QUOTE (bukh+Oct 16 2008, 03:39 PM)
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 -
Having read all of the posts after my last batch of posts,
I must say I feel we are about to take an astonishing step forward which has never been breached before throughout the world..
But first let me congratulate everyone that has contributed thus far, yes even you fairy!
what with your encouraging smileys..
OK Bukh, iseason, ivars,
IVARS are you still participating?
I am going to start this post with a reference and or a tool, and it will be based on an observational basis..
This tool will simply be a comparison to what we observe in with respects to it.
For example before us we may have a cube and when we compare our tool to it, our tool just so happens to equal the width, height, and depth of our subjective cube..
Lets say the next day someone comes along and sees the tool near the cube and wonders if the tool is the same length as the cubes width, but on comparing the two, they do not match, likewise all the other lengths of the cube seem to at least imply it is indeed a cube as its three references compare much the same in reference to the tool..
It turns out our tool is only with the same measurement to any of the cubes dimensions only at a given temperature, so obviously we need another better tool, one that changes or behaves exactly like our cubes references..
But here's the thing, even if we have another cube exactly like our cube and then compare them, they will never be exactly the same, as they each are in a different location with respects to where they are in the universe, granted the difference will be totally way out of our league to ever detect, anyway moving on, therefore if we are to agree on the cubes definition ergo each and every one of us when we express a statement about it, it MUST be exactly as expressed, ergo a truth statement..
I am hoping at this point the only way this cube can be exactly as one describes it - is if we all refer to the same definitions and with the same considerations, so each and every one of us can model the exact same cube, pixel and or mass..
And on change to it - again simply by the use of the same reference/s and considerations we all clearly agree what one is modeling - is the exact model before each and every one of us..
So if I expressed that I divided our model or cube and rearranged it so that 40% of its divisions presents its width, 40% as its height and 10% as its depth and 10% as its density..
a tough one by most, so bare with me please..
Everyone should agree what we have here is a form that seems as if it is a square with some thickness to it, but somehow the form is not solid, Nor is it void, but if we compare it to our master cube its very different as all of its dimensions are now different. via the implied percentages, mind you our new form can always be reverted back to its original form as all we are doing is re-arranging its mass.
Nuff said as I want everyone to consider how our cube, pixel or mass can represent its various possible forms simply if any of its references were rearranged that's of course including the obscured dimensions, ignoring "my~nute" or minute temperature or Kinetic dependent and or unobservable changes for the time being..
Anyway getting back to our smallest master reference or cube one could say the master cube before us - is in fact a reciprocal to the whole universe, so if this is the case, why not model the whole universe merely at a workable scale in the first place?
so that all of our models behave the same via we restrict our form to 100, simply because it can easily be considered as a percentage, so that all of our models present the same expression and or an inference as it always remains at 100% truth or 100% of the same master reference and or absolute minimum percentage of it..
So whatever events take place inside of this closed system is in fact a reciprocal mirror in every dimension to the universe, in fact what I should have perhaps referred to was a sphere, a highly polished sphere! So that one could at least visualize what outer but still internal to the spheres velocities as observable changes observed are in fact to be in reciprocal..
Put simply as a cloud moves over and or above us, inside the sphere an actual cloud moves over our reciprocal image..
Anyway I have chores to attend so I will leave it at that..hoping we can define our master Dimension or reference so that if we are to further divide it into functional dimensions are able to express basic physical possibilities that are indisputable..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
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 -
Having read all of the posts after my last batch of posts,
I must say I feel we are about to take an astonishing step forward which has never been breached before throughout the world..
But first let me congratulate everyone that has contributed thus far, yes even you fairy!
what with your encouraging smileys..
OK Bukh, iseason, ivars,
IVARS are you still participating?
I am going to start this post with a reference and or a tool, and it will be based on an observational basis..
This tool will simply be a comparison to what we observe in with respects to it.
For example before us we may have a cube and when we compare our tool to it, our tool just so happens to equal the width, height, and depth of our subjective cube..
Lets say the next day someone comes along and sees the tool near the cube and wonders if the tool is the same length as the cubes width, but on comparing the two, they do not match, likewise all the other lengths of the cube seem to at least imply it is indeed a cube as its three references compare much the same in reference to the tool..
It turns out our tool is only with the same measurement to any of the cubes dimensions only at a given temperature, so obviously we need another better tool, one that changes or behaves exactly like our cubes references..
But here's the thing, even if we have another cube exactly like our cube and then compare them, they will never be exactly the same, as they each are in a different location with respects to where they are in the universe, granted the difference will be totally way out of our league to ever detect, anyway moving on, therefore if we are to agree on the cubes definition ergo each and every one of us when we express a statement about it, it MUST be exactly as expressed, ergo a truth statement..
I am hoping at this point the only way this cube can be exactly as one describes it - is if we all refer to the same definitions and with the same considerations, so each and every one of us can model the exact same cube, pixel and or mass..
And on change to it - again simply by the use of the same reference/s and considerations we all clearly agree what one is modeling - is the exact model before each and every one of us..
So if I expressed that I divided our model or cube and rearranged it so that 40% of its divisions presents its width, 40% as its height and 10% as its depth and 10% as its density..
a tough one by most, so bare with me please..Everyone should agree what we have here is a form that seems as if it is a square with some thickness to it, but somehow the form is not solid, Nor is it void, but if we compare it to our master cube its very different as all of its dimensions are now different. via the implied percentages, mind you our new form can always be reverted back to its original form as all we are doing is re-arranging its mass.
Nuff said as I want everyone to consider how our cube, pixel or mass can represent its various possible forms simply if any of its references were rearranged that's of course including the obscured dimensions, ignoring "my~nute" or minute temperature or Kinetic dependent and or unobservable changes for the time being..
Anyway getting back to our smallest master reference or cube one could say the master cube before us - is in fact a reciprocal to the whole universe, so if this is the case, why not model the whole universe merely at a workable scale in the first place?
so that all of our models behave the same via we restrict our form to 100, simply because it can easily be considered as a percentage, so that all of our models present the same expression and or an inference as it always remains at 100% truth or 100% of the same master reference and or absolute minimum percentage of it..
So whatever events take place inside of this closed system is in fact a reciprocal mirror in every dimension to the universe, in fact what I should have perhaps referred to was a sphere, a highly polished sphere! So that one could at least visualize what outer but still internal to the spheres velocities as observable changes observed are in fact to be in reciprocal..
Put simply as a cloud moves over and or above us, inside the sphere an actual cloud moves over our reciprocal image..
Anyway I have chores to attend so I will leave it at that..hoping we can define our master Dimension or reference so that if we are to further divide it into functional dimensions are able to express basic physical possibilities that are indisputable..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 16 2008, 03:43 PM)
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
With my previous Post in mind,
And your inference to a box model depicted on a two dimensional screen.
we now can consider that box or cube and the many pixels used to present it on our screen is a good starting point..
the count of pixels on the boxes surface should be easily used for our three dimensional grid that if the pixels were possibly removed and then re-arranged in a cube before us, but why do this? when the computer can morph our cube with its given rules to whatever shape or physical attributes and in doing so actually animate in real time the motion one would expect..
I have to go, as my chores deadlines have been breached..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
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
With my previous Post in mind,
And your inference to a box model depicted on a two dimensional screen.
we now can consider that box or cube and the many pixels used to present it on our screen is a good starting point..
the count of pixels on the boxes surface should be easily used for our three dimensional grid that if the pixels were possibly removed and then re-arranged in a cube before us, but why do this? when the computer can morph our cube with its given rules to whatever shape or physical attributes and in doing so actually animate in real time the motion one would expect..
I have to go, as my chores deadlines have been breached..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi all
Laidback. I'm happy to see models created by persons with those skills on the computer. In fact that is precisely what I would like to learn to do. my references are to show how whether in two dimension or three , the universal value is only ever one observable value.
I chose one seconds worth of pixels deliberately, knowing that it was in fact made of thirty thousand divisions. this allows us a position similar to what we can actually observe as humans but allows that a depth exists that we cannot quite plumb except in theory and study. Namely atomic,photon/smallest.
In doing this we can move to create models of mass that we see in similar percentages in real time. So If we said ten percent mass, we can run the model according to various actual rules as to how that is expected to be compared to what we actually see.
I see an order which creates the thirty thousand pixels in a given order and that order repeats .If a cube is the representation then the thirty thousand can be dispersed according to any rule , but the model should run for only one minute if the depth is sixty "screens deep". And it should only use each position once, thereby every pixel is represented as the average ,potential,mass,and motion according to a time line.
Lot's of tries will be needed to get a correctly working model. But I know that this only shows mass as we would see in a minute of time. It does not begin or end anything. That model is as hard to define as anything I mentioned above. A looping model of thirty thousand pixels is viewable and accurate as needs be for now.
The rules as I see them are slightly different than I have seen from Bukh and yourself....These are.
1.Only one pixel "can actually" be on the screen at one time.
This does not change what we see as it is the same as when we watch television. This makes the life of each pixel 'one thirtieth of a second'. you would not see anything stop, but a fluid change.
2.because we are using only ten percent mass, the "area" that the pixels occupy during any second must be ten percent, but by the end of the minute EVERY space within the cube needs to have been used.This involves a clustering of pixels which will make those areas visible.
That satisfies "space" and potential, mass,motion and time while keeping my first premise that only one pixel/value need to be present at any 'relative reality' to give the impression there is lots of energy.
I know I don't have the skills to create such a model and understand that it is really just a wish list for me. Others here will like to see their twists created as well and I respect that anyone working on them has a right to see theirs modeled first.
By the way If you can teach...I can learn.
Cheers
Iseason
Laidback. I'm happy to see models created by persons with those skills on the computer. In fact that is precisely what I would like to learn to do. my references are to show how whether in two dimension or three , the universal value is only ever one observable value.
I chose one seconds worth of pixels deliberately, knowing that it was in fact made of thirty thousand divisions. this allows us a position similar to what we can actually observe as humans but allows that a depth exists that we cannot quite plumb except in theory and study. Namely atomic,photon/smallest.
In doing this we can move to create models of mass that we see in similar percentages in real time. So If we said ten percent mass, we can run the model according to various actual rules as to how that is expected to be compared to what we actually see.
I see an order which creates the thirty thousand pixels in a given order and that order repeats .If a cube is the representation then the thirty thousand can be dispersed according to any rule , but the model should run for only one minute if the depth is sixty "screens deep". And it should only use each position once, thereby every pixel is represented as the average ,potential,mass,and motion according to a time line.
Lot's of tries will be needed to get a correctly working model. But I know that this only shows mass as we would see in a minute of time. It does not begin or end anything. That model is as hard to define as anything I mentioned above. A looping model of thirty thousand pixels is viewable and accurate as needs be for now.
The rules as I see them are slightly different than I have seen from Bukh and yourself....These are.
1.Only one pixel "can actually" be on the screen at one time.
This does not change what we see as it is the same as when we watch television. This makes the life of each pixel 'one thirtieth of a second'. you would not see anything stop, but a fluid change.
2.because we are using only ten percent mass, the "area" that the pixels occupy during any second must be ten percent, but by the end of the minute EVERY space within the cube needs to have been used.This involves a clustering of pixels which will make those areas visible.
That satisfies "space" and potential, mass,motion and time while keeping my first premise that only one pixel/value need to be present at any 'relative reality' to give the impression there is lots of energy.
I know I don't have the skills to create such a model and understand that it is really just a wish list for me. Others here will like to see their twists created as well and I respect that anyone working on them has a right to see theirs modeled first.
By the way If you can teach...I can learn.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 16 2008, 10:54 PM)
OK Bukh, iseason, ivars,
IVARS are you still participating?
Hi Laidback
Yes, but.. I like to see new ideas and more concise formulations. More abstract, since to express the things we want to express involving multitude of practical physical concepts which are all limited to their scope of application, is, in my opinion, impossible.
So I am looking in mathematics/logic, not using any physical term.
I can not come up with any yet, so I keep silent. And study projective geometry from its roots in 19th century. Why? Because projective geometry is the place from where both QM (CP^2) and SR (Flat Minkovski space) and Gravity (Curvature of space) theories originated.
The geometry itself, as possible space invariants, and transformations, does not say anything about physical motion of particles, so it does not contradict the idea that communication between events in space may happen infinitely fast somewhere behind the scenes, rearranging space, changing percepted reality in sync with oscillations of consciousness.
IVARS are you still participating?
Hi Laidback
Yes, but.. I like to see new ideas and more concise formulations. More abstract, since to express the things we want to express involving multitude of practical physical concepts which are all limited to their scope of application, is, in my opinion, impossible.
So I am looking in mathematics/logic, not using any physical term.
I can not come up with any yet, so I keep silent. And study projective geometry from its roots in 19th century. Why? Because projective geometry is the place from where both QM (CP^2) and SR (Flat Minkovski space) and Gravity (Curvature of space) theories originated.
The geometry itself, as possible space invariants, and transformations, does not say anything about physical motion of particles, so it does not contradict the idea that communication between events in space may happen infinitely fast somewhere behind the scenes, rearranging space, changing percepted reality in sync with oscillations of consciousness.
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 17 2008, 06:31 PM)
Hi Laidback
Yes, but.. I like to see new ideas and more concise formulations. More abstract, since to express the things we want to express involving multitude of practical physical concepts which are all limited to their scope of application, is, in my opinion, impossible.
So I am looking in mathematics/logic, not using any physical term.
I can not come up with any yet, so I keep silent. And study projective geometry from its roots in 19th century. Why? Because projective geometry is the place from where both QM (CP^2) and SR (Flat Minkovski space) and Gravity (Curvature of space) theories originated.
The geometry itself, as possible space invariants, and transformations, does not say anything about physical motion of particles, so it does not contradict the idea that communication between events in space may happen infinitely fast somewhere behind the scenes, rearranging space, changing percepted reality in sync with oscillations of consciousness.
Hi Ivars.
What does my model lack as you understand it? in fact "do you understand it"?
Do you have tools in your bag of tricks that I can explore with. I have been unsuccessful as yet of finding a user friendly medium.
Cheers
Iseason
Yes, but.. I like to see new ideas and more concise formulations. More abstract, since to express the things we want to express involving multitude of practical physical concepts which are all limited to their scope of application, is, in my opinion, impossible.
So I am looking in mathematics/logic, not using any physical term.
I can not come up with any yet, so I keep silent. And study projective geometry from its roots in 19th century. Why? Because projective geometry is the place from where both QM (CP^2) and SR (Flat Minkovski space) and Gravity (Curvature of space) theories originated.
The geometry itself, as possible space invariants, and transformations, does not say anything about physical motion of particles, so it does not contradict the idea that communication between events in space may happen infinitely fast somewhere behind the scenes, rearranging space, changing percepted reality in sync with oscillations of consciousness.
Hi Ivars.
What does my model lack as you understand it? in fact "do you understand it"?
Do you have tools in your bag of tricks that I can explore with. I have been unsuccessful as yet of finding a user friendly medium.
Cheers
Iseason
hej Ivars
Quote: "Yes, but.. I like to see new ideas and more concise formulations. More abstract, since to express the things we want to express involving multitude of practical physical concepts which are all limited to their scope of application, is, in my opinion, impossible."
I cannot think of anything more abstract than "Dimensionality" - and now I am referring to dimensionalities that express our physical world.
I like to think that our physical world is being expressed via the ever ongoing re-arrangments of dimensionalities in space - and how such re-arrangements show themselves as quake-like waves - domino-like quakes that can be seen as WAVES - and that all and anythingin our physical universe is such wave-like patterns - particles being best desribed as standing wave-systems.
Like iseason says, I must have a tool - without a kind of tool at hand it is not possible to understand anything - there must be something to form "our insight" around.
By this I am not saying that dimensionality represent any kind of "truth" I am not saying that dimensionality is "into existance" as such - I am just saying that without a "tool" nothing is possible.
And likewise you have to be aware that any kind of mathematics - any kind on topological exercises likewise are nothing but mere tools - they are no more fundamental than the axiomatic necessity that we choose to put on them in our thinking - in our modelling.
On the bottomline it is solely a matter about which kind of tool we choose to select for our understanding - and Yes I am a visual person - and not a math person
To me math is meaningless unless I can translate it into shapes -and I have difficulties in seeing how it is possible to translate math points into dimensions - except that math points themselves represent dimension - and then we are back to square one - namely that everything is about "dimension" as the axiomatic starting point - sorry for using point in the latter context - language unfortunately is not vey precise.
QUOTE: "The geometry itself, as possible space invariants, and transformations, does not say anything about physical motion of particles, so it does not contradict the idea that communication between events in space may happen infinitely fast somewhere behind the scenes, rearranging space, changing percepted reality in sync with oscillations of consciousness."
I am afraid that you are digging after the origin of the origin - which to me is too ambituos - I like to think that the Best is the worse enemy of the Good.
Quote: "Yes, but.. I like to see new ideas and more concise formulations. More abstract, since to express the things we want to express involving multitude of practical physical concepts which are all limited to their scope of application, is, in my opinion, impossible."
I cannot think of anything more abstract than "Dimensionality" - and now I am referring to dimensionalities that express our physical world.
I like to think that our physical world is being expressed via the ever ongoing re-arrangments of dimensionalities in space - and how such re-arrangements show themselves as quake-like waves - domino-like quakes that can be seen as WAVES - and that all and anythingin our physical universe is such wave-like patterns - particles being best desribed as standing wave-systems.
Like iseason says, I must have a tool - without a kind of tool at hand it is not possible to understand anything - there must be something to form "our insight" around.
By this I am not saying that dimensionality represent any kind of "truth" I am not saying that dimensionality is "into existance" as such - I am just saying that without a "tool" nothing is possible.
And likewise you have to be aware that any kind of mathematics - any kind on topological exercises likewise are nothing but mere tools - they are no more fundamental than the axiomatic necessity that we choose to put on them in our thinking - in our modelling.
On the bottomline it is solely a matter about which kind of tool we choose to select for our understanding - and Yes I am a visual person - and not a math person
To me math is meaningless unless I can translate it into shapes -and I have difficulties in seeing how it is possible to translate math points into dimensions - except that math points themselves represent dimension - and then we are back to square one - namely that everything is about "dimension" as the axiomatic starting point - sorry for using point in the latter context - language unfortunately is not vey precise.
QUOTE: "The geometry itself, as possible space invariants, and transformations, does not say anything about physical motion of particles, so it does not contradict the idea that communication between events in space may happen infinitely fast somewhere behind the scenes, rearranging space, changing percepted reality in sync with oscillations of consciousness."
I am afraid that you are digging after the origin of the origin - which to me is too ambituos - I like to think that the Best is the worse enemy of the Good.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 17 2008, 05:54 AM)
Hi Ivars.
What does my model lack as you understand it? in fact "do you understand it"?
Do you have tools in your bag of tricks that I can explore with. I have been unsuccessful as yet of finding a user friendly medium.
Hi Iseason
Not really, again the reason being too broad concepts, or language. Communication.
I may have set too strict filters towards what I try to understand, 100% my fault.
Also, currently I am perfectly sure You have to understand geometry of space, including imaginary, devoid of any common physical attribute, to be able to build something. Plus to accept that "dimensionalities" or, in fact , any spatial presence ( space is such a presence, its not given) has consciousness, and thus OWN logic which is directly and inseparably related to its dynamic spatial form.
Bukh has said something like : it is about information being expressed in dimensionalities (parts of spatial dimensions) and observing itself.
I guess as long as You do not go deeper in this, its quite close. Information is expressed in conscious dimensionalities which organize so that they might have memory and delay instead of primitive rational logic possessed by oscillating indivisibles.
Also, there has to be a guiding perhaps spherical geometry which guides this process of complexification, so that ORDER ( read rotation ) takes place more and more instead of initial translational chaos. This geometry is inherent into space or Universe as a whole.
As to infinity, this question still waits for its answer. Again, bukh is correct when he says it is more like UNDEFINED spatial position than something infinitely far.
All the undefined spatial positions under certain geometric rules of space will lead to certain finite observables, like time, change etc.
What does my model lack as you understand it? in fact "do you understand it"?
Do you have tools in your bag of tricks that I can explore with. I have been unsuccessful as yet of finding a user friendly medium.
Hi Iseason
Not really, again the reason being too broad concepts, or language. Communication.
I may have set too strict filters towards what I try to understand, 100% my fault.
Also, currently I am perfectly sure You have to understand geometry of space, including imaginary, devoid of any common physical attribute, to be able to build something. Plus to accept that "dimensionalities" or, in fact , any spatial presence ( space is such a presence, its not given) has consciousness, and thus OWN logic which is directly and inseparably related to its dynamic spatial form.
Bukh has said something like : it is about information being expressed in dimensionalities (parts of spatial dimensions) and observing itself.
I guess as long as You do not go deeper in this, its quite close. Information is expressed in conscious dimensionalities which organize so that they might have memory and delay instead of primitive rational logic possessed by oscillating indivisibles.
Also, there has to be a guiding perhaps spherical geometry which guides this process of complexification, so that ORDER ( read rotation ) takes place more and more instead of initial translational chaos. This geometry is inherent into space or Universe as a whole.
As to infinity, this question still waits for its answer. Again, bukh is correct when he says it is more like UNDEFINED spatial position than something infinitely far.
All the undefined spatial positions under certain geometric rules of space will lead to certain finite observables, like time, change etc.
Hej bukh,
Dimensionality is abstract enough, but has to be brought into mathematical shape to produce anything more complex and correct then just a 3D TV screen.
Dimensionality is abstract enough, but has to be brought into mathematical shape to produce anything more complex and correct then just a 3D TV screen.
And likewise you have to be aware that any kind of mathematics - any kind on topological exercises likewise are nothing but mere tools - they are no more fundamental than the axiomatic necessity that we choose to put on them in our thinking - in our modelling.
I do not agree. They are not tools as they are too good in representing reality. That is the problem, You have to know math more to be able to appreciate ho many deep connections there are which are by no means created by man as a tool. They exist, independently, and that is why I think they represent reality at subtlest levels.
Most distinct synthetic geometers where visual persons- still, they were able to consistently investigate space and dimensions. And they did translate math in shapes and back- that is all analytic geometry is about.
Most distinct synthetic geometers where visual persons- still, they were able to consistently investigate space and dimensions. And they did translate math in shapes and back- that is all analytic geometry is about.
I have difficulties in seeing how it is possible to translate math points into dimensions - except that math points themselves represent dimension
The correct dynamic definition of math point or infinitesimal does not exist-yet. The question of its existence -put in form of applying of primitive Yes/no logic- it either exists, or not- is unacceptable to me- and creates all the problems with what can be built from 0 dimension.
Would You say point that is an intersection of 2 lines = point and Infinite number of lines= point are the same? In today's math, they are- but obviously they are not.
You can not understand parts without seeing the whole. Surely not find answer to the questions about infinity and life defying 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
I think Iseason has noted that this system is closed- in a sense, so it has its origins and interactions inside itself - nothing is outside it- and that is the puzzle- what kind of system can do that.
QUOTE
I cannot think of anything more abstract than "Dimensionality" - and now I am referring to dimensionalities that express our physical world.
Dimensionality is abstract enough, but has to be brought into mathematical shape to produce anything more complex and correct then just a 3D TV screen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I cannot think of anything more abstract than "Dimensionality" - and now I am referring to dimensionalities that express our physical world. |
Dimensionality is abstract enough, but has to be brought into mathematical shape to produce anything more complex and correct then just a 3D TV screen.
And likewise you have to be aware that any kind of mathematics - any kind on topological exercises likewise are nothing but mere tools - they are no more fundamental than the axiomatic necessity that we choose to put on them in our thinking - in our modelling.
I do not agree. They are not tools as they are too good in representing reality. That is the problem, You have to know math more to be able to appreciate ho many deep connections there are which are by no means created by man as a tool. They exist, independently, and that is why I think they represent reality at subtlest levels.
QUOTE
On the bottom line it is solely a matter about which kind of tool we choose to select for our understanding - and Yes I am a visual person - and not a math person
Most distinct synthetic geometers where visual persons- still, they were able to consistently investigate space and dimensions. And they did translate math in shapes and back- that is all analytic geometry is about.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On the bottom line it is solely a matter about which kind of tool we choose to select for our understanding - and Yes I am a visual person - and not a math person |
Most distinct synthetic geometers where visual persons- still, they were able to consistently investigate space and dimensions. And they did translate math in shapes and back- that is all analytic geometry is about.
I have difficulties in seeing how it is possible to translate math points into dimensions - except that math points themselves represent dimension
The correct dynamic definition of math point or infinitesimal does not exist-yet. The question of its existence -put in form of applying of primitive Yes/no logic- it either exists, or not- is unacceptable to me- and creates all the problems with what can be built from 0 dimension.
Would You say point that is an intersection of 2 lines = point and Infinite number of lines= point are the same? In today's math, they are- but obviously they are not.
QUOTE
I am afraid that you are digging after the origin of the origin - which to me is too ambitious - I like to think that the Best is the worse enemy of the Good.
You can not understand parts without seeing the whole. Surely not find answer to the questions about infinity and life defying 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
I think Iseason has noted that this system is closed- in a sense, so it has its origins and interactions inside itself - nothing is outside it- and that is the puzzle- what kind of system can do that.
Hi Ivars /Bukh
quote: I think Iseason has noted that this system is closed- in a sense, so it has its origins and interactions inside itself - nothing is outside it- and that is the puzzle- what kind of system can do that.
The system I last described is to demonstrate the middle ground of interaction. It is not intended to show "beginning or end" . The parameters I proposed show that a closed system can use every aspect of itself in a singular array while defining mass and other elements of a space.
If we get away from "the big questions", how closely is the model to defining a quantified example of itself?......
It must use every pixel .....once
it must follow a defined order
it must represent a relative picture of time, potential positions, mass .
When you upscale the model and add a universal truth to the "behavior", the smallest exists an equal number of times as the scale of the largest is big.
A side theory is that The minimum quanta can remember itself because it is within a limiting factor of how many times it has occurred. This means that if the quanta has occurred a thousand times , it has a thousand variations based on it's own memory. The memory is not additional energy but additional perspectives that the quanta possesses
Cheers
Iseason
quote: I think Iseason has noted that this system is closed- in a sense, so it has its origins and interactions inside itself - nothing is outside it- and that is the puzzle- what kind of system can do that.
The system I last described is to demonstrate the middle ground of interaction. It is not intended to show "beginning or end" . The parameters I proposed show that a closed system can use every aspect of itself in a singular array while defining mass and other elements of a space.
If we get away from "the big questions", how closely is the model to defining a quantified example of itself?......
It must use every pixel .....once
it must follow a defined order
it must represent a relative picture of time, potential positions, mass .
When you upscale the model and add a universal truth to the "behavior", the smallest exists an equal number of times as the scale of the largest is big.
A side theory is that The minimum quanta can remember itself because it is within a limiting factor of how many times it has occurred. This means that if the quanta has occurred a thousand times , it has a thousand variations based on it's own memory. The memory is not additional energy but additional perspectives that the quanta possesses
Cheers
Iseason
Hej iseason
QUOTE: "1.Only one pixel "can actually" be on the screen at one time.
This does not change what we see as it is the same as when we watch television. This makes the life of each pixel 'one thirtieth of a second'. you would not see anything stop, but a fluid change.
2.because we are using only ten percent mass, the "area" that the pixels occupy during any second must be ten percent, but by the end of the minute EVERY space within the cube needs to have been used.This involves a clustering of pixels which will make those areas visible."
From any practical point I totally agree on those rules - albeit I like to phrase it a bit differently
When you say one pixel a time - it is practical for the purpose althoug I think that Universe plays a certain propportion of pixels simultaneously - and simultaneity has to be looked at with caution because one has to take into consideration that everything is scaled (Russian dolls) and therefore we always observe what I like to refer to as "the outermost doll" relative to our observational frame - we can only "see" the contour of the biggest pixel in said scale - and in our physical scale it is the Pixel (spelt capital).
As to mass - there would seem to be a bit confusion or different ways of seing mass.
I say that mass is a quality exclusively bound to the dynamic playing pattern of the pixels - meaning the pattern that define or show the cinematographic trajectory - and has nothing to do what so ever with individual pixels nor their "individual distance or free void). From a practical point of view iI like to operat wuth the concept of free void, because it it such a much more easy way to "figure" the relative vacuum within pixels - because such a relative vacuum is being smoothly diluted deep into the pixe structure by each scale - and it is much easier to "sum up) over all the scales - to sum up over the full pixel volume - so relative vacuum is identical with the difference in pixel volume from "average free void in the entire sytem divided by actual free void at the place of the pixel" if you can follow that mind picture or that way of calculating.
So Yes, if you are going to demonstrate any pixel-signaling, it is much easier toi visualize if you have a certain "size" of the signal - and the relatively the bigger one construct the free oid relative to the pixel dimensions - the stronger the signal and the easier to visualize.
And to Laidback and anyone else: - be careful not to see pixels with varying mass's - nor with varying shapes - nor with varying volumes (except for this tiny mini relative vacuum fluctuation).
QUOTE: "1.Only one pixel "can actually" be on the screen at one time.
This does not change what we see as it is the same as when we watch television. This makes the life of each pixel 'one thirtieth of a second'. you would not see anything stop, but a fluid change.
2.because we are using only ten percent mass, the "area" that the pixels occupy during any second must be ten percent, but by the end of the minute EVERY space within the cube needs to have been used.This involves a clustering of pixels which will make those areas visible."
From any practical point I totally agree on those rules - albeit I like to phrase it a bit differently
When you say one pixel a time - it is practical for the purpose althoug I think that Universe plays a certain propportion of pixels simultaneously - and simultaneity has to be looked at with caution because one has to take into consideration that everything is scaled (Russian dolls) and therefore we always observe what I like to refer to as "the outermost doll" relative to our observational frame - we can only "see" the contour of the biggest pixel in said scale - and in our physical scale it is the Pixel (spelt capital).
As to mass - there would seem to be a bit confusion or different ways of seing mass.
I say that mass is a quality exclusively bound to the dynamic playing pattern of the pixels - meaning the pattern that define or show the cinematographic trajectory - and has nothing to do what so ever with individual pixels nor their "individual distance or free void). From a practical point of view iI like to operat wuth the concept of free void, because it it such a much more easy way to "figure" the relative vacuum within pixels - because such a relative vacuum is being smoothly diluted deep into the pixe structure by each scale - and it is much easier to "sum up) over all the scales - to sum up over the full pixel volume - so relative vacuum is identical with the difference in pixel volume from "average free void in the entire sytem divided by actual free void at the place of the pixel" if you can follow that mind picture or that way of calculating.
So Yes, if you are going to demonstrate any pixel-signaling, it is much easier toi visualize if you have a certain "size" of the signal - and the relatively the bigger one construct the free oid relative to the pixel dimensions - the stronger the signal and the easier to visualize.
And to Laidback and anyone else: - be careful not to see pixels with varying mass's - nor with varying shapes - nor with varying volumes (except for this tiny mini relative vacuum fluctuation).
iseason
QUOTE: "When you upscale the model and add a universal truth to the "behavior", the smallest exists an equal number of times as the scale of the largest is big."
Yep - that is a neat way of expressing it
And that is exactly the way that "history" or "memory" is being based upon. The memory is being built into the deepest layers - and all kind of memory is best described as a kind of "lastingness" and lastingness can best be defined as repetition - and repetition can best be defined as repeating or standing wave patterns - same as fermionic patterns - same as saying that memory is based upon a kind of particle-structure - or fermionic patterns that are stable - and can communicate upwards into the system. Without particle structure one cannot construct a wave and without a wave one cannot interfre and communicate - so back in this wave-particle duality - scalewise and communicable -
QUOTE: "When you upscale the model and add a universal truth to the "behavior", the smallest exists an equal number of times as the scale of the largest is big."
Yep - that is a neat way of expressing it
And that is exactly the way that "history" or "memory" is being based upon. The memory is being built into the deepest layers - and all kind of memory is best described as a kind of "lastingness" and lastingness can best be defined as repetition - and repetition can best be defined as repeating or standing wave patterns - same as fermionic patterns - same as saying that memory is based upon a kind of particle-structure - or fermionic patterns that are stable - and can communicate upwards into the system. Without particle structure one cannot construct a wave and without a wave one cannot interfre and communicate - so back in this wave-particle duality - scalewise and communicable -
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 17 2008, 10:39 PM)
iseason
QUOTE: "When you upscale the model and add a universal truth to the "behavior", the smallest exists an equal number of times as the scale of the largest is big."
Yep - that is a neat way of expressing it
And that is exactly the way that "history" or "memory" is being based upon. The memory is being built into the deepest layers - and all kind of memory is best described as a kind of "lastingness" and lastingness can best be defined as repetition - and repetition can best be defined as repeating or standing wave patterns - same as fermionic patterns - same as saying that memory is based upon a kind of particle-structure - or fermionic patterns that are stable - and can communicate upwards into the system. Without particle structure one cannot construct a wave and without a wave one cannot interfre and communicate - so back in this wave-particle duality - scalewise and communicable -
Hi Bukh
You are right. I have just realized that a photon/quanta cannot perceive itself, so the memory DOES NOT lie in the smallest (in any form ). This is impossible. Memory works backwards from having a complete work of information and sorting through it. nothing is discarded despite being repeated in a memory line.
A child is always complete whatever memories they have. Because memory is gathered events, the events are themselves the storage, so require no additional consideration.
IE: Because this is so(a law), this is also so (a reciprocal law) Each relies on the other to be there. time space motion. So it is true that we are searching for the ONE law that begets every other. This IS a case of searching .....Have we found something yet? We are describing behaviors that are the result of the law...They are memories....Have we found the law?
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE: "When you upscale the model and add a universal truth to the "behavior", the smallest exists an equal number of times as the scale of the largest is big."
Yep - that is a neat way of expressing it
And that is exactly the way that "history" or "memory" is being based upon. The memory is being built into the deepest layers - and all kind of memory is best described as a kind of "lastingness" and lastingness can best be defined as repetition - and repetition can best be defined as repeating or standing wave patterns - same as fermionic patterns - same as saying that memory is based upon a kind of particle-structure - or fermionic patterns that are stable - and can communicate upwards into the system. Without particle structure one cannot construct a wave and without a wave one cannot interfre and communicate - so back in this wave-particle duality - scalewise and communicable -
Hi Bukh
You are right. I have just realized that a photon/quanta cannot perceive itself, so the memory DOES NOT lie in the smallest (in any form ). This is impossible. Memory works backwards from having a complete work of information and sorting through it. nothing is discarded despite being repeated in a memory line.
A child is always complete whatever memories they have. Because memory is gathered events, the events are themselves the storage, so require no additional consideration.
IE: Because this is so(a law), this is also so (a reciprocal law) Each relies on the other to be there. time space motion. So it is true that we are searching for the ONE law that begets every other. This IS a case of searching .....Have we found something yet? We are describing behaviors that are the result of the law...They are memories....Have we found the law?
Cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason - Ivars - Laidback et al
QUOTE: "Have we found the law?"
Well - on one hand we have achieved something by identifying - shape - form as a communicating tool - but as Ivars rightly state - we still know nothing about the fundamentals about shape -
I think that we also agree on the system as being closed - that everything must be synthesized out from the system - and even the shape has to be synthesized out from the system - so I agree with Ivars that there is a search - a job to be made - in order to get insight in the shape of dimensionality - but I also feel that the search can be divided into natural milestones - and that the model can be refined from the fundament we already have. Nothing will change the upside without knowledge about the downside - because the dimensionality is a milestone - albeit a milestone we have no insight into how it is being reached - as yet.
And I feel confident that it should be possible to bridge from dimension and to the physical universal scale - the scale being played by the pixel-patterns.
And as a comment to Ivars about constructing dimensionality out from dimensionlessness - yes - you are perhaps right that it is hidden in the dynamics about infinities - and math points, respectively, and I agree that a point as on intersection and as on infinitely points on line, respectively, is not the same - intersection point is definitely on a higher level of dimensionlessness - if one can say so.
And 3D screen is sooo dependant on pixel-shape in order to account for functionability - there exist no such thing as two identical pixels - they all inhabit different histories because of feed-back interactions from neighboring pixels - everything is so stupidly complex - that we have difficulties in the mere accepting the complexity
And in this context - I have to think back to when Ivars and I started to ponder about smallness - and pondering where the limit downwards could be - and one little break throug was the idea that smallest did not belong to so-called physical scale - human Pixel scale - and since then everything has been developing smaller and smaller, deeper and deeper and deeper - and I think as per now I have abandoned the idea that physical must be thought out from dimensionality as an axiom - I tend to think that dimensionality must be a construct out from continuous - BUT I also think that we can make a lot of insight without bothering about that facet - that a lot of insight can be achieved by accepting dimension as axiomatically present and then start modelling out from that axiom.
And as a last comment to Ivars - I agree that Yes / No logics are not useful, it is about stochastic continuous representation based upon infinite numbers - we translate a continuity into discreteness by applying 0-1 stochastic presences with 1/2 as our breaking point.
QUOTE: "Have we found the law?"
Well - on one hand we have achieved something by identifying - shape - form as a communicating tool - but as Ivars rightly state - we still know nothing about the fundamentals about shape -
I think that we also agree on the system as being closed - that everything must be synthesized out from the system - and even the shape has to be synthesized out from the system - so I agree with Ivars that there is a search - a job to be made - in order to get insight in the shape of dimensionality - but I also feel that the search can be divided into natural milestones - and that the model can be refined from the fundament we already have. Nothing will change the upside without knowledge about the downside - because the dimensionality is a milestone - albeit a milestone we have no insight into how it is being reached - as yet.
And I feel confident that it should be possible to bridge from dimension and to the physical universal scale - the scale being played by the pixel-patterns.
And as a comment to Ivars about constructing dimensionality out from dimensionlessness - yes - you are perhaps right that it is hidden in the dynamics about infinities - and math points, respectively, and I agree that a point as on intersection and as on infinitely points on line, respectively, is not the same - intersection point is definitely on a higher level of dimensionlessness - if one can say so.
And 3D screen is sooo dependant on pixel-shape in order to account for functionability - there exist no such thing as two identical pixels - they all inhabit different histories because of feed-back interactions from neighboring pixels - everything is so stupidly complex - that we have difficulties in the mere accepting the complexity
And in this context - I have to think back to when Ivars and I started to ponder about smallness - and pondering where the limit downwards could be - and one little break throug was the idea that smallest did not belong to so-called physical scale - human Pixel scale - and since then everything has been developing smaller and smaller, deeper and deeper and deeper - and I think as per now I have abandoned the idea that physical must be thought out from dimensionality as an axiom - I tend to think that dimensionality must be a construct out from continuous - BUT I also think that we can make a lot of insight without bothering about that facet - that a lot of insight can be achieved by accepting dimension as axiomatically present and then start modelling out from that axiom.
And as a last comment to Ivars - I agree that Yes / No logics are not useful, it is about stochastic continuous representation based upon infinite numbers - we translate a continuity into discreteness by applying 0-1 stochastic presences with 1/2 as our breaking point.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 17 2008, 03:21 PM)
Hi all
Laidback. I'm happy to see models created by persons with those skills on the computer. In fact that is precisely what I would like to learn to do. my references are to show how whether in two dimension or three , the universal value is only ever one observable value.
I chose one seconds worth of pixels deliberately, knowing that it was in fact made of thirty thousand divisions. this allows us a position similar to what we can actually observe as humans but allows that a depth exists that we cannot quite plumb except in theory and study. Namely atomic,photon/smallest.
In doing this we can move to create models of mass that we see in similar percentages in real time. So If we said ten percent mass, we can run the model according to various actual rules as to how that is expected to be compared to what we actually see.
I see an order which creates the thirty thousand pixels in a given order and that order repeats .If a cube is the representation then the thirty thousand can be dispersed according to any rule , but the model should run for only one minute if the depth is sixty "screens deep". And it should only use each position once, thereby every pixel is represented as the average ,potential,mass,and motion according to a time line.
Lot's of tries will be needed to get a correctly working model. But I know that this only shows mass as we would see in a minute of time. It does not begin or end anything. That model is as hard to define as anything I mentioned above. A looping model of thirty thousand pixels is viewable and accurate as needs be for now.
The rules as I see them are slightly different than I have seen from Bukh and yourself....These are.
1.Only one pixel "can actually" be on the screen at one time.
This does not change what we see as it is the same as when we watch television. This makes the life of each pixel 'one thirtieth of a second'. you would not see anything stop, but a fluid change.
2.because we are using only ten percent mass, the "area" that the pixels occupy during any second must be ten percent, but by the end of the minute EVERY space within the cube needs to have been used.This involves a clustering of pixels which will make those areas visible.
That satisfies "space" and potential, mass,motion and time while keeping my first premise that only one pixel/value need to be present at any 'relative reality' to give the impression there is lots of energy.
I know I don't have the skills to create such a model and understand that it is really just a wish list for me. Others here will like to see their twists created as well and I respect that anyone working on them has a right to see theirs modeled first.
By the way If you can teach...I can learn.
