Unified Field: Wave Equations, Standing Waves, Entropy & Dark Matter

[onycho]

Response in 2 Parts.

***How certain are you that you and your solid body are now communicating with me through the world-wide-web? How certain are you that in your past you communicated with me and that I am now communicating with you in your future?

----Contextually certain.

>>>>The knowledge of certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold knowledge. The only certainty is uncertainty.

Is our time relative to us here and now or are we experiencing time from a quantum perspective? I feel that if we sometimes look outside of our catch 22 box, we can see a completely different reality now redefined by many of our theoretical physicist friends. There seems to be no dichotomy when we see our existence in world of quantum mechanics

=Quantum understanding must still be filtered through the biological calculus.
But is quantum understanding valid in world where cognition by sub-atomic particles that have INTELECT and WISDOM? The theoretical understanding of the world, which is the aim of philosophy, is not a matter of great practical importance to animals, or to savages, or even to most of civilization.

=There is no outside. It is infinite. The only limit is the horizon line of how far light can travel. All region are exchanging energy with where ever they can.

>>>If you feel that the universe has no outside border and infinite then why would light photons be limited by an artificial horizon? When in fact these particle/waves travel at the speed of frozen time and can only be stopped when absorbed by matter? Why do regions in an infinity need to exchange energy when energy is not affected by gravitational fields or matter but a universe with an even allotment of this entity? In my humble opinion energy is nothing more than an infinite form of WISDOM itself?

The Big Bang presumes nothing about winding down or being in equilibrium or continually expanding as expressed by conflicting cosmologist opinions.

=It only presumes a beginning. Where was that energy borrowed from?

>>>>That is the $64,000 BB question? Again in my opinion, energy is a form WISDOM from a Prime Source and was not borrowed from anywhere. This point is the only exception to the premise that ‘matter cannot arise from nothing.’

=My getting out of bed this morning was affected by a lot of variables, but, in sum, it was easier to get out than stay in. Logic follows the path of least resistance.

>>>>What or who did you say got out of bed this morning? In sum we all are nothing more than energy/particles that either follow the path of least resistance or follow no real path at all.

=I'm referring to a magnification lense, not a prism.

>>>>Light is an oscillating electromagnetic energy that travels at 3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum. The absorption of light involves an encounter or collision between an absorbing molecule and a packet of light called a photon. In order for absorption to occur, the energy of the photon must match the energy of the molecule. If a magnification lens concentrates photon particle/waves then striking the magnification lens particles of the same energy which should actually diminish not concentrate this packet of energy.

=The absolute lacks all distinguishing features. Earlier you asked the question as to how I know I exist, now you state existence as an axiom.

>>>>The question to your knowledge of your own existence and my response was cogent in that to be aware of your existence you have to be able to prove perceived existence as a fact.

****If reality is truly nothing more than an illusion from the perspective of our ingenious construction of subatomic particles, then both our objective and subjective comprehension would neither be unconditional nor absolute.

=Agreed.

>>>>ditto

=Mortality is like being in a well lit room and looking out a dark window. All you see are reflections of what's inside. As the room darknens, you start to see shadows flitting by outside. then when you die, the glass breaks.

>>>>Your definition of mortality is a doozy. I also have a definition of mortality. Before your conception you existed, you exist now and you continue to exist following death. Remember my belief is that instead of life as a short interlude, our essence or free-will exists in a dimension of a timeless singularity with no beginning, no now and no ending. Only a short now in which we perceive realities of our individual place in our frame of time and space.

Free-will is a contradiction of terms. Will implies an extension of purpose, motivation, etc. Free implies lack of connection to prior motivation. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." KK

****Not so.

=I'm simply pointing out that it's an oxymoron.

>>>>You are entitled to your point on free-will but I call it an insoluble paradox. The so-called laws of nature provide directions, but within that direction there is leeway, meanderings contingent upon the immediate environment, just as a river’s meanderings are contingent on the local terrain. Though occasionally it may leave its path an isolated bow lake, the flow eventually reaches the sea. These excursions in the flow of events might be seen as the vicissitudes inherent in an evolutionary process having within it a general direction. In the human’s vision of reality, these meanderings I call free-will.

Many persons have argued that physical determinism poses a threat to the existence of free will are, I believe, still operating with the remnants of the theory that laws of nature are akin to inviolable prescriptions. They have dropped the Prescriber (i.e. God) out of their view of natural laws, but they still persevere with the view that laws of nature 'act like' prescriptions. ... They take their truth from the way the world is. They don't 'force' the world to be any particular way at all.

=I agree with you. Order is a subjective construct. Without perspective, which is the definition of subjective, there is no standard to determine what is order and what is chaos. The problem is that once you have that standard(will), than you need to stick by it, or lose it. So if you have the freedom to choose any standard, than you have no standard.

>>>>So you say in your last sentence that “any freedom to choose any standard” automatically results in “no standard.” That statement is a true oxymoron. As the freedom to choose is a free-will to follow any meandering path to a final conclusion or standard. In all chaos there is a perceived cosmos, in that chaos is simple order from an unseen hand.

=Motion is relative, not absolute. Since any object is moving against relative context. Just as the Earth falls toward a dropped rock, proportionally, context moves toward the object. So, if you consider an objects motion as a dimension of time, than the context necessarily constitutes an opposing direction of time.

>>>>Motion is relative only to an observer. If a proton moves at the speed of time, is it an absolute relative to a context? If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one or life form to observe the event, did motion occur or did it not?

