Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 2:42am UTC, wrote Real unification in physics begins with gravity. Gravity, invisible and...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 2:23am UTC, wrote Gravity and electromagnetism are united given equivalent and balanced ...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 2:03am UTC, wrote How can ultimate, fundamental, and extensive truth (in physics too) be...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 1:26am UTC, wrote Truth is not ultimately found in the inanimate. Truth is found in/with the...

Jason Wolfe: on 1/14/11 at 18:14pm UTC, wrote I sincerely look forward to reading your essay.

James Putnam: on 1/14/11 at 17:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Jason, The evidences are the same. For example, Pound Rebka could...

Jason Wolfe: on 1/14/11 at 6:13am UTC, wrote Hi James, "This is a variable speed of light theory. The variation of the...

James Putnam: on 1/14/11 at 3:07am UTC, wrote I have been advised by the person I sent my abstract to: "I would suggest...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Gary Simpson: "All, Is there any empirical evidence that the electron orbitals of an..." in Real-Time Physics

Georgina Woodward: "Hi William, Thanks for your answer. The motivation for the vibration..." in Alternative Models of...

Ken Seto: "I endorse the idea of Newton’s “absolute time”. However, we have no..." in Real-Time Physics

kurt stocklmeir: "if space is expanding and if this makes positive energy particles have a..." in Alternative Models of...

nimit theeraleekul: "Dear friends, In my early post, I said that we could see detail of..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

nimit theeraleekul: "Dear Administrator, I have tried to make several posts with an attachment,..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Gary Simpson: "Pentcho, I did not need the postulates of SR to propose the mechanism. In..." in Alternative Models of...

Robert Martin: "Theories of everything, he contends, can be depicted as those which draw on..." in Theories of Everything,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi BLOGS
May 27, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Philosophy vs. Physics [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 13:50 GMT
image: xJasonRogersx


It’s not quite timeless, but Steven Weinberg’s *Dreams of a Final Theory* is a classic of the popular science genre. In it, he notes that he was an enthusiastic student of philosophy as an undergraduate . . . that is, until “the insights of the philosophers I studied seemed murky and inconsequential compared to the dazzling successes of physics and mathematics.”

At that point Weinberg turned away from the venerable path of Augustine and Aquinas, Hegel and Husserl, and began a lifetime pursuit in the physical sciences that would prove a glittering triumph. What with his Nobel-winning contribution to field theory that allowed for unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces – not to mention his winning of everything from the Oppenheimer Prize to the James Joyce Award -- it is difficult to conjure up any profound sense of disappointment at the career he chose to forego.

Actually, Weinberg did far more than leave philosophy behind; in *Dreams* he actively campaigns against it. An entire chapter is dedicated to exposing, with a wink to Wigner, the “unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy.”

From *Against Philosophy*:

“From time to time since then I have tried to read current work on the philosophy of science. Some of it I found to be written in a jargon so impenetrable that I can only think that it aimed at impressing those who confound obscurity with profundity.

But I do not aim here to play the role of a philosopher, but rather that of a specimen, an unrenegate working scientist who finds no help in professional philosophy. I am not alone in this; I know of no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers. . . .

Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers.”

Strong words, and conceivably a bitter pill for those among us—at FQXi, hardly a minority—who feel physics and philosophy may share areas of significant overlap (physics and religion, I should note, is a different claim). Or, at least, those who feel that physics is now in a position to begin to answer certain deep questions long relegated to the philosopher’s café table.

Yet Weinberg is hardly the only great mind to take a dim view of the toga. Here’s Richard Feynman:

“Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive and probably wrong. . . .

You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world - and you can't tell which is right. Sure, people were awed because he had the courage to take on these great questions, but it doesn't do any good to have the courage if you can't get anywhere with the question.”

image: hetemeel


Full disclosure: I am passionate about philosophy, teach courses on Existentialism and Literature, and routinely advocate to undergraduates that they be willing to take the question of the meaning of their lives seriously (against the tide of much modern philosophy, in fact, which emphasizes ironic distance; but leave that aside). Yet in the corner of the Agora where we speculate on the nature of physical reality, and how best to attain knowledge of same, dismissals such as Weinberg and Feynman’s do hit a nerve. I remember in my own undergraduate days suffering mightily under the misapprehension that statements made in philosophy seminar were somehow “true” in the same way as those made in physics survey. Both referred to the world, thought I, so both must be describing aspects of the same thing. Thus I tried for a long time to understand how Kant’s “insights” into space and time, laid out in all their impenetrable obliquity in *The Critique of Pure Reason*, could be put together with Einstein’s.

