The thread description should be as: The model makes physics more understandable…
___________________
That is some sequel of the thread “the informational concept” in Space section of this forum, which was locked after pair aggressive spam posts of user AlexG that seem were random AlexG’s posts in some other (“Sciforums.com”) forum. So:
Now the paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , v3, (“The Informational Conception and Basic Physics”)
eventually appeared in arXiv.
Tough to understand the model remains be rather desirable to read
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 , (“The Information as Absolute”)
and
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , (“Space and Time”)
as well as the thread “1/0”,
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/195...html#post323763
the posting “SSDZ – Guitarist ”
before/ also.
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+May 10 2012, 11:08 AM)
Some addition to the first post.
There are a couple of threads in this forum that relate to some fundamental notions in philosophy/physics – somewhere “what is nothing” and (here)- a number of threads as “what is time”. As well as a huge number of these topics are discussed in other forums, philosophical and physical papers, etc. – and without any conceivable result. Such a situation is quite natural – since the problems relate to the fundamental things, it is practically impossible to define corresponding notions. So usual approach, as be applied, is some postulating without any proofs some primary notions at some attempts for a clearance of the situation. At that - since suggested premises cannot be proved or disproved – the debates become be endless and – in most cases – useless.
Though there exists some [unique] possibility to solve – or at least to clarify to certain extent – any fundamental problem, if one applies the informational conception http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
For example – there is no “nothing” problem – nothing is impossible, because of absolutely fundamental Set “Information” exists "absolutely forever", somply It isn't capable to not exist; when everything what exists, can exist and “cannot exist” is/are only some realizations of some informational structures. As well as the notions “time” and "spcae" become be understandable – the Time and the Space are some logical rules/ conditions that govern [in reality - informational] over processes in Matter, more – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
Cheers
kind of wordy . Can you simplify the equation to its simplest form ?
People like to talk I guess . Yeah I guess I do to .
So I looked at the paper " The Information as Absolute "
There sure are a lot of dancers as your support model
O.K. I thought it was pretty good , More entertainment than a one arm juggler
So @ 2. On the concept of information in "the Information as Absolute"pdf
#4 statement
That sounded like a bias based on political standing of academia.
I want you to consider something ?
Humanity abstract being of influence circle ? Humanity as a whole
Human as a material physical being , individual ?
Is part of and not separate from nature .
It is an illusion by bias that we are .
I don't have a problem with man -made per-say. But the insinuation of degradation by a circle group is different from perspective of " Part of" verses "Separate "
As long as you look at homo-sapiens as separate you create the bias in your work by being one of them . Detach and you will see what I mean .
On ward ! Pretty good stuff there . I might have to read some more of that stuff . Yeah Information = word .
You think that is what those crazies in the past were seeing ? As I look at the old writings I can see that . They are detached by there sorrow. Like a child staring out of a window that has been denied the ability to go out and play . Watching others play .
People like to talk I guess . Yeah I guess I do to .
So I looked at the paper " The Information as Absolute "
There sure are a lot of dancers as your support model
O.K. I thought it was pretty good , More entertainment than a one arm juggler
So @ 2. On the concept of information in "the Information as Absolute"pdf
#4 statement
That sounded like a bias based on political standing of academia.
I want you to consider something ?
Humanity abstract being of influence circle ? Humanity as a whole
Human as a material physical being , individual ?
Is part of and not separate from nature .
It is an illusion by bias that we are .
I don't have a problem with man -made per-say. But the insinuation of degradation by a circle group is different from perspective of " Part of" verses "Separate "
As long as you look at homo-sapiens as separate you create the bias in your work by being one of them . Detach and you will see what I mean .
On ward ! Pretty good stuff there . I might have to read some more of that stuff . Yeah Information = word .
You think that is what those crazies in the past were seeing ? As I look at the old writings I can see that . They are detached by there sorrow. Like a child staring out of a window that has been denied the ability to go out and play . Watching others play .
QUOTE (Mekigal+May 14 2012, 03:17 PM)
Regrettably I’m forced again (see closed thread http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27078&st=15) to repeat my post “relating to Many World conception”
________________
In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post “relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again:
Formally "Many World" concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the arXiv links above (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 ) – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links.
But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [Shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set.
At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosoph....127325#p127325
in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc.
Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanfor.../qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above].
There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds.
And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future.
Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"…
_____________________
- non-virtual "some people" appeared again.
Besides now "virtual some people" appeared, as that was in the case with submitting to arXiv the last paper
(http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , The Informational Conception and Basic Physics).
The paper was initially submitted to arXiv 30 of March, but wasn’t published – arXiv admin had some remarks; but I don’t obtain the remark. In April I a few times asked arXiv – why isn’t the paper published? But again without answers. In May I wrote to arXiv a next query from another PC and in an on-line regime to clear the situation - it turned out to be that they sent me the remarks, but some “e-mail client” blocked them; as well as some another mails, since in this year I don’t obtain anything besides some spam.
So I’m forced to point out, that the authors of the informational conception have rather perfect health and aren’t going to be in some another World in next, at least in next decade.
Cheers
[B][I][/I][U]
When the problem is clear enough, the debates about the special relativity theory don’t stop…
So called “special relativity theory” is indeed incorrect, as it is clear to any conscientious physicist. The point is that in the SRT was stated – in contrast to correct (and earlier developed) local Voigt-Fitzgerald-Lorentz theory (VFL-theory) – that there isn’t absolute spacetime ant that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. As that was in famous Minkowski declaration:
“…We should then have in the world no longer space, but an infinite number of spaces, analogously as there are in three-dimensional space an infinite number of planes. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics. Now you know why I said at the outset that space and time are to fade away into shadows, and only a world in itself will subsist".
An example – the 2-th postulate of the special relativity theory isn’t correct: let be standard SRT problem, when on some platform there are a light source, a clock, and a mirror (normally to the source on a distance L). When the platform is at rest, light moves 2L for the time T, and the speed of light is 2L/T=C.
If the platform moves with a speed V, then its MEASURED speed again is 2L/T1=C, i.e. again is equal to C, but since the clock’s time interval T1 is “time dilated”, i.e. is equal to T1=T/ gamma, then REAL speed of light in the platform’s RF isn’t equal to C, but to C/gamma.
I.e. the main Einstein mistake is that he erroneously identified absolute fundamental rules/ possibilities Space/space and Time/time with material objects, namely - scales and clocks.
The Lorentz transformations are valid to the scales and clocks only and in rigid systems only.
And (in 1905 in EMB paper, section 3) Einstein was correct when has wrote: “Let us in “stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point.”
But further in the SRT (when “space and time were to fade away into shadows”) as reference frames some abstract frames with some abstract lines became be considered – with, e.g., evident inconsistence above and so called “twin paradox”. The last isn’t a paradox; it is, in reality, a realization of internal contradictoriness of the SRT. The “explanation of the paradox”, e.g., that the couple of frames is “non- Einsteinian” since traveler’s frames is boosted is evidently erroneous since the clocks’ showings difference exists in inertial path. Besides – any material object in Matter of our Universe was born in some interaction and was boosted – there aren’t any “Einsteinian” frames in reality.
In addition – there weren’t till now any experiment that confirm the SRT; all known experiments confirm the VFL-theory only, since all were made in rigid material systems. To test the SRT really is necessary to make experiment with independent clocks and scales – as that is suggested, e.g., in http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 V3 (Conclusion) or http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 V3. The experiment is rather cheap and simple, when with great probability one will detect that no transformations of space and time occur.
More see again the links above and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
Cheers
(This post was removed in some other forum; my login was suspended. It seems that is some last argument of the SRT defenders…)
So called “special relativity theory” is indeed incorrect, as it is clear to any conscientious physicist. The point is that in the SRT was stated – in contrast to correct (and earlier developed) local Voigt-Fitzgerald-Lorentz theory (VFL-theory) – that there isn’t absolute spacetime ant that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. As that was in famous Minkowski declaration:
“…We should then have in the world no longer space, but an infinite number of spaces, analogously as there are in three-dimensional space an infinite number of planes. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics. Now you know why I said at the outset that space and time are to fade away into shadows, and only a world in itself will subsist".
An example – the 2-th postulate of the special relativity theory isn’t correct: let be standard SRT problem, when on some platform there are a light source, a clock, and a mirror (normally to the source on a distance L). When the platform is at rest, light moves 2L for the time T, and the speed of light is 2L/T=C.
If the platform moves with a speed V, then its MEASURED speed again is 2L/T1=C, i.e. again is equal to C, but since the clock’s time interval T1 is “time dilated”, i.e. is equal to T1=T/ gamma, then REAL speed of light in the platform’s RF isn’t equal to C, but to C/gamma.
I.e. the main Einstein mistake is that he erroneously identified absolute fundamental rules/ possibilities Space/space and Time/time with material objects, namely - scales and clocks.
The Lorentz transformations are valid to the scales and clocks only and in rigid systems only.
And (in 1905 in EMB paper, section 3) Einstein was correct when has wrote: “Let us in “stationary" space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point.”
But further in the SRT (when “space and time were to fade away into shadows”) as reference frames some abstract frames with some abstract lines became be considered – with, e.g., evident inconsistence above and so called “twin paradox”. The last isn’t a paradox; it is, in reality, a realization of internal contradictoriness of the SRT. The “explanation of the paradox”, e.g., that the couple of frames is “non- Einsteinian” since traveler’s frames is boosted is evidently erroneous since the clocks’ showings difference exists in inertial path. Besides – any material object in Matter of our Universe was born in some interaction and was boosted – there aren’t any “Einsteinian” frames in reality.
In addition – there weren’t till now any experiment that confirm the SRT; all known experiments confirm the VFL-theory only, since all were made in rigid material systems. To test the SRT really is necessary to make experiment with independent clocks and scales – as that is suggested, e.g., in http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 V3 (Conclusion) or http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 V3. The experiment is rather cheap and simple, when with great probability one will detect that no transformations of space and time occur.
More see again the links above and http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
Cheers
(This post was removed in some other forum; my login was suspended. It seems that is some last argument of the SRT defenders…)
I should pull an AlexG and call you names but I will be civil.
SRT works.
The SRT hypothesis is incorrect. The tests will not prove anything but SRT Works.
The only true test of SRT would be a True Twins Clock Test where 2 synchronized atomic clocks start @ a location 1 travels away from the other @ a high speed preferably above .5C for a period of time then returns to the same place @ a similar high rate of speed all the while sending time stamped messages to the start location for the entire journey where they are recorded for the entire length of the journey and compared with the predictions of SRT
I personally would like to see the Gravitational test in the paper. It does provide a mechanistic description of gravity don't know if it is correct but the test should be done.
SRT works.
The SRT hypothesis is incorrect. The tests will not prove anything but SRT Works.
The only true test of SRT would be a True Twins Clock Test where 2 synchronized atomic clocks start @ a location 1 travels away from the other @ a high speed preferably above .5C for a period of time then returns to the same place @ a similar high rate of speed all the while sending time stamped messages to the start location for the entire journey where they are recorded for the entire length of the journey and compared with the predictions of SRT
I personally would like to see the Gravitational test in the paper. It does provide a mechanistic description of gravity don't know if it is correct but the test should be done.
QUOTE (sDs+Sep 5 2012, 04:33 AM)
...So called “special relativity theory” is indeed incorrect, as it is clear to any conscientious physicist. ...
You crazy kids aren't physicists.
You crazy kids aren't physicists.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Sep 6 2012, 01:05 AM)
I should pull an AlexG and call you names but I will be civil.
SRT works.
The SRT hypothesis is incorrect. The tests will not prove anything but SRT Works.
The only true test of SRT would be a True Twins Clock Test where 2 synchronized atomic clocks start @ a location 1 travels away from the other @ a high speed preferably above .5C for a period of time then returns to the same place @ a similar high rate of speed all the while sending time stamped messages to the start location for the entire journey where they are recorded for the entire length of the journey and compared with the predictions of SRT
I personally would like to see the Gravitational test in the paper. It does provide a mechanistic description of gravity don't know if it is correct but the test should be done.
There are a 'bunch' of experimental tests for both SR and GR. If you reviewed the literature you would learn something. The GPS is a good place to start. Both the SR and GR time dilation components are required. You can build a 'Twin Paradox' model for the GPS using the corrections for the satellite clocks. Pick the student project on the GPS.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
SRT works.
The SRT hypothesis is incorrect. The tests will not prove anything but SRT Works.
The only true test of SRT would be a True Twins Clock Test where 2 synchronized atomic clocks start @ a location 1 travels away from the other @ a high speed preferably above .5C for a period of time then returns to the same place @ a similar high rate of speed all the while sending time stamped messages to the start location for the entire journey where they are recorded for the entire length of the journey and compared with the predictions of SRT
I personally would like to see the Gravitational test in the paper. It does provide a mechanistic description of gravity don't know if it is correct but the test should be done.