 

[onycho]

Reply Second Part

=Time slows at velocity because the combined speed of the electron and the motion can't exceed the speed of light, which means that at the speed of light there is no structure. The photon's clock doesn't freeze because it is unchanging in the first place. It's the atom's clock that slows.

>>>>Do you mean that the photon particle/wave’s atomic clock slows or stops but that the photon has no structure because it travels at the speed of light (3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum)? Do you disagree with Einstein’s statement that a photon traveling at the top speed of light means that the photon’s atomic clock and the photon particle/wave itself survives in a timeless forever singularity? (Unless absorbed by a mass).

That is what I mean by space not being fully explained by three dimensions. Any reference is subjective and three dimensions are a reference.

****How about space not being fully explained by ANY real dimensions as our point of reference is totally subjective. Ergo no reference of perceived dimensions can be valid.

=It doesn't have to be absolute to be valid.

>>> Then let’s play a little thought game where humans cannot envision a world in which there are more than the four dimensions we can sense physically. To illustrate the impact additional “invisible” dimensions might have. Here is a little fantasy.

We are now circle people. We live as dots on a circle, and we know only the line of the circle (our reality) as we glide along this line forward and backward. For us there is no up or down, right or left, or center (reality) to the circle. Since the center doesn’t lie on the line of the circle, we can’t even conceive of a center.

Lets say you are Dot A and I Dot B and we live 20 miles apart on the line of the circle. Over the years Dot B (you) has also become friendly with Dot C, who moved into the area of another location. In this circle world, the speed at which light travels (the fastest speed possible) is 10 miles per hour. You (Dot B) has a motorcycle that can reach that speed, so (you) Dot B can visit me (Dot A) in ten hours. One day Dot B receives a message from Dot A to come quickly: Dot A has met Dot D (someone else), the perfect Dot-Mate for B. As Dot B zooms off at the speed of light, he yells over his shoulder to Dot D the good news of his impending marriage. Two hours later, Dot B screeches to a stop at A’s home, only to find Dot D receiving congratulations from Dot A on his marriage to Dot D – over whom he is simply dotty.

But isn’t this impossible? If Dot B traveled to Dot A at the speed of light, there was no way that Dot C could have gotten there sooner. Of course for C there was a way: Unknown to Dots A and B, C is extra-circular, and for him to reach A before B, he merely traveled in a straight line across the center of the circle, an act incomprehensible to Dots A, B, and D because for dot people there is no such thing as a center.

There are a host of replicable scientific experiments whose results cannot be explained according to a four-dimensional worldview. Five or more dimensions would satisfy the requirements. Perhaps those exist but in a realm not comprehensible to our senses. Dot B saw A married to D, but couldn’t explain C’s speedy arrival, just as we can observe the results of these confusing experiments, though we can’t explain the causes.

**** A state of CHANGE is measurable and not absolute zero.

=Therefore change cannot be described as "unchanging".

>>>>HUH? The words 'measurable and 'not absolute zero' are not limiting a state whereby 'change' becomes a constant unchanging law.

Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.

=If there is nothing against which it is weighed, there is no motion.

>>>>Agreed. If there is no observer of change what motion didn’t occurred?

 

[onycho]

Elas and Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment

Surely 'The Fractional Quantum Hall Experiment' (TFQHE) is conducted at the speed of light and yet produces an observable structure.

The historical roots of the fractional quantum Hall effect go back to the previous century, before the laws of quantum mechanics -- the laws that govern the behavior of matter -- were known to physicists. In 1879, Edwin Hall, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, discovered that, when a magnetic field was applied perpendicularly to a thin metal sheet that was conducting current, a small electrical voltage appeared that was perpendicular to both the sheet and the magnetic field. The observed voltage is proportional to the strength of the applied field. This effect was named the Hall effect in his honor. The Hall voltage and Hall resistance (the ratio of the Hall voltage to the current) are now commonly used in physics laboratories to measure the strengths of magnetic fields, as well as charge densities in various metals.

In 1980, the German physicist Klaus von Klitzing was investigating how quantum physics at low temperatures affects the Hall effect. When the magnetic field was varied smoothly at low temperatures in a thin semiconductor sheet, he found that the observed Hall resistance did not vary smoothly. Instead, it changed in steps. The steps did not depend on the properties of the material but were given by a combination of fundamental physical constants divided by integers. This suggested that the laws of quantum mechanics were altering the Hall effect in ways previously unknown. The phenomenon is now called the integral quantum Hall effect and, for his discovery, von Klitzing received the 1985 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Two years after von Klitzing's discovery, at Murray Hill, Stormer and Tsui were also studying the quantum Hall effect, using extremely high quality gallium arsenide-based samples that were made by Bell Labs scientist Arthur Gossard. Gossard, now at the University of California at Santa Barbara, had used the techniques of molecular beam epitaxy -- itself invented at Bell Labs by Al Cho -- to make a semiconductor layer so pure that the electrons in the sample could move long distances without bumping against impurities. In addition to using what he called "the greatest sample in the world," Stormer and Tsui had taken von Klitzing's experiment a few steps further. Their experiment was at a lower temperature (near absolute zero) and they were using more powerful magnetic fields (close to a million times the Earth's magnetic field in strength).

Surely a photon registers as either a particle or wave proving it had one of two possible structures at the point of arrival. Does not the aurora borealis operate at the speed of light?
Movement within a field decreases with field velocity for obvious reasons, but the field itself retains its structure.

The light photon acts like both a partile and a wave depending on the observer. This phenomena is NOT UNDERSTOOD and photons are said to be sent in 'packets' in a timelessness due to its speed.