It was only after a lot of fruitless effort that I came to recognize Transcendental Idealism and Special Relativity don’t go together. (Disagreements with that statement are welcome.) That realization in itself was a frustration; but recognition of the reason behind my error was absolutely fruitful. Kant--I say this with due deliberation--didn’t make any discoveries into the nature of space and time; he made assertions about them. (Hegel made quite other ones; Heidegger still others.) To be sure, the quality philosopher’s positions are hardly guesswork; by rejecting Humean empiricism, Kant was building on a long line of philosophical tradition he and all his admirers regarded as credibly established beforehand, the whole train of Enlightenment epistemology. But the simple question remains: was he right?

Or, with Feynman, perhaps the more important question: Can we even tell?

I recognize that this is a bit of a straw-man argument I am building up here, but a productive one nonetheless. So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right. Not “influential,” not “challenging us to see things in a new way,” – just right. We don’t have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers, such as “For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer’s reference frame,” or “In Einstein’s view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature.” These aren’t positions in Einstein’s systematic philosophy of Being: they are something far more profound. They are true.

Limited in their scope, yes; still to be unified with QM, yes; all the standard caveats about scientific theory apply. But SR and GR make numerous specific predictions that have been, and are being, tested all the time. Two hundred years later, Kant remains influential, insightful, challenging—but was he right?

And if we can’t answer that question—let’s put the issue boldly--shall we cease burdening our thoughts with the verbal complexities of a tradition that may not actually be progressing at all, but only undergoing an outmoded, self-referential dance?

Are we really at the dawn of a new age of “Physics and Philosophy,” as so many popular books and magazine articles suggest--or at the twilight of Philosophy altogether?

image: Johan J.Ingles-Le Nobel


this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 15:01 GMT
William,

Congratulations on another thought-provoking article that I predict will draw many impassioned responses.

Weinberg's _Dreams of a Final Theory_ is one of my personal favorites, and I am among those who think that it's a good thing that we are seeing the twilight of philosophy.

In this forum every day, you will find numerous respondents who _do_ believe that Einstein's results are " ... positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being". It becomes tedious to correct those misconceptions and the false conclusions that arise from them. No amount of citing and reciting facts, experimental results, mathematical models and the like will dissuade the believer.

That philosophy _could_ be an objective knowledge model, I have little doubt. That it currently has not transcended what Einstein ridiculed as "mere personal belief," I also have little doubt.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 13:00 GMT
The Times of London reported today that Stephen Hawking's new book due out later this year, will prove that the Universe was not created by God. Hawking insists that he can prove that the Universe was created out of nothing. Just goes to show, bad beginnings can only lead to awful consequences.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 14:28 GMT
God said:"Let there be light..." Looks an awful lot like a Big Bang to me. Is Stephen Hawking going to disprove the Big Bang?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Jelle,

You and everyone else are free to believe or not believe in God, as you chose. Similarly, do you care whether or not the 100 trillion cells of your body believe in you?

It looks to me like the laws of physics are fully implemented by photons (virtual/real); I want to also include wave-functions which have similarities to photons. Wave functions make it possible to calculate eigenfunctions; eigenfunction look an awful lot like possibilities. When we make a decision, we effectively collapse the wave function, thus channeling our energy and our intent into a single course of action.

If (a) the photon implements physics + causality, and (b) the Big Bang was a HUGE flash of light, THEN the Big Bang and God said, "Let there be light..." are too similar to permit the disproving of God.

As for Big Bangs happening for NO reason, I don't see that happening in nature. In fact, it violates Conservation of Energy. Creation and destruction of energy have to fall within the capability of that which created the Universe. Something caused the Big Bang.

report post as inappropriate


Matt Leifer wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 15:49 GMT
Physics has gone through a period of extreme pragmatism, as the quotes from Weinberg and Feynman attest, but it hasn't always been that way and, in my view, it won't always be that way in the future. Although empirical reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth, physicists do not theorize in a vacuum, and philosophical theories have often influenced physics, e.g. Mach's influence on Einstein's relativity.

Philosophers, by and large, are investigating questions that are not amenable to experimental test. Even though we may regard the empirical sciences as our most reliable sources of knowledge, this does not mean that philosophical considerations are unimportant. For example, the very question of why scientific knowledge is reliable is clearly a philosophical one, at least in part, and is fundamental to the whole scientific worldview. Whether or not this has any impact on physicists daily practice seems to me to be beside the point.

Of course, philosophers make mistakes aplenty and it is not unusual to find their pronouncements on topics that were mistakenly thought to be immune to scientific enquiry later refuted by scientific evidence. Your example of Kant's adherence to an apriori view of space and time that is very Newtonian in character is a prime example of this. However, it seems to me that this is not a very key part of the Kantian view, i.e. you could replace it with something more relativistic without affecting the main conclusions of his philosophy.

report post as inappropriate

John replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:36 GMT
"philosophical theories have often influenced physics"

Never ever. Mach was a physicist and engineer, above all.

