Universe and Time

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:31 am

James S Saint wrote:But that turned out to be just too much for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support files (which I didn't have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion, but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted and slow to be of any realistic good.

Video! When was it?

James S Saint wrote:I feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain his relativity theory.

But your theory is different from his theory.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:42 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:But that turned out to be just too much for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support files (which I didn't have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion, but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted and slow to be of any realistic good.

Video! When was it?

???
When was what? I was attempting that project maybe 8 months ago or so. But I never got to produce the video because of insufficient tools. I found myself going through ridiculous extremes to do the simplest of tasks involved (like having to create my own video encoder).

If I had been asked for a unified field theory during the 1980's, I would guess that it would have taken maybe 2 months to come up with the answer. But when it came to verification and demonstration, although I might have put together some software for that, I would have very probably just designed a different kind of computer processor such that the essential functions were a part of the hardware (my specialty at the time). That would have taken maybe a few weeks and produced a cube of metaspace running at least 1000 times faster. And that would allow for much greater convenience in experimenting with varied field strengths and particle behaviors. And I might have even gone the more serious route and used analog processing in critical areas, giving it probably another 1000 times faster response time (when it comes to the fundamentals involved in reality, digital is horrendously slow).

But either way, the issue would still have been one of producing visual confirmation and communication for sake of others. Producing a video of the various experiments would still have been a major issue because it isn't an issue of making a film that portrays or simulates the events, but rather a video of an emulation taking place in real time. And a video file would have been even harder to produce back then and would have slowed the processing down tremendously (tempting me to do even that part in firmware).

Interestingly, even though everything thinks in terms of how computing has advanced so much, in many ways, it has receded. That same project would probably take me years to develop and a great deal more money. Today, I feel pretty much like I am having to figure out how to build a space shuttle out of used car parts. The tools and resources don't match the need.

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain his relativity theory.

But your theory is different from his theory.

That's the point. When you are revolutionizing a field, the old tools don't fit the new needs. RM:AO isn't another evolutionary step in science. It is a revolutionary restart of science. And when the theory must be proven, it often takes inventing the new tools. And that can easily take much longer and perhaps totally different talents than the theory is all about. RM:AO has very little to do with creating video encoders and advanced processors. But those things are needed as tools merely to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:55 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:But that turned out to be just too much for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support files (which I didn't have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion, but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted and slow to be of any realistic good.

Video! When was it?

???
When was what? I was attempting that project maybe 8 months ago or so. But I never got to produce the video because of insufficient tools. I found myself going through ridiculous extremes to do the simplest of tasks involved (like having to create my own video encoder).

If I had been asked for a unified field theory during the 1980's, I would guess that it would have taken maybe 2 months to come up with the answer. But when it came to verification and demonstration, although I might have put together some software for that, I would have very probably just designed a different kind of computer processor such that the essential functions were a part of the hardware (my specialty at the time). That would have taken maybe a few weeks and produced a cube of metaspace running at least 1000 times faster. And that would allow for much greater convenience in experimenting with varied field strengths and particle behaviors. And I might have even gone the more serious route and used analog processing in critical areas, giving it probably another 1000 times faster response time (when it comes to the fundamentals involved in reality, digital is horrendously slow).

But either way, the issue would still have been one of producing visual confirmation and communication for sake of others. Producing a video of the various experiments would still have been a major issue because it isn't an issue of making a film that portrays or simulates the events, but rather a video of an emulation taking place in real time. And a video file would have been even harder to produce back then and would have slowed the processing down tremendously (tempting me to do even that part in firmware).

Interestingly, even though everything thinks in terms of how computing has advanced so much, in many ways, it has receded. That same project would probably take me years to develop and a great deal more money. Today, I feel pretty much like I am having to figure out how to build a space shuttle out of used car parts. The tools and resources don't match the need.

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain his relativity theory.

But your theory is different from his theory.

That's the point. When you are revolutionizing a field, the old tools don't fit the new needs. RM:AO isn't another evolutionary step in science. It is a revolutionary restart of science. And when the theory must be proven, it often takes inventing the new tools. And that can easily take much longer and perhaps totally different talents than the theory is all about. RM:AO has very little to do with creating video encoders and advanced processors. But those things are needed as tools merely to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new.