There are a 'bunch' of experimental tests for both SR and GR. If you reviewed the literature you would learn something. The GPS is a good place to start. Both the SR and GR time dilation components are required. You can build a 'Twin Paradox' model for the GPS using the corrections for the satellite clocks. Pick the student project on the GPS.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Sep 6 2012, 01:05 AM)
I should pull an AlexG and call you names but I will be civil.
SRT works.
The SRT hypothesis is incorrect. The tests will not prove anything but SRT Works.
The only true test of SRT would be a True Twins Clock Test where 2 synchronized atomic clocks start @ a location 1 travels away from the other @ a high speed preferably above .5C for a period of time then returns to the same place @ a similar high rate of speed all the while sending time stamped messages to the start location for the entire journey where they are recorded for the entire length of the journey and compared with the predictions of SRT
I personally would like to see the Gravitational test in the paper. It does provide a mechanistic description of gravity don't know if it is correct but the test should be done.
- Yea, the approach to gravity in the papers (the links in sDs post above) seems on one hand – “too simple”, but on the other hand – it seems as not too accidental. When it promises a number of rather useful inferences, for example – it becomes be clear – what is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational masses. And it is rather simple and can be done by using existing installations, e.g., - the gravitational wave detectors. It is necessary only to add the 3-th interferometer’s arm in a borehole having depth 300-400 m.
But the test that indeed checks the SRT (with two clocks on an orbit, at comparing the clocks’ showings when they are transported in a rigid system and are transported independently, see the links) is rather simple also.
The point is that both - Voigt-Fitzgerald-Lorentz theory and the SRT - are based on the same Lorentz transformations. Practically the unique – and fundamental – difference is that the LT in VFL-theory are applied locally, when in the SRT the LT are global in whole “united space-time”. Roughly speaking, for example, in the VFLT rigid rods contract, but in the SRT –the space contracts; in the VFLT clocks become be slowed, when in the SRT the time becomes be dilated.
So if experiments are done in rigid systems, then outcomes will be identical in the VFLT and in the SRT since they use the same LT – what is obtained in all known experiments that were intended for “SRT testing”. Including in the experiments with satellites – Earth’s gravity force made corresponding experimental systems be rigid.
So in reality there weren’t any experiments that really tested the SRT.
When, if be done, such an experiment would be rather fruitful also…
Cheers
SRT works.
The SRT hypothesis is incorrect. The tests will not prove anything but SRT Works.
The only true test of SRT would be a True Twins Clock Test where 2 synchronized atomic clocks start @ a location 1 travels away from the other @ a high speed preferably above .5C for a period of time then returns to the same place @ a similar high rate of speed all the while sending time stamped messages to the start location for the entire journey where they are recorded for the entire length of the journey and compared with the predictions of SRT
I personally would like to see the Gravitational test in the paper. It does provide a mechanistic description of gravity don't know if it is correct but the test should be done.
- Yea, the approach to gravity in the papers (the links in sDs post above) seems on one hand – “too simple”, but on the other hand – it seems as not too accidental. When it promises a number of rather useful inferences, for example – it becomes be clear – what is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational masses. And it is rather simple and can be done by using existing installations, e.g., - the gravitational wave detectors. It is necessary only to add the 3-th interferometer’s arm in a borehole having depth 300-400 m.
But the test that indeed checks the SRT (with two clocks on an orbit, at comparing the clocks’ showings when they are transported in a rigid system and are transported independently, see the links) is rather simple also.
The point is that both - Voigt-Fitzgerald-Lorentz theory and the SRT - are based on the same Lorentz transformations. Practically the unique – and fundamental – difference is that the LT in VFL-theory are applied locally, when in the SRT the LT are global in whole “united space-time”. Roughly speaking, for example, in the VFLT rigid rods contract, but in the SRT –the space contracts; in the VFLT clocks become be slowed, when in the SRT the time becomes be dilated.
So if experiments are done in rigid systems, then outcomes will be identical in the VFLT and in the SRT since they use the same LT – what is obtained in all known experiments that were intended for “SRT testing”. Including in the experiments with satellites – Earth’s gravity force made corresponding experimental systems be rigid.
So in reality there weren’t any experiments that really tested the SRT.
When, if be done, such an experiment would be rather fruitful also…
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Sep 11 2012, 12:18 PM)
- Yea, the approach to gravity in the papers (the links in sDs post above) seems on one hand – “too simple”, but on the other hand – it seems as not too accidental. When it promises a number of rather useful inferences, for example – it becomes be clear – what is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational masses. And it is rather simple and can be done by using existing installations, e.g., - the gravitational wave detectors. It is necessary only to add the 3-th interferometer’s arm in a borehole having depth 300-400 m.
But the test that indeed checks the SRT (with two clocks on an orbit, at comparing the clocks’ showings when they are transported in a rigid system and are transported independently, see the links) is rather simple also.
The point is that both - Voigt-Fitzgerald-Lorentz theory and the SRT - are based on the same Lorentz transformations. Practically the unique – and fundamental – difference is that the LT in VFL-theory are applied locally, when in the SRT the LT are global in whole “united space-time”. Roughly speaking, for example, in the VFLT rigid rods contract, but in the SRT –the space contracts; in the VFLT clocks become be slowed, when in the SRT the time becomes be dilated.
So if experiments are done in rigid systems, then outcomes will be identical in the VFLT and in the SRT since they use the same LT – what is obtained in all known experiments that were intended for “SRT testing”. Including in the experiments with satellites – Earth’s gravity force made corresponding experimental systems be rigid.
So in reality there weren’t any experiments that really tested the SRT.
When, if be done, such an experiment would be rather fruitful also…
Cheers
The papers you linked have no citation base, other than yourself, because they're nonsense. IE nobody is interested in the subject matter. Touting it in this public science forum isn't going to make a difference.
QUOTE (brucep+Sep 12 2012, 06:42 AM)
The papers you linked have no citation base, other than yourself, because they're nonsense. IE nobody is interested in the subject matter. Touting it in this public science forum isn't going to make a difference.
- You can submit in some mainstream journal a paper with a critique of the arXiv papers. If it will turn out to be that some essential critique is possible...
__________________
To: All
It turn out to be that there are a number of papers were so called “Euclidian relativity” is developing (60-th – 2000 years), where a number of ideas and results of the informational model were obtained earlier.
(see, e.g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relat...formulations%29
). The papers weren’t published and referred in mainstream journals, so I found those works only recently.
Corresponding modification of the http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , V4, appeared in arXiv. Changes are rather little – some additional subsection in section 2.2.1 and a couple of sentences in Discussions and conclusion.
Cheers
[B]
- You can submit in some mainstream journal a paper with a critique of the arXiv papers. If it will turn out to be that some essential critique is possible...
__________________
To: All
It turn out to be that there are a number of papers were so called “Euclidian relativity” is developing (60-th – 2000 years), where a number of ideas and results of the informational model were obtained earlier.
(see, e.g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relat...formulations%29
). The papers weren’t published and referred in mainstream journals, so I found those works only recently.
Corresponding modification of the http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , V4, appeared in arXiv. Changes are rather little – some additional subsection in section 2.2.1 and a couple of sentences in Discussions and conclusion.
Cheers
[B]
Now a little modification (mainly – some editing and something relating to the “twin paradox”) of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2.
Cheers
Cheers
Because of there aren’t some comments to the last post I re-post here some post from other forum
_______
Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:06 PM
Semjase, on 17 Jan 2013 - 18:19, said:
This universe may be a computer simulation, scientific evidence is pointing in that
direction as German physicists are trying to prove if this universe is a computer simulation or not.
Here's a link to their story below
http://www.techspot.com/news/50468-physici...simulation.html
[QUOTE]
_______________
“(Nick Bostrom “famously hypothesized”) … that our very existence may be nothing more than the algorithmic results of a computer simulation. in a holographic universe constructed by vastly superior beings? I know -- it sounds like the basis for good science fiction, but...”
- The “simulation hypothesis”, is in reality, the basis for a science fiction only, since it have a number of evident problems. For example – it is practically impossible to make corresponding simulation of Matter, e.g., every particle interacts with every other particle in Universe, at least by gravity; besides now it is known 3 fundamental forces besides gravity. Even “to simulate”, e.g., a real flight of a stone is necessary to simulate every impact of every air molecule, which, in turn, are dependent on wind, temperature, dust, etc., etc., etc. It seems very probable, that some “vastly superior beings” could find much more useful business, then to game in some puppet-show.
As well as “…The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time...”
– isn’t by any means required by the “simulation hypothesis” only, there are a lot of much more physically based hypotheses, where space-time is discreet.
As well as, for example, the discreet space time is in the informational physical model; the difference – in this case the discreetness of space-time is rigorously grounded; from the model follow a number of experimentally tested rather important physical results – see arXiv:1110.0003 , arXiv:1004.3712 , arXiv:0707.4657 , arXiv:0706.3979 .
Though the “simulation hypothesis” have, by some unknown reasons, very good PR, for example – in May 2011 the info "you’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it"
(e.g., http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-c...-math-proves-it )
was in a week widely spread through Web – there were more then 100 000 links.
At that – the info was at least twice incorrect, besides the “hypothesis” itself, the statement that “math proves something” is nonsense. Math cannot prove anything, all what can math, that it guarantees that the math results are consistent with the corresponding initial suggestions/ conditions. So if the suggestions were rubbish, then math results will be rubbish also, and nothing more
And some addition. In contrast to the “simulation hypothesis”, the informational conception/ model haven’t too much PR, moreover, quite the contrary something other things happen. A couple examples – the paper “Space and Time” a month ago was rejected by “Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics” journal (earlier was rejected by two other journal), though it is evidently new, actual and metaphysical.
And – it even seems make one laugh: I info about next iteration of the conception in so called “Cosmocoffee” WEB forum,
http://cosmocoffee.info/viewforum.php?f=5&...842304d92cd8f0a
as an anonymous, in the thread “Crackpots”. As well as I placed the info about the next version of the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2. At evening the info existed, at next morning it disappeared…
Cheers
_______
Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:06 PM
Semjase, on 17 Jan 2013 - 18:19, said:
This universe may be a computer simulation, scientific evidence is pointing in that
direction as German physicists are trying to prove if this universe is a computer simulation or not.
Here's a link to their story below
http://www.techspot.com/news/50468-physici...simulation.html
[QUOTE]
_______________
“(Nick Bostrom “famously hypothesized”) … that our very existence may be nothing more than the algorithmic results of a computer simulation. in a holographic universe constructed by vastly superior beings? I know -- it sounds like the basis for good science fiction, but...”
- The “simulation hypothesis”, is in reality, the basis for a science fiction only, since it have a number of evident problems. For example – it is practically impossible to make corresponding simulation of Matter, e.g., every particle interacts with every other particle in Universe, at least by gravity; besides now it is known 3 fundamental forces besides gravity. Even “to simulate”, e.g., a real flight of a stone is necessary to simulate every impact of every air molecule, which, in turn, are dependent on wind, temperature, dust, etc., etc., etc. It seems very probable, that some “vastly superior beings” could find much more useful business, then to game in some puppet-show.
As well as “…The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time...”
– isn’t by any means required by the “simulation hypothesis” only, there are a lot of much more physically based hypotheses, where space-time is discreet.
As well as, for example, the discreet space time is in the informational physical model; the difference – in this case the discreetness of space-time is rigorously grounded; from the model follow a number of experimentally tested rather important physical results – see arXiv:1110.0003 , arXiv:1004.3712 , arXiv:0707.4657 , arXiv:0706.3979 .
Though the “simulation hypothesis” have, by some unknown reasons, very good PR, for example – in May 2011 the info "you’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it"
(e.g., http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-c...-math-proves-it )
was in a week widely spread through Web – there were more then 100 000 links.
At that – the info was at least twice incorrect, besides the “hypothesis” itself, the statement that “math proves something” is nonsense. Math cannot prove anything, all what can math, that it guarantees that the math results are consistent with the corresponding initial suggestions/ conditions. So if the suggestions were rubbish, then math results will be rubbish also, and nothing more
And some addition. In contrast to the “simulation hypothesis”, the informational conception/ model haven’t too much PR, moreover, quite the contrary something other things happen. A couple examples – the paper “Space and Time” a month ago was rejected by “Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics” journal (earlier was rejected by two other journal), though it is evidently new, actual and metaphysical.
And – it even seems make one laugh: I info about next iteration of the conception in so called “Cosmocoffee” WEB forum,
http://cosmocoffee.info/viewforum.php?f=5&...842304d92cd8f0a
as an anonymous, in the thread “Crackpots”. As well as I placed the info about the next version of the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2. At evening the info existed, at next morning it disappeared…
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Jan 16 2013, 12:51 PM)
Now a little modification (mainly – some editing and something relating to the “twin paradox”) of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 , V2.