As Weinberg says, philosophy has NEVER influenced physics. Philosophers follow physicists; it has never been the other way round in any situation.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 10:06 GMT
All,

Well I'm an engineer too but definitely feel that 'The Ancients', recognized by Pythagoras, Plato, Spinoza àand Einstein, have handed us a concrete bridge between Philosophy and Science and we mght as well start 'walking on it'. Soafar I have only shown you the 'sunny side' of the 'cosmic coin'. Here by contrast an example of the 'dark side' and boy does it exist:

The number ‘16’ is described as ‘The Shattered Citadel’’. This number, which was also called by the ancient Chaldeans as ‘A Tower struck by Lightning, from which a man is falling, with a Crown on his head’’, representative of destruction and haven’t we seen the Tower and its twin falling recently!!! It warns of a strange fatality, also the danger of accidents and the defeat of one’s plans.

Below are a number of words and names which have this fateful vibration:

‘So I am’ ‘Child’ ‘Fear’ ‘Angst’ ‘Anger’ ‘The Enemy’ ‘Hell’ ‘Killer’ ‘Rape’ ‘Snake’ ‘Lust’ ‘Fake’ ‘Hurry’ ‘Rush’ ‘Africa’ ‘Russia’ ‘Tibet’ ‘Japan’ ‘Kobe’ (the Japanese city virtually destroyed by an earthquake in 1995) ‘L’Aquila’ ‘San Andreas Fault’ ‘Algeria’ ‘Shiva’ (the Indian god of destruction), ‘The Camorra’ ‘Dark Force’ ‘Islamic’ ‘Cult’ ‘Media Hype’ ‘Blind Faith’ ‘Waco’ ‘Fire’ ‘Urban’ ‘Atom’ ‘A-bomb’ ‘The Alcohol’ ‘The Oil’ ‘Oil Men’ ‘Oil Weapon’ ‘Black Sun’ ‘Trade’ ‘Man and Nature’ (how very true!!!)’CFKs’ ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ ‘Katrina’ ‘Mad Cow’ (both by the word ‘Cow’ as well as ‘Mad Cow’) ‘H5N1’ (the avian flu virus) ‘Cat and Mouse’ ‘Ratko Mladic’ (the Serb general who led the destruction of Bosnia, both by his first as well as second name). Furthermore, the names ‘Bill Gates’, also a double ‘16’, both by the name Gates as well as Bill Gates, ‘The Capitalist’ ‘A lot of money’ ‘The Rich’ and the names ‘Bush’ ‘Dick Cheney’ ‘The Regime’ ‘Blair-Bush’ ‘Twin’ ‘Trade’ ‘The Pentagon’ ‘’Osama’ ‘Al-Qaeda’ alias ‘The Base’ same ‘16’, ‘The Hezbollah’ ‘Camp’ ‘David’ ‘Third’ ‘Reich’ and ‘War Games’, a double ‘16’, and ‘Dirty Game’ ‘Italy-Europe’ ‘The Arrogance’ ‘Than Shwe’ ‘Mao Zedong’ ‘Kagame’ ‘Ego-Power’ ‘The Stress’ ‘The Paranoid’ and ‘Bad People’ as well as ‘An Inconvenient Truth’!!!

Call that coincidence Steve!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 10:52 GMT
Hi Jelle,

It is sometimes important to identify the whole with wisdom and perspective.

Indeed there are truths that do not suit everyone.

The current state of our beautiful planet is a disaster, such a disgrace of responsibilities.

It is absurd and unthinkable to accept such chaotic situations.

Moreover, these parameters and factors generate chaotic effects and impacts of concern in the global perspective.

Caution seems to be an essential in words than in the systems.

I think humbly that human nature is such that it becomes clear to focus on universal scientific objectives.

The harmonic scientific solutions are much more peaceful than political struggle, political and economical war...

Politics is an arena where good and evil are in disagreement.But the well wins always fortunally, but unfortunally the short moment in localities is there

I prefer the sweet universal scientific revolution.The love of his fellowman as our torch of hopes ...

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 16:43 GMT
What is reality?

Is that a religious, philosophic, or physical question?

Whenever an answer is given, it raises further questions. Religion and superstition raised questions philosophy tried to answer and philosophy raises questions physics tries to answer. We laugh at the foolishness of those who came before, but fail to see the limits they had to understand. Who knows how history will treat our efforts. Will our generation be viewed as giants, or fools, or some combination of the two.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 08:52 GMT
John Merryman,

To me it's entirely a philosophical-physics question to which mathematics plus the english language provide 'key keys'! It's a matter clearly of 'allowing' metaphysics and metaphilosophy!