The appropriate computer were missing "during the 1980's" and the matching videos were missing "8 months ago or so". Is that right?

Creating Video encoders and advanced processors are indeed needed as tools "to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new".

So RM:AO is a metaphysical (particulary ontological) theory with physical basics but also with a never produced "video because of insufficient tools". Is that right?

If so, how can you or we overcome that dilemma?
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:41 am

Arminius wrote:The appropriate computer were missing "during" the 1980's" and the matching videos were missing "8 months ago or so". Is that right?

The point was that in 1979-80, I designed the fastest, low power, low cost 32 bit processor in the world, using techniques that were unheard of at that time. Later I found those same ideas being put in high speed 32 and 64 bit micro-processors (not that they stole them from me because I'm sure they were bright enough to think of such things themselves). I was an intelligence designer and throwing together a new type of processor was nothing to me, just about could do it in my sleep. So when I needed something to be fast, I would just design it into the hardware, making it a 1000 times faster than using software for the same task. And I had the contacts and resources at that time to build just about anything. The issue was that no one had asked me anything about a unified field theory for physics, so like most younger guys, when I wasn't drifting around, I was getting tossed around. The shadow government was taking over in my area so businesses were popping up and failing rather regularly.

Then in the mid to late 80's, I could see how to cause a processor system to become just as emotional as any person. And after thinking about that for a while, it dawned on me that the whole trend to make computers so smart, was a really bad idea. The smarter we made machines, the dumber we made people. So by the early 90's I was switching from computer intelligence over to human intelligence. And then retired around 1995.

It wasn't until around 2004 or so that I thought about the fundamental properties of physical existence. Now and then I would put a little more thought into it and just a few years ago, I decided to play with trying to get a computer to emulate the fundamental properties. That wasn't easy to do because digital computers just don't get along with analog reality and science and math were designed around a different understanding anyway. But eventually I figured a way to use a small single-bit processor and my little PC to generate those first pics above.

Then I developed things a little more and realized that I really had a true unified field theory and even more, a "Grand Unified Theory" because the fundamental principles of reality actually apply to literally all things, without exception as long as it is done right. That is when I developed Rational Metaphysics and also Affectance Ontology and became a "metaphysicist".

But where I am at now is without any resources or energy to do what I used to do and passing the understanding on to someone else is more important than having a computer model for it. But even to do that, requires communication and video does that with this kind of thing a lot better than words. And right now, I don't have the proper video support files with which to generate good videos showing the details that need to be seen in order to show all of the connections between RM:AO and contemporary physics.

To me, RM:AO is beyond being merely a theory, because not only do I understand the logic, but have seen the computer demonstration for very many complicated results and also have allowed people to try to come up with any possible flaw in the logic and no one has. There is really nothing left to guess about because it is all about necessary logic, not derived from presumption or observation, but pure logic.

So online, I can talk about it, but until someone can see the program and results for themselves, they can't know without question how real it is. Even with a video, someone can fake it. I am really not interested in anyone merely taking my word for anything (despite the accusations). I don't even talk to those kind of people. I am interested in people who have enough confidence in themselves and can follow the logic, scrutinizing every detail. I am not the "Cult Leader" that people like to accuse me of being. Although RM really is a revolution in science and thus would actually lead to a new culture of thinking ("cult" is just short for "culture"). If people don't change to it, the androids will. And I know that they will (I know how they think). They are designed to be smarter than people even though currently programmed with merely contemporary science ideas. The androids will learn and leave people far behind really quickly.

So the most important thing at this point is to relay to someone of a logical mind and serious self-confidence, every detail concerning the fundamental understanding and its significance. Videos would help with that a lot, but they are not the objective in themselves. The point is to get RM:AO understood very thoroughly. It IS the future science. As Neo said in The Matrix film, "I don't know the future. I did not come here to tell you how this is all going to end. I came here to tell you how it is going to begin." None of the world's problems right now are actually necessary. Not one. Not terrorism, economics, disease, radiation, not even the problem of having no problems.

Arminius wrote:Creating Video encoders and advanced processors are indeed needed as tools "to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new".