Cheers
Iseason
I think what you are trying to imply is a single particle that in a given time construct can only ever be in one place, so if we divided up a Pixels designated area it can only ever be anywhere within one of its divided up designated area.. anywhere within what ever time construct.
Put simply here are two frames of time consisting of two designated pixel areas that are subdivided so that only one of the divisions are with a particle..
In the following model of two moments in time, Each designated pixels area has there own color in this model, and within this area is a solid Particle "{}", that is moving about in an absolute void designated to it, put simply with your model of the Universe all of the universe in fact is a void, bar a quantity of pure solid marbles or particles bouncing around, very much like one of those a 101 physics model that we use when modeling kinetic energy to students..
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][]{}{}[][][] Frame One
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][] []{}[][]
[][][][][][][][][][] Frame Two
[][][]{}[][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
If this is the model you refer to then your model needs to explain what are the particles and or marbles make-up?
How is it that they are possible?
What keeps them within its designated area?
What gives rise to its unchanging form even after impacting another, and importantly why and how is this so?
How does it fair with respects to a particle wave duality?
And thats only the obvious considerations and questions one needs to answer before we consider anwering questions about relativity..
Please tell me your model is not dependent on basic physics that over looks some basic Laws and rules by referring to particle like structures are implied to be moving about in a pure void,
a model that goes against more advanced physics which considers all the physical Rules and or Laws ned to be complied to?
I hope I am wrong?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Laidback. I'm happy to see models created by persons with those skills on the computer. In fact that is precisely what I would like to learn to do. my references are to show how whether in two dimension or three , the universal value is only ever one observable value.
I chose one seconds worth of pixels deliberately, knowing that it was in fact made of thirty thousand divisions. this allows us a position similar to what we can actually observe as humans but allows that a depth exists that we cannot quite plumb except in theory and study. Namely atomic,photon/smallest.
In doing this we can move to create models of mass that we see in similar percentages in real time. So If we said ten percent mass, we can run the model according to various actual rules as to how that is expected to be compared to what we actually see.
I see an order which creates the thirty thousand pixels in a given order and that order repeats .If a cube is the representation then the thirty thousand can be dispersed according to any rule , but the model should run for only one minute if the depth is sixty "screens deep". And it should only use each position once, thereby every pixel is represented as the average ,potential,mass,and motion according to a time line.
Lot's of tries will be needed to get a correctly working model. But I know that this only shows mass as we would see in a minute of time. It does not begin or end anything. That model is as hard to define as anything I mentioned above. A looping model of thirty thousand pixels is viewable and accurate as needs be for now.
The rules as I see them are slightly different than I have seen from Bukh and yourself....These are.
1.Only one pixel "can actually" be on the screen at one time.
This does not change what we see as it is the same as when we watch television. This makes the life of each pixel 'one thirtieth of a second'. you would not see anything stop, but a fluid change.
2.because we are using only ten percent mass, the "area" that the pixels occupy during any second must be ten percent, but by the end of the minute EVERY space within the cube needs to have been used.This involves a clustering of pixels which will make those areas visible.
That satisfies "space" and potential, mass,motion and time while keeping my first premise that only one pixel/value need to be present at any 'relative reality' to give the impression there is lots of energy.
I know I don't have the skills to create such a model and understand that it is really just a wish list for me. Others here will like to see their twists created as well and I respect that anyone working on them has a right to see theirs modeled first.
By the way If you can teach...I can learn.
Cheers
Iseason
I think what you are trying to imply is a single particle that in a given time construct can only ever be in one place, so if we divided up a Pixels designated area it can only ever be anywhere within one of its divided up designated area.. anywhere within what ever time construct.
Put simply here are two frames of time consisting of two designated pixel areas that are subdivided so that only one of the divisions are with a particle..
In the following model of two moments in time, Each designated pixels area has there own color in this model, and within this area is a solid Particle "{}", that is moving about in an absolute void designated to it, put simply with your model of the Universe all of the universe in fact is a void, bar a quantity of pure solid marbles or particles bouncing around, very much like one of those a 101 physics model that we use when modeling kinetic energy to students..
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][]{}{}[][][] Frame One
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
[][][][][] []{}[][]
[][][][][][][][][][] Frame Two
[][][]{}[][][][][]
[][][][][][][][][][]
If this is the model you refer to then your model needs to explain what are the particles and or marbles make-up?
How is it that they are possible?
What keeps them within its designated area?
What gives rise to its unchanging form even after impacting another, and importantly why and how is this so?
How does it fair with respects to a particle wave duality?
And thats only the obvious considerations and questions one needs to answer before we consider anwering questions about relativity..
Please tell me your model is not dependent on basic physics that over looks some basic Laws and rules by referring to particle like structures are implied to be moving about in a pure void,
a model that goes against more advanced physics which considers all the physical Rules and or Laws ned to be complied to? I hope I am wrong?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi all
Laidback. You must remove time to see it as a singular point of energy. Any thing you construct around it immediately put it into the realm of laws that you are describing and therefore you are seeing multiples...(motion,time,space)..So anything which applies there negates the singular viewpoint.
To see this reasoning,everything at photon level is equal. It is not time dependent, so as far as any instance of a photon is concerned, it could be ANY time...or none. When you DO say this photon is traveling here or there, I am still applying the same....at that level time is not an issue. For time to enter into the study, multiples are needed to give you something to measure. But you need all the ingredients or you have nothing at all.
Time and space without motion is nothing.
Space and motion without time(a measuring component) are nothing.
motion and space do not exist outside of time.
So the laws you say I am ignoring cannot prove themselves to exist. But we have at our root a law which we have agreed upon...
That energy cannot be created nor destroyed!!.....Therefore we can not move from one. Every theory must contain every amount of energy.....ALL THE TIME...we can continue to map behaviors, but we must retain our integrity in this ideal.
That is what I am saying.
The screen can still present the illusion of much energy, just as I am saying the universe does........But it is us who are fooled.
Cheers
Iseason
Laidback. You must remove time to see it as a singular point of energy. Any thing you construct around it immediately put it into the realm of laws that you are describing and therefore you are seeing multiples...(motion,time,space)..So anything which applies there negates the singular viewpoint.
To see this reasoning,everything at photon level is equal. It is not time dependent, so as far as any instance of a photon is concerned, it could be ANY time...or none. When you DO say this photon is traveling here or there, I am still applying the same....at that level time is not an issue. For time to enter into the study, multiples are needed to give you something to measure. But you need all the ingredients or you have nothing at all.
Time and space without motion is nothing.
Space and motion without time(a measuring component) are nothing.
motion and space do not exist outside of time.
So the laws you say I am ignoring cannot prove themselves to exist. But we have at our root a law which we have agreed upon...
That energy cannot be created nor destroyed!!.....Therefore we can not move from one. Every theory must contain every amount of energy.....ALL THE TIME...we can continue to map behaviors, but we must retain our integrity in this ideal.
That is what I am saying.
The screen can still present the illusion of much energy, just as I am saying the universe does........But it is us who are fooled.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Bukh
I am torn between the smallest containing the positions, which are mirrored in the largest and the largest being the only construct that exists at all.
This means the positions are "full potential" always, even when we notice them within our relative positions. Our relative positions has nothing and everything to do with where we are in the universe. It is an order of reference when viewed individually,(position a = one quanta) or multiple positions when viewing time , space and motion. In multiple positions however we cannot see or separate our physical reference from those that are in similar grid lines...(my mass + time=1 second....=....The physical universe during that one second)....the reference does not differentiate between the fact that a star may be light years away. My eyes sees a photon ,while my body acknowledges the mass differential via the same pattern.
Laidback.
I liken the referencing of space,time and motion to heat,fuel and oxygen as the fuel for fire. All are an ingredient, but none alone can start a fire.
Cheers
Iseason
I am torn between the smallest containing the positions, which are mirrored in the largest and the largest being the only construct that exists at all.
This means the positions are "full potential" always, even when we notice them within our relative positions. Our relative positions has nothing and everything to do with where we are in the universe. It is an order of reference when viewed individually,(position a = one quanta) or multiple positions when viewing time , space and motion. In multiple positions however we cannot see or separate our physical reference from those that are in similar grid lines...(my mass + time=1 second....=....The physical universe during that one second)....the reference does not differentiate between the fact that a star may be light years away. My eyes sees a photon ,while my body acknowledges the mass differential via the same pattern.
Laidback.
I liken the referencing of space,time and motion to heat,fuel and oxygen as the fuel for fire. All are an ingredient, but none alone can start a fire.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: "This means the positions are "full potential" always,"
As per the very definition "position" must be "full potential".
The intruiging part is is that position is such a badly defined concept when we goes into extreme smallness - when we ends up in the definition of smallest. And even when we move upwards in our scaling we have extreme difficulties in defining exact positions because of the wave-particle duality.
It is solely via the scalewise arrangement of repeating patterns that gives us the "illusion" of lastingness. Existance is being based on wave-like expressions that enter into standing waves - "particle", and this by itsself precludes the possibilities for talking about exact positions. Everything becomes a matter of probability fields and fluxes.
Having that said - I think it is very useful to construct the lastingness and the "exact" positions via scalewise arranging the system as being thought via the pixel model.
QUOTE: "This means the positions are "full potential" always,"
As per the very definition "position" must be "full potential".
The intruiging part is is that position is such a badly defined concept when we goes into extreme smallness - when we ends up in the definition of smallest. And even when we move upwards in our scaling we have extreme difficulties in defining exact positions because of the wave-particle duality.
It is solely via the scalewise arrangement of repeating patterns that gives us the "illusion" of lastingness. Existance is being based on wave-like expressions that enter into standing waves - "particle", and this by itsself precludes the possibilities for talking about exact positions. Everything becomes a matter of probability fields and fluxes.
Having that said - I think it is very useful to construct the lastingness and the "exact" positions via scalewise arranging the system as being thought via the pixel model.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 18 2008, 01:41 PM)
Hi all
Laidback. You must remove time to see it as a singular point of energy. Any thing you construct around it immediately put it into the realm of laws that you are describing and therefore you are seeing multiples...(motion,time,space)..So anything which applies there negates the singular viewpoint.
Cheers
Iseason
Its for this reason I have referred to the two frames or frozen moments, and why I have shown two Particles at the first instance where an impact by the two should be obvious, to which in the following frame {a minimum time interval is then modelled}, where each particle still presents its designated density remains much as it was..
to Which I must say is Modeled to Quantum mechanics constructs..
Need i point out with quantum mechanics we have to contend and put up with uncertainty because of its deliberate ignorance to actual Laws ergo truth statements can be shrugged off..
Its just as well other far better models can be resorted to, the only problem is most of these models are only available in advanced electronics, but those who have attended these courses are grossly out numbered by those who only attended 5 or less years of Uni and are more or less stuck with crude and basic models that implies its OK to ignore practical physical rules, and over the past few decades {near Half a century} the result is the very debacle of all of those researchers grappling with the LHC..
<sigh> Cant wait for the LHC's whoo~ha to run its course and a massive revise of what really should be availed to students revised again..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Laidback. You must remove time to see it as a singular point of energy. Any thing you construct around it immediately put it into the realm of laws that you are describing and therefore you are seeing multiples...(motion,time,space)..So anything which applies there negates the singular viewpoint.
Cheers
Iseason
Its for this reason I have referred to the two frames or frozen moments, and why I have shown two Particles at the first instance where an impact by the two should be obvious, to which in the following frame {a minimum time interval is then modelled}, where each particle still presents its designated density remains much as it was..
to Which I must say is Modeled to Quantum mechanics constructs..
Need i point out with quantum mechanics we have to contend and put up with uncertainty because of its deliberate ignorance to actual Laws ergo truth statements can be shrugged off..
Its just as well other far better models can be resorted to, the only problem is most of these models are only available in advanced electronics, but those who have attended these courses are grossly out numbered by those who only attended 5 or less years of Uni and are more or less stuck with crude and basic models that implies its OK to ignore practical physical rules, and over the past few decades {near Half a century} the result is the very debacle of all of those researchers grappling with the LHC..
<sigh> Cant wait for the LHC's whoo~ha to run its course and a massive revise of what really should be availed to students revised again..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 18 2008, 02:59 PM)
Laidback.
I liken the referencing of space,time and motion to heat,fuel and oxygen as the fuel for fire. All are an ingredient, but none alone can start a fire.
Cheers
Iseason
Indeed,
Fire is actually a higher kinetic state for a given mass,
The more kinetic while still under the same pressure {opposing velocities} the higher the temperature, mind you temperature is detected via the electromagnetic spectrum..
So when a light bulb glows its element is in fact on fire!
Just as a white hot metal rod would be - straight out of the furnace..
It should be noted - Oxygen is a highly kinetic gas, that can facilitate the combustion to many substances just as many other gasses can due to the high ratio of kinetic energy to potential energy.. albeit most other gasses are not with such a high ratio of kinetic energy as oxygen..
**NOTE**
I purposely referred to electromagnetic waves and or spectrum for very good reason..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I liken the referencing of space,time and motion to heat,fuel and oxygen as the fuel for fire. All are an ingredient, but none alone can start a fire.
Cheers
Iseason
Indeed,
Fire is actually a higher kinetic state for a given mass,
The more kinetic while still under the same pressure {opposing velocities} the higher the temperature, mind you temperature is detected via the electromagnetic spectrum..
So when a light bulb glows its element is in fact on fire!
Just as a white hot metal rod would be - straight out of the furnace..
It should be noted - Oxygen is a highly kinetic gas, that can facilitate the combustion to many substances just as many other gasses can due to the high ratio of kinetic energy to potential energy.. albeit most other gasses are not with such a high ratio of kinetic energy as oxygen..
**NOTE**
I purposely referred to electromagnetic waves and or spectrum for very good reason..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 18 2008, 05:12 PM)
iseason
QUOTE: "This means the positions are "full potential" always,"
As per the very definition "position" must be "full potential".
The intriguing part is is that position is such a badly defined concept when we goes into extreme smallness - when we ends up in the definition of smallest. And even when we move upwards in our scaling we have extreme difficulties in defining exact positions because of the wave-particle duality.
It is solely via the scale-wise arrangement of repeating patterns that gives us the "illusion" of lasting. Existence is being based on wave-like expressions that enter into standing waves - "particle", and this by itself precludes the possibilities for talking about exact positions. Everything becomes a matter of probability fields and fluxes.
Having that said - I think it is very useful to construct the lasting and the "exact" positions via scale-wise arranging the system as being thought via the pixel model.
Bukh,
First please note I have diddled with your grammar, so if I am in error please let me know..
NOW - Has any one provided you a model as to how the Photons/Electrons wave particle duality is possible?
If not here is a quick and dirty model of the duality..
First lets say we could super impose a 3D grid to our atmosphere or perhaps for a theoretical water particle we could grid out a still pond and then we measure one of those grids volume..
And then as we pass an electromagnetic wave or in the ponds case a wave of water from a stone thrown into the pond so that a wave is propagated through the grid-ding, so that when the wave peaks in one of our grids, the difference in volume to our first volume taken is implied as our theoretical photons quanta or our theoretical water particle quanta..
This rise or increase in mass or density via a wave is critical if one wishes to understand what "Young's" Double Slit Experiment (DSE) was all about..
Now - If we consider a radio transmitter transmits electromagnetic waves, we should be concerned as to when does the electron in the transmitting antenna change definition to a photon from an electron?
Could it be by the very fact that the Photon Particles speed is now faster than an electron particles flow?
I mention this in the hope to point out just one of the flaws quantum mechanics is riddled with, as one question should be, how can a particle be one moment as slow as an electron, and the next moment be with the velocity @"c" in a Gas!
Granted not that much faster, but its still somehow faster!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE: "This means the positions are "full potential" always,"
As per the very definition "position" must be "full potential".
The intriguing part is is that position is such a badly defined concept when we goes into extreme smallness - when we ends up in the definition of smallest. And even when we move upwards in our scaling we have extreme difficulties in defining exact positions because of the wave-particle duality.
It is solely via the scale-wise arrangement of repeating patterns that gives us the "illusion" of lasting. Existence is being based on wave-like expressions that enter into standing waves - "particle", and this by itself precludes the possibilities for talking about exact positions. Everything becomes a matter of probability fields and fluxes.
Having that said - I think it is very useful to construct the lasting and the "exact" positions via scale-wise arranging the system as being thought via the pixel model.
Bukh,
First please note I have diddled with your grammar, so if I am in error please let me know..
NOW - Has any one provided you a model as to how the Photons/Electrons wave particle duality is possible?
If not here is a quick and dirty model of the duality..
First lets say we could super impose a 3D grid to our atmosphere or perhaps for a theoretical water particle we could grid out a still pond and then we measure one of those grids volume..
And then as we pass an electromagnetic wave or in the ponds case a wave of water from a stone thrown into the pond so that a wave is propagated through the grid-ding, so that when the wave peaks in one of our grids, the difference in volume to our first volume taken is implied as our theoretical photons quanta or our theoretical water particle quanta..
This rise or increase in mass or density via a wave is critical if one wishes to understand what "Young's" Double Slit Experiment (DSE) was all about..
Now - If we consider a radio transmitter transmits electromagnetic waves, we should be concerned as to when does the electron in the transmitting antenna change definition to a photon from an electron?
Could it be by the very fact that the Photon Particles speed is now faster than an electron particles flow?
I mention this in the hope to point out just one of the flaws quantum mechanics is riddled with, as one question should be, how can a particle be one moment as slow as an electron, and the next moment be with the velocity @"c" in a Gas!
Granted not that much faster, but its still somehow faster!
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hej Laidback
If I read You correctly - you are explaining / proposing what I have tried to say for some time -
namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.
In the case of a fermionic expression - like electron - the wave-structure is a kind of standing spherical wave - but a standing wave can easily moove over the grid. In the case that the electron mooves relative to the frid - this implicates that some of the pixel playing are engaged in expressing the repetitive (circular) wave-structure - is expressing the standing-wave - and other pixels are engaged in playing the movement of wave over the grid.
Important to notice is that an electron is a well-defined qubit - a well-defined amount of energy - a well-defined amount of pixels playing per time-unit. So a pixel cannot express both movement and particle - each and any pixel has to play either kinetic or potential properties of the electron.
The more rapid the propagation of the electron over the grid - the higher the proportion of pixels playing kinetic - and the circular standing wave-pattern is gradually being stretched to more and more propagating wave-patterns - and at a certain point - where all the pixels are playing propagation and no pixels are playing repetition - vupti - the electron is now a photon. The change from electron at near speed of c - and to photon with speed of c is millimeter thin - and vice versa
This way of seeing it - also explains the nature of mass.
Mass is strictly related to the frame in which mass is being measured - and mass is strictly related to the the relatvive movement over the pixel grid of a particle like structure - AND a particle like structure is solely being defined out from a wave-trajectory that is being repaeted - is somewhat bended / circular / in the observed frame. Mass is nicely expressed via the retardation of the wave-trajectory relative to the full-speed straight trajectory - the maximum speed by which a signal (a wave) can be propagated via the pixels ON-signaling - where ALL the pixels involved are working in a straight line - full speed so to say. The more retardation - the more bending - the more circular - the more repating - the slower the speed over the grid - the more of the expression being potential and the less being kinetic - and we measure this phenomenom as mass.
It is important to notice that mass is not something that directly can be attributed to the individual pixels as such. If we had the opportunity to investigate the internal of individual pixels - if we had the opportunity to step a scale downwards - then mass and all other physical qualities would be expressed to us in this scale instead - but of course we cannot. We humans are strictly bound to our scale - the Pixel scale (spelt capital)
If I read You correctly - you are explaining / proposing what I have tried to say for some time -
namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.
In the case of a fermionic expression - like electron - the wave-structure is a kind of standing spherical wave - but a standing wave can easily moove over the grid. In the case that the electron mooves relative to the frid - this implicates that some of the pixel playing are engaged in expressing the repetitive (circular) wave-structure - is expressing the standing-wave - and other pixels are engaged in playing the movement of wave over the grid.
Important to notice is that an electron is a well-defined qubit - a well-defined amount of energy - a well-defined amount of pixels playing per time-unit. So a pixel cannot express both movement and particle - each and any pixel has to play either kinetic or potential properties of the electron.
The more rapid the propagation of the electron over the grid - the higher the proportion of pixels playing kinetic - and the circular standing wave-pattern is gradually being stretched to more and more propagating wave-patterns - and at a certain point - where all the pixels are playing propagation and no pixels are playing repetition - vupti - the electron is now a photon. The change from electron at near speed of c - and to photon with speed of c is millimeter thin - and vice versa
This way of seeing it - also explains the nature of mass.
Mass is strictly related to the frame in which mass is being measured - and mass is strictly related to the the relatvive movement over the pixel grid of a particle like structure - AND a particle like structure is solely being defined out from a wave-trajectory that is being repaeted - is somewhat bended / circular / in the observed frame. Mass is nicely expressed via the retardation of the wave-trajectory relative to the full-speed straight trajectory - the maximum speed by which a signal (a wave) can be propagated via the pixels ON-signaling - where ALL the pixels involved are working in a straight line - full speed so to say. The more retardation - the more bending - the more circular - the more repating - the slower the speed over the grid - the more of the expression being potential and the less being kinetic - and we measure this phenomenom as mass.
It is important to notice that mass is not something that directly can be attributed to the individual pixels as such. If we had the opportunity to investigate the internal of individual pixels - if we had the opportunity to step a scale downwards - then mass and all other physical qualities would be expressed to us in this scale instead - but of course we cannot. We humans are strictly bound to our scale - the Pixel scale (spelt capital)
Hi Guys
Yes I am familiar with wave structure duality.This is why I use it for time/occurrence binding.
Consider your pond. at it's center is the beginning as the first occurrence.When the next occurrence is placed, it is the forming of the outer ring of the ripple. That is why I place the end as the next occurrence. When you go from one side of the universe to the other, distance = time=motion=space. So in keeping with the big bang model I allowed that the expansion of the universe did not mean that I had to move my pixels "here and there" in order to place them, but rather time expanded all other players /measurements in a pond like fashion......This gives 'action at a distance' , true motion(with nothing actually moving).
Beginning
beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end
This is a very small model of what ends up a complex pattern. An event which starts at the beginning of time has a mirror event at the end of time. If you lived on the 35th ripple in from the beginning , an effect is produced in the 35th ripple from the end (or on the direct opposite side of the pond. )
In this way you don't need two photons going to each other to affect each other across the universe. They were next to each other at the time they occurred,then the universe moved them apart. Our review process simply makes them seem related.
Picture light from a distant galaxy this way. It isn't moving to us.We are running into "it's twin photon" on this side of time(the pond). Not once, but constantly because it left these signals when it gained it's reality in the grid along side ours.
Why are we not enveloped in a star at this end? Because of the dispersal of occurrence. Our proportion of occurrence while the star was formed was very minimal , so while we see ourselves in a small mass/density, the star which was large mass density inverts this side to small mass/density (distance), but around us , the light from the star is also small mass/density or light which is constantly around us from that star. Making it available to every person to see relatively.
I know this will be enough to get your mind around. it's just to show I have put singular occurrence theory into context to sync with wave duality. The spreading of the wave with beginning and end at the two extremes allows everything an order in the "whole" which cannot be changed . In other words , once the beginning is there , the end is inevitable.
Cheers
Iseason
Yes I am familiar with wave structure duality.This is why I use it for time/occurrence binding.
Consider your pond. at it's center is the beginning as the first occurrence.When the next occurrence is placed, it is the forming of the outer ring of the ripple. That is why I place the end as the next occurrence. When you go from one side of the universe to the other, distance = time=motion=space. So in keeping with the big bang model I allowed that the expansion of the universe did not mean that I had to move my pixels "here and there" in order to place them, but rather time expanded all other players /measurements in a pond like fashion......This gives 'action at a distance' , true motion(with nothing actually moving).
Beginning
beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end
This is a very small model of what ends up a complex pattern. An event which starts at the beginning of time has a mirror event at the end of time. If you lived on the 35th ripple in from the beginning , an effect is produced in the 35th ripple from the end (or on the direct opposite side of the pond. )
In this way you don't need two photons going to each other to affect each other across the universe. They were next to each other at the time they occurred,then the universe moved them apart. Our review process simply makes them seem related.
Picture light from a distant galaxy this way. It isn't moving to us.We are running into "it's twin photon" on this side of time(the pond). Not once, but constantly because it left these signals when it gained it's reality in the grid along side ours.
Why are we not enveloped in a star at this end? Because of the dispersal of occurrence. Our proportion of occurrence while the star was formed was very minimal , so while we see ourselves in a small mass/density, the star which was large mass density inverts this side to small mass/density (distance), but around us , the light from the star is also small mass/density or light which is constantly around us from that star. Making it available to every person to see relatively.
I know this will be enough to get your mind around. it's just to show I have put singular occurrence theory into context to sync with wave duality. The spreading of the wave with beginning and end at the two extremes allows everything an order in the "whole" which cannot be changed . In other words , once the beginning is there , the end is inevitable.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
Your latest post is not the easiest to decipher - but I think I get some clues -
Very banal one can say that our perception of surroundings - the universe - is solely being based upon how we on a time-line receive informational bits - and so-called reality is being based on such cinematographically ordered informations.
Now what is an informational bit - which qualities can be packed into such a qubit. I would like to think that "frequency" is one such quality - in that we are ultimately dealing with a time-line - and I would also like to think that "direction" or shall we call it angular momentum - is another quality which can be identified in a very small qubit -
And already now it should be obvious that smallest qubits are without meaningful information to us - there must be a minimum amount of coherent - time-linked - information in order to be communicable. There must be a cinematographic time-line and an interference with individual qubits. Our physical universe is being defined by photon / electron as qubit. How many repetitions needed in order to achieve interference is not known.
If we translate this into the pixel concept - I like to think that what we percept is the repeating signals - that we "see" as particle structures. It is not possible to see a one-time-event.
So it is the frequency and angular momentum that we decipher - and these qualities can be translated into size- distance - mass - and all other kinds og physical qualities. Or ??
So frequency and angular momentum is being packed into the (photonic ?) wave-expressions - so I like to think that angular momentum probably is a quality of bosonic - Or --?? perhaps one can say that quakes in the pixel-screen are bosonic when they are non-repeating in the frame they are being observed in - and they are fermionic when they are repeating in the frame they are being observed in - saying that absolute free from angular momentum is equivalent to ideal bosonic. Slight angular momentum indicates that it is a VERY big particle structure - very big radius - and that is the bending of space as we lto see it when viewing large structures - which are the same as viewing distant structures.
Distances - geometries of surrounding universe is a one-to-one reflection of this - universe has the siz and the form that we can de-code from what is coming from putside - obviously - of course it is not possible to say something about the "in-visible" - which are all wave-structures that never reach us - because their circular repeating structure is outside the reach of our part of universe.
Your latest post is not the easiest to decipher - but I think I get some clues -
Very banal one can say that our perception of surroundings - the universe - is solely being based upon how we on a time-line receive informational bits - and so-called reality is being based on such cinematographically ordered informations.
Now what is an informational bit - which qualities can be packed into such a qubit. I would like to think that "frequency" is one such quality - in that we are ultimately dealing with a time-line - and I would also like to think that "direction" or shall we call it angular momentum - is another quality which can be identified in a very small qubit -
And already now it should be obvious that smallest qubits are without meaningful information to us - there must be a minimum amount of coherent - time-linked - information in order to be communicable. There must be a cinematographic time-line and an interference with individual qubits. Our physical universe is being defined by photon / electron as qubit. How many repetitions needed in order to achieve interference is not known.
If we translate this into the pixel concept - I like to think that what we percept is the repeating signals - that we "see" as particle structures. It is not possible to see a one-time-event.
So it is the frequency and angular momentum that we decipher - and these qualities can be translated into size- distance - mass - and all other kinds og physical qualities. Or ??
So frequency and angular momentum is being packed into the (photonic ?) wave-expressions - so I like to think that angular momentum probably is a quality of bosonic - Or --?? perhaps one can say that quakes in the pixel-screen are bosonic when they are non-repeating in the frame they are being observed in - and they are fermionic when they are repeating in the frame they are being observed in - saying that absolute free from angular momentum is equivalent to ideal bosonic. Slight angular momentum indicates that it is a VERY big particle structure - very big radius - and that is the bending of space as we lto see it when viewing large structures - which are the same as viewing distant structures.
Distances - geometries of surrounding universe is a one-to-one reflection of this - universe has the siz and the form that we can de-code from what is coming from putside - obviously - of course it is not possible to say something about the "in-visible" - which are all wave-structures that never reach us - because their circular repeating structure is outside the reach of our part of universe.
Hi Bukh
What the difference here is , is that you look at structure before you consider how that structure can create the behaviors we observe. ...How was the structure "initialized"?
Did the grid pattern emerge INSTANTLY or was it the best result of a progression.?If it was a progression then a structure formation theory needs to precede the study of the behavior of the structure itself. In order to GET to a structured universe that interacts, The first steps are where we started . at first occurrence. Eventually the geometric interactions are reliant on one law.
That no two occurrences are able to occupy the same "space" and therefore "time". To show how the matrix interacts, The building outwards from cent re creates the first illusion of time motion and space.
1.Beginning and end.
Here time is two "smallest" = Whole
2.Beginning middle end
here the time includes a third dimension and three relative positions
3.Beginning middle middle end
Not only do time and space expand but the shape of space begins to change.
4.Beginning middle center middle end
Now the five are in the last arrangement which can actually be this close to each other.
5. Beginning middle center center middle end...
Notice the associations as they move away. These will always be linked as cause and effect.
6. Beginning middle center center center middle end.
As it progresses, each occurrence could be given a number in the order and you could find it again in close relation with other like numbers .
The more you follow the progression, the more complex becomes the order. It will create the universe with axiom points and mass crossroads that are an inevitable progression of such a pattern. If you follow the rule that each time an occurrence is added the REVIEW locks a certain portion of past and future events in place,by the time the universe is half over....it is completed since the end has been taken place alongside the beginning..
I don't have trouble with placing things into separate baskets as Laidback wanted to do a few posts ago. I simply thing the baskets are more complex than first glance..
Cheers
Iseason
What the difference here is , is that you look at structure before you consider how that structure can create the behaviors we observe. ...How was the structure "initialized"?
Did the grid pattern emerge INSTANTLY or was it the best result of a progression.?If it was a progression then a structure formation theory needs to precede the study of the behavior of the structure itself. In order to GET to a structured universe that interacts, The first steps are where we started . at first occurrence. Eventually the geometric interactions are reliant on one law.
That no two occurrences are able to occupy the same "space" and therefore "time". To show how the matrix interacts, The building outwards from cent re creates the first illusion of time motion and space.
1.Beginning and end.
Here time is two "smallest" = Whole
2.Beginning middle end
here the time includes a third dimension and three relative positions
3.Beginning middle middle end
Not only do time and space expand but the shape of space begins to change.
4.Beginning middle center middle end
Now the five are in the last arrangement which can actually be this close to each other.
5. Beginning middle center center middle end...
Notice the associations as they move away. These will always be linked as cause and effect.
6. Beginning middle center center center middle end.
As it progresses, each occurrence could be given a number in the order and you could find it again in close relation with other like numbers .
The more you follow the progression, the more complex becomes the order. It will create the universe with axiom points and mass crossroads that are an inevitable progression of such a pattern. If you follow the rule that each time an occurrence is added the REVIEW locks a certain portion of past and future events in place,by the time the universe is half over....it is completed since the end has been taken place alongside the beginning..
I don't have trouble with placing things into separate baskets as Laidback wanted to do a few posts ago. I simply thing the baskets are more complex than first glance..
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
Are we in agreement on this - YES we are 100% in agreement
Actually I thought that this issue had already been settled -
I like to refer to the the birth of physical - as this "unfolding" - when space segregates in more than one - and when for the first time it is possible to define whether someting belong to this or that -
So Yes - everything is a gradual development - or maturing process - starting with simplest in terms of complexity - and then inertially changing into more and more dimensions - nothing in universe happens instantaneously.
It is very learningfull to see how the same concept - the same idea - can be described / explained - and then "re-invented" in slightly different wording - but absolutely to be the same. I take it for a sign that it cannot be totally wrong -
One little point is still pending - You like to think that no two different events can take place at EXACTLY the same time - and perhaps that is the same as saying that time - the ordering system goes infinitely small - so in practice - even with the insane complexity of universe - it is possible to state that it is one event followed by the next - even in the deepest of the deepest in two pixels separated by as much as separation can be -???
Are we in agreement on this - YES we are 100% in agreement
Actually I thought that this issue had already been settled -
I like to refer to the the birth of physical - as this "unfolding" - when space segregates in more than one - and when for the first time it is possible to define whether someting belong to this or that -
So Yes - everything is a gradual development - or maturing process - starting with simplest in terms of complexity - and then inertially changing into more and more dimensions - nothing in universe happens instantaneously.
It is very learningfull to see how the same concept - the same idea - can be described / explained - and then "re-invented" in slightly different wording - but absolutely to be the same. I take it for a sign that it cannot be totally wrong -
One little point is still pending - You like to think that no two different events can take place at EXACTLY the same time - and perhaps that is the same as saying that time - the ordering system goes infinitely small - so in practice - even with the insane complexity of universe - it is possible to state that it is one event followed by the next - even in the deepest of the deepest in two pixels separated by as much as separation can be -???
PS
BB is the beginning of Physical Universe - Human Scale, and not the origin of physical
BB pops into existance when the scale - when the complexion has reached the qubit of the Pixel - when the pixel-grid starts to express physical particles and when photon becomes the bosonic qubit.
QUOTE iseason: "by the time the universe is half over....it is completed since the end has been taken place alongside the beginning.."
Perhaps one can say that when the smallest dimensionality can express the largest without any gradient between dimensionalities - then the universe is outgrown - and has translated into motionless evenness - the One.
BB is the beginning of Physical Universe - Human Scale, and not the origin of physical
BB pops into existance when the scale - when the complexion has reached the qubit of the Pixel - when the pixel-grid starts to express physical particles and when photon becomes the bosonic qubit.
QUOTE iseason: "by the time the universe is half over....it is completed since the end has been taken place alongside the beginning.."
Perhaps one can say that when the smallest dimensionality can express the largest without any gradient between dimensionalities - then the universe is outgrown - and has translated into motionless evenness - the One.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 19 2008, 02:04 AM)
Hej Laidback
If I read You correctly - you are explaining / proposing what I have tried to say for some time -
namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.
In the case of a fermion's expression - like electron - the wave-structure is a kind of standing spherical wave - but a standing wave can easily move over the grid. In the case that the electron moves relative to the grid - this implicates that some of the pixel playing are engaged in expressing the repetitive (circular) wave-structure - is expressing the standing-wave - and other pixels are engaged in playing the movement of wave over the grid.
Important to notice is that an electron is a well-defined cubit - a well-defined amount of energy - a well-defined amount of pixels playing per time-unit. So a pixel cannot express both movement and particle - each and any pixel has to play either kinetic or potential properties of the electron.
The more rapid the propagation of the electron over the grid - the higher the proportion of pixels playing kinetic - and the circular standing wave-pattern is gradually being stretched to more and more propagating wave-patterns - and at a certain point - where all the pixels are playing propagation and no pixels are playing repetition - vupti - the electron is now a photon. The change from electron at near speed of c - and to photon with speed of c is millimeter thin - and vice verse
This way of seeing it - also explains the nature of mass.
Mass is strictly related to the frame in which mass is being measured - and mass is strictly related to the the relative movement over the pixel grid of a particle like structure - AND a particle like structure is solely being defined out from a wave-trajectory that is being repeated - is somewhat bended / circular / in the observed frame. Mass is nicely expressed via the retardation of the wave-trajectory relative to the full-speed straight trajectory - the maximum speed by which a signal (a wave) can be propagated via the pixels ON-signaling - where ALL the pixels involved are working in a straight line - full speed so to say. The more retardation - the more bending - the more circular - the more repeating - the slower the speed over the grid - the more of the expression being potential and the less being kinetic - and we measure this phenomenon as mass.
It is important to notice that mass is not something that directly can be attributed to the individual pixels as such. If we had the opportunity to investigate the internal of individual pixels - if we had the opportunity to step a scale downwards - then mass and all other physical qualities would be expressed to us in this scale instead - but of course we cannot. We humans are strictly bound to our scale - the Pixel scale (spelt capital)
First, I think we need to consider the following,
Boson refers to force carrier, as in its a medium that is everywhere, and this includes every moment of time, much like we treat a body of water is the medium that presents fermions, as in the waves and or compressed boson area that presents momentum, err~I am hoping you know what I mean here, as I detest going back to a very crude model based on quantum mechanics..
been ages since I ever had to refer to it, as it has no purpose or use within the industry that I have been involved, including for my government..
Anyway,
The fermions, are the reference to packets of much the same that is the Boson inference, only when I mention packets defined quanta are with set values, much like a given boson is with a given value..
Err~I hope this makes sense to you if not let me know..
Anyway here is a model that I hope will point out the various THEORETICAL PARTICLES with respect of practical function..
The following is a long two dimensional sample of our boson or force carrying medium..
___
And the following is a sample of our Fermion.
___
I will model two distinct moments of our THEORETICAL minimum time first, to represent the particles interactions over a time period..
_______________ Moment one
_______________ Moment two.
where lets say we have defined our minimum theoretical time interval is one second for each quanta..
But if I were to breakdown our time construct into three as in three thirds a second, we should consider the following model, if we are to adhere to all quantum mechanics rules.. Mind you I had to magnify this model so that our fermions still present as Particles..
__________________________________________________________________ Moment one..
________ __________________________________________________________ moment two or ONE second later
** NOTE** if I were to model one third of a second our divided fermion _____ would have shifted only a third of what has been presented here..
I am hoping I have pointed out one of quantum mechanics problems if one does not consider the proper breakdown of our theoretical particles..
What I am trying to impress and stress here is that the whole universe is with density, nowhere is there a pure void..
This means if we grid out the whole universe with a theoretical minimum 4D grid, each grid is then treated as a Pixel where we have either a boson or a fermion quanta with its respective Standard models values..
And here lies a Problem by insisting we adhere to quantum mechanics, I only hope I have been clear enough with what little resolve I have over this forum in pointing out what is obvious to me..
So the question remains, have I been clear enough or not?
If not I really must stress one takes into consideration that for a wave to be possible one needs a medium first and foremost, ergo Young's DSE has to be considered most thoroughly with respects to where each and every Standard Models Particles present throughout the experiment and whats more at each and every given minimum defined quanta of time..
via a 4 or more Dimensional grid rather than just a 3D one..
<Gulp!> I hope I dont have to resort to some very serious maths..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
If I read You correctly - you are explaining / proposing what I have tried to say for some time -
namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.
In the case of a fermion's expression - like electron - the wave-structure is a kind of standing spherical wave - but a standing wave can easily move over the grid. In the case that the electron moves relative to the grid - this implicates that some of the pixel playing are engaged in expressing the repetitive (circular) wave-structure - is expressing the standing-wave - and other pixels are engaged in playing the movement of wave over the grid.
Important to notice is that an electron is a well-defined cubit - a well-defined amount of energy - a well-defined amount of pixels playing per time-unit. So a pixel cannot express both movement and particle - each and any pixel has to play either kinetic or potential properties of the electron.
The more rapid the propagation of the electron over the grid - the higher the proportion of pixels playing kinetic - and the circular standing wave-pattern is gradually being stretched to more and more propagating wave-patterns - and at a certain point - where all the pixels are playing propagation and no pixels are playing repetition - vupti - the electron is now a photon. The change from electron at near speed of c - and to photon with speed of c is millimeter thin - and vice verse
This way of seeing it - also explains the nature of mass.
Mass is strictly related to the frame in which mass is being measured - and mass is strictly related to the the relative movement over the pixel grid of a particle like structure - AND a particle like structure is solely being defined out from a wave-trajectory that is being repeated - is somewhat bended / circular / in the observed frame. Mass is nicely expressed via the retardation of the wave-trajectory relative to the full-speed straight trajectory - the maximum speed by which a signal (a wave) can be propagated via the pixels ON-signaling - where ALL the pixels involved are working in a straight line - full speed so to say. The more retardation - the more bending - the more circular - the more repeating - the slower the speed over the grid - the more of the expression being potential and the less being kinetic - and we measure this phenomenon as mass.
It is important to notice that mass is not something that directly can be attributed to the individual pixels as such. If we had the opportunity to investigate the internal of individual pixels - if we had the opportunity to step a scale downwards - then mass and all other physical qualities would be expressed to us in this scale instead - but of course we cannot. We humans are strictly bound to our scale - the Pixel scale (spelt capital)
First, I think we need to consider the following,
Boson refers to force carrier, as in its a medium that is everywhere, and this includes every moment of time, much like we treat a body of water is the medium that presents fermions, as in the waves and or compressed boson area that presents momentum, err~I am hoping you know what I mean here, as I detest going back to a very crude model based on quantum mechanics..
been ages since I ever had to refer to it, as it has no purpose or use within the industry that I have been involved, including for my government..
