed/mirrored)....relativity= E=Mc2
6. the pixel is with change........Variety Yes
7. The pixel can communicate...No....only in review via relativity
8. the pixel can receive communication...no... a Law exists that not two arrangements can take place...In relativity this would equal two photons occupying the same space or being in two places at the same time. the appearance of communication is our review using multiple arrangements of the pixel (see above)
9. The pixel/photon never changes value. Neither increasing/cloning/sharing value
10. A given pixel is the same one every time.
It can be difficult to separate our view from actuality. Justifying via relativity gives the singular energy behaviors that should not be attributed to it. We can talk about how energy is expressed in one dimension AND THEN show how it interacts. But when we try to talk about "reality" we need to be careful WHICH reality we are talking about.
If I refer to ENERGY, I refer to a singular quantity of "somethings" which form together to become a photon/quanta. Since photon is the lowest energy that is measurable, the quanta (building blocks) must be the same every time. I do not agree that photons can be CLONES and still be a constant. I go back to logic.
If it can be divided, then I have not found the lowest energy. If there is two of them then cause and affect have already happened and I need to go back further. I happened to get stuck at the lowest energy statement (one) and was about to throw up my hands like everyone else when I took a look at the other extreme.
That's how smallest and largest got to feature in my discussions. Beginning/end. Time and space...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 6 2008, 05:07 PM)
mathematical example being..
1 & 9 = 10
2 & 8 = 10
3 & 7 = 10
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi guys
The above is incorrect.
IF you said that the numbers refer to a positional grid, Then I agree.
Smallest has 1 million positions 999,999 white + 1 black = 1 quanta
Largest has 1 million positions 999,999 black + 1 white = 1 quanta
Note* they are only reflections of the same thing =1 quanta
Every time we see a position black in "smallest", it is in white in "largest".
I want to go back on what I wrote a couple of posts ago referring to colour changes. Neither EVER changes from white to black or Grey(these colours are for the discussion only anyway) Energy is not traded / Known by each of these parameters. They can only EVER contain one point of difference and they will mirror (white/black) that which the other is showing EVERY time.
Laidback's call for clarity and agree with Most of his last post. I'm sure we want to agree on the same things. I just wish we could be clearer, but this is quite difficult to explain since you are repeating two behaviors (smallest and largest) to describe reality which IS the two descriptions you just finished
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 6 2008, 04:23 PM)
hej Laidback
QUOTE: "So in reality all you need do is to correlate energy concepts and or constructs with the pixels dynamics.. to which may I suggest some field theory {magnetic or electromagnetic} may be most helpful.."
Thanks - now I see what you mean with reciprocal - which of course is a highly relevant point.
Yes - the system is reciprocal via the least void principle (pixel-vacuum)
You understand well that void and vacuum must be equivalent expressions - and the pixel dynamics is driven by this "force" - and free void OR vacuum is being distributed in such a way that is is always the same in total. It cannot be produced nor vanish - but it can be distributed equally all over the system so there is no more gradients (and in that case the universe looses its dynamic) - so really on the bottom-line it IS a question whether energy is being conserved - I like to think that that when the whole universe is being calculated over a significant period of time - significant probably meaning billions and measuring whole universe - well that is and will never be possible - in that case we will see how energy is decreasing.
It is obvious that the reciprocal is not referring to neighboring pixels - it is effective over the entire field involved in the dynamics - actually it will be spreading border-less - it is an extremely sensitive tuning of distribution of free void - and its constant re-distribution. And it is quantumly expressed to us - in the amount of the photon - but it is being roughly distributed within the entire system via redistribution into the deeper pixel-structures - well - not totally rough of course - continuity and infinity is not into existence in the physical world - so the ultimate discreteness in this smoothness, is being defined by smallest dimensionality which is being counted or measured at said occasion - and practically we cannot measure more accurately than our present senses and instruments - like you say - we have to be economic.
QUOTE: "As a closed system means exactly that, it is closed.. in fact the only real closed system is the Universe, meaning it is the master Pixel.."
Open - closed ? - well I am a bit firm on this point that size IS open - size is non-defined - universe cannot have a border or a limit defined by its size - and it is also very accurately mentioned in the axiom: that physical is how dimensions - defined as ratios of whole space (whole universe) is being dynamically expressed in ever changing patterns in space - that dimension is being defined solely out from its ration - and that the shape of dimension is not and will never be known - shape is always being presented to us in a secondary / in a derived fashion - via the wave-like patterns that are being played when dimensions re-arranges so as to get a better overall fit -
And we have to accept that dimension (ratio of universe) is a very very deep mystery that we will never learn to know.
I feel you are over looking a very important truth..
All of the following are the same and mean the same..
vacuum.
void.
nothing or No-Thing.
Zero.
They all refer to the reciprocal to something.
To refer to space means we are in fact referring to something.
Albeit no dimensions have been defined to it..
If we were to define some dimensions to it we need some sort of reference..
lets use a reference defined as meter..
so if I said I have a meter I would be referring to our reference dimension.
And if I expressed I have a meter squared, I could be implying I have a right angled expression or a square that is one meter by one meter this also could be implied as an area of one square meter..
If I implied I have one cubic meter then I would be referring to a cubic area or a volume that is one meter by one meter by one meter Best expressed as 1000 litres or one kilolitre.
Now if we had each and every pixel a cubic area and they were able to exchange some of them selves what we have is a reference to a system, but if an exchange does take place then whatever is exchanged must effect dimensions..
If we had a two pixel system and the whole systems volume was lets say 10 kilolitres and its form was one meter by one meter by ten meters and each pixel was one by one by five I would also - by using the following symbols point out the meters
"----------"
and lets say each pixel can be further divided into five one by one by one meter pixels ergo the "-----" and "-----"
Now lets introduce density to our model..by having half the model with momentum to the left and the other half to the right both begin with an initial velocity that takes one second to move one meter..
-momentum->"----=----"<-momentum.
So what dimension should we use to express density in our two dimensional model?
It is clear that one pixel is now with twice the density and or mass so lets refer to a simple equation..
Please bare in mind we are now referring to a two dimensional REPRESENTATION..
but first here is the initial equation for each of the 10 sub-pixels
E=1
M=1
C=1
so,
E=Mc^2
and for the one pixel with the extra mass and or density its energy is twice as much, mind you its two dimensions remain at one meter by one meter,
put simply we have compressed two pixels into one, doubling its density with twice the mass, using kinetic energy..
mathematical example for our COMPRESSED Pixel being,
E=2
M=2 keep in mind I have implied M is density or mass.
c=1
so,
E=Mc^2
And this extra energy comes from opposing velocities {Kinetic Energy} that has been cancelled out or transferred to Potential Energy, ergo E=double the "Potential Energy" compared to the other Pixels Potential Energy..
so where did the extra density or mass come from?
Kinetic energy or some of the systems width dimension has been transfferred to another dimension..
Keeping the closed system closed but allowing sub-systems within to express change, a wave, dimensional exchanges, velocity, density, gravity, Potential, Kinetics, force, motion, charge, electron, photon so and so forth..
The above simple model and equation is the basis for ALL physics!
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE: "So in reality all you need do is to correlate energy concepts and or constructs with the pixels dynamics.. to which may I suggest some field theory {magnetic or electromagnetic} may be most helpful.."
Thanks - now I see what you mean with reciprocal - which of course is a highly relevant point.
Yes - the system is reciprocal via the least void principle (pixel-vacuum)
You understand well that void and vacuum must be equivalent expressions - and the pixel dynamics is driven by this "force" - and free void OR vacuum is being distributed in such a way that is is always the same in total. It cannot be produced nor vanish - but it can be distributed equally all over the system so there is no more gradients (and in that case the universe looses its dynamic) - so really on the bottom-line it IS a question whether energy is being conserved - I like to think that that when the whole universe is being calculated over a significant period of time - significant probably meaning billions and measuring whole universe - well that is and will never be possible - in that case we will see how energy is decreasing.
It is obvious that the reciprocal is not referring to neighboring pixels - it is effective over the entire field involved in the dynamics - actually it will be spreading border-less - it is an extremely sensitive tuning of distribution of free void - and its constant re-distribution. And it is quantumly expressed to us - in the amount of the photon - but it is being roughly distributed within the entire system via redistribution into the deeper pixel-structures - well - not totally rough of course - continuity and infinity is not into existence in the physical world - so the ultimate discreteness in this smoothness, is being defined by smallest dimensionality which is being counted or measured at said occasion - and practically we cannot measure more accurately than our present senses and instruments - like you say - we have to be economic.
QUOTE: "As a closed system means exactly that, it is closed.. in fact the only real closed system is the Universe, meaning it is the master Pixel.."
Open - closed ? - well I am a bit firm on this point that size IS open - size is non-defined - universe cannot have a border or a limit defined by its size - and it is also very accurately mentioned in the axiom: that physical is how dimensions - defined as ratios of whole space (whole universe) is being dynamically expressed in ever changing patterns in space - that dimension is being defined solely out from its ration - and that the shape of dimension is not and will never be known - shape is always being presented to us in a secondary / in a derived fashion - via the wave-like patterns that are being played when dimensions re-arranges so as to get a better overall fit -
And we have to accept that dimension (ratio of universe) is a very very deep mystery that we will never learn to know.
I feel you are over looking a very important truth..
All of the following are the same and mean the same..
vacuum.
void.
nothing or No-Thing.
Zero.
They all refer to the reciprocal to something.
To refer to space means we are in fact referring to something.
Albeit no dimensions have been defined to it..
If we were to define some dimensions to it we need some sort of reference..
lets use a reference defined as meter..
so if I said I have a meter I would be referring to our reference dimension.
And if I expressed I have a meter squared, I could be implying I have a right angled expression or a square that is one meter by one meter this also could be implied as an area of one square meter..
If I implied I have one cubic meter then I would be referring to a cubic area or a volume that is one meter by one meter by one meter Best expressed as 1000 litres or one kilolitre.
Now if we had each and every pixel a cubic area and they were able to exchange some of them selves what we have is a reference to a system, but if an exchange does take place then whatever is exchanged must effect dimensions..
If we had a two pixel system and the whole systems volume was lets say 10 kilolitres and its form was one meter by one meter by ten meters and each pixel was one by one by five I would also - by using the following symbols point out the meters
"----------"
and lets say each pixel can be further divided into five one by one by one meter pixels ergo the "-----" and "-----"
Now lets introduce density to our model..by having half the model with momentum to the left and the other half to the right both begin with an initial velocity that takes one second to move one meter..
-momentum->"----=----"<-momentum.
So what dimension should we use to express density in our two dimensional model?
It is clear that one pixel is now with twice the density and or mass so lets refer to a simple equation..
Please bare in mind we are now referring to a two dimensional REPRESENTATION..
but first here is the initial equation for each of the 10 sub-pixels
E=1
M=1
C=1
so,
E=Mc^2
and for the one pixel with the extra mass and or density its energy is twice as much, mind you its two dimensions remain at one meter by one meter,
put simply we have compressed two pixels into one, doubling its density with twice the mass, using kinetic energy..
mathematical example for our COMPRESSED Pixel being,
E=2
M=2 keep in mind I have implied M is density or mass.
c=1
so,
E=Mc^2
And this extra energy comes from opposing velocities {Kinetic Energy} that has been cancelled out or transferred to Potential Energy, ergo E=double the "Potential Energy" compared to the other Pixels Potential Energy..
so where did the extra density or mass come from?
Kinetic energy or some of the systems width dimension has been transfferred to another dimension..
Keeping the closed system closed but allowing sub-systems within to express change, a wave, dimensional exchanges, velocity, density, gravity, Potential, Kinetics, force, motion, charge, electron, photon so and so forth..
The above simple model and equation is the basis for ALL physics!
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 6 2008, 05:01 PM)
Hi guys
QUOTE (Laidback+)
1 & 9 = 10
2 & 8 = 10
3 & 7 = 10
The above is incorrect.
Cheers
Iseason
Zay wahhh?
Hmm lets see now..
I will use my fingers and see if I have been wrong with my basic maths..
OK I have five fingers on each hand and if I remove one and stitch it on to my other hand I will have four on one hand and six on the other hand or if I implied my hands were a system, one systems value has gone down and the other hand or system has increases in value..
OK lets move another finger over to the other hand, and well so far my accounting has been top notch and the exchanges of my systems are behaving in a reciprocal manner I mean as one value goes up the other is going down right!?
as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I prefer the axiomatic approach, that we try to identify the axiom(s) that we choose to use as our tool. Irrespective how we turn everything we are stuck to axioms - and I doubt the benefit in re-wamping all the geometry/math that has been put forward - just for the sake of ending up (perhaps) with still another way to define/understand "dimension".
hej bukh
Yes, what is dimension and dimesionality in Your words, even axiomatically, based on intuitive unprovable knowledge we have? I still have not seen it,the axiom, that is what worries me.
You say everything is how dimensionalities do things- but what is a (the?) dimensionality?
I see that any spatial dimension ( meaning that space has come into existance somewhere) has consciousness , but there is also state (0-dimension) that there is no spatial dimensions nor consciosness of them. Also, spatial dimensions ( and thus void) is not present if there is no matter/lasting spatial structures encircling or bordering it. So initially , there is no space.
As to math, You just can not escape it since it is the only language that represents reality= is reality in deep down levels. You can not have many versions of math-or definitions of spatial dimension- or measure- or angle- if You believe You can, You are dead wrong since in the end, they all meet at place we have not been able yet to uncover.
So YES - to me it is a matter of axioms - it is a question about which are the tools that we want to use in our understanding, in our descriptions and in our communication. One can choose a mainstream mathematical approach - implicating that the physical world must be constructed / build out from math-symbols - and being aware that math-symbols themselves are axioms.
hej bukh
How come? The "origin of the origin" is where all begins and ends. Its a loop. Without finding where the loop connects the beginning and the end, the big and the small, exactly, there is no understanding of why the particular forms and their dynamics, including life and consciousness we observe exist.
How come? The "origin of the origin" is where all begins and ends. Its a loop. Without finding where the loop connects the beginning and the end, the big and the small, exactly, there is no understanding of why the particular forms and their dynamics, including life and consciousness we observe exist.
ANY definitions and ANY explanations about physical universe is no more than a mind conception. There exist no such thing as the truth. It is about how to establish an appropriate model that gives the most useful way of understanding us-selves and our surroundings.
I totally disagree. Since our Mind is part of the Universe, a good instrument of probing beneath physical, it can not have neither voluntary structure, nor voluntary true perceptions and ideas.
Truth exists. And is possible to formulate. But only in one way.
As to dimensionality- as long a You do not say what it is I have no chance to understand what it does. If it is and does at the same time, this is also expressible, using words-e.g. verbs.
You mention 3D - yes, i agree we perceive physical in 3D - but what is the conclusion? My conclusion is exactly that 3D is built out of nothing, information. Or where does it come from?
2 & 8 = 10
3 & 7 = 10
The above is incorrect.
Cheers
Iseason
Zay wahhh?
Hmm lets see now..
I will use my fingers and see if I have been wrong with my basic maths..
OK I have five fingers on each hand and if I remove one and stitch it on to my other hand I will have four on one hand and six on the other hand or if I implied my hands were a system, one systems value has gone down and the other hand or system has increases in value..
OK lets move another finger over to the other hand, and well so far my accounting has been top notch and the exchanges of my systems are behaving in a reciprocal manner
I mean as one value goes up the other is going down right!?as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 7 2008, 03:53 AM)
The above is incorrect.
Cheers
Iseason[/QUOTE]
Zay wahhh?
Hmm lets see now..
I will use my fingers and see if I have been wrong with my basic maths..
OK I have five fingers on each hand and if I remove one and stitch it on to my other hand I will have four on one hand and six on the other hand or if I implied my hands were a system, one systems value has gone down and the other hand or system has increases in value..
OK lets move another finger over to the other hand, and well so far my accounting has been top notch and the exchanges of my systems are behaving in a reciprocal manner I mean as one value goes up the other is going down right!?
as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I sped read it too fast. Dont quite know what it means at 1000 wpm. But I like it!
Cheers
Iseason[/QUOTE]
Zay wahhh?
Hmm lets see now..
I will use my fingers and see if I have been wrong with my basic maths..
OK I have five fingers on each hand and if I remove one and stitch it on to my other hand I will have four on one hand and six on the other hand or if I implied my hands were a system, one systems value has gone down and the other hand or system has increases in value..
OK lets move another finger over to the other hand, and well so far my accounting has been top notch and the exchanges of my systems are behaving in a reciprocal manner
I mean as one value goes up the other is going down right!?as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I sped read it too fast. Dont quite know what it means at 1000 wpm. But I like it!
"QUOTE"
as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think.. biggrin.gif
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
The methodology is wrong, not the math....lol
You are exchanging between two systems that are only EVER represented in the third . Since you CANNOT take ANYTHING from a closed system, how can you take EVERYTHING and put some of it somewhere else?
the methodology should include the third.......3&4&3=10. Showing the scale of relativity.
Cheers
Iseason
as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think.. biggrin.gif
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
The methodology is wrong, not the math....lol
You are exchanging between two systems that are only EVER represented in the third . Since you CANNOT take ANYTHING from a closed system, how can you take EVERYTHING and put some of it somewhere else?
the methodology should include the third.......3&4&3=10. Showing the scale of relativity.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 7 2008, 02:16 PM)
"QUOTE"
as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
The methodology is wrong, not the math....lol
You are exchanging between two systems that are only EVER represented in the third . Since you CANNOT take ANYTHING from a closed system, how can you take EVERYTHING and put some of it somewhere else?
the methodology should include the third.......3&4&3=10. Showing the scale of relativity.
Cheers
Iseason
But but huh~be~be~be~be <Blush> I er~um wait! Err~um?? Oh |=L|C|\^!.. Where did that extra hand come from? I could swear I only have two hands.. or two open sub-systems..
I, eye, I, thought I err am sure I implied the whole system is closed but not the sub-systems within?, this means what ever shenanigans occurs within our closed system does NOT effect anything beyond the WHOLE system, so each sub-system or in that last model just the 10 fingers as two bunches each as a sub-system..
what I was trying to point out is that the whole system of 10 fingers can be bunched to present two values and if one value changes then the other bunche must be with a reciprocal change, the main point was the WHOLE system remains closed as does the universe, but within the confines of the Universe, muchos happens and no matter what happens we can break down what changes with respects to what in bunches or divisions and if we need more details we divide up the bunches or divisions even further..
Err~ so is that clearer?
Sorry for the confusion and perhaps my lack of detailing all the details..
And thanks for your input..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
as in
5&5=10
4&6=10
3&7=10
2&8=10
1&9=10
10&0=10
Meaning I am now referring to all fingers or none or nothing depending on what hand I refer to..
OK so what have I missed?
or give me a high 10, no wait! Let me return my pinkies back to an even ratio and give me five for making me think..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
The methodology is wrong, not the math....lol
You are exchanging between two systems that are only EVER represented in the third . Since you CANNOT take ANYTHING from a closed system, how can you take EVERYTHING and put some of it somewhere else?
the methodology should include the third.......3&4&3=10. Showing the scale of relativity.
Cheers
Iseason
But but huh~be~be~be~be
<Blush> I er~um wait! Err~um?? Oh |=L|C|\^!.. Where did that extra hand come from? I could swear I only have two hands.. or two open sub-systems..I, eye, I, thought I err am sure I implied the whole system is closed but not the sub-systems within?, this means what ever shenanigans occurs within our closed system does NOT effect anything beyond the WHOLE system, so each sub-system or in that last model just the 10 fingers as two bunches each as a sub-system..
what I was trying to point out is that the whole system of 10 fingers can be bunched to present two values and if one value changes then the other bunche must be with a reciprocal change, the main point was the WHOLE system remains closed as does the universe, but within the confines of the Universe, muchos happens and no matter what happens we can break down what changes with respects to what in bunches or divisions and if we need more details we divide up the bunches or divisions even further..
Err~ so is that clearer?
Sorry for the confusion and perhaps my lack of detailing all the details..
And thanks for your input..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi guys
Missed the edit.
Since the system is closed, we need to open it to measure it. So there are a variety of ways to represent the same thing.
This is relativity. But the system is always the same wherever and whenever you measure it. This is why I objected to the methodology of interchange.
If I want to measure one position/pixel/quanta I would write it ... 1
If I want to measure the smallest energy/photon without saying where it is ... 1
If I wanted to measure the divisions that create the smallest energy I need a parameter. The parameter is the medium that contains the division. That can only be within the closed system of the universe or "whole", So I must mention this in my measure. Smallest = 1 = largest.
To map divisions I must still refer to both outer parameters.
Smallest = 00000100000 = largest (where 1 is the only position) This would be a 'snapshot' view which only showed energy in it's natural state.
When I add relativity, I must use "mass times positions divided into potential positions" But because of balancing, I need to use the whole again to evenly distribute the mass. Let's say I was talking about ten positions as being the "whole"
Smallest = 1010110101 = largest Where mass is 60% of the whole. I know this is a ludicrous percentage and is only to demonstrate. Mass is a review process only and does not affect either dimension or cause an exchange. WE are measuring FROM WITHIN the closed system. So the closed system remains constant regardless of what we do or how we measure.
Look at it another way. If I were a photon, I could not "see" anything else, But the universe "sees" everything.....We are measuring from somewhere in between the two parameters.
Clear as mud?
Cheers
Iseason
PS: I think you may have missed an answer to your multiple question quiz.
Missed the edit.
Since the system is closed, we need to open it to measure it. So there are a variety of ways to represent the same thing.
This is relativity. But the system is always the same wherever and whenever you measure it. This is why I objected to the methodology of interchange.
If I want to measure one position/pixel/quanta I would write it ... 1
If I want to measure the smallest energy/photon without saying where it is ... 1
If I wanted to measure the divisions that create the smallest energy I need a parameter. The parameter is the medium that contains the division. That can only be within the closed system of the universe or "whole", So I must mention this in my measure. Smallest = 1 = largest.
To map divisions I must still refer to both outer parameters.
Smallest = 00000100000 = largest (where 1 is the only position) This would be a 'snapshot' view which only showed energy in it's natural state.
When I add relativity, I must use "mass times positions divided into potential positions" But because of balancing, I need to use the whole again to evenly distribute the mass. Let's say I was talking about ten positions as being the "whole"
Smallest = 1010110101 = largest Where mass is 60% of the whole. I know this is a ludicrous percentage and is only to demonstrate. Mass is a review process only and does not affect either dimension or cause an exchange. WE are measuring FROM WITHIN the closed system. So the closed system remains constant regardless of what we do or how we measure.
Look at it another way. If I were a photon, I could not "see" anything else, But the universe "sees" everything.....We are measuring from somewhere in between the two parameters.
Clear as mud?
Cheers
Iseason
PS: I think you may have missed an answer to your multiple question quiz.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 7 2008, 04:11 PM)
Hi guys
Missed the edit.
Since the system is closed, we need to open it to measure it. So there are a variety of ways to represent the same thing.
This is relativity. But the system is always the same wherever and whenever you measure it. This is why I objected to the methodology of interchange.
If I want to measure one position/pixel/quanta I would write it ... 1
If I want to measure the smallest energy/photon without saying where it is ... 1
If I wanted to measure the divisions that create the smallest energy I need a parameter. The parameter is the medium that contains the division. That can only be within the closed system of the universe or "whole", So I must mention this in my measure. Smallest = 1 = largest.
To map divisions I must still refer to both outer parameters.
Smallest = 00000100000 = largest (where 1 is the only position) This would be a 'snapshot' view which only showed energy in it's natural state.
When I add relativity, I must use "mass times positions divided into potential positions" But because of balancing, I need to use the whole again to evenly distribute the mass. Let's say I was talking about ten positions as being the "whole"
Smallest = 1010110101 = largest Where mass is 60% of the whole. I know this is a ludicrous percentage and is only to demonstrate. Mass is a review process only and does not affect either dimension or cause an exchange. WE are measuring FROM WITHIN the closed system. So the closed system remains constant regardless of what we do or how we measure.
Look at it another way. If I were a photon, I could not "see" anything else, But the universe "sees" everything.....We are measuring from somewhere in between the two parameters.
Clear as mud?
Cheers
Iseason
To which may I add to recap..
The only real closed system is the Universe, so why open it, and more importantly how are we to open it when the inference to a closed system is just that, it means nothing can be exchanged from within to beyond and vice Vs nothing can be introduced from beyond to it..
This means if we divide the WHOLE universe into two sub-systems they have to be open to each other as they have to represent a truth statement about the universe..
Further more if we have the Universe expressed via two references, we are in fact messing around with two of its dimensions..
ergo if one of the two sub-systems gains Energy - Then the other sub-system must decrease in energy ergo the exchange value is implied as kinetic as its in transition from one (potential or sub-system) to another (Potential or subsystem).
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Missed the edit.
Since the system is closed, we need to open it to measure it. So there are a variety of ways to represent the same thing.
This is relativity. But the system is always the same wherever and whenever you measure it. This is why I objected to the methodology of interchange.
If I want to measure one position/pixel/quanta I would write it ... 1
If I want to measure the smallest energy/photon without saying where it is ... 1
If I wanted to measure the divisions that create the smallest energy I need a parameter. The parameter is the medium that contains the division. That can only be within the closed system of the universe or "whole", So I must mention this in my measure. Smallest = 1 = largest.
To map divisions I must still refer to both outer parameters.
Smallest = 00000100000 = largest (where 1 is the only position) This would be a 'snapshot' view which only showed energy in it's natural state.
When I add relativity, I must use "mass times positions divided into potential positions" But because of balancing, I need to use the whole again to evenly distribute the mass. Let's say I was talking about ten positions as being the "whole"
Smallest = 1010110101 = largest Where mass is 60% of the whole. I know this is a ludicrous percentage and is only to demonstrate. Mass is a review process only and does not affect either dimension or cause an exchange. WE are measuring FROM WITHIN the closed system. So the closed system remains constant regardless of what we do or how we measure.
Look at it another way. If I were a photon, I could not "see" anything else, But the universe "sees" everything.....We are measuring from somewhere in between the two parameters.
Clear as mud?
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
PS: I think you may have missed an answer to your multiple question quiz.
Yes I missed that.. And my reasoning cant get to grips with your answer as it does not conform to a truth statement, but with the above it seems you have elaborated on your reasoning..To which may I add to recap..
The only real closed system is the Universe, so why open it, and more importantly how are we to open it when the inference to a closed system is just that, it means nothing can be exchanged from within to beyond and vice Vs nothing can be introduced from beyond to it..
This means if we divide the WHOLE universe into two sub-systems they have to be open to each other as they have to represent a truth statement about the universe..
Further more if we have the Universe expressed via two references, we are in fact messing around with two of its dimensions..
ergo if one of the two sub-systems gains Energy - Then the other sub-system must decrease in energy ergo the exchange value is implied as kinetic as its in transition from one (potential or sub-system) to another (Potential or subsystem).
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback
HMMM........How to express this. ?
Can you see a system that simply reviews everything it contains every time. Each time it reviews, it affects itself. This is an internalization.
Having reached a peak or become self aware, (the whole universe) it reviews it's parts. The review creates order where there was none and time begins. But time is only the way WE measure. For the internalization, the review is of the energy,one Quanta at a time.If we are "the whole universe" , we do the review in reverse. But if we are the smallest quanta, we then mirror what the universe is doing.
It makes sense to us to go beginning to end, but we are trapped in a time line. Not so for the smallest and the largest, Which are not time affected. remember that largest contains ALL TIME and smallest contains ALL ENERGY , so they are incompatible until the review is completed.
To give a better picture it goes
Beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end...........and so on
The review process does not need to be bound by time and space since they don't exist until the process is completed. The center point expands (or contracts) equally between beginning and end and if you were watching the process via the benefit of multiple points or TIME you would see an even expansion/or contraction of the "pixels".
So the pixel that is on one side of the universe was reviewed in the order that originally had the pixel from the other extreme next to it . But via the expansion of space during the review, the distance (as we measure it via time/motion/distance) increased.
Cheers
Iseason
HMMM........How to express this. ?
Can you see a system that simply reviews everything it contains every time. Each time it reviews, it affects itself. This is an internalization.
Having reached a peak or become self aware, (the whole universe) it reviews it's parts. The review creates order where there was none and time begins. But time is only the way WE measure. For the internalization, the review is of the energy,one Quanta at a time.If we are "the whole universe" , we do the review in reverse. But if we are the smallest quanta, we then mirror what the universe is doing.
It makes sense to us to go beginning to end, but we are trapped in a time line. Not so for the smallest and the largest, Which are not time affected. remember that largest contains ALL TIME and smallest contains ALL ENERGY , so they are incompatible until the review is completed.
To give a better picture it goes
Beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end...........and so on
The review process does not need to be bound by time and space since they don't exist until the process is completed. The center point expands (or contracts) equally between beginning and end and if you were watching the process via the benefit of multiple points or TIME you would see an even expansion/or contraction of the "pixels".
So the pixel that is on one side of the universe was reviewed in the order that originally had the pixel from the other extreme next to it . But via the expansion of space during the review, the distance (as we measure it via time/motion/distance) increased.
Cheers
Iseason
hej all
I think that SCALE is not taken care of as it ought to be.
Dimensionality - or ratio of space - is not a well-defined ratio all over space - when dealing with smallest dimension.
But smallest dimensions will arrange themselves so as to get the best fit in a milieu characterized by same smallness of neghboring dimensions and such an oscillating re-arranging activity will show as sperical out-waves and entering in all kind of interferences with out from coming waves having same kind of origen. Eventually this will result in permanent or stable repeating circular standing wave-patterns - and each such standing wave-pattern will express a new particle structure - but in a "bigger" scale - one scale up. When such a transistion from smaller to bigger has established itsself - it is equivalent to a dynamic situation of the smallest dimensions where they cannot further improve their fit - they permanently repeat their "rearranging in order to improve their fitting" patterns - they have reached a stage where they cannot further "move=re-arrange" so in reality they have reached a "froozen" kinetic stage - there is no more kinetic action for the smallest dimensionalities to perform - IN SAID SCALE. They have created a new scale - one up -a bigger dimensionality - dimension2.
The number of scales - or the smallness of smallest is an abstraction - in the sense that everything is being percepted - measured and communicated out from a well-defined scale. Bigness is an absolutely relative term that is being based on smallness - which also is a relative term - and likewise complexion is being based upon the relative smallness of dimensionalities at said location in space where complexion is being defined.
And the above is intimately related to this quality of awareness that is being inbuild in each and any dimension. One single smallest dimension has an awareness - an awareness of "being" - and this very quality of "being" - this being able to have an awareness of existing is intimately bound to this quality that the dimension "knows" that it belongs to "something" which is different from all the other something. The quintessense of "Physical" is that it is possible to say whether something belongs to this or belongs to that. A dimensionality "knows" to where it belongs. And logically one dimensionality can have only a very limited knowledge - namely the knowledge that it belongs to itsself and not to the surrounding - but it has no knowledge what so ever about the surroundings.
So it takes more dimensionalities to get an idea about the near surroundings that these dimensions together occupy. And the more complex the said dimensionalities play together the better they can get an idea about their surroundings - and it takes a more complex - a bigger amount of dimensions - to play together and get an idea about a simpler quality.
So essentially it is about complexions - and the deeper the complexions - the more dimensionalities in many scales that is playing together - the more insight they can get - and the more of the total space complexity they can percept - and the "bigger" universe will seem to be.
Clearer than mud ?
I think that SCALE is not taken care of as it ought to be.
Dimensionality - or ratio of space - is not a well-defined ratio all over space - when dealing with smallest dimension.
But smallest dimensions will arrange themselves so as to get the best fit in a milieu characterized by same smallness of neghboring dimensions and such an oscillating re-arranging activity will show as sperical out-waves and entering in all kind of interferences with out from coming waves having same kind of origen. Eventually this will result in permanent or stable repeating circular standing wave-patterns - and each such standing wave-pattern will express a new particle structure - but in a "bigger" scale - one scale up. When such a transistion from smaller to bigger has established itsself - it is equivalent to a dynamic situation of the smallest dimensions where they cannot further improve their fit - they permanently repeat their "rearranging in order to improve their fitting" patterns - they have reached a stage where they cannot further "move=re-arrange" so in reality they have reached a "froozen" kinetic stage - there is no more kinetic action for the smallest dimensionalities to perform - IN SAID SCALE. They have created a new scale - one up -a bigger dimensionality - dimension2.
The number of scales - or the smallness of smallest is an abstraction - in the sense that everything is being percepted - measured and communicated out from a well-defined scale. Bigness is an absolutely relative term that is being based on smallness - which also is a relative term - and likewise complexion is being based upon the relative smallness of dimensionalities at said location in space where complexion is being defined.