Also in answer to an earlier post by James, herewith a 'tip of that veil' te words EXISTENTIALISM and EXISTENTIALIST are, according the 'The Ancient' equivalent to:

‘PHYSICS OF SOCIETY’ ‘REALITY IS UNKNOWABLE’ ‘CONNECTION’ ‘TELEPATHY’ ‘EXISTENCE’ ‘INNER LIFE’ ‘THE WORLD OF LOVE’ ‘COSMIC PLEASURE’ ‘ETERNITY’ ‘RELIGION’ ‘GOD OF ABRAHAM’ ‘ANCIENT CHALDEANS’ ‘CHALDEAN’ ‘KEYWORD’ ‘NUMBERS’ ‘ALL THINGS ARE NUMBERS’ ‘TRUTH IN NUMBERS’ ‘GOOD NUMBER SENSE’ ‘NAMES-NUMBERS’ ‘EYESIGHT’ ‘SOULMATES’ ‘GOOD VIBRATIONS’ ‘CONTACT’ ‘OUR COSMIC NAMES’ ‘COSMIC THEORY’ ‘WE ARE PART OF NATURE’ ‘NATURE IS BEAUTIFUL’ ‘NATURE’S BEAUTY’ ‘BEAUTIFUL’ ‘ALL LIFE IS ONE’ ‘DIASPORA’ ‘INFORMATION’ ‘DECISION MAKING’ ‘KNOWLEDGE’ ‘IMMENSE’ ‘LIMITLESS’ ‘MASTERFUL’ ‘AMINOACID’ ‘ADRENALIN’ ‘LANGUAGE’ ‘LANGUAGE COGNITION’ ‘POETRY AND MUSIC’ ‘THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONTAINS THE KEY’ ‘WRITTEN’ ‘COLLECTIVE MEMORY’

Take it or leave it 'world'!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 09:12 GMT
To which I should like to add what the american publisher of my book wrote on its back:

This fascinating book promotes oneness among humanity and examines the ways all people are interconnected

Pittsburgh, PA (Vocus) August 5, 2010 -- The Natural Theory of DEALISM: 'Quest for a Better Understanding Between Humanity and Nature' for 'A Better World' by Number Six has been released by Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc

The globalization tide ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall has anything but provided the global community with a common sense of identity. On the contrary, it seems to have generated further polarization, cultural impoverishment, worrying environmental instability, a strongly materialistic and individualistic orientation, and mainly uncertainty and fear of the future. Identity is an umbrella term, a collection of ideas and characteristics of how we see ourselves as a group.

This book, on the basis of a three thousand-year-old cosmic code, demonstrates in a variety of ways that we are indeed all connected through a basic natural and mathematical principle, originating in the Big Bang and handed down to us by the ancient Sumerian Chaldeans and in what Pythagoras called “Everything Is Number,” confirmed by Plato and Spinoza each in their own ways. The book makes a number of proposals to promote more “oneness” among humanity and introduces the concept of “Dealism,” a universal “21” vibration, derived from “Idealism,” a blind “22” vibration, by eliminating the “I,” i.e., the ego factor. All is geometry, interrelated and indeed relative. Happiness lies in understanding!

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/dplHZ9

And its rather encouraging that the financial community is starting 'to get wind of and interest in' these metaphilosophical-metaphysical wrings! Something seems to be moving then!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 10:38 GMT
Ray,

If you don't know it already I'm sure you'll enjoy this 'litle movie' anout Numbers in Nature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA

To me beautiful proof of both the number as well as geometry argument, whatever the 'driving force'!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 17:09 GMT
John,

Please give an example of a question that philosophy has raised, that is tractable to the objective method of physics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT
Tom,

I didn't say the previous disciplines raised the questions. I said the answers they gave raised further questions. Each level of insight only raises the bar a little further.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 17:23 GMT
I say two cheers for philosophy, followed by a boo. On balance that is positive, but with caveats.

I too in college was intrigued by philosophy and took a number of courses in the subject. There were some philosophers I was quite interested in. Clearly the ancients had the most to say, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle being the great trinity, and Democritus and Lucretius used such inductive thought to intuit the existence of atoms. The late ancient world had Augustine, who gave very penetrating reasoning about the nature of time. The medieval world gave us Averoes and Aquinas. Then we get into the modern age, where I think David Hume had the most to say at the start of this age.. It is in more recent time that philosophy seems to have run out of some oomph. However, I found Hegel and Sartre to be of interest. With Hegel I found the idea of dialectics to be interesting, for quantum mechanics is a sort of dialectic system. Here you have a complementarity principle, where a physical system has 2n degrees of freedom, but you can only access half of them in a measurement. The other n degrees of freedom are uncertain. Quantum mechanics this is a sort of dialectic, but much clearer than what Hegel wrote, such as in his Science of Logic. Hegel’s ideas were taken up in a rather loose associative way by Engels’ and Marx in a social context, and this fertilized an intellectual minefield for people such as Lenin. So why mess around with Hegel at all? Just go to the real complementary system called quantum mechanics.