Anyway,
The fermions, are the reference to packets of much the same that is the Boson inference, only when I mention packets defined quanta are with set values, much like a given boson is with a given value..
Err~I hope this makes sense to you if not let me know..
Anyway here is a model that I hope will point out the various THEORETICAL PARTICLES with respect of practical function..
The following is a long two dimensional sample of our boson or force carrying medium..
___
And the following is a sample of our Fermion.
___
I will model two distinct moments of our THEORETICAL minimum time first, to represent the particles interactions over a time period..
_______________ Moment one
_______________ Moment two.
where lets say we have defined our minimum theoretical time interval is one second for each quanta..
But if I were to breakdown our time construct into three as in three thirds a second, we should consider the following model, if we are to adhere to all quantum mechanics rules.. Mind you I had to magnify this model so that our fermions still present as Particles..
__________________________________________________________________ Moment one..
________ __________________________________________________________ moment two or ONE second later
** NOTE** if I were to model one third of a second our divided fermion _____ would have shifted only a third of what has been presented here..
I am hoping I have pointed out one of quantum mechanics problems if one does not consider the proper breakdown of our theoretical particles..
What I am trying to impress and stress here is that the whole universe is with density, nowhere is there a pure void..
This means if we grid out the whole universe with a theoretical minimum 4D grid, each grid is then treated as a Pixel where we have either a boson or a fermion quanta with its respective Standard models values..
And here lies a Problem by insisting we adhere to quantum mechanics, I only hope I have been clear enough with what little resolve I have over this forum in pointing out what is obvious to me..
So the question remains, have I been clear enough or not?
If not I really must stress one takes into consideration that for a wave to be possible one needs a medium first and foremost, ergo Young's DSE has to be considered most thoroughly with respects to where each and every Standard Models Particles present throughout the experiment and whats more at each and every given minimum defined quanta of time..
via a 4 or more Dimensional grid rather than just a 3D one..
<Gulp!> I hope I dont have to resort to some very serious maths..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 19 2008, 05:41 AM)
Hi Guys
Yes I am familiar with wave structure duality.This is why I use it for time/occurrence binding.
Consider your pond. at it's center is the beginning as the first occurrence.When the next occurrence is placed, it is the forming of the outer ring of the ripple. That is why I place the end as the next occurrence. When you go from one side of the universe to the other, distance = time=motion=space. So in keeping with the big bang model I allowed that the expansion of the universe did not mean that I had to move my pixels "here and there" in order to place them, but rather time expanded all other players /measurements in a pond like fashion......This gives 'action at a distance' , true motion(with nothing actually moving).
Beginning
beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end
This is a very small model of what ends up a complex pattern. An event which starts at the beginning of time has a mirror event at the end of time. If you lived on the 35th ripple in from the beginning , an effect is produced in the 35th ripple from the end (or on the direct opposite side of the pond. )
In this way you don't need two photons going to each other to affect each other across the universe. They were next to each other at the time they occurred,then the universe moved them apart. Our review process simply makes them seem related.
Picture light from a distant galaxy this way. It isn't moving to us.We are running into "it's twin photon" on this side of time(the pond). Not once, but constantly because it left these signals when it gained it's reality in the grid along side ours.
Why are we not enveloped in a star at this end? Because of the dispersal of occurrence. Our proportion of occurrence while the star was formed was very minimal , so while we see ourselves in a small mass/density, the star which was large mass density inverts this side to small mass/density (distance), but around us , the light from the star is also small mass/density or light which is constantly around us from that star. Making it available to every person to see relatively.
I know this will be enough to get your mind around. it's just to show I have put singular occurrence theory into context to sync with wave duality. The spreading of the wave with beginning and end at the two extremes allows everything an order in the "whole" which cannot be changed . In other words , once the beginning is there , the end is inevitable.
Cheers
Iseason
Oh my!
The Big-Bang?
But~
And this is a Huge But,
Take a gander at your signature..
We will note that all mass is energy, so if we could reverse every single momentum (Velocity) through out the universe, what do you reason would exist just before the Big-Bangs suggested event horizon with respects to energy?
keep in mind all mass is energy and the greater the ratio of potential energy over kinetic energy the more solid and or less allowed momentum..
On the other hand the greater the ratio of Kinetic energy to Potential energy the greater the magnitude of momentum to the potential being propagated..
what I am trying to stress here is a big bang implies all mass was and is being created from a single solid point, and if everything was wound back to it, what we would have is a contradiction to the inference to what is solid, as a Pure solid implies to no allowable change whatsoever, ergo such a solid point can not spontaneously present momentum, inertia, and or velocities..
So a solid can not contradict itself and present as change and go BOOM! or present as a massive outward trajectory from a single point?
seriously, If we wind back ever velocity with such a model at one point every velocity would have to attempt to cross at one single point, but in doing so all inertia and or momentum would simply cancel out.. resulting in a solid that does not allow momentum as it is all cancelled out, its for this very reason a solid is in fact only a relative solid, and never really a solid in all dimensions, like wise we cant have the whole universe as all solid and to be with no momentum in reference to nothing as that really implies it is stationary or better yet completely stagnant..
Anyway getting back to reversing every velocity and or converting kinetic energy from the whole universe back into being just a single potential of energy to nothing - because all Kinetic energy would have to be converted back to a single dimension as in the whole universe is a single dimensional expression so in-effect the whole universe simply does not exits! because all is stagnant and or with no allowed change!
But the problem is it does exist and according to basic energy concepts it always has and it always will - So a single point and or a single event horizon contradicts fundamental laws of existence and or complimentary truth expressions, ergo The Big-Bang was and is not the point of creation to the universe..
What makes the universe possible is two distinct opposing states that can never be breached as to do so truth can NOT be expressed anymore to at least with respects to a minimum of two references agreeing to reciprocate in implying a logical truth about themselves and how they are possible to each other..
The universe never began so it will never end as the end is actually the beginning to the end.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Yes I am familiar with wave structure duality.This is why I use it for time/occurrence binding.
Consider your pond. at it's center is the beginning as the first occurrence.When the next occurrence is placed, it is the forming of the outer ring of the ripple. That is why I place the end as the next occurrence. When you go from one side of the universe to the other, distance = time=motion=space. So in keeping with the big bang model I allowed that the expansion of the universe did not mean that I had to move my pixels "here and there" in order to place them, but rather time expanded all other players /measurements in a pond like fashion......This gives 'action at a distance' , true motion(with nothing actually moving).
Beginning
beginning end
Beginning middle end
Beginning middle middle end
Beginning middle center middle end
This is a very small model of what ends up a complex pattern. An event which starts at the beginning of time has a mirror event at the end of time. If you lived on the 35th ripple in from the beginning , an effect is produced in the 35th ripple from the end (or on the direct opposite side of the pond. )
In this way you don't need two photons going to each other to affect each other across the universe. They were next to each other at the time they occurred,then the universe moved them apart. Our review process simply makes them seem related.
Picture light from a distant galaxy this way. It isn't moving to us.We are running into "it's twin photon" on this side of time(the pond). Not once, but constantly because it left these signals when it gained it's reality in the grid along side ours.
Why are we not enveloped in a star at this end? Because of the dispersal of occurrence. Our proportion of occurrence while the star was formed was very minimal , so while we see ourselves in a small mass/density, the star which was large mass density inverts this side to small mass/density (distance), but around us , the light from the star is also small mass/density or light which is constantly around us from that star. Making it available to every person to see relatively.
I know this will be enough to get your mind around. it's just to show I have put singular occurrence theory into context to sync with wave duality. The spreading of the wave with beginning and end at the two extremes allows everything an order in the "whole" which cannot be changed . In other words , once the beginning is there , the end is inevitable.
Cheers
Iseason
Oh my!
The Big-Bang? But~
And this is a Huge But,
Take a gander at your signature..
We will note that all mass is energy, so if we could reverse every single momentum (Velocity) through out the universe, what do you reason would exist just before the Big-Bangs suggested event horizon with respects to energy?
keep in mind all mass is energy and the greater the ratio of potential energy over kinetic energy the more solid and or less allowed momentum..
On the other hand the greater the ratio of Kinetic energy to Potential energy the greater the magnitude of momentum to the potential being propagated..
what I am trying to stress here is a big bang implies all mass was and is being created from a single solid point, and if everything was wound back to it, what we would have is a contradiction to the inference to what is solid, as a Pure solid implies to no allowable change whatsoever, ergo such a solid point can not spontaneously present momentum, inertia, and or velocities..
So a solid can not contradict itself and present as change and go BOOM! or present as a massive outward trajectory from a single point?
seriously, If we wind back ever velocity with such a model at one point every velocity would have to attempt to cross at one single point, but in doing so all inertia and or momentum would simply cancel out.. resulting in a solid that does not allow momentum as it is all cancelled out, its for this very reason a solid is in fact only a relative solid, and never really a solid in all dimensions, like wise we cant have the whole universe as all solid and to be with no momentum in reference to nothing as that really implies it is stationary or better yet completely stagnant..
Anyway getting back to reversing every velocity and or converting kinetic energy from the whole universe back into being just a single potential of energy to nothing - because all Kinetic energy would have to be converted back to a single dimension as in the whole universe is a single dimensional expression so in-effect the whole universe simply does not exits! because all is stagnant and or with no allowed change!
But the problem is it does exist and according to basic energy concepts it always has and it always will - So a single point and or a single event horizon contradicts fundamental laws of existence and or complimentary truth expressions, ergo The Big-Bang was and is not the point of creation to the universe..
What makes the universe possible is two distinct opposing states that can never be breached as to do so truth can NOT be expressed anymore to at least with respects to a minimum of two references agreeing to reciprocate in implying a logical truth about themselves and how they are possible to each other..
The universe never began so it will never end as the end is actually the beginning to the end.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Bukh , Laidback
Yes Bukh , we have been here before.
Laidback. I respect your knowledge in matters of science. I have , so far it seems, been unable to explain to you what I am trying to say despite using a variety of descriptive. Unfortunately EVERY mixes up the explanation with real time images that have no place in 'singular particle theory'. I will attempt to clear it up using your last post's objections, but maybe Bukh can help (I'm not even that sure if I have been quite clear enough with him) ... but here's hoping....
QUOTE:_Oh my! ohmy.gif The Big-Bang?
But~
And this is a Huge But,
Take a gander at your signature..
We will note that all mass is energy, so if we could reverse every single momentum (Velocity) through out the universe, what do you reason would exist just before the Big-Bangs suggested event horizon with respects to energy?
keep in mind all mass is energy and the greater the ratio of potential energy over kinetic energy the more solid and or less allowed momentum..
On the other hand the greater the ratio of Kinetic energy to Potential energy the greater the magnitude of momentum to the potential being propagated..
what I am trying to stress here is a big bang implies all mass was and is being created from a single solid point, and if everything was wound back to it, what we would have is a contradiction to the inference to what is solid, as a Pure solid implies to no allowable change whatsoever, ergo such a solid point can not spontaneously present momentum, inertia, and or velocities..
So a solid can not contradict itself and present as change and go BOOM! or present as a massive outward trajectory from a single point? ph34r.gif
OK !!! Here we go. Please do not get my behavioral view confused with big bang as an expansion OF ENERGY......This is descriptive only of how a grid would be formed to map HOW the positions of occurrence MIRRORS actual spacial positions...It does not mean that mass CAME from a central point and expanded. as soon as a position is USED it is there ONLY as a reference....But again...It does not actually exist....
Singular particle/quanta means just THAT...There is NO more energy EVER. So although the "whole" is reviewing possible positions/perspectives, They are not lasting or there. This is why I asked why memory can act while photons cannot retain existence.
Perhaps The whole was there first?....This is why I discussed "photon divided into the area of the universe" and "the universe as a Photon"...These two CANCEL each other out.....Leaving a result,inquiry,review....Whatever. The point is that when we logically search for first cause , we inevitably end at one or indivisible.This IS consistent with "energy cannot be created nor destroyed". In fact I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING WRITTEN which shows how this truth can be so, even though it is a cornerstone of science. When you have TWO of anything , then first cause is violated.
So you ARE correct. The beginning IS the end. Please refer back to my last post again and see that the beginning and end are partners. In other words the smallest is a mere reflection of the largest. What we observe/experience in the middle don't create more "things", but are an order that is inevitable given the review...
The explanation a few posts ago using a TV screen is to show how one photon at a time is able to give the impression of solid.....So I am aware of the need to have space as potential ALL OVER the universe. In fact I have never seen ANYONE give space SO MUCH potential as I do in my writings..... Try it this way Although we inhabit a HUUUUGE universe, It can only EVER be inhabited by ONE quanta ......EVER.
Enough for now.
Cheers
Iseason
Yes Bukh , we have been here before.
Laidback. I respect your knowledge in matters of science. I have , so far it seems, been unable to explain to you what I am trying to say despite using a variety of descriptive. Unfortunately EVERY mixes up the explanation with real time images that have no place in 'singular particle theory'. I will attempt to clear it up using your last post's objections, but maybe Bukh can help (I'm not even that sure if I have been quite clear enough with him) ... but here's hoping....
QUOTE:_Oh my! ohmy.gif The Big-Bang?
But~
And this is a Huge But,
Take a gander at your signature..
We will note that all mass is energy, so if we could reverse every single momentum (Velocity) through out the universe, what do you reason would exist just before the Big-Bangs suggested event horizon with respects to energy?
keep in mind all mass is energy and the greater the ratio of potential energy over kinetic energy the more solid and or less allowed momentum..
On the other hand the greater the ratio of Kinetic energy to Potential energy the greater the magnitude of momentum to the potential being propagated..
what I am trying to stress here is a big bang implies all mass was and is being created from a single solid point, and if everything was wound back to it, what we would have is a contradiction to the inference to what is solid, as a Pure solid implies to no allowable change whatsoever, ergo such a solid point can not spontaneously present momentum, inertia, and or velocities..
So a solid can not contradict itself and present as change and go BOOM! or present as a massive outward trajectory from a single point? ph34r.gif
OK !!! Here we go. Please do not get my behavioral view confused with big bang as an expansion OF ENERGY......This is descriptive only of how a grid would be formed to map HOW the positions of occurrence MIRRORS actual spacial positions...It does not mean that mass CAME from a central point and expanded. as soon as a position is USED it is there ONLY as a reference....But again...It does not actually exist....
Singular particle/quanta means just THAT...There is NO more energy EVER. So although the "whole" is reviewing possible positions/perspectives, They are not lasting or there. This is why I asked why memory can act while photons cannot retain existence.
Perhaps The whole was there first?....This is why I discussed "photon divided into the area of the universe" and "the universe as a Photon"...These two CANCEL each other out.....Leaving a result,inquiry,review....Whatever. The point is that when we logically search for first cause , we inevitably end at one or indivisible.This IS consistent with "energy cannot be created nor destroyed". In fact I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING WRITTEN which shows how this truth can be so, even though it is a cornerstone of science. When you have TWO of anything , then first cause is violated.
So you ARE correct. The beginning IS the end. Please refer back to my last post again and see that the beginning and end are partners. In other words the smallest is a mere reflection of the largest. What we observe/experience in the middle don't create more "things", but are an order that is inevitable given the review...
The explanation a few posts ago using a TV screen is to show how one photon at a time is able to give the impression of solid.....So I am aware of the need to have space as potential ALL OVER the universe. In fact I have never seen ANYONE give space SO MUCH potential as I do in my writings..... Try it this way Although we inhabit a HUUUUGE universe, It can only EVER be inhabited by ONE quanta ......EVER.
Enough for now.
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
To me you are saying exactly the same as I want to express - and I think that I express exactly the same as you want to express -
You say Space and I say Dimensionality - and I doubt that ANYONE before has put so much attention to Dimensionality - or to Space as we have -
It is a cyclus - so Universe starts with unit One - the space - the dimension - non-segregated - and then develop through more and more complexion vis segragations - and eventually end up in a new motionless - evenness - another unit One - and yes you can say a pure solid - and if you read back Ivars and I was discussing this pure solid for more than a year ago.
And yes - univere can not inhabit more than one quanta a time - and now I have not been saying whether the next quant is being changed in only one place or in more places - but really - who cares -
To me you are saying exactly the same as I want to express - and I think that I express exactly the same as you want to express -
You say Space and I say Dimensionality - and I doubt that ANYONE before has put so much attention to Dimensionality - or to Space as we have -
It is a cyclus - so Universe starts with unit One - the space - the dimension - non-segregated - and then develop through more and more complexion vis segragations - and eventually end up in a new motionless - evenness - another unit One - and yes you can say a pure solid - and if you read back Ivars and I was discussing this pure solid for more than a year ago.
And yes - univere can not inhabit more than one quanta a time - and now I have not been saying whether the next quant is being changed in only one place or in more places - but really - who cares -
iseason - Laidback
QUOTE: "Unfortunately EVERY mixes up the explanation with real time images that have no place in 'singular particle theory'. I will attempt to clear it up using your last post's objections, but maybe Bukh can help"
Well - just this issue of Time - where I like to make this clear distinction between subjective and objective Time, respectively. Time is a secondary - a derived - function - time being secondary to change.
Objective time is being related to the "'singular particle theory'." or the events - the universal quants - one flash - one picture - following the next - cinematographically - the ordering process of the pictures - which one is following which - and this actually applies in any scale - any scale got its own objective time (it is easier to apply local objective time in a scale)
And then on the other hand we ahve subjective time - which is "Observer Related".
Normally when talking about time - it is subjective time that we are referring to. In order to get subjective time there must be something that can be observed within the system - by the system - that part of the system can observe another part of the system - we need interference - where a kind of frozen - a kind of pepeating expression can be interfered with by another like expression - and that the observer is more complex than the observed- that the observer has conscoiusness. Subjective time is not an easy concept - it is much easier to invent a G@ds eye and let it be the observer of objective time.
QUOTE: "Please do not get my behavioral view confused with big bang as an expansion OF ENERGY......This is descriptive only of how a grid would be formed to map HOW the positions of occurrence MIRRORS actual spacial positions...It does not mean that mass CAME from a central point and expanded. as soon as a position is USED it is there ONLY as a reference....But again...It does not actually exist...."
My clarifying comment would be that universe - irrespective at the moment we look at universe - it is very important to remember that universe has not any defined size - universe is exactly as big as a universe should be - size of universe is not and cannot be defined. Nothing in our universe is being defined as to size - everything is being defined as to relationships between ratios of universe - EVERYTHING is being expressed and defined via ratios. So the size of the ratio is not defined - and size is absolutely meaningless. Big and small is solely a quality of our human relationsships to said smallness and said bigness.
And the above has to do with energy. Energy is intimately related to change - what change and how much change- At universal origin there is unit One - segregating into more than one dimension - it means that ALL universal enrgy is being expressed in such simple changes within very few ratios. With ongoing segregatins there will be more and more and "smaller and smaller" dimensions - and changes will accordingly be segregated into smaller and smaller "energies" - but ALL changes at a given time cowering all universal space - will be exacttly the same energy as the energy at origin.
QUOTE: "Unfortunately EVERY mixes up the explanation with real time images that have no place in 'singular particle theory'. I will attempt to clear it up using your last post's objections, but maybe Bukh can help"
Well - just this issue of Time - where I like to make this clear distinction between subjective and objective Time, respectively. Time is a secondary - a derived - function - time being secondary to change.
Objective time is being related to the "'singular particle theory'." or the events - the universal quants - one flash - one picture - following the next - cinematographically - the ordering process of the pictures - which one is following which - and this actually applies in any scale - any scale got its own objective time (it is easier to apply local objective time in a scale)
And then on the other hand we ahve subjective time - which is "Observer Related".
Normally when talking about time - it is subjective time that we are referring to. In order to get subjective time there must be something that can be observed within the system - by the system - that part of the system can observe another part of the system - we need interference - where a kind of frozen - a kind of pepeating expression can be interfered with by another like expression - and that the observer is more complex than the observed- that the observer has conscoiusness. Subjective time is not an easy concept - it is much easier to invent a G@ds eye and let it be the observer of objective time.
QUOTE: "Please do not get my behavioral view confused with big bang as an expansion OF ENERGY......This is descriptive only of how a grid would be formed to map HOW the positions of occurrence MIRRORS actual spacial positions...It does not mean that mass CAME from a central point and expanded. as soon as a position is USED it is there ONLY as a reference....But again...It does not actually exist...."
My clarifying comment would be that universe - irrespective at the moment we look at universe - it is very important to remember that universe has not any defined size - universe is exactly as big as a universe should be - size of universe is not and cannot be defined. Nothing in our universe is being defined as to size - everything is being defined as to relationships between ratios of universe - EVERYTHING is being expressed and defined via ratios. So the size of the ratio is not defined - and size is absolutely meaningless. Big and small is solely a quality of our human relationsships to said smallness and said bigness.
And the above has to do with energy. Energy is intimately related to change - what change and how much change- At universal origin there is unit One - segregating into more than one dimension - it means that ALL universal enrgy is being expressed in such simple changes within very few ratios. With ongoing segregatins there will be more and more and "smaller and smaller" dimensions - and changes will accordingly be segregated into smaller and smaller "energies" - but ALL changes at a given time cowering all universal space - will be exacttly the same energy as the energy at origin.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 20 2008, 03:51 PM)
Hi Bukh , Laidback
It does not mean that mass CAME from a central point and expanded. as soon as a position is USED it is there ONLY as a reference....But again...It does not actually exist....
Singular particle/quanta means just THAT...There is NO more energy EVER. So although the "whole" is reviewing possible positions/perspectives, They are not lasting or there. This is why I asked why memory can act while photons cannot retain existence.
Perhaps The whole was there first?....This is why I discussed "photon divided into the area of the universe" and "the universe as a Photon"...These two CANCEL each other out.....Leaving a result,inquiry,review....Whatever. The point is that when we logically search for first cause , we inevitably end at one or indivisible.This IS consistent with "energy cannot be created nor destroyed". In fact I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING WRITTEN which shows how this truth can be so, even though it is a cornerstone of science. When you have TWO of anything , then first cause is violated.
So you ARE correct. The beginning IS the end. Please refer back to my last post again and see that the beginning and end are partners. In other words the smallest is a mere reflection of the largest. What we observe/experience in the middle don't create more "things", but are an order that is inevitable given the review...
The explanation a few posts ago using a TV screen is to show how one photon at a time is able to give the impression of solid.....So I am aware of the need to have space as potential ALL OVER the universe. In fact I have never seen ANYONE give space SO MUCH potential as I do in my writings..... Try it this way Although we inhabit a HUUUUGE universe, It can only EVER be inhabited by ONE quanta ......EVER.
Enough for now.
Cheers
Iseason
I am pleased we cleared that up,
And I must agree we now or should I say perhaps you at one stage as I did, had some sort of chicken or the egg situation..
So my previous post has fared me well, not quite the epiphany I was hoping for, but close enough, with respects to the following..
Where more or less I was confronted with the same dilemma, my reasoning therefore places it as an automatic rule of possibilities opposed to impossibilities, to which this basic rule if adhered to exudes logical cycle or if NOT - is simply a logical breakdown.
Put simply "one" or the inference to something must consist with change but to change one must be in fact two so on said change each of the two or more have a reference to all elese that expresses logical truth about themselves with respects to each other and a master reference.
If I refer to this truth via logical defined values. each of the values express and present truth, and in fact a truth about their existence. mathematical eg:- 1/2+1/2=1 or .5+.5=1 or 1=2*1/2 or 2*1/2=1, no matter from what point of view we reference our statements each and every statement is a logical truth about them selves and all other references..
If I were to refer to verbal definitions each statement made and or presented should always be indisputable by all else..
In physics - "ALL PHYSICS" there are always two or more references when referring to what exists or what is possible..
The only exception to this is:- where "one" when referenced may be referred to - consist with no change as there is no change ergo a single dimension best justifies it...
This implies the single dimension that is NOT with change is as it is - the most basic truth statement one can refer to, but if this reference can be divided and I imply to it then what we have is one that is NOT solid or with no change, as it can be divided ergo its not closed unless, and this is extremely critical :-
Here I stand and refer to the rest of the Universe as part of the Universe and me in my moving about in my entirety is the rest of it, and here is where my epiphany sprung forth, with respects to a closed system, I came to the conclusion that the whole Universe if it is to be possible needs to be first and foremost closed - Just so that it can present itself as a truth statement to all else as all else can to it, with respects to possible change and or existence.. as existence is the inference to an ongoing concern, meaning constant change MUST be possible, as without change there are no available different references to refer to..
Hmm? That last statement is near being philosophical? which is not my intention..
eh!??
Anyway the result was if my mass was an open sub-system and the rest of the universe was the other open -sub-system, then what ever I do the rest of the Universe must be in reciprocal to my mass, mwah~ha~ha! POWER! .
where was I?
So yeah~... From there I can refer to anything as one open sub-system Vs the rest of the Universe as the other sub-system, and as long as the two or more references always present a truth, then what we have is logic rather than the illogical.
If I were to refer to how large the universe is, I am actually doing a comparison, and the key here is - What am I using to compare one to the other?..
Its for this reason my previous posts were deliberated in order certain key elements are introduced not by me, but importantly expressed by you, so while you considered these, hopefully I have introduced one mother of an epiphany with respects to start and end, leading to what containment, reference are we to refer to?
Which again begs us to consider a master reference..
I had more to say, but I feel if we ?! Err mainly me~ is to really progress - A master reference such as the Whole closed Universe needs a label, err~ I guess we also need to be in agreement that the Universe is closed, I know in my mind it is already deemed as a truth statement that the Universe is a closed system - but if I am to refer to the same inferences this needs to be absolutely clear with you and all other physicists participating here..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
It does not mean that mass CAME from a central point and expanded. as soon as a position is USED it is there ONLY as a reference....But again...It does not actually exist....
Singular particle/quanta means just THAT...There is NO more energy EVER. So although the "whole" is reviewing possible positions/perspectives, They are not lasting or there. This is why I asked why memory can act while photons cannot retain existence.
Perhaps The whole was there first?....This is why I discussed "photon divided into the area of the universe" and "the universe as a Photon"...These two CANCEL each other out.....Leaving a result,inquiry,review....Whatever. The point is that when we logically search for first cause , we inevitably end at one or indivisible.This IS consistent with "energy cannot be created nor destroyed". In fact I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING WRITTEN which shows how this truth can be so, even though it is a cornerstone of science. When you have TWO of anything , then first cause is violated.
So you ARE correct. The beginning IS the end. Please refer back to my last post again and see that the beginning and end are partners. In other words the smallest is a mere reflection of the largest. What we observe/experience in the middle don't create more "things", but are an order that is inevitable given the review...
The explanation a few posts ago using a TV screen is to show how one photon at a time is able to give the impression of solid.....So I am aware of the need to have space as potential ALL OVER the universe. In fact I have never seen ANYONE give space SO MUCH potential as I do in my writings..... Try it this way Although we inhabit a HUUUUGE universe, It can only EVER be inhabited by ONE quanta ......EVER.
Enough for now.
Cheers
Iseason
I am pleased we cleared that up,
And I must agree we now or should I say perhaps you at one stage as I did, had some sort of chicken or the egg situation..
So my previous post has fared me well, not quite the epiphany I was hoping for, but close enough, with respects to the following..
QUOTE
In fact I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING WRITTEN which shows how this truth can be so, even though it is a cornerstone of science. When you have TWO of anything , then first cause is violated.
Where more or less I was confronted with the same dilemma, my reasoning therefore places it as an automatic rule of possibilities opposed to impossibilities, to which this basic rule if adhered to exudes logical cycle or if NOT - is simply a logical breakdown.
Put simply "one" or the inference to something must consist with change but to change one must be in fact two so on said change each of the two or more have a reference to all elese that expresses logical truth about themselves with respects to each other and a master reference.
If I refer to this truth via logical defined values. each of the values express and present truth, and in fact a truth about their existence. mathematical eg:- 1/2+1/2=1 or .5+.5=1 or 1=2*1/2 or 2*1/2=1, no matter from what point of view we reference our statements each and every statement is a logical truth about them selves and all other references..
If I were to refer to verbal definitions each statement made and or presented should always be indisputable by all else..
In physics - "ALL PHYSICS" there are always two or more references when referring to what exists or what is possible..
The only exception to this is:- where "one" when referenced may be referred to - consist with no change as there is no change ergo a single dimension best justifies it...
This implies the single dimension that is NOT with change is as it is - the most basic truth statement one can refer to, but if this reference can be divided and I imply to it then what we have is one that is NOT solid or with no change, as it can be divided ergo its not closed unless, and this is extremely critical :-
Here I stand and refer to the rest of the Universe as part of the Universe and me in my moving about in my entirety is the rest of it, and here is where my epiphany sprung forth, with respects to a closed system, I came to the conclusion that the whole Universe if it is to be possible needs to be first and foremost closed - Just so that it can present itself as a truth statement to all else as all else can to it, with respects to possible change and or existence.. as existence is the inference to an ongoing concern, meaning constant change MUST be possible, as without change there are no available different references to refer to..
Hmm? That last statement is near being philosophical? which is not my intention..
eh!??
Anyway the result was if my mass was an open sub-system and the rest of the universe was the other open -sub-system, then what ever I do the rest of the Universe must be in reciprocal to my mass, mwah~ha~ha!
POWER! .where was I?
So yeah~... From there I can refer to anything as one open sub-system Vs the rest of the Universe as the other sub-system, and as long as the two or more references always present a truth, then what we have is logic rather than the illogical.
If I were to refer to how large the universe is, I am actually doing a comparison, and the key here is - What am I using to compare one to the other?..
Its for this reason my previous posts were deliberated in order certain key elements are introduced not by me, but importantly expressed by you, so while you considered these, hopefully I have introduced one mother of an epiphany with respects to start and end, leading to what containment, reference are we to refer to?
Which again begs us to consider a master reference..
I had more to say, but I feel if we ?! Err mainly me~ is to really progress - A master reference such as the Whole closed Universe needs a label, err~ I guess we also need to be in agreement that the Universe is closed, I know in my mind it is already deemed as a truth statement that the Universe is a closed system - but if I am to refer to the same inferences this needs to be absolutely clear with you and all other physicists participating here..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
hi Bukh, Laidback...all
Hmmmmmm.........First Bukh. Excellent understanding of my thought process. I notice that there is an element creeping into all our conversation which causes me concern....motion. I need to be clear about what I see in mainstream science is that truths can be used to beat would be detractors, "but they should not get in the way of a good defense of current theory". In this mainstream has allowed itself be propped up by inconsistency
......For this reason i LIKE the last post where Bukh referred to "objective time and subjective time"...This has been my greatest hurdle. Finding a way to explain two realities when the only descriptors I can use are those we know from subjective time.....So a big thank you Bukh...
Laidback....I think we can now move on from here. To save confusion, The two references should be "objective and subjective time". Those ARE in fact the two dimensionalities/potentials that you are seeking. Since the "whole" is complete and cannot be added to , is closed and so cannot be opened, is fixed and so cannot be changed......For this reason we live entirely within "Subjective time/reality". We CANNOT actually step from one to the other, but the information of subjective reality is gained by reading the information in "objective reality". Once read, it cannot be re-read and is unattainable for further use....Now for a diagram.
Instead of a line which shows progression it would be two discs or two sides of a disc. One side has a finite number of fixed positions. There is no logical order to the positions and they are all equal. There is no variation....The ultimate solid object.
On the other side is a single measure of energy...it represents "subjective time". As a space is used on this side,it creates imbalance on the other disc. It must cause the next measure of energy to "occur" to regain balance on the other disc, but it cannot also be at two points at once, so when it occupies WHAT WOULD create balance,it has done nothing to achieve it. This is because the position prior is no longer there and the imbalance continues.
This develops into a cycle which it cannot prevent and it cannot direct. Since the next point of balance is a position that it has not previously occupied, the cycle will continue until every position has been used ..
When you step back and look at what would be the case if we were looking at a CD disc, each point of balance would be as far away as possible from the last. "the other side of the universe" But since positions will be more and more unavailable as the cycle progresses , the pattern will become "Spiro graphic" in it's make-up. This will give the illusion that a crossroads of meeting arcs is moving along an axis point or that Mass is in motion...
Cheers
Iseason
Hmmmmmm.........First Bukh. Excellent understanding of my thought process. I notice that there is an element creeping into all our conversation which causes me concern....motion. I need to be clear about what I see in mainstream science is that truths can be used to beat would be detractors, "but they should not get in the way of a good defense of current theory". In this mainstream has allowed itself be propped up by inconsistency
......For this reason i LIKE the last post where Bukh referred to "objective time and subjective time"...This has been my greatest hurdle. Finding a way to explain two realities when the only descriptors I can use are those we know from subjective time.....So a big thank you Bukh...
Laidback....I think we can now move on from here. To save confusion, The two references should be "objective and subjective time". Those ARE in fact the two dimensionalities/potentials that you are seeking. Since the "whole" is complete and cannot be added to , is closed and so cannot be opened, is fixed and so cannot be changed......For this reason we live entirely within "Subjective time/reality". We CANNOT actually step from one to the other, but the information of subjective reality is gained by reading the information in "objective reality". Once read, it cannot be re-read and is unattainable for further use....Now for a diagram.
Instead of a line which shows progression it would be two discs or two sides of a disc. One side has a finite number of fixed positions. There is no logical order to the positions and they are all equal. There is no variation....The ultimate solid object.
On the other side is a single measure of energy...it represents "subjective time". As a space is used on this side,it creates imbalance on the other disc. It must cause the next measure of energy to "occur" to regain balance on the other disc, but it cannot also be at two points at once, so when it occupies WHAT WOULD create balance,it has done nothing to achieve it. This is because the position prior is no longer there and the imbalance continues.
This develops into a cycle which it cannot prevent and it cannot direct. Since the next point of balance is a position that it has not previously occupied, the cycle will continue until every position has been used ..
When you step back and look at what would be the case if we were looking at a CD disc, each point of balance would be as far away as possible from the last. "the other side of the universe" But since positions will be more and more unavailable as the cycle progresses , the pattern will become "Spiro graphic" in it's make-up. This will give the illusion that a crossroads of meeting arcs is moving along an axis point or that Mass is in motion...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 20 2008, 05:23 PM)
It is a cyclus - so Universe starts with unit One - the space - the dimension - non-segregated - and then develop through more and more complexion vis segragations - and eventually end up in a new motionless - evenness - another unit One - and yes you can say a pure solid - and if you read back Ivars and I was discussing this pure solid for more than a year ago.
I have one question, which I hope will change and expand your limits, with respects to your smallest division..
why cant the division or portion of the universe you refer to be further divided?
I mean we divided and divided with no restrictions to the point of your smallest, and now here you are with a small portion of the Universe and you insist it can be divided no further?
WHY?
Let me suggest if division is anywhere not possible then all else is not possible by the very same token..
As all physics depends on divisions in implying change, for example PE/KE=V
A basic physical rule if not allowed has everything that exists simply not possible!
ergo your smallest quantity therefore can not be possible.. unless it adheres to the basic rule that allows for its very existence to be in fact where it is in the first place, as we cant have it anywhere unless it has been placed in reference to another reference, and seeing it has been placed in reference to a master reference, and for it to express change it needs to be relocated and or added to another division at the very least..
In the above equation "V" is our master reference yes a reference to imply possible change and or a possible division, and lets say your smallest division has been gained via dividing "E" into two dimension PE and KE and lets say KE is your smallest reference or properly implied, a ratio of what can be divided, to which - this doesn't mean we can not further divide KE as KE has been gained via a division in the first place..
I beg of you to consider if the defined reference to energy to the Universe is dividable ergo to express or present change, then all divisions are allowable with respects to references to change..
Put simply an indivisible solid is simply illogical, specially if it is to present its self elsewhere with respects to its implied change of references.. I say if it is closed to change then where it exits is where it remains unless its open to changes, which then renders it open to output some of its quanta and or to receive quanta from else.. so whatever quanta has been shifted implies to its change, a wave or photon product if you like.. {I BLAME QUANTUM MECHANICS CONCEPTS FOR YOUR RESTRICTIVE REASONING}, and I say let it go... as you cant have a solid with momentum unless it is open to changes.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I have one question, which I hope will change and expand your limits, with respects to your smallest division..
why cant the division or portion of the universe you refer to be further divided?
I mean we divided and divided with no restrictions to the point of your smallest, and now here you are with a small portion of the Universe and you insist it can be divided no further?
WHY?
Let me suggest if division is anywhere not possible then all else is not possible by the very same token..
As all physics depends on divisions in implying change, for example PE/KE=V
A basic physical rule if not allowed has everything that exists simply not possible!
ergo your smallest quantity therefore can not be possible.. unless it adheres to the basic rule that allows for its very existence to be in fact where it is in the first place, as we cant have it anywhere unless it has been placed in reference to another reference, and seeing it has been placed in reference to a master reference, and for it to express change it needs to be relocated and or added to another division at the very least..
In the above equation "V" is our master reference yes a reference to imply possible change and or a possible division, and lets say your smallest division has been gained via dividing "E" into two dimension PE and KE and lets say KE is your smallest reference or properly implied, a ratio of what can be divided, to which - this doesn't mean we can not further divide KE as KE has been gained via a division in the first place..
I beg of you to consider if the defined reference to energy to the Universe is dividable ergo to express or present change, then all divisions are allowable with respects to references to change..
Put simply an indivisible solid is simply illogical, specially if it is to present its self elsewhere with respects to its implied change of references.. I say if it is closed to change then where it exits is where it remains unless its open to changes, which then renders it open to output some of its quanta and or to receive quanta from else.. so whatever quanta has been shifted implies to its change, a wave or photon product if you like.. {I BLAME QUANTUM MECHANICS CONCEPTS FOR YOUR RESTRICTIVE REASONING}, and I say let it go... as you cant have a solid with momentum unless it is open to changes.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Laidback
I wasn't sure who you replied to in the last post. I answered in between to your first post , probably while you were writing the second. I have one day off a week , on Tuesday (New Zealand time) and so it is unusual for me not to be picking up your trail of answers on an evening.
Are we getting confused between objective and subjective?
In objective....it exists all at once with no variation. In subjective..... one quanta at a time. I think Bukh has a point when he says..."how big is the universe"?...as big as it needs be........"how small is the smallest"?...."as small as necessary".
Your statement would be correct in subjective time only....Because in objective time nothing ever changes or is segregated. The whole always remains whole and is the master blueprint that subjective time refers to for measure.
"If I am This big, then I have this percentage of the whole'......I do not need to split up the whole (in a physical sense) to do the math in subjective relativity. The balance that I referred to in my last post does the rest of the math.
Cheers
Iseason
I wasn't sure who you replied to in the last post. I answered in between to your first post , probably while you were writing the second. I have one day off a week , on Tuesday (New Zealand time) and so it is unusual for me not to be picking up your trail of answers on an evening.
Are we getting confused between objective and subjective?
In objective....it exists all at once with no variation. In subjective..... one quanta at a time. I think Bukh has a point when he says..."how big is the universe"?...as big as it needs be........"how small is the smallest"?...."as small as necessary".
Your statement would be correct in subjective time only....Because in objective time nothing ever changes or is segregated. The whole always remains whole and is the master blueprint that subjective time refers to for measure.
"If I am This big, then I have this percentage of the whole'......I do not need to split up the whole (in a physical sense) to do the math in subjective relativity. The balance that I referred to in my last post does the rest of the math.
Cheers
Iseason
Hi Laidback iseason
I am happy to see that we progress well - and if you read my posts (also in other threads) during the last many month you will notice that the questions we are discussing now have already been considered and taken care of - the important process now is to reach a kind of modelling in our words and pictures so the model can be uniformly understood by others - I think that we all like to be a bit missionary in spreading ideas
A few quickes
Laidback: smallest is not a static - smallest is referring to place and time (objective time) - and dynamically changing into smaller. Smallness is the gradient securing entropy - more and more complexity - more and more order - so eventually there is no misfit left between dimensionalities - or perhaps better say that the misfit is eventually evened out to be absolute ideally evenly distributed all over space. At that stage the gradient for change is being anihilated and no further re-arrangements takes place - and universe freeze in a motionless totally even unit One - acts as an ideal solid. You remember that misfit is equal to "free void" or relative intrapixel vacuum - and that this fluctuating vacuum in the system is what initiates and gowernes the pixel ON-signaling - or the "quakes" in the grid. Quakes are the equivalent of bosonic expressions - and a quake has no dimension - or a quake has dimension "measured in free void" !! - whatever we choose - I like to say that boson is dimensionless - no dimension. BTW what is the dimension of a wave ? it is a wrong question.
iseason: Motion - yes motion is per definition impossible - and I have repeatedly stated that motion is mission impossible - that motion is the most underrated and ignored problem - that motion still is taken for granted - and still nobody would be able to explain motion except as cinematographically. And I have also said that motion and dynamic requires disscreteness - it is not possible to think dynamic in a continuos system.