Cheers
Keep promoting you idiocies, eh?
Cheers
Keep promoting you idiocies, eh?
QUOTE
1. Introduction
This paper presents an approach to metaphysical (to physical problem also, though) “Space-Time problem”, which follows from the informational (“The Information as Absolute” conception) conception (Shevchenko and Tokarevsky, 2007-2010). Since the conception is rather new, its relations to existent philosophical views – Reductionism, Relationism, Substantivalism, presentism, eternalism, etc., if discussed, would occupy too much place and therefore aren’t considered here specially, when more attention is given to logical analysis of the problem.
To begin with, recall some existent definitions / views of/on the nature of Space and Time (for time durations and spatial distances the words “time” and “space” are used, as a rule, further here).
This paper presents an approach to metaphysical (to physical problem also, though) “Space-Time problem”, which follows from the informational (“The Information as Absolute” conception) conception (Shevchenko and Tokarevsky, 2007-2010). Since the conception is rather new, its relations to existent philosophical views – Reductionism, Relationism, Substantivalism, presentism, eternalism, etc., if discussed, would occupy too much place and therefore aren’t considered here specially, when more attention is given to logical analysis of the problem.
To begin with, recall some existent definitions / views of/on the nature of Space and Time (for time durations and spatial distances the words “time” and “space” are used, as a rule, further here).
And proud of it. Wow.
QUOTE (caillan+Jan 23 2013, 03:26 PM)
And proud of it. Wow.
yep, spamming all the forums he can find
QUOTE (xyzt+Jan 23 2013, 03:44 PM)
yep, spamming all the forums he can find
Spamming !
In that case spamming, IMO, is a positive contribution.
All and everything not fitting into the think modus of oneself will naturally be classified as spamming.
A discussion Forum is no better than the diversities of ideas being brought up. I trust that we all agree that this Forum, and specifically this thread, is not an educational forum for mainstream physics !!!
FF
Spamming !
In that case spamming, IMO, is a positive contribution.
All and everything not fitting into the think modus of oneself will naturally be classified as spamming.
A discussion Forum is no better than the diversities of ideas being brought up. I trust that we all agree that this Forum, and specifically this thread, is not an educational forum for mainstream physics !!!
FF
QUOTE (niels+Jan 24 2013, 10:42 AM)
Spamming !
In that case spamming, IMO, is a positive contribution.
All and everything not fitting into the think modus of oneself will naturally be classified as spamming.
A discussion Forum is no better than the diversities of ideas being brought up. I trust that we all agree that this Forum, and specifically this thread, is not an educational forum for mainstream physics !!!
FF
Yep. This is the place for ideas and thoughts that may look weird. If some mainstream aren't comfortable with this, they better shut their trap (or move elsewhere).
In that case spamming, IMO, is a positive contribution.
All and everything not fitting into the think modus of oneself will naturally be classified as spamming.
A discussion Forum is no better than the diversities of ideas being brought up. I trust that we all agree that this Forum, and specifically this thread, is not an educational forum for mainstream physics !!!
FF
Yep. This is the place for ideas and thoughts that may look weird. If some mainstream aren't comfortable with this, they better shut their trap (or move elsewhere).
QUOTE (niels+Jan 24 2013, 07:42 AM)
Spamming !
In that case spamming, IMO, is a positive contribution.
It is good that they keep your cell locked up at all times
Something you can argue with specifically or is it just general self promotion like you really understand something?
It is good that they keep your cell locked up at all times
Something you can argue with specifically or is it just general self promotion like you really understand something?
I simply quoted your collection of babbling imbecilities:
I simply quoted your collection of babbling imbecilities
Can you explain how an atomic clock that ticks slow compared to another frame ticking faster can measure the speed of light the same in both frames??? Or is the self promoting sense of feeling better about your self by putting everyone else down just that. You have no substance your self so you have to suck your substance from others by degrading them. A self esteem vampire.
Can you explain how an atomic clock that ticks slow compared to another frame ticking faster can measure the speed of light the same in both frames???
Easy:
1. Each clock ticks at the SAME exact rate (one second per second) in their RESPECTIVE frames.
2. Each clock appears to be ticking at a different rate when viewed from a frame DIFFERENT from the proper frame of the observer DUE to the fact that locally, the speed of light is the SAME for ALL observers.
Nah, it has only to do with the fact that I know physics while you are simply a nutter, locked up in some lunatic asylum.
In that case spamming, IMO, is a positive contribution.
QUOTE (boit+)
Yep. This is the place for ideas and thoughts that may look weird. If some mainstream aren't comfortable with this, they better shut their trap (or move elsewhere).
...coming from a pair of idiots like you, this is no surprise
...coming from a pair of idiots like you, this is no surprise
sDs
Relativity is absolutely true. No one can measure there own Gamma. Red shift in light from other frames will give you a relative gamma between frames. Light is measured to be the same in every frame. Distances can change in different frames and the new distance has to be traveled to measure the speed of light to be the same. But the speed of light is the same in all frames. If a clock slows in a frame the measuring stick has to increase in size (length) to give light more time to match a faster clock speed in another frames smaller measuring stick. So mass changes size while the speed of light remains the same. There are two motions of the electron and they always equal the speed of light so the electron and the speed of light are confounded in every frame. There is the forward motion and the rotational motion of the electron. When a clock slows down the forward motion slows and the rotational motion increases in size. This rotational motion is transferred to volume of mass without mass increasing. A density decrease in mass while weight remains the same. The increase in volume is always confounded with the length light has to travel. So relativity is correct and the gamma factor is always confounded between frames and not needed in the exchange formula. The result being light always moves at "C" and relativity remains intact.
Relativity is absolutely true. No one can measure there own Gamma. Red shift in light from other frames will give you a relative gamma between frames. Light is measured to be the same in every frame. Distances can change in different frames and the new distance has to be traveled to measure the speed of light to be the same. But the speed of light is the same in all frames. If a clock slows in a frame the measuring stick has to increase in size (length) to give light more time to match a faster clock speed in another frames smaller measuring stick. So mass changes size while the speed of light remains the same. There are two motions of the electron and they always equal the speed of light so the electron and the speed of light are confounded in every frame. There is the forward motion and the rotational motion of the electron. When a clock slows down the forward motion slows and the rotational motion increases in size. This rotational motion is transferred to volume of mass without mass increasing. A density decrease in mass while weight remains the same. The increase in volume is always confounded with the length light has to travel. So relativity is correct and the gamma factor is always confounded between frames and not needed in the exchange formula. The result being light always moves at "C" and relativity remains intact.
QUOTE (azo+Jan 24 2013, 03:39 PM)
There are two motions of the electron and they always equal the speed of light so the electron and the speed of light are confounded in every frame. There is the forward motion and the rotational motion of the electron. When a clock slows down the forward motion slows and the rotational motion increases in size. This rotational motion is transferred to volume of mass without mass increasing. A density decrease in mass while weight remains the same. The increase in volume is always confounded with the length light has to travel. So relativity is correct and the gamma factor is always confounded between frames and not needed in the exchange formula. The result being light always moves at "C" and relativity remains intact.
It is good that they keep your cell locked up at all times.
It is good that they keep your cell locked up at all times.
QUOTE (boit+Jan 24 2013, 12:13 PM)
Yep. This is the place for ideas and thoughts that may look weird. If some mainstream aren't comfortable with this, they better shut their trap (or move elsewhere).
There exists a huge gulf between weird and catergorically mindfucked gobbledegook, and the only trap I'll be shutting will be the one over the heads of you deluded imbeciles, when I've finally gathered you all up togther in the FM torture dungeon.
There exists a huge gulf between weird and catergorically mindfucked gobbledegook, and the only trap I'll be shutting will be the one over the heads of you deluded imbeciles, when I've finally gathered you all up togther in the FM torture dungeon.
QUOTE (xyzt Posted on Today at 4:06 PM+)
It is good that they keep your cell locked up at all times
Something you can argue with specifically or is it just general self promotion like you really understand something?
QUOTE (azo+Jan 24 2013, 05:49 PM)
QUOTE (xyzt Posted on Today at 4:06 PM+)
It is good that they keep your cell locked up at all times
Something you can argue with specifically or is it just general self promotion like you really understand something?
I simply quoted your collection of babbling imbecilities:
QUOTE (azo+)
There are two motions of the electron and they always equal the speed of light so the electron and the speed of light are confounded in every frame. There is the forward motion and the rotational motion of the electron. When a clock slows down the forward motion slows and the rotational motion increases in size. This rotational motion is transferred to volume of mass without mass increasing. A density decrease in mass while weight remains the same. The increase in volume is always confounded with the length light has to travel. So relativity is correct and the gamma factor is always confounded between frames and not needed in the exchange formula. The result being light always moves at "C" and relativity remains intact.
QUOTE (
xyzt Posted on Yesterday at 6:07 PM+)
xyzt Posted on Yesterday at 6:07 PM+)
I simply quoted your collection of babbling imbecilities
Can you explain how an atomic clock that ticks slow compared to another frame ticking faster can measure the speed of light the same in both frames??? Or is the self promoting sense of feeling better about your self by putting everyone else down just that. You have no substance your self so you have to suck your substance from others by degrading them. A self esteem vampire.
QUOTE (azo+Jan 25 2013, 04:16 AM)
Can you explain how an atomic clock that ticks slow compared to another frame ticking faster can measure the speed of light the same in both frames???
Easy:
1. Each clock ticks at the SAME exact rate (one second per second) in their RESPECTIVE frames.
2. Each clock appears to be ticking at a different rate when viewed from a frame DIFFERENT from the proper frame of the observer DUE to the fact that locally, the speed of light is the SAME for ALL observers.
QUOTE
Or is the self promoting sense of feeling better about your self by putting everyone else down just that. You have no substance your self so you have to suck your substance from others by degrading them. A self esteem vampire.
Nah, it has only to do with the fact that I know physics while you are simply a nutter, locked up in some lunatic asylum.
[QUOTE=azo,Jan 24 2013, 08:16 PM] <!--QuoteBegin-
xyzt Posted on Yesterday at 6:07 PM+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (
xyzt Posted on Yesterday at 6:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I simply quoted your collection of babbling imbecilities[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how an atomic clock that ticks slow compared to another frame ticking faster can measure the speed of light the same in both frames??? Or is the self promoting sense of feeling better about your self by putting everyone else down just that. You have no substance your self so you have to suck your substance from others by degrading them. A self esteem vampire. [/QUOTE]
If you stopped to learn physics 101 you would know this.
all you do is run your mouth with ignorance on a contradicting, hypocritical level.
xyzt Posted on Yesterday at 6:07 PM+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (
xyzt Posted on Yesterday at 6:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I simply quoted your collection of babbling imbecilities[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how an atomic clock that ticks slow compared to another frame ticking faster can measure the speed of light the same in both frames??? Or is the self promoting sense of feeling better about your self by putting everyone else down just that. You have no substance your self so you have to suck your substance from others by degrading them. A self esteem vampire. [/QUOTE]
If you stopped to learn physics 101 you would know this.
all you do is run your mouth with ignorance on a contradicting, hypocritical level.
To: azo
would you be kind to discuss you theory in some your own thread? Here it causes nothing then a Spam only.[B]
__________
And here we observe a next “little trick”, which some people – with rather strange think that some non-selfconsistent logical construction can be some scientific theory and attempt to persuade others that it is such a theory – apply when they cannot to do anything else. I.e. – we observe an aggressive and meaningless Spam.
__________
As an example – it seems rather strange, when somebody in this case cites some fragment from Introduction
____
(Paper quote) ...1. Introduction
This paper presents an approach to metaphysical (to physical problem also, though) “Space-Time problem”, which follows from the informational (“The Information as Absolute” conception) conception (Shevchenko and Tokarevsky, 2007-2010)....
____
And proud of it. Wow.
When it evidently clear that for discussion would be better citing some fragments from the main text. For example – this:
_______
In 1905 -1908 years Einstein – Minkowski special relativity theory was developed. In contrast to VFL- theory, the SRT have attributed the LT to some kinematical spacetime nature – when “space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows”… These additional postulates immediately have led to self-contradictories in theory, first of all – to the “twin paradox”. This paradox is known mainly as the “clock paradox”, but it has another variant - as the “energy paradox”. “Twin- traveller” at motion not only becomes be younger then the “homebody one”, besides, if he measures homebody’s energy, then he obtains that this energy is rather large – when the homebody spent no fuel. Further, from positing that all reference frames moving in Matter with different speeds are totally equivalent directly follows that Matter has corresponding different real masses – when seems as rather evident that unique in our Universe Matter must have unique mass, even this mass is infinite.