And the above is intimately related to this quality of awareness that is being inbuild in each and any dimension. One single smallest dimension has an awareness - an awareness of "being" - and this very quality of "being" - this being able to have an awareness of existing is intimately bound to this quality that the dimension "knows" that it belongs to "something" which is different from all the other something. The quintessense of "Physical" is that it is possible to say whether something belongs to this or belongs to that. A dimensionality "knows" to where it belongs. And logically one dimensionality can have only a very limited knowledge - namely the knowledge that it belongs to itsself and not to the surrounding - but it has no knowledge what so ever about the surroundings.
So it takes more dimensionalities to get an idea about the near surroundings that these dimensions together occupy. And the more complex the said dimensionalities play together the better they can get an idea about their surroundings - and it takes a more complex - a bigger amount of dimensions - to play together and get an idea about a simpler quality.
So essentially it is about complexions - and the deeper the complexions - the more dimensionalities in many scales that is playing together - the more insight they can get - and the more of the total space complexity they can percept - and the "bigger" universe will seem to be.
Clearer than mud ?
Hej Laidback
QUOTE: "And this extra energy comes from opposing velocities {Kinetic Energy} that has been cancelled out or transferred to Potential Energy, ergo E=double the "Potential Energy" compared to the other Pixels Potential Energy..
so where did the extra density or mass come from?
Kinetic energy or some of the systems width dimension has been transfferred to another dimension.."
One has to be very cautious about this distinction between kinetic and potential - and very carefull about this very definition of mass.
I like to see everything as a FLUX of ever re-arranging dimensionalities - So the question is - What - what exactly is potential - is potential the smallest dimension when such smallest dimension is into existance - because smallest dimension is into oscillating existance - so it must be in order to re-arrange. Perhaps that is the closest one come to potential - when seen by a G@d's eye.
In all other cases potential is strictly related to the fact that one scale can "look" at another scale - and potential become a relative quality. So the term "Potential" is useful when aplied to scales - because a "particle" in a lower scale is seen as a kind of "static - lasting" particle - one cannot see one cannot measure the internal kinetic in said particle - so it behaves like a static potential structure.
Having that said - it is a different matter when dealing with universal balances - then it becomes less relevant to make distinctions into this or that because then we are facing dimensionalities in a kinetic re-arranging flux - and according to the dynamic patterns in said scales we get all kind of different qualities - like mass - like potential -like electromagnetic and so on.
QUOTE: "And this extra energy comes from opposing velocities {Kinetic Energy} that has been cancelled out or transferred to Potential Energy, ergo E=double the "Potential Energy" compared to the other Pixels Potential Energy..
so where did the extra density or mass come from?
Kinetic energy or some of the systems width dimension has been transfferred to another dimension.."
One has to be very cautious about this distinction between kinetic and potential - and very carefull about this very definition of mass.
I like to see everything as a FLUX of ever re-arranging dimensionalities - So the question is - What - what exactly is potential - is potential the smallest dimension when such smallest dimension is into existance - because smallest dimension is into oscillating existance - so it must be in order to re-arrange. Perhaps that is the closest one come to potential - when seen by a G@d's eye.
In all other cases potential is strictly related to the fact that one scale can "look" at another scale - and potential become a relative quality. So the term "Potential" is useful when aplied to scales - because a "particle" in a lower scale is seen as a kind of "static - lasting" particle - one cannot see one cannot measure the internal kinetic in said particle - so it behaves like a static potential structure.
Having that said - it is a different matter when dealing with universal balances - then it becomes less relevant to make distinctions into this or that because then we are facing dimensionalities in a kinetic re-arranging flux - and according to the dynamic patterns in said scales we get all kind of different qualities - like mass - like potential -like electromagnetic and so on.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 7 2008, 05:52 PM)
Hi Laidback
HMMM........How to express this. ?
Can you see a system that simply reviews everything it contains every time. Each time it reviews, it affects itself. This is an internalization.
Having reached a peak or become self aware, (the whole universe) it reviews it's parts. The review creates order where there was none and time begins. But time is only the way WE measure. For the internalization, the review is of the energy,one Quanta at a time.If we are "the whole universe" , we do the review in reverse. But if we are the smallest quanta, we then mirror what the universe is doing.
It makes sense to us to go beginning to end, but we are trapped in a time line. Not so for the smallest and the largest, Which are not time affected. remember that largest contains ALL TIME and smallest contains ALL ENERGY , so they are incompatible until the review is completed.
To give a better picture it goes
Beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end...........and so on
The review process does not need to be bound by time and space since they don't exist until the process is completed. The center point expands (or contracts) equally between beginning and end and if you were watching the process via the benefit of multiple points or TIME you would see an even expansion/or contraction of the "pixels".
So the pixel that is on one side of the universe was reviewed in the order that originally had the pixel from the other extreme next to it . But via the expansion of space during the review, the distance (as we measure it via time/motion/distance) increased.
Cheers
Iseason
This arena "TOPIC" intensely interests me..
As I have a firm stance, the Universe never began, nor will it ever end..
But with this stance I am with the dilemma, if it never began, then how could it be?
My reasoning had a model at first - Of some sort of creative event, and NO - Not a gawd, but more akin to the Big-Bang..
Mind you, a Big-Bang that is unlike most would be holding a view too..
My model is based on divisions and recombination's rippling through the whole universe, where on one scale a single wave whilst within this wave an unknown quantity of waves, note the WAVES as in one to many waves.
Anyway my reasoning has had the fortunate advantage of knowing basic Physical Rules, when I first came across the big-bang, so the Big-Bang Model from the get go was out for me..
This has left me with a need for a model that has never been considered..
ALONE, For quite some time I considered much what you are considering right now, mind you this was around 25~28 years ago, to which even today the model I refer to is at best a Universe much like as it is now..
And the model I refer to is Multi-Necked Klein Bottle consisting of wave like properties, to which M theory and its maths has contributed much to my understanding of it..
I detest maths so I was fortunate back then I knew an old coot that was a maths expert who revelled in string and Super string or M theory, but agonised over it while explaining his reasoning to me while breaking down the various aspects of the gamma function or String theories basic equation..
In fact I believe it was because of his reference once to a Klein bottle plot that relativity constructs became clearer to me..
Anyway back to your reasoning with an expanding Universe, which does not consider energy Rules, ergo your reference to an expanding Universe and by that I mean the most basic energy rules.. as per the following seem to be ignored..
Energy can NOT be created.
Energy can NOT be destroyed.
This means the Universe can not expand in reference to itself, as per the above energy rules, and for another it is a closed system, so what its energy quantity is, it shall remain, and yes this is a huge arz mother of a quantity of energy - so great its in effect beyond our ability to account for it all, mainly due to relativity considerations and our current technological restrictions..
But as I already mentioned not sure if in this thread? There is a work around, and that is we can start with a reference of one Universe, or the smallest division and or PORTION of the Universe as a reference {this would be at minimum two relative opposing velocities}..
The speed of light is a LOCAL constant, so this was my first reference for a long time, and as my knowledge accumulated I came to the realization I had to understand relativity, and with this knowledge I came to an epiphany, that if "c" The speed of light was a reference only to LOCAL "c" then all my previous calculations where the maths didn't work out could have been because of my oversight regards to relativity..
A review back then with the help of my old friend confirmed my logic was sound and with relativity considerations my maths err~mainly his maths was bang on..
Back then I also came up with relative time construct, to which none of my peers including my old friend Klinger my maths expert hadn't considered it the same way, mind you this was before Australia's "VIATEL" was connected to the rest of the world..
Ergo the reference to a Klein bottle plot to the Universe is mine alone thus far..
Why a multi-necked Klein bottle Model?
If one considers the neck of a Klein bottle is a compression point or as a galaxy what withs its compression point as in its Black-Hole and or it being a region of the universe with super blue-shifted electromagnetic waves {compressed waves}..
To which our solar system is situated in one of these necks {Galaxies}, and whats more it is with a momentum going through the neck, and as our mass is Blue-shifted via being mind-full that all mass and or all particles are a wave duality product via opposing velocity concepts, as in our kinetic energy is transferred to potential Energy..
And its by this, it changes every thing, because as our local mass gets compressed and or less kinetic our dimension of time which is defined by local distances is also effected ergo my relative time constructs..
The evidence for my accuracy is the fact that red-shift measurements are resulting with the suggestion the Universes expansion is accelerating, which contradicts basic physical laws, as in this means Energy can be created rather than energy can NOT be created..
So if energy can be created then what we have is an open door for magic and miracles and for an actual lie or non truth to be actually truth! or simply the impossible is possible and maths doesn't have to present as a truth statement anymore..
A delectable delight for the cranks, illogical, religious and lunatics!
So this is wrong and illogical, so now here I am - The only one left in this world with a model that considers All Physical rules, resulting in - it explains EVERYTHING, but I now have no maths expert to confide in or to back me up on all the facts that have been considered..
I was hoping the likes of "alphanumeric" a phys-org user, may have helped, but just my luck - has no where near enough exposure to practical physics as yet, in a decade or two their maybe an inkling of being a good candidate in the production of a video explaining everything, but to date alphanumeric is near being struck off, been tempted many a time since our first encounter I must admit..
So here in phys-org - I am leaving as much information I can about, my model that I reason to have no flaw to it.. well thus far anyway..
So in closing let me Insist,
YES - Part of the universe may be expanding, but if we are to adhere to a truth statement, then part of the universe is compressed by its expansion, ergo each and every galaxy withs its black-hole is experiencing compression, so as our mass is exerted towards the compression point our local mass is blue-shifted and with it our time rate is slowed, so that our distances and velocities remain relative locally, but when compared to distances and velocities beyond our galaxy, the slower our local velocities are due to compression, the faster the velocities would be perceived beyond our galaxy - ergo our perception expansion of our universe is accelerating in expansion..
<sigh> Anyway back to a reciprocal model - where if we treat the universe to consist with only one Klein bottle neck as in just our galaxy Vs the rest of the Universe we would have to divide our universe into two OPEN sub-systems as in one is expanding {decompressing} and the other is experiencing compression {OUR GALAXY}, via each and every particle is treated via a wave construct and then Blue-Shifted.. mind you via the transfer of kinetic energy to Potential energy ergo the black-holes mass is referred to as extremely dense and heavy as in {super solid} and or extremely rigid via the lack of kinetic energy or its small value for its kinetic dimension/s} opposed to the rest of the universe which is highly kinetic ergo has the momentum to compress and increase in its kinetic value, mind you at the expense of its respective Potential energy, ergo "c" beyond our galaxy or the black holes event horizon will simply be beyond our means to detect ergo dark matter and or energy for beyond our galaxy and super-blue-shifted mass or solids for a Black-Holes event horizon..
I have some other activities to attend to so I will close this post, with that for you to consider..
BTW I am hoping Someone? Anyone!?
Would take a look at a wire frame depiction of a Klein bottle and imagine each grid in three dimensions as a 3D pixel,
as I am convinced it can model every thing about our Universe,
that's if we care to further divide each grid up numerous times, into smaller pixels
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KleinBottle.html
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
HMMM........How to express this. ?
Can you see a system that simply reviews everything it contains every time. Each time it reviews, it affects itself. This is an internalization.
Having reached a peak or become self aware, (the whole universe) it reviews it's parts. The review creates order where there was none and time begins. But time is only the way WE measure. For the internalization, the review is of the energy,one Quanta at a time.If we are "the whole universe" , we do the review in reverse. But if we are the smallest quanta, we then mirror what the universe is doing.
It makes sense to us to go beginning to end, but we are trapped in a time line. Not so for the smallest and the largest, Which are not time affected. remember that largest contains ALL TIME and smallest contains ALL ENERGY , so they are incompatible until the review is completed.
To give a better picture it goes
Beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end...........and so on
The review process does not need to be bound by time and space since they don't exist until the process is completed. The center point expands (or contracts) equally between beginning and end and if you were watching the process via the benefit of multiple points or TIME you would see an even expansion/or contraction of the "pixels".
So the pixel that is on one side of the universe was reviewed in the order that originally had the pixel from the other extreme next to it . But via the expansion of space during the review, the distance (as we measure it via time/motion/distance) increased.
Cheers
Iseason
This arena "TOPIC" intensely interests me..
As I have a firm stance, the Universe never began, nor will it ever end..
But with this stance I am with the dilemma, if it never began, then how could it be?
My reasoning had a model at first - Of some sort of creative event, and NO - Not a gawd, but more akin to the Big-Bang..
Mind you, a Big-Bang that is unlike most would be holding a view too..
My model is based on divisions and recombination's rippling through the whole universe, where on one scale a single wave whilst within this wave an unknown quantity of waves, note the WAVES as in one to many waves.
Anyway my reasoning has had the fortunate advantage of knowing basic Physical Rules, when I first came across the big-bang, so the Big-Bang Model from the get go was out for me..
This has left me with a need for a model that has never been considered..
ALONE, For quite some time I considered much what you are considering right now, mind you this was around 25~28 years ago, to which even today the model I refer to is at best a Universe much like as it is now..
And the model I refer to is Multi-Necked Klein Bottle consisting of wave like properties, to which M theory and its maths has contributed much to my understanding of it..
I detest maths so I was fortunate back then I knew an old coot that was a maths expert who revelled in string and Super string or M theory, but agonised over it while explaining his reasoning to me while breaking down the various aspects of the gamma function or String theories basic equation..
In fact I believe it was because of his reference once to a Klein bottle plot that relativity constructs became clearer to me..
Anyway back to your reasoning with an expanding Universe, which does not consider energy Rules, ergo your reference to an expanding Universe and by that I mean the most basic energy rules.. as per the following seem to be ignored..
Energy can NOT be created.
Energy can NOT be destroyed.
This means the Universe can not expand in reference to itself, as per the above energy rules, and for another it is a closed system, so what its energy quantity is, it shall remain, and yes this is a huge arz mother of a quantity of energy - so great its in effect beyond our ability to account for it all, mainly due to relativity considerations and our current technological restrictions..
But as I already mentioned not sure if in this thread? There is a work around, and that is we can start with a reference of one Universe, or the smallest division and or PORTION of the Universe as a reference {this would be at minimum two relative opposing velocities}..
The speed of light is a LOCAL constant, so this was my first reference for a long time, and as my knowledge accumulated I came to the realization I had to understand relativity, and with this knowledge I came to an epiphany, that if "c" The speed of light was a reference only to LOCAL "c" then all my previous calculations where the maths didn't work out could have been because of my oversight regards to relativity..
A review back then with the help of my old friend confirmed my logic was sound and with relativity considerations my maths err~mainly his maths was bang on..
Back then I also came up with relative time construct, to which none of my peers including my old friend Klinger my maths expert hadn't considered it the same way, mind you this was before Australia's "VIATEL" was connected to the rest of the world..
Ergo the reference to a Klein bottle plot to the Universe is mine alone thus far..
Why a multi-necked Klein bottle Model?
If one considers the neck of a Klein bottle is a compression point or as a galaxy what withs its compression point as in its Black-Hole and or it being a region of the universe with super blue-shifted electromagnetic waves {compressed waves}..
To which our solar system is situated in one of these necks {Galaxies}, and whats more it is with a momentum going through the neck, and as our mass is Blue-shifted via being mind-full that all mass and or all particles are a wave duality product via opposing velocity concepts, as in our kinetic energy is transferred to potential Energy..
And its by this, it changes every thing, because as our local mass gets compressed and or less kinetic our dimension of time which is defined by local distances is also effected ergo my relative time constructs..
The evidence for my accuracy is the fact that red-shift measurements are resulting with the suggestion the Universes expansion is accelerating, which contradicts basic physical laws, as in this means Energy can be created rather than energy can NOT be created..
So if energy can be created then what we have is an open door for magic and miracles and for an actual lie or non truth to be actually truth! or simply the impossible is possible and maths doesn't have to present as a truth statement anymore..
A delectable delight for the cranks, illogical, religious and lunatics!
So this is wrong and illogical, so now here I am - The only one left in this world with a model that considers All Physical rules, resulting in - it explains EVERYTHING, but I now have no maths expert to confide in or to back me up on all the facts that have been considered..
I was hoping the likes of "alphanumeric" a phys-org user, may have helped, but just my luck - has no where near enough exposure to practical physics as yet, in a decade or two their maybe an inkling of being a good candidate in the production of a video explaining everything, but to date alphanumeric is near being struck off, been tempted many a time since our first encounter I must admit..
So here in phys-org - I am leaving as much information I can about, my model that I reason to have no flaw to it.. well thus far anyway..
So in closing let me Insist,
YES - Part of the universe may be expanding, but if we are to adhere to a truth statement, then part of the universe is compressed by its expansion, ergo each and every galaxy withs its black-hole is experiencing compression, so as our mass is exerted towards the compression point our local mass is blue-shifted and with it our time rate is slowed, so that our distances and velocities remain relative locally, but when compared to distances and velocities beyond our galaxy, the slower our local velocities are due to compression, the faster the velocities would be perceived beyond our galaxy - ergo our perception expansion of our universe is accelerating in expansion..
<sigh> Anyway back to a reciprocal model - where if we treat the universe to consist with only one Klein bottle neck as in just our galaxy Vs the rest of the Universe we would have to divide our universe into two OPEN sub-systems as in one is expanding {decompressing} and the other is experiencing compression {OUR GALAXY}, via each and every particle is treated via a wave construct and then Blue-Shifted.. mind you via the transfer of kinetic energy to Potential energy ergo the black-holes mass is referred to as extremely dense and heavy as in {super solid} and or extremely rigid via the lack of kinetic energy or its small value for its kinetic dimension/s} opposed to the rest of the universe which is highly kinetic ergo has the momentum to compress and increase in its kinetic value, mind you at the expense of its respective Potential energy, ergo "c" beyond our galaxy or the black holes event horizon will simply be beyond our means to detect ergo dark matter and or energy for beyond our galaxy and super-blue-shifted mass or solids for a Black-Holes event horizon..
I have some other activities to attend to so I will close this post, with that for you to consider..
BTW I am hoping Someone? Anyone!?
Would take a look at a wire frame depiction of a Klein bottle and imagine each grid in three dimensions as a 3D pixel,
as I am convinced it can model every thing about our Universe,
that's if we care to further divide each grid up numerous times, into smaller pixels
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KleinBottle.html
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 8 2008, 07:12 AM)
Hej Laidback
QUOTE: "And this extra energy comes from opposing velocities {Kinetic Energy} that has been cancelled out or transferred to Potential Energy, ergo E=double the "Potential Energy" compared to the other Pixels Potential Energy..
so where did the extra density or mass come from?
Kinetic energy or some of the systems width dimension has been transferred to another dimension.."
One has to be very cautious about this distinction between kinetic and potential - and very careful about this very definition of mass.
I like to see everything as a FLUX of ever re-arranging dimensionality's - So the question is - What - what exactly is potential - is potential the smallest dimension when such smallest dimension is into existence - because smallest dimension is into oscillating existence - so it must be in order to re-arrange. Perhaps that is the closest one come to potential - when seen by a G@d's eye.
In all other cases potential is strictly related to the fact that one scale can "look" at another scale - and potential become a relative quality. So the term "Potential" is useful when applied to scales - because a "particle" in a lower scale is seen as a kind of "static - lasting" particle - one cannot see one cannot measure the internal kinetic in said particle - so it behaves like a static potential structure.
Having that said - it is a different matter when dealing with universal balances - then it becomes less relevant to make distinctions into this or that because then we are facing dimensionality's in a kinetic re-arranging flux - and according to the dynamic patterns in said scales we get all kind of different qualities - like mass - like potential -like electromagnetic and so on.
This post is in haste as I have many other activities to attend to but basically lets start with a Universe that is 100% energy.
a quantity..
with a single dimension we cant express and or refer to changes..
so we have to refer to more references..
I divide the universe or closed system into two so we now have two references..
so if one value rises in value the other reference must devalue.
But how is this possible?
ergo we now need to refer to a small portion of one of our references that is to be exchanged as in from potential or reference to another, so lets define this as Kinetic energy via divide up one of our reference..
so if we begin with two references and one reference divides itself and avails this small portion or division of itself to the other reference we have a reciprocal action where as the Kinetic division is in transit and or with a momentum expressing change by causing a rise in the other reference at the expense of the other references value..
Look I have to go, but think about it..
maybe with this in mind PE/KE=V and this model
"----" Initial moment
"----" mid moment
"----" Ending moment or product, which really pans out to repeat a cycle due to an introduced velocity and or momentum that I don't have time to continue on with, so maybe you could do it for your self?..
Oh crap! the time!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE: "And this extra energy comes from opposing velocities {Kinetic Energy} that has been cancelled out or transferred to Potential Energy, ergo E=double the "Potential Energy" compared to the other Pixels Potential Energy..
so where did the extra density or mass come from?
Kinetic energy or some of the systems width dimension has been transferred to another dimension.."
One has to be very cautious about this distinction between kinetic and potential - and very careful about this very definition of mass.
I like to see everything as a FLUX of ever re-arranging dimensionality's - So the question is - What - what exactly is potential - is potential the smallest dimension when such smallest dimension is into existence - because smallest dimension is into oscillating existence - so it must be in order to re-arrange. Perhaps that is the closest one come to potential - when seen by a G@d's eye.
In all other cases potential is strictly related to the fact that one scale can "look" at another scale - and potential become a relative quality. So the term "Potential" is useful when applied to scales - because a "particle" in a lower scale is seen as a kind of "static - lasting" particle - one cannot see one cannot measure the internal kinetic in said particle - so it behaves like a static potential structure.
Having that said - it is a different matter when dealing with universal balances - then it becomes less relevant to make distinctions into this or that because then we are facing dimensionality's in a kinetic re-arranging flux - and according to the dynamic patterns in said scales we get all kind of different qualities - like mass - like potential -like electromagnetic and so on.
This post is in haste as I have many other activities to attend to but basically lets start with a Universe that is 100% energy.
a quantity..
with a single dimension we cant express and or refer to changes..
so we have to refer to more references..
I divide the universe or closed system into two so we now have two references..
so if one value rises in value the other reference must devalue.
But how is this possible?
ergo we now need to refer to a small portion of one of our references that is to be exchanged as in from potential or reference to another, so lets define this as Kinetic energy via divide up one of our reference..
so if we begin with two references and one reference divides itself and avails this small portion or division of itself to the other reference we have a reciprocal action where as the Kinetic division is in transit and or with a momentum expressing change by causing a rise in the other reference at the expense of the other references value..
Look I have to go, but think about it..
maybe with this in mind PE/KE=V and this model
"----" Initial moment
"----" mid moment
"----" Ending moment or product, which really pans out to repeat a cycle due to an introduced velocity and or momentum that I don't have time to continue on with, so maybe you could do it for your self?..
Oh crap!
the time! Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Guys
We are going in circles - that's why I am silent- nothing new to contribute since latest ideas about 0-dimensional information space , consciousness of any spatial dimension, equivalence of wave functions and spatial dimensions, Kolmogorov vortex of Aether ( information space) etc.
I would suggest reading some projective, non-euclidean geometry sources ( like F.Klein, or even older and simpler books) to get a grasp over what space is, what is line, point, real, imaginary , surfaces, volumes etc etc. and could be, and get some things more or less defined in some agreeable form.
It is not simple, but why should it be?
Mixing physics and information with geometry is also OK - it is actually the basis of both quantum mechanics and gravity, but, again, first one have to get a feeling over geometry of space and its transformations, and invariants of such transformations- luckily, a lot has been done.
Non-euclidean geometry, projective measure explicitly talks about the ways to define distance , angle , position, use of infinity in geometry, undefined distances, undefined angles, circles as degenerate conic not as something fundamental, imaginary , higher dimensional real and complex spaces, shapes, in exact terms, etc, etc.
There is a lot to learn before jumping into further conclusions. E.g. path curves are invariant curves of space transformations in projective coordinates (that is , coordinates that are independent on distance and fixed coordinate systems- they are like invariants of mapping the whole Universe with projective coordinate systems or dimensions, since csetting oordinate system is just defining dimensions of space we are going to use) and seems quite natural that these curves are those forms matter tends to acquire as it develops along these ideal lines in space.
You can not speak about infinity unless You understand space.
So I continue to keep silent.
We are going in circles - that's why I am silent- nothing new to contribute since latest ideas about 0-dimensional information space , consciousness of any spatial dimension, equivalence of wave functions and spatial dimensions, Kolmogorov vortex of Aether ( information space) etc.
I would suggest reading some projective, non-euclidean geometry sources ( like F.Klein, or even older and simpler books) to get a grasp over what space is, what is line, point, real, imaginary , surfaces, volumes etc etc. and could be, and get some things more or less defined in some agreeable form.
It is not simple, but why should it be?
Mixing physics and information with geometry is also OK - it is actually the basis of both quantum mechanics and gravity, but, again, first one have to get a feeling over geometry of space and its transformations, and invariants of such transformations- luckily, a lot has been done.
Non-euclidean geometry, projective measure explicitly talks about the ways to define distance , angle , position, use of infinity in geometry, undefined distances, undefined angles, circles as degenerate conic not as something fundamental, imaginary , higher dimensional real and complex spaces, shapes, in exact terms, etc, etc.
There is a lot to learn before jumping into further conclusions. E.g. path curves are invariant curves of space transformations in projective coordinates (that is , coordinates that are independent on distance and fixed coordinate systems- they are like invariants of mapping the whole Universe with projective coordinate systems or dimensions, since csetting oordinate system is just defining dimensions of space we are going to use) and seems quite natural that these curves are those forms matter tends to acquire as it develops along these ideal lines in space.
You can not speak about infinity unless You understand space.
So I continue to keep silent.
Hi Ivars,Bukh, Laidback..et all
I agree that we are going in circles.I think I may have to write up and re-edit a smallish work which makes what I am trying to say clear as it seems that I am explaining the last objection . This is not giving a clear picture as to what I want to be seen.
but I will answer the last post of laidback's first.
No. There is no break in the truth statement. The Smallest exists as a quanta of the photon which exists in the universe. The Photon examines itself and in doing so reviews itself according to the number of smallest divisible it contains. This equals the number of potential positions there are in the universe.
Your KLEIN model is similar. (I had to google it). And it's a question of the chicken and the egg.
Cheers
Iseason
i will work on a better explaination of my views aside from these forums.
I agree that we are going in circles.I think I may have to write up and re-edit a smallish work which makes what I am trying to say clear as it seems that I am explaining the last objection . This is not giving a clear picture as to what I want to be seen.
but I will answer the last post of laidback's first.
No. There is no break in the truth statement. The Smallest exists as a quanta of the photon which exists in the universe. The Photon examines itself and in doing so reviews itself according to the number of smallest divisible it contains. This equals the number of potential positions there are in the universe.
Your KLEIN model is similar. (I had to google it). And it's a question of the chicken and the egg.
Cheers
Iseason
i will work on a better explaination of my views aside from these forums.
Hi all
Klein bottle - I like to see a klein bottle as representative for a dynamic flux - both directions - like in a biological cell. When a klein bottle is shown with 3D geometry it gives me an impression about a snapshot on one spot - which in reality should be seen as a dynamic all over the surface in one snapshot. We have a body that is receiving and loosing at the same time, and all over the borders.
A pixel has the same characteristic in that it is communicating both ways - and it is as deep in its russian doll structure as we like to think.
Like Laidback says: "as I am convinced it can model every thing about our Universe,
that's if we care to further divide each grid up numerous times, into smaller pixels" - and I think that this is exactly what the 3D Pixel Universe tries to do.
I have not the same feeling that we are circling - at least I feel that there is a direction towards a better and better insight.
One very important aspect is that everything is about how someting of the SYSTEM percepts the SYSTEM. We like to tink a system that can be seen by a G@d's eye - we cannot !
Klein bottle - I like to see a klein bottle as representative for a dynamic flux - both directions - like in a biological cell. When a klein bottle is shown with 3D geometry it gives me an impression about a snapshot on one spot - which in reality should be seen as a dynamic all over the surface in one snapshot. We have a body that is receiving and loosing at the same time, and all over the borders.
A pixel has the same characteristic in that it is communicating both ways - and it is as deep in its russian doll structure as we like to think.
Like Laidback says: "as I am convinced it can model every thing about our Universe,
that's if we care to further divide each grid up numerous times, into smaller pixels" - and I think that this is exactly what the 3D Pixel Universe tries to do.
I have not the same feeling that we are circling - at least I feel that there is a direction towards a better and better insight.
One very important aspect is that everything is about how someting of the SYSTEM percepts the SYSTEM. We like to tink a system that can be seen by a G@d's eye - we cannot !
Hej Ivars
QUOTE: "Non-euclidean geometry, projective measure explicitly talks about the ways to define distance , angle , position, use of infinity in geometry, undefined distances, undefined angles, circles as degenerate conic not as something fundamental, imaginary , higher dimensional real and complex spaces, shapes, in exact terms, etc, etc."
I am afraid that such an approach will freeze in an ever ongoing math-exersice, instead of taking the short cut that dimensionality is being needed in order to percept/understand/communicate physical.
I prefer the axiomatic approach, that we try to identify the axiom(s) that we choose to use as our tool. Irrespective how we turn everything we are stuck to axioms - and I doubt the benefit in re-wamping all the geometry/math that has been put forward - just for the sake of ending up (perhaps) with still another way to define/understand "dimension".
QUOTE: "Non-euclidean geometry, projective measure explicitly talks about the ways to define distance , angle , position, use of infinity in geometry, undefined distances, undefined angles, circles as degenerate conic not as something fundamental, imaginary , higher dimensional real and complex spaces, shapes, in exact terms, etc, etc."
I am afraid that such an approach will freeze in an ever ongoing math-exersice, instead of taking the short cut that dimensionality is being needed in order to percept/understand/communicate physical.
I prefer the axiomatic approach, that we try to identify the axiom(s) that we choose to use as our tool. Irrespective how we turn everything we are stuck to axioms - and I doubt the benefit in re-wamping all the geometry/math that has been put forward - just for the sake of ending up (perhaps) with still another way to define/understand "dimension".
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 8 2008, 05:46 PM)
Hi all
Klein bottle - I like to see a Klein bottle as representative for a dynamic flux - both directions - like in a biological cell. When a Klein bottle is shown with 3D geometry it gives me an impression about a snapshot on one spot - which in reality should be seen as a dynamic all over the surface in one snapshot. We have a body that is receiving and loosing at the same time, and all over the borders.
A pixel has the same characteristic in that it is communicating both ways - and it is as deep in its Russian doll structure as we like to think.
Like Laidback says: "as I am convinced it can model every thing about our Universe,
that's if we care to further divide each grid up numerous times, into smaller pixels" - and I think that this is exactly what the 3D Pixel Universe tries to do.
I have not the same feeling that we are circling - at least I feel that there is a direction towards a better and better insight.
One very important aspect is that everything is about how something of the SYSTEM perceives the rest of the SYSTEM.
Yes, I also feel we are making progress..
This is most prominent by your reference to one of those 3D Pixels can be divided up into smaller pixels if one needs much more details..
The important point is the Pixel expresses its functions via its dimensions, be they obvious or obscure, and if the rest of the universe changes each pixel responds in an appropriate manner so that it remains a truth statement to itself and to the rest of the universes Pixels..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Klein bottle - I like to see a Klein bottle as representative for a dynamic flux - both directions - like in a biological cell. When a Klein bottle is shown with 3D geometry it gives me an impression about a snapshot on one spot - which in reality should be seen as a dynamic all over the surface in one snapshot. We have a body that is receiving and loosing at the same time, and all over the borders.
A pixel has the same characteristic in that it is communicating both ways - and it is as deep in its Russian doll structure as we like to think.
Like Laidback says: "as I am convinced it can model every thing about our Universe,
that's if we care to further divide each grid up numerous times, into smaller pixels" - and I think that this is exactly what the 3D Pixel Universe tries to do.
I have not the same feeling that we are circling - at least I feel that there is a direction towards a better and better insight.
One very important aspect is that everything is about how something of the SYSTEM perceives the rest of the SYSTEM.
Yes, I also feel we are making progress..
This is most prominent by your reference to one of those 3D Pixels can be divided up into smaller pixels if one needs much more details..
The important point is the Pixel expresses its functions via its dimensions, be they obvious or obscure, and if the rest of the universe changes each pixel responds in an appropriate manner so that it remains a truth statement to itself and to the rest of the universes Pixels..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 8 2008, 07:55 AM)
I prefer the axiomatic approach, that we try to identify the axiom(s) that we choose to use as our tool. Irrespective how we turn everything we are stuck to axioms - and I doubt the benefit in re-wamping all the geometry/math that has been put forward - just for the sake of ending up (perhaps) with still another way to define/understand "dimension".
hej bukh
Yes, what is dimension and dimesionality in Your words, even axiomatically, based on intuitive unprovable knowledge we have? I still have not seen it,the axiom, that is what worries me.
You say everything is how dimensionalities do things- but what is a (the?) dimensionality?