The Aurora Borealis and its visual effects are actually derived from energy bursts from the sun acting on the electromagnetic field of our earth. The large burst of energy released from the sun did travel at the speed of light outward and to the Earth causing the effects on many electrical and satelites on or near the earth.

Actually movement of light photons does not seem to be decreased by any field but the light emission does appear to bend or curve when passing large gravitational fields.

 

[elas]

Onycho

Many thanks for your explanation of how Tsui et. al. conducted their TFQHE. Although I have read everything I could find on this experiment, yours is the first explanation of the experimental conditions. I now realize the magnetic stream was not moving at the speed of light, thank-you.

I disagree with current explanation of light packages but have yet to update my page on this subject. However it is based on the proposition that what was proven by experiment was not the speed of light but rather that the speed of light is to great to be measured experimentally; this I believe is the cause of Einstein finding 'C squared' and not 'C' as the solution to his famous formula.

 

[onycho]

Measuring the Speed of Light

However it is based on the proposition that what was proven by experiment was not the speed of light but rather that the speed of light is to great to be measured experimentally; this I believe is the cause of Einstein finding 'C squared' and not 'C' as the solution to his famous formula.

Fortunately the speed of light has been calculated many times by many cosmologists and astrophysists. All their findings are basically the same.

Read the following article for an easy way to understand that the speed of light was calculated accurately many times over.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed_evidence.html

 

[elas]

Fortunately the speed of light has been calculated many times by many cosmologists and astrophysists. All their findings are basically the same.

You are right up to a point, but I question the interpretation placed upon the results of these experiments.
Encyclopedia Britannica gives a list of unsolved physics problems, one of which is the manner in which light is transmitted between galaxies (i.e. over very large distances). Keep in mind that in deep space particle density is as little as one per cubic mile (excluding gravitons, if they exist).
All experiments involving light use the interaction of electromagnetic waves. Does light travel through deep space as electromagnetic or (superimosed) gravity waves?.
I have outlined how light as superimposed gravity waves can be used to explain all the unexplained behaviour of light. The key being that we can only measure the maximimum speed of electromagnetic waves and have no way of measuring the speed of light on the gravity spectrum.
I hope to return to this subject when I have improved my explanation of particle structure. I deliberately limit my (amateur) studies to particle structure due to my lack of training in QP. Structure does not require the predictive formula of QF but can be done with tables and graphs and is therefore much simpler. Light will require a more complicated approach.
I do this becauseI believe the main obstruction to progress is the almost fanatic behaviour of QP physicist who behave like religious fanatics, totally incapable of acknowledging the limitations of QP but always ready to loudly proclaim its undoubted accuracy.
There is still a lot to be learned about particle stucture a fact that is ignored by most QP supporters and the problems of light transmission will not be solved until the particle structure problems are solved. So far we have got away with learning to run before learning how to walk, but we cannot go on in this manner. Future progress will only be possible when the fundamental problems of strucure have been solved.
Only when we know the true nature of particles and atoms, will we be able to improve our interpretation of QP mathematics and it is the interpretation not the mathematics that I believe to be wrong.

 

[onycho]

Encyclopedia Britannica gives a list of unsolved physics problems, one of which is the manner in which light is transmitted between galaxies (i.e. over very large distances). Keep in mind that in deep space particle density is as little as one per cubic mile (excluding gravitons, if they exist).

The light (photons) we see from distant galaxies is seen clearly from the Hubble. I tend to forget the light or the particle/wave travels at its maximum speed in a vacuum as there is nothing to interfere with the speed of this unknown form of energy.

Remember that all we are talking about is nothing more than what
appears to exist from our point of perspective. Personally I believe that all of existence is nothing more than an illusion and in effect unreal. But this concept is difficult to comprehend due to the fact that we 'experience' a reality in a seeming 'place' and in a continuing 'time' frame. All our observations can be measured, calculated and placed in neat formula. But the fact is that no one knows from whence all these observed phenomena originates. Quantum Mechanics is very nice and seems to explain the micro universe and the nature of particles can be observed. No way to explain what these particles actually are or do they become something called energy condensed or what is the gravity. What is the universe, how big it is, what are it's boundaries, is it expanding or contracting or in equilibrium? No one knows for sure and no one knows if our human intellect can see beyond the appearance of the physical universe.

The discussions and observations of the speed of light or the nature of the particle/energy or anything is else in reality only an exercise in futility.

Do you remember the fictionalized Star Trek episode where a ship captain had a an accident causing him to become blind, totally paralized, deformed physically where the aliens of this fictional planet were able to make the captain live in a perception of reality?A reality where he was returned to his young healthy state where he could enjoy all the wonderful world in which his senses found to be as real as yours and mine.

All of our reality in my humble opinion is nothing more than that created by that 'ole unseen hand' Creator has allowed humanity to live in an unseen dimension of His timeless state. A state of reality
where you existed before you were born, exist in the now and exist after you no longer are among those who exist in the now.

But that is just my opinion and should not be taken as any more real than the universe we so readily measure and observe and theorize about.

 

[brodix]

For some reason my post of last night didn't survive.

It's off to work now...

 

[elas]

onycho

We believe in the completely opposite views. I believe in the reality of everything and that for everything there is an explanation; that is why I refuse to accept the 'magical' explanation of light transmission as stated by Einstein.
This means of course, that there is no hope of closing the gap between us but, I have greatly enjoyed your contributions,
regards
elas

 

[onycho]

We Are Not Alone In Apposing Views

We believe in the completely opposite views. I believe in the reality of everything and that for everything there is an explanation; that is why I refuse to accept the 'magical' explanation of light transmission as stated by Einstein.