The videos are only needed for communication. Advanced processors are not so much needed, but a larger system is. To emulate an orbiting electron, from only the fundamentals, requires a huge amount of memory. Once that demonstration is made, much smaller models can be made to replace already known clustered activities within the metaspace (greatly reducing the required memory). At that point, larger molecules can be formed that necessarily behave exactly as any real molecule. And I don't even have to know how the molecule is supposed to behave. The system would show me. After that, all of Chemistry is just an issue of pushing a few buttons. No chemical labs. No billion dollar particle colliders. Thousands of dollars replace billions of dollars.

Arminius wrote:If so, how can you or we overcome that dilemma?.

Got any suggestions? 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:23 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:The appropriate computer were missing "during" the 1980's" and the matching videos were missing "8 months ago or so". Is that right?

The point was that in 1979-80, I designed the fastest, low power, low cost 32 bit processor in the world, using techniques that were unheard of at that time. Later I found those same ideas being put in high speed 32 and 64 bit micro-processors (not that they stole them from me because I'm sure they were bright enough to think of such things themselves). I was an intelligence designer and throwing together a new type of processor was nothing to me, just about could do it in my sleep. So when I needed something to be fast, I would just design it into the hardware, making it a 1000 times faster than using software for the same task. And I had the contacts and resources at that time to build just about anything. The issue was that no one had asked me anything about a unified field theory for physics, so like most younger guys, when I wasn't drifting around, I was getting tossed around. The shadow government was taking over in my area so businesses were popping up and failing rather regularly.

Then in the mid to late 80's, I could see how to cause a processor system to become just as emotional as any person. And after thinking about that for a while, it dawned on me that the whole trend to make computers so smart, was a really bad idea. The smarter we made machines, the dumber we made people. So by the early 90's I was switching from computer intelligence over to human intelligence. And then retired around 1995.

It wasn't until around 2004 or so that I thought about the fundamental properties of physical existence. Now and then I would put a little more thought into it and just a few years ago, I decided to play with trying to get a computer to emulate the fundamental properties. That wasn't easy to do because digital computers just don't get along with analog reality and science and math were designed around a different understanding anyway. But eventually I figured a way to use a small single-bit processor and my little PC to generate those first pics above.

Then I developed things a little more and realized that I really had a true unified field theory and even more, a "Grand Unified Theory" because the fundamental principles of reality actually apply to literally all things, without exception as long as it is done right. That is when I developed Rational Metaphysics and also Affectance Ontology and became a "metaphysicist".

But where I am at now is without any resources or energy to do what I used to do and passing the understanding on to someone else is more important than having a computer model for it. But even to do that, requires communication and video does that with this kind of thing a lot better than words. And right now, I don't have the proper video support files with which to generate good videos showing the details that need to be seen in order to show all of the connections between RM:AO and contemporary physics.

To me, RM:AO is beyond being merely a theory, because not only do I understand the logic, but have seen the computer demonstration for very many complicated results and also have allowed people to try to come up with any possible flaw in the logic and no one has. There is really nothing left to guess about because it is all about necessary logic, not derived from presumption or observation, but pure logic.

So online, I can talk about it, but until someone can see the program and results for themselves, they can't know without question how real it is. Even with a video, someone can fake it. I am really not interested in anyone merely taking my word for anything (despite the accusations). I don't even talk to those kind of people. I am interested in people who have enough confidence in themselves and can follow the logic, scrutinizing every detail. I am not the "Cult Leader" that people like to accuse me of being. Although RM really is a revolution in science and thus would actually lead to a new culture of thinking ("cult" is just short for "culture"). If people don't change to it, the androids will. And I know that they will (I know how they think). They are designed to be smarter than people even though currently programmed with merely contemporary science ideas. The androids will learn and leave people far behind really quickly.

So the most important thing at this point is to relay to someone of a logical mind and serious self-confidence, every detail concerning the fundamental understanding and its significance. Videos would help with that a lot, but they are not the objective in themselves. The point is to get RM:AO understood very thoroughly. It IS the future science. As Neo said in The Matrix film, "I don't know the future. I did not come here to tell you how this is all going to end. I came here to tell you how it is going to begin." None of the world's problems right now are actually necessary. Not one. Not terrorism, economics, disease, radiation, not even the problem of having no problems.