I see that any spatial dimension ( meaning that space has come into existance somewhere) has consciousness , but there is also state (0-dimension) that there is no spatial dimensions nor consciosness of them. Also, spatial dimensions ( and thus void) is not present if there is no matter/lasting spatial structures encircling or bordering it. So initially , there is no space.
As to math, You just can not escape it since it is the only language that represents reality= is reality in deep down levels. You can not have many versions of math-or definitions of spatial dimension- or measure- or angle- if You believe You can, You are dead wrong since in the end, they all meet at place we have not been able yet to uncover.
Hej Ivars
"I see that any spatial dimension ( meaning that space has come into existance somewhere) has consciousness , but there is also state (0-dimension) that there is no spatial dimensions nor consciosness of them. Also, spatial dimensions ( and thus void) is not present if there is no matter/lasting spatial structures encircling or bordering it. So initially , there is no space."
I am not concerned about "the origin of the origin" I am just pondering on how the very essential of being PHYSICAL can be defined.
ANY definitions and ANY explanations about physical universe is no more than a mind conception. There exist no such thing as the truth. It is about how to establish an appropiate model that gives the most useful way of understanding us-selves and our surroundings. So YES - to me it is a matter of axioms - it is a question about which are the tools that we want to use in our understanding, in our descriptions and in our communication. One can choose a mainstream mathematical approach - implicating that the physical world must be constructed / build out from math-symbols - and being aware that math-symbols themselves are axioms.
I say that physical essentially is dimensional - that we humans best can percept and understand physical out from a 3D perspective - that we humans have a 3D mind.
This is not the same as saying that physical world IS 3D - because physical world is exactly what we define it to be.
Anyhow - even a so-called mathematical approach has focus on how to construct a 3D spatiality - or dimensionality - or whatever we like to call a geometric construct. And I have big difficulties in understanding how it is possible to construct a 3D creature out from dimensionless points - how one can translate dimensionless points into coordinates or distances or anything relating to 3D.
QUOTE: "You can not have many versions of math-or definitions of spatial dimension- or measure- or angle- if You believe You can, You are dead wrong since in the end, they all meet at place we have not been able yet to uncover."
Perhaps that place we have not been able yet to uncover is "dimensionality" - that dimensionality IS the axiom that we need in order to play with mathematics in a way that it reflects the physical world as we humans see physical by our human mind.
"I see that any spatial dimension ( meaning that space has come into existance somewhere) has consciousness , but there is also state (0-dimension) that there is no spatial dimensions nor consciosness of them. Also, spatial dimensions ( and thus void) is not present if there is no matter/lasting spatial structures encircling or bordering it. So initially , there is no space."
I am not concerned about "the origin of the origin" I am just pondering on how the very essential of being PHYSICAL can be defined.
ANY definitions and ANY explanations about physical universe is no more than a mind conception. There exist no such thing as the truth. It is about how to establish an appropiate model that gives the most useful way of understanding us-selves and our surroundings. So YES - to me it is a matter of axioms - it is a question about which are the tools that we want to use in our understanding, in our descriptions and in our communication. One can choose a mainstream mathematical approach - implicating that the physical world must be constructed / build out from math-symbols - and being aware that math-symbols themselves are axioms.
I say that physical essentially is dimensional - that we humans best can percept and understand physical out from a 3D perspective - that we humans have a 3D mind.
This is not the same as saying that physical world IS 3D - because physical world is exactly what we define it to be.
Anyhow - even a so-called mathematical approach has focus on how to construct a 3D spatiality - or dimensionality - or whatever we like to call a geometric construct. And I have big difficulties in understanding how it is possible to construct a 3D creature out from dimensionless points - how one can translate dimensionless points into coordinates or distances or anything relating to 3D.
QUOTE: "You can not have many versions of math-or definitions of spatial dimension- or measure- or angle- if You believe You can, You are dead wrong since in the end, they all meet at place we have not been able yet to uncover."
Perhaps that place we have not been able yet to uncover is "dimensionality" - that dimensionality IS the axiom that we need in order to play with mathematics in a way that it reflects the physical world as we humans see physical by our human mind.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 8 2008, 11:42 AM)
So YES - to me it is a matter of axioms - it is a question about which are the tools that we want to use in our understanding, in our descriptions and in our communication. One can choose a mainstream mathematical approach - implicating that the physical world must be constructed / build out from math-symbols - and being aware that math-symbols themselves are axioms.
hej bukh
QUOTE
I am not concerned about "the origin of the origin" I am just pondering on how the very essential of being PHYSICAL can be defined.
How come? The "origin of the origin" is where all begins and ends. Its a loop. Without finding where the loop connects the beginning and the end, the big and the small, exactly, there is no understanding of why the particular forms and their dynamics, including life and consciousness we observe exist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am not concerned about "the origin of the origin" I am just pondering on how the very essential of being PHYSICAL can be defined. |
How come? The "origin of the origin" is where all begins and ends. Its a loop. Without finding where the loop connects the beginning and the end, the big and the small, exactly, there is no understanding of why the particular forms and their dynamics, including life and consciousness we observe exist.
ANY definitions and ANY explanations about physical universe is no more than a mind conception. There exist no such thing as the truth. It is about how to establish an appropriate model that gives the most useful way of understanding us-selves and our surroundings.
I totally disagree. Since our Mind is part of the Universe, a good instrument of probing beneath physical, it can not have neither voluntary structure, nor voluntary true perceptions and ideas.
Truth exists. And is possible to formulate. But only in one way.
As to dimensionality- as long a You do not say what it is I have no chance to understand what it does. If it is and does at the same time, this is also expressible, using words-e.g. verbs.
You mention 3D - yes, i agree we perceive physical in 3D - but what is the conclusion? My conclusion is exactly that 3D is built out of nothing, information. Or where does it come from?
Hi call
Have you considered that we can REDUCE the information "whole" to order "photon" Which is the reality that does not exist.
What I am proposing is that The universe exists as it does in it's vastness but given that we can perceive all of it we can create order from chaos and reduce the "space it occupies.
This makes energy equaling "a photon divided into the volume of space" as the only truth statement, also keeping energy in sync with the smallest amount we can perceive when we do see it. It also accounts for ratios. We see more order or less order at differing levels.
When I perceive two or more objects in relation to each other I am simply using a greater sense of perception than if I saw a photon only. Order to the magnitude of.......????
Cheers
Iseason
Have you considered that we can REDUCE the information "whole" to order "photon" Which is the reality that does not exist.
What I am proposing is that The universe exists as it does in it's vastness but given that we can perceive all of it we can create order from chaos and reduce the "space it occupies.
This makes energy equaling "a photon divided into the volume of space" as the only truth statement, also keeping energy in sync with the smallest amount we can perceive when we do see it. It also accounts for ratios. We see more order or less order at differing levels.
When I perceive two or more objects in relation to each other I am simply using a greater sense of perception than if I saw a photon only. Order to the magnitude of.......????
Cheers
Iseason
Hi
QUOTE: "This makes energy equaling "a photon divided into the volume of space" as the only truth statement"
In order to equal "energy" one need to take "time" into account.
Correct me if I am wrong - but we tend to describe photon energy according to frequencies - so we tend to deal with amount of energy "transferable" per time unit - and I am not saying that this is wrong - but likewise one has to be cautious when equaling any kind of energy - and specify how it is related to time and area.
QUOTE: "This makes energy equaling "a photon divided into the volume of space" as the only truth statement"
In order to equal "energy" one need to take "time" into account.
Correct me if I am wrong - but we tend to describe photon energy according to frequencies - so we tend to deal with amount of energy "transferable" per time unit - and I am not saying that this is wrong - but likewise one has to be cautious when equaling any kind of energy - and specify how it is related to time and area.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 9 2008, 07:44 AM)
Hi
QUOTE: "This makes energy equaling "a photon divided into the volume of space" as the only truth statement"
In order to equal "energy" one need to take "time" into account.
Correct me if I am wrong - but we tend to describe photon energy according to frequencies - so we tend to deal with amount of energy "transferable" per time unit - and I am not saying that this is wrong - but likewise one has to be cautious when equaling any kind of energy - and specify how it is related to time and area.
hEY bUKH
To qualify, it would equate to the "ratio" of energy in "all time" .In this perhaps special curcumstance, it fits. If there is a smaller "measurable" quanta, then it also would become a truth statement.
For example "a Nutrino" divided into the area of space" If we measured Nutrino speed instead of light speed in relation to reletivity. Yes/no?
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE: "This makes energy equaling "a photon divided into the volume of space" as the only truth statement"
In order to equal "energy" one need to take "time" into account.
Correct me if I am wrong - but we tend to describe photon energy according to frequencies - so we tend to deal with amount of energy "transferable" per time unit - and I am not saying that this is wrong - but likewise one has to be cautious when equaling any kind of energy - and specify how it is related to time and area.
hEY bUKH
To qualify, it would equate to the "ratio" of energy in "all time" .In this perhaps special curcumstance, it fits. If there is a smaller "measurable" quanta, then it also would become a truth statement.
For example "a Nutrino" divided into the area of space" If we measured Nutrino speed instead of light speed in relation to reletivity. Yes/no?
Cheers
Iseason
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "How come? The "origin of the origin" is where all begins and ends."
No - that is the origin -
And I think that we are in agreement that the origin is a kind of space - with no matter - only motion - or as I like to see it - just this SPACE - one dimensionality - no segregation - everything the same - no possibility to distinguish something from something else - not as yet any unfolding - not as yet any kind of physical -
and then space starts segregating into dimensionalities - into ratios - and this proces goes on until there cannot be any further improvement in overall fit - free void is being evenly spread all over space - no gradients left and everything ends up into sameness - the cyclus is finished and can start againg - that is the cyclus - where everything starts and ends -
From where the space originates - I am not concerned - and that is the origin of the origin -
QUOTE: "Truth exists. And is possible to formulate. But only in one way."
OK - I give me on that - on the bottomline you are probably right - however I do not think that we will hit that final truth within a reasonable amount of lifespans. - There will be a long line of deeper and deeper insight and it takes so much accumulated further insight to build the final insight. And human mind will not be the tool - the tool will probably be a much higher complexion representing a much bigger ratio of space-ratios.
QUOTE: "As to dimensionality- as long a You do not say what it is I have no chance to understand what it does. If it is and does at the same time, this is also expressible, using words-e.g. verbs.
You mention 3D - yes, i agree we perceive physical in 3D - but what is the conclusion? My conclusion is exactly that 3D is built out of nothing, information. Or where does it come from?"
Yes - dimension is how Information has translated itsself into a 3D shape - it is about how Information has translated itsself into a language that is being expressed via shape. This implicate that any and all Information related to the expression of physical universe is being inhabited by the shape of dimensionality - by the shape of space - and the shape of space is being mirrored in any and all ratios of space - is being expressed in any and all ratios - irrespective of their scale. And space is into oscillating existance - the oscillation which is the prerequisite for having re-arrangements - for having dynamic - the mother of energy is originating in the oscillatin of space.
And then we can ponder on how space is into oscillating existance - is it via a stocahstic repĺresentation of dimensionless points in a 3D space - from one point to all points (infinitely) many being present stochastically - so space-oscillations are presenses of differing exactness's - or - or - that would be my opening questions.
QUOTE: "How come? The "origin of the origin" is where all begins and ends."
No - that is the origin -
And I think that we are in agreement that the origin is a kind of space - with no matter - only motion - or as I like to see it - just this SPACE - one dimensionality - no segregation - everything the same - no possibility to distinguish something from something else - not as yet any unfolding - not as yet any kind of physical -
and then space starts segregating into dimensionalities - into ratios - and this proces goes on until there cannot be any further improvement in overall fit - free void is being evenly spread all over space - no gradients left and everything ends up into sameness - the cyclus is finished and can start againg - that is the cyclus - where everything starts and ends -
From where the space originates - I am not concerned - and that is the origin of the origin -
QUOTE: "Truth exists. And is possible to formulate. But only in one way."
OK - I give me on that - on the bottomline you are probably right - however I do not think that we will hit that final truth within a reasonable amount of lifespans. - There will be a long line of deeper and deeper insight and it takes so much accumulated further insight to build the final insight. And human mind will not be the tool - the tool will probably be a much higher complexion representing a much bigger ratio of space-ratios.
QUOTE: "As to dimensionality- as long a You do not say what it is I have no chance to understand what it does. If it is and does at the same time, this is also expressible, using words-e.g. verbs.
You mention 3D - yes, i agree we perceive physical in 3D - but what is the conclusion? My conclusion is exactly that 3D is built out of nothing, information. Or where does it come from?"
Yes - dimension is how Information has translated itsself into a 3D shape - it is about how Information has translated itsself into a language that is being expressed via shape. This implicate that any and all Information related to the expression of physical universe is being inhabited by the shape of dimensionality - by the shape of space - and the shape of space is being mirrored in any and all ratios of space - is being expressed in any and all ratios - irrespective of their scale. And space is into oscillating existance - the oscillation which is the prerequisite for having re-arrangements - for having dynamic - the mother of energy is originating in the oscillatin of space.
And then we can ponder on how space is into oscillating existance - is it via a stocahstic repĺresentation of dimensionless points in a 3D space - from one point to all points (infinitely) many being present stochastically - so space-oscillations are presenses of differing exactness's - or - or - that would be my opening questions.
iseason
QUOTE: "To qualify, it would equate to the "ratio" of energy in "all time"
Yep - exactly - in "all time" - and already here we are in deep relativity.
QUOTE: "For example "a Nutrino" divided into the area of space" If we measured Nutrino speed instead of light speed in relation to reletivity. Yes/no?"
Well - to me a neutrino logically must be a photon quant - having the same amount of information as a photon - but being expressed as a much more frequent wave-pattern - because in order to express neutron-proton it is necessary to have a very narrow circular trajectory - because we are dealing with the center of the atom - not the electron distant orbits - and such small r's is only possible with frequencies that are much higher than ordinary photons that via the wave-particle duality can be seen as photons or as electrons - respectively. So neutrino is the same same wave-particle duality seen as proton/neutron or as neutrino bosonic wave, respectively.
So in the above context concerning energy over "all time" I think that photon and neutrino should be more or less the same.
QUOTE: "To qualify, it would equate to the "ratio" of energy in "all time"
Yep - exactly - in "all time" - and already here we are in deep relativity.
QUOTE: "For example "a Nutrino" divided into the area of space" If we measured Nutrino speed instead of light speed in relation to reletivity. Yes/no?"
Well - to me a neutrino logically must be a photon quant - having the same amount of information as a photon - but being expressed as a much more frequent wave-pattern - because in order to express neutron-proton it is necessary to have a very narrow circular trajectory - because we are dealing with the center of the atom - not the electron distant orbits - and such small r's is only possible with frequencies that are much higher than ordinary photons that via the wave-particle duality can be seen as photons or as electrons - respectively. So neutrino is the same same wave-particle duality seen as proton/neutron or as neutrino bosonic wave, respectively.
So in the above context concerning energy over "all time" I think that photon and neutrino should be more or less the same.
HMMMM....
aLL TIME..Therefore all motion within the space , therefore everything "measurable".......IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right.
Cheers
Iseason
aLL TIME..Therefore all motion within the space , therefore everything "measurable".......IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 8 2008, 02:59 PM)
Guys
We are going in circles - that's why I am silent- nothing new to contribute since latest ideas about 0-dimensional information space , consciousness of any spatial dimension, equivalence of wave functions and spatial dimensions, Kolmogorov vortex of Aether ( information space) etc.
I would suggest reading some projective, non-euclidean geometry sources ( like F.Klein, or even older and simpler books) to get a grasp over what space is, what is line, point, real, imaginary , surfaces, volumes etc etc. and could be, and get some things more or less defined in some agreeable form.
It is not simple, but why should it be?
Mixing physics and information with geometry is also OK - it is actually the basis of both quantum mechanics and gravity, but, again, first one have to get a feeling over geometry of space and its transformations, and invariants of such transformations- luckily, a lot has been done.
Non-euclidean geometry, projective measure explicitly talks about the ways to define distance , angle , position, use of infinity in geometry, undefined distances, undefined angles, circles as degenerate conic not as something fundamental, imaginary , higher dimensional real and complex spaces, shapes, in exact terms, etc, etc.
There is a lot to learn before jumping into further conclusions. E.g. path curves are invariant curves of space transformations in projective coordinates (that is , coordinates that are independent on distance and fixed coordinate systems- they are like invariants of mapping the whole Universe with projective coordinate systems or dimensions, since setting coordinate system is just defining dimensions of space we are going to use) and seems quite natural that these curves are those forms matter tends to acquire as it develops along these ideal lines in space.
You can not speak about infinity unless You understand space.
So I continue to keep silent.
Obviously if something is possible, and we need to explain it we need to refer to references.
But first lets consider what one implies when zero is referred to..
QUESTION?
Is zero something or a reference to No-Thing?
If you have zero and it is something to you, then I would suggest a massive revise on 101 physics..
So - Having revised 101 Physics, I ask is zero something, if it is nothing then continue reading the below, if zero is something to you then please revise 101 physics and return to the above QUESTION?
If anything is something, then we can refer to something else very much like it, but if their are differences, then we have to refer to maybe two references that are very much like it..
For example if we have a cup, we can refer to it by a verbal inference, and IN GENERAL the reference is adequate..
But what if the cup is highly unusual? and we need to describe every bit of its properties?
It certainly isn't NOTHING, so therefore we are able to refer to other references for comparisons..
But what if we wanted to know every single thing about it?
And worse what if it was the mirror of the Universe as in the reciprocal?
Which at this point I can indeed state this is the case for every thing!
each and everything is always a reciprocal to the rest of the Universe, <shiver>
I always get a shiver when I express that statement, as it implies just how much power my reasoning mind has upon the rest of the universe, to which I am at the mercy of it, as it is at the mercy of me..
Anyway getting back to the cup Vs the rest of the universe, what we need to do is to refer to common yard sticks and terminology and then with an appropriate division of our yardstick pixel-late or dimensionalize the cup to as many dimensions needed.
All Physics refers to basic Rules and constructs so here is where we should consider is our best tool to test if our expressions are truth statements or not..
So lets see..
A basic rule is that all mass is energy so all mass can be expressed and in fact must be expressible in one, two, three, dimensions and if changes are to be expressed four or more dimensions may need to be referred to..
For Example a CLOSED cube as in it is with no change can be simply and easily expressed as a one meter by one meter by one meter mass, from their we can determine whether our expression is the truth by doing the maths and converting it to "volume" being just one single dimensional expression via just one of the many definitions available to us via conversions..
A highly recommended Playground of Mine that converts anything and everything from one definition to another..
And because we can also refer to our cube or pixel in reference to other definitions such as its total quantity of Energy, ergo quantum mechanics and QED may be excellent tools, but as good as they are - some of the rules are to restrictive ergo uncertainty can creep in..
Anyway getting back to our current subject..
This is where three dimensions are inadequate as energy suggests its a ratio of two states, which may effect density and weight of our Pixel or cube.. for example I could have been referring to a cube of near vacuum, gas, liquid or solid, to which implies our closed system may be with two or more sub-systems that are open to each other, and whats more what if our cube was an open system itself, which I have no doubt is open, due to its a portion of the universe, so its ratio may be mostly kinetic or mostly potential energy..
Anyway lets for now consider our cube is closed or better yet lets imply we are referring to the universe, and all we are doing is contemplating how is it possible that we have various densities within?
Obviously something is going on, but what?
So what we need to do is to visualize what and how is change or existence possible..
Well we can make it as complicated as we like, or as simple as we like..
So lets begin with two dimensions and lets be mindful the Universes quantity of energy can not rise or fall - That's the single dimension that I am referring to that can not rise or fall..
Only problem is with a single dimensional expression changes within can NOT be expressed, so lets divide our single dimension into two portions, but in doing so lets say we inadvertently didn't divide it as intended and the divisions and portions were unlike each other, to which we now need to correct, but how can we do this?
What we have is - Two values {Potential variables} of energy or Potentials for change, but with such a simple two reference or dimensional model, how can change be possible?
Well with such a simple model we now need to define some rules that if change were possible both values must always present them selves as a truth statement so that they and the rest of the universe presents themselves always as a truth statement or as a logical possibility with all the available references considered..
ergo my earlier referral to reciprocal values being a two dimensional rule to gaining a truth statement..
Lets move on and consider how change is possible..
Obviously one value must be further divided resulting in the universe to be with three references {dimensions}, that's two potentials that are now sharing an undefined ratio of a third Potential or dimension requiring a time construct a fourth dimension, to which we should refer to this reference as KINETIC as its energy - That is in transition or working in the exchange from one potential to another Potential.. as in meters per second.. the seconds introduces our time construct.
As in PE/KE=V or V=rate of change in this case..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
We are going in circles - that's why I am silent- nothing new to contribute since latest ideas about 0-dimensional information space , consciousness of any spatial dimension, equivalence of wave functions and spatial dimensions, Kolmogorov vortex of Aether ( information space) etc.
I would suggest reading some projective, non-euclidean geometry sources ( like F.Klein, or even older and simpler books) to get a grasp over what space is, what is line, point, real, imaginary , surfaces, volumes etc etc. and could be, and get some things more or less defined in some agreeable form.
It is not simple, but why should it be?
Mixing physics and information with geometry is also OK - it is actually the basis of both quantum mechanics and gravity, but, again, first one have to get a feeling over geometry of space and its transformations, and invariants of such transformations- luckily, a lot has been done.
Non-euclidean geometry, projective measure explicitly talks about the ways to define distance , angle , position, use of infinity in geometry, undefined distances, undefined angles, circles as degenerate conic not as something fundamental, imaginary , higher dimensional real and complex spaces, shapes, in exact terms, etc, etc.
There is a lot to learn before jumping into further conclusions. E.g. path curves are invariant curves of space transformations in projective coordinates (that is , coordinates that are independent on distance and fixed coordinate systems- they are like invariants of mapping the whole Universe with projective coordinate systems or dimensions, since setting coordinate system is just defining dimensions of space we are going to use) and seems quite natural that these curves are those forms matter tends to acquire as it develops along these ideal lines in space.
You can not speak about infinity unless You understand space.
So I continue to keep silent.
Obviously if something is possible, and we need to explain it we need to refer to references.
But first lets consider what one implies when zero is referred to..
QUESTION?
Is zero something or a reference to No-Thing?
If you have zero and it is something to you, then I would suggest a massive revise on 101 physics..
So - Having revised 101 Physics, I ask is zero something, if it is nothing then continue reading the below, if zero is something to you then please revise 101 physics and return to the above QUESTION?
If anything is something, then we can refer to something else very much like it, but if their are differences, then we have to refer to maybe two references that are very much like it..
For example if we have a cup, we can refer to it by a verbal inference, and IN GENERAL the reference is adequate..
But what if the cup is highly unusual? and we need to describe every bit of its properties?
It certainly isn't NOTHING, so therefore we are able to refer to other references for comparisons..
But what if we wanted to know every single thing about it?
And worse what if it was the mirror of the Universe as in the reciprocal?
Which at this point I can indeed state this is the case for every thing!
each and everything is always a reciprocal to the rest of the Universe, <shiver>
I always get a shiver when I express that statement, as it implies just how much power my reasoning mind has upon the rest of the universe, to which I am at the mercy of it, as it is at the mercy of me..
Anyway getting back to the cup Vs the rest of the universe, what we need to do is to refer to common yard sticks and terminology and then with an appropriate division of our yardstick pixel-late or dimensionalize the cup to as many dimensions needed.
All Physics refers to basic Rules and constructs so here is where we should consider is our best tool to test if our expressions are truth statements or not..
So lets see..
A basic rule is that all mass is energy so all mass can be expressed and in fact must be expressible in one, two, three, dimensions and if changes are to be expressed four or more dimensions may need to be referred to..
For Example a CLOSED cube as in it is with no change can be simply and easily expressed as a one meter by one meter by one meter mass, from their we can determine whether our expression is the truth by doing the maths and converting it to "volume" being just one single dimensional expression via just one of the many definitions available to us via conversions..
A highly recommended Playground of Mine that converts anything and everything from one definition to another..
And because we can also refer to our cube or pixel in reference to other definitions such as its total quantity of Energy, ergo quantum mechanics and QED may be excellent tools, but as good as they are - some of the rules are to restrictive ergo uncertainty can creep in..
Anyway getting back to our current subject..
This is where three dimensions are inadequate as energy suggests its a ratio of two states, which may effect density and weight of our Pixel or cube.. for example I could have been referring to a cube of near vacuum, gas, liquid or solid, to which implies our closed system may be with two or more sub-systems that are open to each other, and whats more what if our cube was an open system itself, which I have no doubt is open, due to its a portion of the universe, so its ratio may be mostly kinetic or mostly potential energy..
Anyway lets for now consider our cube is closed or better yet lets imply we are referring to the universe, and all we are doing is contemplating how is it possible that we have various densities within?
Obviously something is going on, but what?
So what we need to do is to visualize what and how is change or existence possible..
Well we can make it as complicated as we like, or as simple as we like..
So lets begin with two dimensions and lets be mindful the Universes quantity of energy can not rise or fall - That's the single dimension that I am referring to that can not rise or fall..
Only problem is with a single dimensional expression changes within can NOT be expressed, so lets divide our single dimension into two portions, but in doing so lets say we inadvertently didn't divide it as intended and the divisions and portions were unlike each other, to which we now need to correct, but how can we do this?
What we have is - Two values {Potential variables} of energy or Potentials for change, but with such a simple two reference or dimensional model, how can change be possible?
Well with such a simple model we now need to define some rules that if change were possible both values must always present them selves as a truth statement so that they and the rest of the universe presents themselves always as a truth statement or as a logical possibility with all the available references considered..
ergo my earlier referral to reciprocal values being a two dimensional rule to gaining a truth statement..
Lets move on and consider how change is possible..
Obviously one value must be further divided resulting in the universe to be with three references {dimensions}, that's two potentials that are now sharing an undefined ratio of a third Potential or dimension requiring a time construct a fourth dimension, to which we should refer to this reference as KINETIC as its energy - That is in transition or working in the exchange from one potential to another Potential.. as in meters per second.. the seconds introduces our time construct.
As in PE/KE=V or V=rate of change in this case..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Guys
Laidback. Good post ,picture.
Question. Why choose only one option. Motion. It is clear that unless we inhabit four parameters that we cannot observe, and therefore cannot explain such a feat. Your post places motion as the first thing to explain. I understand that this is not the intention but unless something "moves", it's not there.
The reason I am saying this is that observers have differing notions of motion . A photon has no notion of time/space and therefore does not perceive motion. Equally, the universe cannot do so either. So your cup contains, but cannot perceive it's own contents.
When considering the partitioning of dimensions, it should be remembered that we inhabit a GREAT area of space during our lifetimes. How far do we go ? Who knows?.....So I'm not questioning the point of putting motion in first place, indeed it is where everyone looks for first cause. But it may be wrong in terms of explaining where the partitioning of dimensions should take place.
Most of the time people Say"this part here and this other part here". Referring back to what I just wrote, the observer is kind of smeared all over here ...LOL...My point is that the observer NEVER inhabits ONE POSITION.....EVER..So The first question is rightly "how is energy/potential distributed" ....It must equal quanta and quanta distribution in a way that everything is possible....I don't want to write conclusions because I like the questions....
Good job everyone
Cheers
Iseason
Laidback. Good post ,picture.
Question. Why choose only one option. Motion. It is clear that unless we inhabit four parameters that we cannot observe, and therefore cannot explain such a feat. Your post places motion as the first thing to explain. I understand that this is not the intention but unless something "moves", it's not there.
The reason I am saying this is that observers have differing notions of motion . A photon has no notion of time/space and therefore does not perceive motion. Equally, the universe cannot do so either. So your cup contains, but cannot perceive it's own contents.
When considering the partitioning of dimensions, it should be remembered that we inhabit a GREAT area of space during our lifetimes. How far do we go ? Who knows?.....So I'm not questioning the point of putting motion in first place, indeed it is where everyone looks for first cause. But it may be wrong in terms of explaining where the partitioning of dimensions should take place.
Most of the time people Say"this part here and this other part here". Referring back to what I just wrote, the observer is kind of smeared all over here ...LOL...My point is that the observer NEVER inhabits ONE POSITION.....EVER..So The first question is rightly "how is energy/potential distributed" ....It must equal quanta and quanta distribution in a way that everything is possible....I don't want to write conclusions because I like the questions....
Good job everyone
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: "IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right."
For the time being I think it is fine to use motion as a common reference as long as energy is concerned.
Essentially we are dealing with energy and complexity, respectively - and where complexity can be referred to as entropy.
Energy is related to "size" - the bigger the size of change and the more rapid the change the bigger amount of energy is in play.
And this implicate that there must be a kind of one-to-one relationship between "size" and amount of energy - and I like to think that the "rate of re-arrangement" is a universal constant.
Any and all physical expressions are being characterized by this "universal beat" - which is the rate by which dimensionality re-arrange - irrespective of its size - its ratio.
Anything physical is into oscillating existance and gowerned by this universal beat. So any and all physical expressions are being characterized by: how many dimensionalities of a GIVEN SIZE is being involved in this re-arrangement at this given universal beat. So the time is fixed - it is one beat - so it is the size of total dimension being re-arranged that is the factor that define the amount of energy involved. In the case of smaller dimensionalities being involved - there will be no change in energy - but complexion - entropy will be different.
QUOTE: "IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right."
For the time being I think it is fine to use motion as a common reference as long as energy is concerned.
Essentially we are dealing with energy and complexity, respectively - and where complexity can be referred to as entropy.
Energy is related to "size" - the bigger the size of change and the more rapid the change the bigger amount of energy is in play.
And this implicate that there must be a kind of one-to-one relationship between "size" and amount of energy - and I like to think that the "rate of re-arrangement" is a universal constant.
Any and all physical expressions are being characterized by this "universal beat" - which is the rate by which dimensionality re-arrange - irrespective of its size - its ratio.
Anything physical is into oscillating existance and gowerned by this universal beat. So any and all physical expressions are being characterized by: how many dimensionalities of a GIVEN SIZE is being involved in this re-arrangement at this given universal beat. So the time is fixed - it is one beat - so it is the size of total dimension being re-arranged that is the factor that define the amount of energy involved. In the case of smaller dimensionalities being involved - there will be no change in energy - but complexion - entropy will be different.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 9 2008, 08:15 PM)
iseason
QUOTE: "IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right."
For the time being I think it is fine to use motion as a common reference as long as energy is concerned.
Essentially we are dealing with energy and complexity, respectively - and where complexity can be referred to as entropy.
Energy is related to "size" - the bigger the size of change and the more rapid the change the bigger amount of energy is in play.
And this implicate that there must be a kind of one-to-one relationship between "size" and amount of energy - and I like to think that the "rate of re-arrangement" is a universal constant.
Any and all physical expressions are being characterized by this "universal beat" - which is the rate by which dimensionality re-arrange - irrespective of its size - its ratio.
Anything physical is into oscillating existance and gowerned by this universal beat. So any and all physical expressions are being characterized by: how many dimensionalities of a GIVEN SIZE is being involved in this re-arrangement at this given universal beat. So the time is fixed - it is one beat - so it is the size of total dimension being re-arranged that is the factor that define the amount of energy involved. In the case of smaller dimensionalities being involved - there will be no change in energy - but complexion - entropy will be different.
Hi Bukh
Agreed
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE: "IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right."
For the time being I think it is fine to use motion as a common reference as long as energy is concerned.
Essentially we are dealing with energy and complexity, respectively - and where complexity can be referred to as entropy.
Energy is related to "size" - the bigger the size of change and the more rapid the change the bigger amount of energy is in play.
And this implicate that there must be a kind of one-to-one relationship between "size" and amount of energy - and I like to think that the "rate of re-arrangement" is a universal constant.
Any and all physical expressions are being characterized by this "universal beat" - which is the rate by which dimensionality re-arrange - irrespective of its size - its ratio.
Anything physical is into oscillating existance and gowerned by this universal beat. So any and all physical expressions are being characterized by: how many dimensionalities of a GIVEN SIZE is being involved in this re-arrangement at this given universal beat. So the time is fixed - it is one beat - so it is the size of total dimension being re-arranged that is the factor that define the amount of energy involved. In the case of smaller dimensionalities being involved - there will be no change in energy - but complexion - entropy will be different.
Hi Bukh
Agreed
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 9 2008, 04:00 PM)
Hi Guys
Laidback. Good post ,picture.
Question. Why choose only one option. Motion. It is clear that unless we inhabit four parameters that we cannot observe, and therefore cannot explain such a feat. Your post places motion as the first thing to explain. I understand that this is not the intention but unless something "moves", it's not there.
The reason I am saying this is that observers have differing notions of motion . A photon has no notion of time/space and therefore does not perceive motion. Equally, the universe cannot do so either. So your cup contains, but cannot perceive it's own contents.