Having that said - we are still in the position where we can get the ILLUSION of motion - and the trick is the same as in a movie - namely that we have to "hide" the time - the time that is needed to get the shift from one picture to the next. This trick is made via using SCALES - and now we are left with the 10.000 dollars question - what is happening in the smallest scale - how can smallest scale change - what is the mechanism behind oscillating existance - because oscillating existance is required in order to deal with dynamics.
The nearest I can get - is this idea of smallest being represented by stochastic 0-1 representation in space of infinitely (yes I say infinitely) many points - where > 1/2 (meaning 50%) of infinite points represented meaning ON-signal - but lets accept it - it is a very thin explanation in order solving such a deep problem. I like to think that this problem is near to unsolvable because one step will create a new step of questions. So till further I like the simplistic explanation - namely that dimensionality axiomatically is in oscillating existance - and dimensionality is axiomatically required in order to explain physical. In a previous post I said that trying to answer this question is the same as asking about the origin of the origin.
I am happy to see that we progress well - and if you read my posts (also in other threads) during the last many month you will notice that the questions we are discussing now have already been considered and taken care of - the important process now is to reach a kind of modelling in our words and pictures so the model can be uniformly understood by others - I think that we all like to be a bit missionary in spreading ideas
A few quickes
Laidback: smallest is not a static - smallest is referring to place and time (objective time) - and dynamically changing into smaller. Smallness is the gradient securing entropy - more and more complexity - more and more order - so eventually there is no misfit left between dimensionalities - or perhaps better say that the misfit is eventually evened out to be absolute ideally evenly distributed all over space. At that stage the gradient for change is being anihilated and no further re-arrangements takes place - and universe freeze in a motionless totally even unit One - acts as an ideal solid. You remember that misfit is equal to "free void" or relative intrapixel vacuum - and that this fluctuating vacuum in the system is what initiates and gowernes the pixel ON-signaling - or the "quakes" in the grid. Quakes are the equivalent of bosonic expressions - and a quake has no dimension - or a quake has dimension "measured in free void" !! - whatever we choose - I like to say that boson is dimensionless - no dimension. BTW what is the dimension of a wave ? it is a wrong question.
iseason: Motion - yes motion is per definition impossible - and I have repeatedly stated that motion is mission impossible - that motion is the most underrated and ignored problem - that motion still is taken for granted - and still nobody would be able to explain motion except as cinematographically. And I have also said that motion and dynamic requires disscreteness - it is not possible to think dynamic in a continuos system.
Having that said - we are still in the position where we can get the ILLUSION of motion - and the trick is the same as in a movie - namely that we have to "hide" the time - the time that is needed to get the shift from one picture to the next. This trick is made via using SCALES - and now we are left with the 10.000 dollars question - what is happening in the smallest scale - how can smallest scale change - what is the mechanism behind oscillating existance - because oscillating existance is required in order to deal with dynamics.
The nearest I can get - is this idea of smallest being represented by stochastic 0-1 representation in space of infinitely (yes I say infinitely) many points - where > 1/2 (meaning 50%) of infinite points represented meaning ON-signal - but lets accept it - it is a very thin explanation in order solving such a deep problem. I like to think that this problem is near to unsolvable because one step will create a new step of questions. So till further I like the simplistic explanation - namely that dimensionality axiomatically is in oscillating existance - and dimensionality is axiomatically required in order to explain physical. In a previous post I said that trying to answer this question is the same as asking about the origin of the origin.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 21 2008, 03:54 AM)
iseason: Motion - yes motion is per definition impossible - and I have repeatedly stated that motion is mission impossible - that motion is the most underrated and ignored problem - that motion still is taken for granted - and still nobody would be able to explain motion except as cinematographically. And I have also said that motion and dynamic requires disscreteness - it is not possible to think dynamic in a continuos system.
Having that said - we are still in the position where we can get the ILLUSION of motion - and the trick is the same as in a movie - namely that we have to "hide" the time - the time that is needed to get the shift from one picture to the next. This trick is made via using SCALES - and now we are left with the 10.000 dollars question - what is happening in the smallest scale - how can smallest scale change - what is the mechanism behind oscillating existance - because oscillating existance is required in order to deal with dynamics.
It also requires memory, just like the movies, and like subjective time.
It also requires memory, just like the movies, and like subjective time.
Having that said - we are still in the position where we can get the ILLUSION of motion - and the trick is the same as in a movie - namely that we have to "hide" the time - the time that is needed to get the shift from one picture to the next.
What if:
Light is the messenger announcing a change of state, which you perceive, and
there is no messenger announcing the change as it happens, thus you cannot be aware of it. You only have before and after images, i.e., the universe is only on for you part of the time.
Having that said - we are still in the position where we can get the ILLUSION of motion - and the trick is the same as in a movie - namely that we have to "hide" the time - the time that is needed to get the shift from one picture to the next. This trick is made via using SCALES - and now we are left with the 10.000 dollars question - what is happening in the smallest scale - how can smallest scale change - what is the mechanism behind oscillating existance - because oscillating existance is required in order to deal with dynamics.
QUOTE
I have also said that motion and dynamic requires disscreteness - it is not possible to think dynamic in a continuos system.
It also requires memory, just like the movies, and like subjective time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have also said that motion and dynamic requires disscreteness - it is not possible to think dynamic in a continuos system. |
It also requires memory, just like the movies, and like subjective time.
Having that said - we are still in the position where we can get the ILLUSION of motion - and the trick is the same as in a movie - namely that we have to "hide" the time - the time that is needed to get the shift from one picture to the next.
What if:
Light is the messenger announcing a change of state, which you perceive, and
there is no messenger announcing the change as it happens, thus you cannot be aware of it. You only have before and after images, i.e., the universe is only on for you part of the time.
Welcome Phyti
Iseason
Iseason
hi phyti
QUOTE: "You only have before and after images, i.e., the universe is only on for you part of the time."
Yes - consciousness IS discrete - I have no doubt - nor problem with that - because memory - consciousness to me is intimately connected with interferences between part of the universe with surroundings - that part of the universe is percepting surrounding parts - that the system is percepting the system. And perception is via sampling of interferable expressions - and how such samples are being memorized and retrieved. From a practical point humans do not need the flickering period between changes - so we only "see" the soft movie -
Is Universe discrete - ?
I have difficulties in contemplating dynamic and continuous in the same cup of tea.
so what is motion ? what is potential ? is potential mass - or stable object into existance ? and even more weired if potential can be questioned - what then about kinetic - when is kinetic into existance ? WHAT IS INTO EXISTANCE ???
I am happy that we can arrange everything on a scaled basis - in a system where the universal flux is ordered and controlled scalewise - so we have an opportunity to make interferences of "objects" of a certain scale - a certain complexity - a certain qubit.
Ultimately - that is what the 3D pixel universe is about - how to breed the necessity for flux with the existance of physical (human perspective).
QUOTE: "You only have before and after images, i.e., the universe is only on for you part of the time."
Yes - consciousness IS discrete - I have no doubt - nor problem with that - because memory - consciousness to me is intimately connected with interferences between part of the universe with surroundings - that part of the universe is percepting surrounding parts - that the system is percepting the system. And perception is via sampling of interferable expressions - and how such samples are being memorized and retrieved. From a practical point humans do not need the flickering period between changes - so we only "see" the soft movie -
Is Universe discrete - ?
I have difficulties in contemplating dynamic and continuous in the same cup of tea.
so what is motion ? what is potential ? is potential mass - or stable object into existance ? and even more weired if potential can be questioned - what then about kinetic - when is kinetic into existance ? WHAT IS INTO EXISTANCE ???
I am happy that we can arrange everything on a scaled basis - in a system where the universal flux is ordered and controlled scalewise - so we have an opportunity to make interferences of "objects" of a certain scale - a certain complexity - a certain qubit.
Ultimately - that is what the 3D pixel universe is about - how to breed the necessity for flux with the existance of physical (human perspective).
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 21 2008, 11:53 AM)
Laidback
I wasn't sure who you replied to in the last post. I answered in between to your first post , probably while you were writing the second. I have one day off a week , on Tuesday (New Zealand time) and so it is unusual for me not to be picking up your trail of answers on an evening.
Are we getting confused between objective and subjective?
In objective....it exists all at once with no variation. In subjective..... one quanta at a time. I think Bukh has a point when he says..."how big is the universe"?...as big as it needs be........"how small is the smallest"?...."as small as necessary".
Your statement would be correct in subjective time only....Because in objective time nothing ever changes or is segregated. The whole always remains whole and is the master blueprint that subjective time refers to for measure.
"If I am This big, then I have this percentage of the whole'......I do not need to split up the whole (in a physical sense) to do the math in subjective relativity. The balance that I referred to in my last post does the rest of the math.
Cheers
Iseason
I totally agree,
But we also need to be careful when an observation is made, and referred to, the right time reference is referred to so that the right frame is referred to.. I mean what If my reactions are 1 thousandth of a second slower than your youthful reactions and when you refer to mass, what you observe may be nothing close to my observation
In part its the reason why I pointed out when we define a portion of the Universe via a (Pixel or grid), it may need to be with more than just 3 or 4 more dimensions in mind, so we may negate being subjective to only one objective..
For instance when we refer to the whole universe via quantum mechanics, we need to consider every single moment via some {minimum time span or frame} as to where change may be referenced by the differences from frame to frame, its a means to a subjective objective where all dimensions must adhere to truth statements, that are defined with set quanta that may be with change from one frame to the next, and from there a subjective objective can be considered.
WAIT! does that make any sense??
Eh!??
Anyway if we have two frames where change needs to be broken up into many more smaller spans of time, then we need to break down or divide both our time and smallest quanta and or particles..
This way ALL physics can be addressed and referred to either objectively or subjectively or even both.
hmm, its hard to put the objective in a subjective manner pointing out the whole objective as to why we need to be subjective?
Maybe this is where my reasoning needs to experience and exercise a little more with respects to how I transpose either the objective to subjective or subjective to objective, so in reality if I refer to either - I, In fact am considering it via the frames and the implied flow anyway..
Hmm? not an easy point to refer to as to how distinct each point of view can change ones statements in reference to physics if one has the other point of view in mind..
Anyway I hope I have clarified, that I do consider most what is expressed here with various constructs in mind..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
I wasn't sure who you replied to in the last post. I answered in between to your first post , probably while you were writing the second. I have one day off a week , on Tuesday (New Zealand time) and so it is unusual for me not to be picking up your trail of answers on an evening.
Are we getting confused between objective and subjective?
In objective....it exists all at once with no variation. In subjective..... one quanta at a time. I think Bukh has a point when he says..."how big is the universe"?...as big as it needs be........"how small is the smallest"?...."as small as necessary".
Your statement would be correct in subjective time only....Because in objective time nothing ever changes or is segregated. The whole always remains whole and is the master blueprint that subjective time refers to for measure.
"If I am This big, then I have this percentage of the whole'......I do not need to split up the whole (in a physical sense) to do the math in subjective relativity. The balance that I referred to in my last post does the rest of the math.
Cheers
Iseason
I totally agree,
But we also need to be careful when an observation is made, and referred to, the right time reference is referred to so that the right frame is referred to.. I mean what If my reactions are 1 thousandth of a second slower than your youthful reactions and when you refer to mass, what you observe may be nothing close to my observation
In part its the reason why I pointed out when we define a portion of the Universe via a (Pixel or grid), it may need to be with more than just 3 or 4 more dimensions in mind, so we may negate being subjective to only one objective..
For instance when we refer to the whole universe via quantum mechanics, we need to consider every single moment via some {minimum time span or frame} as to where change may be referenced by the differences from frame to frame, its a means to a subjective objective where all dimensions must adhere to truth statements, that are defined with set quanta that may be with change from one frame to the next, and from there a subjective objective can be considered.
WAIT! does that make any sense??
Eh!??
Anyway if we have two frames where change needs to be broken up into many more smaller spans of time, then we need to break down or divide both our time and smallest quanta and or particles..
This way ALL physics can be addressed and referred to either objectively or subjectively or even both.
QUOTE
"If I am This big, then I have this percentage of the whole'......I do not need to split up the whole (in a physical sense) to do the math in subjective relativity. The balance that I referred to in my last post does the rest of the math.
A good example is where mass via quantum mechanics has mass with x amount of energy and the next subjective frame has half the amount, the only way to discover what events took place is we must be objective and subjective to the whole situation by comparing and considering as much as we are aware of..hmm, its hard to put the objective in a subjective manner pointing out the whole objective as to why we need to be subjective?
Maybe this is where my reasoning needs to experience and exercise a little more with respects to how I transpose either the objective to subjective or subjective to objective, so in reality if I refer to either - I, In fact am considering it via the frames and the implied flow anyway..
Hmm? not an easy point to refer to as to how distinct each point of view can change ones statements in reference to physics if one has the other point of view in mind..
Anyway I hope I have clarified, that I do consider most what is expressed here with various constructs in mind..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 21 2008, 05:54 PM)
Hi Laidback iseason
Laidback: smallest is not a static - smallest is referring to place and time (objective time) - and dynamically changing into smaller. Smallness is the gradient securing entropy - more and more complexity - more and more order - so eventually there is no misfit left between dimensionality's - or perhaps better say that the misfit is eventually evened out to be absolute ideally evenly distributed all over space. At that stage the gradient for change is being annihilated and no further re-arrangements takes place - and universe freeze in a motionless totally even unit One - acts as an ideal solid.
Agreed, but I would consider internal changes by the result of external changes are to insignificant to be considered as an economical consideration.. mind you this restriction may also be via current technological limits
Lets say after comparing a wave from one frame to the next the whole wave seems to have completely vanished, but then in the following frame it seems to have completely reappeared albeit in a changed position..
This to me implies our time interval needs further refinement and to do this we need to use a shorter interval between frames, so the disappearing wave can be better observed.. to which it would be discovered an out of phase wave form would more than likely be the cause for the wave being briefly canceled out in one of our frames, so if we wish we now turn our attention to this out of phase wave and we will note due to the velocity of the wave we need to decrease our intervals of frames even further, to which we then discover a wave is a rise and fall of energy or mass, and what we learned is if two waves converge the sum is the result at any given frame to which has our body of water with a given form that is susceptible to force and motion Laws..
BACK TO THE BASICS..
The implied Motion or a wave is therefore the result of a Force or a Potential and a Potential is a quanta or body of Energy which is basically mass, and a force is changed {increased or decreased} from the direct result of an opposing momentum or waves converging or the lack of opposing force which results in a quantity of Stored momentum free reign up to the point where it is opposed and or stored again..
Force presents itself via Motion, and Motion presents itself via Force..
All forces are best implied as Repulsive, so if we are to breakdown force we have to refer to at least two or more opposing velocities..
But to refer to velocities we need to refer to a potential or quantity of mass that is shifted from one area of potential or mass to another area with a Potential or body of mass - note the inference to mass or energy has mass and or energy is open to increase or decrease, put simply a rise and fall in energy or mass..
For energy or mass to increase we must have motion or an exchange or at best the ratio of divisions are changed..
its as simple or complex as an oceanic wave..
Let me refer to another very basic model..
- Here is a two dimensional mass, it should be noted some of its its quanta is deemed as kinetic energy, as in its being exchanged from one area with a given quanta of energy to another much like it, and in this model the kinetic quantities trajectory is to the right..
- Here is a two dimensional area with a given quantity of energy that has no photon and or where all of its Potential is stable, via all opposing velocities that created the potential or force are canceled out..
- Here is another mass but with some of its potential {kinetic energy} being with a velocity and or a trajectory that is to the left, a reciprocal reaction between two potentials where one rises and ones falls in quanta of energy..
= And here are two photons or a rise and fall {opposing waves} that have now converged into a single potential and the waves momentum is cancelled out, put simply a potential was inputted from the left and the right some mass is gained from its left and some from its right hand Potential, resulting with the two converging potentials presenting the mass as a relative solid surrounded by a relative near vacuum or near void..
all mass coexist as such because relative motion does not currently exist, should we observe the whole area it may change but if it does it will return but the relative solid may change position..
---- Moment one frame one
---- Moment two or frame two
-=- our last moment or last frame..
so that's how motion is possible..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Laidback: smallest is not a static - smallest is referring to place and time (objective time) - and dynamically changing into smaller. Smallness is the gradient securing entropy - more and more complexity - more and more order - so eventually there is no misfit left between dimensionality's - or perhaps better say that the misfit is eventually evened out to be absolute ideally evenly distributed all over space. At that stage the gradient for change is being annihilated and no further re-arrangements takes place - and universe freeze in a motionless totally even unit One - acts as an ideal solid.
Agreed, but I would consider internal changes by the result of external changes are to insignificant to be considered as an economical consideration.. mind you this restriction may also be via current technological limits
QUOTE
You remember that misfit is equal to "free void" or relative inter pixel vacuum - and that this fluctuating vacuum in the system is what initiates and governs the pixel ON-signaling - or the "quakes" in the grid. Quakes are the equivalent of bosonic expressions - and a quake has no dimension - or a quake has dimension "measured in free void" !! - whatever we choose - I like to say that boson is dimensionless - no dimension.
BTW what is the dimension of a wave ? it is a wrong question
my reasoning have it that we can define any wave via its objective or evn subjective dimensions, but to do this we need two or more video frames which contains both a wave and some reference such as a Ruler within the referred frame/s and from there we can even refer to how liquid and or how much change is being expressed by the wave by considering more than just one frame..BTW what is the dimension of a wave ? it is a wrong question
Lets say after comparing a wave from one frame to the next the whole wave seems to have completely vanished, but then in the following frame it seems to have completely reappeared albeit in a changed position..
This to me implies our time interval needs further refinement and to do this we need to use a shorter interval between frames, so the disappearing wave can be better observed.. to which it would be discovered an out of phase wave form would more than likely be the cause for the wave being briefly canceled out in one of our frames, so if we wish we now turn our attention to this out of phase wave and we will note due to the velocity of the wave we need to decrease our intervals of frames even further, to which we then discover a wave is a rise and fall of energy or mass, and what we learned is if two waves converge the sum is the result at any given frame to which has our body of water with a given form that is susceptible to force and motion Laws..
BACK TO THE BASICS..
The implied Motion or a wave is therefore the result of a Force or a Potential and a Potential is a quanta or body of Energy which is basically mass, and a force is changed {increased or decreased} from the direct result of an opposing momentum or waves converging or the lack of opposing force which results in a quantity of Stored momentum free reign up to the point where it is opposed and or stored again..
Force presents itself via Motion, and Motion presents itself via Force..
All forces are best implied as Repulsive, so if we are to breakdown force we have to refer to at least two or more opposing velocities..
But to refer to velocities we need to refer to a potential or quantity of mass that is shifted from one area of potential or mass to another area with a Potential or body of mass - note the inference to mass or energy has mass and or energy is open to increase or decrease, put simply a rise and fall in energy or mass..
For energy or mass to increase we must have motion or an exchange or at best the ratio of divisions are changed..
its as simple or complex as an oceanic wave..
Let me refer to another very basic model..
- Here is a two dimensional mass, it should be noted some of its its quanta is deemed as kinetic energy, as in its being exchanged from one area with a given quanta of energy to another much like it, and in this model the kinetic quantities trajectory is to the right..
- Here is a two dimensional area with a given quantity of energy that has no photon and or where all of its Potential is stable, via all opposing velocities that created the potential or force are canceled out..
- Here is another mass but with some of its potential {kinetic energy} being with a velocity and or a trajectory that is to the left, a reciprocal reaction between two potentials where one rises and ones falls in quanta of energy..
= And here are two photons or a rise and fall {opposing waves} that have now converged into a single potential and the waves momentum is cancelled out, put simply a potential was inputted from the left and the right some mass is gained from its left and some from its right hand Potential, resulting with the two converging potentials presenting the mass as a relative solid surrounded by a relative near vacuum or near void..
all mass coexist as such because relative motion does not currently exist, should we observe the whole area it may change but if it does it will return but the relative solid may change position..
---- Moment one frame one
---- Moment two or frame two
-=- our last moment or last frame..
so that's how motion is possible..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 22 2008, 10:57 AM)
I totally agree,
But we also need to be careful when an observation is made, and referred to, the right time reference is referred to so that the right frame is referred to.. I mean what If my reactions are 1 thousandth of a second slower than your youthful reactions and when you refer to mass, what you observe may be nothing close to my observation
In part its the reason why I pointed out when we define a portion of the Universe via a (Pixel or grid), it may need to be with more than just 3 or 4 more dimensions in mind, so we may negate being subjective to only one objective..
For instance when we refer to the whole universe via quantum mechanics, we need to consider every single moment via some {minimum time span or frame} as to where change may be referenced by the differences from frame to frame, its a means to a subjective objective where all dimensions must adhere to truth statements, that are defined with set quanta that may be with change from one frame to the next, and from there a subjective objective can be considered.
WAIT! does that make any sense??
Eh!??
Anyway if we have two frames where change needs to be broken up into many more smaller spans of time, then we need to break down or divide both our time and smallest quanta and or particles..
This way ALL physics can be addressed and referred to either objectively or subjectively or even both.
A good example is where mass via quantum mechanics has mass with x amount of energy and the next subjective frame has half the amount, the only way to discover what events took place is we must be objective and subjective to the whole situation by comparing and considering as much as we are aware of..
hmm, its hard to put the objective in a subjective manner pointing out the whole objective as to why we need to be subjective?
Maybe this is where my reasoning needs to experience and exercise a little more with respects to how I transpose either the objective to subjective or subjective to objective, so in reality if I refer to either - I, In fact am considering it via the frames and the implied flow anyway..
Hmm? not an easy point to refer to as to how distinct each point of view can change ones statements in reference to physics if one has the other point of view in mind..
Anyway I hope I have clarified, that I do consider most what is expressed here with various constructs in mind..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
Hi Bukh Laidback all.
When I mention "a snapshot second" or "universal second". This refers to a picture of the universe with no motion. There are several relative measurements involved.
The first is that every quanta is contained (in order) as part of the pattern in both objective and subjective time.
the order is defined by the blueprint in objective.
The relativity is defined by the positions which would be used by EVERY OTHER "snapshot" before and after that particular snapshot.
The snapshot that I was considering above has in it a fundamental law of balance which cannot be changed. This is why , in the next snapshot it will only move the pixels one position (all of them in order)....So motion requires the time between one frame and the next to rely on every other position in space being there within the matrix.
You could also change the perspective by starting the snapshot at a different point. Then some of the pixels will already be in the new positions, (or vice versa) move backwards and see part of the previous snapshot.
Since the "whole" is by definition "complete" "finished" "immutable" , all events are fixed, You cannot interfere with what will become the conclusion by looking at it's parts....Energy cannot be created nor destroyed..
Cheers
Iseason
But we also need to be careful when an observation is made, and referred to, the right time reference is referred to so that the right frame is referred to.. I mean what If my reactions are 1 thousandth of a second slower than your youthful reactions and when you refer to mass, what you observe may be nothing close to my observation
In part its the reason why I pointed out when we define a portion of the Universe via a (Pixel or grid), it may need to be with more than just 3 or 4 more dimensions in mind, so we may negate being subjective to only one objective..
For instance when we refer to the whole universe via quantum mechanics, we need to consider every single moment via some {minimum time span or frame} as to where change may be referenced by the differences from frame to frame, its a means to a subjective objective where all dimensions must adhere to truth statements, that are defined with set quanta that may be with change from one frame to the next, and from there a subjective objective can be considered.
WAIT! does that make any sense??
Eh!??
Anyway if we have two frames where change needs to be broken up into many more smaller spans of time, then we need to break down or divide both our time and smallest quanta and or particles..
This way ALL physics can be addressed and referred to either objectively or subjectively or even both.
A good example is where mass via quantum mechanics has mass with x amount of energy and the next subjective frame has half the amount, the only way to discover what events took place is we must be objective and subjective to the whole situation by comparing and considering as much as we are aware of..
hmm, its hard to put the objective in a subjective manner pointing out the whole objective as to why we need to be subjective?
Maybe this is where my reasoning needs to experience and exercise a little more with respects to how I transpose either the objective to subjective or subjective to objective, so in reality if I refer to either - I, In fact am considering it via the frames and the implied flow anyway..
Hmm? not an easy point to refer to as to how distinct each point of view can change ones statements in reference to physics if one has the other point of view in mind..
Anyway I hope I have clarified, that I do consider most what is expressed here with various constructs in mind..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
Hi Bukh Laidback all.
When I mention "a snapshot second" or "universal second". This refers to a picture of the universe with no motion. There are several relative measurements involved.
The first is that every quanta is contained (in order) as part of the pattern in both objective and subjective time.
the order is defined by the blueprint in objective.
The relativity is defined by the positions which would be used by EVERY OTHER "snapshot" before and after that particular snapshot.
The snapshot that I was considering above has in it a fundamental law of balance which cannot be changed. This is why , in the next snapshot it will only move the pixels one position (all of them in order)....So motion requires the time between one frame and the next to rely on every other position in space being there within the matrix.
You could also change the perspective by starting the snapshot at a different point. Then some of the pixels will already be in the new positions, (or vice versa) move backwards and see part of the previous snapshot.
Since the "whole" is by definition "complete" "finished" "immutable" , all events are fixed, You cannot interfere with what will become the conclusion by looking at it's parts....Energy cannot be created nor destroyed..
Cheers
Iseason
iseason
QUOTE: "When I mention "a snapshot second" or "universal second". This refers to a picture of the universe with no motion."
Yes - and ?
I think this is pretty obvious - and in line with what I /you have always been saying.
As long as we are dealing with "Snapshot" and "Smallest" - there is no motion involved. But you have to be very cautious about Smallest.
Motion is being introduced the very moment that scales are being involved -
In human scale - Pixel scale (spelt capital) - there is a lot of motion within individual Pixels - "between" the Pixel-rearrangements.
And my point is also that there is no rule saying that pixel-dimension - or smallness is the same all over universe - so there is no rule saying that universal snapshot on the smallest level is time-synchronized - if you can follow me.
This implicate that you cannot say that each snapshot involves all the pixels to re-arrange - there is a LOT of inertia in the system - with re-arranging smallest dimensions at some places - and non-re-arranging bigger diemensions at other places of universe.
INERTIA is a very important aspect of universal order.
"Energy cannot be destroyed nor created" - yes - as long as we are accurate about the detail that we are dealing with potential/kinetic - and that kinetic energy eventually goes towards zero - so we eventually end up in a new unit one - and energy is being anihilated the moment that universe has performed its last re-arranging move - just before it freezes into a new SOLID - and all energy is being recreated at the very moment that this solid unit One again is being segregated into more than one when a new universal cyclus starts.
QUOTE: "When I mention "a snapshot second" or "universal second". This refers to a picture of the universe with no motion."
Yes - and ?
I think this is pretty obvious - and in line with what I /you have always been saying.
As long as we are dealing with "Snapshot" and "Smallest" - there is no motion involved. But you have to be very cautious about Smallest.
Motion is being introduced the very moment that scales are being involved -
In human scale - Pixel scale (spelt capital) - there is a lot of motion within individual Pixels - "between" the Pixel-rearrangements.
And my point is also that there is no rule saying that pixel-dimension - or smallness is the same all over universe - so there is no rule saying that universal snapshot on the smallest level is time-synchronized - if you can follow me.
This implicate that you cannot say that each snapshot involves all the pixels to re-arrange - there is a LOT of inertia in the system - with re-arranging smallest dimensions at some places - and non-re-arranging bigger diemensions at other places of universe.
INERTIA is a very important aspect of universal order.
"Energy cannot be destroyed nor created" - yes - as long as we are accurate about the detail that we are dealing with potential/kinetic - and that kinetic energy eventually goes towards zero - so we eventually end up in a new unit one - and energy is being anihilated the moment that universe has performed its last re-arranging move - just before it freezes into a new SOLID - and all energy is being recreated at the very moment that this solid unit One again is being segregated into more than one when a new universal cyclus starts.
Hi guys
I see You are doing great.
I am still reading projective geometry, its fascinating and very complicated once You understand that infinity of geometries can be constructed from projective by different choices of Absolute (point, line, ideal point, ideal line, pair of points, point on line, conics etc.) . so there is not only dynamics of point, of dimensions, but also of geometries of space as they change.
But it tells what is possible to do in space and with space.
To give an idea, which bukh may like, is , in projective Geometry distance as we know it does not exist. Distance or scale is not an invariant of projective transformations, so if we apply this to Universe, if it is projective or non-metrical, we can not say that 1 meter is the same here on Earth and somewhere in space- we can not know it. The same may apply to scales- each scale has its own distance, metric, but they are not comparable- and, as a consequence, energies are not comparable, since unit of distance- m - is not comparable. Moving something for 1 m requires principally different energies (different quality) in such different scales in which the energies are nevertheless of the same magnitude when expressed in numbers ( because the under laying UNIT of lenght is different, and vastly so) - and seemingly , we have ENERGY conservation, or continuity of value, while in fact, we have some other invariant- in this case related to the ratios of metrics of different scales- e.g entropy.
In projective geometry, as well as some other non-metric geometries, distance is defined as a function of Ratios of point coordinates, and ratios are chosen so that they are invariants in corresponding geometry. Such definition of measure only degenerates to usual Euclidean measure in case of Euclidean geometry as one of many possible geometries.
The functions used to define distance in such way are usually logarithm , sometimes Arccos.
The interesting thing about such definition of distance (measure) is:
1) In principle, it can be imaginary or negative (depends on choice of Absolute, and place relative to Absolute we are looking for measure)
2) It has multiple periodic values, period 2*Pi * I
Similar definition is applied to angles in such non-metrical spaces, via the duality principle, where range of points are replaced by pencil of straight lines.
Usually the negative/imaginary values of measure are dismissed early on, but I think that is not good idea if one is looking for spaces allowing consciousness.
Lambert arrived to hyperbolic geometry by simply replacing radius of sphere with imaginary value. And he was right in this, as was proved much later.
When Arrcos is used, the interesting thing is that no matter what is the argument, the length is never bigger than pi.
If we turn this around, suppose we live in geometry where we never see distances greater than Pi, but in fact the space is infinite/undefined. The measure makes space appear limited, and there is no way around it, since all that is in that space changes along with it.
The only clue may be redshift, which tells that scales ( 1 m ) are bigger far away, so that distances appear larger, as do objects like galaxies- larger than they would seem if we would be able to move ourselves into their vicinity. Much larger.
I see You are doing great.
I am still reading projective geometry, its fascinating and very complicated once You understand that infinity of geometries can be constructed from projective by different choices of Absolute (point, line, ideal point, ideal line, pair of points, point on line, conics etc.) . so there is not only dynamics of point, of dimensions, but also of geometries of space as they change.
But it tells what is possible to do in space and with space.
To give an idea, which bukh may like, is , in projective Geometry distance as we know it does not exist. Distance or scale is not an invariant of projective transformations, so if we apply this to Universe, if it is projective or non-metrical, we can not say that 1 meter is the same here on Earth and somewhere in space- we can not know it. The same may apply to scales- each scale has its own distance, metric, but they are not comparable- and, as a consequence, energies are not comparable, since unit of distance- m - is not comparable. Moving something for 1 m requires principally different energies (different quality) in such different scales in which the energies are nevertheless of the same magnitude when expressed in numbers ( because the under laying UNIT of lenght is different, and vastly so) - and seemingly , we have ENERGY conservation, or continuity of value, while in fact, we have some other invariant- in this case related to the ratios of metrics of different scales- e.g entropy.
In projective geometry, as well as some other non-metric geometries, distance is defined as a function of Ratios of point coordinates, and ratios are chosen so that they are invariants in corresponding geometry. Such definition of measure only degenerates to usual Euclidean measure in case of Euclidean geometry as one of many possible geometries.
The functions used to define distance in such way are usually logarithm , sometimes Arccos.
The interesting thing about such definition of distance (measure) is:
1) In principle, it can be imaginary or negative (depends on choice of Absolute, and place relative to Absolute we are looking for measure)
2) It has multiple periodic values, period 2*Pi * I
Similar definition is applied to angles in such non-metrical spaces, via the duality principle, where range of points are replaced by pencil of straight lines.
Usually the negative/imaginary values of measure are dismissed early on, but I think that is not good idea if one is looking for spaces allowing consciousness.
Lambert arrived to hyperbolic geometry by simply replacing radius of sphere with imaginary value. And he was right in this, as was proved much later.
When Arrcos is used, the interesting thing is that no matter what is the argument, the length is never bigger than pi.
If we turn this around, suppose we live in geometry where we never see distances greater than Pi, but in fact the space is infinite/undefined. The measure makes space appear limited, and there is no way around it, since all that is in that space changes along with it.
The only clue may be redshift, which tells that scales ( 1 m ) are bigger far away, so that distances appear larger, as do objects like galaxies- larger than they would seem if we would be able to move ourselves into their vicinity. Much larger.
hej Ivars
Nice to hear from You - and Huh what to say -
One thing struck me about your telling of distances and pi - which intuitively gives a lot of sense - that geometries are changing when moving around in a system - so distance has nothing to do with what we normally feel about distance but distance is a bending phenomenon and dynamically changing according to position.
Recently I indicated that particle best can be defined as the repetition in expression followed by the fact that any bosonic expression IS bended - indicated by Berry Phase - implicating that ANY expression is a derived function of a repetition provided that the observational frame is able to contain the repetition - and our event horizon is being defined out from this - and the more distant we see an object the less bended the trajectory that we de-code are - oh i am afraid it is a bit complicated expressed - but I trust you can follow me.
All expressions in our scale basically is about how pixels re-arrange and how such re-arrangements give rise to "quakes" - to wave-like expressions in the space-fabric - and the pattern - the trajectories - of such waves (relative to the observational frame, the 3D Pixel Grid) is being de-coded by us humans - like an antenna de-code sgnals - and de-coding is strictly "in-situ" - it is a cinematographic de-coding - picture by picture - in itsself totally meaningless with only a very few parameters to de-code - and the parameters may be frequency and angular momentum or angle. So this elegantly directs to angle as a key-informational unit.
Any particle structure - same as saying all physical expressions - are defined out from repetion - out from this bending - and large structures are by definition particle structures characterized by very little bending of trajectory. We see large structures as distant structures - and in the case that particle structures are being characterized by non-circular trajectories the bending will change by changing position - and that will give us a universe which is so much different from what we normally like to think.
Nice to hear from You - and Huh what to say -
One thing struck me about your telling of distances and pi - which intuitively gives a lot of sense - that geometries are changing when moving around in a system - so distance has nothing to do with what we normally feel about distance but distance is a bending phenomenon and dynamically changing according to position.
Recently I indicated that particle best can be defined as the repetition in expression followed by the fact that any bosonic expression IS bended - indicated by Berry Phase - implicating that ANY expression is a derived function of a repetition provided that the observational frame is able to contain the repetition - and our event horizon is being defined out from this - and the more distant we see an object the less bended the trajectory that we de-code are - oh i am afraid it is a bit complicated expressed - but I trust you can follow me.
All expressions in our scale basically is about how pixels re-arrange and how such re-arrangements give rise to "quakes" - to wave-like expressions in the space-fabric - and the pattern - the trajectories - of such waves (relative to the observational frame, the 3D Pixel Grid) is being de-coded by us humans - like an antenna de-code sgnals - and de-coding is strictly "in-situ" - it is a cinematographic de-coding - picture by picture - in itsself totally meaningless with only a very few parameters to de-code - and the parameters may be frequency and angular momentum or angle. So this elegantly directs to angle as a key-informational unit.
Any particle structure - same as saying all physical expressions - are defined out from repetion - out from this bending - and large structures are by definition particle structures characterized by very little bending of trajectory. We see large structures as distant structures - and in the case that particle structures are being characterized by non-circular trajectories the bending will change by changing position - and that will give us a universe which is so much different from what we normally like to think.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 22 2008, 05:18 PM)
Hi Bukh Laidback all.
When I mention "a snapshot second" or "universal second". This refers to a picture of the universe with no motion. There are several relative measurements involved.
The first is that every quanta is contained (in order) as part of the pattern in both objective and subjective time.
the order is defined by the blueprint in objective.
The relativity is defined by the positions which would be used by EVERY OTHER "snapshot" before and after that particular snapshot.
The snapshot that I was considering above has in it a fundamental law of balance which cannot be changed. This is why , in the next snapshot it will only move the pixels one position (all of them in order)....So motion requires the time between one frame and the next to rely on every other position in space being there within the matrix.
You could also change the perspective by starting the snapshot at a different point. Then some of the pixels will already be in the new positions, (or vice verse) move backwards and see part of the previous snapshot.
Since the "whole" is by definition "complete" "finished" "immutable" , all events are fixed, You cannot interfere with what will become the conclusion by looking at it's parts....Energy cannot be created nor destroyed..
Cheers
Iseason
And yes I do agree, but only if we are to refer to a model that has defined minimum intervals between frames, but here's the thing.. Motion does not refer to a single speed, and one should consider what was a moment ago to us the minimum interval may now be much slower or even faster due to all relative motion needs to remain relative, noting that motion if opposed changes in velocity.. Mind you theoretically we can postulate much physics with great accuracy if relativity does not have to be considered, but in today's industrial climate, relativity appears to be creeping into our product designs as a critical consideration more and more..
So with such a model based on quantum mechanics, you are restricting much of the physics to a never ending critical minimum interval of time at some stage being totally uneconomical and therefore ignored, so should any events occur only for the briefest moment that just so happens at each and every interval between each frame, and even where the change may even be so massive, so that Particle's seem to pop in and out of no-where in an uncertain manner or at best appear as some smudge in two frames or even just one {Does this sound familiar?} like the ever familiar Virtual particle that is there and yet not quite there? we have quantum mechanics to blame for all this massive ill begotten concept!
And that is just one reason why and how uncertainty will creep in - simply by one restricting themselves to quantum mechanics theories what with its set limits n all..
What I am saying is that as technology advances, what was once considered the minimum interval between frames is now quite crude or deemed as a huge time interval when compared to the new much smaller intervals or definitions in time currently used in the industries..
Put simply the whole Universe does not in one swoop or moment present and then by the next minimum time interval present itself again, its just not like that as there will never be a minimum time span because if we grab any two frames and change is apparent, then what we need do is consider more frames {smaller time intervals}, and yes it may seem with many more divisions of time no change is perceivable, but when we reference and consider all the frames, indeed there must be change even in between the many more frames that we can muster..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
When I mention "a snapshot second" or "universal second". This refers to a picture of the universe with no motion. There are several relative measurements involved.
The first is that every quanta is contained (in order) as part of the pattern in both objective and subjective time.
the order is defined by the blueprint in objective.
The relativity is defined by the positions which would be used by EVERY OTHER "snapshot" before and after that particular snapshot.
The snapshot that I was considering above has in it a fundamental law of balance which cannot be changed. This is why , in the next snapshot it will only move the pixels one position (all of them in order)....So motion requires the time between one frame and the next to rely on every other position in space being there within the matrix.
You could also change the perspective by starting the snapshot at a different point. Then some of the pixels will already be in the new positions, (or vice verse) move backwards and see part of the previous snapshot.
Since the "whole" is by definition "complete" "finished" "immutable" , all events are fixed, You cannot interfere with what will become the conclusion by looking at it's parts....Energy cannot be created nor destroyed..
Cheers
Iseason
And yes I do agree, but only if we are to refer to a model that has defined minimum intervals between frames, but here's the thing.. Motion does not refer to a single speed, and one should consider what was a moment ago to us the minimum interval may now be much slower or even faster due to all relative motion needs to remain relative, noting that motion if opposed changes in velocity.. Mind you theoretically we can postulate much physics with great accuracy if relativity does not have to be considered, but in today's industrial climate, relativity appears to be creeping into our product designs as a critical consideration more and more..
So with such a model based on quantum mechanics, you are restricting much of the physics to a never ending critical minimum interval of time at some stage being totally uneconomical and therefore ignored, so should any events occur only for the briefest moment that just so happens at each and every interval between each frame, and even where the change may even be so massive, so that Particle's seem to pop in and out of no-where in an uncertain manner or at best appear as some smudge in two frames or even just one {Does this sound familiar?} like the ever familiar Virtual particle that is there and yet not quite there? we have quantum mechanics to blame for all this massive ill begotten concept!
And that is just one reason why and how uncertainty will creep in - simply by one restricting themselves to quantum mechanics theories what with its set limits n all..
What I am saying is that as technology advances, what was once considered the minimum interval between frames is now quite crude or deemed as a huge time interval when compared to the new much smaller intervals or definitions in time currently used in the industries..
Put simply the whole Universe does not in one swoop or moment present and then by the next minimum time interval present itself again, its just not like that as there will never be a minimum time span because if we grab any two frames and change is apparent, then what we need do is consider more frames {smaller time intervals}, and yes it may seem with many more divisions of time no change is perceivable, but when we reference and consider all the frames, indeed there must be change even in between the many more frames that we can muster..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Ivars Laidback Bukh...et all...
I am not the least bit concerned that it is impossible to take an accurate "snapshot" of the universe. I would be extremely surprised if it were other wise. My picture/snapshot/frames are descriptive of the makeup of the order only.