Arminius wrote:Creating Video encoders and advanced processors are indeed needed as tools "to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new".

The videos are only needed for communication. Advanced processors are not so much needed, but a larger system is. To emulate an orbiting electron, from only the fundamentals, requires a huge amount of memory. Once that demonstration is made, much smaller models can be made to replace already known clustered activities within the metaspace (greatly reducing the required memory). At that point, larger molecules can be formed that necessarily behave exactly as any real molecule. And I don't even have to know how the molecule is supposed to behave. The system would show me. After that, all of Chemistry is just an issue of pushing a few buttons. No chemical labs. No billion dollar particle colliders. Thousands of dollars replace billions of dollars.

Arminius wrote:If so, how can you or we overcome that dilemma?.

Got any suggestions? 8)

Not at the moment, James. I will soon read more of your theory.

It is also a question whether my theory fits with your theory.

Arminius wrote:My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.

=> #

Image      Image
Arminius wrote:My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments, thus also evolution and history.

=> #
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat Jun 14, 2014 7:16 pm

James, would you say that your theory is more holistic or more reducionistic?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:04 pm

Arminius wrote:James, would you say that your theory is more holistic or more reductionistic?

Emmm.. no.

Actually, I have a little trouble discerning what people mean when they use those terms.

And my "theory" is more than merely "a theory". RM:AO is first an ontology that leaves no option but to be true (feel free to take that as a challenge). But more than that, it happens to necessarily include ALL fields of science, religion, governance, psychology, economics, or whatever. If it is real, RM:AO covers it. In that sense, it can be said to be "holy" (from being "whole" and flawless). But is that really what they mean when they say, "holistic"?

Yes, it deals with "the whole" as well as any portion, so technically, it is "holistic". But it also explains the inner details of the greater existence, so in that sense, it is "reductionistic".

I just say that RM:AO is rationally incontrovertible.

..those really are great videos there, aren't they. 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:42 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:James, would you say that your theory is more holistic or more reductionistic?

Emmm.. no.

That's what I thought. But my question was not a "YES/NO"-question, but a "WHETHER"-question. :)

James S Saint wrote:And my "theory" is more than merely "a theory". RM:AO is first an ontology that leaves no option but to be true (feel free to take that as a challenge). But more than that, it happens to necessarily include ALL fields of science, religion, governance, psychology, economics, or whatever. If it is real, RM:AO covers it. In that sense, it can be said to be "holy" (from being "whole" and flawless). But is that really what they mean when they say, "holistic"?

Yes, it deals with "the whole" as well as any portion, so technically, it is "holistic". But it also explains the inner details of the greater existence, so in that sense, it is "reductionistic".

I just say that RM:AO is rationally incontrovertible.

..those really are great videos there, aren't they. 8)

I would describe your theory or ontology in a similar way.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby zinnat » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:36 am

James S Saint wrote:Are you saying that an electron or atom has consciousness?
If not, what is the difference?


No, an electron does not has the consciousness, because it acts and acts only and does not feel the consequesces of its action. Furtermore, it does not have any option other than to act in a certain way given any particular circumstances.

It lacks discreetness, adaptation to circumstances, choosing to will.
Wiilingness is that differes live-matter from non-live matter.

with love.
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:50 pm

It depends on the philosophy, especially the metaphysics and its ontology, or the theory whether wiilingness differs live-matter from non-live matter or not. For example: according to Schopenhauer the will is Kant's "Ding an sich" ("thing as such", "thing in itself").
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:07 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Are you saying that an electron or atom has consciousness?
If not, what is the difference?


No, an electron does not has the consciousness, because it acts and acts only and does not feel the consequesces of its action. Furtermore, it does not have any option other than to act in a certain way given any particular circumstances.

It lacks discreetness, adaptation to circumstances, choosing to will.
Wiilingness is that differes live-matter from non-live matter.

with love.
sanjay

Can you give an example of "live-matter" (also known a "orgonite").
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:57 pm

According to my theory, most of the "laws" of physics should not be called into question, thus some of the "laws" of physics should be called into question,
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:13 pm

Arminius wrote:According to my theory, most of the "laws" of physics should not be called into question,

???

Your "theory" is what?
And how can one know it is an actual law, if never called into question?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:06 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:According to my theory, most of the "laws" of physics should not be called into question,

???