So the “paradox” isn’t a paradox; in reality it reveals the fact that the SRT is self-inconsistent and so it cannot be “resolved” in framework of the SRT. Thus any existent “the paradox resolution”
contains some logical or physical flaw, which can be found at some analysis. As, e.g., seems a standard one (Wiki), where the paradox becomes “be resolved” since
“…In special relativity there is no concept of absolute present… …The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference, so switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the present. If one imagines a present as a (three-dimensional) simultaneity plane in Minkowski space, then switching frames results in changing the inclination of the plane.” (see Fig, in Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox [ Minkowski diagram of the twin paradox. Time is relative, but both twins are not equivalent (the ship experiences additional acceleration to changes the direction of travel ]).
So “… during the U-turn [of the twin-traveller’s way] the plane of simultaneity jumps from blue to red and very quickly sweeps over a large segment of the world line of the Earth-based twin”.
By this way the “paradox” becomes be resolved – since, in full consistence with the SRT, the twin-homebody is older then the traveller one, though both twins thought during the travel that other twin must be younger.
In other words, from the consideration above follows, that only rotation (180 degree here) of the traveller ship direction results in that on Earth (and in a half of all Matter, though) everything becomes be older, on Earth – be older on this “segment”. If the traveller’s Earth-planet path was, e.g., 10 light years, then on Earth such the segment’s aging is (let the ship’s speed is near the speed of light) roughly 20 years. It is evident that from this “resolution” follows, also, that if the traveller will decide to return to the planet (near the planet, but when the ship’s speed already is near speed of light), then after corresponding -turn the traveller makes all on Earth younger again, including – he raise from the dead some people and give birth back to some others. Such events, as it seems, are more consistent with some magic, then with, for example, thermodynamics.
______
I would like hope, that the Spam will stop and further here will be some sensible discussion.
Cheers
would you be kind to discuss you theory in some your own thread? Here it causes nothing then a Spam only.[B]
__________
And here we observe a next “little trick”, which some people – with rather strange think that some non-selfconsistent logical construction can be some scientific theory and attempt to persuade others that it is such a theory – apply when they cannot to do anything else. I.e. – we observe an aggressive and meaningless Spam.
__________
As an example – it seems rather strange, when somebody in this case cites some fragment from Introduction
QUOTE (caillan+Jan 23 2013, 03:26 PM)
____
(Paper quote) ...1. Introduction
This paper presents an approach to metaphysical (to physical problem also, though) “Space-Time problem”, which follows from the informational (“The Information as Absolute” conception) conception (Shevchenko and Tokarevsky, 2007-2010)....
____
And proud of it. Wow.
When it evidently clear that for discussion would be better citing some fragments from the main text. For example – this:
_______
In 1905 -1908 years Einstein – Minkowski special relativity theory was developed. In contrast to VFL- theory, the SRT have attributed the LT to some kinematical spacetime nature – when “space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows”… These additional postulates immediately have led to self-contradictories in theory, first of all – to the “twin paradox”. This paradox is known mainly as the “clock paradox”, but it has another variant - as the “energy paradox”. “Twin- traveller” at motion not only becomes be younger then the “homebody one”, besides, if he measures homebody’s energy, then he obtains that this energy is rather large – when the homebody spent no fuel. Further, from positing that all reference frames moving in Matter with different speeds are totally equivalent directly follows that Matter has corresponding different real masses – when seems as rather evident that unique in our Universe Matter must have unique mass, even this mass is infinite.
So the “paradox” isn’t a paradox; in reality it reveals the fact that the SRT is self-inconsistent and so it cannot be “resolved” in framework of the SRT. Thus any existent “the paradox resolution”
contains some logical or physical flaw, which can be found at some analysis. As, e.g., seems a standard one (Wiki), where the paradox becomes “be resolved” since
“…In special relativity there is no concept of absolute present… …The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference, so switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the present. If one imagines a present as a (three-dimensional) simultaneity plane in Minkowski space, then switching frames results in changing the inclination of the plane.” (see Fig, in Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox [ Minkowski diagram of the twin paradox. Time is relative, but both twins are not equivalent (the ship experiences additional acceleration to changes the direction of travel ]).
So “… during the U-turn [of the twin-traveller’s way] the plane of simultaneity jumps from blue to red and very quickly sweeps over a large segment of the world line of the Earth-based twin”.
By this way the “paradox” becomes be resolved – since, in full consistence with the SRT, the twin-homebody is older then the traveller one, though both twins thought during the travel that other twin must be younger.
In other words, from the consideration above follows, that only rotation (180 degree here) of the traveller ship direction results in that on Earth (and in a half of all Matter, though) everything becomes be older, on Earth – be older on this “segment”. If the traveller’s Earth-planet path was, e.g., 10 light years, then on Earth such the segment’s aging is (let the ship’s speed is near the speed of light) roughly 20 years. It is evident that from this “resolution” follows, also, that if the traveller will decide to return to the planet (near the planet, but when the ship’s speed already is near speed of light), then after corresponding -turn the traveller makes all on Earth younger again, including – he raise from the dead some people and give birth back to some others. Such events, as it seems, are more consistent with some magic, then with, for example, thermodynamics.
______
I would like hope, that the Spam will stop and further here will be some sensible discussion.
Cheers
QUOTE (xyzt+Jan 23 2013, 03:44 PM)
yep, spamming all the forums he can find
-? The situation is very simple and was explained in the thread earlier. As I wrote already, all papers about the informational (“The Information as Absolute” conception) conception and model are rejected by mainstream journals, e.g.: the paper “The Information as Absolute” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) was rejected by 5 philosophical journals, the paper “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) - by 3 philosophical journals, the paper “The informational model – possible tests” (http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979) – by 3 physical journals; all - without any peer review and, correspondingly, without authors’ considerations of possible remarks.
Though every paper is evidently new, actual and philosophical/ physical and there aren’t really any reasons for the papers be rejected. So it seems as that there don’t exist some at lest philosophical mainstream journals, where the editor board haven’t problems with ethics, but, regrettably, in this case the authors cannot do anything .
Besides – my E-mail traffic is controlled by some unknown “E-mail clients”, so I haven’t possibility practically to discuss the topics “privately”.
So I’m FORCED to walk through the scientific forums, which I "can find", to introduce – to possibly indeed professional – people with the conception/ model.
Again – all is very simple, even banal; at that it seems as a best compliment in such cases; but the “compliment” makes some difficulties, of course, though.
Cheers
-? The situation is very simple and was explained in the thread earlier. As I wrote already, all papers about the informational (“The Information as Absolute” conception) conception and model are rejected by mainstream journals, e.g.: the paper “The Information as Absolute” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) was rejected by 5 philosophical journals, the paper “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) - by 3 philosophical journals, the paper “The informational model – possible tests” (http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979) – by 3 physical journals; all - without any peer review and, correspondingly, without authors’ considerations of possible remarks.
Though every paper is evidently new, actual and philosophical/ physical and there aren’t really any reasons for the papers be rejected. So it seems as that there don’t exist some at lest philosophical mainstream journals, where the editor board haven’t problems with ethics, but, regrettably, in this case the authors cannot do anything .
Besides – my E-mail traffic is controlled by some unknown “E-mail clients”, so I haven’t possibility practically to discuss the topics “privately”.
So I’m FORCED to walk through the scientific forums, which I "can find", to introduce – to possibly indeed professional – people with the conception/ model.
Again – all is very simple, even banal; at that it seems as a best compliment in such cases; but the “compliment” makes some difficulties, of course, though.
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Jan 30 2013, 12:27 PM)
-? The situation is very simple and was explained in the thread earlier. As I wrote already, all papers about the informational (“The Information as Absolute” conception) conception and model are rejected by mainstream journals,
Of course they are rejected since they are pure bunk.
This is why you go trolling the internet trying to promote them.
Of course they are rejected since they are pure bunk.
This is why you go trolling the internet trying to promote them.
That seems 7-th aggressive and senseless post of user xyzt here; in such cases a Chukchi man says “tendentsia, odnako” (“a tendency, however”). And that is all what a “relativity theory” true believers can, besides, of course, banning in forums – as e.g., in http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?...hysics-amp-Math and
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/
So, since there aren’t reasonable questions/ comments to the thread’s topic, below is some common comment.
Indeed, Shannon's theory is nothing more then a communication theory, i.e. only a part of the theory of information. So, e.g., the theory of algorithms, cybernetics, logic and mathematics as a whole are some informational theories also. And it can be (and is – see paper “the Information as Absolute” http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) rigorously proven, that there is not anything in reality besides informational patterns, which are elements of absolutely infinite and fundamental Set “Information”. In the Set some such patterns are complex and big enough – for example such a pattern (that in turn is a system of interacting patterns – particles, stones, planets, galaxies, etc.) is our Universe, which is some subset in the Set. Universe consists of 3 subsets – “Matter”, “Alive” and “Consciousness”; Matter is utmost logically simple and, besides, every material element interacts – in reality exchanges by information – by using exclusively true information.
So it is inessential, in first approximation, what is Matter’s structure – that can be a Turing machine, cellular automata, etc., but for now is enough to understand that Matter is some logical system.
So in Matter both - Space and Time are some rules/ possibilities that control the processes in Matter (Time is universal rule in the Set also). Roughly speaking, Time controls dynamic Matter's structure (Matter's evolution); Space "supports" separating of fixed information. Since everything that constitutes Matter - particles, bodies, etc. are some informational patterns, rather good analogy for the Space and Time would be grammatical rules, which define/control that a text must be written letter by letter, between words must be "space" intervals in, e.g., a paper, when the paper is some analogue of "space". Or, e.g., - since Matter is some analogue of computer - Space and Time rules are some analogues of Boolean algebra and the logic.
So both - Space and Time are absolute and by no means depend on any Matter's process (state, "reference frame", etc.), as e.g., the fact that Boolean algebra and the logic control some PC doesn't mean that in any p–n junction of a PC there are Boole and Aristotle, which throw electrons over depletion layer in given order.
-Etc., again - more see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 (may be useful , as an example of application of the “Information as Absolute” conception, http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 also)
Cheers
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/
So, since there aren’t reasonable questions/ comments to the thread’s topic, below is some common comment.
Indeed, Shannon's theory is nothing more then a communication theory, i.e. only a part of the theory of information. So, e.g., the theory of algorithms, cybernetics, logic and mathematics as a whole are some informational theories also. And it can be (and is – see paper “the Information as Absolute” http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) rigorously proven, that there is not anything in reality besides informational patterns, which are elements of absolutely infinite and fundamental Set “Information”. In the Set some such patterns are complex and big enough – for example such a pattern (that in turn is a system of interacting patterns – particles, stones, planets, galaxies, etc.) is our Universe, which is some subset in the Set. Universe consists of 3 subsets – “Matter”, “Alive” and “Consciousness”; Matter is utmost logically simple and, besides, every material element interacts – in reality exchanges by information – by using exclusively true information.
So it is inessential, in first approximation, what is Matter’s structure – that can be a Turing machine, cellular automata, etc., but for now is enough to understand that Matter is some logical system.
So in Matter both - Space and Time are some rules/ possibilities that control the processes in Matter (Time is universal rule in the Set also). Roughly speaking, Time controls dynamic Matter's structure (Matter's evolution); Space "supports" separating of fixed information. Since everything that constitutes Matter - particles, bodies, etc. are some informational patterns, rather good analogy for the Space and Time would be grammatical rules, which define/control that a text must be written letter by letter, between words must be "space" intervals in, e.g., a paper, when the paper is some analogue of "space". Or, e.g., - since Matter is some analogue of computer - Space and Time rules are some analogues of Boolean algebra and the logic.
So both - Space and Time are absolute and by no means depend on any Matter's process (state, "reference frame", etc.), as e.g., the fact that Boolean algebra and the logic control some PC doesn't mean that in any p–n junction of a PC there are Boole and Aristotle, which throw electrons over depletion layer in given order.
-Etc., again - more see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 (may be useful , as an example of application of the “Information as Absolute” conception, http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 also)
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Feb 7 2013, 11:19 AM)
That seems 7-th aggressive and senseless post of user xyzt here;
It isn't senseless to put a mirror to your crackpot face.
It isn't senseless to put a mirror to your crackpot face.
Since there aren't some reasonable comments, I re-post a post from another forum:
[QUOTE] *** wrote:I'd love to have taken this Boolean approach in the exposition of my model. I dared not do it because my mathematical naivety would have been uncovered in a flash. I'm sorry to have missed your earlier post SSDZ, the point you make is profoundly significant. In my view Boolean algebraic logic systems are far more applicable in the consideration of physical reality than the contorted juggling of Aristotelian thought.
The science of physics is merging into the more fundamental science of computation, as indeed is much of theoretical biology. It seems we might be finally getting to the heart of the matter.