When considering the partitioning of dimensions, it should be remembered that we inhabit a GREAT area of space during our lifetimes. How far do we go ? Who knows?.....So I'm not questioning the point of putting motion in first place, indeed it is where everyone looks for first cause. But it may be wrong in terms of explaining where the partitioning of dimensions should take place.
Most of the time people Say"this part here and this other part here". Referring back to what I just wrote, the observer is kind of smeared all over here ...LOL...My point is that the observer NEVER inhabits ONE POSITION.....EVER..So The first question is rightly "how is energy/potential distributed" ....It must equal quanta and quanta distribution in a way that everything is possible....I don't want to write conclusions because I like the questions....
Good job everyone
Cheers
Iseason
I have an inkling the cup I referred to ended up with some medium within its inner cavity by you, and perhaps this serendipitous event can be used to my advantage..
So let me now refer to the liquid medium that is about to be compressed within the cup..
But first let me define that the cup consists of a glass material that one can just barely see its contents due to its thickness being so thick, and this cup has a lid that seals the contents so that what ever the cups contents {one litre} yeah one large cup! Can be compressed within the cup to a near sphere that is around 25~30 mm..
Why only a NEAR sphere rather than a perfect one? And whats more if the contents were subjected to sound waves in the process of compression the now solid form that was liquid mirrors the cups inner form only its much smaller..
So what is going on here? why does the liquid now solid form take on more of a cylinder shape rather than a sphere, when sound waves are introduced?
{CUP PLACED IN A SONIC CLEANER}
Moving on lets now release the pressure to the cups contents quickly and observe how the form persists, or seems to have a mind of its own as in keeping its self to it's current form, in fact if the liquid was subjected to compression and sound waves for a longer period, the form would hesitate in returning to liquid even longer..
Another observation would be - How some of the gas used for the compression liquefies and covers the solid form.. To which once the gas was all expelled and the cups lid removed there is always more than one litre of liquid, as it's spilling over is proof of this..
nuff on that, lets move on and now concentrate on what is solid, and what do we mean by it, err~keep the above in mind as I may refer to it later..
Lets begin with a single medium of something that feels like nothing and even today most would refer to it as space, to which this is in fact wrong, as this nothing propagates light via electromagnetic waves, or if one is doing basic physics may still be grappling with simple quantum mechanics, where only part of what light is, is dealt with via the reference to it being a particle wave duality, much like the Electron which is also a wave particle duality...
As I wrote that last statement, your statement and referral to the photon came to mind, so lets now clarify ourselves as to how much of the photon we understand, as in part - The photon is responsible for all densities of mass, well sort of, to which if I was to explain here may take two pages at least..
So how can I do this, with such limited resources..
Damn! A mental block
OK Here is a simple model, where it can more or less be imagined as a photon or an electromagnetic wave, well I hope I achieve to explain my reasoning on the duality, so let me know if either of my reasoning on the dualities are not evident to you..
OK first an electromagnetic wave, as it is propagated through whatever medium is to me a rise and fall of mass, note mass is treated as energy by me or if one likes perhaps one could refer to a body of water propagating sound-waves or compression waves amidst it....
Here's a simple two dimensional model that I will refer to..
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there are no compressed waves experienced.
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there is a compressed wave being experienced.
"..." I am hoping dear reader one can plainly see where a water molecule or cubic grid {pixel} is experiencing a rise in density or Potential, so lets briefly examine this rise, and to do this we need to know what the water molecules dimensions were before and what they are when this extra energy or density is experienced, and once this is done we can refer to the difference as the quantity for a sonic particle, or if we are messing around with Light we refer to this difference as a photon, but mind you here's some critical considerations, the actual dimension of one photon is HUGE! and when one measures a mass propagating light the small rise and fall to mass that is finely pixelated and experiencing the wave each pixels experience by each wave is almost insignificant, ergo photons are implied as near mass-less..
So have I explained the wave particle duality clearly?
if not it would be pointless to continue on as the properties of electromagnetic waves and or the photon is critical when one needs to explain how a given density is to express as a RELATIVE solid, to which my inference to RELATIVITY is also critical..
so until then I will move on to the next post, but first I have chores to attend to..
sorry if some of my post is hard to understand as my grandson is now in my care..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Laidback. Good post ,picture.
Question. Why choose only one option. Motion. It is clear that unless we inhabit four parameters that we cannot observe, and therefore cannot explain such a feat. Your post places motion as the first thing to explain. I understand that this is not the intention but unless something "moves", it's not there.
The reason I am saying this is that observers have differing notions of motion . A photon has no notion of time/space and therefore does not perceive motion. Equally, the universe cannot do so either. So your cup contains, but cannot perceive it's own contents.
When considering the partitioning of dimensions, it should be remembered that we inhabit a GREAT area of space during our lifetimes. How far do we go ? Who knows?.....So I'm not questioning the point of putting motion in first place, indeed it is where everyone looks for first cause. But it may be wrong in terms of explaining where the partitioning of dimensions should take place.
Most of the time people Say"this part here and this other part here". Referring back to what I just wrote, the observer is kind of smeared all over here ...LOL...My point is that the observer NEVER inhabits ONE POSITION.....EVER..So The first question is rightly "how is energy/potential distributed" ....It must equal quanta and quanta distribution in a way that everything is possible....I don't want to write conclusions because I like the questions....
Good job everyone
Cheers
Iseason
I have an inkling the cup I referred to ended up with some medium within its inner cavity by you, and perhaps this serendipitous event can be used to my advantage..
So let me now refer to the liquid medium that is about to be compressed within the cup..
But first let me define that the cup consists of a glass material that one can just barely see its contents due to its thickness being so thick, and this cup has a lid that seals the contents so that what ever the cups contents {one litre} yeah one large cup! Can be compressed within the cup to a near sphere that is around 25~30 mm..
Why only a NEAR sphere rather than a perfect one? And whats more if the contents were subjected to sound waves in the process of compression the now solid form that was liquid mirrors the cups inner form only its much smaller..
So what is going on here? why does the liquid now solid form take on more of a cylinder shape rather than a sphere, when sound waves are introduced?
{CUP PLACED IN A SONIC CLEANER}
Moving on lets now release the pressure to the cups contents quickly and observe how the form persists, or seems to have a mind of its own as in keeping its self to it's current form, in fact if the liquid was subjected to compression and sound waves for a longer period, the form would hesitate in returning to liquid even longer..
Another observation would be - How some of the gas used for the compression liquefies and covers the solid form.. To which once the gas was all expelled and the cups lid removed there is always more than one litre of liquid, as it's spilling over is proof of this..
nuff on that, lets move on and now concentrate on what is solid, and what do we mean by it, err~keep the above in mind as I may refer to it later..
Lets begin with a single medium of something that feels like nothing and even today most would refer to it as space, to which this is in fact wrong, as this nothing propagates light via electromagnetic waves, or if one is doing basic physics may still be grappling with simple quantum mechanics, where only part of what light is, is dealt with via the reference to it being a particle wave duality, much like the Electron which is also a wave particle duality...
As I wrote that last statement, your statement and referral to the photon came to mind, so lets now clarify ourselves as to how much of the photon we understand, as in part - The photon is responsible for all densities of mass, well sort of, to which if I was to explain here may take two pages at least..
So how can I do this, with such limited resources..
Damn! A mental block
OK Here is a simple model, where it can more or less be imagined as a photon or an electromagnetic wave, well I hope I achieve to explain my reasoning on the duality, so let me know if either of my reasoning on the dualities are not evident to you..
OK first an electromagnetic wave, as it is propagated through whatever medium is to me a rise and fall of mass, note mass is treated as energy by me or if one likes perhaps one could refer to a body of water propagating sound-waves or compression waves amidst it....
Here's a simple two dimensional model that I will refer to..
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there are no compressed waves experienced.
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there is a compressed wave being experienced.
"..." I am hoping dear reader one can plainly see where a water molecule or cubic grid {pixel} is experiencing a rise in density or Potential, so lets briefly examine this rise, and to do this we need to know what the water molecules dimensions were before and what they are when this extra energy or density is experienced, and once this is done we can refer to the difference as the quantity for a sonic particle, or if we are messing around with Light we refer to this difference as a photon, but mind you here's some critical considerations, the actual dimension of one photon is HUGE! and when one measures a mass propagating light the small rise and fall to mass that is finely pixelated and experiencing the wave each pixels experience by each wave is almost insignificant, ergo photons are implied as near mass-less..
So have I explained the wave particle duality clearly?
if not it would be pointless to continue on as the properties of electromagnetic waves and or the photon is critical when one needs to explain how a given density is to express as a RELATIVE solid, to which my inference to RELATIVITY is also critical..
so until then I will move on to the next post, but first I have chores to attend to..
sorry if some of my post is hard to understand as my grandson is now in my care..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 9 2008, 05:15 PM)
iseason
QUOTE: "IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right."
For the time being I think it is fine to use motion as a common reference as long as energy is concerned.
Essentially we are dealing with energy and complexity, respectively - and where complexity can be referred to as entropy.
Energy is related to "size" - the bigger the size of change and the more rapid the change the bigger amount of energy is in play.
And this implicate that there must be a kind of one-to-one relationship between "size" and amount of energy - and I like to think that the "rate of re-arrangement" is a universal constant.
Any and all physical expressions are being characterized by this "universal beat" - which is the rate by which dimensionality re-arrange - irrespective of its size - its ratio.
Anything physical is into oscillating existence and governed by this universal beat. So any and all physical expressions are being characterized by: how many dimensionality's of a GIVEN SIZE is being involved in this re-arrangement at this given universal beat. So the time is fixed - it is one beat - so it is the size of total dimension being re-arranged that is the factor that define the amount of energy involved. In the case of smaller dimensionality's being involved - there will be no change in energy - but complexion - entropy will be different.
Ergo Maximum velocity is the speed of light, but with relativity considerations, the Local speed of light relative to our local mass is no where near the speed of light beyond our galaxy, which may be faster than we could ever postulate..
This complicates and even confuses the very best of us when it comes to interpreting what our instruments are detecting and presenting to our reasoning..
And the result has and is a reference to dark matter and dark energy, all because of a perceived accelerating expansion of the WHOLE universe, when the facts are that only part of the universe is expanding, ergo every single Black-Hole and its observable component the surrounding stars etc, is experiencing compression, and as I already explained because our mass is experiencing compression our velocities and time is also effected, resulting in local "c" being much slower than the actual maximum velocity where there are minimum opposing velocities beyond our Galaxy..
And with the minimum opposing velocities we are in fact dealing with an area not as dense as our LOCAL NEAR-Vacuum, in fact our near vacuum may be perceived as we perceive mass beyond our local event horizon, where each pixel if they are to be with a value must have a three dimensional expression that may be greater than a million local galaxies and yet the size to us is of an atom..
let me clarify..
Lest say we began with a Black-Hole and then we had a tool to expand it so its heavy mass would present as our local near vacuum and or space does..
Put simply even if we had a mass from a Black-Holes core the size of a pea and then decompressed it, we may in fact only reveal billions and billions of stars, or perhaps even some galaxies!
This may be hard to perceive but this is why relativity always needs to be considered..
For one our observations has our solar system near the outer region of a galaxy, but what if this is not the case and the reason we reason this is we are in fact already beyond some event horizon, and the rest of the galaxy is just beyond it, only for it to become obvious as it may have to breach what our mass already has relative to local velocities where we are situated.. put simply that dark matter may need a lot more compression before our instruments can detect it as mass, as currently its not compressed enough to our local distances..
anyway the point is our galaxy may be compressed to the size of a pea to what it was only a light year ago for all we know, and the mass that's still to be compressed for the time being seems like its a near vacuum with some distant star that are red-shifting while those that are with the same trajectory are blue-shifting as they are just behind us..
But as far as we are concerned and should be concerned is that our distances and time remain relative..
so what has this to do with what is solid? well for anything to be a relative solid actually refers to its opposing velocities matching, the more opposing velocities the greater the Potential releasing the velocities and or presenting the perceived force, which unfortunately means we need to understand what the fark is motion and or momentum, so we therefore need to understand what a velocity is....
My grandson is due to wake up from his mid day nap so I will leave my post at that..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE: "IF ratios exist beyond this, then I am wrong in the previous statement. If not then I am right."
For the time being I think it is fine to use motion as a common reference as long as energy is concerned.
Essentially we are dealing with energy and complexity, respectively - and where complexity can be referred to as entropy.
Energy is related to "size" - the bigger the size of change and the more rapid the change the bigger amount of energy is in play.
And this implicate that there must be a kind of one-to-one relationship between "size" and amount of energy - and I like to think that the "rate of re-arrangement" is a universal constant.
Any and all physical expressions are being characterized by this "universal beat" - which is the rate by which dimensionality re-arrange - irrespective of its size - its ratio.
Anything physical is into oscillating existence and governed by this universal beat. So any and all physical expressions are being characterized by: how many dimensionality's of a GIVEN SIZE is being involved in this re-arrangement at this given universal beat. So the time is fixed - it is one beat - so it is the size of total dimension being re-arranged that is the factor that define the amount of energy involved. In the case of smaller dimensionality's being involved - there will be no change in energy - but complexion - entropy will be different.
Ergo Maximum velocity is the speed of light, but with relativity considerations, the Local speed of light relative to our local mass is no where near the speed of light beyond our galaxy, which may be faster than we could ever postulate..
This complicates and even confuses the very best of us when it comes to interpreting what our instruments are detecting and presenting to our reasoning..
And the result has and is a reference to dark matter and dark energy, all because of a perceived accelerating expansion of the WHOLE universe, when the facts are that only part of the universe is expanding, ergo every single Black-Hole and its observable component the surrounding stars etc, is experiencing compression, and as I already explained because our mass is experiencing compression our velocities and time is also effected, resulting in local "c" being much slower than the actual maximum velocity where there are minimum opposing velocities beyond our Galaxy..
And with the minimum opposing velocities we are in fact dealing with an area not as dense as our LOCAL NEAR-Vacuum, in fact our near vacuum may be perceived as we perceive mass beyond our local event horizon, where each pixel if they are to be with a value must have a three dimensional expression that may be greater than a million local galaxies and yet the size to us is of an atom..
let me clarify..
Lest say we began with a Black-Hole and then we had a tool to expand it so its heavy mass would present as our local near vacuum and or space does..
Put simply even if we had a mass from a Black-Holes core the size of a pea and then decompressed it, we may in fact only reveal billions and billions of stars, or perhaps even some galaxies!
This may be hard to perceive but this is why relativity always needs to be considered..
For one our observations has our solar system near the outer region of a galaxy, but what if this is not the case and the reason we reason this is we are in fact already beyond some event horizon, and the rest of the galaxy is just beyond it, only for it to become obvious as it may have to breach what our mass already has relative to local velocities where we are situated.. put simply that dark matter may need a lot more compression before our instruments can detect it as mass, as currently its not compressed enough to our local distances..
anyway the point is our galaxy may be compressed to the size of a pea to what it was only a light year ago for all we know, and the mass that's still to be compressed for the time being seems like its a near vacuum with some distant star that are red-shifting while those that are with the same trajectory are blue-shifting as they are just behind us..
But as far as we are concerned and should be concerned is that our distances and time remain relative..
so what has this to do with what is solid? well for anything to be a relative solid actually refers to its opposing velocities matching, the more opposing velocities the greater the Potential releasing the velocities and or presenting the perceived force, which unfortunately means we need to understand what the fark is motion and or momentum, so we therefore need to understand what a velocity is....
My grandson is due to wake up from his mid day nap so I will leave my post at that..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hj Laidback
QUOTE: "But as far as we are concerned and should be concerned is that our distances and time remain relative..
so what has this to do with what is solid? well for anything to be a relative solid actually refers to its opposing velocities matching, the more opposing velocities the greater the Potential releasing the velocities and or presenting the perceived force, which unfortunately means we need to understand what the fark is motion and or momentum, so we therefore need to understand what a velocity is...."
I am a bit lost, could you perhaps re-explain in different words -
QUOTE: "But as far as we are concerned and should be concerned is that our distances and time remain relative..
so what has this to do with what is solid? well for anything to be a relative solid actually refers to its opposing velocities matching, the more opposing velocities the greater the Potential releasing the velocities and or presenting the perceived force, which unfortunately means we need to understand what the fark is motion and or momentum, so we therefore need to understand what a velocity is...."
I am a bit lost, could you perhaps re-explain in different words -
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 11 2008, 05:42 AM)
Hj Laidback
QUOTE (laidback+)
But as far as we are concerned and should be concerned is that our distances and time remain relative..
so what has this to do with what is solid? well for anything to be a relative solid actually refers to its opposing velocities matching, the more opposing velocities the greater the Potential releasing the velocities and or presenting the perceived force, which unfortunately means we need to understand what the fark is motion and or momentum, so we therefore need to understand what a velocity is....
I am a bit lost, could you perhaps re-explain in different words -
OK lets refer to a two dimensional model that presents as a solid and unchangeable form, which can be divided into sections or sub-Pixels..
But we can also bunch these sections and or pixels to present various forms and shapes, but the only problem is for the time being we are only messing around with an area of the Universe that to us seems as if its nothing.. mind you though it is mass only its just that its so spread out, so compared to our relative potentials we cant feel its influences..
I also would like to point out all potentials are a force or better expressed as resistance to relative change, so in order that change is possible, a greater potential needs to interact with a given force and or potential..
Some may ask how is this possible? and at this point all I can state is that because all of our potentials basics components are at a stale mate much like when we have a Dam able to contain a huge body of water.. oh sure as water enters the contained body of water what ever velocity goes in may be outputted, but importantly the dam contains a given quanta of water, no matter what velocities enter it that are with less potential than the dam, to which the very same applies to electron flow and photon and or electromagnetic wave propagation..
Anyway here is the utmost basic model.. as to how a potential and motion is possible.. via a given potentials force vs another Potentials force which at its most basic construct is two opposing velocities..
THOUGHT EXPERIEMENT or EXERCISE
Anyway lets say the following symbols are now our two dimensional area which if one wishes can apply a depth to them if they wish..
"------"
The above Potential or 2D model has been divided into 6 2D sub-pixels that present our model as a solid or a given potential of 6, put simply there are no other forms for it to interact with it.. so all of its internal references remain a stale mate. as it should be noted each sub-pixel is a potential {opposing velocities} but because they are all alike no change or momentum is possible, ergo at this point they are with no change so they are with no change ergo solid..
"----"
And with the above we have much the same only there are 4 2D sub-pixels or potentials..
At this point they are also at a stale mate.. but we must note that a stale mate as I have just implied is impractical, to which I can not as yet point out why until one understands how a potential or a relative solid is possible and more importantly how motion from these potentials and or solids is realized, of course if you have experienced a forced deja vu by my behalf by re-reading my statements, I am hoping the following models seed some basic understanding as to how I imagine motion and force or kinetic and potential energy is at all possible..
"-----=---" And here is what would result when two unlike potentials are presented to each other, we should note what was once considered a solid is still solid, but what we have in its midst is something that is even more rigid, well in a sense its not more rigid, but it will need another set of opposing velocities much like it only greater, if it is to be with some momentum to the left or right, what we have here is a relative solid in the midst of a relatively high kinetic medium to it, and if we now dispose the rest of the model and source more of the green modelled potentials {our new compression point with double the potential} and then repeated the exercise by reading the whole paragraph from the heading..
THOUGHT EXPERIEMENT or EXERCISE a few times..
RELATIVITYI am now hoping that you have much the same notion of motion as one should, if you understand the basics we can now move on and refer to two unlike potentials such as one galaxy what with its various densities Vs the rest of the Universes and it various densities, but now with the many relative and semi relative potentials in mind.. to which I am hoping you also understand how compression or an increase in potential at the expense of velocities and or momentum changes how fast changes are possible..
Now if that was not clear by the above then let me know.. to which will have me express~
YIKES!
A rather relatively LARGE post to this one may be called for ~ for that! < >..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
so what has this to do with what is solid? well for anything to be a relative solid actually refers to its opposing velocities matching, the more opposing velocities the greater the Potential releasing the velocities and or presenting the perceived force, which unfortunately means we need to understand what the fark is motion and or momentum, so we therefore need to understand what a velocity is....
I am a bit lost, could you perhaps re-explain in different words -
OK lets refer to a two dimensional model that presents as a solid and unchangeable form, which can be divided into sections or sub-Pixels..
But we can also bunch these sections and or pixels to present various forms and shapes, but the only problem is for the time being we are only messing around with an area of the Universe that to us seems as if its nothing.. mind you though it is mass only its just that its so spread out, so compared to our relative potentials we cant feel its influences..
I also would like to point out all potentials are a force or better expressed as resistance to relative change, so in order that change is possible, a greater potential needs to interact with a given force and or potential..
Some may ask how is this possible? and at this point all I can state is that because all of our potentials basics components are at a stale mate much like when we have a Dam able to contain a huge body of water.. oh sure as water enters the contained body of water what ever velocity goes in may be outputted, but importantly the dam contains a given quanta of water, no matter what velocities enter it that are with less potential than the dam, to which the very same applies to electron flow and photon and or electromagnetic wave propagation..
Anyway here is the utmost basic model.. as to how a potential and motion is possible.. via a given potentials force vs another Potentials force which at its most basic construct is two opposing velocities..
THOUGHT EXPERIEMENT or EXERCISE
Anyway lets say the following symbols are now our two dimensional area which if one wishes can apply a depth to them if they wish..
"------"
The above Potential or 2D model has been divided into 6 2D sub-pixels that present our model as a solid or a given potential of 6, put simply there are no other forms for it to interact with it.. so all of its internal references remain a stale mate. as it should be noted each sub-pixel is a potential {opposing velocities} but because they are all alike no change or momentum is possible, ergo at this point they are with no change so they are with no change ergo solid..
"----"
And with the above we have much the same only there are 4 2D sub-pixels or potentials..
At this point they are also at a stale mate.. but we must note that a stale mate as I have just implied is impractical, to which I can not as yet point out why until one understands how a potential or a relative solid is possible and more importantly how motion from these potentials and or solids is realized, of course if you have experienced a forced deja vu by my behalf by re-reading my statements, I am hoping the following models seed some basic understanding as to how I imagine motion and force or kinetic and potential energy is at all possible..
"-----=---" And here is what would result when two unlike potentials are presented to each other, we should note what was once considered a solid is still solid, but what we have in its midst is something that is even more rigid, well in a sense its not more rigid, but it will need another set of opposing velocities much like it only greater, if it is to be with some momentum to the left or right, what we have here is a relative solid in the midst of a relatively high kinetic medium to it, and if we now dispose the rest of the model and source more of the green modelled potentials {our new compression point with double the potential} and then repeated the exercise by reading the whole paragraph from the heading..
THOUGHT EXPERIEMENT or EXERCISE a few times..
RELATIVITYI am now hoping that you have much the same notion of motion as one should, if you understand the basics we can now move on and refer to two unlike potentials such as one galaxy what with its various densities Vs the rest of the Universes and it various densities, but now with the many relative and semi relative potentials in mind.. to which I am hoping you also understand how compression or an increase in potential at the expense of velocities and or momentum changes how fast changes are possible..
Now if that was not clear by the above then let me know.. to which will have me express~
YIKES!
A rather relatively LARGE post to this one may be called for ~ for that! <
>..cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hej Laidback
QUOTE: "but the only problem is for the time being we are only messing around with an area of the Universe that to us seems as if its nothing.. mind you though it is mass only its just that its so spread out, so compared to our relative potentials we cant feel its influences.."
I think you are posing the right question and giving the wrong answer.
Space can best be described as this 3D pixel grid - comprising of the pixels shoulder by shoulder neatly arranged in an ideal grid - implicating that space is an immensely dense and nealy immobile crystalline like structure - no motion - exept for the individual pixels with the capability of signaling their on-signals. And this on-signaling is being gowerned by the principle of least void - meaning that each pixel is exhibiting a mild vacuum - fluctuating around in the grid - and this vacuum within the individual pixels are the initiating factor for signaling. One can also see it is breaches of void tearing the fabric so as to initiate the domino-like re-arranging of the pixels.
This means that thre are no major differences in the fabric - just this small vacuum fluctuation - and is is about how this vacuum fluctuation gets all the pixels to play their re-arranging patterns.
Now ! -- All and any physical expression in our physical universe is solely about how the pixel PATTERN plays - the fabric of space is ALMOST the same all the time - only very little fluctuation in vacuum - and hence in pixel volume - very vey subtle fluctuations that get the entire space fabric play its patterns - and such patterns are seen as spherical wave-patterns propagating out from where a pixel starts its re-arranging domino-effect outwards. All such out-going waves will enetr into interference patterns with all other like waves coming from all around - and such wave-patterns will enter in a variety of standing stable repetitive circular waves with varying frequencies - depending on how bended their trajectories are.
The solidness of the physical expression we percept or measure is solely depending on the pattern of all thees playing trajectories - and thus depending on the "density" of pixels playing these patterns.
The fabric of space will have EXACTLY the same "density" all over - but we measure very different physical densities - because density or mass in our physical scale is solely a reflection of how many pixels per area of space that is involved in the physical expression - and how the pixels play the patterns. The more pixels involved per area space and the more the expression is in -situ relative to the 3D grid the higher the mass at said location.
Augh - it is perhaps not the most elegant way I succeded to explain it - but it is very very simple.
QUOTE: "but the only problem is for the time being we are only messing around with an area of the Universe that to us seems as if its nothing.. mind you though it is mass only its just that its so spread out, so compared to our relative potentials we cant feel its influences.."
I think you are posing the right question and giving the wrong answer.
Space can best be described as this 3D pixel grid - comprising of the pixels shoulder by shoulder neatly arranged in an ideal grid - implicating that space is an immensely dense and nealy immobile crystalline like structure - no motion - exept for the individual pixels with the capability of signaling their on-signals. And this on-signaling is being gowerned by the principle of least void - meaning that each pixel is exhibiting a mild vacuum - fluctuating around in the grid - and this vacuum within the individual pixels are the initiating factor for signaling. One can also see it is breaches of void tearing the fabric so as to initiate the domino-like re-arranging of the pixels.
This means that thre are no major differences in the fabric - just this small vacuum fluctuation - and is is about how this vacuum fluctuation gets all the pixels to play their re-arranging patterns.
Now ! -- All and any physical expression in our physical universe is solely about how the pixel PATTERN plays - the fabric of space is ALMOST the same all the time - only very little fluctuation in vacuum - and hence in pixel volume - very vey subtle fluctuations that get the entire space fabric play its patterns - and such patterns are seen as spherical wave-patterns propagating out from where a pixel starts its re-arranging domino-effect outwards. All such out-going waves will enetr into interference patterns with all other like waves coming from all around - and such wave-patterns will enter in a variety of standing stable repetitive circular waves with varying frequencies - depending on how bended their trajectories are.
The solidness of the physical expression we percept or measure is solely depending on the pattern of all thees playing trajectories - and thus depending on the "density" of pixels playing these patterns.
The fabric of space will have EXACTLY the same "density" all over - but we measure very different physical densities - because density or mass in our physical scale is solely a reflection of how many pixels per area of space that is involved in the physical expression - and how the pixels play the patterns. The more pixels involved per area space and the more the expression is in -situ relative to the 3D grid the higher the mass at said location.
Augh - it is perhaps not the most elegant way I succeded to explain it - but it is very very simple.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 12 2008, 02:36 AM)
Hej Laidback
Space can best be described as this 3D pixel grid - comprising of the pixels shoulder by shoulder neatly arranged in an ideal grid - implicating that space is an immensely dense and nealy immobile crystalline like structure - no motion - except for the individual pixels with the capability of signaling their on-signals.
Whoa~whoa there!
let me digest this..
OK what do you mean by nealy or do you mean nearly? err I am assuming you meant nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?
what The!?
OK so maybe your reasoning as to what is motion and or momentum may be somewhat different to my reasoning as to be honest I have pegged motion to imply change..
so maybe I should use another definition for "velocity", "motion" and or "momentum"
But I could swear, my concept with regards to motion is in line with mainstream..
My Dawg what I have I done to all those kids now walking around with my concepts of motion in mind!
Another huge concern is - How and what constitutes a signal? is there change with regards to a signal?
What state is on and what state is off? as in what defines one state from the other?
Do any dimensions change, and if so what dimensions change? seeing change or motion is in fact possible..
If dimensions don't change then what changes and how is this possible with out the implied non allowable change or motion?
OK what do you mean by nealy or do you mean nearly? err I am assuming you meant nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?
what The!?
OK so maybe your reasoning as to what is motion and or momentum may be somewhat different to my reasoning as to be honest I have pegged motion to imply change..
so maybe I should use another definition for "velocity", "motion" and or "momentum"
But I could swear, my concept with regards to motion is in line with mainstream..
My Dawg what I have I done to all those kids now walking around with my concepts of motion in mind!
Another huge concern is - How and what constitutes a signal? is there change with regards to a signal?
What state is on and what state is off? as in what defines one state from the other?
Do any dimensions change, and if so what dimensions change? seeing change or motion is in fact possible..
If dimensions don't change then what changes and how is this possible with out the implied non allowable change or motion? One can also see it is breaches of void tearing the fabric so as to initiate the domino-like re-arranging of the pixels.
Space can best be described as this 3D pixel grid - comprising of the pixels shoulder by shoulder neatly arranged in an ideal grid - implicating that space is an immensely dense and nealy immobile crystalline like structure - no motion - except for the individual pixels with the capability of signaling their on-signals.
Whoa~whoa there!
let me digest this..
QUOTE
Space can best be described as this 3D pixel grid - comprising of the pixels shoulder by shoulder neatly arranged in an ideal grid - implicating that space is an immensely dense and nealy immobile crystalline like structure - no motion
OK what do you mean by nealy or do you mean nearly? err I am assuming you meant nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?
what The!?
OK so maybe your reasoning as to what is motion and or momentum may be somewhat different to my reasoning as to be honest I have pegged motion to imply change..
so maybe I should use another definition for "velocity", "motion" and or "momentum"
But I could swear, my concept with regards to motion is in line with mainstream..
My Dawg what I have I done to all those kids now walking around with my concepts of motion in mind!
Another huge concern is - How and what constitutes a signal? is there change with regards to a signal?
What state is on and what state is off? as in what defines one state from the other?
Do any dimensions change, and if so what dimensions change? seeing change or motion is in fact possible..
If dimensions don't change then what changes and how is this possible with out the implied non allowable change or motion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Space can best be described as this 3D pixel grid - comprising of the pixels shoulder by shoulder neatly arranged in an ideal grid - implicating that space is an immensely dense and nealy immobile crystalline like structure - no motion |
OK what do you mean by nealy or do you mean nearly? err I am assuming you meant nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?
what The!?
OK so maybe your reasoning as to what is motion and or momentum may be somewhat different to my reasoning as to be honest I have pegged motion to imply change..
so maybe I should use another definition for "velocity", "motion" and or "momentum"
But I could swear, my concept with regards to motion is in line with mainstream..
My Dawg what I have I done to all those kids now walking around with my concepts of motion in mind!
Another huge concern is - How and what constitutes a signal? is there change with regards to a signal?
What state is on and what state is off? as in what defines one state from the other?
Do any dimensions change, and if so what dimensions change? seeing change or motion is in fact possible..
If dimensions don't change then what changes and how is this possible with out the implied non allowable change or motion? One can also see it is breaches of void tearing the fabric so as to initiate the domino-like re-arranging of the pixels.
WAIT!
How is this possible? is change or motion allowed or not? Is the Pixel rigid and shoulder to shoulder - And remaining shoulder to shoulder in a rigid fashion or not? or are a pixels dimensions capable of change? ergo signals can be signalled
So how can anyone imply nothing moves? Put simply I could have just made myself clearer and expressed everything remained rigid, rather than expressing nothing is with motion..
How is this possible? is change or motion allowed or not? Is the Pixel rigid and shoulder to shoulder - And remaining shoulder to shoulder in a rigid fashion or not? or are a pixels dimensions capable of change? ergo signals can be signalled
QUOTE
And this on-signaling is being governed by the principle of least void - meaning that each pixel is exhibiting a mild vacuum - fluctuating around in the grid - and this vacuum within the individual pixels are the initiating factor for signaling.
So how is it possible that no-thing or a void, which can fluctuate to something that is able to move about? I mean if I was to refer to nothing - Then that's exactly what I refer to - nothing! So how can anyone imply nothing moves? Put simply I could have just made myself clearer and expressed everything remained rigid, rather than expressing nothing is with motion..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And this on-signaling is being governed by the principle of least void - meaning that each pixel is exhibiting a mild vacuum - fluctuating around in the grid - and this vacuum within the individual pixels are the initiating factor for signaling. |
So how is it possible that no-thing or a void, which can fluctuate to something that is able to move about? I mean if I was to refer to nothing - Then that's exactly what I refer to - nothing!