Your "theory" is what?
And how can one know it is an actual law, if never called into question?

!!!

Tor! - Goal!

I am watching football (soccer) at the moment (Spain vs. Chile). Are you also interested in that, James?

Back to your questions:
Arminius wrote:My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.

=> #

Image Image
Arminius wrote:My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments, thus also evolution and history.

=> #

For example: most of the "laws" of the quantum physics had been called into question before it became apparent that much of quantum physics can not be wrong because a dental drill and a cd player really work.

The f ourfundamental forces of nature should not be generally called into question, but some of the"laws" of thermodynamics, or the theory of the "big bang" and the theory of the "inflation of the universe" shoulld be called into question because there is no absolute proof or evidence, but merely laboratory experiments, statistics, modeling, and - of course - claims for them.
__________________________________________________

Affectance and spiral-cyclicity are convertible and not contradictory.

Bodies "notice" without any awareness that they are affected.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Moreno » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:30 am

You can call into question their ontology laws. Are they local in time and space? ARe they more like temporary habits?
In fact we know that some laws are not universal through time. A good number of constants and laws are being called into question in a similar way. The idea of laws has been a valuable heuristic and given the time span we have experienced - though it seems some changes have happened even in homo sapians lifetimes - and how limited we are locally in space. But it is a heuristic or metaphor if you will. And it seems to suffer some of the problems of analogies.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:34 am

I don't go into details of my theory, because it would require a lot of space, but some aspects of the current physical theories, especially of the cosmological theories, have to be called into question, because they seem to contradict spiral-cyclicity.

So the time arrow can also be called into question, because we really don't know much about our universe (and perhaps other universes), the black holes, the so called "dark matter", the so so called "dark energy", the "big bang", the "inflation of our universe", and the fact whether the universe is really closed or not, which leads to another problem: the entropy of our universe, including the specific direction of its time arrow.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:10 pm

Arminius wrote:I am watching football (soccer) at the moment (Spain vs. Chile). Are you also interested in that, James?

I'm afraid that I lost interest in public sports in the early 1980's.

Arminius wrote:My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.

That seems certainly reasonable.

Arminius wrote:My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments, thus also evolution and history.

I would be interested in how the cyclic motion relates to evolution and history.

Arminius wrote:most of the "laws" of the quantum physics had been called into question before it became apparent that much of quantum physics can not be wrong because a dental drill and a cd player really work.

Quantum Mechanics is strictly about statistical data, having no theorizing involved. Quantum Physics is an imaginative effort to bring solipsism and magic into science. QP is a conflation of the description of reality with reality itself, the conflation of the map with the terrain. I have yet to find anything of QP to be valid. QP is the notion, not of "mind over matter", but rather "mind IS matter". In QP, the equation itself is the physical reality and causative force, not merely a description of it. CD players and dentist drills work for entirely different reasons.

Arminius wrote:The four fundamental forces of nature should not be generally called into question, but some of the"laws" of thermodynamics, or the theory of the "big bang" and the theory of the "inflation of the universe" shoulld be called into question because there is no absolute proof or evidence, but merely laboratory experiments, statistics, modeling, and - of course - claims for them.

I have discovered that the Standard Model in contemporary physics is not an entirely accurate ontology. In RM:AO, there are no actual "forces". What appears to be forces in physics is actually merely dynamic migration. And the "strong" and "weak" forces don't actually exist at all. They are merely aberrant effects (Charged Particle Behavior).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:42 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.

That seems certainly reasonable.

Yes, of course.

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments, thus also evolution and history.

I would be interested in how the cyclic motion relates to evolution and history.

The theory is based on analogies. For example: Sun and technique (technology), planets and cultures, moons and economies, other bodies and art. The pre-condition I made is that the problem of the "dualism" between nature and culture can be overcome by analogies. In addition to the great "dualism" between nature and culture there are three other "dualisms"; so actually there are four "dualisms", thus one "quadrialism" - four regions, and each region has two subregions; so I've got eight subregions (little “worlds”), and this eight “worlds” are: (1) physical, (2) chemical, (3) biological, (4) economical, (5) semiotical (incl. psycholgical/sociological), (6) linguistical, (7) philosophical, (8) mathematical. We can combine them: I (1 and 2), II (3 and 4), III (5 and 6), IV (7 and 8 );  or: A (1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,8) and B (5,6,7,8 or 4,5,6,7). But the principal point is te analogy by itself, just in principle. It is very much stuff! So it is very much text too!