The purpose is to show that each pixel is added in order no matter where you look. Being in a different position in the order doesn't change how the order is formed. One thing that bothers me is that people seem to be implying that they can affect the order or behavior of the whole. This rings out when anyone talks "increasing speed/motion" or changes in our perceptions.
I challenge this by saying that for the "whole" to be so, it must be considered as a forgone conclusion.....IE: you HAVE ALREADY increased or affected the change that you are concerned about......This is also why I chuckle at the talk of time travel ,either backwards or forwards.....Time is quite irrelevant when considering the concept...
Your concept of free will and affecting change is already factored into the whole and was already a part of the whole before you were born (in subjective time). Otherwise, the whole is not whole , because the whole cannot reconsider the order.You are reviewing the order that is the only one possible. I can sit here and think"I will add to the world with my talents and knowledge" . But I have already because that was a part of the order as it was laid down....You could say that your life has already been lived once already by you and it's only you who aren't aware of your future....The universal order has seen what you will do already.
how can I say this?
Subjective time get's it's information from objective time. Objective time has in it all the arrangements that are available for subjective time to use.....IN ORDER.
So you will say...Why bother?.... I say because you will...
Cheers
Iseason
I am not the least bit concerned that it is impossible to take an accurate "snapshot" of the universe. I would be extremely surprised if it were other wise. My picture/snapshot/frames are descriptive of the makeup of the order only.
The purpose is to show that each pixel is added in order no matter where you look. Being in a different position in the order doesn't change how the order is formed. One thing that bothers me is that people seem to be implying that they can affect the order or behavior of the whole. This rings out when anyone talks "increasing speed/motion" or changes in our perceptions.
I challenge this by saying that for the "whole" to be so, it must be considered as a forgone conclusion.....IE: you HAVE ALREADY increased or affected the change that you are concerned about......This is also why I chuckle at the talk of time travel ,either backwards or forwards.....Time is quite irrelevant when considering the concept...
Your concept of free will and affecting change is already factored into the whole and was already a part of the whole before you were born (in subjective time). Otherwise, the whole is not whole , because the whole cannot reconsider the order.You are reviewing the order that is the only one possible. I can sit here and think"I will add to the world with my talents and knowledge" . But I have already because that was a part of the order as it was laid down....You could say that your life has already been lived once already by you and it's only you who aren't aware of your future....The universal order has seen what you will do already.
how can I say this?
Subjective time get's it's information from objective time. Objective time has in it all the arrangements that are available for subjective time to use.....IN ORDER.
So you will say...Why bother?.... I say because you will...
Cheers
Iseason
hej bukh
Thanks for answers:)
I was trying to say that metrics and geometries change also when scale changes- 1 M in our reference space is not the same as 1 m in SubQuantum space.
I was trying to say that metrics and geometries change also when scale changes- 1 M in our reference space is not the same as 1 m in SubQuantum space.
distance but distance is a bending phenomenon and dynamically changing according to position
I think for time being, a good way to express it, but may be not complex enough:)
If You speak of 3D pixel grid as basis/tool for our natural decoding of distances, I may agree. Also the above makes sense, but obviously, that is not true if we would place ourselves on the scale comparable to those distances, shrink or expand together with them.
So 3D pixel grid is kind of our decoder traveling with us, but it does not give true picture of reality, it transforms it to the grid.
If You speak of 3D pixel grid as basis/tool for our natural decoding of distances, I may agree. Also the above makes sense, but obviously, that is not true if we would place ourselves on the scale comparable to those distances, shrink or expand together with them.
So 3D pixel grid is kind of our decoder traveling with us, but it does not give true picture of reality, it transforms it to the grid.
by picture - in itself totally meaningless with only a very few parameters to de-code - and the parameters may be frequency and angular momentum or angle. So this elegantly directs to angle as a key-informational unit.
Angle is so obviously one of Informations key units . Why?
Distance )lenght) means translational motion. Translational motion is chaos. So distance as such may not contain any meaningful information for producing order- just because its intimately related to chaotic translational motion.
Angle means rotation. There are only 2 independent motions - rotation and translation. If pure translation means chaos (ala Brown motion) then rotation is the only thing that brings order= reduces entropy (that is kind of obvious, is it not?) . Reducing entropy requires additional information, and this information is then decoded in angles of rotation.
So the question is about 0-dimensional Information space containing angles in some form becoming spatial/consciousness space.
0 - dimensional space is nothing new or scary. What I mean is spatially/consciousness wise 0-dimensional. But inside it, we may have mathematical world, numbers, mathematical dimensions that work to arrange the internal order of information .
And of course this 0-dimensional Information space is Aether. Obviously, it can flow freely via space since it is 0-dimensional, and atemporal ( in a sense of time related to changes in spatial /consciousness dimensions) . But, because it has internal mathematical structure, it has kind of viscosity, and may form vortexes- whose repetitive nature becomes spatial -2- dimensional-rotational and timed (Kolmogorov vortex of Aether) . It may also produce waves of all lengths of spatial/consciousness dimensions when the flow is chaotic -translational- 1 dimensional.
Thanks for answers:)
QUOTE
that geometries are changing when moving around in a system
I was trying to say that metrics and geometries change also when scale changes- 1 M in our reference space is not the same as 1 m in SubQuantum space.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| that geometries are changing when moving around in a system |
I was trying to say that metrics and geometries change also when scale changes- 1 M in our reference space is not the same as 1 m in SubQuantum space.
distance but distance is a bending phenomenon and dynamically changing according to position
I think for time being, a good way to express it, but may be not complex enough:)
QUOTE
and the more distant we see an object the less bended the trajectory that we de-code are
If You speak of 3D pixel grid as basis/tool for our natural decoding of distances, I may agree. Also the above makes sense, but obviously, that is not true if we would place ourselves on the scale comparable to those distances, shrink or expand together with them.
So 3D pixel grid is kind of our decoder traveling with us, but it does not give true picture of reality, it transforms it to the grid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and the more distant we see an object the less bended the trajectory that we de-code are |
If You speak of 3D pixel grid as basis/tool for our natural decoding of distances, I may agree. Also the above makes sense, but obviously, that is not true if we would place ourselves on the scale comparable to those distances, shrink or expand together with them.
So 3D pixel grid is kind of our decoder traveling with us, but it does not give true picture of reality, it transforms it to the grid.
by picture - in itself totally meaningless with only a very few parameters to de-code - and the parameters may be frequency and angular momentum or angle. So this elegantly directs to angle as a key-informational unit.
Angle is so obviously one of Informations key units . Why?
Distance )lenght) means translational motion. Translational motion is chaos. So distance as such may not contain any meaningful information for producing order- just because its intimately related to chaotic translational motion.
Angle means rotation. There are only 2 independent motions - rotation and translation. If pure translation means chaos (ala Brown motion) then rotation is the only thing that brings order= reduces entropy (that is kind of obvious, is it not?) . Reducing entropy requires additional information, and this information is then decoded in angles of rotation.
So the question is about 0-dimensional Information space containing angles in some form becoming spatial/consciousness space.
0 - dimensional space is nothing new or scary. What I mean is spatially/consciousness wise 0-dimensional. But inside it, we may have mathematical world, numbers, mathematical dimensions that work to arrange the internal order of information .
And of course this 0-dimensional Information space is Aether. Obviously, it can flow freely via space since it is 0-dimensional, and atemporal ( in a sense of time related to changes in spatial /consciousness dimensions) . But, because it has internal mathematical structure, it has kind of viscosity, and may form vortexes- whose repetitive nature becomes spatial -2- dimensional-rotational and timed (Kolmogorov vortex of Aether) . It may also produce waves of all lengths of spatial/consciousness dimensions when the flow is chaotic -translational- 1 dimensional.
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "Angle means rotation. There are only 2 independent motions - rotation and translation. If pure translation means chaos (ala Brown motion) then rotation is the only thing that brings order= reduces entropy (that is kind of obvious, is it not?) . Reducing entropy requires additional information, and this information is then decoded in angles of rotation."
Yeah - angle is a key information - and in order for angle to be physical it needs translational motion. Bloody obvious - and intuitively very nice thinking. I think it deserves a little Heureka.
This also kind of implicate that whole universe is inhabited within each scale - there is not being added furtehr information by up-scaling -
Of course this cannot be fully true - because then there would be absolutely no incentive to scale up -
So one should look for a good reason why to up-scale
Transformational motion cannot be totally free from information - when information is coupled with translational (whateveritis) then information increases its informational quality / level / value.
QUOTE: "Angle means rotation. There are only 2 independent motions - rotation and translation. If pure translation means chaos (ala Brown motion) then rotation is the only thing that brings order= reduces entropy (that is kind of obvious, is it not?) . Reducing entropy requires additional information, and this information is then decoded in angles of rotation."
Yeah - angle is a key information - and in order for angle to be physical it needs translational motion. Bloody obvious - and intuitively very nice thinking. I think it deserves a little Heureka.
This also kind of implicate that whole universe is inhabited within each scale - there is not being added furtehr information by up-scaling -
Of course this cannot be fully true - because then there would be absolutely no incentive to scale up -
So one should look for a good reason why to up-scale
Transformational motion cannot be totally free from information - when information is coupled with translational (whateveritis) then information increases its informational quality / level / value.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 23 2008, 05:49 AM)
This also kind of implicate that whole universe is inhabited within each scale - there is not being added further information by up-scaling -
Of course this cannot be fully true - because then there would be absolutely no incentive to scale up -
So one should look for a good reason why to up-scale
Hej bukh
I was trying to say that metrics and geometries change also when scale changes- 1 m in our reference space is not the same as 1 m in SubQuantum space or galaxy space.
In essence, I think Galaxies are SQ due to the changes in measure, so we kind of have SQ complexity both beneath and above us, but in different geometries with different measures of distance.
So Upscaling above Human scale does not increase complexity- it reduces it, but it expands the metric/changes geometry.
This is how I see we get full circle- the complexity reaches its peak in Human scale, so upscaling from that is reduction of informational complexity, and there is no big problem- essentially entropy grows as we upscale from Human scale.
Why upscaling from smaller scales to human is happening- that is the same question as where is the balance point of chaotic "energy" vs. structure complexity. As long as balance is favoring increasing complexity, reducing available energy, complexity grows, upscaling happens.
As soon a Universe reaches the scales where further upscaling requires more informational energy than is available, upscaling happens with reduced complexity.
To make it more physical, small scales are easy to rotate up to certain size when their linear sizes become too big for continued rotation and they start to un-rotate. In a way it is like when rotating metal disc reaches sound speed on its outer edge, it breaks- it can not be rotated faster.
In Universe, c seems to be the limit most SQ structures are able to rotate with before becoming predominantly translational again.
So speed of light is the limit speed of pure rotation in our Universe at SQ scales.
I think we expressed this idea similarly years ago:)
Of course this cannot be fully true - because then there would be absolutely no incentive to scale up -
So one should look for a good reason why to up-scale
Hej bukh
I was trying to say that metrics and geometries change also when scale changes- 1 m in our reference space is not the same as 1 m in SubQuantum space or galaxy space.
In essence, I think Galaxies are SQ due to the changes in measure, so we kind of have SQ complexity both beneath and above us, but in different geometries with different measures of distance.
So Upscaling above Human scale does not increase complexity- it reduces it, but it expands the metric/changes geometry.
This is how I see we get full circle- the complexity reaches its peak in Human scale, so upscaling from that is reduction of informational complexity, and there is no big problem- essentially entropy grows as we upscale from Human scale.
Why upscaling from smaller scales to human is happening- that is the same question as where is the balance point of chaotic "energy" vs. structure complexity. As long as balance is favoring increasing complexity, reducing available energy, complexity grows, upscaling happens.
As soon a Universe reaches the scales where further upscaling requires more informational energy than is available, upscaling happens with reduced complexity.
To make it more physical, small scales are easy to rotate up to certain size when their linear sizes become too big for continued rotation and they start to un-rotate. In a way it is like when rotating metal disc reaches sound speed on its outer edge, it breaks- it can not be rotated faster.
In Universe, c seems to be the limit most SQ structures are able to rotate with before becoming predominantly translational again.
So speed of light is the limit speed of pure rotation in our Universe at SQ scales.
I think we expressed this idea similarly years ago:)
hej Ivars
Yes I remember this metaphor of the childers toy with a button on two threads, winding and unwinding.
It gives a lot of sense that information is what information is - it cannot be created nor be destroyed . So it is a matter how it expresses itsself. And having decided to express itsself into a physical disguise it MUST be via dimension, so complexity in smallest is equivalent to complexity in largest - the only diffrenec can be in translational.
You may also recall how we years ago discussed that information can take ANY expression - physical just being one out of any else - and obviously we as humans are incapable of having ANY idea about other expressions because we are Physical - part of physical - so how can we percept anything different from physical.
Yes I remember this metaphor of the childers toy with a button on two threads, winding and unwinding.
It gives a lot of sense that information is what information is - it cannot be created nor be destroyed . So it is a matter how it expresses itsself. And having decided to express itsself into a physical disguise it MUST be via dimension, so complexity in smallest is equivalent to complexity in largest - the only diffrenec can be in translational.
You may also recall how we years ago discussed that information can take ANY expression - physical just being one out of any else - and obviously we as humans are incapable of having ANY idea about other expressions because we are Physical - part of physical - so how can we percept anything different from physical.
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 23 2008, 02:45 PM)
Hi Ivars Laidback Bukh...et all...
I am not the least bit concerned that it is impossible to take an accurate "snapshot" of the universe. I would be extremely surprised if it were other wise. My picture/snapshot/frames are descriptive of the makeup of the order only.
The purpose is to show that each pixel is added in order no matter where you look. Being in a different position in the order doesn't change how the order is formed. One thing that bothers me is that people seem to be implying that they can affect the order or behavior of the whole. This rings out when anyone talks "increasing speed/motion" or changes in our perceptions.
I challenge this by saying that for the "whole" to be so, it must be considered as a forgone conclusion.....IE: you HAVE ALREADY increased or affected the change that you are concerned about......This is also why I chuckle at the talk of time travel ,either backwards or forwards.....Time is quite irrelevant when considering the concept...
Your concept of free will and affecting change is already factored into the whole and was already a part of the whole before you were born (in subjective time). Otherwise, the whole is not whole , because the whole cannot reconsider the order.You are reviewing the order that is the only one possible. I can sit here and think"I will add to the world with my talents and knowledge" . But I have already because that was a part of the order as it was laid down....You could say that your life has already been lived once already by you and it's only you who aren't aware of your future....The universal order has seen what you will do already.
how can I say this?
Subjective time gets it's information from objective time. Objective time has in it all the arrangements that are available for subjective time to use.....IN ORDER.
So you will say...Why bother?.... I say because you will...
Cheers
Iseason
Indeed,
And I am quite sure I know exactly what you mean, because what you are now reading was destined to occur, even if I purposely mispelled a word or do something completely out of the ordinary, it already was destined to occur, even If in my mind I am convinced I have changed the future, when in reality I have not.. because each and every velocity for every single event simply must adhere to its rules, just as everything else has to, right down to the sub-atomic particles area that is changing as per Force and Motion Laws indicate..
But this doesn't mean we cant predict the future based on past events or the observations of them, I have the utmost confidence one day our collective intelligence may be quite capable to predict anything and everything, and even be under the perception with our intervention change the future when the facts are our intervention was already in place anyway..
Anyway lets get back to some sort of ignorance and continue as per norm.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I am not the least bit concerned that it is impossible to take an accurate "snapshot" of the universe. I would be extremely surprised if it were other wise. My picture/snapshot/frames are descriptive of the makeup of the order only.
The purpose is to show that each pixel is added in order no matter where you look. Being in a different position in the order doesn't change how the order is formed. One thing that bothers me is that people seem to be implying that they can affect the order or behavior of the whole. This rings out when anyone talks "increasing speed/motion" or changes in our perceptions.
I challenge this by saying that for the "whole" to be so, it must be considered as a forgone conclusion.....IE: you HAVE ALREADY increased or affected the change that you are concerned about......This is also why I chuckle at the talk of time travel ,either backwards or forwards.....Time is quite irrelevant when considering the concept...
Your concept of free will and affecting change is already factored into the whole and was already a part of the whole before you were born (in subjective time). Otherwise, the whole is not whole , because the whole cannot reconsider the order.You are reviewing the order that is the only one possible. I can sit here and think"I will add to the world with my talents and knowledge" . But I have already because that was a part of the order as it was laid down....You could say that your life has already been lived once already by you and it's only you who aren't aware of your future....The universal order has seen what you will do already.
how can I say this?
Subjective time gets it's information from objective time. Objective time has in it all the arrangements that are available for subjective time to use.....IN ORDER.
So you will say...Why bother?.... I say because you will...
Cheers
Iseason
Indeed,
And I am quite sure I know exactly what you mean, because what you are now reading was destined to occur, even if I purposely mispelled a word or do something completely out of the ordinary, it already was destined to occur, even If in my mind I am convinced I have changed the future, when in reality I have not.. because each and every velocity for every single event simply must adhere to its rules, just as everything else has to, right down to the sub-atomic particles area that is changing as per Force and Motion Laws indicate..
But this doesn't mean we cant predict the future based on past events or the observations of them, I have the utmost confidence one day our collective intelligence may be quite capable to predict anything and everything, and even be under the perception with our intervention change the future when the facts are our intervention was already in place anyway..
Anyway lets get back to some sort of ignorance and continue as per norm.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 23 2008, 07:11 AM)
hej Ivars
It gives a lot of sense that information is what information is - it cannot be created nor be destroyed . So it is a matter how it expresses itself. And having decided to express itself into a physical disguise it MUST be via dimension, so complexity in smallest is equivalent to complexity in largest - the only difference can be in translational.
You may also recall how we years ago discussed that information can take ANY expression - physical just being one out of any else - and obviously we as humans are incapable of having ANY idea about other expressions because we are Physical - part of physical - so how can we percept anything different from physical.
hej bukh
From what I have been thinking yesterday, I got a question:
Why do humans carry around 3D Euclidean space in their minds when ever they observe something?
Can it be so that the complexity of humans and their consciousness, as all other conscious spatial aggregates, is in the middle, so to say, leading to Euclidean geometry as a limit case between e.g hyperbolic geometry and Elliptic?
Can You understand what I mean?
The maximum complexity of humans being in the middle of scales leads to them living and thinking in a transition geometry, seemingly infinite in Euclidean sense (parallels never meet) , between two other principally finite parts of projective geometry.
That is of course, only when we use one parameter, the curvature of space, to characterize geometries. For Euclidean, its 0, for Elliptic>0, for hyperbolic <0 .
I have to work on this, but all such limiting cases which could be attributable to human scale only, works in favor of complexity being the highest in Human scale, and also may help to explain different entropy drives in small scales ( entropy is reduced to build order via rotation taking over translation) , neutral in human scales ( order and chaos are in balance in general) and increase large scales ( translation takes over again and destroys small rotational structures - until there is none left- loop closed).
So I would not say we can not percept anything different than physical- we have problems percept anything different than Euclidean 3D space. But it is not impossible via abstraction, so our mind can percept more.
It gives a lot of sense that information is what information is - it cannot be created nor be destroyed . So it is a matter how it expresses itself. And having decided to express itself into a physical disguise it MUST be via dimension, so complexity in smallest is equivalent to complexity in largest - the only difference can be in translational.
You may also recall how we years ago discussed that information can take ANY expression - physical just being one out of any else - and obviously we as humans are incapable of having ANY idea about other expressions because we are Physical - part of physical - so how can we percept anything different from physical.
hej bukh
From what I have been thinking yesterday, I got a question:
Why do humans carry around 3D Euclidean space in their minds when ever they observe something?
Can it be so that the complexity of humans and their consciousness, as all other conscious spatial aggregates, is in the middle, so to say, leading to Euclidean geometry as a limit case between e.g hyperbolic geometry and Elliptic?
Can You understand what I mean?
The maximum complexity of humans being in the middle of scales leads to them living and thinking in a transition geometry, seemingly infinite in Euclidean sense (parallels never meet) , between two other principally finite parts of projective geometry.
That is of course, only when we use one parameter, the curvature of space, to characterize geometries. For Euclidean, its 0, for Elliptic>0, for hyperbolic <0 .
I have to work on this, but all such limiting cases which could be attributable to human scale only, works in favor of complexity being the highest in Human scale, and also may help to explain different entropy drives in small scales ( entropy is reduced to build order via rotation taking over translation) , neutral in human scales ( order and chaos are in balance in general) and increase large scales ( translation takes over again and destroys small rotational structures - until there is none left- loop closed).
So I would not say we can not percept anything different than physical- we have problems percept anything different than Euclidean 3D space. But it is not impossible via abstraction, so our mind can percept more.
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "So speed of light is the limit speed of pure rotation in our Universe at SQ scales."
Yes - and it is important insight - You may have noticed that I mentioned it in my recent response to Good Elf - and that it relates to Berry Phase - in the sense that boson is alwaysa bended trajectory in our universe- human scale. Size and distance is exclusively being a question about bending - and c is the rotational speed of any matter structure. The smaller the matter structures - ie the smaller the particle-structures - the higher rotional frequencies.
And it follows logically by translational and rotational transformations. The smaller the structures the higher the rotational factor contributes to the expression - and when r>o it eventuallu ends up in pure rotational - no space - no physical - pure information.
Yes humans are carrying the 3D Euclidian in their mind - but I am not sure because of why ?
3D Euclidian as solely for being used spatially - all other non-spatial expressions (pain, hunger. love, anger, fear, fatique - --) has nothing to do with 3D - and I see 3D as one out of many "mind-tools" and 3D is a bit overrated in the sense that we humans tend to believe that everything relates to the 3D,
I see no obvious reasons for why humans should be in the middle of something special - except they are in the middle of what they are themselves a construct out from - if you can follow me.
I tend to think that Informatinal World is the king, and rotational information is the form that informational world choose when expressing physical - defined as space and 3D, and perhaps we are being bewildered when we think that all other non-3D-expressions - as we humans harbour as well - is being strictly related to the 3D - perhaps such qualities have only more vague relations to 3D.
QUOTE: "So speed of light is the limit speed of pure rotation in our Universe at SQ scales."
Yes - and it is important insight - You may have noticed that I mentioned it in my recent response to Good Elf - and that it relates to Berry Phase - in the sense that boson is alwaysa bended trajectory in our universe- human scale. Size and distance is exclusively being a question about bending - and c is the rotational speed of any matter structure. The smaller the matter structures - ie the smaller the particle-structures - the higher rotional frequencies.
And it follows logically by translational and rotational transformations. The smaller the structures the higher the rotational factor contributes to the expression - and when r>o it eventuallu ends up in pure rotational - no space - no physical - pure information.
Yes humans are carrying the 3D Euclidian in their mind - but I am not sure because of why ?
3D Euclidian as solely for being used spatially - all other non-spatial expressions (pain, hunger. love, anger, fear, fatique - --) has nothing to do with 3D - and I see 3D as one out of many "mind-tools" and 3D is a bit overrated in the sense that we humans tend to believe that everything relates to the 3D,
I see no obvious reasons for why humans should be in the middle of something special - except they are in the middle of what they are themselves a construct out from - if you can follow me.
I tend to think that Informatinal World is the king, and rotational information is the form that informational world choose when expressing physical - defined as space and 3D, and perhaps we are being bewildered when we think that all other non-3D-expressions - as we humans harbour as well - is being strictly related to the 3D - perhaps such qualities have only more vague relations to 3D.
QUOTE (Laidback+Oct 24 2008, 01:00 PM)
one day our collective intelligence may be quite capable to predict anything and everything, and even be under the perception with our intervention change the future when the facts are our intervention was already in place anyway..
Anyway lets get back to some sort of ignorance and continue as per norm.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi all
This is my point exactly. Until we can see that the future contains the past and more importantly, when we LOOK into the past WE are ALONGSIDE it seeing the future..we cannot go forwards.
By knowing What is the next state of balance with certainty, the future can be seen. Already there is a lot that science does through predicting the future through cause and affect. This uses only subjective time lines without knowing how or where we are in objective. If we could know where we exist "with certainty" in objective, then we can know with certainty what will happen next.
The earth and all it contains fall within a predictably constant region within these boundaries, so we should be able to refine the search . In fact it is not at all necessary to know the lower or outer boundaries since we understand them naturally while we exist in subjective time.
The difference is trying to find the answer , and where we look for it. There will only be one best detector and That may even be of a size that is more manageable that Stella or atomic simply because it is of a size we can more easily study..
Cheers
Iseason
Anyway lets get back to some sort of ignorance and continue as per norm.
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi all
This is my point exactly. Until we can see that the future contains the past and more importantly, when we LOOK into the past WE are ALONGSIDE it seeing the future..we cannot go forwards.
By knowing What is the next state of balance with certainty, the future can be seen. Already there is a lot that science does through predicting the future through cause and affect. This uses only subjective time lines without knowing how or where we are in objective. If we could know where we exist "with certainty" in objective, then we can know with certainty what will happen next.
The earth and all it contains fall within a predictably constant region within these boundaries, so we should be able to refine the search . In fact it is not at all necessary to know the lower or outer boundaries since we understand them naturally while we exist in subjective time.
The difference is trying to find the answer , and where we look for it. There will only be one best detector and That may even be of a size that is more manageable that Stella or atomic simply because it is of a size we can more easily study..
Cheers
Iseason
Hi all
To me the problem of predicting anything - especially the future - is that we as humans never will be alongside objective time. We will always be delayed - and the delay is related to the inertia in the informational flow - the more complex the information is - the longer it takes to be played - cinematographically played as the informational movie - the qubit. And the more complex the qubit - the more of objective universe in being involved into the expression.
So the restriction is the ratio of universe that human can cower - one human being is a very little ratio of universe, obviously - and a human has no Chinamans chance to predict anything into the future - except for extremely simple qubits. And with uncertainty involved.
To me the problem of predicting anything - especially the future
- is that we as humans never will be alongside objective time. We will always be delayed - and the delay is related to the inertia in the informational flow - the more complex the information is - the longer it takes to be played - cinematographically played as the informational movie - the qubit. And the more complex the qubit - the more of objective universe in being involved into the expression. So the restriction is the ratio of universe that human can cower - one human being is a very little ratio of universe, obviously - and a human has no Chinamans chance to predict anything into the future - except for extremely simple qubits. And with uncertainty involved.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 25 2008, 09:37 AM)
Hi all
To me the problem of predicting anything - especially the future - is that we as humans never will be alongside objective time. We will always be delayed - and the delay is related to the inertia in the informational flow - the more complex the information is - the longer it takes to be played - cinematographically played as the informational movie - the qubit. And the more complex the qubit - the more of objective universe in being involved into the expression.
So the restriction is the ratio of universe that human can cower - one human being is a very little ratio of universe, obviously - and a human has no Chinamans chance to predict anything into the future - except for extremely simple qubits. And with uncertainty involved.
Hi Bukh
Such a good response I will not answer with speculation right away , but muse on it a bit.
cheers
Iseason
To me the problem of predicting anything - especially the future
- is that we as humans never will be alongside objective time. We will always be delayed - and the delay is related to the inertia in the informational flow - the more complex the information is - the longer it takes to be played - cinematographically played as the informational movie - the qubit. And the more complex the qubit - the more of objective universe in being involved into the expression. So the restriction is the ratio of universe that human can cower - one human being is a very little ratio of universe, obviously - and a human has no Chinamans chance to predict anything into the future - except for extremely simple qubits. And with uncertainty involved.
Hi Bukh
Such a good response I will not answer with speculation right away , but muse on it a bit.
cheers
Iseason
Hi iseason
I read Your Signature:
And I think I agree. Except..
Energy is a measure of change inherent change, instability in Universe.
Energy is defined in certain units, which includes , always, measures of lenght.
So, when quality of energy changes, meaning it works in scales where 1 meter is NOT THE SAME as in the "normal" scale of Above quantum below Galactic physics. the value of energy is a Your signature says, the quality is not conserved ( as is well known from 2nd law of thermodynamics - for above quantum scales Meter gets longer, the energy stays the same, but ).
1 J = 1kg* 1m^2/1^s^2
So a long a this combination stays invariant while scales change, mathematically energy is the same, qualitatively not.
As long a mass exist, it is enough for energy to stay the same if scales change linearly with respect to distance and time- (and units of distance and time can be even negative) - so when lenght unit of space (measure) gets longer , time gets shorter by the same amount. And vice verse.
In this diapason we get normal energy which follows the law of entropy increase.
In very big scales, mass units go DOWN,(mass is not invariant anymore) so for energy to stay constant, it is not anymore enough for linear change in length/time units- length units has to grow faster- thus we see accelerating Universe ( which it is not) . In the limit, mass Unit is 0, so length had to reach infinity to compensate. What is infinity in length is not a solved question geometrically, but in non-euclidean spaces infinity is a closure- line goes into infinity and comes back from minus infinity, so they are connected.
But , when we enter the sub Compton (10-15 m) region, towards Planck ( 10-33 m) and Kolmogorov ( 10-58 m) scales, the mass units goes UP, its more pure, since mass is rotation, no translation, more and more just rotation, so that for energy to stay the same lenght/time has to go shorter.
In the limit of mass units going to infinity, when we get fixed, absolute solid, length /time ratio has to go to 0, so either length goes to 0 - there is no real length unit- or, time unit goes to infinity- there is no change- or both.
Also, both lentgh and time becoming imaginary simultaneously at some scale - below Kolmogorov length - works.
So, while value of energy stays the same,its quality changes dramatically depending on scale (units of length/time) .
Mass unit starts to change when ratio between length/time units become not constant- either in big ( lenght growing faster) or small (time growing faster) scales.
So in that sense mass is related to the speed of change between length unit and time unit. In first approximation:
mass UNIT= function ( change in ratio ( length unit/time unit) ) = f( dL/dT) as a function of scale ( L).
These scales can be defined as typical ration Radius of Aether vortex/period of its rotation in a given scale (=Kolmogorov vortex of the SCALE) . ( e.g Kolmogorov vortex in our scale has period 10-65 sec, length 10-58 sec). Galaxies are Kolmogorov vortexes of Aether in their scale.
So, when mass UNIT is constant , we are in region or approximation of dL/dT= const. (Komogorov scale here to Earth scale)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
If length unit grows slower than TIME unit - dL/dT<0 - subTompson - Mass UNIT - this means speeds go above c - mass unit decreases
I suspect that mass unit becomes 0 at Kolmogorov length in a given location. Below that, mass turns negative or imaginary. And causality is reversed.
When You have reversed causality, So that You can receive information that travels faster than c- You can predict future in material world.
I read Your Signature:
QUOTE
1/. Energy CAN NOT be destroyed.
2/. a/. Energy CAN NOT be created.
3/. b/. Ergo what energy exists right now has always existed..
2/. a/. Energy CAN NOT be created.
3/. b/. Ergo what energy exists right now has always existed..
And I think I agree. Except..
Energy is a measure of change inherent change, instability in Universe.
Energy is defined in certain units, which includes , always, measures of lenght.
So, when quality of energy changes, meaning it works in scales where 1 meter is NOT THE SAME as in the "normal" scale of Above quantum below Galactic physics. the value of energy is a Your signature says, the quality is not conserved ( as is well known from 2nd law of thermodynamics - for above quantum scales Meter gets longer, the energy stays the same, but ).
1 J = 1kg* 1m^2/1^s^2
So a long a this combination stays invariant while scales change, mathematically energy is the same, qualitatively not.
As long a mass exist, it is enough for energy to stay the same if scales change linearly with respect to distance and time- (and units of distance and time can be even negative) - so when lenght unit of space (measure) gets longer , time gets shorter by the same amount. And vice verse.
In this diapason we get normal energy which follows the law of entropy increase.
In very big scales, mass units go DOWN,(mass is not invariant anymore) so for energy to stay constant, it is not anymore enough for linear change in length/time units- length units has to grow faster- thus we see accelerating Universe ( which it is not) . In the limit, mass Unit is 0, so length had to reach infinity to compensate. What is infinity in length is not a solved question geometrically, but in non-euclidean spaces infinity is a closure- line goes into infinity and comes back from minus infinity, so they are connected.
But , when we enter the sub Compton (10-15 m) region, towards Planck ( 10-33 m) and Kolmogorov ( 10-58 m) scales, the mass units goes UP, its more pure, since mass is rotation, no translation, more and more just rotation, so that for energy to stay the same lenght/time has to go shorter.
In the limit of mass units going to infinity, when we get fixed, absolute solid, length /time ratio has to go to 0, so either length goes to 0 - there is no real length unit- or, time unit goes to infinity- there is no change- or both.
Also, both lentgh and time becoming imaginary simultaneously at some scale - below Kolmogorov length - works.
So, while value of energy stays the same,its quality changes dramatically depending on scale (units of length/time) .
Mass unit starts to change when ratio between length/time units become not constant- either in big ( lenght growing faster) or small (time growing faster) scales.
So in that sense mass is related to the speed of change between length unit and time unit. In first approximation:
mass UNIT= function ( change in ratio ( length unit/time unit) ) = f( dL/dT) as a function of scale ( L).
These scales can be defined as typical ration Radius of Aether vortex/period of its rotation in a given scale (=Kolmogorov vortex of the SCALE) . ( e.g Kolmogorov vortex in our scale has period 10-65 sec, length 10-58 sec). Galaxies are Kolmogorov vortexes of Aether in their scale.
So, when mass UNIT is constant , we are in region or approximation of dL/dT= const. (Komogorov scale here to Earth scale)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
If length unit grows slower than TIME unit - dL/dT<0 - subTompson - Mass UNIT - this means speeds go above c - mass unit decreases
I suspect that mass unit becomes 0 at Kolmogorov length in a given location. Below that, mass turns negative or imaginary. And causality is reversed.
When You have reversed causality, So that You can receive information that travels faster than c- You can predict future in material world.
Hi Ivars
Thanks for your post. Notice that my signature does not define What energy IS. This is a fine point , but allows variance to be a truth while energy remains unchanged by it.
I have said before "I see three distinct dimensions"
1. A photon divided into the area of space.
2. Photon.
3. The universe as a photon.
Notice they are distinct.
None are, at the point of statement , measuring each other.
This is like saying that .
The universe contains a finite number of divisions.
The size of the divisions are each a photon's energy.
Therefore the size of the universe is limited to the number of times a photon inhabits a space.
This limits energy to a photon at any time. Since a photon does not experience time, there is no problem with it creating the line that you propose =0.
Cheers
Iseason
Thanks for your post. Notice that my signature does not define What energy IS. This is a fine point , but allows variance to be a truth while energy remains unchanged by it.
I have said before "I see three distinct dimensions"
1. A photon divided into the area of space.
2. Photon.
3. The universe as a photon.
Notice they are distinct.
None are, at the point of statement , measuring each other.
This is like saying that .
The universe contains a finite number of divisions.
The size of the divisions are each a photon's energy.
Therefore the size of the universe is limited to the number of times a photon inhabits a space.
This limits energy to a photon at any time. Since a photon does not experience time, there is no problem with it creating the line that you propose =0.
Cheers
Iseason
hej Ivars
QUOTE: "When You have reversed causality, So that You can receive information that travels faster than c- You can predict future in material world."
It is a very good question whether rotational x transational show varying relationsships - in order to produce varying mass's and time's - or ??
And when something has been translated through scales -can we then be sure that there is no delay functions - or put differently - can we be sure that we can surpass AND translate faster than c when we are dealing with more than one scale, so as to get something appearing in a relevant scale - like human scale "before" the information was produced in a lower scale ??
QUOTE: "When You have reversed causality, So that You can receive information that travels faster than c- You can predict future in material world."
It is a very good question whether rotational x transational show varying relationsships - in order to produce varying mass's and time's - or ??
And when something has been translated through scales -can we then be sure that there is no delay functions - or put differently - can we be sure that we can surpass AND translate faster than c when we are dealing with more than one scale, so as to get something appearing in a relevant scale - like human scale "before" the information was produced in a lower scale ??
hej Ivars et al -
I can agree on most of what you are saying in your latest post - and I think that this rotational - translational is simple and obvious.
I have tried to explain it according to trajectories in the SAID SCALE of observation - non-repetitive = wave and repetitive = particle, and it ends up in the same conclusion, namely as you describe it:
- "mass UNIT= function ( change in ratio ( length unit/time unit) ) = f( dL/dT) as a function of scale ( L)."
Mass is retardation relative to straight trajectory - and straight trajectory is full translational - no full rotational expression in said scale, no repetion. And it is important to know that speed of light c is the speed of the "BENDED" trajectory - there exist no such thing as a universal straight trajectory - because that would implicate infinitely big - so we humans limit the "size" of universe to our discrimination power of angle.
A particle (in a said scale) is defined by repetitive wave-trajectories - the bigger the translational arm the slower the rotational (repetitive) arm - the bigger the particle - but also the slower the repetition - the slower the time - and the end result is that energy is always the same.
QUOTE: "In very big scales, mass units go DOWN,(mass is not invariant anymore) so for energy to stay constant, it is not anymore enough for linear change in length/time units- length units has to grow faster- thus we see accelerating Universe ( which it is not) . In the limit, mass Unit is 0, so length had to reach infinity to compensate. What is infinity in length is not a solved question geometrically, but in non-euclidean spaces infinity is a closure- line goes into infinity and comes back from minus infinity, so they are connected.
But , when we enter the sub Compton (10-15 m) region, towards Planck ( 10-33 m) and Kolmogorov ( 10-58 m) scales, the mass units goes UP, its more pure, since mass is rotation, no translation, more and more just rotation, so that for energy to stay the same lenght/time has to go shorter."
In the limit, mass unit is 0, and lenght reach infinity - and yes as you rightly say time is zero because there is no particle - and wíthout particle there is no change - and without change - no time - very logic - full translational and no rotational - end of physical world - and in the other extreme there is no translational - so logically there can be no particle - and no particle - no physical. And this is another neat way of defining the wave-particle duality - implicating that any wave-structure must inhabit a certain amount of rotational in order to be physical and vice-versa - there cannot be any such thing as massless - because massles is particleless and particleless is physicalless - and following the same logic there cannot be any such thing as waveless - because that is the same as particleless - only rotational - no volume - and that is also physicalless.
So infinity line - well space is approximating infinity but cannot reach infinity - because then it will cease to be physical - so infinite line is not into physical existance. Infinity is not into physical existance.
Informational world is being contained in no space and physical has exactly the size that physical shall have - and scale is somethingt that is totally dependent on the observer - and we can have as many scales as we need - as we require for our definitions - for our explanations - for our understanding.
I would not say that mass is rotation - mass cannot be expressed except we have both rotational and transational - - everything fits very nicely when playing these two transformations dynamically together - with logic non-physical limits at both extremes - and everything contained within.
The above is also a confirmation of the extreme truth in relativity - everything is according to said frame and said observer, and a particle expression in one frame can translate into a wave-expression in another frame, by using the definition of "wave"- or bosonic expression as long as the repetition cannot be contained within the frame - and being a "particle" -fermionic expression when it can be contained within the frame.
Imaging "travelling" around in space as observer and see how a "particle" translates into "light" and vice-versa, when mooving from one position to another -
I can agree on most of what you are saying in your latest post - and I think that this rotational - translational is simple and obvious.
I have tried to explain it according to trajectories in the SAID SCALE of observation - non-repetitive = wave and repetitive = particle, and it ends up in the same conclusion, namely as you describe it:
- "mass UNIT= function ( change in ratio ( length unit/time unit) ) = f( dL/dT) as a function of scale ( L)."
Mass is retardation relative to straight trajectory - and straight trajectory is full translational - no full rotational expression in said scale, no repetion. And it is important to know that speed of light c is the speed of the "BENDED" trajectory - there exist no such thing as a universal straight trajectory - because that would implicate infinitely big - so we humans limit the "size" of universe to our discrimination power of angle.
A particle (in a said scale) is defined by repetitive wave-trajectories - the bigger the translational arm the slower the rotational (repetitive) arm - the bigger the particle - but also the slower the repetition - the slower the time - and the end result is that energy is always the same.
QUOTE: "In very big scales, mass units go DOWN,(mass is not invariant anymore) so for energy to stay constant, it is not anymore enough for linear change in length/time units- length units has to grow faster- thus we see accelerating Universe ( which it is not) . In the limit, mass Unit is 0, so length had to reach infinity to compensate. What is infinity in length is not a solved question geometrically, but in non-euclidean spaces infinity is a closure- line goes into infinity and comes back from minus infinity, so they are connected.
But , when we enter the sub Compton (10-15 m) region, towards Planck ( 10-33 m) and Kolmogorov ( 10-58 m) scales, the mass units goes UP, its more pure, since mass is rotation, no translation, more and more just rotation, so that for energy to stay the same lenght/time has to go shorter."