So how can anyone imply nothing moves? Put simply I could have just made myself clearer and expressed everything remained rigid, rather than expressing nothing is with motion..This means that there are no major differences in the fabric - just this small vacuum fluctuation
So how can anyone imply nothing moves? Put simply I could have just made myself clearer and expressed everything remained rigid, rather than expressing nothing is with motion..This means that there are no major differences in the fabric - just this small vacuum fluctuation
But how can nothing or a void magically become something? or fluctuate from nothing to something?
That's simply impossible!
Have you considered to model the pixel via mathematical expressions and or truth expressions?
That's simply impossible!
Have you considered to model the pixel via mathematical expressions and or truth expressions?
QUOTE
- and is is about how this vacuum fluctuation gets all the pixels to play their re-arranging patterns.
The model you refer to now is grossly flawed, unless that void or vacuum indeed has some density to it and its density can change as in increase or decrease, but never EVER decrease so much to become a pure void, nor to the other extreme so dense it is totally solid for that fact!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| - and is is about how this vacuum fluctuation gets all the pixels to play their re-arranging patterns. |
The model you refer to now is grossly flawed, unless that void or vacuum indeed has some density to it and its density can change as in increase or decrease, but never EVER decrease so much to become a pure void, nor to the other extreme so dense it is totally solid for that fact!The fabric of space will have EXACTLY the same "density" all over - but we measure very different physical densities - because density or mass in our physical scale is solely a reflection of how many pixels per area of space that is involved in the physical expression - and how the pixels play the patterns. The more pixels involved per area space and the more the expression is in -situ relative to the 3D grid the higher the mass at said location.
There we go!
A rather round about explanation to an increase in density or compression..
As in, the more pixels we have compressed in comparison to an uncompressed pixel the more those pixels would have to be compressed! OR MORE SOLID!
Example if we had one pixel that expressed one cubic meter and then compared it to a billion pixels that expressed also one cubic meter, which do you think would be the ones that are compressed or expressing a solid density?
ergo the billion pixels express or present as a solid mass, while the one pixel presents as a near void and or with very little density to it such as a near void or very little pixelation, but if we get one billion of these near voids and re-arrange them exactly as the other billion pixels are structured we end up with a matching set!
I have removed the rest of your post, signal Err~ Pixels, as the above I feel needs much more clarification..
But first - What is motion and how is it possible by your reasoning with respects to your pixels functions?
what is force and how is it possible with respects to your pixels and also their expressions for force?
How is force detected?
What is and what constitutes as the Pixels signal and how is it possible?
What evidence, tests or experiments can we do to obtain tangible dimensions for your pixels and more importantly to what they express?
How is the various and relative densities expressed by your pixels if they are all the same as each other as per your above statement?
How is theoretical charge or electromotive forces expressed and or explained with respects to one or more of your pixels?
How does gravity get expressed?
How does relativity get expressed?
There are many more considerations, but I don't want to discourage what seems the basis for a good model..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
A rather round about explanation to an increase in density or compression..
As in, the more pixels we have compressed in comparison to an uncompressed pixel the more those pixels would have to be compressed! OR MORE SOLID!
Example if we had one pixel that expressed one cubic meter and then compared it to a billion pixels that expressed also one cubic meter, which do you think would be the ones that are compressed or expressing a solid density?
ergo the billion pixels express or present as a solid mass, while the one pixel presents as a near void and or with very little density to it such as a near void or very little pixelation, but if we get one billion of these near voids and re-arrange them exactly as the other billion pixels are structured we end up with a matching set!
I have removed the rest of your post, signal Err~ Pixels, as the above I feel needs much more clarification..
But first - What is motion and how is it possible by your reasoning with respects to your pixels functions?
what is force and how is it possible with respects to your pixels and also their expressions for force?
How is force detected?
What is and what constitutes as the Pixels signal and how is it possible?
What evidence, tests or experiments can we do to obtain tangible dimensions for your pixels and more importantly to what they express?
How is the various and relative densities expressed by your pixels if they are all the same as each other as per your above statement?
How is theoretical charge or electromotive forces expressed and or explained with respects to one or more of your pixels?
How does gravity get expressed?
How does relativity get expressed?
There are many more considerations, but I don't want to discourage what seems the basis for a good model..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
hej Laidback
Please do not get worried - actually we are speaking nearly the same language -
And YES - I mean " nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?"
Imagine that the Pixels are being arranged in space "shoulder by shoulder" in a nearly ideal fit so as to fill out space completely. But the fit is NOT ideal - there is a little free void - popularly speaking. The pixels have not as yet been ideally arranged - so there is room for an ongoing re-arrangement in order to get a better and better overall fit - or perhaps better to say that the misfit can be more evenly spread all over the space - such that in the end any and every pixel show exactly the same small misfit.
And now - how can we best express the misfit. It represent popularly the extra room of space that is not being filled out - but it is no good idea to use the concept of free void as something that can exist - it is more like a mind invention - one way of saying that space is not completely filled out. So better translate the missing space-filling into a mild vacuum - and please please - of course not anything like true void - just a LITTLE extra space within the pixel-structure - which the individual pixels compensate for - or "fills out" by increasing compensatorily their volume just a little - and this means that they establish a little underpressure RELATIVE to pixels in areas with a better fit.
Now we have just a little little vacuum gradient - differing from pixel to pixel - according to their fit at said location in space we are looking at - and these small and differing vacuum gradients in individual pixels are the initiating factor for having the individual pixels to re-arrange themselves - so as to form a new entity of pixels that belong together - that together form a new cluster. Such an re-arranged cluster of pixels may be arranged exactly in such a way that they share exactly the same vacuum, and it is this common vacuum in all the pixels in that cluster - or one can say that "particle" - that define said particle.
So YES - essentially we are dealing with true motion - the motion being defined as the small changes in volume of pixels as they re-arrange - and the good thing is that it is nearly unimaginable small changes that can re-arrange an awfull lot of pixels - the grid is NEARLY balanced - but the dynamic imbalance due to this tiny tiny tiny vacuum fluctuations is enough to arrange and re-arrange a vast amount of pixels - a very very delicate and very very precise mean of playing a huge number of pixels that are NEARLY - Yes so nearly that you cannot even imagine how nearly - but just not in complete balance. This smallest and seemingly nearly insignificant vacuum fluctution can play the whole univere in oscillating re-arrangements.
And be carefull - when it comes to physical world it is a totally different ballgame - now pixel "density" or pixel "volume" has nothing to do with physical matter density. Physical matter is solely defined out from the playing patterns of re-arranging pixels - how the wave-like domino-like adjustment of belonging to this or that cluster of pixels is being propagated relative to the pixel grid. Massive (fermionic) expressions are characterized by repeating circular wave-patterns and the more pixels that are playing such wave-patters per areaunit of the grid the more physical density - the more physical solidness is being present at that specific area in space.
1) What is and what constitutes as the Pixels signal and how is it possible?
relative vacuum in said pixel
2) What evidence, tests or experiments can we do to obtain tangible dimensions for your pixels and more importantly to what they express?
probably via studies like DSE - BEC - Hall effect and a like
3) How is the various and relative densities expressed by your pixels if they are all the same as each other as per your above statement?
densities in physical world - our universe - human scale defined by our perceptive physical senses - densities in this scale - what we normally refer to as matter density or matter solidness - is being expressed via the pixel playing patterns - and have nothing to do with pixels density / volume / relative internal pixel vacuum.
4) How is theoretical charge or electromotive forces expressed and or explained with respects to one or more of your pixels?
as yet have no clue - but any and all physical qualities must be related to pixel-playing-pattern
5) How does gravity get expressed?
pixels are expressing or playing out-going spherical waves and such waves are being bend into more or less circular standing wave-patters so as to express particles. And overall from outside alike more or less bended trajectories of waves are flowing towards any place that is being measured. Casimir effect is being due to the abscence of the full amount of out-going waves because space has been restricted, while the full amount of out-from coming waves is into effect.
So whenever two particles gets closer the out-from coming forces exceeds the in-between -particle propulsing forces. The bigger the particles and the nearer they get the stronger the out-side coming forces will be relatively to propulsing forces, and this is gravity.
6) How does relativity get expressed?
It should be obvious that everything is being observed or measured relative to its frame of observation - and that the 3D Pixel grid is the observational frame for physical matter expressions. But I am unsure that I get the point in the question -
Please do not get worried - actually we are speaking nearly the same language -
And YES - I mean " nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?"
Imagine that the Pixels are being arranged in space "shoulder by shoulder" in a nearly ideal fit so as to fill out space completely. But the fit is NOT ideal - there is a little free void - popularly speaking. The pixels have not as yet been ideally arranged - so there is room for an ongoing re-arrangement in order to get a better and better overall fit - or perhaps better to say that the misfit can be more evenly spread all over the space - such that in the end any and every pixel show exactly the same small misfit.
And now - how can we best express the misfit. It represent popularly the extra room of space that is not being filled out - but it is no good idea to use the concept of free void as something that can exist - it is more like a mind invention - one way of saying that space is not completely filled out. So better translate the missing space-filling into a mild vacuum - and please please - of course not anything like true void - just a LITTLE extra space within the pixel-structure - which the individual pixels compensate for - or "fills out" by increasing compensatorily their volume just a little - and this means that they establish a little underpressure RELATIVE to pixels in areas with a better fit.
Now we have just a little little vacuum gradient - differing from pixel to pixel - according to their fit at said location in space we are looking at - and these small and differing vacuum gradients in individual pixels are the initiating factor for having the individual pixels to re-arrange themselves - so as to form a new entity of pixels that belong together - that together form a new cluster. Such an re-arranged cluster of pixels may be arranged exactly in such a way that they share exactly the same vacuum, and it is this common vacuum in all the pixels in that cluster - or one can say that "particle" - that define said particle.
So YES - essentially we are dealing with true motion - the motion being defined as the small changes in volume of pixels as they re-arrange - and the good thing is that it is nearly unimaginable small changes that can re-arrange an awfull lot of pixels - the grid is NEARLY balanced - but the dynamic imbalance due to this tiny tiny tiny vacuum fluctuations is enough to arrange and re-arrange a vast amount of pixels - a very very delicate and very very precise mean of playing a huge number of pixels that are NEARLY - Yes so nearly that you cannot even imagine how nearly - but just not in complete balance. This smallest and seemingly nearly insignificant vacuum fluctution can play the whole univere in oscillating re-arrangements.
And be carefull - when it comes to physical world it is a totally different ballgame - now pixel "density" or pixel "volume" has nothing to do with physical matter density. Physical matter is solely defined out from the playing patterns of re-arranging pixels - how the wave-like domino-like adjustment of belonging to this or that cluster of pixels is being propagated relative to the pixel grid. Massive (fermionic) expressions are characterized by repeating circular wave-patterns and the more pixels that are playing such wave-patters per areaunit of the grid the more physical density - the more physical solidness is being present at that specific area in space.
1) What is and what constitutes as the Pixels signal and how is it possible?
relative vacuum in said pixel
2) What evidence, tests or experiments can we do to obtain tangible dimensions for your pixels and more importantly to what they express?
probably via studies like DSE - BEC - Hall effect and a like
3) How is the various and relative densities expressed by your pixels if they are all the same as each other as per your above statement?
densities in physical world - our universe - human scale defined by our perceptive physical senses - densities in this scale - what we normally refer to as matter density or matter solidness - is being expressed via the pixel playing patterns - and have nothing to do with pixels density / volume / relative internal pixel vacuum.
4) How is theoretical charge or electromotive forces expressed and or explained with respects to one or more of your pixels?
as yet have no clue - but any and all physical qualities must be related to pixel-playing-pattern
5) How does gravity get expressed?
pixels are expressing or playing out-going spherical waves and such waves are being bend into more or less circular standing wave-patters so as to express particles. And overall from outside alike more or less bended trajectories of waves are flowing towards any place that is being measured. Casimir effect is being due to the abscence of the full amount of out-going waves because space has been restricted, while the full amount of out-from coming waves is into effect.
So whenever two particles gets closer the out-from coming forces exceeds the in-between -particle propulsing forces. The bigger the particles and the nearer they get the stronger the out-side coming forces will be relatively to propulsing forces, and this is gravity.
6) How does relativity get expressed?
It should be obvious that everything is being observed or measured relative to its frame of observation - and that the 3D Pixel grid is the observational frame for physical matter expressions. But I am unsure that I get the point in the question -
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 13 2008, 01:14 AM)
hej Laidback
Please do not get worried - actually we are speaking nearly the same language -
And YES - I mean " nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?"
Imagine that the Pixels are being arranged in space "shoulder by shoulder" in a nearly ideal fit so as to fill out space completely. But the fit is NOT ideal - there is a little free void - popularly speaking.
1) What is and what constitutes as the Pixels signal and how is it possible?
relative vacuum in said pixel
Your model will not quite work, mind you it is close, very close to a good working model..
Here's some considerations,
One of the Rules to physics "TRUTH STATEMENTS" has all of the Universe as something and its reciprocal is zero or nothing, or simply by definition something opposed to nothing.
This Rule applies to Force and Motion..
simply by the following logic..
To have motion we need a reference to something being one moment at one reference and with change at another reference..
And for something to experience Force {opposition} we need motion, as without motion a force simply can not present an experience..
If it were possible to measure a given Potentials force from every direction the measurement should be expressed the same no matter from what direction..
This suggests all Potentials are a force, and importantly a force can only ever be repulsive..
Why? well consider how the inertia for repulsion is to work,
And then consider how the inertia for attraction is to work.
And lets model them with whatever momentum is to be realized in mind..
but in doing this exercise lets be mindful how our momentum is possible?
put simply you cant be with momentum simply by will alone, so we need to consider what pushes what..
As one of the implied observations {attraction or repulsion} is actually based on a more complex model of the other observation {repulsion}..
Can you guess which inference is then actually a perception based on a more complex model of the other ergo it is not really an inference to basic force or resistance but rather an inference to two or more of the same basic models structure or concept?
First lets consider what is a vacuum or attraction, and then consider how such inertia is to be realized and then consider what is meant by void, vacuum or near void or near vacuum?..
To be Blunt, attraction is not a force but rather the reference to a more complex model of what repulsion is capable of.. ergo Gravity is NOT some magical force, but in fact the result of other concerns...
So here we have a Universe where no matter where - We have a potential or repulsive force, and here's the thing, if a void or vacuum some how exists but for the briefest moment, the closest potential or repulsive force will simply spread out into the void and or weak potential, and in doing so the greater Potentials energy will decrease by the quantity of potential that is converted to kinetic energy that is to take over said void and or vacuum, but mind you the void and or vacuum will be over run from ALL directions or at least by whatever greater repulsion and or potential is available!..
Moving on..
"DSE" or "The Double Slit Experiment" mainly points out the wave-particle duality, to which it has given us a solid theory in implying all of the Universe is with a given density appropriated via all previous experiment's and tests leading to the double slit experiment..
"BEC"? Please elaborate on this..
"Hall Effect" Which sensor would you use?
http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Categories/Sensors/
"DSE" or "The Double Slit Experiment" mainly points out the wave-particle duality, to which it has given us a solid theory in implying all of the Universe is with a given density appropriated via all previous experiment's and tests leading to the double slit experiment..
"BEC"? Please elaborate on this..
"Hall Effect" Which sensor would you use?
http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Categories/Sensors/
3) How is the various and relative densities expressed by your pixels if they are all the same as each other as per your previous statement?
densities in physical world - our universe - human scale defined by our perceptive physical senses - densities in this scale - what we normally refer to as matter density or matter solidness - is being expressed via the pixel playing patterns - and have nothing to do with pixels density / volume / relative internal pixel vacuum.
Please do not get worried - actually we are speaking nearly the same language -
And YES - I mean " nearly immobile crystalline structure, to which to me in fact implies to almost no motion?"
Imagine that the Pixels are being arranged in space "shoulder by shoulder" in a nearly ideal fit so as to fill out space completely. But the fit is NOT ideal - there is a little free void - popularly speaking.
1) What is and what constitutes as the Pixels signal and how is it possible?
relative vacuum in said pixel
Your model will not quite work, mind you it is close, very close to a good working model..
Here's some considerations,
One of the Rules to physics "TRUTH STATEMENTS" has all of the Universe as something and its reciprocal is zero or nothing, or simply by definition something opposed to nothing.
This Rule applies to Force and Motion..
simply by the following logic..
To have motion we need a reference to something being one moment at one reference and with change at another reference..
And for something to experience Force {opposition} we need motion, as without motion a force simply can not present an experience..
If it were possible to measure a given Potentials force from every direction the measurement should be expressed the same no matter from what direction..
This suggests all Potentials are a force, and importantly a force can only ever be repulsive..
Why? well consider how the inertia for repulsion is to work,
And then consider how the inertia for attraction is to work.
And lets model them with whatever momentum is to be realized in mind..
but in doing this exercise lets be mindful how our momentum is possible?
put simply you cant be with momentum simply by will alone, so we need to consider what pushes what..
As one of the implied observations {attraction or repulsion} is actually based on a more complex model of the other observation {repulsion}..
Can you guess which inference is then actually a perception based on a more complex model of the other ergo it is not really an inference to basic force or resistance but rather an inference to two or more of the same basic models structure or concept?
First lets consider what is a vacuum or attraction, and then consider how such inertia is to be realized and then consider what is meant by void, vacuum or near void or near vacuum?..
To be Blunt, attraction is not a force but rather the reference to a more complex model of what repulsion is capable of.. ergo Gravity is NOT some magical force, but in fact the result of other concerns...
So here we have a Universe where no matter where - We have a potential or repulsive force, and here's the thing, if a void or vacuum some how exists but for the briefest moment, the closest potential or repulsive force will simply spread out into the void and or weak potential, and in doing so the greater Potentials energy will decrease by the quantity of potential that is converted to kinetic energy that is to take over said void and or vacuum, but mind you the void and or vacuum will be over run from ALL directions or at least by whatever greater repulsion and or potential is available!..
Moving on..
QUOTE
2) What evidence, tests or experiments can we do to obtain tangible dimensions for your pixels and more importantly to what they express?
Probably via studies like DSE - BEC - Hall effect and a like
Probably via studies like DSE - BEC - Hall effect and a like
"DSE" or "The Double Slit Experiment" mainly points out the wave-particle duality, to which it has given us a solid theory in implying all of the Universe is with a given density appropriated via all previous experiment's and tests leading to the double slit experiment..
"BEC"? Please elaborate on this..
"Hall Effect" Which sensor would you use?
http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Categories/Sensors/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) What evidence, tests or experiments can we do to obtain tangible dimensions for your pixels and more importantly to what they express? Probably via studies like DSE - BEC - Hall effect and a like |
"DSE" or "The Double Slit Experiment" mainly points out the wave-particle duality, to which it has given us a solid theory in implying all of the Universe is with a given density appropriated via all previous experiment's and tests leading to the double slit experiment..
"BEC"? Please elaborate on this..
"Hall Effect" Which sensor would you use?
http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Categories/Sensors/
3) How is the various and relative densities expressed by your pixels if they are all the same as each other as per your previous statement?
densities in physical world - our universe - human scale defined by our perceptive physical senses - densities in this scale - what we normally refer to as matter density or matter solidness - is being expressed via the pixel playing patterns - and have nothing to do with pixels density / volume / relative internal pixel vacuum.
To me it seems your Pixel is simply a theoretical over lay or a theoretical 3D grid super imposed throughout the Universe or as much as one cares to super impose as reference points, so that on change the pixels and or the 3D grid changes with it..
One could say each Pixel or cube always remains withs its respective neighboring Pixels and or 3D grids dimensions, and each cube, or pixel therefore is an open system to its neighboring systems inputs and outputs..
One could say each Pixel or cube always remains withs its respective neighboring Pixels and or 3D grids dimensions, and each cube, or pixel therefore is an open system to its neighboring systems inputs and outputs..
QUOTE
4) How is theoretical charge or electromotive forces expressed and or explained with respects to one or more of your pixels?
as yet have no clue - but any and all physical qualities must be related to pixel-playing-pattern
May I suggest you consider researching basic and advanced Electronics, simply because both basic and advanced electronics deals with everything, but in advanced Electronics we mainly deal with much more details, far beyond subjects that only deal with Quantum Mechanics and QED etc.. as yet have no clue - but any and all physical qualities must be related to pixel-playing-pattern
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) How is theoretical charge or electromotive forces expressed and or explained with respects to one or more of your pixels? as yet have no clue - but any and all physical qualities must be related to pixel-playing-pattern |
May I suggest you consider researching basic and advanced Electronics, simply because both basic and advanced electronics deals with everything, but in advanced Electronics we mainly deal with much more details, far beyond subjects that only deal with Quantum Mechanics and QED etc..
5) How does gravity get expressed?
pixels are expressing or playing out-going spherical waves and such waves are being bend into more or less circular standing wave-patters so as to express particles. And overall from outside alike more or less bended trajectories of waves are flowing towards any place that is being measured. Casimir effect is being due to the absence of the full amount of out-going waves because space has been restricted, while the full amount of out-from coming waves is into effect.
So whenever two particles gets closer the out-from coming forces exceeds the in-between -particle repulsing forces. The bigger the particles and the nearer they get the stronger the out-side coming forces will be relatively to repulsing forces, and this is gravity.
I am sorry but, instead of clarifying Gravity, you have overlooked Occam's razor..
the simplest explanation is more than likely the one and only explanation we should refer to..
Ergo Gravity to me is best explained via opposing inertia and or velocities..
Compression ergo density increases, and as we all should know the speed of light is slower if it is propagated via a solid medium compared to a near vacuum..
The theoretical 3D pixel structure helped me imagine how and why this was so and importantly it pointed out if a near vacuum pixel and or a 3D grid was with a faster reaction than a solid one due to its opposing momentum has been cancelled out - So the solid pixel would in fact be compressed and may even be pushed towards a region where there are other slower or cancelled out velocities, to which so happens would be a mess of even more opposing velocities such as
A/. A Black-Hole.
B/. A Star
C/. A Planet
D., Or Another potential much the same as it that is with much the same cancelled out opposing velocities..
Here's a quick and dirty model
where colour defines speed or velocity
Orange is our fastest (velocity) or (momentum) as in maximum kinetic energy, that's a practical potential with momentum to it..
Red is our medium (velocity) or (momentum)
Blue is our slowest (momentum) or (Velocity) - ergo it is maximum Potential energy for a theoretical grid, or that's a practical solid pixel created via opposing velocities have been cancelled out within it.
This model is a basic two direction model to point out how two potentials end up being percieved as if they attract one another, when the facts are if one considers which velocities are faster the result is percieved gravitational inertia..
><>><<><
The reason why slower velocities exist in between the two potentails is for the fact that velocitis cancel each other out..
And here is a two 2D pixel model of the above momentums implying how attraction or gravity is percieved or even why a void simply is impossible anywhere, as to have change or a velocity we must have a potential or something being shifted around, but to do this shifting we cant have it ever being nothing expressing something, as that is a contradiction rather than a truth satement..
so each and every velocity is a potential in fact..
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
So as good as your model is I have to say some finer details need to be sorted out..
And I hope my above comments give you much to consider with respects to those details..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
5) How does gravity get expressed?
pixels are expressing or playing out-going spherical waves and such waves are being bend into more or less circular standing wave-patters so as to express particles. And overall from outside alike more or less bended trajectories of waves are flowing towards any place that is being measured. Casimir effect is being due to the absence of the full amount of out-going waves because space has been restricted, while the full amount of out-from coming waves is into effect.
So whenever two particles gets closer the out-from coming forces exceeds the in-between -particle repulsing forces. The bigger the particles and the nearer they get the stronger the out-side coming forces will be relatively to repulsing forces, and this is gravity.
I am sorry but, instead of clarifying Gravity, you have overlooked Occam's razor..
the simplest explanation is more than likely the one and only explanation we should refer to..
Ergo Gravity to me is best explained via opposing inertia and or velocities..
QUOTE
6) How does relativity get expressed?
It should be obvious that everything is being observed or measured relative to its frame of observation - and that the 3D Pixel grid is the observational frame for physical matter expressions. But I am unsure that I get the point in the question -
Let me say your theoretical pixel or grid-ding may be the best model yet, as it was through my observations of a Klein bottle plot using a 3D wire grid that had me considering how for a mass the grid-ding pointed out the following..It should be obvious that everything is being observed or measured relative to its frame of observation - and that the 3D Pixel grid is the observational frame for physical matter expressions. But I am unsure that I get the point in the question -
Compression ergo density increases, and as we all should know the speed of light is slower if it is propagated via a solid medium compared to a near vacuum..
The theoretical 3D pixel structure helped me imagine how and why this was so and importantly it pointed out if a near vacuum pixel and or a 3D grid was with a faster reaction than a solid one due to its opposing momentum has been cancelled out - So the solid pixel would in fact be compressed and may even be pushed towards a region where there are other slower or cancelled out velocities, to which so happens would be a mess of even more opposing velocities such as
A/. A Black-Hole.
B/. A Star
C/. A Planet
D., Or Another potential much the same as it that is with much the same cancelled out opposing velocities..
Here's a quick and dirty model
where colour defines speed or velocity
Orange is our fastest (velocity) or (momentum) as in maximum kinetic energy, that's a practical potential with momentum to it..
Red is our medium (velocity) or (momentum)
Blue is our slowest (momentum) or (Velocity) - ergo it is maximum Potential energy for a theoretical grid, or that's a practical solid pixel created via opposing velocities have been cancelled out within it.
This model is a basic two direction model to point out how two potentials end up being percieved as if they attract one another, when the facts are if one considers which velocities are faster the result is percieved gravitational inertia..
><>><<><
The reason why slower velocities exist in between the two potentails is for the fact that velocitis cancel each other out..
And here is a two 2D pixel model of the above momentums implying how attraction or gravity is percieved or even why a void simply is impossible anywhere, as to have change or a velocity we must have a potential or something being shifted around, but to do this shifting we cant have it ever being nothing expressing something, as that is a contradiction rather than a truth satement..
so each and every velocity is a potential in fact..
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][]
So as good as your model is I have to say some finer details need to be sorted out..
And I hope my above comments give you much to consider with respects to those details..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hej Laidback
Thanks - I appreciate your considerate and well thought comments and suggestions - very much -
Actually I had prepared a loooong answer - which evaporated in hyperspace -
So reply 1.2:
To your Truth Statements I can only say - Yes - certainly agreed on -
QUOTE: "We have a potential or repulsive force, and here's the thing, if a void or vacuum some how exists but for the briefest moment, the closest potential or repulsive force will simply spread out into the void and or weak potential, and in doing so the greater Potentials energy will decrease by the quantity of potential that is converted to kinetic energy that is to take over said void and or vacuum, but mind you the void and or vacuum will be over run from ALL directions or at least by whatever greater repulsion and or potential is available!.."
This is why the 3D Pixel concept with scalewise russian doll arrangements of potential/kinetic works.
At each scale transistion we "encapsulate" the kinetic energy and get a new and next generation "potential" unit1.
And now to the question about void - first of all it is not possible to have a model of a dynamic universe with no "free room" - there must be an inbuild DELAY function - otherwise the model would show omnipresence - impossible !
A delay function require a kind of "inert" free room" a kind of inertness that can delay a signal- Waves are essentially about how particles are signaling with delay. I am nor overtly cocerned about such a free room - or free void is being defined - and I think that Relative Pixel Vacuum is the most elegant way of handling free void - in that such relative vacuum (implicating the possibilty of varying pixel volume within very narrow and well defined borders - and borders which are dynamically fluctuating in a very controlled manner all over the universal space) - is a perfect way of initiating and controlling the pixel-playing-patterns. And void of relative vacuum is being "diluted" scalewise into deeper and deeper layers (Russian doll structures) of the pixel. The re-arranging kinetics is being executed in every scale and via the void available in each said scale of the pixel structure- and we can freely choose the dephtness of Russian-doll structure we want to use in our model - we can make it as smmoth as we like - as accurate as we like - we can dilute the void into a nearly continuous field - but with a thick line unedr nearly. Physical IS discrete and we can choose the smallnes of smallest as we like towards infinitely small - but always discrete.
The kinetics are unaffected by the smallness-scale we choose - because the propagation of signalling upwards (and downwards) in the pixel structure is always being defined by: "dimension times re-arranging frequency" and this can easily be adjusted in such a way that signaling is according to the universal constant of c.
2) DSE - BEC (Bose-einstein condensates) Quantum Hall effects - well they are mentioned as exapmples of models that give a vague and indirect fingerprint of sub-quantum behaviors.
3) "One could say each Pixel or cube always remains withs its respective neighboring Pixels and or 3D grids dimensions, and each cube, or pixel therefore is an open system to its neighboring systems inputs and outputs.."
Yes - within the frames of free-void or relative pixel-vacuum, Pixels can communicate via motion from variation in volumes - but this motion is strictly controlled via fluctuating free void (or relative vacuum) all over space. Total amount of free void or relative vacuum is being kept absolutely constant - it is the distribution that is dynamically ever changing over space. So one can say that the 3D Pixel model is strictly according to newtonian principles about dimension and motions - scalewise arranged.
5) "Ergo Gravity to me is best explained via opposing inertia and or velocities.."
Well - actually it was my intention to express the same - by saying that all forces are in their very nature propulsing forces - and space is a dynamic of such force-trajectories that is out-going or in-going according to observational frame. If two objects are approxing each other out-from coming forces will be stronger that in-from going forces (restricted by lack of space between the object - casimir effect-like) and this is seen as gravitational force.
6) I have difficulties in getting what you are pointing at. There exist no such thing as near-vacuum pixel - a pixel is a very very solid structure scale-wise arranged in russian doll like deeper structures - and a pixel show a very little but existing capability of changing volume (changing inner pressure) relative to neighboring pixels (via the free-void principle) and changing speeds of light in various media is solely due to the fact that photon (any bosonic wave propagation) can enter into short lasting circular trajectories while travelling over the pixel grid. The closer to physical vacuum - defined by the abscense of circular wave-patterns (presense of physical particles) the less a photonic wave-propagation will be delayed by such shortlasting "electron-translations and re-emissions of photon" events and the closer to c the photon will propagate.
Thanks - I appreciate your considerate and well thought comments and suggestions - very much -
Actually I had prepared a loooong answer - which evaporated in hyperspace -
So reply 1.2:
To your Truth Statements I can only say - Yes - certainly agreed on -
QUOTE: "We have a potential or repulsive force, and here's the thing, if a void or vacuum some how exists but for the briefest moment, the closest potential or repulsive force will simply spread out into the void and or weak potential, and in doing so the greater Potentials energy will decrease by the quantity of potential that is converted to kinetic energy that is to take over said void and or vacuum, but mind you the void and or vacuum will be over run from ALL directions or at least by whatever greater repulsion and or potential is available!.."
This is why the 3D Pixel concept with scalewise russian doll arrangements of potential/kinetic works.
At each scale transistion we "encapsulate" the kinetic energy and get a new and next generation "potential" unit1.
And now to the question about void - first of all it is not possible to have a model of a dynamic universe with no "free room" - there must be an inbuild DELAY function - otherwise the model would show omnipresence - impossible !
A delay function require a kind of "inert" free room" a kind of inertness that can delay a signal- Waves are essentially about how particles are signaling with delay. I am nor overtly cocerned about such a free room - or free void is being defined - and I think that Relative Pixel Vacuum is the most elegant way of handling free void - in that such relative vacuum (implicating the possibilty of varying pixel volume within very narrow and well defined borders - and borders which are dynamically fluctuating in a very controlled manner all over the universal space) - is a perfect way of initiating and controlling the pixel-playing-patterns. And void of relative vacuum is being "diluted" scalewise into deeper and deeper layers (Russian doll structures) of the pixel. The re-arranging kinetics is being executed in every scale and via the void available in each said scale of the pixel structure- and we can freely choose the dephtness of Russian-doll structure we want to use in our model - we can make it as smmoth as we like - as accurate as we like - we can dilute the void into a nearly continuous field - but with a thick line unedr nearly. Physical IS discrete and we can choose the smallnes of smallest as we like towards infinitely small - but always discrete.
The kinetics are unaffected by the smallness-scale we choose - because the propagation of signalling upwards (and downwards) in the pixel structure is always being defined by: "dimension times re-arranging frequency" and this can easily be adjusted in such a way that signaling is according to the universal constant of c.
2) DSE - BEC (Bose-einstein condensates) Quantum Hall effects - well they are mentioned as exapmples of models that give a vague and indirect fingerprint of sub-quantum behaviors.
3) "One could say each Pixel or cube always remains withs its respective neighboring Pixels and or 3D grids dimensions, and each cube, or pixel therefore is an open system to its neighboring systems inputs and outputs.."
Yes - within the frames of free-void or relative pixel-vacuum, Pixels can communicate via motion from variation in volumes - but this motion is strictly controlled via fluctuating free void (or relative vacuum) all over space. Total amount of free void or relative vacuum is being kept absolutely constant - it is the distribution that is dynamically ever changing over space. So one can say that the 3D Pixel model is strictly according to newtonian principles about dimension and motions - scalewise arranged.