Anyone who looks to philosophy for answers I think may have things upside down. Philosophy might better be seen as something which brings focus on certain questions. I read an article on some quantum optical measurements which put strict limits on the linearity of quantum mechanics. The upshot is that in wave interference it is a bilinear process with no outside “paths” which introduce nonlinearities. However, gravitation is very nonlinear. So we are faced with a sort of dialectic: How can something be both linear and nonlinear in one consistent system? So dialectical reasoning might be a way of framing a question.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 17:49 GMT
Lawrence, I'm glad you brought up the influence of philosophy on Marxist-Leninism, because I think that it is _the_ definitive example of mischief caused by mixing philosophy and science.

Few Americans, I think, while expounding on Marx and socialism (particularly the bloviators who clog the airwaves) understand that the true name for Marx's economic philosophy is "scientific socialsm." Marx's theory was held to be genuine science, on a par with physics and biology. What we see, however, is that the practical experiment of Marxist-Leninism failed because the science of Marxism actually turns out to be a religion -- with its prophets and prophecies, its savior cult, its bible and its plan for redemption.

One example of the grave damage to Soviet science is the clinging to Lamarckism in biology long after science had soundly discredited the theory -- because it agrees with the Marxist philosophy. For the same reason, Creationism among many believers persists in spite of evidence, reason, experimental results, etc. -- it agrees with their religious philosophy, science be damned.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:43 GMT
Marxism is clearly not a scientific concept. There is nothing particularly empirical about it. The cases where it has been tried under governments which tried to "make it so" are failures by and large. Lenin used Marxism as a way to institute an authoritarian system, by "making it so," which given that Russia was nearly a failed state in 1917-18 it almost couldn't have been any other way. On the other hand some of these small start up companies in and around Silicon Valley (San Jose) have funny similarities to Marx's vision that workers would assume control of the means of production.

There is a converse trend currently to formulate capitalism as some science or something inherent in natural science. The first champion of this idea was Ayn Rand, who wrote novels that start out somewhat engaging and end up as rants that are abysmal to finish. I see this as a sort of flip side of the idea of scientific Marxism. The rejection of global warming by the right wing is a sort of refusal to admit their system is not perfected as they might want to believe.

Politics and economics of all varieties have remarkable similarities to religion, or are secular forms of religion. It is also telling that just as religious "truth" is ultimately upheld only by authority, political systems and ideology have similar trends.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:23 GMT
Lawrence,

I assume that you familiar with Spekkens toy model. However, dialectics is not that, and it was the target of the criticism in “The Open Society and Its Enemies” by Popper where Popper argues that Hegel violates logic to the aim of deriving any conclusion it fits him.

Unfortunately for me I studied Hegel and Marxism way too much in my school years under communism in Eastern Europe and I know enough to write a book on what's wrong with it.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 19:52 GMT
Lawrence: "So we are faced with a sort of dialectic: How can something be both linear and nonlinear in one consistent system? "

The universe does seem to operate as an enigma, a paradox; it waits patiently for the opportunity to contradict established beliefs with truth that has been overlooked, ignored.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:51 GMT
There is a long trend in the foundations of physics whereby two separate categories, such as space and time, or magnetism and electricity, are seen to be aspects of the same thing, or equivalent in some way. We are faced with the same issue now. Quantum gravity is a funny business, for we have some proximal ideas about it but we have yet to uncover the big idea. That involves seen past contradictory dualities and into something similar to a dialectic.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 02:10 GMT
I read once that if you could look at the quantum scale, it would appear to be bubbling with virtual particles constantly being created and annhilated. Have you ever of the quantum scale described this way?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 02:22 GMT
Jason,

Think of it this way: A single thread is linear, but a tapestry is non-linear. Then the history of a single tapestry is linear. Each level is embedded in the next level.

The problem with our disciplines is that they start off as very linear and focused, then in their effort to expand beyond their original level, lose that focus and can only revert to a belief system enshrining that original insight.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 19:58 GMT
Next step ,the x strategy....philo vs sciences....I d say .....3D vs business....

results...last strategy before the truth.

Step of essay....copenaghen vs maths without sense....

solution......3D AND TIME CONSTANT.

AHAHAHA algebras without limits, not but really let's be serious a little.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 20:11 GMT
Good problem "Philosophy vs. Physics"!

When a physicist reads philosophy expecting to find answers physics problems, it will be disappointed. Because philosophy is not physics. But philosophy has its role, and it has its important role in physics too.

In general, philosophy has its role in educating systematic thinking, which is very important in science. Good philosophy does not provide answers, but teaches you to ask questions. Students at theoretical philosophy learn logic, critical thinking, epistemology, ontology, philosophy of science in general and of physics and mathematics in particular.