_________
In reality the situation is more complicated – see the "The Information as Absolute" paper. Our Universe is only an "infinitesimal" subset of the Information Set – and it isn’t impossible that Universe in turn is a subset (a part) of some other “intermediate”, and relatively separate, subset of the Set, of some "Megauniverse", etc. But even in the case of our Universe alone, it consists of 3 main – and separate subsets, i.e. –"Matter", "Alive" and "Consciousness". Here only subset Matter "is controlled" by mathematics, two others differ from Matter first of all by the criterion of validness of the information, by which the subsets’ elements exchange mutually. Just because of this information in Matter is exclusively true, mathematics (including, of course, Boolean logic) is a core of Matter, since for mathematics the validity relations are critical. When for other two Universe’s subsets this requirement isn’t mandatory – their elements lie often, sometimes – without any necessary; and here any mathematics cannot make anything.
On other hand, now philosophy, which ceased its existence after Kant (in fact. Some society that discusses a huge number of non-testable experimentally and non- provable/ disprovable topics exists well till now), now obtains utmost fundamental subject for reasonable researches – utmost fundamental Set "Information" (see link above).
Cheers
[QUOTE] *** wrote:I'd love to have taken this Boolean approach in the exposition of my model. I dared not do it because my mathematical naivety would have been uncovered in a flash. I'm sorry to have missed your earlier post SSDZ, the point you make is profoundly significant. In my view Boolean algebraic logic systems are far more applicable in the consideration of physical reality than the contorted juggling of Aristotelian thought.
The science of physics is merging into the more fundamental science of computation, as indeed is much of theoretical biology. It seems we might be finally getting to the heart of the matter.
_________
In reality the situation is more complicated – see the "The Information as Absolute" paper. Our Universe is only an "infinitesimal" subset of the Information Set – and it isn’t impossible that Universe in turn is a subset (a part) of some other “intermediate”, and relatively separate, subset of the Set, of some "Megauniverse", etc. But even in the case of our Universe alone, it consists of 3 main – and separate subsets, i.e. –"Matter", "Alive" and "Consciousness". Here only subset Matter "is controlled" by mathematics, two others differ from Matter first of all by the criterion of validness of the information, by which the subsets’ elements exchange mutually. Just because of this information in Matter is exclusively true, mathematics (including, of course, Boolean logic) is a core of Matter, since for mathematics the validity relations are critical. When for other two Universe’s subsets this requirement isn’t mandatory – their elements lie often, sometimes – without any necessary; and here any mathematics cannot make anything.
On other hand, now philosophy, which ceased its existence after Kant (in fact. Some society that discusses a huge number of non-testable experimentally and non- provable/ disprovable topics exists well till now), now obtains utmost fundamental subject for reasonable researches – utmost fundamental Set "Information" (see link above).
Cheers
"Alive" and "Consciousness" are not valid mathematical subsets as they cannot be validated mathematically.
This sounds on it's face to be silly however it is true.
This sounds on it's face to be silly however it is true.
QUOTE (sDs+Feb 13 2013, 11:24 AM)
Since there aren't some reasonable comments, I re-post a post from another forum:
Stop spamming your idiocies all over the internet.
Stop spamming your idiocies all over the internet.
QUOTE (sDs Posted on Today at 11:24 AM+)
"Matter", "Alive" and "Consciousness". Here only subset Matter "is controlled" by mathematics, two others differ from Matter first of all by the criterion of validness of the information,
If you are suggesting a consciousness for the universe this is not knowable. If you are suggesting that Alive and Consciousness can effect mass that is a given. But we can only use physics not violate physics.
If you are suggesting a consciousness for the universe this is not knowable. If you are suggesting that Alive and Consciousness can effect mass that is a given. But we can only use physics not violate physics.
Since there aren’t some questions/ comments on the thread’s topic, consider the two-clock experiment.
So, let there is some system that consists of a rod having the length L and two clocks on the rod. The system moves along the rod’s axes with constant speed V in some other RF, for example – on some Earth’ orbit. It is well known from the special relativity that one can synchronize clocks when they are in a point, and further, using a slow transport with a clock speed v<<V, move clocks on the rod’s front and back ends. In the RF the clocks showings will be at that different, on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement (front clock is slower) –VL/c^2. If the clocks are slowly moved to one point on the rod (let – front clock is moved to back rod’s end), the showings must become equal again.
In the special relativity the clocks “show time” and so there is no difference – moved clock constitutes, or not, a rigid system with the rod, in both cases the result is one – the showings’ identity.
In informational model spacetime is absolute and the clocks’ difference is “material” kinematic effect, when only the rod turns in a plain “[coordinate] time, a spatial direction” (tau, X). So in the case when moved clock constitutes all time a rigid system with the rod, then the showings will be identical. But if there is a free motion (e.g., moved clock has an engine), then the difference will conserve.
The orbital speed of international cosmic station is near V ~7.6 km/s, the Voigt-Lorentz decrement, VL/c^2 ~ 8.4.10^(-14) s*L. For a rod having L=25 m the decrement is 2. 10^(-12)s – now such a precision isn’t a problem. For 250m rod the decrement is 2. 10^(-11)s, clocks such a precision have sizes as a matchbox.
But so long rod isn’t possibly necessary. After first synchronization the process can be repeated any times with a small rod. E.g., if one uses 10 cycles “put ahead on the rod – free return” with 25m rod, the result will be as when using 250 m rod.
It is evident, that by using measured data on the VL-decrement is possible to measure the speed V – when that is impossible in framework of special relativity.
However, it is impossible in this case to measure the Earth’s speed in space relating to absolute reference frame, because of in Earth’s gravity is impossible to make a free clocks system. But if one launches a couple of clocks far enough away from the solar system, then such a measurement would be possible.
Cheers
So, let there is some system that consists of a rod having the length L and two clocks on the rod. The system moves along the rod’s axes with constant speed V in some other RF, for example – on some Earth’ orbit. It is well known from the special relativity that one can synchronize clocks when they are in a point, and further, using a slow transport with a clock speed v<<V, move clocks on the rod’s front and back ends. In the RF the clocks showings will be at that different, on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement (front clock is slower) –VL/c^2. If the clocks are slowly moved to one point on the rod (let – front clock is moved to back rod’s end), the showings must become equal again.
In the special relativity the clocks “show time” and so there is no difference – moved clock constitutes, or not, a rigid system with the rod, in both cases the result is one – the showings’ identity.
In informational model spacetime is absolute and the clocks’ difference is “material” kinematic effect, when only the rod turns in a plain “[coordinate] time, a spatial direction” (tau, X). So in the case when moved clock constitutes all time a rigid system with the rod, then the showings will be identical. But if there is a free motion (e.g., moved clock has an engine), then the difference will conserve.
The orbital speed of international cosmic station is near V ~7.6 km/s, the Voigt-Lorentz decrement, VL/c^2 ~ 8.4.10^(-14) s*L. For a rod having L=25 m the decrement is 2. 10^(-12)s – now such a precision isn’t a problem. For 250m rod the decrement is 2. 10^(-11)s, clocks such a precision have sizes as a matchbox.
But so long rod isn’t possibly necessary. After first synchronization the process can be repeated any times with a small rod. E.g., if one uses 10 cycles “put ahead on the rod – free return” with 25m rod, the result will be as when using 250 m rod.
It is evident, that by using measured data on the VL-decrement is possible to measure the speed V – when that is impossible in framework of special relativity.
However, it is impossible in this case to measure the Earth’s speed in space relating to absolute reference frame, because of in Earth’s gravity is impossible to make a free clocks system. But if one launches a couple of clocks far enough away from the solar system, then such a measurement would be possible.
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Feb 28 2013, 01:04 PM)
In the RF the clocks showings will be at that different, on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement (front clock is slower) –VL/c^2. If the clocks are slowly moved to one point on the rod (let – front clock is moved to back rod’s end), the showings must become equal again.
You continue to post idiocies, the VL/c^2 difference can only be observed in a reference frame outside the lab since the speed V is the speed between the lab and that reference frame. Since the observations are made in the lab, no speed V can be measured so, contrary to your idiotic claims, the speed V cannot be measured from within the lab, so, there is no contradiction of SR.
You continue to post idiocies, the VL/c^2 difference can only be observed in a reference frame outside the lab since the speed V is the speed between the lab and that reference frame. Since the observations are made in the lab, no speed V can be measured so, contrary to your idiotic claims, the speed V cannot be measured from within the lab, so, there is no contradiction of SR.
Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) paper.
Cheers
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) paper.
Cheers
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Feb 13 2013, 02:10 PM)
"Alive" and "Consciousness" are not valid mathematical subsets as they cannot be validated mathematically.
This sounds on it's face to be silly however it is true.
i disagree and mapping of the brain is big business < serous business .
Biology takes math for it all to come together in a better understanding .
Just about everything is math really . It is all about relationships , measuring methods, constants and reliability to make predictions . How do you think humans get a spaceship to mars ? By predictability
People are under the impression that the human mind is something mysterious when in fact it is more computer like then you can imagine only because of the survival instinct of the individual . It is all going on about < Illusion of free will . It feels good or I should say it is repulsive to think you have non , but all ana all that is purely survival instinct talking .
So people have a hard time understanding me . I had hope more could have breached that barrier by now as the test is point blank accurate in my onomastics work showing that free will is not , but by programing and genetic linking you act out true to your place , space and Identification . What is particular to me is the echo effects in information flow that makes it happen at different location simultaneously.
What I call the emergence < It is happening now more then ever by the blockage being taken away by the internet connecting all people in thoughts .
Yet I have come to believe the connection has always been there by 7 degrees of separation by the written word < you got mail kind of thing < Stage lines telegraphs < runner before that , Hollers ridge to ridge < smoke signals and what have you < There is power in signs and reading those signs is the mystery < How they can occur in a natural world < the mountains talk and so do the birds trees and what have you by impressions < that is the real mystery . Everything is information including the human brain and calibration is possible and not only that but inevitable by train momentum ( my new phrase which is not new but very old musical lyrical impressionism < You can't stop a train is the meme . Predestined unless north Korea blows us all up in a nukulier grand f anally.
Roddney get yo butt over der and slap that bitch kid . Wake up Young One
This sounds on it's face to be silly however it is true.
i disagree and mapping of the brain is big business < serous business .
Biology takes math for it all to come together in a better understanding .
Just about everything is math really . It is all about relationships , measuring methods, constants and reliability to make predictions . How do you think humans get a spaceship to mars ? By predictability
People are under the impression that the human mind is something mysterious when in fact it is more computer like then you can imagine only because of the survival instinct of the individual . It is all going on about < Illusion of free will . It feels good or I should say it is repulsive to think you have non , but all ana all that is purely survival instinct talking .
So people have a hard time understanding me . I had hope more could have breached that barrier by now as the test is point blank accurate in my onomastics work showing that free will is not , but by programing and genetic linking you act out true to your place , space and Identification . What is particular to me is the echo effects in information flow that makes it happen at different location simultaneously.
What I call the emergence < It is happening now more then ever by the blockage being taken away by the internet connecting all people in thoughts .
Yet I have come to believe the connection has always been there by 7 degrees of separation by the written word < you got mail kind of thing < Stage lines telegraphs < runner before that , Hollers ridge to ridge < smoke signals and what have you < There is power in signs and reading those signs is the mystery < How they can occur in a natural world < the mountains talk and so do the birds trees and what have you by impressions < that is the real mystery . Everything is information including the human brain and calibration is possible and not only that but inevitable by train momentum ( my new phrase which is not new but very old musical lyrical impressionism < You can't stop a train is the meme . Predestined unless north Korea blows us all up in a nukulier grand f anally.
Roddney get yo butt over der and slap that bitch kid . Wake up Young One
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 12 2013, 02:17 PM)
Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) paper.
Cheers
Stop peddling your garbage.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) paper.
Cheers
Stop peddling your garbage.
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 12 2013, 02:17 PM)
Now a little upgrade of the paper “the Information as Absolute” appeared – see
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) paper.
Cheers
oh thats good . I only read the opening statement . That is good . I agree , Relativity and relationship is information flow . Sucking blood brothers . Mosquitoes
-3-2-1 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
123
456
789
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
The paper helps to understand additionally – if necessary – the “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) paper.
Cheers
oh thats good . I only read the opening statement . That is good . I agree , Relativity and relationship is information flow . Sucking blood brothers . Mosquitoes
-3-2-1 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
123
456
789
I have no problems with the Information Universe as proposed and defined by Sergey Chevchenko et al.
Nothing that I express in the following is more than personal ideas and they have no bearings to what is officially regarded as correct physics and mathematics.
The ideas of Shevchenko et al are quite similar to the 3D Pixel Universe, very much similar indeed.