5) "Ergo Gravity to me is best explained via opposing inertia and or velocities.."
Well - actually it was my intention to express the same - by saying that all forces are in their very nature propulsing forces - and space is a dynamic of such force-trajectories that is out-going or in-going according to observational frame. If two objects are approxing each other out-from coming forces will be stronger that in-from going forces (restricted by lack of space between the object - casimir effect-like) and this is seen as gravitational force.
6) I have difficulties in getting what you are pointing at. There exist no such thing as near-vacuum pixel - a pixel is a very very solid structure scale-wise arranged in russian doll like deeper structures - and a pixel show a very little but existing capability of changing volume (changing inner pressure) relative to neighboring pixels (via the free-void principle) and changing speeds of light in various media is solely due to the fact that photon (any bosonic wave propagation) can enter into short lasting circular trajectories while travelling over the pixel grid. The closer to physical vacuum - defined by the abscense of circular wave-patterns (presense of physical particles) the less a photonic wave-propagation will be delayed by such shortlasting "electron-translations and re-emissions of photon" events and the closer to c the photon will propagate.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 14 2008, 06:56 AM)
Hej Laidback
Thanks - I appreciate your considerate and well thought comments and suggestions - very much -
Actually I had prepared a loooong answer - which evaporated in hyperspace -
So reply 1.2:
To your Truth Statements I can only say - Yes - certainly agreed on -
QUOTE: "We have a potential or repulsive force, and here's the thing, if a void or vacuum some how exists but for the briefest moment, the closest potential or repulsive force will simply spread out into the void and or weak potential, and in doing so the greater Potentials energy will decrease by the quantity of potential that is converted to kinetic energy that is to take over said void and or vacuum, but mind you the void and or vacuum will be over run from ALL directions or at least by whatever greater repulsion and or potential is available!.."
This is why the 3D Pixel concept with scale-wise Russian doll arrangements of potential/kinetic works.
At each scale transition we "encapsulate" the kinetic energy and get a new and next generation "potential" unit1.
And now to the question about void - first of all it is not possible to have a model of a dynamic universe with no "free room" - there must be an inbuilt DELAY function - otherwise the model would show omnipresence - impossible !
A delay function require a kind of "inert" free room" a kind of inertness that can delay a signal- Waves are essentially about how particles are signaling with delay. I am nor overtly concerned about such a free room - or free void is being defined - and I think that Relative Pixel Vacuum is the most elegant way of handling free void - in that such relative vacuum (implicating the possibility of varying pixel volume within very narrow and well defined borders - and borders which are dynamically fluctuating in a very controlled manner all over the universal space) - is a perfect way of initiating and controlling the pixel-playing-patterns. And void of relative vacuum is being "diluted" scale-wise into deeper and deeper layers (Russian doll structures) of the pixel. The re-arranging kinetics is being executed in every scale and via the void available in each said scale of the pixel structure- and we can freely choose the depth's of Russian-doll structure we want to use in our model - we can make it as smooth as we like - as accurate as we like - we can dilute the void into a nearly continuous field - but with a thick line under nearly. Physical IS discrete and we can choose the smallness of smallest as we like towards infinitely small - but always discrete.
The kinetics are unaffected by the smallness-scale we choose - because the propagation of signalling upwards (and downwards) in the pixel structure is always being defined by: "dimension times re-arranging frequency" and this can easily be adjusted in such a way that signaling is according to the universal constant of c.
2) DSE - BEC (Bose-Einstein condensates) Quantum Hall effects - well they are mentioned as examples of models that give a vague and indirect fingerprint of sub-quantum behaviors.
3) "One could say each Pixel or cube always remains withs its respective neighboring Pixels and or 3D grids dimensions, and each cube, or pixel therefore is an open system to its neighboring systems inputs and outputs.."
Yes - within the frames of free-void or relative pixel-vacuum, Pixels can communicate via motion from variation in volumes - but this motion is strictly controlled via fluctuating free void (or relative vacuum) all over space. Total amount of free void or relative vacuum is being kept absolutely constant - it is the distribution that is dynamically ever changing over space. So one can say that the 3D Pixel model is strictly according to Newtonian principles about dimension and motions - scale-wise arranged.
5) "Ergo Gravity to me is best explained via opposing inertia and or velocities.."
Well - actually it was my intention to express the same - by saying that all forces are in their very nature repulsing forces - and space is a dynamic of such force-trajectories that is out-going or in-going according to observational frame. If two objects are approximating each other out-from coming forces will be stronger that in-from going forces (restricted by lack of space between the object - casimir effect-like) and this is seen as gravitational force.
6) I have difficulties in getting what you are pointing at. There exist no such thing as near-vacuum pixel - a pixel is a very very solid structure scale-wise arranged in Russian doll like deeper structures - and a pixel show a very little but existing capability of changing volume (changing inner pressure) relative to neighboring pixels (via the free-void principle) and changing speeds of light in various media is solely due to the fact that photon (any boson wave propagation) can enter into short lasting circular trajectories while travelling over the pixel grid. The closer to physical vacuum - defined by the absence of circular wave-patterns (presence of physical particles) the less a photonic wave-propagation will be delayed by such short-lasting "electron-translations and re-emissions of photon" events and the closer to c the photon will propagate.
I think I may have an inkling, as to where your difficulty with the physics may lay..
Basically it seems you have difficulty in having the Universe as omnipresent..
This should seriously be considered as it's the only one off - Closed system or Pixel that presents all what is possible opposed to all that is impossible..
Its everywhere, so I treat it as the only omnipresence..
All else can only ever be presented as per it's defined division of it and whats more from a given set of co-ordinates in reference to another division and it's co-ordinates..
The Universe therefore is one master Pixel or system where changes are internal - That means if an area {division} or sub-pixel increases in density, then the rest of the WHOLE Universe Must be in reciprocal to this increase in density, and if not all then at least a sub-division or another sub-system or sub-pixel of it must, And this goes both way's as in - If an area, dimension, sub-pixel, or sub-system decreases in density, then the rest of the Whole universe must be in reciprocal, and if not all of the Universe then at least another dimension, sub-pixel or sub-division of it must..
A basic two dimensional Mathematical example being..
where D refers to density,
And - One universes density =1
Two "Half universes" Density = (.5D)+(.5D) =1
Two universes densities = (.75D)+(.25D) =1
So if we now compress and or spread out the two quantities so they present with the same 3 dimensional expression one would be a relative solid, and the other a relative near void or vacuum..
Another model..
__ __
The above is our two portions
----
And above we have divided each into half again
__
And with the above our end product.. is a quarter of a Universes density has been placed into two quarters or one half of the universes density.. note we are working with density as in allowing mass or energy to spread out and present as one universe but with a variation to density.. so in effect we could have a a 3D model that seems like we are messing around with a universe, where one half is relatively solid and the other half a relative near void..
A good working model should behave just as actual physics behaves, so therefore if we spread out a system, mass or a Pixel - Its density would be changed, likewise if we compress a system, mass or a pixel - Its density would be changed, just as it is in reality..
After all if a Pixel is to present proper physics then its dimensions should adhere to the same rules that all physics adheres to..
BTW when we spread out mass, and lets say it was one of our a kinetic distances, we must assume to spread it out, it will need to increase in momentum or to be with a velocity increase..
Proof of this is the speed of light in a solid compared to speed of light in a near vacuum or void, and besides that we should consider that our new longer dimensions are the result of exchanging some of the Internal or Potential dimension {density} to our kinetic dimension that we are extending..
Put simply Energy or all Mass can be expressed via a single dimension or two or more dimensions, simply by the division of our single dimension into as many dimensions one needs to and or is capable of working with..
Each multi-dimensional expression may imply an attribute to anything and everything via appropriate references..
Example
a one meter by one meter by one meter cube is simply that! a solid cube..
No allowable change with respects to it 3 dimensions.
It implies the cube is closed to changes, but we should treat this with due care, as two or more dimension may actually be presented as one, via two or or more that are constantly changing in reciprocal to each other..
Here's a simple model that has a single dimension expressed via width which is actually two dimensions presenting the width of our line..
**Note**
I have depicted the two sub-dimensions by colour..
___ Moment One
___ Moment Two
With the above form we still have the same two dimensional form but Two dimensions have reciprocated or exchanged energy with perhaps internal or obscured dimensions or we could even imply each dimension has mutually reciprocated with the other, resulting with still the same length but is being actually presented by two distinct dimensions..
I have other activities committed for the day so I will leave it at that..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Thanks - I appreciate your considerate and well thought comments and suggestions - very much -
Actually I had prepared a loooong answer - which evaporated in hyperspace -
So reply 1.2:
To your Truth Statements I can only say - Yes - certainly agreed on -
QUOTE: "We have a potential or repulsive force, and here's the thing, if a void or vacuum some how exists but for the briefest moment, the closest potential or repulsive force will simply spread out into the void and or weak potential, and in doing so the greater Potentials energy will decrease by the quantity of potential that is converted to kinetic energy that is to take over said void and or vacuum, but mind you the void and or vacuum will be over run from ALL directions or at least by whatever greater repulsion and or potential is available!.."
This is why the 3D Pixel concept with scale-wise Russian doll arrangements of potential/kinetic works.
At each scale transition we "encapsulate" the kinetic energy and get a new and next generation "potential" unit1.
And now to the question about void - first of all it is not possible to have a model of a dynamic universe with no "free room" - there must be an inbuilt DELAY function - otherwise the model would show omnipresence - impossible !
A delay function require a kind of "inert" free room" a kind of inertness that can delay a signal- Waves are essentially about how particles are signaling with delay. I am nor overtly concerned about such a free room - or free void is being defined - and I think that Relative Pixel Vacuum is the most elegant way of handling free void - in that such relative vacuum (implicating the possibility of varying pixel volume within very narrow and well defined borders - and borders which are dynamically fluctuating in a very controlled manner all over the universal space) - is a perfect way of initiating and controlling the pixel-playing-patterns. And void of relative vacuum is being "diluted" scale-wise into deeper and deeper layers (Russian doll structures) of the pixel. The re-arranging kinetics is being executed in every scale and via the void available in each said scale of the pixel structure- and we can freely choose the depth's of Russian-doll structure we want to use in our model - we can make it as smooth as we like - as accurate as we like - we can dilute the void into a nearly continuous field - but with a thick line under nearly. Physical IS discrete and we can choose the smallness of smallest as we like towards infinitely small - but always discrete.
The kinetics are unaffected by the smallness-scale we choose - because the propagation of signalling upwards (and downwards) in the pixel structure is always being defined by: "dimension times re-arranging frequency" and this can easily be adjusted in such a way that signaling is according to the universal constant of c.
2) DSE - BEC (Bose-Einstein condensates) Quantum Hall effects - well they are mentioned as examples of models that give a vague and indirect fingerprint of sub-quantum behaviors.
3) "One could say each Pixel or cube always remains withs its respective neighboring Pixels and or 3D grids dimensions, and each cube, or pixel therefore is an open system to its neighboring systems inputs and outputs.."
Yes - within the frames of free-void or relative pixel-vacuum, Pixels can communicate via motion from variation in volumes - but this motion is strictly controlled via fluctuating free void (or relative vacuum) all over space. Total amount of free void or relative vacuum is being kept absolutely constant - it is the distribution that is dynamically ever changing over space. So one can say that the 3D Pixel model is strictly according to Newtonian principles about dimension and motions - scale-wise arranged.
5) "Ergo Gravity to me is best explained via opposing inertia and or velocities.."
Well - actually it was my intention to express the same - by saying that all forces are in their very nature repulsing forces - and space is a dynamic of such force-trajectories that is out-going or in-going according to observational frame. If two objects are approximating each other out-from coming forces will be stronger that in-from going forces (restricted by lack of space between the object - casimir effect-like) and this is seen as gravitational force.
6) I have difficulties in getting what you are pointing at. There exist no such thing as near-vacuum pixel - a pixel is a very very solid structure scale-wise arranged in Russian doll like deeper structures - and a pixel show a very little but existing capability of changing volume (changing inner pressure) relative to neighboring pixels (via the free-void principle) and changing speeds of light in various media is solely due to the fact that photon (any boson wave propagation) can enter into short lasting circular trajectories while travelling over the pixel grid. The closer to physical vacuum - defined by the absence of circular wave-patterns (presence of physical particles) the less a photonic wave-propagation will be delayed by such short-lasting "electron-translations and re-emissions of photon" events and the closer to c the photon will propagate.
I think I may have an inkling, as to where your difficulty with the physics may lay..
Basically it seems you have difficulty in having the Universe as omnipresent..
This should seriously be considered as it's the only one off - Closed system or Pixel that presents all what is possible opposed to all that is impossible..
Its everywhere, so I treat it as the only omnipresence..
All else can only ever be presented as per it's defined division of it and whats more from a given set of co-ordinates in reference to another division and it's co-ordinates..
The Universe therefore is one master Pixel or system where changes are internal - That means if an area {division} or sub-pixel increases in density, then the rest of the WHOLE Universe Must be in reciprocal to this increase in density, and if not all then at least a sub-division or another sub-system or sub-pixel of it must, And this goes both way's as in - If an area, dimension, sub-pixel, or sub-system decreases in density, then the rest of the Whole universe must be in reciprocal, and if not all of the Universe then at least another dimension, sub-pixel or sub-division of it must..
A basic two dimensional Mathematical example being..
where D refers to density,
And - One universes density =1
Two "Half universes" Density = (.5D)+(.5D) =1
Two universes densities = (.75D)+(.25D) =1
So if we now compress and or spread out the two quantities so they present with the same 3 dimensional expression one would be a relative solid, and the other a relative near void or vacuum..
Another model..
__ __
The above is our two portions
----
And above we have divided each into half again
__
And with the above our end product.. is a quarter of a Universes density has been placed into two quarters or one half of the universes density.. note we are working with density as in allowing mass or energy to spread out and present as one universe but with a variation to density.. so in effect we could have a a 3D model that seems like we are messing around with a universe, where one half is relatively solid and the other half a relative near void..
A good working model should behave just as actual physics behaves, so therefore if we spread out a system, mass or a Pixel - Its density would be changed, likewise if we compress a system, mass or a pixel - Its density would be changed, just as it is in reality..
After all if a Pixel is to present proper physics then its dimensions should adhere to the same rules that all physics adheres to..
BTW when we spread out mass, and lets say it was one of our a kinetic distances, we must assume to spread it out, it will need to increase in momentum or to be with a velocity increase..
Proof of this is the speed of light in a solid compared to speed of light in a near vacuum or void, and besides that we should consider that our new longer dimensions are the result of exchanging some of the Internal or Potential dimension {density} to our kinetic dimension that we are extending..
Put simply Energy or all Mass can be expressed via a single dimension or two or more dimensions, simply by the division of our single dimension into as many dimensions one needs to and or is capable of working with..
Each multi-dimensional expression may imply an attribute to anything and everything via appropriate references..
Example
a one meter by one meter by one meter cube is simply that! a solid cube..
No allowable change with respects to it 3 dimensions.
It implies the cube is closed to changes, but we should treat this with due care, as two or more dimension may actually be presented as one, via two or or more that are constantly changing in reciprocal to each other..
Here's a simple model that has a single dimension expressed via width which is actually two dimensions presenting the width of our line..
**Note**
I have depicted the two sub-dimensions by colour..
___ Moment One
___ Moment Two
With the above form we still have the same two dimensional form but Two dimensions have reciprocated or exchanged energy with perhaps internal or obscured dimensions or we could even imply each dimension has mutually reciprocated with the other, resulting with still the same length but is being actually presented by two distinct dimensions..
I have other activities committed for the day so I will leave it at that..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 10 2008, 12:17 PM)
I have an inkling the cup I referred to ended up with some medium within its inner cavity by you, and perhaps this serendipitous event can be used to my advantage..
So let me now refer to the liquid medium that is about to be compressed within the cup..
But first let me define that the cup consists of a glass material that one can just barely see its contents due to its thickness being so thick, and this cup has a lid that seals the contents so that what ever the cups contents {one litre} yeah one large cup! Can be compressed within the cup to a near sphere that is around 25~30 mm..
Why only a NEAR sphere rather than a perfect one? And whats more if the contents were subjected to sound waves in the process of compression the now solid form that was liquid mirrors the cups inner form only its much smaller..
So what is going on here? why does the liquid now solid form take on more of a cylinder shape rather than a sphere, when sound waves are introduced?
{CUP PLACED IN A SONIC CLEANER}
Moving on lets now release the pressure to the cups contents quickly and observe how the form persists, or seems to have a mind of its own as in keeping its self to it's current form, in fact if the liquid was subjected to compression and sound waves for a longer period, the form would hesitate in returning to liquid even longer..
Another observation would be - How some of the gas used for the compression liquefies and covers the solid form.. To which once the gas was all expelled and the cups lid removed there is always more than one litre of liquid, as it's spilling over is proof of this..
nuff on that, lets move on and now concentrate on what is solid, and what do we mean by it, err~keep the above in mind as I may refer to it later..
Lets begin with a single medium of something that feels like nothing and even today most would refer to it as space, to which this is in fact wrong, as this nothing propagates light via electromagnetic waves, or if one is doing basic physics may still be grappling with simple quantum mechanics, where only part of what light is, is dealt with via the reference to it being a particle wave duality, much like the Electron which is also a wave particle duality...
As I wrote that last statement, your statement and referral to the photon came to mind, so lets now clarify ourselves as to how much of the photon we understand, as in part - The photon is responsible for all densities of mass, well sort of, to which if I was to explain here may take two pages at least..
So how can I do this, with such limited resources..
Damn! A mental block
OK Here is a simple model, where it can more or less be imagined as a photon or an electromagnetic wave, well I hope I achieve to explain my reasoning on the duality, so let me know if either of my reasoning on the dualities are not evident to you..
OK first an electromagnetic wave, as it is propagated through whatever medium is to me a rise and fall of mass, note mass is treated as energy by me or if one likes perhaps one could refer to a body of water propagating sound-waves or compression waves amidst it....
Here's a simple two dimensional model that I will refer to..
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there are no compressed waves experienced.
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there is a compressed wave being experienced.
"..." I am hoping dear reader one can plainly see where a water molecule or cubic grid {pixel} is experiencing a rise in density or Potential, so lets briefly examine this rise, and to do this we need to know what the water molecules dimensions were before and what they are when this extra energy or density is experienced, and once this is done we can refer to the difference as the quantity for a sonic particle, or if we are messing around with Light we refer to this difference as a photon, but mind you here's some critical considerations, the actual dimension of one photon is HUGE! and when one measures a mass propagating light the small rise and fall to mass that is finely pixelated and experiencing the wave each pixels experience by each wave is almost insignificant, ergo photons are implied as near mass-less..
So have I explained the wave particle duality clearly?
if not it would be pointless to continue on as the properties of electromagnetic waves and or the photon is critical when one needs to explain how a given density is to express as a RELATIVE solid, to which my inference to RELATIVITY is also critical..
so until then I will move on to the next post, but first I have chores to attend to..
sorry if some of my post is hard to understand as my grandson is now in my care..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback..All
I have been away for a few days so sorry for the delayed responses.
My post was in favor of the photon like compression being ALL that occurs. In this way the number of pixels is redundant when considering how many there are or how much. Since Time is not a component of WHAT IS TRULY THERE, it does not follow that motion is necessary.
The "photon as a universe" and the "photon distributed into the volume of the universe" are equally massive and small in relation to each other. Further, we ONLY sense motion and THINGS via the use of MULTIPLE relativities.
Can you honestly claim to look and see anything WITHOUT using billions and billions to the hundredth power of photons which are traveling through space at who knows what speed. Therefore my post doesn't just want to see separations within the "whole" but at the most basic level, WHAT IS.......Because any interactions that you measure via your photon model then contain a time component if more than one exist at any one time/or space...
This may be confusing you, therefore let me ask you , can ANYTHING be still?..If not , then motion is perpetual, Not part of our search.......Can ANYTHING be found "here or there"?....If not then space is not part of our search...
Some more controversy to digest I expect..
Cheers
Iseason
PS: By the way, I didn't mean a cup. My reference is that you should be careful of trying to have motion as first cause.
So let me now refer to the liquid medium that is about to be compressed within the cup..
But first let me define that the cup consists of a glass material that one can just barely see its contents due to its thickness being so thick, and this cup has a lid that seals the contents so that what ever the cups contents {one litre} yeah one large cup! Can be compressed within the cup to a near sphere that is around 25~30 mm..
Why only a NEAR sphere rather than a perfect one? And whats more if the contents were subjected to sound waves in the process of compression the now solid form that was liquid mirrors the cups inner form only its much smaller..
So what is going on here? why does the liquid now solid form take on more of a cylinder shape rather than a sphere, when sound waves are introduced?
{CUP PLACED IN A SONIC CLEANER}
Moving on lets now release the pressure to the cups contents quickly and observe how the form persists, or seems to have a mind of its own as in keeping its self to it's current form, in fact if the liquid was subjected to compression and sound waves for a longer period, the form would hesitate in returning to liquid even longer..
Another observation would be - How some of the gas used for the compression liquefies and covers the solid form.. To which once the gas was all expelled and the cups lid removed there is always more than one litre of liquid, as it's spilling over is proof of this..
nuff on that, lets move on and now concentrate on what is solid, and what do we mean by it, err~keep the above in mind as I may refer to it later..
Lets begin with a single medium of something that feels like nothing and even today most would refer to it as space, to which this is in fact wrong, as this nothing propagates light via electromagnetic waves, or if one is doing basic physics may still be grappling with simple quantum mechanics, where only part of what light is, is dealt with via the reference to it being a particle wave duality, much like the Electron which is also a wave particle duality...
As I wrote that last statement, your statement and referral to the photon came to mind, so lets now clarify ourselves as to how much of the photon we understand, as in part - The photon is responsible for all densities of mass, well sort of, to which if I was to explain here may take two pages at least..
So how can I do this, with such limited resources..
Damn! A mental block
OK Here is a simple model, where it can more or less be imagined as a photon or an electromagnetic wave, well I hope I achieve to explain my reasoning on the duality, so let me know if either of my reasoning on the dualities are not evident to you..
OK first an electromagnetic wave, as it is propagated through whatever medium is to me a rise and fall of mass, note mass is treated as energy by me or if one likes perhaps one could refer to a body of water propagating sound-waves or compression waves amidst it....
Here's a simple two dimensional model that I will refer to..
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there are no compressed waves experienced.
"." This symbol is a water molecule or if one wishes a cubic grid of water {PIXEL}where there is a compressed wave being experienced.
"..." I am hoping dear reader one can plainly see where a water molecule or cubic grid {pixel} is experiencing a rise in density or Potential, so lets briefly examine this rise, and to do this we need to know what the water molecules dimensions were before and what they are when this extra energy or density is experienced, and once this is done we can refer to the difference as the quantity for a sonic particle, or if we are messing around with Light we refer to this difference as a photon, but mind you here's some critical considerations, the actual dimension of one photon is HUGE! and when one measures a mass propagating light the small rise and fall to mass that is finely pixelated and experiencing the wave each pixels experience by each wave is almost insignificant, ergo photons are implied as near mass-less..
So have I explained the wave particle duality clearly?
if not it would be pointless to continue on as the properties of electromagnetic waves and or the photon is critical when one needs to explain how a given density is to express as a RELATIVE solid, to which my inference to RELATIVITY is also critical..
so until then I will move on to the next post, but first I have chores to attend to..
sorry if some of my post is hard to understand as my grandson is now in my care..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback..All
I have been away for a few days so sorry for the delayed responses.
My post was in favor of the photon like compression being ALL that occurs. In this way the number of pixels is redundant when considering how many there are or how much. Since Time is not a component of WHAT IS TRULY THERE, it does not follow that motion is necessary.
The "photon as a universe" and the "photon distributed into the volume of the universe" are equally massive and small in relation to each other. Further, we ONLY sense motion and THINGS via the use of MULTIPLE relativities.
Can you honestly claim to look and see anything WITHOUT using billions and billions to the hundredth power of photons which are traveling through space at who knows what speed. Therefore my post doesn't just want to see separations within the "whole" but at the most basic level, WHAT IS.......Because any interactions that you measure via your photon model then contain a time component if more than one exist at any one time/or space...
This may be confusing you, therefore let me ask you , can ANYTHING be still?..If not , then motion is perpetual, Not part of our search.......Can ANYTHING be found "here or there"?....If not then space is not part of our search...
Some more controversy to digest I expect..
Cheers
Iseason
PS: By the way, I didn't mean a cup. My reference is that you should be careful of trying to have motion as first cause.
Hi all After answering in the last post I thought (as I read the next), If I propose that a photon is all there is (or some like quanta) then a reasonable 'potential' as a closed system is .
"a photon by the number of times it has occurred"
..This can then apportion a relative value to each division. Since we (and everything else) are made of multiples of this value, and we can only interact via those values the photon never has to occupy "space" or "the universe" because the number of interactions will always be dependent on the new number... Basic geometry selects the patterns and their changes....
The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometricaly) in the order that we view via a timeline.
the question then becomes "why can we see a history of photon interaction"?...or...."why does multiple photon events exist when one photon cannot retain existence?
Cheers
Iseason
"a photon by the number of times it has occurred"
..This can then apportion a relative value to each division. Since we (and everything else) are made of multiples of this value, and we can only interact via those values the photon never has to occupy "space" or "the universe" because the number of interactions will always be dependent on the new number... Basic geometry selects the patterns and their changes....
The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometricaly) in the order that we view via a timeline.
the question then becomes "why can we see a history of photon interaction"?...or...."why does multiple photon events exist when one photon cannot retain existence?
Cheers
Iseason
Hej Laidback
QUOTE: "Basically it seems you have difficulty in having the Universe as omnipresent.."
My definition of omnipresense is that a given change would be present all over universe in the very same moment - and that is naturally an impossible thinking.
No - of course Universe is "omnipresent" as You like to use the word, - present all over in each and any of its oscillating flash-existances.
Our feeling or our perceptance of a kind of lastingness is because of each scale is dys-synchronized with the other scales. One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest - and so on. If we look at the total watch it is changing per second - but most of the mechanics is in rest for most of the time. The same applies for Universe, smallest dimensions are re-arranging with the speed of seconds - and next scale is re-arranging with the speed of minutes - and ---
QUOTE: "The Universe therefore is one master Pixel or system where changes are internal - That means if an area {division} or sub-pixel increases in density, then the rest of the WHOLE Universe Must be in reciprocal to this increase in density, and if not all then at least a sub-division or another sub-system or sub-pixel of it must, And this goes both way's as in - If an area, dimension, sub-pixel, or sub-system decreases in density, then the rest of the Whole universe must be in reciprocal, and if not all of the Universe then at least another dimension, sub-pixel or sub-division of it must.."
Actually - you express it nicely in the above - exactly as you say - "If an area, dimension, sub-pixel, or sub-system decreases in density, then the rest of the Whole universe must be in reciprocal, and if not all of the Universe then at least another dimension, sub-pixel or sub-division of it must.."
But of course any change - even the smallest - sooner or later will have an influence all over - but it takes time to get spread - because of the inertia in the system. The net effect of the smallest change is not predictable in the big scale - like the butterfly effect - and logically it is easier to calculate and predict near-effects - equal to small-scale changes relative to the observational frame - and the uncertainty principle is the same as lack of prediction - the more far-reaching changes the more and more unpredictable everything gets - fairly obvious.
And be careful - solidness in our physical world has nothing to do with varying grades of solidnes in the pixel grid - solidnes is exclusively being expressed via the pixel -playing - patterns !
QUOTE: "Basically it seems you have difficulty in having the Universe as omnipresent.."
My definition of omnipresense is that a given change would be present all over universe in the very same moment - and that is naturally an impossible thinking.
No - of course Universe is "omnipresent" as You like to use the word, - present all over in each and any of its oscillating flash-existances.
Our feeling or our perceptance of a kind of lastingness is because of each scale is dys-synchronized with the other scales. One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest - and so on. If we look at the total watch it is changing per second - but most of the mechanics is in rest for most of the time. The same applies for Universe, smallest dimensions are re-arranging with the speed of seconds - and next scale is re-arranging with the speed of minutes - and ---
QUOTE: "The Universe therefore is one master Pixel or system where changes are internal - That means if an area {division} or sub-pixel increases in density, then the rest of the WHOLE Universe Must be in reciprocal to this increase in density, and if not all then at least a sub-division or another sub-system or sub-pixel of it must, And this goes both way's as in - If an area, dimension, sub-pixel, or sub-system decreases in density, then the rest of the Whole universe must be in reciprocal, and if not all of the Universe then at least another dimension, sub-pixel or sub-division of it must.."
Actually - you express it nicely in the above - exactly as you say - "If an area, dimension, sub-pixel, or sub-system decreases in density, then the rest of the Whole universe must be in reciprocal, and if not all of the Universe then at least another dimension, sub-pixel or sub-division of it must.."
But of course any change - even the smallest - sooner or later will have an influence all over - but it takes time to get spread - because of the inertia in the system. The net effect of the smallest change is not predictable in the big scale - like the butterfly effect - and logically it is easier to calculate and predict near-effects - equal to small-scale changes relative to the observational frame - and the uncertainty principle is the same as lack of prediction - the more far-reaching changes the more and more unpredictable everything gets - fairly obvious.
And be careful - solidness in our physical world has nothing to do with varying grades of solidnes in the pixel grid - solidnes is exclusively being expressed via the pixel -playing - patterns !
hej iseason
QUOTE: "My post was in favor of the photon like compression being ALL that occurs. In this way the number of pixels is redundant when considering how many there are or how much. Since Time is not a component of WHAT IS TRULY THERE, it does not follow that motion is necessary."
Yes - of course - photon expression and pixel playing is redundant - in the sense that a given expression is the result of something.
To the question whether motion is necessary - I think that we need to be very cautious. And this relates to the questions about signaling function.
The question about WHAT IS TRULY THERE is indeed very deep and needs a separate discussion. Essentially I feel that beingness is diluted into oscillating flashes - so when we define being or lastingness, it is possible because we can encapsulate the changes scalewise in the pixel structure. Exactly like a watch, which is always changing, at least on the second scale and if we look deeper then there are underlying changes to the tick of the second - and we can continue as deep as we like in this searching for smallest stableness - it is (nearly) not existing - and when I say nearly it is because I think that physical world IS discrete - but discreteness can be be made smaller and smaller infinitely, but logically we will never reach a dimensionless point - because such a point is not into existance - and this would mean that physical is not into existance. So we are back to the old good problem about the existance of dimension as an axiomatic existance.
QUOTE: "The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometricaly) in the order that we view via a timeline."
I like to define existance as strongly bound to the geometry defined by time-line. Otherwise everything is a meaningless flux. We cannot reduce universe to a flux unbound of the time line - it would be the same as saying: now I like to define universe - without doing it.
QUOTE: "the question then becomes "why can we see a history of photon interaction"?...or...."why does multiple photon events exist when one photon cannot retain existence?"
Photon history is linked to pixel-structure - pixels are the carrier of history because of their scalewise INERTIAL structure. Pixel playing and photon is 100" redundant when we are looking at Pixel-scale in our Physical world scale.
Essentilly we are dealing with the wave-particle duality - "particles express waves and waves express particles - and one scale up (down) - or put differently: smaller dimensions re-arrange in space and such re-arranging oscillations can be seen as domino-like waves - and in the next scale these waves can be translated into particle-expressions (standing wave-patterns) so two transforms and one scale change (another Russian doll)."
QUOTE: "My post was in favor of the photon like compression being ALL that occurs. In this way the number of pixels is redundant when considering how many there are or how much. Since Time is not a component of WHAT IS TRULY THERE, it does not follow that motion is necessary."
Yes - of course - photon expression and pixel playing is redundant - in the sense that a given expression is the result of something.
To the question whether motion is necessary - I think that we need to be very cautious. And this relates to the questions about signaling function.
The question about WHAT IS TRULY THERE is indeed very deep and needs a separate discussion. Essentially I feel that beingness is diluted into oscillating flashes - so when we define being or lastingness, it is possible because we can encapsulate the changes scalewise in the pixel structure. Exactly like a watch, which is always changing, at least on the second scale and if we look deeper then there are underlying changes to the tick of the second - and we can continue as deep as we like in this searching for smallest stableness - it is (nearly) not existing - and when I say nearly it is because I think that physical world IS discrete - but discreteness can be be made smaller and smaller infinitely, but logically we will never reach a dimensionless point - because such a point is not into existance - and this would mean that physical is not into existance. So we are back to the old good problem about the existance of dimension as an axiomatic existance.
QUOTE: "The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometricaly) in the order that we view via a timeline."
I like to define existance as strongly bound to the geometry defined by time-line. Otherwise everything is a meaningless flux. We cannot reduce universe to a flux unbound of the time line - it would be the same as saying: now I like to define universe - without doing it.