Even if someone believes only in falsifiability and deduction, he should remember that Popper himself acknowledged that science doesn't know yet how hypotheses are created. To create hypotheses, you need to have a systematic thinking which is not always pure deduction. You need to have an imprecise thinking, somehow between random mutations and intuition. Creativity in science is a form of art, a form of philosophy. And I would add that conceiving the best tests for a hypothesis requires as well creativity.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 22:09 GMT
Cristi,

I missed this excellent observation first time around.

It's more than just acknowledging that one does not know how hypotheses are created -- in Popper's philosophy, it doesn't _matter_. His protege David Miller expounded on this in chapter 3 (cleverly titled "A critique of good reasons") of his book Critical Rationalism: a restatement and defence.

Popper's student Feyerabend took this aspect of Popper's philosophy to extreme lengths, with an "anything goes" philosophy of his own, far from Popper's rationalism.

At any rate, though, the playful part of science can't be neglected. Even a sober statement such as Bronowski's "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses" barely conceals a subtext that at the end of the day, science is the art of good guessing.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Steev Dufourny wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 20:29 GMT
Jung d say to Marx, Don't be Nietschieian,because the the lenisnism is like the community of societarism.

It's as if Darwin slept at the door of Lamarck.

Even Prigogine didn't have the time to analyze the eternity.

Don you see in the Eclesiast a dance of irony, or in the Seneque words a road of confusiopns.

Do you see an evolution when we were this entanglement ,even hubble knew that.

The book of deads and these pyramids in the sky, even descartes will say, they are spheres.

Rousseau said, the man born good....and this society which corrupts even the innocents, Oh my God,the sciences are the sciences.

We turn we turn and we evolve, we revolve .....all turns and the sphere like a link between philosophy and sciences....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Fast Fred wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:01 GMT
Here is your first great philosophical/physics statement:

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining conscious and unconscious experience.

Experience then becomes a more direct expression of the self that is increasingly representative of a greater totality of experience as well.

Accordingly, human experience is more profoundly (and generally) impacted and structured in accordance with the laws/forces of physcics than was ever previously imagined.

Also, the caring and perceptive reader will want to see my recent posts in "Essay Contest 2010: What..."

Your mature and thoughtful comments and questions are welcome. This is a very serious and important matter/discussion, for many more reasons than are (at first) apparent.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 22:05 GMT
William Orem,

You said " We don't have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers, such as "For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer's reference frame," or "In Einstein's view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature." These aren't positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being: they are something far more profound. They are true."

I must strongly disagree with you here. Nothing is ever proven in science, only not dis-proven. So however unlikely it may seem that Einstein is wrong his ideas should not be portrayed as -truth-. To accept them as truth is to accept them as a belief rather than the currently most likely and acceptable explanation, that may in time be superseded. That is what happens in science new ideas replace the old in time. I think to be fully accurate one should use the "For Einstein..." introduction to his ideas because his explanations are framed within a specific model. 3n plus 1 space-time. Outside of that model the findings and explanations that apply only to space-time do not apply. To say Einstein was completely correct and we know as a fact that space-time is all that exists, because experimental observations confirm his theory, is shutting the door on advancement beyond those ideas.

Physicists should not forgets that physics is a natural science, in the same way that biology and chemistry are natural sciences. It is not a branch of mathematics.To be conducted and advanced only by highly skilled mathematicians. Knowledge is comprised of facts. Facts alone do not always provide meaning or explanation. Facts alone can not do it. Mathematics alone can not do it.It is necessary then to interpret the facts and that requires logical thought.

It is more than just a collection of meaningless facts that are sought, but an understanding of the natural world. Darwin did not just make a fine collection of specimens and merely remark "look they are all slightly different". He sought a logical explanation for those observations. That achievement is hailed as a great scientific accomplishment not mere philosophy. If physics is entirely cut aware from philosophy or reason then it is cut away from any meaning or significance. It ceases to be a part of the growing comprehension of the natural holistic Universe and is no more than a collection of meaningless facts and definitions described by mathematics, imo.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 07:01 GMT
PhDs should second Georgina's reminder of Popper. While I see metamathematics and metaphysics justified, the blog made me aware of a point of view that Einstein shared with the "Dummkopf" Kant: the notion of an a priori existing time. If a theory turns out persitently mysterious, then we should not exclude any fallacy. Perhaps the crowd of modern philosophy is too much adapted to mainstream science as to help us out.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 11:35 GMT
In fact, Einstein did not propose time as a priori. Neither space nor time have independent existence in general relativity. Only spacetime is physically real.