I have one pricipal comment, however, namely concerning the property definition I2 saying that
@Information can exist at least in two possible modes: 1) “fixed information”, e.g. a picture, a computer code listing, and 2) “dynamic information” – a changing picture, an execution of a program code in computer, etc. @
I think that the idea about some kind of the existence of Fixed Information (absolutely accurately defined information units) is a less good idea. Information cannot be absolute. Information is of DYNAMIC character, ever changing. This is not the same as saying that there cannot be informatioin into existance that show a certain and weldefined ACCURACY, and therefore would SEEM to be fixed and into existence, when observed in a certain SCALE.
My fundamental idea is that there must be a ONETOONE correlation between the physical SIZE of the information BIT and the TIME it takes to express. The FLE is identical with my Objects of Sameness or PIXEL,
Physical and Existence is IMO synonymous with NON INSTANTANEOUS (inertia) and 3D
PIXEL is my definition of the perceiving metaphor used by human mind to bring physical world into existence.
Information Universe existes in the form of information bits that dilutes infinitely towards zero, and never getting zero. This is counteruntuitive to human mind, and we see it as a paradox. We cannot grasp that continuous and discrete must coexist. One important detail is that continuous and discrete can coexist because they are being expressed intermittently and flashlike and departed by time.
The important insight is IMO that the fundamental priciple behind cosmos and its existence is this Ying Yang shifting behind the mere act of expressing a dynamic change in one scale (gravitational expression) which in the next following scale show as a matter expression and with a time metric attached. It is just another way of expressing the wave particle duality. It is just another way of expressing that absolute accuracy is physically impossible, just another way of expressing that simultaneity is not possible, that SR is fundamentally correct in its assumptions.
One cannot get a metric without having a metric at hand, and this is irrespective whether the metric is a 3D metric or a time metric, but they are interwoven, and they cannot get zero.
Existence in terms of how we humans perceive a physical world is ultimately dependent on this PHYSICALIZATION of information into the perceiving and cognitive metaphore (FLE or PIXEL) that bring existence into existense so to speak. We are not aware that it is about how information observes information. The infinite regress that define this metaphor we use in our understanding of cosmos is the fundamental behind eternity, and behind the illusion of free will, IMO.
Existence is a SCALE / like Cantor expressed infinite as being of divine nature, and made of infinitely many transfinites. In oredr to bring cosmos into human mind existence the first requirement is to construct a scale, to construct an accuracy out from which the existence can be defined. The only differences between the various existencies such as dead matter, living matter, dark matter, and strictly metaphysical phenomenons like feelings and emotions and qualia, etc etc, is IMO ONLY a question about scale of Pixels or scale of LFE.
Any pixel and any LFE contain the full information about the entire cosmos, potentially, it is solely a question about how much this information is being outfolded, (Bohm implicate and explicate world). A pixel is defined as a 3D body with a shape, and the 3D that a pixel takes of the cosmic space cannot be zero, so shape cannot be diluted into zero, and not into anything simpler either.
The algorithm behind explicate world is SHAPE, is about how pixels reconfigure their relative position IN SITU in cosmos, and thereby define and express matter. Cosmos cannot sit still, Cosmos is in this ever changing 3D expression. It is about how information is being translated into a physical disguise.
By Googling 3D pixel Universe one will get the gist behind the principles and ideas of the 3D pixel Universe.
Nothing that I express in the following is more than personal ideas and they have no bearings to what is officially regarded as correct physics and mathematics.
The ideas of Shevchenko et al are quite similar to the 3D Pixel Universe, very much similar indeed.
I have one pricipal comment, however, namely concerning the property definition I2 saying that
@Information can exist at least in two possible modes: 1) “fixed information”, e.g. a picture, a computer code listing, and 2) “dynamic information” – a changing picture, an execution of a program code in computer, etc. @
I think that the idea about some kind of the existence of Fixed Information (absolutely accurately defined information units) is a less good idea. Information cannot be absolute. Information is of DYNAMIC character, ever changing. This is not the same as saying that there cannot be informatioin into existance that show a certain and weldefined ACCURACY, and therefore would SEEM to be fixed and into existence, when observed in a certain SCALE.
My fundamental idea is that there must be a ONETOONE correlation between the physical SIZE of the information BIT and the TIME it takes to express. The FLE is identical with my Objects of Sameness or PIXEL,
Physical and Existence is IMO synonymous with NON INSTANTANEOUS (inertia) and 3D
PIXEL is my definition of the perceiving metaphor used by human mind to bring physical world into existence.
Information Universe existes in the form of information bits that dilutes infinitely towards zero, and never getting zero. This is counteruntuitive to human mind, and we see it as a paradox. We cannot grasp that continuous and discrete must coexist. One important detail is that continuous and discrete can coexist because they are being expressed intermittently and flashlike and departed by time.
The important insight is IMO that the fundamental priciple behind cosmos and its existence is this Ying Yang shifting behind the mere act of expressing a dynamic change in one scale (gravitational expression) which in the next following scale show as a matter expression and with a time metric attached. It is just another way of expressing the wave particle duality. It is just another way of expressing that absolute accuracy is physically impossible, just another way of expressing that simultaneity is not possible, that SR is fundamentally correct in its assumptions.
One cannot get a metric without having a metric at hand, and this is irrespective whether the metric is a 3D metric or a time metric, but they are interwoven, and they cannot get zero.
Existence in terms of how we humans perceive a physical world is ultimately dependent on this PHYSICALIZATION of information into the perceiving and cognitive metaphore (FLE or PIXEL) that bring existence into existense so to speak. We are not aware that it is about how information observes information. The infinite regress that define this metaphor we use in our understanding of cosmos is the fundamental behind eternity, and behind the illusion of free will, IMO.
Existence is a SCALE / like Cantor expressed infinite as being of divine nature, and made of infinitely many transfinites. In oredr to bring cosmos into human mind existence the first requirement is to construct a scale, to construct an accuracy out from which the existence can be defined. The only differences between the various existencies such as dead matter, living matter, dark matter, and strictly metaphysical phenomenons like feelings and emotions and qualia, etc etc, is IMO ONLY a question about scale of Pixels or scale of LFE.
Any pixel and any LFE contain the full information about the entire cosmos, potentially, it is solely a question about how much this information is being outfolded, (Bohm implicate and explicate world). A pixel is defined as a 3D body with a shape, and the 3D that a pixel takes of the cosmic space cannot be zero, so shape cannot be diluted into zero, and not into anything simpler either.
The algorithm behind explicate world is SHAPE, is about how pixels reconfigure their relative position IN SITU in cosmos, and thereby define and express matter. Cosmos cannot sit still, Cosmos is in this ever changing 3D expression. It is about how information is being translated into a physical disguise.
By Googling 3D pixel Universe one will get the gist behind the principles and ideas of the 3D pixel Universe.
- It isn’t so, the SRT is inconsistent (inwardly contradictory) even as mathematical construction, what follows from no-solubility of the “twin paradox”, which, in turn, isn’t a paradox but is a realization of self-contradictory of the theory. In physics the situation is worse, since the “paradox” becomes be two-faced – besides the “clock paradox” there is the “energy paradox” also.
Besides – the space-time in Matter is more complicated then you write. Firstly – there are two “times” in reality, when one of them is usual dimension in 4D-spacetime; and so, e.g., the FLEs are 4D logical patterns; etc.
More – see “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) and The Informational Conception and Basic Physics ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
Besides – the space-time in Matter is more complicated then you write. Firstly – there are two “times” in reality, when one of them is usual dimension in 4D-spacetime; and so, e.g., the FLEs are 4D logical patterns; etc.
More – see “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) and The Informational Conception and Basic Physics ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
I do not understand..
what is the information model in physics ?
the only information model i know of
is software engineering.
or information theory, but that's mathematics analysis.
what is the information model in physics ?
the only information model i know of
is software engineering.
or information theory, but that's mathematics analysis.
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 20 2013, 05:49 PM)
- It isn’t so, the SRT is inconsistent (inwardly contradictory) even as mathematical construction, what follows from no-solubility of the “twin paradox”, which, in turn, isn’t a paradox but is a realization of self-contradictory of the theory.
Sergey,
You keep repeating this falsity, you pretend to be a scientist but you are just garbage.
Sergey,
You keep repeating this falsity, you pretend to be a scientist but you are just garbage.
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 20 2013, 05:49 PM)
- It isn’t so, the SRT is inconsistent (inwardly contradictory) even as mathematical construction, what follows from no-solubility of the “twin paradox”, which, in turn, isn’t a paradox but is a realization of self-contradictory of the theory. In physics the situation is worse, since the “paradox” becomes be two-faced – besides the “clock paradox” there is the “energy paradox” also.
Besides – the space-time in Matter is more complicated then you write. Firstly – there are two “times” in reality, when one of them is usual dimension in 4D-spacetime; and so, e.g., the FLEs are 4D logical patterns; etc.
More – see “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) and The Informational Conception and Basic Physics ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
I am not sure about whom and what you are commenting on ?
Please elaborate
Besides – the space-time in Matter is more complicated then you write. Firstly – there are two “times” in reality, when one of them is usual dimension in 4D-spacetime; and so, e.g., the FLEs are 4D logical patterns; etc.
More – see “Space and Time” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003) and The Informational Conception and Basic Physics ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
I am not sure about whom and what you are commenting on ?
Please elaborate
QUOTE (krash661+Mar 20 2013, 06:11 PM)
I do not understand..
what is the information model in physics ?
the only information model i know of
is software engineering.
or information theory, but that's mathematics analysis.
To understand “what is the information model in physics?” is necessary to read a few papers:
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
what is the information model in physics ?
the only information model i know of
is software engineering.
or information theory, but that's mathematics analysis.
To understand “what is the information model in physics?” is necessary to read a few papers:
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 20 2013, 07:00 PM)
To understand “what is the information model in physics?” is necessary to read a few papers:
<snip references to garbage>
Cheers
No one reads your garbage.
<snip references to garbage>
Cheers
No one reads your garbage.
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 20 2013, 11:00 AM)
To understand “what is the information model in physics?” is necessary to read a few papers:
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
this is not an answer at all.
do you mean the overall information that exist of physics and calling it this,
" The Informational Model In Physics " ?
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
this is not an answer at all.
do you mean the overall information that exist of physics and calling it this,
" The Informational Model In Physics " ?
QUOTE (krash661+Mar 20 2013, 07:25 PM)
this is not an answer at all.
do you mean the overall information that exist of physics and calling it this,
" The Informational Model In Physics " ?
i am saying information is coded in everything and is the bases of our reality . Not quite like the computer program like Alex joked about but dang near . That a light beam carries with it impression from events and transfers the coding to objects struck if absorbed and this coding goes on and on and leaves impressions
That every thing is coded . We are part of the code so it makes it hard to see how it is ,
The Code . The rocks that make up crystalline structures are coded to be that very structure
so when I say i agree with some of his information idea how ever misguided. There is something to every thing being information driven or what like to think of as event triggers . A lot is slide of hand too. When you get to a source it leaves you with that feeling < Oh !! That is what it was , How silly and it causes a building to fall . Wow dominoes . Information driven
do you mean the overall information that exist of physics and calling it this,
" The Informational Model In Physics " ?
i am saying information is coded in everything and is the bases of our reality . Not quite like the computer program like Alex joked about but dang near . That a light beam carries with it impression from events and transfers the coding to objects struck if absorbed and this coding goes on and on and leaves impressions
That every thing is coded . We are part of the code so it makes it hard to see how it is ,
The Code . The rocks that make up crystalline structures are coded to be that very structure
so when I say i agree with some of his information idea how ever misguided. There is something to every thing being information driven or what like to think of as event triggers . A lot is slide of hand too. When you get to a source it leaves you with that feeling < Oh !! That is what it was , How silly and it causes a building to fall . Wow dominoes . Information driven
QUOTE (Mekigal+Mar 20 2013, 11:36 AM)
i am saying information is coded in everything and is the bases of our reality . Not quite like the computer program like Alex joked about but dang near . That a light beam carries with it impression from events and transfers the coding to objects struck if absorbed and this coding goes on and on and leaves impressions
That every thing is coded . We are part of the code so it makes it hard to see how it is ,
The Code . The rocks that make up crystalline structures are coded to be that very structure
so when I say i agree with some of his information idea how ever misguided. There is something to every thing being information driven or what like to think of as event triggers . A lot is slide of hand too. When you get to a source it leaves you with that feeling < Oh !! That is what it was , How silly and it causes a building to fall . Wow dominoes . Information driven
lol sorry Mekigal,
i jumped in this conversation without reading from the beginning.
I assumed it was sds who started this..
once again i apologize.
and i will start at the beginning like i should have from the begin with.