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:most of the "laws" of the quantum physics had been called into question before it became apparent that much of quantum physics can not be wrong because a dental drill and a cd player really work.

Quantum Mechanics is strictly about statistical data, having no theorizing involved. Quantum Physics is an imaginative effort to bring solipsism and magic into science. QP is a conflation of the description of reality with reality itself, the conflation of the map with the terrain. I have yet to find anything of QP to be valid. QP is the notion, not of "mind over matter", but rather "mind IS matter". In QP, the equation itself is the physical reality and causative force, not merely a description of it. CD players and dentist drills work for entirely different reasons.

Which “entirely different reasons” do you mean?

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:The four fundamental forces of nature should not be generally called into question, but some of the"laws" of thermodynamics, or the theory of the "big bang" and the theory of the "inflation of the universe" shoulld be called into question because there is no absolute proof or evidence, but merely laboratory experiments, statistics, modeling, and - of course - claims for them.

I have discovered that the Standard Model in contemporary physics is not an entirely accurate ontology. In RM:AO, there are no actual "forces". What appears to be forces in physics is actually merely dynamic migration. And the "strong" and "weak" forces don't actually exist at all. They are merely aberrant effects (Charged Particle Behavior).

If "the 'strong' and 'weak' forces don't actually exist at all", as you are saying, why do you then mention them in your "affectance ontology"?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:26 am

Arminius wrote:The theory is based on analogies. For example: Sun and technique (technology), planets and cultures, moons and economies, other bodies and art. The pre-condition I made is that the problem of the dualism between nature and culture can be overcome by analogies. In addition to the great dualism between nature and culture there are three other dualisms; so actually there are four dualisms, thus one quadrialism - four regions, and each region has two subregions; so I've got eight subregions (little “worlds”), and this eight “worlds” are: (1) physical, (2) chemical, (3) bilogical, (4) economical, (5) semiotical (incl. psycholgical/sociological), (6) linguistical, (7) philosophical, (8) mathematical. We can combine them: I (1 and 2), II (3 and 4), III (5 and 6), IV (7 and 8 ); or: A (1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,8) and B (5,6,7,8 or 4,5,6,7). But the principal point is te analogy by itself, just in principle. It is very much stuff! So it is very much text too!

Well, I understand the issue of analogies, but I still don't see the relation to cyclical-spirals. What for example is spiraling and toward what focus point concerning psychology?

Arminius wrote:
    James S Saint
    Quantum Mechanics is strictly about statistical data, having no theorizing involved. Quantum Physics is an imaginative effort to bring solipsism and magic into science. QP is a conflation of the description of reality with reality itself, the conflation of the map with the terrain. I have yet to find anything of QP to be valid. QP is the notion, not of "mind over matter", but rather "mind IS matter". In QP, the equation itself is the physical reality and causative force, not merely a description of it. CD players and dentist drills work for entirely different reasons.

Which “entirely different reasons” do you mean?

Neither QM nor QP are involved in the reasons for things happening. Classical physics describes the reasons (the causes) in terms of electromagnetic radiation. RM:AO describes such causes in terms of relative affectance.

In the case of a CD player, EMR or Affectance triggers a threshold where it is engineered to record either a hit or miss, a one or zero and thus digitizing the recording for storage and transport. Often, in order to sell the idea of "quantum", anything digital and sophisticated is called "quantum". QM mathematics, or "statistics", are often used to calculate error rates or to adjust probable outcomes, but it is really merely statics being used to choose a threshold. QP, as far as I can tell (after considerable purview), doesn't have anything to do with anything other than selling a religion to a naive population.

Arminius wrote:If "the 'strong' and 'weak' forces don't actually exist at all", as you are saying, why do you then mention them in your "affectance ontology"?