Elas you are very honest in your views of the reality of everything. And that ultimately there is an explanation for all things.

The only problem is that the reality of everything is generally accepted as currently UNKNOWN.

You can disagree with Einstein's explanation of light and I can agree that human intellect is not capable of understanding the ultimate nature of the complexity of things. To you all things are concrete and fixed as you have stated. I cannot see air but I believe that hydrogen gas molecules are entering my nostrils. Ergo, I do not discount the premis that there is no air because I cannot sense air with my taste, touch, hearing or any other measurable data available to me.

For the time being, since the death of Einstein, his theories of relativity, light and time have been demonstrated to be valid in the world of scientific investigation. But that does not mean that ultimately Einstein was correct. At one time a Neutonian theory of our universe and things were accepted as absolute truth but since his death, the nature of a different micro dimension of things has been proven by current standards and explanations.

The fact that there is a 'gap' between us is good for without differing opinions we would still be accepting the fact that the Earth is flat and if you walk to far you will fall off the edge.

That was an explantion of a time when the people of the Earth thought there was no 'magical' oval earth.

Be Well

 

[brodix]

onycho,

>>>>The knowledge of certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold knowledge. The only certainty is uncertainty.

=Reality is an axiom.

But is quantum understanding valid in world where cognition by sub-atomic particles that have INTELECT and WISDOM?

=How can you be certain.

The theoretical understanding of the world, which is the aim of philosophy, is not a matter of great practical importance to animals, or to savages, or even to most of civilization.

=The mind is a process of navigation. Some look farther than others.

>>>If you feel that the universe has no outside border and infinite then why would light photons be limited by an artificial horizon? When in fact these particle/waves travel at the speed of frozen time and can only be stopped when absorbed by matter?

=The particles may go forever, but they disperse and waves may maintain their frequency, but not their amplitude.

Why do regions in an infinity need to exchange energy when energy is not affected by gravitational fields or matter but a universe with an even allotment of this entity? In my humble opinion energy is nothing more than an infinite form of WISDOM itself?

=They both expand.

>>>>That is the $64,000 BB question? Again in my opinion, energy is a form WISDOM from a Prime Source and was not borrowed from anywhere. This point is the only exception to the premise that ‘matter cannot arise from nothing.’

=Are you certain?

>>>>Light is an oscillating electromagnetic energy that travels at 3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum. The absorption of light involves an encounter or collision between an absorbing molecule and a packet of light called a photon. In order for absorption to occur, the energy of the photon must match the energy of the molecule. If a magnification lens concentrates photon particle/waves then striking the magnification lens particles of the same energy which should actually diminish not concentrate this packet of energy.

=Tell that to my binoculars.

>>>>The question to your knowledge of your own existence and my response was cogent in that to be aware of your existence you have to be able to prove perceived existence as a fact.

=Reality bites. (Occasionally you get lucky, though.)

>>>>Your definition of mortality is a doozy. I also have a definition of mortality. Before your conception you existed, you exist now and you continue to exist following death. Remember my belief is that instead of life as a short interlude, our essence or free-will exists in a dimension of a timeless singularity with no beginning, no now and no ending. Only a short now in which we perceive realities of our individual place in our frame of time and space.

=Living you are a particle, dead you are a wave.

>>>>So you say in your last sentence that “any freedom to choose any standard” automatically results in “no standard.” That statement is a true oxymoron. As the freedom to choose is a free-will to follow any meandering path to a final conclusion or standard. In all chaos there is a perceived cosmos, in that chaos is simple order from an unseen hand.

=You can choose your path, but when you come to a fork in the road, you can't take both.

>>>>Motion is relative only to an observer. If a proton moves at the speed of time, is it an absolute relative to a context?

=The speed of light is a constant, not an absolute.

If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one or life form to observe the event, did motion occur or did it not?

=If a husband is alone in the woods, is he still wrong?

=Time slows at velocity because the combined speed of the electron and the motion can't exceed the speed of light, which means that at the speed of light there is no structure. The photon's clock doesn't freeze because it is unchanging in the first place. It's the atom's clock that slows.

>>>>Do you mean that the photon particle/wave’s atomic clock slows or stops but that the photon has no structure because it travels at the speed of light (3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum)?

=I make no claims to the photons structure, just that the electron cannot spin around the nucleus so that its spin, in the direction of travel and the speed the atom is traveling add up to more than the speed of light.

Do you disagree with Einstein’s statement that a photon traveling at the top speed of light means that the photon’s atomic clock and the photon particle/wave itself survives in a timeless forever singularity? (Unless absorbed by a mass).

=No.

That is what I mean by space not being fully explained by three dimensions. Any reference is subjective and three dimensions are a reference.

****How about space not being fully explained by ANY real dimensions as our point of reference is totally subjective. Ergo no reference of perceived dimensions can be valid.

=It doesn't have to be absolute to be valid.

==I'm not disputing the first sentence, just the second.

>>> Then let’s play a little thought game where humans cannot envision a world in which there are more than the four dimensions we can sense physically. To illustrate the impact additional “invisible” dimensions might have. Here is a little fantasy.

There are a host of replicable scientific experiments whose results cannot be explained according to a four-dimensional worldview. Five or more dimensions would satisfy the requirements. Perhaps those exist but in a realm not comprehensible to our senses. Dot B saw A married to D, but couldn’t explain C’s speedy arrival, just as we can observe the results of these confusing experiments, though we can’t explain the causes.