That every thing is coded . We are part of the code so it makes it hard to see how it is ,
The Code . The rocks that make up crystalline structures are coded to be that very structure
so when I say i agree with some of his information idea how ever misguided. There is something to every thing being information driven or what like to think of as event triggers . A lot is slide of hand too. When you get to a source it leaves you with that feeling < Oh !! That is what it was , How silly and it causes a building to fall . Wow dominoes . Information driven
lol sorry Mekigal,
i jumped in this conversation without reading from the beginning.
I assumed it was sds who started this..
once again i apologize.
and i will start at the beginning like i should have from the begin with.
QUOTE (krash661+Mar 20 2013, 07:38 PM)
lol sorry Mekigal,
i jumped in this conversation without reading from the beginning.
I assumed it was sds who started this..
once again i apologize.
and i will start at the beginning like i should have from the begin with.
well he is out there some what and the last time I read some of his stuff he had taken some politico out of it . In his up dates . So no apology needed . There is something to information transfer and genetic construction. That is one of my prompts that lean me towards his strangeness of ideas .
It is not like I support it with the draw of my gun .
i jumped in this conversation without reading from the beginning.
I assumed it was sds who started this..
once again i apologize.
and i will start at the beginning like i should have from the begin with.
well he is out there some what and the last time I read some of his stuff he had taken some politico out of it . In his up dates . So no apology needed . There is something to information transfer and genetic construction. That is one of my prompts that lean me towards his strangeness of ideas .
It is not like I support it with the draw of my gun .
QUOTE (Mekigal+Mar 20 2013, 11:43 AM)
well he is out there some what and the last time I read some of his stuff he had taken some politico out of it . In his up dates . So no apology needed . There is something to information transfer and genetic construction. That is one of my prompts that lean me towards his strangeness of ideas .
It is not like I support it with the draw of my gun .
i understand..
i actually like your and niels thought.
I think it's obvious to be so, well for me anyways.
It is not like I support it with the draw of my gun .
i understand..
i actually like your and niels thought.
I think it's obvious to be so, well for me anyways.
QUOTE (niels+Mar 20 2013, 06:54 PM)
I am not sure about whom and what you are commenting on ?
Please elaborate
-? – that above (sDs @ Mar 20 2013, 05:49 PM) were some comments on yours Mar 16 2013, 10:24 PM
“The ideas of Shevchenko et al are quite similar to the 3D Pixel Universe” (in reality Universe is “4D pixel”); and
“…just another way of expressing that simultaneity is not possible, that SR is fundamentally correct in its assumptions”(SR isn’t correct).
Sorry, but more thorough consideration of your post is outside framework of this thread; including – there are some other comments here.
Cheers
Please elaborate
-? – that above (sDs @ Mar 20 2013, 05:49 PM) were some comments on yours Mar 16 2013, 10:24 PM
“The ideas of Shevchenko et al are quite similar to the 3D Pixel Universe” (in reality Universe is “4D pixel”); and
“…just another way of expressing that simultaneity is not possible, that SR is fundamentally correct in its assumptions”(SR isn’t correct).
Sorry, but more thorough consideration of your post is outside framework of this thread; including – there are some other comments here.
Cheers
QUOTE (krash661+Mar 20 2013, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (sDs @ Mar 20 2013, 11:00 AM)
To understand “what is the information model in physics?” is necessary to read a few papers:
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
______
this is not an answer at all.
do you mean the overall information that exist of physics and calling it this,
" The Informational Model In Physics " ?
It seems (at least you answered seems too fast), that you didn’t read the arXiv links that were pointed in sDs posts. Though to write in this thread is very desirable to read those links.
So:
" The Informational Model In Physics " means, that the model is based on the “The Information as Absolute conception”, which states, that all/everything what exist is in reality informational patterns. Including, e.g., material objects. The conception is rigorously proven.
From this follows a number of inferences relating to the base of physics, including, for example, that space and time are absolute and “…that space itself and time itself are to fade away into shadows…” (Minkowski) isn’t true, when that is the main SRT tenet;
in the model the suggestion that Matter is come “computer” becomes be quite reasonable, when rather reasonable suggestions about “Matter’s chips”, i. e., FLEs, follow to understand in more detail, for example, - what is locality in the Voigt-FitzGerald-Lorentz theory and why the SRT in inconsistent; many else.
More – read the links. And I would like to ask anybody to post here after the reading, in other cases – as this discussion shows – we have nothing else then a spam.
Cheers
To understand “what is the information model in physics?” is necessary to read a few papers:
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
______
this is not an answer at all.
do you mean the overall information that exist of physics and calling it this,
" The Informational Model In Physics " ?
It seems (at least you answered seems too fast), that you didn’t read the arXiv links that were pointed in sDs posts. Though to write in this thread is very desirable to read those links.
So:
" The Informational Model In Physics " means, that the model is based on the “The Information as Absolute conception”, which states, that all/everything what exist is in reality informational patterns. Including, e.g., material objects. The conception is rigorously proven.
From this follows a number of inferences relating to the base of physics, including, for example, that space and time are absolute and “…that space itself and time itself are to fade away into shadows…” (Minkowski) isn’t true, when that is the main SRT tenet;
in the model the suggestion that Matter is come “computer” becomes be quite reasonable, when rather reasonable suggestions about “Matter’s chips”, i. e., FLEs, follow to understand in more detail, for example, - what is locality in the Voigt-FitzGerald-Lorentz theory and why the SRT in inconsistent; many else.
More – read the links. And I would like to ask anybody to post here after the reading, in other cases – as this discussion shows – we have nothing else then a spam.
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 21 2013, 12:23 PM)
– we have nothing else then a spam.
Yes, Sergey, you should stop spamming the internet with links to your idiocies.
Yes, Sergey, you should stop spamming the internet with links to your idiocies.
there is a dream world . Cartoon world is what I call it . Is that Nominal world you are going on about ? It is in advance of usual process . It is still visible is thing . If you know what you are looking at . It is a language . I think it is the language of evolution my self. A type of directive by evolution . It is conglomerate also . It is part of swarm theory . What makes a school of fish flicker all one direction simultaneously. You see it in human crowd behavior also . Magnetic is the word . Some force unspoken .
I don't know what it is . Yeah cartoon world is my best description . It has no morals either . It is not like that . It is a different processes. It does dictate out come though . I try and escape from it . That didn't work . I tried to defy it , That didn't work , I tried going with it , That didn't work . Now I many observe it . I don't fear it anymore like when was young . IT is comical but to most it might be horrendously terrifying . If it happened on you instantly and you had no previous knowingly of the thing ??? You would sht your self for sure . I think that is why we purposely keep it a secret for it looks like in long count time every body know and you do , You do , Your long count time self knows about it . It aids the thing . It is part of the thing .
It makes me wonder if people can see the thing in me . They must . At least in the state of denial I am talking about .
Yeah information is a good description . Like set in stone laws of incorporation and the only way to get from point A to B is by those laws .
I think we can jump time < What say you < Should we . Jump ahead that is . I think we can and I am . I did and am going to do it again < What for the shift . There is a phase shift every time I do . It will take awhile to build up enough magnitude to release the pressure points and the wad has been shot already in the last go round . It takes constant nurturing so I never know for sure if it will do it again but so far it has and I been testing it for a long time , from many angels .
Cartoon world is the best description < You live in Cartoon world
I don't know what it is . Yeah cartoon world is my best description . It has no morals either . It is not like that . It is a different processes. It does dictate out come though . I try and escape from it . That didn't work . I tried to defy it , That didn't work , I tried going with it , That didn't work . Now I many observe it . I don't fear it anymore like when was young . IT is comical but to most it might be horrendously terrifying . If it happened on you instantly and you had no previous knowingly of the thing ??? You would sht your self for sure . I think that is why we purposely keep it a secret for it looks like in long count time every body know and you do , You do , Your long count time self knows about it . It aids the thing . It is part of the thing .
It makes me wonder if people can see the thing in me . They must . At least in the state of denial I am talking about .
Yeah information is a good description . Like set in stone laws of incorporation and the only way to get from point A to B is by those laws .
I think we can jump time < What say you < Should we . Jump ahead that is . I think we can and I am . I did and am going to do it again < What for the shift . There is a phase shift every time I do . It will take awhile to build up enough magnitude to release the pressure points and the wad has been shot already in the last go round . It takes constant nurturing so I never know for sure if it will do it again but so far it has and I been testing it for a long time , from many angels .
Cartoon world is the best description < You live in Cartoon world
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 21 2013, 12:18 PM)
-? – that above (sDs @ Mar 20 2013, 05:49 PM) were some comments on yours Mar 16 2013, 10:24 PM
“The ideas of Shevchenko et al are quite similar to the 3D Pixel Universe” (in reality Universe is “4D pixel”); and
“…just another way of expressing that simultaneity is not possible, that SR is fundamentally correct in its assumptions”(SR isn’t correct).
Sorry, but more thorough consideration of your post is outside framework of this thread; including – there are some other comments here.
Cheers
Thanks
Well on the contrary, I think that this Forum, if anything, and in this very thread is spot eye for a discussion of information world.
Also I think that this Forum is a well sought medium for open and free discussions of physical concepts outside the box.
There are many mainstreamers of course, but happily we see more and more people with an open mind and capable of and willing to contribute in fair and constructive discussions.
So please, do not hesitate to engage in discussions here.
I feel that point I2 is very relevant, namely in which form Information can exist
@Information can exist at least in two possible modes: 1) “fixed information”, e.g. a picture, a computer code listing, and 2) “dynamic information” – a changing picture, an execution of a program code in computer, etc. @
I agree that information in its genuine, inherent form, is dynamic, flash like expression, and then I say that the next following flash expression is being molded on the foregoing , serving as a scaffold, AND with a gliding, i.e. not absolut accuracy, and how such gliding accounts for the arrow of time and entropy in noumenal information world.
The other form of information is fixed and being related to any kind of Matter. Matter can be what we refer to as physical matter, (picture, memorychip, written etc etc) and information can be traced archeologically so to speak, or as cosmic matter in the big scale, and it can be in the form of human mind, with this strange copypastereplay function.
Dynamic genuine information is not avalable to anybody, except when said genuine information is being integrated over a period of time via the proces of observation. Such an observation can be of the type of human mind observation, or in the form af information expressed into physical matter.
“The ideas of Shevchenko et al are quite similar to the 3D Pixel Universe” (in reality Universe is “4D pixel”); and
“…just another way of expressing that simultaneity is not possible, that SR is fundamentally correct in its assumptions”(SR isn’t correct).
Sorry, but more thorough consideration of your post is outside framework of this thread; including – there are some other comments here.
Cheers
Thanks
Well on the contrary, I think that this Forum, if anything, and in this very thread is spot eye for a discussion of information world.
Also I think that this Forum is a well sought medium for open and free discussions of physical concepts outside the box.
There are many mainstreamers of course, but happily we see more and more people with an open mind and capable of and willing to contribute in fair and constructive discussions.
So please, do not hesitate to engage in discussions here.
I feel that point I2 is very relevant, namely in which form Information can exist
@Information can exist at least in two possible modes: 1) “fixed information”, e.g. a picture, a computer code listing, and 2) “dynamic information” – a changing picture, an execution of a program code in computer, etc. @
I agree that information in its genuine, inherent form, is dynamic, flash like expression, and then I say that the next following flash expression is being molded on the foregoing , serving as a scaffold, AND with a gliding, i.e. not absolut accuracy, and how such gliding accounts for the arrow of time and entropy in noumenal information world.
The other form of information is fixed and being related to any kind of Matter. Matter can be what we refer to as physical matter, (picture, memorychip, written etc etc) and information can be traced archeologically so to speak, or as cosmic matter in the big scale, and it can be in the form of human mind, with this strange copypastereplay function.
Dynamic genuine information is not avalable to anybody, except when said genuine information is being integrated over a period of time via the proces of observation. Such an observation can be of the type of human mind observation, or in the form af information expressed into physical matter.
I can get behind that . Agreed . The bears .
A lot of that is part of onomastics . The naming of things . A trickle down experience of the information flow . The evolution of it too , Like a revolving door jumping from place to person to thing back to place , person,thing, or even descriptive becoming verbs and add verbs over long hauls . Revolving and yet escalating into tighter reams of information of the same sub groups of there origins . The information mixing into new forms but that contain the same rudiments . Like the smallest of bits of the flow .
A Plank of information so to speak . Like vowels are to language . Or Morris-code is to speech. Even binary in computer systems .
There are rudiments of types and it all precedes evolutionary processes .
A lot of that is part of onomastics . The naming of things . A trickle down experience of the information flow . The evolution of it too , Like a revolving door jumping from place to person to thing back to place , person,thing, or even descriptive becoming verbs and add verbs over long hauls . Revolving and yet escalating into tighter reams of information of the same sub groups of there origins . The information mixing into new forms but that contain the same rudiments . Like the smallest of bits of the flow .