Popper's philosophy of falsifiability is often misunderstood as saying that the truth of a scientific result cannot be determined. Actually, every failure to falsify is a verification, in the sense that a theory more closely approaches verisimilitude ("truth-likeness"). General relativity is a mature theory -- a hundred years of testing and retesting (as William cited) makes it as true as any scientific theory can ever be. It is mathematically complete, with all predictions validated within the classical limit.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 12:44 GMT
Tom,

You said "As true as any scientific theory can ever be" Thats a good way to put it Tom. That is not the same as saying "this is the truth".

Also, there is -the truth- and there is -the whole truth-. They are not the same either.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 22:12 GMT
“Two hundred years later, Kant remains influential, insightful, challenging—but was he right?”

Very good question, but we do know the answer (from a long time ago). The crux of the matter is in the two meanings of true: true as a mathematical theorem, or true as agreement with reality.

If the question is: “were Kant’s ideas in agreement with Nature?” then one need to simply ask Nature (after Galileo’s recipe of doing physics).

If the question is: “were Kant’s ideas consistent within an axiomatic system?” the answer is not yet, because we need to isolate the exact math to do that. However, he does seem consistent, and the likelihood of being true in this sense is very high.

Now apply this argument to philosophy as a whole. Is philosophy in agreement with Nature? (or is it “right”?) Not at all, this is physics’ job. Do we need philosophy? Yes, if we are trying to make sense of the world. But can philosophy be successful in pointing us to new fruitful directions? Here I agree with Weinberg that the answer is most of the time sadly no. The reason for this, as Weinberg pointed out, is that philosophy tends to stick out with stale/deprecated ideas for way too long a time past their expiration date. Math may have a similar problem, but unlike philosophy math is timeless and can stand on its own: so what Euclidean geometry is not valid in curved spaces, it is a self-consistent axiomatic system. On the other hand physics is very dynamic as long as Nature has unexplained puzzles.

And here is the good news: philosophy does help out with progress in physics sometimes. For example each quantum mechanics interpretation does suggest new ways of looking at things and finding unexpected applications. And any new truly novel way of approaching problems has at its core (explicitly or not) a different philosophical paradigm.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 00:09 GMT
Georgina,

You said, "It is necessary then to interpret the facts and that requires logical thought."

Do you think that quantum mechanics is logical? Do you think that Bell's theorem is logical?

What you said is probably where most physicists go astray in there quest to unify QM and GR (or whatever they're working on).

I don't think there is a logical explanation as to how the universe works. But I think we can find an explanation that fits all the facts and it still Occam's razor simple.

So, does quantum mechanics behave logically?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 00:33 GMT
I tend to agree as well. Outside of maybe framing us with certain questions, or in making us think in different ways, philosophy is not likely to have a direct impact on physics. I would be surprised if some philosophical system were translated into physical terms and codified mathematically into a new theory.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:13 GMT
Jason,

I have previously talked about magical illusion. The purpose was to show how easily one can be mislead by lack of information. Considering the rabbit out of the hat trick, once again. The audience member (observer) does not know whether or not the rabbit is in the hat until the rabbit is removed. (Assuming he does not know how the trick is performed and is innocent of the possibility of deception.) Using the mathematics of uncertainty he might write that the magical rabbit exists in a non materialized state somewhere between existing and non existing. A supposition of states. Nothing more can be known about it (from his perspective). When the rabbit is removed from the hat it becomes real to the observer. It becomes a part of his subjective experienced reality. So there is, according to his interpretation, decoherence of the supposition of states and the other possibility vanishes or continues on in a parallel universe.

This is building an interpretation based upon the -magic-or illusion caused by lack of information, rather than the underlying reality of the situation. There are no magic rabbits. They can not exist in a supposition of states. If the magician pulls out a rabbit it has previously been put into the hat or climbed in itself, even if it was not observed to do so. The whole trick depends upon lack of observation of the rabbit entering the hat. I am sorry to anyone reading this who was unaware of that. That imagined mathematical description of the rabbit out of the hat trick gives an unrealistic interpretation as, in my opinion, do similar QM descriptions. It is not so much illogical as naive,imo. In the nicest possible sense and only for the reason that I have tried to explain with the analogy above.

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:35 GMT
"Dreams of a Final Theory" Vs. "The Dreams of Reason"

Steven Weinberg rails against philosophy, but then feels sympathy for string theory's lack of success because it has so much mathematical beauty.

I much prefer physicist Heinz Pagels take on the mix of science and philosophy in his book: The Dreams of Reason. The best of science and the best of philosophy in a readable form.

report post as inappropriate

FAST FRED replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 18:50 GMT
Don, Physics and Philosophy by Sir James Jeans is superior to Weinberg's book.

The book is not outdated, and it is a classic exposition of the philosophical implications of scientific knowledge. Have you read it?