QUOTE: "the question then becomes "why can we see a history of photon interaction"?...or...."why does multiple photon events exist when one photon cannot retain existence?"
Photon history is linked to pixel-structure - pixels are the carrier of history because of their scalewise INERTIAL structure. Pixel playing and photon is 100" redundant when we are looking at Pixel-scale in our Physical world scale.
Essentilly we are dealing with the wave-particle duality - "particles express waves and waves express particles - and one scale up (down) - or put differently: smaller dimensions re-arrange in space and such re-arranging oscillations can be seen as domino-like waves - and in the next scale these waves can be translated into particle-expressions (standing wave-patterns) so two transforms and one scale change (another Russian doll)."
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 14 2008, 08:13 PM)
hej iseason
QUOTE: "My post was in favor of the photon like compression being ALL that occurs. In this way the number of pixels is redundant when considering how many there are or how much. Since Time is not a component of WHAT IS TRULY THERE, it does not follow that motion is necessary."
Yes - of course - photon expression and pixel playing is redundant - in the sense that a given expression is the result of something.
To the question whether motion is necessary - I think that we need to be very cautious. And this relates to the questions about signaling function.
The question about WHAT IS TRULY THERE is indeed very deep and needs a separate discussion. Essentially I feel that beingness is diluted into oscillating flashes - so when we define being or lastingness, it is possible because we can encapsulate the changes scalewise in the pixel structure. Exactly like a watch, which is always changing, at least on the second scale and if we look deeper then there are underlying changes to the tick of the second - and we can continue as deep as we like in this searching for smallest stableness - it is (nearly) not existing - and when I say nearly it is because I think that physical world IS discrete - but discreteness can be be made smaller and smaller infinitely, but logically we will never reach a dimensionless point - because such a point is not into existance - and this would mean that physical is not into existance. So we are back to the old good problem about the existance of dimension as an axiomatic existance.
QUOTE: "The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometricaly) in the order that we view via a timeline."
I like to define existance as strongly bound to the geometry defined by time-line. Otherwise everything is a meaningless flux. We cannot reduce universe to a flux unbound of the time line - it would be the same as saying: now I like to define universe - without doing it.
QUOTE: "the question then becomes "why can we see a history of photon interaction"?...or...."why does multiple photon events exist when one photon cannot retain existence?"
Photon history is linked to pixel-structure - pixels are the carrier of history because of their scalewise INERTIAL structure. Pixel playing and photon is 100" redundant when we are looking at Pixel-scale in our Physical world scale.
Essentilly we are dealing with the wave-particle duality - "particles express waves and waves express particles - and one scale up (down) - or put differently: smaller dimensions re-arrange in space and such re-arranging oscillations can be seen as domino-like waves - and in the next scale these waves can be translated into particle-expressions (standing wave-patterns) so two transforms and one scale change (another Russian doll)."
Hi Bukh
Nice to chat.
I don't like moving to set behaviors like motion when we don't know what is moving. This is like saying that smallest and largest exist , but let's skip that back to what we already know because that's easier. I support much of what I see you write, and this includes pixels ability to be "on" but have a differing view as to what would be there is we 'stopped' everything even for one frame.
When I read that energy could not be created or destroyed (some years ago), I took this seriously. It seems that many other took this road also as I have read many for and against infinite regression. I however was not willing to put this aside to explain behaviors that require the first question to be answered first.....
What WAS there?....Whatever it was "it WAS all there is now"...Otherwise the theory is wrong. If it is that "what was there is the fabric of space"...so be it , but the necessary makeup that is required to answer the original question remains as "something that cannot be divided." So internal change is the only possible variable. But it must be capable of change in structure but not value.
So if the photon/quanta is responsible for the behaviors you describe, I am Happy with this. But since the changes MUST be equal THEN THE CHANGES/RE_ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE ONE PHOTON/QUANTA AT A TIME "UNIVERSALLY". So I support your view, but with only one pixel "on" at any one time EVER...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE: "My post was in favor of the photon like compression being ALL that occurs. In this way the number of pixels is redundant when considering how many there are or how much. Since Time is not a component of WHAT IS TRULY THERE, it does not follow that motion is necessary."
Yes - of course - photon expression and pixel playing is redundant - in the sense that a given expression is the result of something.
To the question whether motion is necessary - I think that we need to be very cautious. And this relates to the questions about signaling function.
The question about WHAT IS TRULY THERE is indeed very deep and needs a separate discussion. Essentially I feel that beingness is diluted into oscillating flashes - so when we define being or lastingness, it is possible because we can encapsulate the changes scalewise in the pixel structure. Exactly like a watch, which is always changing, at least on the second scale and if we look deeper then there are underlying changes to the tick of the second - and we can continue as deep as we like in this searching for smallest stableness - it is (nearly) not existing - and when I say nearly it is because I think that physical world IS discrete - but discreteness can be be made smaller and smaller infinitely, but logically we will never reach a dimensionless point - because such a point is not into existance - and this would mean that physical is not into existance. So we are back to the old good problem about the existance of dimension as an axiomatic existance.
QUOTE: "The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometricaly) in the order that we view via a timeline."
I like to define existance as strongly bound to the geometry defined by time-line. Otherwise everything is a meaningless flux. We cannot reduce universe to a flux unbound of the time line - it would be the same as saying: now I like to define universe - without doing it.
QUOTE: "the question then becomes "why can we see a history of photon interaction"?...or...."why does multiple photon events exist when one photon cannot retain existence?"
Photon history is linked to pixel-structure - pixels are the carrier of history because of their scalewise INERTIAL structure. Pixel playing and photon is 100" redundant when we are looking at Pixel-scale in our Physical world scale.
Essentilly we are dealing with the wave-particle duality - "particles express waves and waves express particles - and one scale up (down) - or put differently: smaller dimensions re-arrange in space and such re-arranging oscillations can be seen as domino-like waves - and in the next scale these waves can be translated into particle-expressions (standing wave-patterns) so two transforms and one scale change (another Russian doll)."
Hi Bukh
Nice to chat.
I don't like moving to set behaviors like motion when we don't know what is moving. This is like saying that smallest and largest exist , but let's skip that back to what we already know because that's easier. I support much of what I see you write, and this includes pixels ability to be "on" but have a differing view as to what would be there is we 'stopped' everything even for one frame.
When I read that energy could not be created or destroyed (some years ago), I took this seriously. It seems that many other took this road also as I have read many for and against infinite regression. I however was not willing to put this aside to explain behaviors that require the first question to be answered first.....
What WAS there?....Whatever it was "it WAS all there is now"...Otherwise the theory is wrong. If it is that "what was there is the fabric of space"...so be it , but the necessary makeup that is required to answer the original question remains as "something that cannot be divided." So internal change is the only possible variable. But it must be capable of change in structure but not value.
So if the photon/quanta is responsible for the behaviors you describe, I am Happy with this. But since the changes MUST be equal THEN THE CHANGES/RE_ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE ONE PHOTON/QUANTA AT A TIME "UNIVERSALLY". So I support your view, but with only one pixel "on" at any one time EVER...
Cheers
Iseason
hej iseason
QUOTE: "But since the changes MUST be equal THEN THE CHANGES/RE_ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE ONE PHOTON/QUANTA AT A TIME "UNIVERSALLY". So I support your view, but with only one pixel "on" at any one time EVER..."
Well - that sounds to me to be a bit restrictive.
Why would it be a problem to have pixels at different places in space signaling simultaneously - if we accept the free-room that void or relative pixel vacuum offers.
I like to think that free room is mandatory to operate with an inertial system - and universe is an inertial system. So pixels can play all over at the same time and the net effect is how out-from coming re-arranging domino-like "quakes" interfere with the relative vacuum gradient which is dynamically floating around and being the initializing basis for pixel-signaling /changing volume) - newtonian type inertial behavior.
And now to this about energy. I like to define energy as change and change is equivalent to ever shifting dimensional configurations in space - and they are being expressed via which and how many pixels are being included at a said moment in a said spatial dimension with its exact position is space at that well-defined moment. But the motor the driving force for pixels to re-arrange is the relative vacuum gradient - is based upon DIFFERENCES in vacuum all over space - and the playing of pixels eventually lead to a more and more even distribution of vacuum (free void) so what we get is more and more egality by time - and eventually space freeze in an absolutely even configuration of pixels with exactly the same relative vacuum in individual pixels - there is no more energy - no more vacuum differences to further give rise to re-arrangements - mind you that a particle perhaps best can be defined as a pixel configuration where said pixels show EXACTLY the same relative vacuum. It is a very simple and elegant way for pixels to "know" to where they belong at a certain moment.
This also implicate that one can see photon - or bosonic expressions as carrieres or mediators for change - they act as facilitators or catalysators for the re-arrangements. As long as the surrounding relative vacuum is undisturbed - then there is no incitament no exitement to re-arrange the cluster of pixels that express a particle - but as soon as bosonic "disturbances" enetr the environment - this will result in new re-arrangements - so incoming bosons trigger outgoing bosons.
QUOTE: "But since the changes MUST be equal THEN THE CHANGES/RE_ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE ONE PHOTON/QUANTA AT A TIME "UNIVERSALLY". So I support your view, but with only one pixel "on" at any one time EVER..."
Well - that sounds to me to be a bit restrictive.
Why would it be a problem to have pixels at different places in space signaling simultaneously - if we accept the free-room that void or relative pixel vacuum offers.
I like to think that free room is mandatory to operate with an inertial system - and universe is an inertial system. So pixels can play all over at the same time and the net effect is how out-from coming re-arranging domino-like "quakes" interfere with the relative vacuum gradient which is dynamically floating around and being the initializing basis for pixel-signaling /changing volume) - newtonian type inertial behavior.
And now to this about energy. I like to define energy as change and change is equivalent to ever shifting dimensional configurations in space - and they are being expressed via which and how many pixels are being included at a said moment in a said spatial dimension with its exact position is space at that well-defined moment. But the motor the driving force for pixels to re-arrange is the relative vacuum gradient - is based upon DIFFERENCES in vacuum all over space - and the playing of pixels eventually lead to a more and more even distribution of vacuum (free void) so what we get is more and more egality by time - and eventually space freeze in an absolutely even configuration of pixels with exactly the same relative vacuum in individual pixels - there is no more energy - no more vacuum differences to further give rise to re-arrangements - mind you that a particle perhaps best can be defined as a pixel configuration where said pixels show EXACTLY the same relative vacuum. It is a very simple and elegant way for pixels to "know" to where they belong at a certain moment.
This also implicate that one can see photon - or bosonic expressions as carrieres or mediators for change - they act as facilitators or catalysators for the re-arrangements. As long as the surrounding relative vacuum is undisturbed - then there is no incitament no exitement to re-arrange the cluster of pixels that express a particle - but as soon as bosonic "disturbances" enetr the environment - this will result in new re-arrangements - so incoming bosons trigger outgoing bosons.
Hi Bukh
I think Our basic difference is Not How, But how much exists at any given time. I am happy with the basic model but still hold that a re-arraigning of the values affecting the Photon/universe equals one value and this keeps everything neat.
If you have many positions "on" at once , you break first cause. In this you need a reverse theory to find out where it started. remember we are in a closed system.
Cheers
Iseason
I think Our basic difference is Not How, But how much exists at any given time. I am happy with the basic model but still hold that a re-arraigning of the values affecting the Photon/universe equals one value and this keeps everything neat.
If you have many positions "on" at once , you break first cause. In this you need a reverse theory to find out where it started. remember we are in a closed system.
Cheers
Iseason
hi iseason
QUOTE: "In this you need a reverse theory to find out where it started. remember we are in a closed system."
Well - closed in the sense that we are dealing with space (non-defined size and non-defined shape) and how this space is being segregated into ratios.
How and where did it start ? -
One can say that universe according to this model can show infinitely ongoing cycli - where each new cyclus starts with space in absolutely harmony - no segregation - just uniform distribution of sameness - and then it segregates into two - the unfolding - and one can for the first time (in this new cyclus) tell whether something belongs to this ratio or to the other - and the segregating process continues - (probably binary system and that is why complexity follows n square) - so we have no problems with the starting point - and as universe is an ever further segregating process we see universe at such a well defined segregating stage (October 2008) - and there is no problem with having many points all over space simultaneously signaling -
Yes - it started with one dimension - and grew to many dimensions - and at a certaing stage it was possible to have two or more dimensions signaling simultaneously - and now there can be nearly as many points signaling simultaneously as we like to think (of course not infinitely - but very very many)
and eventually universe runs out of vacuum gradient - because the necessary free void have been exactly equally distributed all over space - and we get One space - of sameness - and the cyclus can repeat itsself - another unfolding in two ratios and so on --
QUOTE: "In this you need a reverse theory to find out where it started. remember we are in a closed system."
Well - closed in the sense that we are dealing with space (non-defined size and non-defined shape) and how this space is being segregated into ratios.
How and where did it start ? -
One can say that universe according to this model can show infinitely ongoing cycli - where each new cyclus starts with space in absolutely harmony - no segregation - just uniform distribution of sameness - and then it segregates into two - the unfolding - and one can for the first time (in this new cyclus) tell whether something belongs to this ratio or to the other - and the segregating process continues - (probably binary system and that is why complexity follows n square) - so we have no problems with the starting point - and as universe is an ever further segregating process we see universe at such a well defined segregating stage (October 2008) - and there is no problem with having many points all over space simultaneously signaling -
Yes - it started with one dimension - and grew to many dimensions - and at a certaing stage it was possible to have two or more dimensions signaling simultaneously - and now there can be nearly as many points signaling simultaneously as we like to think (of course not infinitely - but very very many)
and eventually universe runs out of vacuum gradient - because the necessary free void have been exactly equally distributed all over space - and we get One space - of sameness - and the cyclus can repeat itsself - another unfolding in two ratios and so on --
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 14 2008, 12:45 PM)
Hi all After answering in the last post I thought (as I read the next), If I propose that a photon is all there is (or some like quanta) then a reasonable 'potential' as a closed system is .
"a photon by the number of times it has occurred"
..This can then apportion a relative value to each division. Since we (and everything else) are made of multiples of this value, and we can only interact via those values the photon never has to occupy "space" or "the universe" because the number of interactions will always be dependent on the new number... Basic geometry selects the patterns and their changes....
The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometrically) in the order that we view via a timeline.
I almost responded to your previous Post to this one, but it is just as well I took a glance at the post I now respond to..
I must admit, on reading your inference to the WHOLE universe being one master Photon had me uneasy but as I read on, it seems the Photon to you is much like the total quantity of Energy of the Universe, which if we divide up, can express or present every possibility..
Including by the re-arranging or the exchange of sub-divisions or dimensions expressing change or basic time dimensions..
Much like the models I presented in my last two posts..
So in short it seems your considerations to physics is from the smallest quanta and multiples of it, while my considerations - Considers the universe from its entirety, which is divided and divided to the point where one of my divisions could be anything from one billionth of your minimum quanta to a mere half the size of your minimum quanta..
Let me explain how this is possible by me..
My reference to distance or a measurement can be expressed much like one expresses a multiple number as a single division.. let me clarify that,
One "Thousand Liters" can equal or be implied as a single unit as in "One kilolitre"
so if I was to divide the Universe up a thousand times I would refer to one of my divisions, portions, sub-photon, sub-pixel, sub-system or sibling-dimension as a Milli-universe, to which if I further divided and divided this portion or dimension, I would eventually have before me a photon, pixel, or system that is contained in a theoretical 299792458 cubic meter or with the appropriate conversion - I could be referring to a glimpse of a photons attributes or better yet its duality as a single rise and fall of an electromagnetic wave that is propagated through our "c" cubic meters taking a mere second of time..
Everything possible must adhere to the above laws so that all else by its non adherence is in fact impossible!
Put simply its all in ones own definitions and whether they are indeed truth or illogical..
To which the more truth we structure our concept of the Universe upon the more complex our Universe can express itself to our demands as its demands us..
Be very aware that the rest of the WHOLE Universe is at our mercy - As we are at its mercy in presenting reality or truth, each and every one of us is the reciprocal to the rest of the Universe, and one could say our mass or any mass for that fact is a mirror reciprocal to the rest of the Universe, so what ever occurs anywhere there is always an exchange or change in an ongoing manner..
Its for this reason I choose to begin with an inference to all that is possible and enclose it as a reference to the WHOLE UNIVERSE, as in that's it..
Everything possible must happen within this master Photon or Closed system..
And because its a one off deal we can assign it with a single inference such as one Universe, and if we divide this quanta into two we can define it with a form, a two dimensional form..
If we divide the universe into a three dimensional expression we can give it a rigid and or solid form that presents as a cube, but the universe is with constant change, so with some more fancy divisions we can have the universe as any shape and or any variations of density we desire, to which I should point out each shape and or variation/s of densities may or may not have occurred as yet or as I write and you now read this Post we have - Just by the very nature of our actions expressed a given expression that the Universe was destined to enact or present..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
"a photon by the number of times it has occurred"
..This can then apportion a relative value to each division. Since we (and everything else) are made of multiples of this value, and we can only interact via those values the photon never has to occupy "space" or "the universe" because the number of interactions will always be dependent on the new number... Basic geometry selects the patterns and their changes....
The model of Smallest and largest is essentially "first state/last state" where the photon/universe has simply remembered the number of times it has occurred. You /i and everything else HAS existed as a make up of the photon/universe many many times. But not necessarily (geometrically) in the order that we view via a timeline.
I almost responded to your previous Post to this one, but it is just as well I took a glance at the post I now respond to..
I must admit, on reading your inference to the WHOLE universe being one master Photon had me uneasy but as I read on, it seems the Photon to you is much like the total quantity of Energy of the Universe, which if we divide up, can express or present every possibility..
Including by the re-arranging or the exchange of sub-divisions or dimensions expressing change or basic time dimensions..
Much like the models I presented in my last two posts..
So in short it seems your considerations to physics is from the smallest quanta and multiples of it, while my considerations - Considers the universe from its entirety, which is divided and divided to the point where one of my divisions could be anything from one billionth of your minimum quanta to a mere half the size of your minimum quanta..
Let me explain how this is possible by me..
My reference to distance or a measurement can be expressed much like one expresses a multiple number as a single division.. let me clarify that,
One "Thousand Liters" can equal or be implied as a single unit as in "One kilolitre"
so if I was to divide the Universe up a thousand times I would refer to one of my divisions, portions, sub-photon, sub-pixel, sub-system or sibling-dimension as a Milli-universe, to which if I further divided and divided this portion or dimension, I would eventually have before me a photon, pixel, or system that is contained in a theoretical 299792458 cubic meter or with the appropriate conversion - I could be referring to a glimpse of a photons attributes or better yet its duality as a single rise and fall of an electromagnetic wave that is propagated through our "c" cubic meters taking a mere second of time..
QUOTE
the question then becomes "why can we see a history of photon interaction"?...or...."why does multiple photon events exist when one photon cannot retain existence?
Cheers
Iseason
Simply because of structure, logic or dimensions are inter-dependent, Force and Motion Laws along with Potential and Kinetic constructs are dependent on truth statements, and truth is dependent on the reference to events that adhere to logical coherence and adhesionCheers
Iseason
Everything possible must adhere to the above laws so that all else by its non adherence is in fact impossible!
Put simply its all in ones own definitions and whether they are indeed truth or illogical..
To which the more truth we structure our concept of the Universe upon the more complex our Universe can express itself to our demands as its demands us..
Be very aware that the rest of the WHOLE Universe is at our mercy - As we are at its mercy in presenting reality or truth, each and every one of us is the reciprocal to the rest of the Universe, and one could say our mass or any mass for that fact is a mirror reciprocal to the rest of the Universe, so what ever occurs anywhere there is always an exchange or change in an ongoing manner..
Its for this reason I choose to begin with an inference to all that is possible and enclose it as a reference to the WHOLE UNIVERSE, as in that's it..
Everything possible must happen within this master Photon or Closed system..
And because its a one off deal we can assign it with a single inference such as one Universe, and if we divide this quanta into two we can define it with a form, a two dimensional form..
If we divide the universe into a three dimensional expression we can give it a rigid and or solid form that presents as a cube, but the universe is with constant change, so with some more fancy divisions we can have the universe as any shape and or any variations of density we desire, to which I should point out each shape and or variation/s of densities may or may not have occurred as yet or as I write and you now read this Post we have - Just by the very nature of our actions expressed a given expression that the Universe was destined to enact or present..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 14 2008, 12:29 PM)
Hi Laidback..All
I didn't mean a cup. My reference is that you should be careful of trying to have motion as first cause.
Cheers
Iseason
I agree, but a given cups form and existence, or for that matter anything and or any density of mass is only but a brief expression of the Universe, it therefore exists purely via the possibility that change is possible in the first place, to which motion and or velocities are only possible by what two or more velocities logically create, its a catch 22 where motion is possible because of what they create is possible {storage of motion or a solid} but what they create is only possible if motion or CHANGE is possible in the first place, one could say its our first basic truth statement where for each of our inference, it is in fact a reciprocal reference for both to exist or be possible..
Motion or change being the reciprocal to no motion or no change, both must be possible if either one is to be possible..
Motion by my reasoning therefore is the result from the exchange or reciprocal exchanges that the universe expresses, which results in presenting time expressions and or functions opposed to its NON changing single dimensional expression..
Put simply my reasoning has motion is the reciprocal to no change and or best implied to the Universes expression or presentation as a closed system, ergo its boundary expresses a solid, while within - Its pure change or motion, the reciprocal to its boundary..
To put this as simple as I can, its the mirror point or zero cross over point that exudes, includes what is possible and excludes what is impossible or illogical opposed to the logical that adheres to Rules and or set Laws..
my Dawg! does that make any sense?? No wait! ~ <habebebebebe>
Err maybe one should re-read my three previous posts and then re-read this post..
Cheers
Peter J Schoen..
I didn't mean a cup. My reference is that you should be careful of trying to have motion as first cause.
Cheers
Iseason
I agree, but a given cups form and existence, or for that matter anything and or any density of mass is only but a brief expression of the Universe, it therefore exists purely via the possibility that change is possible in the first place, to which motion and or velocities are only possible by what two or more velocities logically create, its a catch 22 where motion is possible because of what they create is possible {storage of motion or a solid} but what they create is only possible if motion or CHANGE is possible in the first place, one could say its our first basic truth statement where for each of our inference, it is in fact a reciprocal reference for both to exist or be possible..
Motion or change being the reciprocal to no motion or no change, both must be possible if either one is to be possible..
Motion by my reasoning therefore is the result from the exchange or reciprocal exchanges that the universe expresses, which results in presenting time expressions and or functions opposed to its NON changing single dimensional expression..
Put simply my reasoning has motion is the reciprocal to no change and or best implied to the Universes expression or presentation as a closed system, ergo its boundary expresses a solid, while within - Its pure change or motion, the reciprocal to its boundary..
To put this as simple as I can, its the mirror point or zero cross over point that exudes, includes what is possible and excludes what is impossible or illogical opposed to the logical that adheres to Rules and or set Laws..
my Dawg! does that make any sense?? No wait! ~ <habebebebebe> Err maybe one should re-read my three previous posts and then re-read this post..
Cheers
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 14 2008, 04:44 PM)
Hej Laidback
One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest -
I have to disagree with you..
As my reasoning has everything is in motion and or constantly changing..
Perhaps not always at a perceivable level, but we have to consider this is what relativity is all about..
Every part of that watch is actually a mess of opposing velocities and or to some relative motion to else..
And if any part of it was to go completely rigid but for the briefest moment then the whole universe would have to somehow reciprocate the action if it were at all possible..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest -
I have to disagree with you..
As my reasoning has everything is in motion and or constantly changing..
Perhaps not always at a perceivable level, but we have to consider this is what relativity is all about..
Every part of that watch is actually a mess of opposing velocities and or to some relative motion to else..
And if any part of it was to go completely rigid but for the briefest moment then the whole universe would have to somehow reciprocate the action if it were at all possible..
cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi all
I must say I am chuffed with the contents of the previous posts. Lotta good stuff there and I think we are all making great progress......What's best is that nobody is name calling and grand standing..Each is allowed to present an updated view of what they are trying to clarify..
That said:
If I tried to say "STOP" to the energy, time,motion,.....I expect that there would only be one measure of the smallest quanta of energy...That is my position...
However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent.
To clarify:
The moment has a given order. The next moment ALSO retains a given order of expression. But unlike time constrained, motion, the order has nothing to do with creating this here or that there. My mass is distributed EVENLY throughout that moment....REGARDLESS of what else is there...This equals:
I am a portion of the whole. I am relative to everything that exists while I am there. So at a certain nanosecond/moment I can be said to be "such and such" a percentage of the whole (current universe)...The number of portions that create me are measured against what it takes to create the universe.....REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER THEORY of motion,time and space....It's just nice that they also work this way.
When you INCLUDE time,motion and space, you are just stringing these multiple events together...
Cheers
Iseason
I must say I am chuffed with the contents of the previous posts. Lotta good stuff there and I think we are all making great progress......What's best is that nobody is name calling and grand standing..Each is allowed to present an updated view of what they are trying to clarify..
That said:
If I tried to say "STOP" to the energy, time,motion,.....I expect that there would only be one measure of the smallest quanta of energy...That is my position...
However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent.
To clarify:
The moment has a given order. The next moment ALSO retains a given order of expression. But unlike time constrained, motion, the order has nothing to do with creating this here or that there. My mass is distributed EVENLY throughout that moment....REGARDLESS of what else is there...This equals:
I am a portion of the whole. I am relative to everything that exists while I am there. So at a certain nanosecond/moment I can be said to be "such and such" a percentage of the whole (current universe)...The number of portions that create me are measured against what it takes to create the universe.....REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER THEORY of motion,time and space....It's just nice that they also work this way.
When you INCLUDE time,motion and space, you are just stringing these multiple events together...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 15 2008, 02:55 PM)
Hi all
I must say I am chuffed with the contents of the previous posts. Lotta good stuff there and I think we are all making great progress......What's best is that nobody is name calling and grand standing..Each is allowed to present an updated view of what they are trying to clarify..
That said:
If I tried to say "STOP" to the energy, time,motion,.....I expect that there would only be one measure of the smallest quanta of energy...That is my position...
However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent.
To clarify:
The moment has a given order. The next moment ALSO retains a given order of expression. But unlike time constrained, motion, the order has nothing to do with creating this here or that there. My mass is distributed EVENLY throughout that moment....REGARDLESS of what else is there...This equals:
I am a portion of the whole. I am relative to everything that exists while I am there. So at a certain nanosecond/moment I can be said to be "such and such" a percentage of the whole (current universe)...The number of portions that create me are measured against what it takes to create the universe.....REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER THEORY of motion,time and space....It's just nice that they also work this way.
When you INCLUDE time,motion and space, you are just stringing these multiple events together...
Cheers
Iseason
Bravo!
Now what we need to do is to explain how is it that the body is 70% liquid.
which goes against your statement above in red for that moment..
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
I must say I am chuffed with the contents of the previous posts. Lotta good stuff there and I think we are all making great progress......What's best is that nobody is name calling and grand standing..Each is allowed to present an updated view of what they are trying to clarify..
That said:
If I tried to say "STOP" to the energy, time,motion,.....I expect that there would only be one measure of the smallest quanta of energy...That is my position...
However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent.
To clarify:
The moment has a given order. The next moment ALSO retains a given order of expression. But unlike time constrained, motion, the order has nothing to do with creating this here or that there. My mass is distributed EVENLY throughout that moment....REGARDLESS of what else is there...This equals:
I am a portion of the whole. I am relative to everything that exists while I am there. So at a certain nanosecond/moment I can be said to be "such and such" a percentage of the whole (current universe)...The number of portions that create me are measured against what it takes to create the universe.....REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER THEORY of motion,time and space....It's just nice that they also work this way.
When you INCLUDE time,motion and space, you are just stringing these multiple events together...
Cheers
Iseason
Bravo!
QUOTE
My mass is distributed EVENLY throughout that moment....
Now what we need to do is to explain how is it that the body is 70% liquid.
which goes against your statement above in red for that moment..
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 15 2008, 06:37 PM)
Bravo!
Now what we need to do is to explain how is it that the body is 70% liquid.
which goes against your statement above in red for that moment..
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
HA,Ha
Not quite what I had in mind Laidback. LOL. Back to a matrix example where I will allow your moment to actually be time. If I do so , then I am also adding motion and space because what I proposed as a universal moment (you correctly pointed out) did not seek to explain structure.
First is how much of "time" we want to measure. Everything will be in variation according to motion.......But this does not change "what is actually there in the least measure of time". But let's say I need a second in order to observe. The pattern must be repeated AT LEAST by the number of times in the universal perspective.
For instance:
For a snapshot (randomly) of energy only we will use 1 million positions. I could choose to snapshot any of these and see one unit of energy.
OR I could create mass by saying every instance of mass would occupy ten positions. I then have potential along the scales that Laidback proposes. There can be 100,000 instances of the same mass or any number of sub-variations. Each variation I choose can create a different result to the pattern.
Let's say mass must occupy ten or twenty positions. Here is a completely different pattern. I can even make it into a very complex model, such as I require the mass to occupy ten positions for the first fifty times and then the next time it will be twenty..The next..ten.....And so on....BUT !! The basic law is that only one pixel can be lit at a time, so some of the pattern will run out in the middle and some won't be there all the time....
So to begin the model I have a first choice...middle(the next in my string of ten will only be added once every other "mass has at least one component added). And then I will return to the original string that I started...
So every variation has , by the first run through one tenth/twentieth of it's mass. In the next run through the twenties only will get an additional position added. In this model I am keeping the previous numbers there (as it is a pattern) but in a relative model the first in a string would not exist at the time the new number was added.
This may be a long way from modeling water, but the principle is sound. we see fleeting "realities' within the atom that when seen together equal a water molecule by the electron cloud and the proton built in transition which just happens so much faster than we can observe . Generally, we do not consider that every other water molecule must be built in a set order with it as well as everything else.
Cheers
Iseason
Now what we need to do is to explain how is it that the body is 70% liquid.
which goes against your statement above in red for that moment..
Cheers..
Peter J Schoen..
HA,Ha
Not quite what I had in mind Laidback. LOL. Back to a matrix example where I will allow your moment to actually be time. If I do so , then I am also adding motion and space because what I proposed as a universal moment (you correctly pointed out) did not seek to explain structure.
First is how much of "time" we want to measure. Everything will be in variation according to motion.......But this does not change "what is actually there in the least measure of time". But let's say I need a second in order to observe. The pattern must be repeated AT LEAST by the number of times in the universal perspective.
For instance:
For a snapshot (randomly) of energy only we will use 1 million positions. I could choose to snapshot any of these and see one unit of energy.
OR I could create mass by saying every instance of mass would occupy ten positions. I then have potential along the scales that Laidback proposes. There can be 100,000 instances of the same mass or any number of sub-variations. Each variation I choose can create a different result to the pattern.
Let's say mass must occupy ten or twenty positions. Here is a completely different pattern. I can even make it into a very complex model, such as I require the mass to occupy ten positions for the first fifty times and then the next time it will be twenty..The next..ten.....And so on....BUT !! The basic law is that only one pixel can be lit at a time, so some of the pattern will run out in the middle and some won't be there all the time....
So to begin the model I have a first choice...middle(the next in my string of ten will only be added once every other "mass has at least one component added). And then I will return to the original string that I started...
So every variation has , by the first run through one tenth/twentieth of it's mass. In the next run through the twenties only will get an additional position added. In this model I am keeping the previous numbers there (as it is a pattern) but in a relative model the first in a string would not exist at the time the new number was added.
This may be a long way from modeling water, but the principle is sound. we see fleeting "realities' within the atom that when seen together equal a water molecule by the electron cloud and the proton built in transition which just happens so much faster than we can observe . Generally, we do not consider that every other water molecule must be built in a set order with it as well as everything else.
Cheers
Iseason
hej Laidback
QUOTE: "One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest -
Laidback: I have to disagree with you.."
and then you say: And if any part of it was to go completely rigid but for the briefest moment then the whole universe would have to somehow reciprocate the action if it were at all possible.."
Neither Universe nor the watch can go completely rigid - and as I see it the princoples are the same.
Universe as wel as the watch "encapsulate" the kinetics into increments (Pixel Russian Dolls), and that is how "potential" can exist. But NOTHING is absolute - nothing is rigoristic - everything show a certain "spilling over" from one scale to the next - even the watch - the watch is not allowing for the seconds to tick without increasingly influencing the minute-arm - and when treshhold is being reached - vupti the minute-arm signals -
If we divide the universe into a three dimensional expression we can give it a rigid and or solid form that presents as a cube, but the universe is with constant change, so with some more fancy divisions we can have the universe as any shape and or any variations of density we desire, to which I should point out each shape and or variation/s of densities may or may not have occurred as yet or as I write and you now read this Post we have - Just by the very nature of our actions expressed a given expression that the Universe was destined to enact or present..