I agree.

**** A state of CHANGE is measurable and not absolute zero.

=Therefore change cannot be described as "unchanging".

>>>>HUH? The words 'measurable and 'not absolute zero' are not limiting a state whereby 'change' becomes a constant unchanging law.

=This was your original comment;

"Assumptions of absolutes do exist. Like the words never, always, forever and doesn't related to absolutes are relative to only one constant. That word of course is change.

"Change alone is unchanging." ATTRIBUTION: Heraclitus (c. 535¨Cc. 475 B.C.), Greek philosopher"

=While your word choice in the second sentence was confusing, the words, always and forever refer to the infinite, not the absolute.

regards,

brodix

 

[onycho]

Reality vs Observation

>>>>The knowledge of certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold knowledge. The only certainty is uncertainty.

=Reality is an axiom.

Reality is a principle? How is that you state unequivocally that reality is a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate?

But is quantum understanding valid in world where cognition by sub-atomic particles that have INTELECT and WISDOM?

=How can you be certain.

I asked the question and you reply with a question. Very good… The truth is that neither I nor anyone can be certain of anything. In my humble opinion.

The theoretical understanding of the world, which is the aim of philosophy, is not a matter of great practical importance to animals, or to savages, or even to most of civilization.

=The mind is a process of navigation. Some look farther than others.

While some minds roam aimlessly and others see no further than their own vision of reality.

>>>If you feel that the universe has no outside border and infinite then why would light photons be limited by an artificial horizon? When in fact these particle/waves travel at the speed of frozen time and can only be stopped when absorbed by matter?

=The particles may go forever, but they disperse and waves may maintain their frequency, but not their amplitude.

How can you be certain?

Why do regions in an infinity need to exchange energy when energy is not affected by gravitational fields or matter but a universe with an even allotment of this entity? In my humble opinion energy is nothing more than an infinite form of WISDOM itself?

=They both expand.

What are ‘they’ that both expand? Are you referring to both gravitational fields and matter or energy and WISDOM?

>>>>That is the $64,000 BB question? Again in my opinion, energy is a form WISDOM from a Prime Source and was not borrowed from anywhere. This point is the only exception to the premise that ‘matter cannot arise from nothing.’

=Are you certain?

Certainly… From what did the energy/matter arise from with the given that the infinite universe would have long ago collapsed.

>>>>Light is an oscillating electromagnetic energy that travels at 3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum. The absorption of light involves an encounter or collision between an absorbing molecule and a packet of light called a photon. In order for absorption to occur, the energy of the photon must match the energy of the molecule. If a magnification lens concentrates photon particle/waves then striking the magnification lens particles of the same energy which should actually diminish not concentrate this packet of energy.

=Tell that to my binoculars.

Binoculars refer to above statement.

>>>>The question to your knowledge of your own existence and my response was cogent in that to be aware of your existence you have to be able to prove perceived existence as a fact.

=Reality bites. (Occasionally you get lucky, though.)

Ouch

>>>>Your definition of mortality is a doozy. I also have a definition of mortality. Before your conception you existed, you exist now and you continue to exist following death. Remember my belief is that instead of life as a short interlude, our essence or free-will exists in a dimension of a timeless singularity with no beginning, no now and no ending. Only a short now in which we perceive realities of our individual place in our frame of time and space.

=Living you are a particle, dead you are a wave.

Now you are getting a bit silly. I wave right now as I feel my particles exist…

=You can choose your path, but when you come to a fork in the road, you can't take both.

No but you can take the path to the right, the left or the one straight ahead of you.

>>>>Motion is relative only to an observer. If a proton moves at the speed of time, is it an absolute relative to a context?

=The speed of light is a constant, not an absolute.

Actually the speed of light is now considered to have variations depending on the vacuum in which it travels. So absolutely the speed of light is constantly changing.

=If a husband is alone in the woods, is he still wrong?

If his wife has ESP, he is not only wrong he is in deep dodo..

=I make no claims to the photons structure, just that the electron cannot spin around the nucleus so that its spin, in the direction of travel and the speed the atom is traveling add up to more than the speed of light.

Question: Are you saying that a light photon has both a nucleus and an electron spinning around it? According to Quantum Mechanics, no one can know both the position and direction of a quantum photon particle at the same time.

Do you disagree with Einstein’s statement that a photon traveling at the top speed of light means that the photon’s atomic clock and the photon particle/wave itself survives in a timeless forever singularity? (Unless absorbed by a mass).

=No.

That is what I mean by space not being fully explained by three dimensions. Any reference is subjective and three dimensions are a reference.

How many dimensions would it take for to have a subjective reality?

****How about space not being fully explained by ANY real dimensions as our point of reference is totally subjective. Ergo no reference of perceived dimensions can be valid.

=It doesn't have to be absolute to be valid.

==I'm not disputing the first sentence, just the second.

That is your right of course.

>>> Then let’s play a little thought game where humans cannot envision a world in which there are more than the four dimensions we can sense physically. To illustrate the impact additional “invisible” dimensions might have. Here is a little fantasy.

There are a host of replicable scientific experiments whose results cannot be explained according to a four-dimensional worldview. Five or more dimensions would satisfy the requirements. Perhaps those exist but in a realm not comprehensible to our senses. Dot B saw A married to D, but couldn’t explain C’s speedy arrival, just as we can observe the results of these confusing experiments, though we can’t explain the causes.

I agree.

Agreed

=While your word choice in the second sentence was confusing, the words, always and forever refer to the infinite, not the absolute.