In the limit, mass unit is 0, and lenght reach infinity - and yes as you rightly say time is zero because there is no particle - and wíthout particle there is no change - and without change - no time - very logic - full translational and no rotational - end of physical world - and in the other extreme there is no translational - so logically there can be no particle - and no particle - no physical. And this is another neat way of defining the wave-particle duality - implicating that any wave-structure must inhabit a certain amount of rotational in order to be physical and vice-versa - there cannot be any such thing as massless - because massles is particleless and particleless is physicalless - and following the same logic there cannot be any such thing as waveless - because that is the same as particleless - only rotational - no volume - and that is also physicalless.
So infinity line - well space is approximating infinity but cannot reach infinity - because then it will cease to be physical - so infinite line is not into physical existance. Infinity is not into physical existance.
Informational world is being contained in no space and physical has exactly the size that physical shall have - and scale is somethingt that is totally dependent on the observer - and we can have as many scales as we need - as we require for our definitions - for our explanations - for our understanding.
I would not say that mass is rotation - mass cannot be expressed except we have both rotational and transational - - everything fits very nicely when playing these two transformations dynamically together - with logic non-physical limits at both extremes - and everything contained within.
The above is also a confirmation of the extreme truth in relativity - everything is according to said frame and said observer, and a particle expression in one frame can translate into a wave-expression in another frame, by using the definition of "wave"- or bosonic expression as long as the repetition cannot be contained within the frame - and being a "particle" -fermionic expression when it can be contained within the frame.
Imaging "travelling" around in space as observer and see how a "particle" translates into "light" and vice-versa, when mooving from one position to another -
QUOTE (Ivars+Oct 25 2008, 04:06 PM)
Hi iseason
I read Your Signature:
And I think I agree. Except..
Energy is a measure of change inherent change, instability in Universe.
Energy is defined in certain units, which includes , always, measures of length.
So, when quality of energy changes, meaning it works in scales where 1 meter is NOT THE SAME as in the "normal" scale of Above quantum below Galactic physics. the value of energy is a Your signature says, the quality is not conserved ( as is well known from 2nd law of thermodynamics - for above quantum scales Meter gets longer, the energy stays the same, but ).
1 J = 1kg* 1m^2/1^s^2
So a long a this combination stays invariant while scales change, mathematically energy is the same, qualitatively not.
As long a mass exist, it is enough for energy to stay the same if scales change linearly with respect to distance and time- (and units of distance and time can be even negative) - so when length unit of space (measure) gets longer , time gets shorter by the same amount. And vice verse.
In this diapason we get normal energy which follows the law of entropy increase.
In very big scales, mass units go DOWN,(mass is not invariant anymore) so for energy to stay constant, it is not anymore enough for linear change in length/time units- length units has to grow faster- thus we see accelerating Universe ( which it is not) . In the limit, mass Unit is 0, so length had to reach infinity to compensate. What is infinity in length is not a solved question geometrically, but in non-euclidean spaces infinity is a closure- line goes into infinity and comes back from minus infinity, so they are connected.
But , when we enter the sub Compton (10-15 m) region, towards Planck ( 10-33 m) and Kolmogorov ( 10-58 m) scales, the mass units goes UP, its more pure, since mass is rotation, no translation, more and more just rotation, so that for energy to stay the same length/time has to go shorter.
In the limit of mass units going to infinity, when we get fixed, absolute solid, length /time ratio has to go to 0, so either length goes to 0 - there is no real length unit- or, time unit goes to infinity- there is no change- or both.
Also, both length and time becoming imaginary simultaneously at some scale - below Kolmogorov length - works.
So, while value of energy stays the same,its quality changes dramatically depending on scale (units of length/time) .
Mass unit starts to change when ratio between length/time units become not constant- either in big ( length growing faster) or small (time growing faster) scales.
So in that sense mass is related to the speed of change between length unit and time unit. In first approximation:
mass UNIT= function ( change in ratio ( length unit/time unit) ) = f( dL/dT) as a function of scale ( L).
These scales can be defined as typical ration Radius of Aether vortex/period of its rotation in a given scale (=Kolmogorov vortex of the SCALE) . ( e.g Kolmogorov vortex in our scale has period 10-65 sec, length 10-58 sec). Galaxies are Kolmogorov vortexes of Aether in their scale.
So, when mass UNIT is constant , we are in region or approximation of dL/dT= const. (Komogorov scale here to Earth scale)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
If length unit grows slower than TIME unit - dL/dT<0 - subTompson - Mass UNIT - this means speeds go above c - mass unit decreases
I suspect that mass unit becomes 0 at Kolmogorov length in a given location. Below that, mass turns negative or imaginary. And causality is reversed.
When You have reversed causality, So that You can receive information that travels faster than c- You can predict future in material world.
Indeed,
Energy is referred to via Joules, and all mass is considered Energy even a mass that is a near vacuum is with energy!..
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm
Energy is either stored or if not stored is cause for change, Stored energy is implied as Potential Energy, it is with very little momentum, but it has the Potential to cause change and or do work, or simply imply velocity via the only way simply by portioning and or dividing some of the stored energy and then releasing it via PE/KE to express a velocity..
It should be noted the greater the storage {Potential} the greater in magnitude can each portion {KE divisions} do work or imply more motion resulting with a greater influence and or change, so the greater the potential the greater its implied force and or presence..
And as we all should be aware force can not present without motion and or velocities, and a force can only be possible if there is an increased potential, which is simply gained by two or more opposing velocities being cancelled out, resulting in our stored energy and or increases potential..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen...
I read Your Signature:
And I think I agree. Except..
Energy is a measure of change inherent change, instability in Universe.
Energy is defined in certain units, which includes , always, measures of length.
So, when quality of energy changes, meaning it works in scales where 1 meter is NOT THE SAME as in the "normal" scale of Above quantum below Galactic physics. the value of energy is a Your signature says, the quality is not conserved ( as is well known from 2nd law of thermodynamics - for above quantum scales Meter gets longer, the energy stays the same, but ).
1 J = 1kg* 1m^2/1^s^2
So a long a this combination stays invariant while scales change, mathematically energy is the same, qualitatively not.
As long a mass exist, it is enough for energy to stay the same if scales change linearly with respect to distance and time- (and units of distance and time can be even negative) - so when length unit of space (measure) gets longer , time gets shorter by the same amount. And vice verse.
In this diapason we get normal energy which follows the law of entropy increase.
In very big scales, mass units go DOWN,(mass is not invariant anymore) so for energy to stay constant, it is not anymore enough for linear change in length/time units- length units has to grow faster- thus we see accelerating Universe ( which it is not) . In the limit, mass Unit is 0, so length had to reach infinity to compensate. What is infinity in length is not a solved question geometrically, but in non-euclidean spaces infinity is a closure- line goes into infinity and comes back from minus infinity, so they are connected.
But , when we enter the sub Compton (10-15 m) region, towards Planck ( 10-33 m) and Kolmogorov ( 10-58 m) scales, the mass units goes UP, its more pure, since mass is rotation, no translation, more and more just rotation, so that for energy to stay the same length/time has to go shorter.
In the limit of mass units going to infinity, when we get fixed, absolute solid, length /time ratio has to go to 0, so either length goes to 0 - there is no real length unit- or, time unit goes to infinity- there is no change- or both.
Also, both length and time becoming imaginary simultaneously at some scale - below Kolmogorov length - works.
So, while value of energy stays the same,its quality changes dramatically depending on scale (units of length/time) .
Mass unit starts to change when ratio between length/time units become not constant- either in big ( length growing faster) or small (time growing faster) scales.
So in that sense mass is related to the speed of change between length unit and time unit. In first approximation:
mass UNIT= function ( change in ratio ( length unit/time unit) ) = f( dL/dT) as a function of scale ( L).
These scales can be defined as typical ration Radius of Aether vortex/period of its rotation in a given scale (=Kolmogorov vortex of the SCALE) . ( e.g Kolmogorov vortex in our scale has period 10-65 sec, length 10-58 sec). Galaxies are Kolmogorov vortexes of Aether in their scale.
So, when mass UNIT is constant , we are in region or approximation of dL/dT= const. (Komogorov scale here to Earth scale)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
But , if length UNIT grows faster then TIME unit-dL/dT>0= cosmology - Mass UNIT goes up - rotation speeds go below c ( Galaxy rotation curves)
If length unit grows slower than TIME unit - dL/dT<0 - subTompson - Mass UNIT - this means speeds go above c - mass unit decreases
I suspect that mass unit becomes 0 at Kolmogorov length in a given location. Below that, mass turns negative or imaginary. And causality is reversed.
When You have reversed causality, So that You can receive information that travels faster than c- You can predict future in material world.
Indeed,
Energy is referred to via Joules, and all mass is considered Energy even a mass that is a near vacuum is with energy!..
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm
Energy is either stored or if not stored is cause for change, Stored energy is implied as Potential Energy, it is with very little momentum, but it has the Potential to cause change and or do work, or simply imply velocity via the only way simply by portioning and or dividing some of the stored energy and then releasing it via PE/KE to express a velocity..
It should be noted the greater the storage {Potential} the greater in magnitude can each portion {KE divisions} do work or imply more motion resulting with a greater influence and or change, so the greater the potential the greater its implied force and or presence..
And as we all should be aware force can not present without motion and or velocities, and a force can only be possible if there is an increased potential, which is simply gained by two or more opposing velocities being cancelled out, resulting in our stored energy and or increases potential..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen...
Hi all
I admit that I am not very good when it comes to the sort of measuring that Peter has just shown. What I do see is that time and motion are linked. This would mean that if I set off in any direction, I am traveling into my future while becoming enmeshed in the universes past.
That means that Time and motion being linked is not (in the first instance) directional, But an affect of another science.
Cheers
Iseason
I admit that I am not very good when it comes to the sort of measuring that Peter has just shown. What I do see is that time and motion are linked. This would mean that if I set off in any direction, I am traveling into my future while becoming enmeshed in the universes past.
That means that Time and motion being linked is not (in the first instance) directional, But an affect of another science.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 28 2008, 06:59 AM)
Hi all
I admit that I am not very good when it comes to the sort of measuring that Peter has just shown. What I do see is that time and motion are linked. This would mean that if I set off in any direction, I am traveling into my future while becoming enmeshed in the universes past.
That means that Time and motion being linked is not (in the first instance) directional, But an affect of another science.
Cheers
Iseason
Here in the quotes is a two dimensional length made up of four smaller lines "----"
Lets say we wish to increase the thickness of one of our short lines by placing two lines together but lets insist they still take up an area that presents the same as the rest {put simply two compressed together as one line (DOUBLE THE DENSITY)} but as this is not comfortable the extra mass {LINE} is passed on to its neighboring line and the result is a momentum that can traverse the whole length in two hours..
In my model I have broken up the whole length into four so if I defined the WHOLE length equals one hour each division then would equate to 15 minutes in length..
So if I now depicted my model via a few frames or moments in time, I am hoping you can visualize the speed or velocity of our (Doubled line) or increased mass and or density that I have induced to be with momentum.
Frame or moment 1 "----" Here is our initial closed model, where no line has been yet doubled..
Frame 2 "=--" Here is our model after we have defined our increased potential ** Note ** How our Model has adhered to a closed model suggestion via increasing density some where as some of its mass or its length has been exchanged to another dimension (doubled density or thickness in this case)..
Frame 3 "-=-" And here the increased density of mass has been shifted.
Frame 4 "--="
Frame 5 "----" To which once the wave or our compression point has been propagated to the other extremity of our model the model briefly reforms to its original form of four lines rather than three.
In the above CLOSED system or model for our mass, we will note it has been defined with one hour of kinetic Energy, and it should be noted we can increase this if we halve all our (lines) potentials (height in this case) so this would mean our lines would have to be much thinner, in fact we could thin out our line so much we may need a microscope, the only problem is, mass at this level begins to resemble or presents much like we are observing stars and galaxies, so if we are to be practical and or realistic we can only go so far..
Anyway getting back to our single Hour model, Our potential and or increased mass, density and or our potential moves 15 minutes per frame, so if I redefine the 15 minutes to a meter or a foot rather than a time construct..
we would have our potential either with a velocity that is one foot per frame or a meter per frame..
I could also define our frame intervals to be with a different time construct so each frame is one second apart as in every second a frame is defined and with our four lengths "----" each line equates to 299792458 meters in length, this would imply the Model is depicting a Photon or a wave form that is with a velocity @c {Local "c"}
Put simply A two dimensional model of a NEAR-Vacuum propagating a photon or an electromagnetic wave..
But how many here can now imagine our above two dimensional model in an expanded 3D theoretical grid-ding that perhaps considers a galaxy or two?
And if one is capable of that, I wonder how many here are able to apply the grid-ding in such a manner or fashion to imply the compression points to planets, stars, and galaxies so that relativity considerations may present an awe inspiring ephinany about much of practical physics? Err~Thats Practical physics mind you..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
I admit that I am not very good when it comes to the sort of measuring that Peter has just shown. What I do see is that time and motion are linked. This would mean that if I set off in any direction, I am traveling into my future while becoming enmeshed in the universes past.
That means that Time and motion being linked is not (in the first instance) directional, But an affect of another science.
Cheers
Iseason
Here in the quotes is a two dimensional length made up of four smaller lines "----"
Lets say we wish to increase the thickness of one of our short lines by placing two lines together but lets insist they still take up an area that presents the same as the rest {put simply two compressed together as one line (DOUBLE THE DENSITY)} but as this is not comfortable the extra mass {LINE} is passed on to its neighboring line and the result is a momentum that can traverse the whole length in two hours..
In my model I have broken up the whole length into four so if I defined the WHOLE length equals one hour each division then would equate to 15 minutes in length..
So if I now depicted my model via a few frames or moments in time, I am hoping you can visualize the speed or velocity of our (Doubled line) or increased mass and or density that I have induced to be with momentum.
Frame or moment 1 "----" Here is our initial closed model, where no line has been yet doubled..
Frame 2 "=--" Here is our model after we have defined our increased potential ** Note ** How our Model has adhered to a closed model suggestion via increasing density some where as some of its mass or its length has been exchanged to another dimension (doubled density or thickness in this case)..
Frame 3 "-=-" And here the increased density of mass has been shifted.
Frame 4 "--="
Frame 5 "----" To which once the wave or our compression point has been propagated to the other extremity of our model the model briefly reforms to its original form of four lines rather than three.
In the above CLOSED system or model for our mass, we will note it has been defined with one hour of kinetic Energy, and it should be noted we can increase this if we halve all our (lines) potentials (height in this case) so this would mean our lines would have to be much thinner, in fact we could thin out our line so much we may need a microscope, the only problem is, mass at this level begins to resemble or presents much like we are observing stars and galaxies, so if we are to be practical and or realistic we can only go so far..
Anyway getting back to our single Hour model, Our potential and or increased mass, density and or our potential moves 15 minutes per frame, so if I redefine the 15 minutes to a meter or a foot rather than a time construct..
we would have our potential either with a velocity that is one foot per frame or a meter per frame..
I could also define our frame intervals to be with a different time construct so each frame is one second apart as in every second a frame is defined and with our four lengths "----" each line equates to 299792458 meters in length, this would imply the Model is depicting a Photon or a wave form that is with a velocity @c {Local "c"}
Put simply A two dimensional model of a NEAR-Vacuum propagating a photon or an electromagnetic wave..
But how many here can now imagine our above two dimensional model in an expanded 3D theoretical grid-ding that perhaps considers a galaxy or two?
And if one is capable of that, I wonder how many here are able to apply the grid-ding in such a manner or fashion to imply the compression points to planets, stars, and galaxies so that relativity considerations may present an awe inspiring ephinany about much of practical physics? Err~Thats Practical physics mind you..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen
Hi Laidback.
I understood the model some posts ago.
My point has more to do with the fact that we see the universe as evenly distributed (as a larger view) . This makes it as likely to find the beginning no matter which way I travel. I have no problem with this fact and agree that the universe would be so.
In the model you depicted , the time/mass and I agree with the structure. How it get's there is another matter entirely. Buhk sees ratios and I agree with this also.
If we move away from the discussion on "whole" and Smallest too soon, I think we are risking just repeating known fact/behaviors. It is certainly useful to KNOW what behaviors will result from these thought experiments and you have a great deal of skill in that area in keeping it real.
I was thinking about everyday examples of "master blueprints" and thought DNA was a prime example of a relatively closed system. I say relatively in that it affects the animal it inhabits and nothing else. Here we can see that the master blueprint is held WITHIN the WHOLE and is NOT the whole. Yet it causes each "ratio" to contain it as the base information despite that cell/group of cells being used for totally different functions.
To be sure , the DNA is not the smallest within the WHOLE body, but there is no other master blueprint that the body relies on more. Therefore IN THIS CASE, the master blueprint need not be the first or the last , but somewhere in between.
My point should be clear. If not then our position can be seen in many relative positions in the structure and can be central to the view without either being the smallest or the largest , but by having a foot in every "cell" bring a relative viewpoint.
Cheers
Iseason
I understood the model some posts ago.
My point has more to do with the fact that we see the universe as evenly distributed (as a larger view) . This makes it as likely to find the beginning no matter which way I travel. I have no problem with this fact and agree that the universe would be so.
In the model you depicted , the time/mass and I agree with the structure. How it get's there is another matter entirely. Buhk sees ratios and I agree with this also.
If we move away from the discussion on "whole" and Smallest too soon, I think we are risking just repeating known fact/behaviors. It is certainly useful to KNOW what behaviors will result from these thought experiments and you have a great deal of skill in that area in keeping it real.
I was thinking about everyday examples of "master blueprints" and thought DNA was a prime example of a relatively closed system. I say relatively in that it affects the animal it inhabits and nothing else. Here we can see that the master blueprint is held WITHIN the WHOLE and is NOT the whole. Yet it causes each "ratio" to contain it as the base information despite that cell/group of cells being used for totally different functions.
To be sure , the DNA is not the smallest within the WHOLE body, but there is no other master blueprint that the body relies on more. Therefore IN THIS CASE, the master blueprint need not be the first or the last , but somewhere in between.
My point should be clear. If not then our position can be seen in many relative positions in the structure and can be central to the view without either being the smallest or the largest , but by having a foot in every "cell" bring a relative viewpoint.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 28 2008, 01:50 PM)
Hi Laidback.
I understood the model some posts ago.
My point has more to do with the fact that we see the universe as evenly distributed (as a larger view) . This makes it as likely to find the beginning no matter which way I travel.
I understood the model some posts ago.
My point has more to do with the fact that we see the universe as evenly distributed (as a larger view) . This makes it as likely to find the beginning no matter which way I travel.
I would go as far as stating any given point is the start and end so on change we have an ending and a beginning, which I should point out is but another dimension where there may be many scales and or reciprocal ratios in action
I agree, concur with both you and buhk,
And with your DNA/RNA inference, you have pointed out once again as to how important two ratios or expressions are the basis for an important component that exists as a truth expression..
In fact everything possible is governed by the same Rule..
Where "Two ratios present as a whole", and each of these INDIVIDUAL ratios or values can also be a component of other truth statements, as in another reciprocal Ratio expressing else and perhaps even to a scale many times smaller than we could ever imagine with the reciprocal being to a scale that details with several million galaxies!..
Or for example else may be a perfect density to a molecule making it open to combine with another molecule that may be a critical quantity for the molecule to express at another level a critical function that if changed could actually have the molecule expressing the cell using it for its structure as being Cancer if a wrong molecule is combined to the cell..
For example we may have umpteen Molecules in a DNA Strand where only one molecule is our above that is yet to experience a velocity, to which when it does, that velocity was only possible via another RNA molecules proximity, to which the two molecules via the lack of proper opposing velocities between them are exerted to each other, BTW most today would still refer to this binding as an attraction, which is wrong!
Ref: Force and Motion Laws..
Anyway once the two molecules are exerted together the molecules ratio is now much the same as any other molecules with the same label bar one undetectable set of opposing velocities that has the cell open to change at an abnormal rate..
I should point out at this time when the two molecules bind velocities would change elsewhere in the DNA and RNA strand, where the strand will increase in complexity with the introduction of other molecules that is with the right lacking velocities where each will be exerted perfectly to complete yet another molecular expression completing the cells structure, but each molecule also is expressing in many other realms and or ratios that may complete enough information for one cell to be with a particular function, which is all defined by all of the basic reciprocating ratios of each and every velocity, but in this case we have a cancerous cell that is about to run amok due to a single ratio at a level that may seem unimportant until someone with much the same reasoning as I, considers just how important each and every opposing velocity may be critical if we are to fully understand ALL physics, that is physics that may not entail biological systems and or expressions..
Nuff waffling..
Err~I hope in the past, I have been clear that for a Proton to be possible we need two or more opposing velocities, that's two or more potentials with opposing momentum converging and then merging - And as the potentials merge their momentum's value is exchanged to a new Protons {potential value} (a compression point), mind you this wont be proven for at least another half a century or so from now, so at this point as far as I know I am alone with this exceptional model that is with strict adhesion to Force and Motion concepts considered at all levels of physics..
Anyway should this proton experience another proton much like it to be within a close proximity via respective {Repulsive force via the stored opposing velocities}, we can be rest assured - In between them we have an electron (compression point incorectly expressed and or implied in this century as attractive) as most learned-ed physicists in this century thus far - are convinced the electron binds the two Protons together..
Which is wrong! Should we consider and have our physics adhere to Force and Motion laws, as per how I describe how a Particle or density is possible..
I agree, concur with both you and buhk,
And with your DNA/RNA inference, you have pointed out once again as to how important two ratios or expressions are the basis for an important component that exists as a truth expression..
In fact everything possible is governed by the same Rule..
Where "Two ratios present as a whole", and each of these INDIVIDUAL ratios or values can also be a component of other truth statements, as in another reciprocal Ratio expressing else and perhaps even to a scale many times smaller than we could ever imagine with the reciprocal being to a scale that details with several million galaxies!..
Or for example else may be a perfect density to a molecule making it open to combine with another molecule that may be a critical quantity for the molecule to express at another level a critical function that if changed could actually have the molecule expressing the cell using it for its structure as being Cancer if a wrong molecule is combined to the cell..
For example we may have umpteen Molecules in a DNA Strand where only one molecule is our above that is yet to experience a velocity, to which when it does, that velocity was only possible via another RNA molecules proximity, to which the two molecules via the lack of proper opposing velocities between them are exerted to each other, BTW most today would still refer to this binding as an attraction, which is wrong!
Ref: Force and Motion Laws..
Anyway once the two molecules are exerted together the molecules ratio is now much the same as any other molecules with the same label bar one undetectable set of opposing velocities that has the cell open to change at an abnormal rate..
I should point out at this time when the two molecules bind velocities would change elsewhere in the DNA and RNA strand, where the strand will increase in complexity with the introduction of other molecules that is with the right lacking velocities where each will be exerted perfectly to complete yet another molecular expression completing the cells structure, but each molecule also is expressing in many other realms and or ratios that may complete enough information for one cell to be with a particular function, which is all defined by all of the basic reciprocating ratios of each and every velocity, but in this case we have a cancerous cell that is about to run amok due to a single ratio at a level that may seem unimportant until someone with much the same reasoning as I, considers just how important each and every opposing velocity may be critical if we are to fully understand ALL physics, that is physics that may not entail biological systems and or expressions..
Nuff waffling..
Err~I hope in the past, I have been clear that for a Proton to be possible we need two or more opposing velocities, that's two or more potentials with opposing momentum converging and then merging - And as the potentials merge their momentum's value is exchanged to a new Protons {potential value} (a compression point), mind you this wont be proven for at least another half a century or so from now, so at this point as far as I know I am alone with this exceptional model that is with strict adhesion to Force and Motion concepts considered at all levels of physics..
Anyway should this proton experience another proton much like it to be within a close proximity via respective {Repulsive force via the stored opposing velocities}, we can be rest assured - In between them we have an electron (compression point incorectly expressed and or implied in this century as attractive) as most learned-ed physicists in this century thus far - are convinced the electron binds the two Protons together..
Which is wrong! Should we consider and have our physics adhere to Force and Motion laws, as per how I describe how a Particle or density is possible.. My point should be clear. If not then our position can be seen in many relative positions in the structure and can be central to the view without either being the smallest or the largest , but by having a foot in every "cell" bring a relative viewpoint.
As I like to see it: Universe is fundamentally event based - and can best be described as how one event is followed by the next - and I like to define an event as this flash-expression of a configuration of smallest dimensions in space. The flash lasts as long as the flash last .
Hi Bukh, Laidback
Welcome Back Bukh. The above quoted portion I agree with. A flash, Having nothing with which to compare itself, Cannot know "time" and so has no affect on it and. This creates an anti causal Universe at this level.
In other words, Each "event" that is separated out is unique and non-interactive. Only when we are considering multiple events can we create an informational medium. So my last post tells a story of how information builds from Singular events to become informationally useful.
By looking at where we CAN use information, we can see "via empty space" how much is "below the surface". Since VOID cannot in reality exist, The space which appears empty must be said to contain information which we cannot readily access. To remain consistent, the methodology of transferring from useless to useful space must occur via motion.
The realm of unavailable space can be measured by the free space. If space is 100% , then the mass we can see is 10%, then the scale of "below the surface" energy can be 90%....If Laidback wants to break the universe up into these parameters they will work. But they MUST always remain at these percentages to make sense.
So 100% is achieved when we can see something in space...And to be "EVERYTHING" or WHOLE it needs to do nothing else. because every event IS 100% of the energy being shown. The confusion comes because we can see the 100% of energy as relative multiple events....OF ITSELF.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE
I have no problem with this fact and agree that the universe would be so.
In the model you depicted , the time/mass and I agree with the structure. How it gets there is another matter entirely. Buhk sees ratios and I agree with this also.
If we move away from the discussion on "whole" and Smallest too soon, I think we are risking just repeating known fact/behaviors. It is certainly useful to KNOW what behaviors will result from these thought experiments and you have a great deal of skill in that area in keeping it real.
I was thinking about everyday examples of "master blueprints" and thought DNA was a prime example of a relatively closed system. I say relatively in that it affects the animal it inhabits and nothing else. Here we can see that the master blueprint is held WITHIN the WHOLE and is NOT the whole. Yet it causes each "ratio" to contain it as the base information despite that cell/group of cells being used for totally different functions.
To be sure , the DNA is not the smallest within the WHOLE body, but there is no other master blueprint that the body relies on more. Therefore IN THIS CASE, the master blueprint need not be the first or the last , but somewhere in between.
Cheers
Iseason
In the model you depicted , the time/mass and I agree with the structure. How it gets there is another matter entirely. Buhk sees ratios and I agree with this also.
If we move away from the discussion on "whole" and Smallest too soon, I think we are risking just repeating known fact/behaviors. It is certainly useful to KNOW what behaviors will result from these thought experiments and you have a great deal of skill in that area in keeping it real.
I was thinking about everyday examples of "master blueprints" and thought DNA was a prime example of a relatively closed system. I say relatively in that it affects the animal it inhabits and nothing else. Here we can see that the master blueprint is held WITHIN the WHOLE and is NOT the whole. Yet it causes each "ratio" to contain it as the base information despite that cell/group of cells being used for totally different functions.
To be sure , the DNA is not the smallest within the WHOLE body, but there is no other master blueprint that the body relies on more. Therefore IN THIS CASE, the master blueprint need not be the first or the last , but somewhere in between.
Cheers
Iseason
I agree, concur with both you and buhk,
And with your DNA/RNA inference, you have pointed out once again as to how important two ratios or expressions are the basis for an important component that exists as a truth expression..
In fact everything possible is governed by the same Rule..
Where "Two ratios present as a whole", and each of these INDIVIDUAL ratios or values can also be a component of other truth statements, as in another reciprocal Ratio expressing else and perhaps even to a scale many times smaller than we could ever imagine with the reciprocal being to a scale that details with several million galaxies!..
Or for example else may be a perfect density to a molecule making it open to combine with another molecule that may be a critical quantity for the molecule to express at another level a critical function that if changed could actually have the molecule expressing the cell using it for its structure as being Cancer if a wrong molecule is combined to the cell..
For example we may have umpteen Molecules in a DNA Strand where only one molecule is our above that is yet to experience a velocity, to which when it does, that velocity was only possible via another RNA molecules proximity, to which the two molecules via the lack of proper opposing velocities between them are exerted to each other, BTW most today would still refer to this binding as an attraction, which is wrong!
Ref: Force and Motion Laws..
Anyway once the two molecules are exerted together the molecules ratio is now much the same as any other molecules with the same label bar one undetectable set of opposing velocities that has the cell open to change at an abnormal rate..
I should point out at this time when the two molecules bind velocities would change elsewhere in the DNA and RNA strand, where the strand will increase in complexity with the introduction of other molecules that is with the right lacking velocities where each will be exerted perfectly to complete yet another molecular expression completing the cells structure, but each molecule also is expressing in many other realms and or ratios that may complete enough information for one cell to be with a particular function, which is all defined by all of the basic reciprocating ratios of each and every velocity, but in this case we have a cancerous cell that is about to run amok due to a single ratio at a level that may seem unimportant until someone with much the same reasoning as I, considers just how important each and every opposing velocity may be critical if we are to fully understand ALL physics, that is physics that may not entail biological systems and or expressions..
Nuff waffling..
Err~I hope in the past, I have been clear that for a Proton to be possible we need two or more opposing velocities, that's two or more potentials with opposing momentum converging and then merging - And as the potentials merge their momentum's value is exchanged to a new Protons {potential value} (a compression point), mind you this wont be proven for at least another half a century or so from now, so at this point as far as I know I am alone with this exceptional model that is with strict adhesion to Force and Motion concepts considered at all levels of physics..
Anyway should this proton experience another proton much like it to be within a close proximity via respective {Repulsive force via the stored opposing velocities}, we can be rest assured - In between them we have an electron (compression point incorectly expressed and or implied in this century as attractive) as most learned-ed physicists in this century thus far - are convinced the electron binds the two Protons together..
Which is wrong! Should we consider and have our physics adhere to Force and Motion laws, as per how I describe how a Particle or density is possible..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have no problem with this fact and agree that the universe would be so. In the model you depicted , the time/mass and I agree with the structure. How it gets there is another matter entirely. Buhk sees ratios and I agree with this also. If we move away from the discussion on "whole" and Smallest too soon, I think we are risking just repeating known fact/behaviors. It is certainly useful to KNOW what behaviors will result from these thought experiments and you have a great deal of skill in that area in keeping it real. I was thinking about everyday examples of "master blueprints" and thought DNA was a prime example of a relatively closed system. I say relatively in that it affects the animal it inhabits and nothing else. Here we can see that the master blueprint is held WITHIN the WHOLE and is NOT the whole. Yet it causes each "ratio" to contain it as the base information despite that cell/group of cells being used for totally different functions. To be sure , the DNA is not the smallest within the WHOLE body, but there is no other master blueprint that the body relies on more. Therefore IN THIS CASE, the master blueprint need not be the first or the last , but somewhere in between. Cheers Iseason |
I agree, concur with both you and buhk,
And with your DNA/RNA inference, you have pointed out once again as to how important two ratios or expressions are the basis for an important component that exists as a truth expression..
In fact everything possible is governed by the same Rule..
Where "Two ratios present as a whole", and each of these INDIVIDUAL ratios or values can also be a component of other truth statements, as in another reciprocal Ratio expressing else and perhaps even to a scale many times smaller than we could ever imagine with the reciprocal being to a scale that details with several million galaxies!..
Or for example else may be a perfect density to a molecule making it open to combine with another molecule that may be a critical quantity for the molecule to express at another level a critical function that if changed could actually have the molecule expressing the cell using it for its structure as being Cancer if a wrong molecule is combined to the cell..
For example we may have umpteen Molecules in a DNA Strand where only one molecule is our above that is yet to experience a velocity, to which when it does, that velocity was only possible via another RNA molecules proximity, to which the two molecules via the lack of proper opposing velocities between them are exerted to each other, BTW most today would still refer to this binding as an attraction, which is wrong!
Ref: Force and Motion Laws..
Anyway once the two molecules are exerted together the molecules ratio is now much the same as any other molecules with the same label bar one undetectable set of opposing velocities that has the cell open to change at an abnormal rate..
I should point out at this time when the two molecules bind velocities would change elsewhere in the DNA and RNA strand, where the strand will increase in complexity with the introduction of other molecules that is with the right lacking velocities where each will be exerted perfectly to complete yet another molecular expression completing the cells structure, but each molecule also is expressing in many other realms and or ratios that may complete enough information for one cell to be with a particular function, which is all defined by all of the basic reciprocating ratios of each and every velocity, but in this case we have a cancerous cell that is about to run amok due to a single ratio at a level that may seem unimportant until someone with much the same reasoning as I, considers just how important each and every opposing velocity may be critical if we are to fully understand ALL physics, that is physics that may not entail biological systems and or expressions..
Nuff waffling..
Err~I hope in the past, I have been clear that for a Proton to be possible we need two or more opposing velocities, that's two or more potentials with opposing momentum converging and then merging - And as the potentials merge their momentum's value is exchanged to a new Protons {potential value} (a compression point), mind you this wont be proven for at least another half a century or so from now, so at this point as far as I know I am alone with this exceptional model that is with strict adhesion to Force and Motion concepts considered at all levels of physics..
Anyway should this proton experience another proton much like it to be within a close proximity via respective {Repulsive force via the stored opposing velocities}, we can be rest assured - In between them we have an electron (compression point incorectly expressed and or implied in this century as attractive) as most learned-ed physicists in this century thus far - are convinced the electron binds the two Protons together..
Which is wrong! Should we consider and have our physics adhere to Force and Motion laws, as per how I describe how a Particle or density is possible.. My point should be clear. If not then our position can be seen in many relative positions in the structure and can be central to the view without either being the smallest or the largest , but by having a foot in every "cell" bring a relative viewpoint.
Its for this reason I prefer to reference Energy or values of it..
And I spelt value as values for good reason, as even this is with a ratio of what is stored and or with a relative rigidity to it - To what and or is with change or better yet in a state of reciprocating two or even more values of internal Potentials, which BTW must all adhere to a basic truth statement..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
And I spelt value as values for good reason, as even this is with a ratio of what is stored and or with a relative rigidity to it - To what and or is with change or better yet in a state of reciprocating two or even more values of internal Potentials, which BTW must all adhere to a basic truth statement..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi all
Having read the last post , I want to return to a line of thought I put forwards some time ago. This was :
That the universe was made of evenly distributed energy and space was no different in this respect.
This meant that a finite area of space existed and that the cycle which we follow was built to the point where only one "run through" was necessary to equal a quanta.
In other words if a quanta was made up of ten units, then nine units were already present in any given pixel of space..(the actual math is irrelevant). A quanta of energy is actually OVER the amount that other space in close proximity contains (near vacuum) and so the movement of energy between the points is easily achieved.
however, I have always maintained that a space can only be occupied once. I see no reason to abandon this and see that attractive and repulsive forces can be ruled via this law.
Cheers
Iseason
Having read the last post , I want to return to a line of thought I put forwards some time ago. This was :
That the universe was made of evenly distributed energy and space was no different in this respect.
This meant that a finite area of space existed and that the cycle which we follow was built to the point where only one "run through" was necessary to equal a quanta.
In other words if a quanta was made up of ten units, then nine units were already present in any given pixel of space..(the actual math is irrelevant). A quanta of energy is actually OVER the amount that other space in close proximity contains (near vacuum) and so the movement of energy between the points is easily achieved.
however, I have always maintained that a space can only be occupied once. I see no reason to abandon this and see that attractive and repulsive forces can be ruled via this law.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Oct 29 2008, 02:52 PM)
Hi all
Having read the last post , I want to return to a line of thought I put forwards some time ago. This was :
That the universe was made of evenly distributed energy and space was no different in this respect.
This meant that a finite area of space existed and that the cycle which we follow was built to the point where only one "run through" was necessary to equal a quanta.
In other words if a quanta was made up of ten units, then nine units were already present in any given pixel of space..(the actual math is irrelevant). A quanta of energy is actually OVER the amount that other space in close proximity contains (near vacuum) and so the movement of energy between the points is easily achieved.
however, I have always maintained that a space can only be occupied once. I see no reason to abandon this and see that attractive and repulsive forces can be ruled via this law.
Cheers
Iseason
Ahh,
Back on line..
I missed you all..
Iseason may I ask how attraction is possible?
As for the life of me, I can see how force can be repulsive via its stored velocities but when a force is referred to as attractive, to me it refers to the impossible..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Having read the last post , I want to return to a line of thought I put forwards some time ago. This was :
That the universe was made of evenly distributed energy and space was no different in this respect.
This meant that a finite area of space existed and that the cycle which we follow was built to the point where only one "run through" was necessary to equal a quanta.
In other words if a quanta was made up of ten units, then nine units were already present in any given pixel of space..(the actual math is irrelevant). A quanta of energy is actually OVER the amount that other space in close proximity contains (near vacuum) and so the movement of energy between the points is easily achieved.
however, I have always maintained that a space can only be occupied once. I see no reason to abandon this and see that attractive and repulsive forces can be ruled via this law.
Cheers
Iseason
Ahh,
Back on line..
I missed you all..
Iseason may I ask how attraction is possible?
As for the life of me, I can see how force can be repulsive via its stored velocities but when a force is referred to as attractive, to me it refers to the impossible..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 20 2008, 05:00 PM)
Ahh,
Back on line..
I missed you all..
Iseason may I ask how attraction is possible?
As for the life of me, I can see how force can be repulsive via its stored velocities but when a force is referred to as attractive, to me it refers to the impossible..
WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY! PARTY TIME!
WELCOME BACK, WELCOME BACK, WELCOME BACK, WELCOME BACK!
WELCOME BACK!
Laidback, you get the canapes!
Steven, you get the r-dirves! (Unless you know French! Then, bring us a bastârde al'orange
Tikay, caviar, please!
AN, you bring the broccoli and celery platter! (Well... Euler would drop it.)
I will personally bring the Wisconsin whiskey -100 % genuine bootleg!
PARTY TIME!
You can have an energy quantum above the amount that other neighbor spaces... as long as its empty space has connections that are "claimable" by other things. This takes a wild leap of faith, that "energy" is an inner relationship that is also an external relationship. It's a leap of faith, of course, but we need a good reason to make the Big Bang palatable; the leap of faith would be in assuming that there were spaces outside of the primordial matter point that claimed ownership of the inner space at a tipping point, thereby fueling the bang.
Uh, attractive and repulsive forces, uh? Mmmmmm... Hold your breath, I will come up with them real soon now... I have an idea but little sticks don't really convince anyone...
... unless they are celery...
Back on line..
I missed you all..
Iseason may I ask how attraction is possible?
As for the life of me, I can see how force can be repulsive via its stored velocities but when a force is referred to as attractive, to me it refers to the impossible..
WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY! PARTY TIME!
WELCOME BACK, WELCOME BACK, WELCOME BACK, WELCOME BACK!
WELCOME BACK!
Laidback, you get the canapes!
Steven, you get the r-dirves! (Unless you know French! Then, bring us a bastârde al'orange
Tikay, caviar, please!
AN, you bring the broccoli and celery platter! (Well... Euler would drop it.)
I will personally bring the Wisconsin whiskey -100 % genuine bootleg!
PARTY TIME!
QUOTE
A quanta of energy is actually OVER the amount that other space in close proximity contains (near vacuum) and so the movement of energy between the points is easily achieved.
however, I have always maintained that a space can only be occupied once. I see no reason to abandon this and see that attractive and repulsive forces can be ruled via this law.
however, I have always maintained that a space can only be occupied once. I see no reason to abandon this and see that attractive and repulsive forces can be ruled via this law.
You can have an energy quantum above the amount that other neighbor spaces... as long as its empty space has connections that are "claimable" by other things. This takes a wild leap of faith, that "energy" is an inner relationship that is also an external relationship. It's a leap of faith, of course, but we need a good reason to make the Big Bang palatable; the leap of faith would be in assuming that there were spaces outside of the primordial matter point that claimed ownership of the inner space at a tipping point, thereby fueling the bang.
Uh, attractive and repulsive forces, uh? Mmmmmm... Hold your breath, I will come up with them real soon now... I have an idea but little sticks don't really convince anyone...
... unless they are celery...
Hi Guys
No reply in this post
Just a genuine , warm and sincere
Welcome back you bunch of coneheads..!!!
[SIZE=1]Cheers
Iseason
No reply in this post
Just a genuine , warm and sincere
Welcome back you bunch of coneheads..!!!
[SIZE=1]Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Nov 21 2008, 12:48 AM)
Welcome back you bunch of coneheads..!!!
Right back at you, iseason!
Right back at you, iseason!
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 21 2008, 10:00 AM)
Ahh,
Back on line..
I missed you all..
Iseason may I ask how attraction is possible?
As for the life of me, I can see how force can be repulsive via its stored velocities but when a force is referred to as attractive, to me it refers to the impossible..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback..All
I need to refer to the grid picture again...Let's say our Snapshot is of a range where everything is stationary to everything else..(much like a photograph).
The 'pixels/mass' which are occupied will equal ten....Those that are not will equal nine......Now a mass/occupied pixel in this post is a quanta and does not refer to bulk.If an area of mass is dense, it just means there are more tens in that area....