A Plank of information so to speak . Like vowels are to language . Or Morris-code is to speech. Even binary in computer systems .
There are rudiments of types and it all precedes evolutionary processes .
I think pixal is a distortion for I think it is more liner then wide spread . Target orientation then a flow out from centralized locations out of a manifold so it leaves voids by past information flows .
The silo builds magnitude and depending on the size of the opening and the number of openings on the manifold dictate the flow rate of targets injections of information flow .
But it does . It gets pooled and dams brake from pooled pressure or if the manifold is big enough to let out the pressure the information flow is more smoothly distributed then when the dam brakes .
It is also dependent on the flow rate into the silos . That will determine exit strategies of obsolete bits of usage . When not applicable anymore 'the discard"
Where it served its purpose already and transmitted into a reality and that reality takes over the duplication of the system installed by the natural flow rate from with in the silos to the exterior distribution out lets
The silo builds magnitude and depending on the size of the opening and the number of openings on the manifold dictate the flow rate of targets injections of information flow .
But it does . It gets pooled and dams brake from pooled pressure or if the manifold is big enough to let out the pressure the information flow is more smoothly distributed then when the dam brakes .
It is also dependent on the flow rate into the silos . That will determine exit strategies of obsolete bits of usage . When not applicable anymore 'the discard"
Where it served its purpose already and transmitted into a reality and that reality takes over the duplication of the system installed by the natural flow rate from with in the silos to the exterior distribution out lets
I will give wire example of flow rates . We here are at the cutting edge by nature of scientific engagement so we have a tendency to exchange < That is why I call it the cross roads of communication frontier. So by the type of person that hangs around the form they act like mavericks ( coin phrase from Malcolm Gladwell books ) why ? because of motivation of work . Search engines coupled with desire to know .
So in that we get first flashes . Then distribution happens by other out lets . Then it goes main steam and becomes tomorrows news that the rest absorb and incorporate into there though process .
It is field driven too and when fields collide in the cross sections of the exchange it cause more mixing of plank bits of information . They may not materialize and some of the flow is cataloged in individual silos because of non pairing abilities , but still retained in the silo until there time comes to interact by compatibility. If it has no attachments it remains a plank bit until it finds its subgroup it can attach to
So in that we get first flashes . Then distribution happens by other out lets . Then it goes main steam and becomes tomorrows news that the rest absorb and incorporate into there though process .
It is field driven too and when fields collide in the cross sections of the exchange it cause more mixing of plank bits of information . They may not materialize and some of the flow is cataloged in individual silos because of non pairing abilities , but still retained in the silo until there time comes to interact by compatibility. If it has no attachments it remains a plank bit until it finds its subgroup it can attach to
QUOTE (Mekigal+Mar 21 2013, 04:26 PM)
I think pixal is a distortion for I think it is more liner then wide spread . Target orientation then a flow out from centralized locations out of a manifold so it leaves voids by past information flows .
The silo builds magnitude and depending on the size of the opening and the number of openings on the manifold dictate the flow rate of targets injections of information flow .
But it does . It gets pooled and dams brake from pooled pressure or if the manifold is big enough to let out the pressure the information flow is more smoothly distributed then when the dam brakes .
It is also dependent on the flow rate into the silos . That will determine exit strategies of obsolete bits of usage . When not applicable anymore 'the discard"
Where it served its purpose already and transmitted into a reality and that reality takes over the duplication of the system installed by the natural flow rate from with in the silos to the exterior distribution out lets
IMO the cosmic medium which IS information in a physicalized form of expression, where information bits have been assigned 3D bodies, it is important to understand that this medium is being organized in a scale wise Russian Doll structure.
This structure is on one hand fairly logic and easy to understand, but also a bit complicated in that there are sharp transitions when one Russian Doll grid structure translates into the next following and bigger doll. BB for instance is such a transition, into what we can call the grid structure from which real physical world is being extracted by human mind. Human mind physical scale senses is in this scale. From a human point of view it is the scale of electron / photon which express our socalled real physical world, and everything below electron in this scale is forming dark energy and dark matter.
One imporant insight IMO is that this scale which constitute our physical universe is forming more and more matter, (from dark matter), so the ratio of dark energy dark matter and matter, respectively, is being pushed into more and more matter. In a cosmic time scale of course, and as yet I cannot think on any measures that can be used to show this, except that the socalled universal inflation is a result of this process.
Inflation is being measured on light behavior and a standard candle, and the more matter accumulating in the cosmic space the less absolutely clean vacuum, and the more the light speed is being interfered with and the slower it is being measured. This is falsely IMO being translated into inflation of Universe.
Universal inflation is IMO very counterintuitive / because universe cannot inflate into something outside, Universe is the everything. Universe cannot inflate, but the way that information observe information can give rise to many such wrong assumptions about noumenal world.
Information flow is alone being regulated by the amount of fre void available at the site of changes, the more free void being adressed to the site the more information flow. Free void is being distributed in the form of bosonic wavestructures showing non circular trajectories in the frame of observer.
The silo builds magnitude and depending on the size of the opening and the number of openings on the manifold dictate the flow rate of targets injections of information flow .
But it does . It gets pooled and dams brake from pooled pressure or if the manifold is big enough to let out the pressure the information flow is more smoothly distributed then when the dam brakes .
It is also dependent on the flow rate into the silos . That will determine exit strategies of obsolete bits of usage . When not applicable anymore 'the discard"
Where it served its purpose already and transmitted into a reality and that reality takes over the duplication of the system installed by the natural flow rate from with in the silos to the exterior distribution out lets
IMO the cosmic medium which IS information in a physicalized form of expression, where information bits have been assigned 3D bodies, it is important to understand that this medium is being organized in a scale wise Russian Doll structure.
This structure is on one hand fairly logic and easy to understand, but also a bit complicated in that there are sharp transitions when one Russian Doll grid structure translates into the next following and bigger doll. BB for instance is such a transition, into what we can call the grid structure from which real physical world is being extracted by human mind. Human mind physical scale senses is in this scale. From a human point of view it is the scale of electron / photon which express our socalled real physical world, and everything below electron in this scale is forming dark energy and dark matter.
One imporant insight IMO is that this scale which constitute our physical universe is forming more and more matter, (from dark matter), so the ratio of dark energy dark matter and matter, respectively, is being pushed into more and more matter. In a cosmic time scale of course, and as yet I cannot think on any measures that can be used to show this, except that the socalled universal inflation is a result of this process.
Inflation is being measured on light behavior and a standard candle, and the more matter accumulating in the cosmic space the less absolutely clean vacuum, and the more the light speed is being interfered with and the slower it is being measured. This is falsely IMO being translated into inflation of Universe.
Universal inflation is IMO very counterintuitive / because universe cannot inflate into something outside, Universe is the everything. Universe cannot inflate, but the way that information observe information can give rise to many such wrong assumptions about noumenal world.
Information flow is alone being regulated by the amount of fre void available at the site of changes, the more free void being adressed to the site the more information flow. Free void is being distributed in the form of bosonic wavestructures showing non circular trajectories in the frame of observer.
Since there aren’t question/ remarks relating to the thread’s topic directly, I re-post here a post from other forum (answer on the post with citing of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_...erse_hypothesis link)
________
A couple of preliminary remarks. As that is pointed out in the paper “The Information as Absolute” all/ any existent philosophical doctrines have common flaw: they study “the problems that both – non-provable and non-testable”. Besides (or consequently) so any doctrine has the problem of existence of something more fundamental. For example in Platonism
also a question arises – what is something where “the World of Ideas” and “inert Matter” are? From what they “are made”?
So inevitably any such a logical construction (including, e.g., the mathematical universe hypothesis) has this problem.
As to the MUH more specifically – it seems also that isn’t some neoplatonism, that is some next version of the Pythagorean “everything from a digit” doctrine. And so has natural flaw – it reduces everything to mathematics, when that isn’t true, since for math is critical the validity relations and so, for example, the math isn’t capable to descript all processes in Consciousness.
And – since (e.g., MUH) existent philosophical doctrines have the flaws above, their practical output is, as a rule, rather poor.
Besides that they always remain be hypotheses, which have no proof, for example – what inferences follows from them besides that they “explain Nature”?
Such problems become be resolved only in the informational conception. Including, e.g., in the conception become be more clear – what are space and time; from what follows, e.g., the explanation – why the special relativity theory isn’t correct and a reasonable model for basic physical principles; now philosophy obtains for study ultimately fundamental subject – the set “Information”, etc.
– see the arXiv links above.
(since the next page appeared, for convenience repeat the links)
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_...erse_hypothesis link)
________
A couple of preliminary remarks. As that is pointed out in the paper “The Information as Absolute” all/ any existent philosophical doctrines have common flaw: they study “the problems that both – non-provable and non-testable”. Besides (or consequently) so any doctrine has the problem of existence of something more fundamental. For example in Platonism
also a question arises – what is something where “the World of Ideas” and “inert Matter” are? From what they “are made”?
So inevitably any such a logical construction (including, e.g., the mathematical universe hypothesis) has this problem.
As to the MUH more specifically – it seems also that isn’t some neoplatonism, that is some next version of the Pythagorean “everything from a digit” doctrine. And so has natural flaw – it reduces everything to mathematics, when that isn’t true, since for math is critical the validity relations and so, for example, the math isn’t capable to descript all processes in Consciousness.
And – since (e.g., MUH) existent philosophical doctrines have the flaws above, their practical output is, as a rule, rather poor.
Besides that they always remain be hypotheses, which have no proof, for example – what inferences follows from them besides that they “explain Nature”?
Such problems become be resolved only in the informational conception. Including, e.g., in the conception become be more clear – what are space and time; from what follows, e.g., the explanation – why the special relativity theory isn’t correct and a reasonable model for basic physical principles; now philosophy obtains for study ultimately fundamental subject – the set “Information”, etc.
– see the arXiv links above.
(since the next page appeared, for convenience repeat the links)
-“The Information as Absolute” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 )
- “Space and Time” ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ) , and
- "The Informational Conception and Basic Physics" ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 )
Cheers
QUOTE (sDs+Mar 22 2013, 05:21 PM)
Since there aren’t question/ remarks relating to the thread’s topic directly, I re-post here a post from other forum
Stop reposting your crap, Sergey.
Stop reposting your crap, Sergey.
Now a little upgrade of the paper “Space and Time” appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
Though possibly it is worthwhile to correct the text (last sentence in the paper) a little.
It now is:
“…the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any straight line in the 3D space.”
It should be, e.g., as:
“……the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any spatial axis; and to any other line in the 3D space also, though.”
Cheers
Though possibly it is worthwhile to correct the text (last sentence in the paper) a little.
It now is:
“…the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any straight line in the 3D space.”
It should be, e.g., as:
“……the orthogonality of the tau-axis to any spatial axis; and to any other line in the 3D space also, though.”
Cheers
No one gives a crap about your unpublished (and unpublishable) "paper.
sDs
I am with you some what . If the information changes the object changes right.
The flip . That is what I am interested in . For selfish reasons.
Like a lake flips . I am still trying to understand the new fad word < Lensing . It has been used in many different context . It has left this false impression of what it really means I think . I can't quite describe it by its many uses in broad based sciences . Like they all use the word for there own interpretation.
I get the impression it is the gods eye view . Or to say looked through the microscope for samplings < I don't know < it is being used more and more so it may be in a state of redefinition .
O.K. some language to consider . All mathematical combinations dictated by environment and the chains that bind them exist , there for all empirically proven
mathematical combinations exist with in those bounds .
Everything can be reduced to code < That is powerful .
I am with you < I also believe in the strength of a single word well placed making flip possible .
I know sounds like VooDoo or witchery . Evolution of information is something to consider . So that the evolution of information proceeds event structures . Information evolution is at the forefront of time and is the dictate that drives new chain reproductions by information exchange when two our more bodies contact
I am with you some what . If the information changes the object changes right.
The flip . That is what I am interested in . For selfish reasons.
Like a lake flips . I am still trying to understand the new fad word < Lensing . It has been used in many different context . It has left this false impression of what it really means I think . I can't quite describe it by its many uses in broad based sciences . Like they all use the word for there own interpretation.
I get the impression it is the gods eye view . Or to say looked through the microscope for samplings < I don't know < it is being used more and more so it may be in a state of redefinition .
O.K. some language to consider . All mathematical combinations dictated by environment and the chains that bind them exist , there for all empirically proven
mathematical combinations exist with in those bounds .
Everything can be reduced to code < That is powerful .
I am with you < I also believe in the strength of a single word well placed making flip possible .
I know sounds like VooDoo or witchery . Evolution of information is something to consider . So that the evolution of information proceeds event structures . Information evolution is at the forefront of time and is the dictate that drives new chain reproductions by information exchange when two our more bodies contact
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.