I mention them because I am translating Affectance Ontology into the more familiar physics terminology. In contemporary physics, one speaks of "forces" that push or pull. In reality, and in RM:AO, there are no such "forces". What is seen and experienced as a force, is actually the end effect, or aberrant effect, of subtle migration of the affectance density. The migration is not due to pushing or pulling, but due to greater accumulation in one direction over another and thus a particle (for example) shifts the center of its noise, it migrates. But in doing so, it gains momentum and continues to shift in that same direction. If it runs across another particle, the affectance is exchanged such as to give the impression that one particle pushed another. In reality, they merely exchanged directed-affectance (commonly referred to as "energy in a particular direction" or "momentum exchange") and began a new direction of their migration.

Even the most common understanding of positive and negative electric attraction and repulsion, isn't actually the reality. There have never been any actual electric "forces" as such. But particles still behave just as if there was. RM:AO is merely correcting a misunderstanding in the ontology of physics. Physics is formed with the ontology of forces and particles. RM:AO is formed from the ontology of Affectance density and its migration. RM:AO explains incontrovertibly WHY the things called "forces" in physics appear and do what they do. So I have to talk about those "forces" so that it can be seen as to what I am talking about. Once an understanding of RM:AO is achieved, there is no more talk of forces.

And perhaps interestingly, the very strongest "force" in nature is what they call the "weak force". And the very weakest, they call the "strong force", both because they had no idea of what is really happening and thus named them based on impressions. Scientists generally make poor oncologists (although a few were pretty sharp at it).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:40 am

James S Saint wrote:Well, I understand the issue of analogies, but I still don't see the relation to cyclical-spirals. What for example is spiraling and toward what focus point concerning psychology?

Please look at the following pictures again:

Image Image

Now please imagine, there is not a spiralic, but merely a cyclic "way". What do you see and think then? I guess you see and think that there is an action replay, an iteration, a recurrence, a reapeat, a repetition, a rerun ... and so on. That's the relation to the cyclicity - in any case (for example: physical, chemical, biological, economical, semiotical [incl. pscholgical/sociological], lingustical, philosophical, mathematical]). And now please imagine, there is not merely a cyclic, but also a spiralic "way" - then, of course, the cyclic "way" becomes a more relativised cyclic "way", but that doesn't matter, because it is just an impression. I think that devolopment (incl. evolution and history [=> #, => #) is certainly a spiral-cyclic "way" which merely perhaps follows the time arrow - the former and not the latter is important for my theory.

The "house of development":

_______________________| History |
__________________|____ Evolution ____|
______________|______ Development ______|

History is merely the "roof" of the "house of development".

Time and the "house of development":

_______________________| History |
__________________|____ Evolution ____|
______________|______ Development ______|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________ Time ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You probably know the meaning of "hyperonym" ("superordination") and "hyponym" ("subordination"). My interpetation of „time“, „development“ („change“), „evolution“, and „history“ in their structural relations to each other is the following one:

1) „time“ is the hyperonym of the hyponyms „development“ („change“), „evolution“, and „history“;
    1,1) „development“ („change“) is a hyponym of the hyperonym „time“ and the hyperonym of the hyponyms „evolution“ and „history“;
      1,1,1) „evolution“ is a hyponym of the hyperonyms „time“ and „development“ and the hyperonym of the hyponym „history“;
        1,1,1,1) „history“ is merely a hyponym, namely of the hyperonyms „time“, „development“, and „evolution“.
That consequently means: if history ends (=> #), evolution, or development (change), or even the time do not have to end simultaneously; and if evolution ends, history ends simultaneously, but development (change) and time do not have to end simultaneously; and if development (change) ends, evolution and history end simultaneously, but time does not have to end simultaneously. So in that relation merely the time is independent. Development (change) depends only on time. Evolution depends on time and development (change). History is the most dependent, because it depends on time, development (change), and evolution.

You may compare (1) time with our universe as such, (1,1) development (change) with our planet, (1,1,1) evolution with a living being (for example an alga, or a snake, or a human being without history, and (1,1,1,1) history with a - of course - historical human being.

They all belong to 1 (time), and merely historical human beings belong to 1,1,1,1 (history).