Since we are snapshotting "all of space" , The next snapshot is referring to one change in position of the whole of space. Each position that previously equaled ten once more reduces to nine and the position in the direction of motion gains one to become ten........
The attractive force is ORDER......Not the next position. The next position did not claim anything from it's predecessor, but is the next logical progression in the order.
The repulsive force is likewise ORDER....And has nothing to do with the pixel behind it....It just so happens that the universal order put the sequence together , REQUIRING that the positions be occupied in this way....
Please rember that I postulate that only ONE position is ever ACTUALLY occupied AS A QUANTA....So the universal order remains intact...If we Snapshot universally without time, we would still be left with a single quanta of energy...
BUT ....I can also be convinced that the quanta is built from the bottom up....And what we actually get is the result of several shifts in order until in the end, we see the universe as relativity dictates...
The reason this can be so is that it gives an answer to the aether and what is "Near vacuum"....Why does mass need to be in constant motion and how photons can exchange energy through time ....
Cheers
Iseason
Back on line..
I missed you all..
Iseason may I ask how attraction is possible?
As for the life of me, I can see how force can be repulsive via its stored velocities but when a force is referred to as attractive, to me it refers to the impossible..
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback..All
I need to refer to the grid picture again...Let's say our Snapshot is of a range where everything is stationary to everything else..(much like a photograph).
The 'pixels/mass' which are occupied will equal ten....Those that are not will equal nine......Now a mass/occupied pixel in this post is a quanta and does not refer to bulk.If an area of mass is dense, it just means there are more tens in that area....
Since we are snapshotting "all of space" , The next snapshot is referring to one change in position of the whole of space. Each position that previously equaled ten once more reduces to nine and the position in the direction of motion gains one to become ten........
The attractive force is ORDER......Not the next position. The next position did not claim anything from it's predecessor, but is the next logical progression in the order.
The repulsive force is likewise ORDER....And has nothing to do with the pixel behind it....It just so happens that the universal order put the sequence together , REQUIRING that the positions be occupied in this way....
Please rember that I postulate that only ONE position is ever ACTUALLY occupied AS A QUANTA....So the universal order remains intact...If we Snapshot universally without time, we would still be left with a single quanta of energy...
BUT ....I can also be convinced that the quanta is built from the bottom up....And what we actually get is the result of several shifts in order until in the end, we see the universe as relativity dictates...
The reason this can be so is that it gives an answer to the aether and what is "Near vacuum"....Why does mass need to be in constant motion and how photons can exchange energy through time ....
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Nov 21 2008, 04:18 PM)
Hi Laidback..All
I need to refer to the grid picture again...Let's say our Snapshot is of a range where everything is stationary to everything else..(much like a photograph).
The 'pixels/mass' which are occupied will equal ten....Those that are not will equal nine......Now a mass/occupied pixel in this post is a quanta and does not refer to bulk.If an area of mass is dense, it just means there are more tens in that area....
Since we are snapshotting "all of space" , The next snapshot is referring to one change in position of the whole of space. Each position that previously equaled ten once more reduces to nine and the position in the direction of motion gains one to become ten........
The attractive force is ORDER......Not the next position. The next position did not claim anything from it's predecessor, but is the next logical progression in the order.
The repulsive force is likewise ORDER....And has nothing to do with the pixel behind it....It just so happens that the universal order put the sequence together , REQUIRING that the positions be occupied in this way....
Please rember that I postulate that only ONE position is ever ACTUALLY occupied AS A QUANTA....So the universal order remains intact...If we Snapshot universally without time, we would still be left with a single quanta of energy...
BUT ....I can also be convinced that the quanta is built from the bottom up....And what we actually get is the result of several shifts in order until in the end, we see the universe as relativity dictates...
The reason this can be so is that it gives an answer to the aether and what is "Near vacuum"....Why does mass need to be in constant motion and how photons can exchange energy through time ....
Cheers
Iseason
Cheers,
Peter J schoen..
I need to refer to the grid picture again...Let's say our Snapshot is of a range where everything is stationary to everything else..(much like a photograph).
The 'pixels/mass' which are occupied will equal ten....Those that are not will equal nine......Now a mass/occupied pixel in this post is a quanta and does not refer to bulk.If an area of mass is dense, it just means there are more tens in that area....
Since we are snapshotting "all of space" , The next snapshot is referring to one change in position of the whole of space. Each position that previously equaled ten once more reduces to nine and the position in the direction of motion gains one to become ten........
The attractive force is ORDER......Not the next position. The next position did not claim anything from it's predecessor, but is the next logical progression in the order.
The repulsive force is likewise ORDER....And has nothing to do with the pixel behind it....It just so happens that the universal order put the sequence together , REQUIRING that the positions be occupied in this way....
Please rember that I postulate that only ONE position is ever ACTUALLY occupied AS A QUANTA....So the universal order remains intact...If we Snapshot universally without time, we would still be left with a single quanta of energy...
BUT ....I can also be convinced that the quanta is built from the bottom up....And what we actually get is the result of several shifts in order until in the end, we see the universe as relativity dictates...
The reason this can be so is that it gives an answer to the aether and what is "Near vacuum"....Why does mass need to be in constant motion and how photons can exchange energy through time ....
Cheers
Iseason
Cheers,
Peter J schoen..
When we break it down to its extreme, Infinity is One and Zero at the same time.
There you have it.
One Infinite Zero.
Funny thing about this answer, it is a paradox, because it is saying the Infinity both does and doesn't exist, or better saying that it neither exists nor does it not exist. This is how it is, we cannot measure it, measurement is only possible within confinement. Infinity is impossible to confine, therefor impossible to measure.
There you have it.
One Infinite Zero.
Funny thing about this answer, it is a paradox, because it is saying the Infinity both does and doesn't exist, or better saying that it neither exists nor does it not exist. This is how it is, we cannot measure it, measurement is only possible within confinement. Infinity is impossible to confine, therefor impossible to measure.
QUOTE (iseason+Nov 21 2008, 04:18 PM)
Hi Laidback..All
I need to refer to the grid picture again...Let's say our Snapshot is of a range where everything is stationary to everything else..(much like a photograph).
The 'pixels/mass' which are occupied will equal ten....Those that are not will equal nine......Now a mass/occupied pixel in this post is a quanta and does not refer to bulk.If an area of mass is dense, it just means there are more tens in that area....
Since we are snapshotting "all of space" , The next snapshot is referring to one change in position of the whole of space. Each position that previously equaled ten once more reduces to nine and the position in the direction of motion gains one to become ten........
The attractive force is ORDER......Not the next position. The next position did not claim anything from it's predecessor, but is the next logical progression in the order.
The repulsive force is likewise ORDER....And has nothing to do with the pixel behind it....It just so happens that the universal order put the sequence together , REQUIRING that the positions be occupied in this way....
Please remember that I postulate that only ONE position is ever ACTUALLY occupied AS A QUANTA....So the universal order remains intact...If we Snapshot universally without time, we would still be left with a single quanta of energy...
BUT ....I can also be convinced that the quanta is built from the bottom up....And what we actually get is the result of several shifts in order until in the end, we see the universe as relativity dictates...
The reason this can be so is that it gives an answer to the aether and what is "Near vacuum"....Why does mass need to be in constant motion and how photons can exchange energy through time ....
Cheers
Iseason
I was hoping you were going to consider what has thus far been defined and or taken as a given, with respects to your signature..
For example if we have the Universe is with a given value of energy and because we don't know this value we can only refer to it via percentages.
we begin with 100% of it..
so if we have to explain attraction using all of the Universe, we need to divide our energy up in such a manner that what we observe indeed expresses attraction..
so if I divided the Universes Potential and or value into two and have the two potentials or values present themselves unto each other, then what we have in between the two potentials is a basic expression on attraction..
For example if I were to imply our Universe was a potential that could only express force or velocities to the left and right, I could refer to the following model..
<()> so what we have here is the universes Potential but on dividing it, we would have two potentials each with their respective potential and or value..
<()>()<()> to which the result is in between them we have opposing force and or velocities.. that if considered carefully is a reference to a measurable potential experiencing compression and or gravity just as all densities do, all simply via the two opposing velocities >()< originating from our two potentials in their presentation of thier respective potentials,
And if we consider a model around our relative scale, the more opposing velocities the greater the magnitude of compresion and or the more solid and or stored Energy, but it should be noted if we completely remove any one of our potentials that with another potential expresses attraction, we in fact remove and or make the inference to its resulting attraction redundent, and this to me implies attraction is not a force, but rather a result of two or more forces and or potentials interacting with each other..
Err~ are you with me so far?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I need to refer to the grid picture again...Let's say our Snapshot is of a range where everything is stationary to everything else..(much like a photograph).
The 'pixels/mass' which are occupied will equal ten....Those that are not will equal nine......Now a mass/occupied pixel in this post is a quanta and does not refer to bulk.If an area of mass is dense, it just means there are more tens in that area....
Since we are snapshotting "all of space" , The next snapshot is referring to one change in position of the whole of space. Each position that previously equaled ten once more reduces to nine and the position in the direction of motion gains one to become ten........
The attractive force is ORDER......Not the next position. The next position did not claim anything from it's predecessor, but is the next logical progression in the order.
The repulsive force is likewise ORDER....And has nothing to do with the pixel behind it....It just so happens that the universal order put the sequence together , REQUIRING that the positions be occupied in this way....
Please remember that I postulate that only ONE position is ever ACTUALLY occupied AS A QUANTA....So the universal order remains intact...If we Snapshot universally without time, we would still be left with a single quanta of energy...
BUT ....I can also be convinced that the quanta is built from the bottom up....And what we actually get is the result of several shifts in order until in the end, we see the universe as relativity dictates...
The reason this can be so is that it gives an answer to the aether and what is "Near vacuum"....Why does mass need to be in constant motion and how photons can exchange energy through time ....
Cheers
Iseason
I was hoping you were going to consider what has thus far been defined and or taken as a given, with respects to your signature..
For example if we have the Universe is with a given value of energy and because we don't know this value we can only refer to it via percentages.
we begin with 100% of it..
so if we have to explain attraction using all of the Universe, we need to divide our energy up in such a manner that what we observe indeed expresses attraction..
so if I divided the Universes Potential and or value into two and have the two potentials or values present themselves unto each other, then what we have in between the two potentials is a basic expression on attraction..
For example if I were to imply our Universe was a potential that could only express force or velocities to the left and right, I could refer to the following model..
<()> so what we have here is the universes Potential but on dividing it, we would have two potentials each with their respective potential and or value..
<()>()<()> to which the result is in between them we have opposing force and or velocities.. that if considered carefully is a reference to a measurable potential experiencing compression and or gravity just as all densities do, all simply via the two opposing velocities >()< originating from our two potentials in their presentation of thier respective potentials,
And if we consider a model around our relative scale, the more opposing velocities the greater the magnitude of compresion and or the more solid and or stored Energy, but it should be noted if we completely remove any one of our potentials that with another potential expresses attraction, we in fact remove and or make the inference to its resulting attraction redundent, and this to me implies attraction is not a force, but rather a result of two or more forces and or potentials interacting with each other..
Err~ are you with me so far?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Nov 24 2008, 12:15 PM)
I was hoping you were going to consider what has thus far been defined and or taken as a given, with respects to your signature..
For example if we have the Universe is with a given value of energy and because we don't know this value we can only refer to it via percentages.
we begin with 100% of it..
so if we have to explain attraction using all of the Universe, we need to divide our energy up in such a manner that what we observe indeed expresses attraction..
so if I divided the Universes Potential and or value into two and have the two potentials or values present themselves unto each other, then what we have in between the two potentials is a basic expression on attraction..
For example if I were to imply our Universe was a potential that could only express force or velocities to the left and right, I could refer to the following model..
<()> so what we have here is the universes Potential but on dividing it, we would have two potentials each with their respective potential and or value..
<()>()<()> to which the result is in between them we have opposing force and or velocities.. that if considered carefully is a reference to a measurable potential experiencing compression and or gravity just as all densities do, all simply via the two opposing velocities >()< originating from our two potentials in their presentation of thier respective potentials,
And if we consider a model around our relative scale, the more opposing velocities the greater the magnitude of compresion and or the more solid and or stored Energy, but it should be noted if we completely remove any one of our potentials that with another potential expresses attraction, we in fact remove and or make the inference to its resulting attraction redundent, and this to me implies attraction is not a force, but rather a result of two or more forces and or potentials interacting with each other..
Err~ are you with me so far?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback..
I think we are missing each other here..
You are drawing a picture which is shown in real time only...You are explaining a behaviour which I agree with. My answer is slightly Prior to real time,(while also being ALL TIME)
My reference was to what may be "just below the surface" of the 'real time behaviors'. You are quite strong about the structure which is observable and I am in agreement that it should be so. However, when I look at HOW the vast "near vacuum of space can exist and be instantly utilized via the descriptions you and Bukh are putting forwards, I am "creating the environment" that you are describing.
You see , if space is one state and then another, It opposes itself and can not remain as such for any measure of time. Your theories have a base of two sections that interact, (that is a simplified version), But this would IN FACT ENSURE that NO interaction could EVER take place......Because if they were EVER in such division, Then you require FIRST CAUSE, which ends in heartache when looking into infinite regression theory.( I have seen a few arguments that favor NOT doing infinite regression.
So Although I agree that Space is divided into varying degrees of Haves and have nots, I see the difference is bridges gradually and evenly. So The difference between Mass >0< and void >< (forgive me if I wrote that Wrong) is 10%...Since we ONLY SEE ten percent of the mass that we expect there to be , I think that may go some way to explaining WHERE the other 90% is...
Cheers
Iseason
For example if we have the Universe is with a given value of energy and because we don't know this value we can only refer to it via percentages.
we begin with 100% of it..
so if we have to explain attraction using all of the Universe, we need to divide our energy up in such a manner that what we observe indeed expresses attraction..
so if I divided the Universes Potential and or value into two and have the two potentials or values present themselves unto each other, then what we have in between the two potentials is a basic expression on attraction..
For example if I were to imply our Universe was a potential that could only express force or velocities to the left and right, I could refer to the following model..
<()> so what we have here is the universes Potential but on dividing it, we would have two potentials each with their respective potential and or value..
<()>()<()> to which the result is in between them we have opposing force and or velocities.. that if considered carefully is a reference to a measurable potential experiencing compression and or gravity just as all densities do, all simply via the two opposing velocities >()< originating from our two potentials in their presentation of thier respective potentials,
And if we consider a model around our relative scale, the more opposing velocities the greater the magnitude of compresion and or the more solid and or stored Energy, but it should be noted if we completely remove any one of our potentials that with another potential expresses attraction, we in fact remove and or make the inference to its resulting attraction redundent, and this to me implies attraction is not a force, but rather a result of two or more forces and or potentials interacting with each other..
Err~ are you with me so far?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi Laidback..
I think we are missing each other here..
You are drawing a picture which is shown in real time only...You are explaining a behaviour which I agree with. My answer is slightly Prior to real time,(while also being ALL TIME)
My reference was to what may be "just below the surface" of the 'real time behaviors'. You are quite strong about the structure which is observable and I am in agreement that it should be so. However, when I look at HOW the vast "near vacuum of space can exist and be instantly utilized via the descriptions you and Bukh are putting forwards, I am "creating the environment" that you are describing.
You see , if space is one state and then another, It opposes itself and can not remain as such for any measure of time. Your theories have a base of two sections that interact, (that is a simplified version), But this would IN FACT ENSURE that NO interaction could EVER take place......Because if they were EVER in such division, Then you require FIRST CAUSE, which ends in heartache when looking into infinite regression theory.( I have seen a few arguments that favor NOT doing infinite regression.
So Although I agree that Space is divided into varying degrees of Haves and have nots, I see the difference is bridges gradually and evenly. So The difference between Mass >0< and void >< (forgive me if I wrote that Wrong) is 10%...Since we ONLY SEE ten percent of the mass that we expect there to be , I think that may go some way to explaining WHERE the other 90% is...
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Nov 24 2008, 02:48 PM)
Hi Laidback..
I think we are missing each other here..
You are drawing a picture which is shown in real time only...You are explaining a behaviour which I agree with. My answer is slightly Prior to real time,(while also being ALL TIME)
My reference was to what may be "just below the surface" of the 'real time behaviors'. You are quite strong about the structure which is observable and I am in agreement that it should be so. However, when I look at HOW the vast "near vacuum of space can exist and be instantly utilized via the descriptions you and Bukh are putting forwards, I am "creating the environment" that you are describing.
You see , if space is one state and then another, It opposes itself and can not remain as such for any measure of time. Your theories have a base of two sections that interact, (that is a simplified version), But this would IN FACT ENSURE that NO interaction could EVER take place......Because if they were EVER in such division, Then you require FIRST CAUSE, which ends in heartache when looking into infinite regression theory.( I have seen a few arguments that favor NOT doing infinite regression.
So Although I agree that Space is divided into varying degrees of Haves and have nots, I see the difference is bridges gradually and evenly. So The difference between Mass >0< and void >< (forgive me if I wrote that Wrong) is 10%...Since we ONLY SEE ten percent of the mass that we expect there to be , I think that may go some way to explaining WHERE the other 90% is...
Cheers
Iseason
First let me say there is no such thing as a void..
If that's the case, then I would hazard to guess I would serve this cause best by remaining on the side line..
And for some reason I feel compelled to apologize? As it should have been more freak~n obvious to me.. Err~um~So~we
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I think we are missing each other here..
You are drawing a picture which is shown in real time only...You are explaining a behaviour which I agree with. My answer is slightly Prior to real time,(while also being ALL TIME)
My reference was to what may be "just below the surface" of the 'real time behaviors'. You are quite strong about the structure which is observable and I am in agreement that it should be so. However, when I look at HOW the vast "near vacuum of space can exist and be instantly utilized via the descriptions you and Bukh are putting forwards, I am "creating the environment" that you are describing.
You see , if space is one state and then another, It opposes itself and can not remain as such for any measure of time. Your theories have a base of two sections that interact, (that is a simplified version), But this would IN FACT ENSURE that NO interaction could EVER take place......Because if they were EVER in such division, Then you require FIRST CAUSE, which ends in heartache when looking into infinite regression theory.( I have seen a few arguments that favor NOT doing infinite regression.
So Although I agree that Space is divided into varying degrees of Haves and have nots, I see the difference is bridges gradually and evenly. So The difference between Mass >0< and void >< (forgive me if I wrote that Wrong) is 10%...Since we ONLY SEE ten percent of the mass that we expect there to be , I think that may go some way to explaining WHERE the other 90% is...
Cheers
Iseason
First let me say there is no such thing as a void..
QUOTE
I think we are missing each other here..
You are drawing a picture which is shown in real time only...You are explaining a behaviour which I agree with. My answer is slightly Prior to real time,(while also being ALL TIME)
My reference was to what may be "just below the surface" of the 'real time behaviors'. You are quite strong about the structure which is observable and I am in agreement that it should be so. However, when I look at HOW the vast "near vacuum of space can exist and be instantly utilized via the descriptions you and Bukh are putting forwards, I am "creating the environment" that you are describing.
You are drawing a picture which is shown in real time only...You are explaining a behaviour which I agree with. My answer is slightly Prior to real time,(while also being ALL TIME)
My reference was to what may be "just below the surface" of the 'real time behaviors'. You are quite strong about the structure which is observable and I am in agreement that it should be so. However, when I look at HOW the vast "near vacuum of space can exist and be instantly utilized via the descriptions you and Bukh are putting forwards, I am "creating the environment" that you are describing.
If that's the case, then I would hazard to guess I would serve this cause best by remaining on the side line..And for some reason I feel compelled to apologize?
As it should have been more freak~n obvious to me.. Err~um~So~weCheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hey Guys
I see that You have already jumped the gun - so I have to catch up
Quote Iseason:
"You see , if space is one state and then another, It opposes itself and can not remain as such for any measure of time. Your theories have a base of two sections that interact, (that is a simplified version), But this would IN FACT ENSURE that NO interaction could EVER take place......Because if they were EVER in such division, Then you require FIRST CAUSE, which ends in heartache when looking into infinite regression theory.( I have seen a few arguments that favor NOT doing infinite regression."
I think I get the gist of what you are hinting at - and I agree that it is not that simple to get event-based universe to function together with the concept of interaction.
As I like to see it: Universe is fundamentally event based - and can best be described as how one event is followed by the next - and I like to define an event as this flash-expression of a configuration of smallest dimensions in space. The flash lasts as long as the flash last - meaning until it is being replaced by the next. So flash by itself has no defined amount of time/length of time - it is just a number in a row - it is one in a long row - time is a derived function of such events - and time is the mere ordering system of events as they happen. So there exist no interaction - no communication from event to event when we are looking at smallest scale of dimensions.
So there exist only one OBJECTIVE Universe and it is flash-like oscillating into existence - and each UNIVERSE EXISTS ONLY ONCE.
But now to the "binding-together-principle" the INTERACTION from flash to flash.
And this has to do with the wave-particle interrelationship.
Fundamentally I think that particle-wave is freely interchangeable - and it gives inertia or memory in the system.
Smallest dimensions are arranging and re-arranging themselves so as to make configurations of "bigger" dimensions that show best fit (least free void between particles) and when such a best fit in said scale has been achieved - the only way of getting an ever better fit is when smallest dimensions divides into even smaller - making it possible to "re-construct" a scale into an even better fit. This is the ultimate driving force of Universe, securing that absolutely stable repeating configurations is not being reached.
Now imagine that a wave is being expressed via such quake-like re-arrangements of dimensions - and such waves enter into standing stable wave-patterns that themselves express a particle structure - and that such particle structures themselves re-arrange to get best fit in said scale of such new "dimensions1" - this is the INERTIA in the system - this is the interaction from flash to flash.
I see that You have already jumped the gun - so I have to catch up
Quote Iseason:
"You see , if space is one state and then another, It opposes itself and can not remain as such for any measure of time. Your theories have a base of two sections that interact, (that is a simplified version), But this would IN FACT ENSURE that NO interaction could EVER take place......Because if they were EVER in such division, Then you require FIRST CAUSE, which ends in heartache when looking into infinite regression theory.( I have seen a few arguments that favor NOT doing infinite regression."
I think I get the gist of what you are hinting at - and I agree that it is not that simple to get event-based universe to function together with the concept of interaction.
As I like to see it: Universe is fundamentally event based - and can best be described as how one event is followed by the next - and I like to define an event as this flash-expression of a configuration of smallest dimensions in space. The flash lasts as long as the flash last - meaning until it is being replaced by the next. So flash by itself has no defined amount of time/length of time - it is just a number in a row - it is one in a long row - time is a derived function of such events - and time is the mere ordering system of events as they happen. So there exist no interaction - no communication from event to event when we are looking at smallest scale of dimensions.
So there exist only one OBJECTIVE Universe and it is flash-like oscillating into existence - and each UNIVERSE EXISTS ONLY ONCE.
But now to the "binding-together-principle" the INTERACTION from flash to flash.
And this has to do with the wave-particle interrelationship.
Fundamentally I think that particle-wave is freely interchangeable - and it gives inertia or memory in the system.
Smallest dimensions are arranging and re-arranging themselves so as to make configurations of "bigger" dimensions that show best fit (least free void between particles) and when such a best fit in said scale has been achieved - the only way of getting an ever better fit is when smallest dimensions divides into even smaller - making it possible to "re-construct" a scale into an even better fit. This is the ultimate driving force of Universe, securing that absolutely stable repeating configurations is not being reached.
Now imagine that a wave is being expressed via such quake-like re-arrangements of dimensions - and such waves enter into standing stable wave-patterns that themselves express a particle structure - and that such particle structures themselves re-arrange to get best fit in said scale of such new "dimensions1" - this is the INERTIA in the system - this is the interaction from flash to flash.
QUOTE (bukh+Nov 27 2008, 09:00 AM)
As I like to see it: Universe is fundamentally event based - and can best be described as how one event is followed by the next - and I like to define an event as this flash-expression of a configuration of smallest dimensions in space. The flash lasts as long as the flash last .
Hi Bukh, Laidback
Welcome Back Bukh. The above quoted portion I agree with. A flash, Having nothing with which to compare itself, Cannot know "time" and so has no affect on it and. This creates an anti causal Universe at this level.
In other words, Each "event" that is separated out is unique and non-interactive. Only when we are considering multiple events can we create an informational medium. So my last post tells a story of how information builds from Singular events to become informationally useful.
By looking at where we CAN use information, we can see "via empty space" how much is "below the surface". Since VOID cannot in reality exist, The space which appears empty must be said to contain information which we cannot readily access. To remain consistent, the methodology of transferring from useless to useful space must occur via motion.
The realm of unavailable space can be measured by the free space. If space is 100% , then the mass we can see is 10%, then the scale of "below the surface" energy can be 90%....If Laidback wants to break the universe up into these parameters they will work. But they MUST always remain at these percentages to make sense.
So 100% is achieved when we can see something in space...And to be "EVERYTHING" or WHOLE it needs to do nothing else. because every event IS 100% of the energy being shown. The confusion comes because we can see the 100% of energy as relative multiple events....OF ITSELF.
Cheers
Iseason
Hej Iseason - Laidback
QUOTE: "because every event IS 100% of the energy being shown."
Exactly - or perhaps better to say "being expressed"
And as rightly stated - NOTHING can be seen without "motion" - or as You say: "To remain consistent, the methodology of transferring from useless to useful space must occur via motion.
And this is where the wave-particle duality enter into force.
We are so accustomed to think that we can see something in space - that we can see a particle in space if we use "our radar" - but there exist no such thing in space as particles in that respect - what we can "see" is the wave-like informations that we receive by our Antenna - which is our brain.
Everything that we percept is in the form of de-coding of in-coming signals to our antenna - and the de-coding is IN SITU - happens at the very instant and the very place of the antenna. Each such de-coding events are like a "Sample" of the surroundings, and such samplings are being collected as "pictures in a movie" and later played by our mind to present as a "particle"
We make samplings of the surroundings by receiving and de-coding the wave-patterns that are being sent to us from surroundings - even the closest of our surroundings (pixel to pixel) communicate via a wave.
And the question is: What can we decode - and I like to think that we can de-code two qualities 1) frequency (time related) and 2) angle (dimensionality related) - and that is also why I like to think that PHYSICAL Universe is essentially based upon "EVENTS DEFINED BY DIMENSIONAL RECONFIGURATIONS IN SPACE"
"Particle - Wave-Duality" IS not strange - it would be very strange if we could percept anything without having the wave-function at hand -
And now the question - Why and How waves - ? what is their origin - what is there drive - from where do they get their "energy" ?
I say that waves are the equivalents of quake-like adjustments of how dimensions fit in space - dimensions are striving to get the best fit - and this involves an ever ongoing re-configuration where smallest dimensions try to build particle structures that show a better and better fit - like shaking grains in a bag and see how the grains try to place themselves relative to the other to get least air in-between.
And now the good question - why is this an ever ongoing process - ?
Simply because smallest dimensions are being divided in smaller and smaller - this is an ever ongoing division proces - how space - how dimension1 is being divided in more and more ratios - and this gives rise to an ever incrasing ability to achieve better and better dimensional fit in space.
The above concept is a simple way of explaining and understanding the thermodynamic 1 and 2 law -
FIRST LAW is a logic consequence of how energy fundamentally can be defined as CHANGE - and there is a one-to-one relation between the "size" of the change and the amount of energy involved.
There is a 100% expression of universal energy at each flash - "Universe exists only once" - and energy will always be expressed as either Potential or as Kinetic - and potential is the same as the rest mass and kinetic is the same as momentum. The only difference between potential and kinetic, respectively, is whether smallest dimensions HAVE NOT changed their configuration, or whether they HAVE changed their configuration, ALL dimensions are being presented. (And already now it is a question whether it is possible for dimensions to show EXACTLY the same configuration in the next following flash expression - perhaps it is better to say that rest-mass is a reflection of changes too small to be measured in the frame of observation)
SECOND LAW - The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
The key insight is that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes, - the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. With the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference - creates the time-arrow.
Now the question WHY - HOW - WHAT drives Universe to be inherently active - and what is the gradient.
I like to think that the gradient is "Free Void" - and the drive is Univers's strive for achieving least free void - which can be achieved by arranging dimensions such that they show the best overall fit - gives rise to the least free void in between particle structures.
This is a complex and ongoing arranging and re-arranging of all dimensionalities in space and it is being scale wise arranged.
I have previously explained how the Origin of physical universe was the "Unfolding" - when Dimension1 - same as Space - best defined as one "object" of SAMENESS - how this object divided in two - so as to make it possible to say if something belongs to this or to that. And this binary dividing process has been going on ever since - "granulating" space into smaller and smaller ratios - and each and any such "Granule" or smallest dimension have a well defined position relative to all other smallest dimensions - and this relative position will never change. A smallest dimension is being characterized by its relative position. Space is filled up with such smallest dimensions - and what drives space to be inherently active is this ever ongoing strive for arranging smallest dimensions in such a way that they achieve the best overall fit.
Smallest dimensions configure themselves into a grid-like structure - shoulder by shoulder - that I refer to as the 3D pixel grid. Each time there is a re-arrangement between two such smallest particles (pixels) - such an re-arrangement will spread like a domino effect - which is the same as a wave-like expression in the spacefabric. And such waves will enter into repeating patterns - and form standing wave-systems - gliding over the grid, and this is how the Pixel grid express "moving" particles in our physical world.
And now - what was it that triggered the re-arrangement - that was the misfit - the free void between smallest particles - and then one would say that such an optimal fit would be reached soone or later - Yes - right - if smallest dimensions were a uniform collection of same "size" . same ratio of space - but they are not.
There is on ongoing binary division of smallest dimensions - and each time smallest get smaller - there is a chance to further improve the overall fit - to further continue these re-arrangements.
At origin - at the unfolding - where dimension1 segregate into two - the misfit between these two new objects are maximal - and it is only by continuing divisions - that the dimensions get a better and better fit in space - that the total amount of free void is being minimized - one arrow process - and it is executed via the "law of maximum entropy production" which is the path or assembly of paths that minimizes the potential (maximizes the entropy) at the fastest rate given the constraints - In short, no matter how the system is arranged the pattern of flow produced will be the one that minimizes the potential at the fastest rate given the constraints.
QUOTE: "because every event IS 100% of the energy being shown."
Exactly - or perhaps better to say "being expressed"
And as rightly stated - NOTHING can be seen without "motion" - or as You say: "To remain consistent, the methodology of transferring from useless to useful space must occur via motion.
And this is where the wave-particle duality enter into force.
We are so accustomed to think that we can see something in space - that we can see a particle in space if we use "our radar" - but there exist no such thing in space as particles in that respect - what we can "see" is the wave-like informations that we receive by our Antenna - which is our brain.
Everything that we percept is in the form of de-coding of in-coming signals to our antenna - and the de-coding is IN SITU - happens at the very instant and the very place of the antenna. Each such de-coding events are like a "Sample" of the surroundings, and such samplings are being collected as "pictures in a movie" and later played by our mind to present as a "particle"
We make samplings of the surroundings by receiving and de-coding the wave-patterns that are being sent to us from surroundings - even the closest of our surroundings (pixel to pixel) communicate via a wave.
And the question is: What can we decode - and I like to think that we can de-code two qualities 1) frequency (time related) and 2) angle (dimensionality related) - and that is also why I like to think that PHYSICAL Universe is essentially based upon "EVENTS DEFINED BY DIMENSIONAL RECONFIGURATIONS IN SPACE"
"Particle - Wave-Duality" IS not strange - it would be very strange if we could percept anything without having the wave-function at hand -
And now the question - Why and How waves - ? what is their origin - what is there drive - from where do they get their "energy" ?
I say that waves are the equivalents of quake-like adjustments of how dimensions fit in space - dimensions are striving to get the best fit - and this involves an ever ongoing re-configuration where smallest dimensions try to build particle structures that show a better and better fit - like shaking grains in a bag and see how the grains try to place themselves relative to the other to get least air in-between.
And now the good question - why is this an ever ongoing process - ?
Simply because smallest dimensions are being divided in smaller and smaller - this is an ever ongoing division proces - how space - how dimension1 is being divided in more and more ratios - and this gives rise to an ever incrasing ability to achieve better and better dimensional fit in space.
The above concept is a simple way of explaining and understanding the thermodynamic 1 and 2 law -
FIRST LAW is a logic consequence of how energy fundamentally can be defined as CHANGE - and there is a one-to-one relation between the "size" of the change and the amount of energy involved.
There is a 100% expression of universal energy at each flash - "Universe exists only once" - and energy will always be expressed as either Potential or as Kinetic - and potential is the same as the rest mass and kinetic is the same as momentum. The only difference between potential and kinetic, respectively, is whether smallest dimensions HAVE NOT changed their configuration, or whether they HAVE changed their configuration, ALL dimensions are being presented. (And already now it is a question whether it is possible for dimensions to show EXACTLY the same configuration in the next following flash expression - perhaps it is better to say that rest-mass is a reflection of changes too small to be measured in the frame of observation)
SECOND LAW - The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
The key insight is that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes, - the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. With the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference - creates the time-arrow.
Now the question WHY - HOW - WHAT drives Universe to be inherently active - and what is the gradient.
I like to think that the gradient is "Free Void" - and the drive is Univers's strive for achieving least free void - which can be achieved by arranging dimensions such that they show the best overall fit - gives rise to the least free void in between particle structures.
This is a complex and ongoing arranging and re-arranging of all dimensionalities in space and it is being scale wise arranged.
I have previously explained how the Origin of physical universe was the "Unfolding" - when Dimension1 - same as Space - best defined as one "object" of SAMENESS - how this object divided in two - so as to make it possible to say if something belongs to this or to that. And this binary dividing process has been going on ever since - "granulating" space into smaller and smaller ratios - and each and any such "Granule" or smallest dimension have a well defined position relative to all other smallest dimensions - and this relative position will never change. A smallest dimension is being characterized by its relative position. Space is filled up with such smallest dimensions - and what drives space to be inherently active is this ever ongoing strive for arranging smallest dimensions in such a way that they achieve the best overall fit.
Smallest dimensions configure themselves into a grid-like structure - shoulder by shoulder - that I refer to as the 3D pixel grid. Each time there is a re-arrangement between two such smallest particles (pixels) - such an re-arrangement will spread like a domino effect - which is the same as a wave-like expression in the spacefabric. And such waves will enter into repeating patterns - and form standing wave-systems - gliding over the grid, and this is how the Pixel grid express "moving" particles in our physical world.
And now - what was it that triggered the re-arrangement - that was the misfit - the free void between smallest particles - and then one would say that such an optimal fit would be reached soone or later - Yes - right - if smallest dimensions were a uniform collection of same "size" . same ratio of space - but they are not.
There is on ongoing binary division of smallest dimensions - and each time smallest get smaller - there is a chance to further improve the overall fit - to further continue these re-arrangements.
At origin - at the unfolding - where dimension1 segregate into two - the misfit between these two new objects are maximal - and it is only by continuing divisions - that the dimensions get a better and better fit in space - that the total amount of free void is being minimized - one arrow process - and it is executed via the "law of maximum entropy production" which is the path or assembly of paths that minimizes the potential (maximizes the entropy) at the fastest rate given the constraints - In short, no matter how the system is arranged the pattern of flow produced will be the one that minimizes the potential at the fastest rate given the constraints.
Hi Laidback, Bukh, All
QOUTE
At origin - at the unfolding - where dimension1 segregate into two - the misfit between these two new objects are maximal - and it is only by continuing divisions - that the dimensions get a better and better fit in space - that the total amount of free void is being minimized - one arrow process - and it is executed via the "law of maximum entropy production" which is the path or assembly of paths that minimizes the potential (maximizes the entropy) at the fastest rate given the constraints - In short, no matter how the system is arranged the pattern of flow produced will be the one that minimizes the potential at the fastest rate given the constraints. UNQUOTE
I think we may all be closer to agreement than we may realize. I Have tried , In my own way to see how the universe distributes energy. Laidback has pushed for two separate Boundaries and Bukh is about the mixing up of the dimensions. (that's a simplified summation.)
How alike are they?.......Very actually. Here's another picture for you which explains my latest posts better and I was amazed how Laidback's contentions were mirrored.
Imagine a body of water. This is just water and represents 90% of the universe. Now add any other compound that is not water and allow that it will never mix with the water...This represents 10% of the universe. Here is a distinct separation between two agencies within the universe.
In this case we can only see "what is not water", and there is no reason that is unusual why they should not ALWAYS be define able as separate entities.How they remain detectable is the main course of this discussion I suppose, and it could be said that in this we could all be right dependent on where we are measuring from .
I see that every instance that we detect energy is because it has shifted . That much I have made clear as well as the underlying reason for the changes.Bukh has noted that the changes are a repeated process ,giving differing densities and arrangements. Laidback has used a conventional wave formation that uses a picture involving the whole universe. There is plenty of room for all to be correct in the proper scheme of things.
Cheers
Iseason
QOUTE
At origin - at the unfolding - where dimension1 segregate into two - the misfit between these two new objects are maximal - and it is only by continuing divisions - that the dimensions get a better and better fit in space - that the total amount of free void is being minimized - one arrow process - and it is executed via the "law of maximum entropy production" which is the path or assembly of paths that minimizes the potential (maximizes the entropy) at the fastest rate given the constraints - In short, no matter how the system is arranged the pattern of flow produced will be the one that minimizes the potential at the fastest rate given the constraints. UNQUOTE
I think we may all be closer to agreement than we may realize. I Have tried , In my own way to see how the universe distributes energy. Laidback has pushed for two separate Boundaries and Bukh is about the mixing up of the dimensions. (that's a simplified summation.)
How alike are they?.......Very actually. Here's another picture for you which explains my latest posts better and I was amazed how Laidback's contentions were mirrored.
Imagine a body of water. This is just water and represents 90% of the universe. Now add any other compound that is not water and allow that it will never mix with the water...This represents 10% of the universe. Here is a distinct separation between two agencies within the universe.
In this case we can only see "what is not water", and there is no reason that is unusual why they should not ALWAYS be define able as separate entities.How they remain detectable is the main course of this discussion I suppose, and it could be said that in this we could all be right dependent on where we are measuring from .
I see that every instance that we detect energy is because it has shifted . That much I have made clear as well as the underlying reason for the changes.Bukh has noted that the changes are a repeated process ,giving differing densities and arrangements. Laidback has used a conventional wave formation that uses a picture involving the whole universe. There is plenty of room for all to be correct in the proper scheme of things.
Cheers
Iseason
allow me to copy paste this from what I posted in Saposjoint:
QUOTE Trippy: "More correctly, in tangent with Entropy, there's a concept called Gibbs Free Energy. The two concepts are inextricably connected, you can not consider one without the other. Essentially, the law of Entropy is actually a conservation law, because it talks about the conversion of Gibbs Free Energy into Entropy."
Gibbs free energy is defined as the Potential Work obtainable in an isobar isotherm closed system, if I am right.
Work is defined as an energy which has to do with displacement by force of objects - so now the question is: What is the FORCE ? - and I like to say that Force is Entropy.
Entropy is the Force that makes objects move - or more accurately the Force that is the underlying mechanism behind the expression of objects and their movement. Movement is the illusion created by the cinematographic expression of objects oscillating in space.
And this leads directly to the 3D Pixel Concept - that physical expressions best can be defined as how "Objects" are being expressed in space into oscillating flashes - like pictures - and how such "pictures" when seen as a movie strip express a particle in motion. We se this phenomenon as energy. So energy is being expressed by what is expressing the "objects" - and objects are being defined by the Pixels - smallest dimensions that constantly arrange and re-arrange themselves such that they in one flash configure one object with a well defined shape and position in space and in the next following the Pixels have re-arranged so as to configure a "new" object slightly changed in shape and or position.
Entropy is the FORCE that makes Pixels re-arrange. Entropy acts via free void. Nature strives after the best or perhaps better to say the MOST EVEN distribution of free void - the most EVEN FIT of dimensions in space- The Pixels are constantly seeking to get a better a more even distribution of free void.
What we measure in our physical world is the objects and how they move - or the illusion of how they move - when being expressed by pixel-configurations that oscillating change from flash to flash.
The 1. law of thermodynamics is about Energy in our physical universe. Energy will be a constant, because energy is defined out from objects and their movements - and all such objects fill out total space - and into flash expressions - and that necessitates that each flash inevitably express ALL Universal Energy every time. Energy cannot be produced - energy cannot be destroyed - energy must be the same all time. ( as a side note it should be remembered that "A flash expression is the same as re-arrangement of pixels" - and it is the wave-particle duality that communicates pixel-rearrangements into our human perception as Physical Universe, and in this context our physical universe is a small and "closed" system in Universe)
The 2. law of thermodynamics is about HOW and WHY smallest dimensions re-arrange themselves - and this process involve free void and how the distribution of free void becomes more and more equally distributed - we call this mechanism ENTROPY - and we have defined entropy as something that increase by decreasing gradient of free void inequality. The less the tendency - or the force to create re-arrangement is, the higher the entropy is. And at maximum entropy - there is no gradient to create any more re-arrangements - the system cannot re-configure cannot express motion - the system dies - the system turns into one object of sameness.