The words ‘always and forever’ actually are only absolutes in an eternal singularity but the infinite is relevant only to our human perspective.

The absolute has moved into the fortress of the absurd.

Your servant,

 

[brodix]

onycho,

Reality is a principle? How is that you state unequivocally that reality is a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate?

The reason determinism is a fallacy is because order requires a perspective, ie. it's subjective. So in order to facilitate a conversation, some standard must be accepted, otherwise no progress is possible. I think I've set a fairly broad parameter, but I'm not sure you and I are on the same wavelength.

I asked the question and you reply with a question. Very good… The truth is that neither I nor anyone can be certain of anything. In my humble opinion.



The problem being that when you let go of everything, sanity is difficult to maintain. We are defined by our limits.

While some minds roam aimlessly and others see no further than their own vision of reality.

Exactly! Take your pick.

=The particles may go forever, but they disperse and waves may maintain their frequency, but not their amplitude.

How can you be certain?

Can you be certain particles don't slow?

What are ‘they’ that both expand? Are you referring to both gravitational fields and matter or energy and WISDOM?

Obviously(alright wrong word) not gravity and matter.

Certainly… From what did the energy/matter arise from with the given that the infinite universe would have long ago collapsed.

Given? Are you certain? As I pointed out previously, gravity might cause space to collapse, but it radiates energy. So we have a universe of collapsing matter and expanding energy. If the universe is infinite, then local space has no place to expand. So where does the pressure of the increasing energy/space go?

>>>>Light is an oscillating electromagnetic energy that travels at 3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum. The absorption of light involves an encounter or collision between an absorbing molecule and a packet of light called a photon. In order for absorption to occur, the energy of the photon must match the energy of the molecule. If a magnification lens concentrates photon particle/waves then striking the magnification lens particles of the same energy which should actually diminish not concentrate this packet of energy.

=Tell that to my binoculars.

Binoculars refer to above statement.

I'm sure there are some inefficiencies, but getting a simple idea, like magnification, past your obsessive focus on detail isn't very efficient either.

Now you are getting a bit silly. I wave right now as I feel my particles exist…

Yea, That wasn't such a good analogy, but the thought process was breaking down the singularity of the assumption of the individual soul.

No but you can take the path to the right, the left or the one straight ahead of you.

The standard which defines you is that you can take only one.

=The speed of light is a constant, not an absolute.

Actually the speed of light is now considered to have variations depending on the vacuum in which it travels. So absolutely the speed of light is constantly changing.

You're fudging the point.

=If a husband is alone in the woods, is he still wrong?

If his wife has ESP, he is not only wrong he is in deep dodo..

But he's alone!

=I make no claims to the photons structure, just that the electron cannot spin around the nucleus so that its spin, in the direction of travel and the speed the atom is traveling add up to more than the speed of light.

Question: Are you saying that a light photon has both a nucleus and an electron spinning around it? According to Quantum Mechanics, no one can know both the position and direction of a quantum photon particle at the same time.

Not a photon. To a photon there is no time because there is no structure to change, otherwise time applies. I'm referring to an atom of matter.

How many dimensions would it take for to have a subjective reality?

How ever many the perspective in question requires.

=While your word choice in the second sentence was confusing, the words, always and forever refer to the infinite, not the absolute.

The words ‘always and forever’ actually are only absolutes in an eternal singularity but the infinite is relevant only to our human perspective.

In case you hadn't noticed, we are viewing this situation from the human perspective, of which the logical parameters are the absolute and the infinite.

The absolute has moved into the fortress of the absurd.

That would make it subjective.

regards,

brodix

 

[onycho]

Reality - Unreality

-The problem being that when you let go of everything, sanity is difficult to maintain. We are defined by our limits.

() By everything I presume that you mean letting go of everything perceived from our individual subjectivity? My ideation is that there are probably about three or four realities but not perceivable and therefore not definable by our limits.

REALITIES of ONYCHO

1) Fifth dimension (not perceivable by human observation)
2) Singularity (time as we see it is non-existent)
3) Free-will (the ability of whatever comprises each persons awareness to choose a path to follow)
4) Prime Force (unknown Designer and Maker of all things that are both known and unknown.

-Sanity is difficult for some to maintain but our reality is present as we assume it to exist or as you say as we define our own limits.

While some minds roam aimlessly and others see no further than their own vision of reality.

-Exactly! Take your pick.

() Simply put I made a bit of satire based on your original statement.

=The particles may go forever, but they disperse and waves may maintain their frequency, but not their amplitude.

-How can you be certain?

-Can you be certain particles don't slow?

() I am not certain that particles exist. But from our assumed particle/wave observations, the fact that these parts of matter at times become condensed energy which sometimes (for reasons unknown) revert back to particle/waves. I can be certain that if particles exist, that they either slow down, speed up or choose their own path. (the smallest particles known have now been shown to have an innate wisdom of their very own.

Certainly... From what did the energy/matter arise from with the given that the infinite universe would have long ago collapsed.

-Given? Is your reality certain? As I pointed out previously, gravity might cause space to collapse, but it radiates energy. So we have a universe of collapsing matter and expanding energy. If the universe is infinite, then local space has no place to expand. So where does the pressure of the increasing energy/space go?

() It might be that the increasing pressure in local space may actually condense the energy and reform back to matter thereby reducing that local space to its equilibrium. Maybe not¡K¡K

>>>>Light is an oscillating electromagnetic energy that travels at 3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum. The absorption of light involves an encounter or collision between an absorbing molecule and a packet of light called a photon. In order for absorption to occur, the energy of the photon must match the energy of the molecule. If a magnification lens concentrates photon particle/waves then striking the magnification lens particles of the same energy which should actually diminish not concentrate this packet of energy.