Cheers,
QUOTE: "One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest -
Laidback: I have to disagree with you.."
and then you say: And if any part of it was to go completely rigid but for the briefest moment then the whole universe would have to somehow reciprocate the action if it were at all possible.."
Neither Universe nor the watch can go completely rigid - and as I see it the princoples are the same.
Universe as wel as the watch "encapsulate" the kinetics into increments (Pixel Russian Dolls), and that is how "potential" can exist. But NOTHING is absolute - nothing is rigoristic - everything show a certain "spilling over" from one scale to the next - even the watch - the watch is not allowing for the seconds to tick without increasingly influencing the minute-arm - and when treshhold is being reached - vupti the minute-arm signals -
If we divide the universe into a three dimensional expression we can give it a rigid and or solid form that presents as a cube, but the universe is with constant change, so with some more fancy divisions we can have the universe as any shape and or any variations of density we desire, to which I should point out each shape and or variation/s of densities may or may not have occurred as yet or as I write and you now read this Post we have - Just by the very nature of our actions expressed a given expression that the Universe was destined to enact or present..
Cheers,
iseason
QUOTE: "However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent."
Yes - I absolutely agree - and again the picture of the watch works well - as it seems to me.
There will always be a smallest change at a given moment and when observed in a given frame - or position -
With that I implicate that the changes you observe is with inertia in the universe - so you are observing the changes that matches the frame you are observing. And even the smallest change in that frame will be observable in its neighborness - NOT in that very moment because the change has not as yet had the possibility to show up in its neighboring - but will spread inertially. Of course it will run into interferences so very shortly after the initial change, it will be distorted and less easily recognized - and like a butterfly-effect it will dilute into the system and effect the system in an absolutely unimaginable way - I tend to say non-deterministic way.
But it is still the scale-wise arrangement and the resulting step-wise inertial delayed expressions that is the background for talking about potential and kinetic, respectively.
And already here I feel inspired to take it one step further.
The first question is: can we define something as being into true - into ideal "potential" existance - and then one can say: OK if we look at the "period" during the "unchanged" existance of the expression of smallest dimension ?
Well - smallest dimension is - or has to be into a kind of oscillating existance - otherwise it it not possible to get the next flash-expression.
And now then - how can we imagine this smallest dimension to be into existance - is it a kind of 100% On - 100% Off - or it it more likely to be a kind of stochastic representation from 0 - 1 ? and if the latter is the case then it is probably never fully Off nor fully On because we are dealing with infinitely many stochastic probabilities - and so on
And that is what one can call RELATIVE - this is true relativity.
True "Potentially" is not into existance - "Kinetically" is not into existance - so nothing is into existance - the fact that we can percept our physical universe is thanks to relativity.
QUOTE: "However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent."
Yes - I absolutely agree - and again the picture of the watch works well - as it seems to me.
There will always be a smallest change at a given moment and when observed in a given frame - or position -
With that I implicate that the changes you observe is with inertia in the universe - so you are observing the changes that matches the frame you are observing. And even the smallest change in that frame will be observable in its neighborness - NOT in that very moment because the change has not as yet had the possibility to show up in its neighboring - but will spread inertially. Of course it will run into interferences so very shortly after the initial change, it will be distorted and less easily recognized - and like a butterfly-effect it will dilute into the system and effect the system in an absolutely unimaginable way - I tend to say non-deterministic way.
But it is still the scale-wise arrangement and the resulting step-wise inertial delayed expressions that is the background for talking about potential and kinetic, respectively.
And already here I feel inspired to take it one step further.
The first question is: can we define something as being into true - into ideal "potential" existance - and then one can say: OK if we look at the "period" during the "unchanged" existance of the expression of smallest dimension ?
Well - smallest dimension is - or has to be into a kind of oscillating existance - otherwise it it not possible to get the next flash-expression.
And now then - how can we imagine this smallest dimension to be into existance - is it a kind of 100% On - 100% Off - or it it more likely to be a kind of stochastic representation from 0 - 1 ? and if the latter is the case then it is probably never fully Off nor fully On because we are dealing with infinitely many stochastic probabilities - and so on
And that is what one can call RELATIVE - this is true relativity.
True "Potentially" is not into existance - "Kinetically" is not into existance - so nothing is into existance - the fact that we can percept our physical universe is thanks to relativity.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 15 2008, 06:21 PM)
HA,Ha
Not quite what I had in mind Laidback. LOL. Back to a matrix example where I will allow your moment to actually be time. If I do so , then I am also adding motion and space because what I proposed as a universal moment (you correctly pointed out) did not seek to explain structure.
First is how much of "time" we want to measure. Everything will be in variation according to motion.......But this does not change "what is actually there in the least measure of time". But let's say I need a second in order to observe. The pattern must be repeated AT LEAST by the number of times in the universal perspective.
For instance:
For a snapshot (randomly) of energy only we will use 1 million positions. I could choose to snapshot any of these and see one unit of energy.
OR I could create mass by saying every instance of mass would occupy ten positions. I then have potential along the scales that Laidback proposes. There can be 100,000 instances of the same mass or any number of sub-variations. Each variation I choose can create a different result to the pattern.
Let's say mass must occupy ten or twenty positions. Here is a completely different pattern. I can even make it into a very complex model, such as I require the mass to occupy ten positions for the first fifty times and then the next time it will be twenty..The next..ten.....And so on....BUT !! The basic law is that only one pixel can be lit at a time, so some of the pattern will run out in the middle and some won't be there all the time....
So to begin the model I have a first choice...middle(the next in my string of ten will only be added once every other "mass has at least one component added). And then I will return to the original string that I started...
So every variation has , by the first run through one tenth/twentieth of it's mass. In the next run through the twenties only will get an additional position added. In this model I am keeping the previous numbers there (as it is a pattern) but in a relative model the first in a string would not exist at the time the new number was added.
This may be a long way from modeling water, but the principle is sound. we see fleeting "realities' within the atom that when seen together equal a water molecule by the electron cloud and the proton built in transition which just happens so much faster than we can observe . Generally, we do not consider that every other water molecule must be built in a set order with it as well as everything else.
Cheers
Iseason
My! What a Complex model..
A damn sight more complicated that I had first envisioned it to be..
Err~ I don't want to get this wrong, so do you have some basic modeling or some mathematical equations to refer to?
Or perhaps some Rules and or Laws that each pixel must adhere to may help me to get some sort of logical flow for "first" a workable open system so that at least if another like it and together I can present a closed system, or do I over look the need for a truth statement?
Anyway here's where I may have lost the plot by my application to a statement that seemed to make no logical sense to me until I apply an assumption..
First to make some sense of the above sentence or statement - as already mentioned, I done some logical assumptions for my behalf, and placed the word in red into your statement, so that now I have an expression that makes sense to me, I apologize if my assumption is wrong and if so I may need to refer to another assumption, anyway back to my prime assumption..
Where a fleeting moment is frozen and or captured so that every single imaginable dimension can be quantified and because its a one off capture of all of the measurements {dimensions} that in all reality continues to change, bar mind you our capture or perhaps a sequence of moments in time captured, so all of our subjective dimensions are represented within a given solid or unchanging construct that may be referenced to a previous moment or a following moment or theoretical snap-shot/s taken in a minimum of and to three dimensions and all snap-shots are towards a given point central to a single thoeretical and relative sphere, where our subject pixels are situated
Just in order - To refer to change and or velocities and or even a time reference that is in reference to a one- two or more dimensional co-ordinate or co-ordinates..
Now before I get to involved - Hows my reconstruction of your minds model of the smallest pixel/s going thus far?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Not quite what I had in mind Laidback. LOL. Back to a matrix example where I will allow your moment to actually be time. If I do so , then I am also adding motion and space because what I proposed as a universal moment (you correctly pointed out) did not seek to explain structure.
First is how much of "time" we want to measure. Everything will be in variation according to motion.......But this does not change "what is actually there in the least measure of time". But let's say I need a second in order to observe. The pattern must be repeated AT LEAST by the number of times in the universal perspective.
For instance:
For a snapshot (randomly) of energy only we will use 1 million positions. I could choose to snapshot any of these and see one unit of energy.
OR I could create mass by saying every instance of mass would occupy ten positions. I then have potential along the scales that Laidback proposes. There can be 100,000 instances of the same mass or any number of sub-variations. Each variation I choose can create a different result to the pattern.
Let's say mass must occupy ten or twenty positions. Here is a completely different pattern. I can even make it into a very complex model, such as I require the mass to occupy ten positions for the first fifty times and then the next time it will be twenty..The next..ten.....And so on....BUT !! The basic law is that only one pixel can be lit at a time, so some of the pattern will run out in the middle and some won't be there all the time....
So to begin the model I have a first choice...middle(the next in my string of ten will only be added once every other "mass has at least one component added). And then I will return to the original string that I started...
So every variation has , by the first run through one tenth/twentieth of it's mass. In the next run through the twenties only will get an additional position added. In this model I am keeping the previous numbers there (as it is a pattern) but in a relative model the first in a string would not exist at the time the new number was added.
This may be a long way from modeling water, but the principle is sound. we see fleeting "realities' within the atom that when seen together equal a water molecule by the electron cloud and the proton built in transition which just happens so much faster than we can observe . Generally, we do not consider that every other water molecule must be built in a set order with it as well as everything else.
Cheers
Iseason
My!
What a Complex model.. A damn sight more complicated that I had first envisioned it to be..
Err~ I don't want to get this wrong, so do you have some basic modeling or some mathematical equations to refer to?
Or perhaps some Rules and or Laws that each pixel must adhere to may help me to get some sort of logical flow for "first" a workable open system so that at least if another like it and together I can present a closed system, or do I over look the need for a truth statement?
Anyway here's where I may have lost the plot by my application to a statement that seemed to make no logical sense to me until I apply an assumption..
QUOTE
First is how much of "time" we want to measure. Everything will be in variation according to motion.......But this does not change "to what is actually there in the least measure of time".
First to make some sense of the above sentence or statement - as already mentioned, I done some logical assumptions for my behalf, and placed the word in red into your statement, so that now I have an expression that makes sense to me, I apologize if my assumption is wrong and if so I may need to refer to another assumption, anyway back to my prime assumption..
Where a fleeting moment is frozen and or captured so that every single imaginable dimension can be quantified and because its a one off capture of all of the measurements {dimensions} that in all reality continues to change, bar mind you our capture or perhaps a sequence of moments in time captured, so all of our subjective dimensions are represented within a given solid or unchanging construct that may be referenced to a previous moment or a following moment or theoretical snap-shot/s taken in a minimum of and to three dimensions and all snap-shots are towards a given point central to a single thoeretical and relative sphere, where our subject pixels are situated
Just in order - To refer to change and or velocities and or even a time reference that is in reference to a one- two or more dimensional co-ordinate or co-ordinates..
Now before I get to involved - Hows my reconstruction of your minds model of the smallest pixel/s going thus far?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 16 2008, 04:59 AM)
hej Laidback
QUOTE: "One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest -
Laidback said: I have to disagree with you.."
Via if any part of it was to go completely rigid but for the briefest moment then the whole universe would have to somehow reciprocate the action if it were at all possible.."
Neither Universe nor the watch can go completely rigid - and as I see it the principles are the same.
Universe as well as the watch "encapsulate" the kinetics into increments (Pixel Russian Dolls), and that is how "potential" can exist. But NOTHING is absolute - nothing is rigorous - everything show a certain "spilling over" from one scale to the next - even the watch - the watch is not allowing for the seconds to tick without increasingly influencing the minute-arm - and when threshold is being reached - vupti the minute-arm signals -
Cheers,
Yes and should we consider how a threshold is to be ever attained before enough momentum actually over comes what restricts whatever hand via quanta of opposing velocity, again we must consider momentum and or change, as its the finer accumulation of opposing velocities that most always over look..
Its this scale of motion - That if ever stopped anywhere in the Universe would actually render all other motion to cease as well, so its just as well every relative solid is in fact only solid to only a few references.. if it were NOT - it would be a matter of no time, for game over and or the existence of the Universe in fact is now impossible, as one of its truth statements is really not a truth statement at all..
Its for this reason everything is in constant motion to some reference, and the only way to have no perceivable change realized is via a velocity is at a velocity that opposes it.. for example if I was to traverse an area going forward lets say one meter per second but the tread mills area I traverse is going a meter per second the opposite way then in reality I will not be moving one meter per second forward until one of the velocities change from the cause for no motion is changed.. for instance by having the tread mill I am on confronted to deal with it being on another tread mill going at some velocity in the same direction as me, to which could even presents as a one minute hand by expressing the fact that I am walking a meter over a period of one minute..
Err~I hope that is not to complex, if it is, let me know and I will try and simplify it..
So anyway, the only way anything can present as a RELATIVE solid or to be with no momentum is when opposing velocities have to contend with the other and both are alike if the direction were the same.. mind you that's two velocities and both are at the same speed and or momentum as each other, only in in this case they are in opposite directions to each other..
In fact its for this reason the hand that seems as if it is with no motion to it is in fact with momentum, only its momentum or velocity for the time being is in reference to an opposing velocity, to which if any of the velocities change then and only then can we have a change in reference.. to which the hand bursts to the next set of opposing velocities, which stops the hand again dead in its tracks for one minute or an hour where the opposing velocities changes enough, only to repeat the cycle..
but to be honest all we need do is to..
Open up any watch or clock and we can see how in fact a master momentum actually effects all divisions of the implied time by the the three respective hands or for a digital watch or clock we need to consider the electron flow in our circuit which is all controlled by a single master crystal and its natural cycle that is manipulated by the application of electron flow {opposing velocities} in containing or opposing its momentum or cycle somewhat in order to given the cycle an accurate time construct that is in line with all other digital watches and to what they are set to..
Most don't realize they all still rely on "MOTION" and or change, but with the digital watch its simply electron flow controlling a crystals oscillations..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE: "One can see it like a watch. The three scales - seconds - minutes - hours - are running with each their speed, and while the seconds are ticking the minutes and hours are in rest -
Laidback said: I have to disagree with you.."
Via if any part of it was to go completely rigid but for the briefest moment then the whole universe would have to somehow reciprocate the action if it were at all possible.."
Neither Universe nor the watch can go completely rigid - and as I see it the principles are the same.
Universe as well as the watch "encapsulate" the kinetics into increments (Pixel Russian Dolls), and that is how "potential" can exist. But NOTHING is absolute - nothing is rigorous - everything show a certain "spilling over" from one scale to the next - even the watch - the watch is not allowing for the seconds to tick without increasingly influencing the minute-arm - and when threshold is being reached - vupti the minute-arm signals -
Cheers,
Yes and should we consider how a threshold is to be ever attained before enough momentum actually over comes what restricts whatever hand via quanta of opposing velocity, again we must consider momentum and or change, as its the finer accumulation of opposing velocities that most always over look..
Its this scale of motion - That if ever stopped anywhere in the Universe would actually render all other motion to cease as well, so its just as well every relative solid is in fact only solid to only a few references.. if it were NOT - it would be a matter of no time, for game over and or the existence of the Universe in fact is now impossible, as one of its truth statements is really not a truth statement at all..
Its for this reason everything is in constant motion to some reference, and the only way to have no perceivable change realized is via a velocity is at a velocity that opposes it.. for example if I was to traverse an area going forward lets say one meter per second but the tread mills area I traverse is going a meter per second the opposite way then in reality I will not be moving one meter per second forward until one of the velocities change from the cause for no motion is changed.. for instance by having the tread mill I am on confronted to deal with it being on another tread mill going at some velocity in the same direction as me, to which could even presents as a one minute hand by expressing the fact that I am walking a meter over a period of one minute..
Err~I hope that is not to complex, if it is, let me know and I will try and simplify it..
So anyway, the only way anything can present as a RELATIVE solid or to be with no momentum is when opposing velocities have to contend with the other and both are alike if the direction were the same.. mind you that's two velocities and both are at the same speed and or momentum as each other, only in in this case they are in opposite directions to each other..
In fact its for this reason the hand that seems as if it is with no motion to it is in fact with momentum, only its momentum or velocity for the time being is in reference to an opposing velocity, to which if any of the velocities change then and only then can we have a change in reference.. to which the hand bursts to the next set of opposing velocities, which stops the hand again dead in its tracks for one minute or an hour where the opposing velocities changes enough, only to repeat the cycle..
but to be honest all we need do is to..
Open up any watch or clock and we can see how in fact a master momentum actually effects all divisions of the implied time by the the three respective hands or for a digital watch or clock we need to consider the electron flow in our circuit which is all controlled by a single master crystal and its natural cycle that is manipulated by the application of electron flow {opposing velocities} in containing or opposing its momentum or cycle somewhat in order to given the cycle an accurate time construct that is in line with all other digital watches and to what they are set to..
Most don't realize they all still rely on "MOTION" and or change, but with the digital watch its simply electron flow controlling a crystals oscillations..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 16 2008, 05:31 AM)
iseason
QUOTE: "However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent."
Yes - I absolutely agree - and again the picture of the watch works well - as it seems to me.
There will always be a smallest change at a given moment and when observed in a given frame - or position -
With that I implicate that the changes you observe is with inertia in the universe - so you are observing the changes that matches the frame you are observing. And even the smallest change in that frame will be observable in its neighborness - NOT in that very moment because the change has not as yet had the possibility to show up in its neighboring - but will spread inertially. Of course it will run into interferences so very shortly after the initial change, it will be distorted and less easily recognized - and like a butterfly-effect it will dilute into the system and effect the system in an absolutely unimaginable way - I tend to say non-deterministic way.
But it is still the scale-wise arrangement and the resulting step-wise inertial delayed expressions that is the background for talking about potential and kinetic, respectively.
And already here I feel inspired to take it one step further.
The first question is: can we define something as being into true - into ideal "potential" existance - and then one can say: OK if we look at the "period" during the "unchanged" existance of the expression of smallest dimension ?
Well - smallest dimension is - or has to be into a kind of oscillating existance - otherwise it it not possible to get the next flash-expression.
And now then - how can we imagine this smallest dimension to be into existance - is it a kind of 100% On - 100% Off - or it it more likely to be a kind of stochastic representation from 0 - 1 ? and if the latter is the case then it is probably never fully Off nor fully On because we are dealing with infinitely many stochastic probabilities - and so on
And that is what one can call RELATIVE - this is true relativity.
True "Potentially" is not into existance - "Kinetically" is not into existance - so nothing is into existance - the fact that we can percept our physical universe is thanks to relativity.
A truth table may have to be called for.. one that refers to some master reference with respects to the other relative references.
Of course the truth table would have to refer to dimensions and or references that thus far have not been defined in order that no conflicts are introduced with other physics..
So what do we refer to as our master Reference?
"One universe"? or perhaps "Universal reference"? as our Master reference or how about simply "MR" or UR? Or do we perhaps begin with the absolute smallest quanta we currently can muster?
Lets say "One", of course we must then consider "One" of what or what should its definition be in reference to?
To which I guess this depends on how complex or massive our truth table is to be?
so in reality seeing it is the smallest division of the WHOLE Universe, we must first then define our master reference?
So what say we all?
what do we refer to?
"One universe"? or perhaps "Universal reference"? as our Master reference or how about simply "MR" or UR? or whatever!???
So what say we all? Or Am I jumping the starter gun again?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE: "However, If I said stop and allowed whatever exists while my mass is "apparent", then I would expect that the "photograph" view of the universe would exist. Given that the distances that the universes masses are away from me, They are positions which are occupied closely to those which make my mass apparent "AT THAT MOMENT ONLY".
The next moment would show a slight shift in the positions, but those would be said to have been occupied closely to whatever else is apparent."
Yes - I absolutely agree - and again the picture of the watch works well - as it seems to me.
There will always be a smallest change at a given moment and when observed in a given frame - or position -
With that I implicate that the changes you observe is with inertia in the universe - so you are observing the changes that matches the frame you are observing. And even the smallest change in that frame will be observable in its neighborness - NOT in that very moment because the change has not as yet had the possibility to show up in its neighboring - but will spread inertially. Of course it will run into interferences so very shortly after the initial change, it will be distorted and less easily recognized - and like a butterfly-effect it will dilute into the system and effect the system in an absolutely unimaginable way - I tend to say non-deterministic way.
But it is still the scale-wise arrangement and the resulting step-wise inertial delayed expressions that is the background for talking about potential and kinetic, respectively.
And already here I feel inspired to take it one step further.
The first question is: can we define something as being into true - into ideal "potential" existance - and then one can say: OK if we look at the "period" during the "unchanged" existance of the expression of smallest dimension ?
Well - smallest dimension is - or has to be into a kind of oscillating existance - otherwise it it not possible to get the next flash-expression.
And now then - how can we imagine this smallest dimension to be into existance - is it a kind of 100% On - 100% Off - or it it more likely to be a kind of stochastic representation from 0 - 1 ? and if the latter is the case then it is probably never fully Off nor fully On because we are dealing with infinitely many stochastic probabilities - and so on
And that is what one can call RELATIVE - this is true relativity.
True "Potentially" is not into existance - "Kinetically" is not into existance - so nothing is into existance - the fact that we can percept our physical universe is thanks to relativity.
A truth table may have to be called for.. one that refers to some master reference with respects to the other relative references.
Of course the truth table would have to refer to dimensions and or references that thus far have not been defined in order that no conflicts are introduced with other physics..
So what do we refer to as our master Reference?
"One universe"? or perhaps "Universal reference"? as our Master reference or how about simply "MR" or UR? Or do we perhaps begin with the absolute smallest quanta we currently can muster?
Lets say "One", of course we must then consider "One" of what or what should its definition be in reference to?
To which I guess this depends on how complex or massive our truth table is to be?
so in reality seeing it is the smallest division of the WHOLE Universe, we must first then define our master reference?
So what say we all?
what do we refer to?
"One universe"? or perhaps "Universal reference"? as our Master reference or how about simply "MR" or UR? or whatever!???
So what say we all? Or Am I jumping the starter gun again?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 14 2008, 06:56 PM)
Hi Bukh
I think Our basic difference is Not How, But how much exists at any given time. I am happy with the basic model but still hold that a re-arraigning of the values affecting the Photon/universe equals one value and this keeps everything neat.
If you have many positions "on" at once , you break first cause. In this you need a reverse theory to find out where it started. remember we are in a closed system.
Cheers
Iseason
Indeed, but to refer to a system we must have change and the only way for change is if a system is open to change, this means for our first statement to be a truth statement its presentation must be and remain with NO external Change..
so for change to be possible the closed system must have or consist of at least two open systems, so that on change in one of the sub-systems and for our first truth statement {oh man! I wish we had a defined reference to refer to but in short..}to remain as a truth statement it must have the other sub-system in reciprocal to the other open sub-system..
Our first reference is to a closed system and it defines that at minimum we need two open sub-systems to actually present our master reference and on change to one of our sub-system or division of our master reference all references at all times have to present truth..
A simple basic model being our closed system equates to our Master reference.
and the many possible ratios that our divided master reference is able to express is via its sub-systems that are only open to each other..
For instance if our master reference was via a two dimensional and or two sub reference expression and one was 75% of our master reference then the other reference would have to present as 25% of our master reference..
argh! without proper defined definitions this is far to complex and confusing to me, so I guess I will wait for a sound definition before I consider any further..
so I hope we can come to some definitions..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I think Our basic difference is Not How, But how much exists at any given time. I am happy with the basic model but still hold that a re-arraigning of the values affecting the Photon/universe equals one value and this keeps everything neat.
If you have many positions "on" at once , you break first cause. In this you need a reverse theory to find out where it started. remember we are in a closed system.
Cheers
Iseason
Indeed, but to refer to a system we must have change and the only way for change is if a system is open to change, this means for our first statement to be a truth statement its presentation must be and remain with NO external Change..
so for change to be possible the closed system must have or consist of at least two open systems, so that on change in one of the sub-systems and for our first truth statement {oh man! I wish we had a defined reference to refer to but in short..}to remain as a truth statement it must have the other sub-system in reciprocal to the other open sub-system..
Our first reference is to a closed system and it defines that at minimum we need two open sub-systems to actually present our master reference and on change to one of our sub-system or division of our master reference all references at all times have to present truth..
A simple basic model being our closed system equates to our Master reference.
and the many possible ratios that our divided master reference is able to express is via its sub-systems that are only open to each other..
For instance if our master reference was via a two dimensional and or two sub reference expression and one was 75% of our master reference then the other reference would have to present as 25% of our master reference..
argh! without proper defined definitions this is far to complex and confusing to me, so I guess I will wait for a sound definition before I consider any further..
so I hope we can come to some definitions..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hej Laidback
Your comments to my watch analogy I can agree on word for word - and to me it would seem that we are in total agreement - perhaps if you read my latest comment to iseason - which is also about kinetic/potential - because this is what it is about - what is potential and what is kinetic - because on the bottom -bottom - bottomline everything is kinetic - or we can tink everything to be originated from kinetic - untill we reach smallest dimensionality - and then we have to model this creature !
Your comments to my watch analogy I can agree on word for word - and to me it would seem that we are in total agreement - perhaps if you read my latest comment to iseason - which is also about kinetic/potential - because this is what it is about - what is potential and what is kinetic - because on the bottom -bottom - bottomline everything is kinetic - or we can tink everything to be originated from kinetic - untill we reach smallest dimensionality - and then we have to model this creature !
Laidback
I was answering before I had read your post on my comment to iseason
YES EXACTLY - you got it - what is our master reference -
And you may have noticed that I have decided to let dimensionality be axiomatically present - without the existance of dimensionality I cannot get a master reference -
And then I have also said at several occasions - that there exist no such thing as the ultimate truth - a truth that we humans ever will be able to get insight into-
We are part of universe - and it is about how this part of the system (humans) - it is about how humans choose to get insight into the surroundings - the system -
The first step is to choose a "tool" for getting an insight - and I have choosen "Dimensionality" as this tool. It is not possible to describe - to define - to communicate - to "understand" anything without having a tool to understand out form. And to me "Dimensionality" is the most simple - and the most elegant way to make such an overall understanding to be communicable.
Out from dimensionality we can construct a total picture that is accurately in harmony with everything that we can percept with our physical senses and that we can percept with our apparatus "made" in the same scale as our physical senses is being "made" of (when I say "made" it is the same as saying equivalent scales qubit-wise) - AND by having this odd creature that "Dimensionality" is- we also have a tool that would seem to fit to our mind - which is a much finer percepting apparatus than our physical senses and our appartus's
So in short: "Dimensionality" is the quintessence of physical world - and "dimensionality" is a very very very deep mystery. We humans have for long time taken dimensionality as granted - as something that is just hwd - but we have not been aware that it takes a dimensionality to construct a dimensionlaity - we have not been aware that we cannot construct a dimensionality out from dimenssionless points. We simply need to accept that dimensionality is an AXIOM
OUR MASTER REFERENCE "DIMENSIONALITY" IS AN AXIOM !!!
I was answering before I had read your post on my comment to iseason
YES EXACTLY - you got it - what is our master reference -
And you may have noticed that I have decided to let dimensionality be axiomatically present - without the existance of dimensionality I cannot get a master reference -
And then I have also said at several occasions - that there exist no such thing as the ultimate truth - a truth that we humans ever will be able to get insight into-
We are part of universe - and it is about how this part of the system (humans) - it is about how humans choose to get insight into the surroundings - the system -
The first step is to choose a "tool" for getting an insight - and I have choosen "Dimensionality" as this tool. It is not possible to describe - to define - to communicate - to "understand" anything without having a tool to understand out form. And to me "Dimensionality" is the most simple - and the most elegant way to make such an overall understanding to be communicable.
Out from dimensionality we can construct a total picture that is accurately in harmony with everything that we can percept with our physical senses and that we can percept with our apparatus "made" in the same scale as our physical senses is being "made" of (when I say "made" it is the same as saying equivalent scales qubit-wise) - AND by having this odd creature that "Dimensionality" is- we also have a tool that would seem to fit to our mind - which is a much finer percepting apparatus than our physical senses and our appartus's
So in short: "Dimensionality" is the quintessence of physical world - and "dimensionality" is a very very very deep mystery. We humans have for long time taken dimensionality as granted - as something that is just hwd - but we have not been aware that it takes a dimensionality to construct a dimensionlaity - we have not been aware that we cannot construct a dimensionality out from dimenssionless points. We simply need to accept that dimensionality is an AXIOM
OUR MASTER REFERENCE "DIMENSIONALITY" IS AN AXIOM !!!
Laidback
PS
sorry I did not read your latest comment to iseason saying:
"Our first reference is to a closed system and it defines that at minimum we need two open sub-systems to actually present our master reference and on change to one of our sub-system or division of our master reference all references at all times have to present truth.."
YES -Exactly
and this is why "dimensionality" is axiomatically required -
PS
sorry I did not read your latest comment to iseason saying:
"Our first reference is to a closed system and it defines that at minimum we need two open sub-systems to actually present our master reference and on change to one of our sub-system or division of our master reference all references at all times have to present truth.."
YES -Exactly
and this is why "dimensionality" is axiomatically required -
Hi Guys
I am currently considering a couple of different models. This will directly affect Laidback's request for defined terminology. The first is as I have always argued,(which , of course is ongoing in it's clarification) and the second addresses universal memory of position. Of course we will need to explain this no matter what, but it will change where "we look " for change. So I'll add to that later.
As to terminology: I think we all agree we are talking about a closed system, so why don't we bring the "mathematics" down to a workable level. Something small enough that it can be measured easily but large enough that it can show all level of changes. Since we seem content to work in pixels, I am happy to see discussion along cinematic lines as has been done for clarity before in this forum. We need to broaden this to three dimensions eventually, but certainly much can be made of this methodology that we all understand.
It is noted that in order to do this there will need to be a modification of how our energy is received and distributed within our system (since we have no power cord) and the first assumption is that we have already enough energy there to Have given us the end result. The result was an hour of variation (TV viewing) if that is easier.
Then we have a finite number of divisions based within our system. As far as I know the screen completely refreshes at 30,000 pixels a second. Please correct me if that is wrong or technology has moved past my last recollection. In one minute we have 60 times thirty thousand pixels or 1,800,000 events.
In an hour we have 108,000,000 possible divisions or events. So our universe can be made up of 108,000,000 Photons/pixels/smallest divisions. Our largest IS within this container. Think of it as closed. This can be used to many advantages.
For instance:
I like the idea of creating a box picture rather than a flat screen to show 3d. To do this I take one second (packet of 30,000 pixels ) and place each successive packet directly behind it. Since I can only use the flat screens value for a second, my pixels must be evenly distributed throughout sixty levels or screens. So my "hour" still has divisions of thirty thousand, but I have another model to use.
I understand the need for terminology. However I think we need to define a model in which we can use actual numbers to clarify and present familiar images. Every one is currently doing this in their own way of expressing things and doing very well. I understand most of what is "inferred" but also find the least and/or the largest hard for others to put into real focus..
Thoughts
Cheers
Iseason
I am currently considering a couple of different models. This will directly affect Laidback's request for defined terminology. The first is as I have always argued,(which , of course is ongoing in it's clarification) and the second addresses universal memory of position. Of course we will need to explain this no matter what, but it will change where "we look " for change. So I'll add to that later.
As to terminology: I think we all agree we are talking about a closed system, so why don't we bring the "mathematics" down to a workable level. Something small enough that it can be measured easily but large enough that it can show all level of changes. Since we seem content to work in pixels, I am happy to see discussion along cinematic lines as has been done for clarity before in this forum. We need to broaden this to three dimensions eventually, but certainly much can be made of this methodology that we all understand.
It is noted that in order to do this there will need to be a modification of how our energy is received and distributed within our system (since we have no power cord) and the first assumption is that we have already enough energy there to Have given us the end result. The result was an hour of variation (TV viewing) if that is easier.
Then we have a finite number of divisions based within our system. As far as I know the screen completely refreshes at 30,000 pixels a second. Please correct me if that is wrong or technology has moved past my last recollection. In one minute we have 60 times thirty thousand pixels or 1,800,000 events.
In an hour we have 108,000,000 possible divisions or events. So our universe can be made up of 108,000,000 Photons/pixels/smallest divisions. Our largest IS within this container. Think of it as closed. This can be used to many advantages.
For instance:
I like the idea of creating a box picture rather than a flat screen to show 3d. To do this I take one second (packet of 30,000 pixels ) and place each successive packet directly behind it. Since I can only use the flat screens value for a second, my pixels must be evenly distributed throughout sixty levels or screens. So my "hour" still has divisions of thirty thousand, but I have another model to use.
I understand the need for terminology. However I think we need to define a model in which we can use actual numbers to clarify and present familiar images. Every one is currently doing this in their own way of expressing things and doing very well. I understand most of what is "inferred" but also find the least and/or the largest hard for others to put into real focus..
Thoughts
Cheers
Iseason
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.