Free void can be translated to a system via quakes in the pixel fabric - and such quakes of re-arrangements is what we define as boson waves. A quake can be seen as the "supplier" of free void - as a facilitator of catalyst for re-arrangements - as a supplier of Energy - because Energy essentially or fundamentally is CHANGE - is RE-ARRANGEMENTS.
Boson-waves or quakes is how universe is re-arranging free void relatively over the entire system - and order is being created according to THE LAW OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION (LMEP, MEP)
QUOTE Trippy: "More correctly, in tangent with Entropy, there's a concept called Gibbs Free Energy. The two concepts are inextricably connected, you can not consider one without the other. Essentially, the law of Entropy is actually a conservation law, because it talks about the conversion of Gibbs Free Energy into Entropy."
Gibbs free energy is defined as the Potential Work obtainable in an isobar isotherm closed system, if I am right.
Work is defined as an energy which has to do with displacement by force of objects - so now the question is: What is the FORCE ? - and I like to say that Force is Entropy.
Entropy is the Force that makes objects move - or more accurately the Force that is the underlying mechanism behind the expression of objects and their movement. Movement is the illusion created by the cinematographic expression of objects oscillating in space.
And this leads directly to the 3D Pixel Concept - that physical expressions best can be defined as how "Objects" are being expressed in space into oscillating flashes - like pictures - and how such "pictures" when seen as a movie strip express a particle in motion. We se this phenomenon as energy. So energy is being expressed by what is expressing the "objects" - and objects are being defined by the Pixels - smallest dimensions that constantly arrange and re-arrange themselves such that they in one flash configure one object with a well defined shape and position in space and in the next following the Pixels have re-arranged so as to configure a "new" object slightly changed in shape and or position.
Entropy is the FORCE that makes Pixels re-arrange. Entropy acts via free void. Nature strives after the best or perhaps better to say the MOST EVEN distribution of free void - the most EVEN FIT of dimensions in space- The Pixels are constantly seeking to get a better a more even distribution of free void.
What we measure in our physical world is the objects and how they move - or the illusion of how they move - when being expressed by pixel-configurations that oscillating change from flash to flash.
The 1. law of thermodynamics is about Energy in our physical universe. Energy will be a constant, because energy is defined out from objects and their movements - and all such objects fill out total space - and into flash expressions - and that necessitates that each flash inevitably express ALL Universal Energy every time. Energy cannot be produced - energy cannot be destroyed - energy must be the same all time. ( as a side note it should be remembered that "A flash expression is the same as re-arrangement of pixels" - and it is the wave-particle duality that communicates pixel-rearrangements into our human perception as Physical Universe, and in this context our physical universe is a small and "closed" system in Universe)
The 2. law of thermodynamics is about HOW and WHY smallest dimensions re-arrange themselves - and this process involve free void and how the distribution of free void becomes more and more equally distributed - we call this mechanism ENTROPY - and we have defined entropy as something that increase by decreasing gradient of free void inequality. The less the tendency - or the force to create re-arrangement is, the higher the entropy is. And at maximum entropy - there is no gradient to create any more re-arrangements - the system cannot re-configure cannot express motion - the system dies - the system turns into one object of sameness.
Free void can be translated to a system via quakes in the pixel fabric - and such quakes of re-arrangements is what we define as boson waves. A quake can be seen as the "supplier" of free void - as a facilitator of catalyst for re-arrangements - as a supplier of Energy - because Energy essentially or fundamentally is CHANGE - is RE-ARRANGEMENTS.
Boson-waves or quakes is how universe is re-arranging free void relatively over the entire system - and order is being created according to THE LAW OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION (LMEP, MEP)
I will point out that the post was made in our Speculative Sciences discussion forum.
Sapo's Joint aspires to higher standards than this place, and we could achieve that pinnacle if some of the brighter of you would join!
Nothing between the lines this time, kids!
Edit: I meant no insult to bukh, and I apologize to any who feel that I was insulting.
Sapo's Joint aspires to higher standards than this place, and we could achieve that pinnacle if some of the brighter of you would join!
Nothing between the lines this time, kids!
Edit: I meant no insult to bukh, and I apologize to any who feel that I was insulting.
QUOTE (bukh+Dec 3 2008, 07:03 AM)
Work is defined as an energy which has to do with displacement by force of objects - so now the question is: What is the FORCE ? - and I like to say that Force is Entropy.
I know I stated I will remain at the side lines, but if I may interject,
"Force" - I feel should be treated as magnitude of Potential energy..
And if we refer to Potential and Kinetic energy constructs, Potential energy is kinetic energy that has its motion converted to no motion, and as far as I am concerned this is only possible if we have two alike forms approach one another..
and if one is with momentum @c to the right and the other is with momentum @c to the left the two forms merge and cancel out the others externally perceived momentum, but as far as each form is concerned they each remain @c with respects to each other, the result is compression to the sum of their dimensions, but in fact, this is an exchange of quanta from one dimension to another.. and to explain this..
Here again is a basic two dimensional model of how this eventuates..
Let Potential energy = initially our height
Let Kinetic energy or motion (allowed change) = initially our width.
"----" moment one: where we have maximum allowed change in our width.
"-=-" moment two: where kinetic energy (allowed motion) is converted to potential energy..
"|" our final moment, where we note our allowed change in one dimension is near zero, and our current Potential is near to the allowed maximum, which if either dimension achieves singularity actually makes both reciprocating dimensions null and void as we cant in reality have an expression with out a hearing, or put simply something to become nothing.
One more point I would like to refer to and that is if we turned our model 90 degrees around and divided it up, after our above final moment, we should note that it is akin to an anti-Universe and or how antiparticles via current mathematical theories just may be possible..
Er~ here's our form after my postulated 90 degrees turn.
"----" here is our model where kinetic dimension is now the inference to rigidity and potential energy is now our inference to motion and or change..
"-=-" and here is our next moment to our Universal oscillation and or wave form..
"|" and here is our final moment, where functions are transposed back to the original cycle or our realities phase..
And this is what each cycle would be perceived at the same moment, but note our second model has been turned around at 90 degrees as I don't have the symbols for its proper vertical representation..
"----" <--dimensions Perceived by us "|" <--dimensions perceived by our opposite or anti-particles (out of phase reality).
"-=-" <-our next moment of reality "-=-" <-our opposite reality
"|" <-our next moment of reality "----" <-and our opposite reality, which in all reality implies to two states to the universe that are out of phase, opposite and or perhaps best inferred to an expression heard, by else when one expresses, and at the same instance the other expresses while the other acknowledges..
Err~ I hope that was/is clear to all.. if not I don't know any other way to point out to exist is to be acknowledged?
Anyway getting back to force, in the above model if we consider a potential as a stored expression and the more we express and or present then the less we have left to express, and the less we express the easier one may be overlooked, and at the same token whoever or whatever stores said expressions must end up having more to express, so has much more to express..
Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions..
Its for this reason I don't advocate to force being attractive, but rather only repulsive, simply because of how a potential and its implied force is created in the first place where I reason its via the use of opposing motion being canceled out to present the stored kinetic energy as a potential and when we consider a given form is with opposition in all directions from our prodding, the form is in fact an expression of all of its stored kinetic energy that is at least matching our prodding presented via velocities of our own potential, which this form we are prodding or detecting is best referred to as a potential for Kinetic Energy because the inference to Potential energy refers to a magnitude of impending motion that if allowed or unleashed will once again be with motion which is the inference to kinetic energy..
Put simply for a force to present it must present velocities or at best opposing velocities so motion is canceled out, so for a mass, in releasing stored velocities its force decreases, perhaps at this point, I should refer to a compressor where the more air we store the greater our jet of air we can create, so in this case our jet of air is a velocities or our stored force.. another point that should be made is the more air we store the more solid and or rigid the gas becomes, so on releasing our gas we may in fact release liquid, ergo various velocities are indeed released, proving that considerable kinetic energy is converted to potential energy via compression and or opposing velocities.. and whats more it should be noted a liquid at sea level presents to our senses much better than gas at sea level, pointing out - it is with a greater repulsion to it, but it should be noted this repulsion may be only apparent when velocities are introduced so this repulsion is at the expense of motion, so each and every water molecule/Atom (liquid) is in fact compressed by air (gas) at sea level, and this goes for our atmosphere (gas) as well, where it is compressed by the highly kinetic Near-Vacuum..
What I am trying to point out here is when an area with allowed faster motion (Area of gas) of the same magnitude to a Liquid are presented to each other, the gas should be considered as quicker than a liquids opposing velocities, due to its lower ratio of kinetic energy, in fact because of this I reason why all mass when peered at via our best microscopes seems to present an array of Spheres, where I imagine they are relative solids (very little kinetics) surrounded by a relative NEAR-Vacuum (highly kinetic) area which compresses them..
So the question now is - Have I detailed enough information as to how I perceive {Force=potential energy} and {motion=kinetic energy} rely on each other to be possible via a catch 22?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I know I stated I will remain at the side lines, but if I may interject,
"Force" - I feel should be treated as magnitude of Potential energy..
And if we refer to Potential and Kinetic energy constructs, Potential energy is kinetic energy that has its motion converted to no motion, and as far as I am concerned this is only possible if we have two alike forms approach one another..
and if one is with momentum @c to the right and the other is with momentum @c to the left the two forms merge and cancel out the others externally perceived momentum, but as far as each form is concerned they each remain @c with respects to each other, the result is compression to the sum of their dimensions, but in fact, this is an exchange of quanta from one dimension to another.. and to explain this..
Here again is a basic two dimensional model of how this eventuates..
Let Potential energy = initially our height
Let Kinetic energy or motion (allowed change) = initially our width.
"----" moment one: where we have maximum allowed change in our width.
"-=-" moment two: where kinetic energy (allowed motion) is converted to potential energy..
"|" our final moment, where we note our allowed change in one dimension is near zero, and our current Potential is near to the allowed maximum, which if either dimension achieves singularity actually makes both reciprocating dimensions null and void as we cant in reality have an expression with out a hearing, or put simply something to become nothing.
One more point I would like to refer to and that is if we turned our model 90 degrees around and divided it up, after our above final moment, we should note that it is akin to an anti-Universe and or how antiparticles via current mathematical theories just may be possible..
Er~ here's our form after my postulated 90 degrees turn.
"----" here is our model where kinetic dimension is now the inference to rigidity and potential energy is now our inference to motion and or change..
"-=-" and here is our next moment to our Universal oscillation and or wave form..
"|" and here is our final moment, where functions are transposed back to the original cycle or our realities phase..
And this is what each cycle would be perceived at the same moment, but note our second model has been turned around at 90 degrees as I don't have the symbols for its proper vertical representation..
"----" <--dimensions Perceived by us "|" <--dimensions perceived by our opposite or anti-particles (out of phase reality).
"-=-" <-our next moment of reality "-=-" <-our opposite reality
"|" <-our next moment of reality "----" <-and our opposite reality, which in all reality implies to two states to the universe that are out of phase, opposite and or perhaps best inferred to an expression heard, by else when one expresses, and at the same instance the other expresses while the other acknowledges..
Err~ I hope that was/is clear to all.. if not I don't know any other way to point out to exist is to be acknowledged?
Anyway getting back to force, in the above model if we consider a potential as a stored expression and the more we express and or present then the less we have left to express, and the less we express the easier one may be overlooked, and at the same token whoever or whatever stores said expressions must end up having more to express, so has much more to express..
Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions..
Its for this reason I don't advocate to force being attractive, but rather only repulsive, simply because of how a potential and its implied force is created in the first place where I reason its via the use of opposing motion being canceled out to present the stored kinetic energy as a potential and when we consider a given form is with opposition in all directions from our prodding, the form is in fact an expression of all of its stored kinetic energy that is at least matching our prodding presented via velocities of our own potential, which this form we are prodding or detecting is best referred to as a potential for Kinetic Energy because the inference to Potential energy refers to a magnitude of impending motion that if allowed or unleashed will once again be with motion which is the inference to kinetic energy..
Put simply for a force to present it must present velocities or at best opposing velocities so motion is canceled out, so for a mass, in releasing stored velocities its force decreases, perhaps at this point, I should refer to a compressor where the more air we store the greater our jet of air we can create, so in this case our jet of air is a velocities or our stored force.. another point that should be made is the more air we store the more solid and or rigid the gas becomes, so on releasing our gas we may in fact release liquid, ergo various velocities are indeed released, proving that considerable kinetic energy is converted to potential energy via compression and or opposing velocities.. and whats more it should be noted a liquid at sea level presents to our senses much better than gas at sea level, pointing out - it is with a greater repulsion to it, but it should be noted this repulsion may be only apparent when velocities are introduced so this repulsion is at the expense of motion, so each and every water molecule/Atom (liquid) is in fact compressed by air (gas) at sea level, and this goes for our atmosphere (gas) as well, where it is compressed by the highly kinetic Near-Vacuum..
What I am trying to point out here is when an area with allowed faster motion (Area of gas) of the same magnitude to a Liquid are presented to each other, the gas should be considered as quicker than a liquids opposing velocities, due to its lower ratio of kinetic energy, in fact because of this I reason why all mass when peered at via our best microscopes seems to present an array of Spheres, where I imagine they are relative solids (very little kinetics) surrounded by a relative NEAR-Vacuum (highly kinetic) area which compresses them..
So the question now is - Have I detailed enough information as to how I perceive {Force=potential energy} and {motion=kinetic energy} rely on each other to be possible via a catch 22?
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
Hi All
Welcome Back Laidback.
You will notice that we tend towards our comfort zones even though we are replying to others posts. Often there is no reference to the previous post , Almost as if it is ignored.
I know this is not the case as we do try to refer. However it seems hard to recognize what the new point is, So I am keen to show you laidback that I AM listening and enlisting That into the new post.
When I referred to 10 percent/90 percent, It is not by chance that I am reconsidering an old thought process. It is directly related to our conversations here. The Quote I have copied here
"Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions.."
Is in response to your statement about the need for complete conservation of energy while opposing forces exist. the only way this can be so is if two states always exist 'no matter where/when you look.' The looking/experiencing of the states is not changed because of something we do . In other words The universe is the same as it always was , The amount of available energy is the same despite our relative experience.
I mentioned the mix of 10% insoluble to 90% water.(couple of posts ago) The idea in that post is that the water and the solid cannot mix. In fact the water and the solid would as superconductive since neither could impart anything to the other. So a push anywhere would result in the same amount of motion ALWAYS being present within the container. water would not impede the solid and the only other thing that could is another solid which would react in the way you are proposing.
If you pushed 1 grain of the solid, there would always be 1 solid particle moving any time you looked. This is the case only because neither medium could mix. (this would only ever be apparent when we viewed the whole universe ) and could only be seen by looking at the basest particles.
even allowing that we moved all the particles at the same time, there is enough variation to say that from then on they would always be in motion. Not "through' water as we refer to in terrestial as this refers to a resistant condition. "through the water" is only because there is no other choice of environmental condition. Clustering of solid requires the mass to spin or move in a like direction proportional to the speed that the originating particles/s were moving...
So we only see the 10 percent mass in the universe....But we always see the 10 Percent mass as a variation in the 90 Percent medium.
Cheers
Iseason
Welcome Back Laidback.
You will notice that we tend towards our comfort zones even though we are replying to others posts. Often there is no reference to the previous post , Almost as if it is ignored.
I know this is not the case as we do try to refer. However it seems hard to recognize what the new point is, So I am keen to show you laidback that I AM listening and enlisting That into the new post.
When I referred to 10 percent/90 percent, It is not by chance that I am reconsidering an old thought process. It is directly related to our conversations here. The Quote I have copied here
"Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions.."
Is in response to your statement about the need for complete conservation of energy while opposing forces exist. the only way this can be so is if two states always exist 'no matter where/when you look.' The looking/experiencing of the states is not changed because of something we do . In other words The universe is the same as it always was , The amount of available energy is the same despite our relative experience.
I mentioned the mix of 10% insoluble to 90% water.(couple of posts ago) The idea in that post is that the water and the solid cannot mix. In fact the water and the solid would as superconductive since neither could impart anything to the other. So a push anywhere would result in the same amount of motion ALWAYS being present within the container. water would not impede the solid and the only other thing that could is another solid which would react in the way you are proposing.
If you pushed 1 grain of the solid, there would always be 1 solid particle moving any time you looked. This is the case only because neither medium could mix. (this would only ever be apparent when we viewed the whole universe ) and could only be seen by looking at the basest particles.
even allowing that we moved all the particles at the same time, there is enough variation to say that from then on they would always be in motion. Not "through' water as we refer to in terrestial as this refers to a resistant condition. "through the water" is only because there is no other choice of environmental condition. Clustering of solid requires the mass to spin or move in a like direction proportional to the speed that the originating particles/s were moving...
So we only see the 10 percent mass in the universe....But we always see the 10 Percent mass as a variation in the 90 Percent medium.
Cheers
Iseason
Laidback, that is what you think I'm ignoring because you think I think it's too complicated or amazing or whatever it is?!
Bwahahahaha!!
So with all that, all the time you've been putting into posting that over what totals years what have you acheived? Nothing. Not one phenomenon can you describe. You don't even know how to use mainstream stuff to describe systems, even if you think they are flawed, at least they work!
You talk about potential and kinetic energy and them converting. So if I have a ball on the surface of the Earth, what is it's kinetic energy and it's potential. Without using any result of Newtonian physics. Then, without using Lagrangian methods (as if you know what they are!), describe accurately how the potential energy and kinetic vary over the motion of a ball (assume I throw it vertically straight up at some velocity V). What is it's maximum height (to help you, it's when the ball's kinetic energy has converted entirely into potential)
What do all your vague --- and | and -=- pictures allow you to describe? Name 1 phenomenon. And then explain how you can derive experimentally testable accurate models from your work.
Bwahahahaha!!
So with all that, all the time you've been putting into posting that over what totals years what have you acheived? Nothing. Not one phenomenon can you describe. You don't even know how to use mainstream stuff to describe systems, even if you think they are flawed, at least they work!
You talk about potential and kinetic energy and them converting. So if I have a ball on the surface of the Earth, what is it's kinetic energy and it's potential. Without using any result of Newtonian physics. Then, without using Lagrangian methods (as if you know what they are!), describe accurately how the potential energy and kinetic vary over the motion of a ball (assume I throw it vertically straight up at some velocity V). What is it's maximum height (to help you, it's when the ball's kinetic energy has converted entirely into potential)
What do all your vague --- and | and -=- pictures allow you to describe? Name 1 phenomenon. And then explain how you can derive experimentally testable accurate models from your work.
Hej Laidback - iseason
"Force" - I feel should be treated as magnitude of Potential energy..
And if we refer to Potential and Kinetic energy constructs, Potential energy is kinetic energy that has its motion converted to no motion, and as far as I am concerned this is only possible if we have two alike forms approach one another.."
[QUOTE]
No please - do not stand at the sideline -
Now you mention that Potential energy is NO Motion - my question is if "No Motion" is a valid concept - is an existing option.
You will probably react by saying: of course it is -
And I think that iseason has said it very elegant in the following:
"Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions.."
And that is exactly also what I tried to explain in my above post about entropy. I see entropy as a force - I see entropy as the underlying force behind the "Expression" of energy.
Fortunately there exist no such thing as a "closed Potential" - entanglement is absolute and it is not possible to isolate a system completely - so any system will receive "the force that causes entropy" from out side. And yes - this leads us to BH. A black hole is a system where the void in our scale has been depleted - meaning that the system cannot express any "Physical objects".
"Force" - I feel should be treated as magnitude of Potential energy..
And if we refer to Potential and Kinetic energy constructs, Potential energy is kinetic energy that has its motion converted to no motion, and as far as I am concerned this is only possible if we have two alike forms approach one another.."
[QUOTE]
No please - do not stand at the sideline -
Now you mention that Potential energy is NO Motion - my question is if "No Motion" is a valid concept - is an existing option.
You will probably react by saying: of course it is -
And I think that iseason has said it very elegant in the following:
"Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions.."
And that is exactly also what I tried to explain in my above post about entropy. I see entropy as a force - I see entropy as the underlying force behind the "Expression" of energy.
Fortunately there exist no such thing as a "closed Potential" - entanglement is absolute and it is not possible to isolate a system completely - so any system will receive "the force that causes entropy" from out side. And yes - this leads us to BH. A black hole is a system where the void in our scale has been depleted - meaning that the system cannot express any "Physical objects".
Hej AN
In your reply to Laidback you said: "Then, without using Lagrangian methods (as if you know what they are!), describe accurately how the potential energy and kinetic vary over the motion of a ball (assume I throw it vertically straight up at some velocity V). What is it's maximum height (to help you, it's when the ball's kinetic energy has converted entirely into potential)"
[QUOTE]
I am afraid that when one really dig deep in the problems related to kinetic and potential, respectively, it becomes more and more difficult exactly to distinguish the two forms of energy.
Now you suggest not using Lagrangian and the problems are already inherent here:
"Lagrange equation is now recognized to be applicable to quantum mechanics.
Physical action and quantum-mechanical phase are related via Planck's constant, and the principle of stationary action can be understood in terms of constructive interference of wave functions.
The same principle, and the Lagrange formalism, are tied closely to Noether's theorem, which relates physical conserved quantities to continuous symmetries of a physical system.
Lagrangian mechanics and Noether's theorem together yield a natural formalism for first quantization by including commutators between certain terms of the Lagrangian equations of motion for a physical system."
You may notice such terms like Planck's constant - can you have such a constant in a non-discrete system ?
constructive interference of wave systems - can you have a wave without a particel - or put differently - is it possible to have a continuous wave ?
Noether's theorem relates quantities to continuous symmetries - is that feasible ?
And the very concept of yielding first quantization - exactly how is this feasible ?
And my next question would be:
Now that you are proposing: "when the ball's kinetic energy has converted entirely into potential"
I would like to know exactly how you imagine this calculation being made - and how you define energy as being entirely Potential.
In my eyes you raise a lot of unanswered questions - deep fundamental questions.
In your reply to Laidback you said: "Then, without using Lagrangian methods (as if you know what they are!), describe accurately how the potential energy and kinetic vary over the motion of a ball (assume I throw it vertically straight up at some velocity V). What is it's maximum height (to help you, it's when the ball's kinetic energy has converted entirely into potential)"
[QUOTE]
I am afraid that when one really dig deep in the problems related to kinetic and potential, respectively, it becomes more and more difficult exactly to distinguish the two forms of energy.
Now you suggest not using Lagrangian and the problems are already inherent here:
"Lagrange equation is now recognized to be applicable to quantum mechanics.
Physical action and quantum-mechanical phase are related via Planck's constant, and the principle of stationary action can be understood in terms of constructive interference of wave functions.
The same principle, and the Lagrange formalism, are tied closely to Noether's theorem, which relates physical conserved quantities to continuous symmetries of a physical system.
Lagrangian mechanics and Noether's theorem together yield a natural formalism for first quantization by including commutators between certain terms of the Lagrangian equations of motion for a physical system."
You may notice such terms like Planck's constant - can you have such a constant in a non-discrete system ?
constructive interference of wave systems - can you have a wave without a particel - or put differently - is it possible to have a continuous wave ?
Noether's theorem relates quantities to continuous symmetries - is that feasible ?
And the very concept of yielding first quantization - exactly how is this feasible ?
And my next question would be:
Now that you are proposing: "when the ball's kinetic energy has converted entirely into potential"
I would like to know exactly how you imagine this calculation being made - and how you define energy as being entirely Potential.
In my eyes you raise a lot of unanswered questions - deep fundamental questions.
Well rather than simply Googling for the words I use why don't you spend time reading about them in these magical things called books so that you can understand it for yourself.
Basically, I am not going to explain it until Laidback has shown how his 'model' can do all he claims. And even then the explaination is highly technical and given I'm sure you don't understand Noether's theorem in practice (reading Wikipedia doesn't cut it) or Lagrangian methods simply providing you with algebra would be pointless. Suffice to say, they work and allow us to describe non-quantum gravity and quantum electrodynamic, weak and strong forces. The entirety of our ability to build technology is built upon those models and their validity in experiments.
The questions you ask show that you have no working understanding of anything. Why ask a question on 1st quantisation if you don't know what first quantisation is? Yes, you can quote Wikipedia back at me but that doesn't mean you understand the question or the answer I would provide. If you knew how to use Lagrangian methods you'd know how they relate to continuous symmetries and conservation laws.
All your questions are is a very transparent attempt to try to fool people who don't know what those things are that you aren't one of them. Unfortunately I do know what those things are and can spot someone BS'ing their way through them a mile off. I can spot it in physics undergraduates and I can definitely spot it in you. And Laidback.
If you deny this, answer me this : What specifically do you not grasp about Lagrangian methods and their relation to continuous symmetries? When you go about doing Lagrangian methods (show a specific example you've tried in the past) where do you get stuck and what methods or reasoning have you tried?
Basically, I am not going to explain it until Laidback has shown how his 'model' can do all he claims. And even then the explaination is highly technical and given I'm sure you don't understand Noether's theorem in practice (reading Wikipedia doesn't cut it) or Lagrangian methods simply providing you with algebra would be pointless. Suffice to say, they work and allow us to describe non-quantum gravity and quantum electrodynamic, weak and strong forces. The entirety of our ability to build technology is built upon those models and their validity in experiments.
The questions you ask show that you have no working understanding of anything. Why ask a question on 1st quantisation if you don't know what first quantisation is? Yes, you can quote Wikipedia back at me but that doesn't mean you understand the question or the answer I would provide. If you knew how to use Lagrangian methods you'd know how they relate to continuous symmetries and conservation laws.
All your questions are is a very transparent attempt to try to fool people who don't know what those things are that you aren't one of them. Unfortunately I do know what those things are and can spot someone BS'ing their way through them a mile off. I can spot it in physics undergraduates and I can definitely spot it in you. And Laidback.
If you deny this, answer me this : What specifically do you not grasp about Lagrangian methods and their relation to continuous symmetries? When you go about doing Lagrangian methods (show a specific example you've tried in the past) where do you get stuck and what methods or reasoning have you tried?
AN
I am afraid that you are wasting your precious time - and I understand why you refrain from trying to respond to my question about N-S and the applicability of math explaining liquid flow - and I have learned that you have a clever dad "My dad has hundreds of papers published in this area. He's written a number of textbooks on the use of mesh generation, which involves creating adaptive lattice formations upon which to solve the N-S equations. He's done work on numerous military projects, as well as the Airbus A380 and the supersonic car."
I am afraid that you are wasting your precious time - and I understand why you refrain from trying to respond to my question about N-S and the applicability of math explaining liquid flow - and I have learned that you have a clever dad "My dad has hundreds of papers published in this area. He's written a number of textbooks on the use of mesh generation, which involves creating adaptive lattice formations upon which to solve the N-S equations. He's done work on numerous military projects, as well as the Airbus A380 and the supersonic car."
QUOTE (bukh+Dec 3 2008, 05:04 PM)
question about *N-S* and the applicability of math explaining *liquid flow*
???
Bukh, in the last 5 pages of posts, "liquid flow" doesn't show up, and neither does "N - S". What do they mean?
???
Bukh, in the last 5 pages of posts, "liquid flow" doesn't show up, and neither does "N - S". What do they mean?
IAMoraes
QUOTE: "QUOTE (bukh @ Dec 3 2008, 05:04 PM)
question about *N-S* and the applicability of math explaining *liquid flow*
???
Bukh, in the last 5 pages of posts, "liquid flow" doesn't show up, and neither does "N - S". What do they mean?"
Ah - just a little dispute with AN on another thread (Granulated Geometry - in Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories) - and my finishing remarks eventually ended in this thread - sorry a bit confusing - but AN will know.
QUOTE: "QUOTE (bukh @ Dec 3 2008, 05:04 PM)
question about *N-S* and the applicability of math explaining *liquid flow*
???
Bukh, in the last 5 pages of posts, "liquid flow" doesn't show up, and neither does "N - S". What do they mean?"
Ah - just a little dispute with AN on another thread (Granulated Geometry - in Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories) - and my finishing remarks eventually ended in this thread - sorry a bit confusing - but AN will know.
I see the bait placed for Alphie worked even better than I expected!
QUOTE (bukh+Dec 3 2008, 10:06 PM)
Hej Laidback - iseason
Now you mention that Potential energy is NO Motion - my question is if "No Motion" is a valid concept - is an existing option.
Now you mention that Potential energy is NO Motion - my question is if "No Motion" is a valid concept - is an existing option.
Hi Buhk,
I am sorry if I conveyed that to you, obviously, I have not been clear, by NOT pointing out a potential is actually two or more opposing velocities, where as far as each opposing velocity is concerned they each remain at their original velocity, but they remain ignorant to the fact that they are in reference to a velocity opposite to it, this means the two opposing velocities are still with motion, and yet relative to all else they are with no motion, and this I see is the only way energy can be stored..
Perhaps a better example would be the following..
Try and consider the wind speed is 200 km/h to the north and then a jet is confronted with this body of wind and it so happen the jet is flying 200km/h south what do you think the jets speed would be relative to the ground?
Now imagine the wind is a velocity and the jet another velocity, and then have the two enmesh.
each as far as they are concerned are trapped or if we consider each body of wind end up enmeshed what we end up with is dead calm, but with this we have a rise in pressure, To which I can waffle on how precipitation or this compression of the atmosphere results in converting gas to liquid, resulting in rain..
NO Wait!? The below is what I stated, and Iseason was quoting me?
Hi Guys
But I did it so eloquently...lol
Cheers
Iseason
I am sorry if I conveyed that to you, obviously, I have not been clear, by NOT pointing out a potential is actually two or more opposing velocities, where as far as each opposing velocity is concerned they each remain at their original velocity, but they remain ignorant to the fact that they are in reference to a velocity opposite to it, this means the two opposing velocities are still with motion, and yet relative to all else they are with no motion, and this I see is the only way energy can be stored..
Perhaps a better example would be the following..
Try and consider the wind speed is 200 km/h to the north and then a jet is confronted with this body of wind and it so happen the jet is flying 200km/h south what do you think the jets speed would be relative to the ground?
Now imagine the wind is a velocity and the jet another velocity, and then have the two enmesh.
each as far as they are concerned are trapped or if we consider each body of wind end up enmeshed what we end up with is dead calm, but with this we have a rise in pressure, To which I can waffle on how precipitation or this compression of the atmosphere results in converting gas to liquid, resulting in rain..
QUOTE
You will probably react by saying: of course it is -
NO Wait!? The below is what I stated, and Iseason was quoting me?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You will probably react by saying: of course it is - |
NO Wait!? The below is what I stated, and Iseason was quoting me?
And I think that iseason has said it very elegant in the following:
"Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions.."
And that is exactly also what I tried to explain in my above post about entropy. I see entropy as a force - I see entropy as the underlying force behind the "Expression" of energy.
Fortunately there exist no such thing as a "closed Potential" - entanglement is absolute and it is not possible to isolate a system completely - so any system will receive "the force that causes entropy" from out side. And yes - this leads us to BH. A black hole is a system where the void in our scale has been depleted - meaning that the system cannot express any "Physical objects".
Actually I reason a Black-Hole as an area that is Blue-shifted, put simply a compression point, and I feel even though it may seem all of a Black-Holes Kinetic energy has been changed to Potential energy this not really the case, in fact I feel our current location has and is already somewhat compressed (Blue-shifted to observers beyond our locality), and this notion comes from considering what would the Universe present to us if we were indeed somewhat compressed..
And as it so happens red-shift detections are suggesting the universe is expanding and whats more, this expansion is accelerating.. PERFECT!
Only problem is, this doesn't sit well with conservation laws, so a better explanation should be called for.. and this is where our current location should be considered with respects to both general and special relativity, put simply I reason that as our local mass experiences compression and or the exchange of kinetic energy to potential energy, all our perceived local dimensions will remain relative, but in the course of this compression the universe will seem to expand and whats more a given velocity beyond our Galaxy will be perceived to accelerate the shorter our local distances and therefore our velocities sl0wed down which is the result of kinetic energy being exchanged to Potential energy..
Put simply not all of the Universe is expanding but only some of it, and to compensate for this (reciprocal), each and every galaxy, star, planet experiences compression.
I have to briefly go out!
But keep the fact that motion can never be entirely iliminated, as it really still exists, and I feel this rule also applies to Potential in that it should never reach a zero density or simply put nothing..
In fact I believe these rules deserve the highly prized position in Iseasons or was that your signiture.. damn it! signitures dont show while replying.. Anyway err~yeah thats what I think.. 
Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
And I think that iseason has said it very elegant in the following:
"Put simply if a potential expressed all of its energy in one go, it ceases to exist, but if it expresses small portions, its expressions will maintain presence as long as its stored energy is with enough reserve to present an expression, and if it listens and stores then its reserves are stockpiled while it maintains its expressions.."
And that is exactly also what I tried to explain in my above post about entropy. I see entropy as a force - I see entropy as the underlying force behind the "Expression" of energy.
Fortunately there exist no such thing as a "closed Potential" - entanglement is absolute and it is not possible to isolate a system completely - so any system will receive "the force that causes entropy" from out side. And yes - this leads us to BH. A black hole is a system where the void in our scale has been depleted - meaning that the system cannot express any "Physical objects".
Actually I reason a Black-Hole as an area that is Blue-shifted, put simply a compression point, and I feel even though it may seem all of a Black-Holes Kinetic energy has been changed to Potential energy this not really the case, in fact I feel our current location has and is already somewhat compressed (Blue-shifted to observers beyond our locality), and this notion comes from considering what would the Universe present to us if we were indeed somewhat compressed..
And as it so happens red-shift detections are suggesting the universe is expanding and whats more, this expansion is accelerating.. PERFECT!
Only problem is, this doesn't sit well with conservation laws, so a better explanation should be called for.. and this is where our current location should be considered with respects to both general and special relativity, put simply I reason that as our local mass experiences compression and or the exchange of kinetic energy to potential energy, all our perceived local dimensions will remain relative, but in the course of this compression the universe will seem to expand and whats more a given velocity beyond our Galaxy will be perceived to accelerate the shorter our local distances and therefore our velocities sl0wed down which is the result of kinetic energy being exchanged to Potential energy..
Put simply not all of the Universe is expanding but only some of it, and to compensate for this (reciprocal), each and every galaxy, star, planet experiences compression.
I have to briefly go out!
But keep the fact that motion can never be entirely iliminated, as it really still exists, and I feel this rule also applies to Potential in that it should never reach a zero density or simply put nothing..
In fact I believe these rules deserve the highly prized position in Iseasons or was that your signiture..
damn it! signitures dont show while replying.. Anyway err~yeah thats what I think.. Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 4 2008, 07:48 PM)
NO Wait!? The below is what I stated, and Iseason was quoting me?
Hi Guys
But I did it so eloquently...lolCheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Dec 4 2008, 05:22 PM)
Hi Guys
But I did it so eloquently...lol
Cheers
Iseason
Yeah who~key that~L work!
But I did it so eloquently...lolCheers
Iseason
Yeah who~key that~L work!
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 4 2008, 07:48 AM)
I see the bait placed for Alphie worked even better than I expected!
Wait, so was the bait you pretending to be a retard for years, spending considerable time and effort making up laughably moronic BS and convincing everyone you'd fail a 3rd grade science class, and then posting something specifically retarded, addressed at me, to get my attention and provoke a response?
Yeah, the jokes on me. Boy do I feel stupid for all the effort you must have put into pretending to be what I can only assume is brain damaged from being dropped as a child.
...
...
Wait, you really are that stupid, you just wanted me to reply with a post that took me about 4 minutes to type, as a way of 'baiting me'? I think in the grand scheme of life, you fail.
Wait, so was the bait you pretending to be a retard for years, spending considerable time and effort making up laughably moronic BS and convincing everyone you'd fail a 3rd grade science class, and then posting something specifically retarded, addressed at me, to get my attention and provoke a response?
Yeah, the jokes on me. Boy do I feel stupid for all the effort you must have put into pretending to be what I can only assume is brain damaged from being dropped as a child.
...
...
Wait, you really are that stupid, you just wanted me to reply with a post that took me about 4 minutes to type, as a way of 'baiting me'? I think in the grand scheme of life, you fail.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 5 2008, 09:16 AM)
Wait, so was the bait you pretending to be a retard for years, spending considerable time and effort making up laughably moronic BS and convincing everyone you'd fail a 3rd grade science class, and then posting something specifically retarded, addressed at me, to get my attention and provoke a response?
Yeah, the jokes on me. Boy do I feel stupid for all the effort you must have put into pretending to be what I can only assume is brain damaged from being dropped as a child.
...
...
Wait, you really are that stupid, you just wanted me to reply with a post that took me about 4 minutes to type, as a way of 'baiting me'? I think in the grand scheme of life, you fail.
If you go back and read all of your comments in response to all the other posters comments, maybe then you will realize I wasn't actually referring to whatever comment I may have made, but I was commenting on the fact how you put your foot in your mouth yet once again..
Just go back and consider why egg is on your face resulting from your very own reactions..
2~Duh~Loo!
Yeah, the jokes on me. Boy do I feel stupid for all the effort you must have put into pretending to be what I can only assume is brain damaged from being dropped as a child.
...
...
Wait, you really are that stupid, you just wanted me to reply with a post that took me about 4 minutes to type, as a way of 'baiting me'? I think in the grand scheme of life, you fail.
If you go back and read all of your comments in response to all the other posters comments, maybe then you will realize I wasn't actually referring to whatever comment I may have made, but I was commenting on the fact how you put your foot in your mouth yet once again..Just go back and consider why egg is on your face resulting from your very own reactions..
2~Duh~Loo!
QUOTE (bukh+Dec 3 2008, 10:04 PM)
I am afraid that you are wasting your precious time - and I understand why you refrain from trying to respond to my question about N-S and the applicability of math explaining liquid flow
Which question was that? Are you bothering to learn any fluid mechanics? Why should I bother putting in time to explain something to you if you don't understand? Rather than be spoon fed everything because you're too lazy to bother to use the vast information source literally at your fingertips (that's the internet if that's too complicated for you to work out).
Link me to the post and I'll reply. The problem with Sylwester's thread is that it's already swamped with his BS. He won't even answer my questions. Neither will Laidback. Given I've demonstrated time and again I have a lot of working understanding and knowledge in maths and physics, it's silly for you to say "I know why you won't answer!" when the same logic applies to you and you know full well I'm able to school you on any section of maths or physics.
Link me to the post and I'll reply. The problem with Sylwester's thread is that it's already swamped with his BS. He won't even answer my questions. Neither will Laidback. Given I've demonstrated time and again I have a lot of working understanding and knowledge in maths and physics, it's silly for you to say "I know why you won't answer!" when the same logic applies to you and you know full well I'm able to school you on any section of maths or physics.
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 5 2008, 02:04 AM)
but I was commenting on the fact how you put your foot in your mouth yet once again..
Just go back and consider why egg is on your face resulting from your very own reactions..
When did you answer the questions I asked you? I missed that.
Just go back and consider why egg is on your face resulting from your very own reactions..
When did you answer the questions I asked you? I missed that.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 5 2008, 11:43 AM)
Which question was that? Are you bothering to learn any fluid mechanics? Why should I bother putting in time to explain something to you if you don't understand? Rather than be spoon fed everything because you're too lazy to bother to use the vast information source literally at your fingertips (that's the internet if that's too complicated for you to work out).
Link me to the post and I'll reply. The problem with Sylwester's thread is that it's already swamped with his BS. He won't even answer my questions. Neither will Laidback. Given I've demonstrated time and again I have a lot of working understanding and knowledge in maths and physics, it's silly for you to say "I know why you won't answer!" when the same logic applies to you and you know full well I'm able to school you on any section of maths or physics.
When did you answer the questions I asked you? I missed that.
Not to any of my comments alphanumeric, it was a comment to else..
More importantly what lead you to this thread..
WAIT!
ARE YOU STALKING ME ALPHIE?
<SHIVER>
if~N U R , may I say, youre my first stalker!
YIKES!
Link me to the post and I'll reply. The problem with Sylwester's thread is that it's already swamped with his BS. He won't even answer my questions. Neither will Laidback. Given I've demonstrated time and again I have a lot of working understanding and knowledge in maths and physics, it's silly for you to say "I know why you won't answer!" when the same logic applies to you and you know full well I'm able to school you on any section of maths or physics.
When did you answer the questions I asked you? I missed that.
Not to any of my comments alphanumeric, it was a comment to else..
More importantly what lead you to this thread..
WAIT!
ARE YOU STALKING ME ALPHIE?
<SHIVER>
if~N U R , may I say, youre my first stalker!
YIKES!
So the fact I'd posted earlier in this thread doesn't count? The fact I reply to other people much more doesn't count? Might I suggest the world doesn't revolve around you?
I don't see any answers to my questions. Can't you back up your claims?
I don't see any answers to my questions. Can't you back up your claims?
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.