=Tell that to my binoculars.

Binoculars refer to above statement.

I'm sure there are some inefficiencies, but getting a simple idea, like magnification, past your obsessive focus on detail isn't very efficient either.

Now you are getting a bit silly. I wave right now as I feel my particles exist.

Yea, That wasn't such a good analogy, but the thought process was breaking down the singularity of the assumption of the individual soul.

() The singularity of the assumption of the individual soul?¡¨ I cannot remember if this was one of my statements or yours but it really does not make much sense.

No but you can take the path to the right, the left or the one straight ahead of you.

The standard which defines you is that you can take only one.

() Yes you are correct but the net effect is that your choice is a prime standard which defines you as a free-will in passing through this short span of perceived life in the continuum of that singularity.

=The speed of light is a constant, not an absolute.

Actually the speed of light (3.00 x 108 m/s) is now considered to have variations depending on the vacuum in which it travels. So absolutely the speed of light is constantly changing.

You're fudging the point.

() How so? Fudging and on what point?

=If a husband is alone in the woods, is he still wrong?

If his wife has ESP, he is not only wrong he is in deep dodo..

But he's alone!

() But is he truly alone? Are events in our perspective of time permanently recorded in an unending past, present and future singularity. Events and happenings are always in this timelessness in which everything in a reality remains.

=I make no claims to the photons structure, just that the electron cannot spin around the nucleus so that its spin, in the direction of travel and the speed the atom is traveling add up to more than the speed of light.

Question: Are you saying that a light photon has both a nucleus and an electron spinning around it? According to Quantum Mechanics, no one can know both the position and direction of a quantum photon particle at the same time.

-Not a photon. To a photon there is no time because there is no structure to change, otherwise time applies. I'm referring to an atom of matter.

() A photon has no structure?

Data taken with the ALEPH detector at LEP II have been used to measure the photon structure function F2ƒ×. The data were collected in 1997 at a centre-of-mass energy of 183 GeV and analysed in two Q2 ranges from 7 to 24 and from 17 to 200 GeV2. To determine F2ƒ×, a two-dimensional unfolding method employing the principle of maximum entropy is used, which reduces the errors compared to one-dimensional methods. The results are compared to the predictions of several theoretical methods.

http://www.hep.ph.rhbnc.ac.uk/hep/pubs2/1999/al99-04.html

As to a photon having no place in time I agree but not for the reason you give. By the nature of the photon particle/wave, the photon cannot be held at anyone point but must have a function of speed from a source. According to Einstein, the photon will travel in a vacuum and at a speed in which the photon¡¦s time itself stops.

How many dimensions would it take for to have a subjective reality?

How ever many the perspective in question requires.

() Subjective reality is as one assumes it exists with dimensions necessary as a reference.

=While your word choice in the second sentence was confusing, the words, always and forever refer to the infinite, not the absolute.

The words ¡¥always and forever¡¦ actually are only absolutes in an eternal singularity but the infinite is relevant only to our human perspective.

In case you hadn't noticed, we are viewing this situation from the human perspective, of which the logical parameters are the absolute and the infinite.

() Are we really? How do you know that for certain? Is the human perspective is this situation both absolute and infinite or is totally something else?

The absolute has moved into the fortress of the absurd.

That would make it subjective.

() Or it would be objective from another¡¦s perspective of the same absolute¡K.

Fondly,

Onycho

 

[onycho]

Reality - Unreality

-The problem being that when you let go of everything, sanity is difficult to maintain. We are defined by our limits.

() By everything I presume that you mean letting go of everything perceived from our individual subjectivity? My ideation is that there are probably about three or four realities but not perceivable and therefore not definable by our limits.

REALITIES of ONYCHO

1) Fifth dimension (not perceivable by human observation)
2) Singularity (time as we see it is non-existent)
3) Free-will (the ability of whatever comprises each persons awareness to choose a path to follow)
4) Prime Force (unknown Designer and Maker of all things that are both known and unknown.

-Sanity is difficult for some to maintain but our reality is present as we assume it to exist or as you say as we define our own limits.

While some minds roam aimlessly and others see no further than their own vision of reality.

-Exactly! Take your pick.

() Simply put I made a bit of satire based on your original statement.

=The particles may go forever, but they disperse and waves may maintain their frequency, but not their amplitude.

-How can you be certain?

-Can you be certain particles don't slow?

() I am not certain that particles exist. But from our assumed particle/wave observations, the fact that these parts of matter at times become condensed energy which sometimes (for reasons unknown) revert back to particle/waves. I can be certain that if particles exist, that they either slow down, speed up or choose their own path. (the smallest particles known have now been shown to have an innate wisdom of their very own.

Certainly... From what did the energy/matter arise from with the given that the infinite universe would have long ago collapsed.

-Given? Is your reality certain? As I pointed out previously, gravity might cause space to collapse, but it radiates energy. So we have a universe of collapsing matter and expanding energy. If the universe is infinite, then local space has no place to expand. So where does the pressure of the increasing energy/space go?

() It might be that the increasing pressure in local space may actually condense the energy and reform back to matter thereby reducing that local space to its equilibrium. Maybe not¡K¡K

>>>>Light is an oscillating electromagnetic energy that travels at 3.00 x 108 m/s in a vacuum. The absorption of light involves an encounter or collision between an absorbing molecule and a packet of light called a photon. In order for absorption to occur, the energy of the photon must match the energy of the molecule. If a magnification lens concentrates photon particle/waves then striking the magnification lens particles of the same energy which should actually diminish not concentrate this packet of energy.