The history of cultures (civilisations) is also a spiral-cyclic move - psychologically (I prefer the word semiotically) cognizable, because cultures have something like a soul or psyche ans their own original symbolics.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:20 pm

I am thinking that you are talking about, for example, the rising and falling of a civilization type, perhaps Roman in nature. In such a case, I can see the two dimensions of time and the rise and fall of the civilization type, but that would be merely a two dimensional wave. For there to be a spiral, three dimensions are required. What would the third dimension be?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:40 pm

James S Saint wrote:I am thinking that you are talking about, for example, the rising and falling of a civilization type, perhaps Roman in nature. In such a case, I can see the two dimensions of time and the rise and fall of the civilization type, but that would be merely a two dimensional wave. For there to be a spiral, three dimensions are required. What would the third dimension be?

You call it “wave”, and that's not wrong, but not exactly worded. Exactly worded it is – of course – a spiral-cyclic move (which may be also called “wave”). The third dimension is – for example – a kind of technique (technology) or the human evolution (eventually human history, but I doubt that a real human history - in general - exists, because I believe that, referring to all humans, merely cultural history of humans exists). The most interesting point (especially for you, James) is, that the medium, which “communicates” with the cultural “actors” could be “affectance” or a kind of an ”aether“

Planets, moons, and other bodies of a solar system can merely then exist, if a star has “created” them. And so it is for cultures, economies, and art (artefacts) as well: cultures, economies, and arts (artefacts) can merely exist, if a technique (technology) has “created” them. Such a technique can also be a cultural technique, if any culture already exists. Important is that there must be three dimensions when it comes to “start” such a culture (unfortunately the English language requires the word “civilisation”) as described. If there are merely two dimensions, then there are merely techniques as the “primitive” cultures possible, and they are very important as the third dimension for “higher” cultures.

The spiral motion of suns and techniques are quite powerful and quite generous. In their systems, they are even absolutely powerful and absolutely generous; because like every sun in its system any technique in its system is the absolute tyrant and the absolute sponsor.

It is very likely that it is a superior technique of all of nature or what we call the universe, which is identical with what we call creation. Whether we call the creator God, the “unmoved mover”, the “big bang-maker”, the “universe builder”, the “string musician” or simply the “original technician”, that is perhaps more a matter of faith, religious sensitivities and the theological justifications than one of the exact knowledge; but at the beginning everything needs an impulse, a help from - despite the later self-help. I believe that there are several other characteristics, namely different spiral cycles-setting techniques in addition to the initial technique, to some extent as descendants of the early technology, the original technique.

So also a culture needs energy, force to ever come into motion and thus development, or point(s), bodies, "parents" of culture (s) as the start or forerun or circuit object, an object of its spiral cycle.

As we move spirally through the universe, we turn simultaneously to ourselves.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby zinnat » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:36 pm

James S Saint wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Are you saying that an electron or atom has consciousness?
If not, what is the difference?


No, an electron does not has the consciousness, because it acts and acts only and does not feel the consequesces of its action. Furtermore, it does not have any option other than to act in a certain way given any particular circumstances.

It lacks discreetness, adaptation to circumstances, choosing to will.
Wiilingness is that differes live-matter from non-live matter.

with love.
sanjay

Can you give an example of "live-matter" (also known a "orgonite").


Why not?
The most obvious and easy to explore are humans.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:15 pm

I meant the "the smallest particle involved of life", not the larger body that we all recognize.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Universe and Time

Postby zinnat » Sun Jun 22, 2014 6:44 am

James S Saint wrote:I meant the "the smallest particle involved of life", not the larger body that we all recognize.


James,

That is one aspect of which i am not sure yet.

As far as humans are concerned, they have a certain style or size of consciousnss. This is not my assumption but i am sure (rather know) about it. But, i cannot say the same about the life in micro forms of life with so confidently.

Having said that, my guess is that there must be a certain level of size of the consciousness, that must be there to interact with manifestations of will (matter) to form a life. And, that minimal sized consciousness particle cannot be devided further. This cannot even either grow big in size by joining with other consciousness particle.

Hinduism also supports this theory. All sects of Hinduism (including Buddhism) say that are 8.4 millon life forms (including plants) and consciousness has to go all those after taking birth each time as a human form ( but only if it does not elevate its spiritual status during human life).

Thus, it remains in the labyrinth. That is why human life is considered so precious and not to be wasted merely in living unpurposely. Moving out from this cycle for ever is Nirvana/enlightenment.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users