=Tell that to my binoculars.

Binoculars refer to above statement.

I'm sure there are some inefficiencies, but getting a simple idea, like magnification, past your obsessive focus on detail isn't very efficient either.

Now you are getting a bit silly. I wave right now as I feel my particles exist.

Yea, That wasn't such a good analogy, but the thought process was breaking down the singularity of the assumption of the individual soul.

() The singularity of the assumption of the individual soul?¡¨ I cannot remember if this was one of my statements or yours but it really does not make much sense.

No but you can take the path to the right, the left or the one straight ahead of you.

The standard which defines you is that you can take only one.

() Yes you are correct but the net effect is that your choice is a prime standard which defines you as a free-will in passing through this short span of perceived life in the continuum of that singularity.

=The speed of light is a constant, not an absolute.

Actually the speed of light (3.00 x 108 m/s) is now considered to have variations depending on the vacuum in which it travels. So absolutely the speed of light is constantly changing.

You're fudging the point.

() How so? Fudging and on what point?

=If a husband is alone in the woods, is he still wrong?

If his wife has ESP, he is not only wrong he is in deep dodo..

But he's alone!

() But is he truly alone? Are events in our perspective of time permanently recorded in an unending past, present and future singularity. Events and happenings are always in this timelessness in which everything in a reality remains.

=I make no claims to the photons structure, just that the electron cannot spin around the nucleus so that its spin, in the direction of travel and the speed the atom is traveling add up to more than the speed of light.

Question: Are you saying that a light photon has both a nucleus and an electron spinning around it? According to Quantum Mechanics, no one can know both the position and direction of a quantum photon particle at the same time.

-Not a photon. To a photon there is no time because there is no structure to change, otherwise time applies. I'm referring to an atom of matter.

() A photon has no structure?

Data taken with the ALEPH detector at LEP II have been used to measure the photon structure function F2ƒ×. The data were collected in 1997 at a centre-of-mass energy of 183 GeV and analysed in two Q2 ranges from 7 to 24 and from 17 to 200 GeV2. To determine F2ƒ×, a two-dimensional unfolding method employing the principle of maximum entropy is used, which reduces the errors compared to one-dimensional methods. The results are compared to the predictions of several theoretical methods.

http://www.hep.ph.rhbnc.ac.uk/hep/p...99/al99-04.html

As to a photon having no place in time I agree but not for the reason you give. By the nature of the photon particle/wave, the photon cannot be held at anyone point but must have a function of speed from a source. According to Einstein, the photon will travel in a vacuum and at a speed in which the photon¡¦s time itself stops.

How many dimensions would it take for to have a subjective reality?

How ever many the perspective in question requires.

() Subjective reality is as one assumes it exists with dimensions necessary as a reference.

=While your word choice in the second sentence was confusing, the words, always and forever refer to the infinite, not the absolute.

The words ¡¥always and forever¡¦ actually are only absolutes in an eternal singularity but the infinite is relevant only to our human perspective.

In case you hadn't noticed, we are viewing this situation from the human perspective, of which the logical parameters are the absolute and the infinite.

() Are we really? How do you know that for certain? Is the human perspective is this situation both absolute and infinite or is totally something else?

The absolute has moved into the fortress of the absurd.

That would make it subjective.

() Or it would be objective from another¡¦s perspective of the same absolute¡K.

Fondly,

Onycho

 

[Rybo]

Originally posted by onycho
-
REALITIES of ONYCHO

1) Fifth dimension (not perceivable by human observation)
2) Singularity (time as we see it is non-existent)
3) Free-will (the ability of whatever comprises each persons awareness to choose a path to follow)
4) Prime Force (unknown Designer and

Hi Onycho

1) The fifth dimension is not physicallly --i.e. instrumentally-- meterable by human observation but is abstractally --i.e.conceptualisble-- ponderable.

2) Singularity is the inside of a finite whole --a black (w)hole in physics and cosmology--
that we have access to via the the 2-D surface --i.e. the event horison-- and is confirmed in by Jacob Bekesteins "Law" which is stated as;

"With ervery horizon that forms a boundary seperating an observer from a region whcih is hidden from them, there is asssociated and entropy whcih mesaures the amount of information whcih is idden behind it. This entropy is always proportianal to the area of the horizon"

This in my view is equvalent to;

four times pi times the radius squared equals the event horizon of the whole being considered. The whole can be any whole that is trasnposed as a sphere or polyhedron.

See Archimedes dicovery of such via the cubo-octahedron.

3) The free-will ability of each individuals path chosen is limited. There are physical laws that no matter how much free-wiil and individual may have the path desired will not always be available.

Free-will then becomes the ability to see options and choose from those options.

4) The quasi(semi)-physcial prime force --i.e. the essence-- is icosahedral geodesci gravity integrated by no less than 30 gravitons.

Electromagnetic radiation --i.e. a maximally dispersed photon a.k.a. its wave form-- follows these icosahedral geosdesic pathways.

In a sense a maximally dispersed photon becomes gravity ans is not being pushed from point A electron to point B electron but being pulled on these wave-linear geodesic pathways.

Perahps the key differrence is that radiation is following the convace inner-side and slower --speed of radiation-- of the pathway whereas gravitons ar following the outer convex-side and faster --a fraction beyond the speed-of-radiation-- of the same pathway.

Rybo