"There is no more eloquent, interesting or persuasive exposition of what may be called the science of philosophy than Sir James Jeans's." -- New York Times

I will check out the book you mentioned, thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 05:24 GMT
Thanks for the recommendation on Physics and Philosophy by Sir James Jeans

I have not read stronger reviews.

I will look forward to reading it.

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 02:34 GMT
Excellent subject! Much of my position is expressed in my essay on the limits of physics.

Truth: Truth is an absence of choice. A truth is the product of a truth system.There are many truth systems. So, a truth in our physical reality is not a truth in the underlying reality.

Philosophy: proceeds to answer question by choosing from contemporary material and knowledge. Proceeding by...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 09:21 GMT
I think that behind any statement in physics there is some kind of philosophical background. Thomas Kuhn speaks about paradigms. Changing the paradigm or the interpretation leads to a change in the direction of the research itself.

In quantum theory there is much room for interpretation, and the interpretation is like drawing a figure when solving geometry problems. The figure is not ideal, but it helps putting the thoughts in a frame, conferring them stability.

Even in general relativity there is room for interpretation. For example, we can view spacetime as static, eternal, or we can view it as dynamical. Some even are still trying to interpret it using the ether theory. We can view it as flat with non-euclidean distances, or as curved.

Interpretation is philosophy, it doesn't follow from science. It helps building an intuition of the phenomena, but it also limits the intuition. Therefore, knowing how to ask the right questions and working with multiple views are important.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 16:59 GMT
Cristi,

To extend the notion of interpretation, various quantum interpretations such as Copenhagen, MWI, Bohm and so forth are more metaphysics than physics. They are attempts to "transduce" a complex valued system into something we can understand with our real valued perceptions and mental biases. There is of course a sort of nexus which compels these ideas, which is the reduction of states in a measurement.

However, these interpretations are not useless and various problems can be solved by invoking them. The problem comes when physicists try to take them as testable theories.

In the same vein philosophy can be of some value in framing questions. However, this is pretty tangential at best.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Jens Koeplinger wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 13:01 GMT
Interesting - "unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy" makes me wonder what goal it would be that cannot be achieved effectively, and subsequently, whether this goal is even aimed at by a philosopher. If one acknowledges a "working philosophy" as a useful tool already, then the perceived ineffectiveness appears similar to - say - pure mathematics when used for the description of observable nature. "Not my goal" says the pure mathematician and walks off. Prof Weinberg's philosophy as quoted above is very likable, "a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories" ... if indeterminate measurement outcomes from a quantum system are de-scoped from requiring an explanation. But when individual, objectively observable measurements are governed by random probabilities, can cause-and-effect be an ingredient in a fundamental theory? Surely, we don't know yet, and maybe it's unknowlable. But it is valuable to me to speculate about what could be, and different philosophies are providing some structure to the otherwise unbounded thought.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 17:34 GMT
I can't accept what the sciences community implies so many confusions about our reality.

How some people can say these things about the pure School of Copenaghen.

Furthermore ,when some theories explain the higgs ,the god particles.

It's paradoxal .

It's really bizare.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:20 GMT
Hi Steve,

Do you believe that quantum entanglement might permit the transmission of information faster than the speed of light?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Jason,

You know that I am a fan of tachyons, and they should travel faster than the speed of light. But what does it mean for quantum entanglement to transmit information faster than the speed of light? Does that mean that the particle 'knows' its quantum numbers before we do? I'm tempted to say 'DUH'. Is it that obvious or not?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:52 GMT
Dear Ray,

None of this is at all obvious. No "Duh"'s are necessary. Have you ever played with your chewing gum? Or stepped in it? I think quantum entanglement is exactly like that. For a pair of entangled electrons, there is something between them that is unconcerned with the speed of light velocity restriction for information. In my model, everything is implemented with photons (oscillating objects); you might prefer super-strings; either one will do.

Between the two entangled electrons, there exists a wave amplitude, vibrating object. That vibrating object transmits wave information instantaneously, without regard to the speed of light. Now, information is typically thought of as ones and zeroes, right? How many Fourier terms does it take to produce a distinguishable 0 or 1? Several. You might have to use large quantities of entangled pairs in order to transmit 1's and 0's with an acceptable bit error rate (BER).

I think the quantum numbers tell you about the available eigenstates. How does a house remember that it has a living room, two bedrooms, 2 baths and a garage? It doesn't. That's just the way the house was built. Same with quantum numbers.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 10:43 GMT
Hi Jason,

It's indeed a limit which causes problems for the future interactions between mass.

It's possible indeed, but perhaps with a vue above our star system, here the sun.

Ps Jason,I think a lot about your ideas of discovery of our Universe.

And your spaceship.

Jason ...and if you consider the planet Earth as a space sphip.

In fact we turn always...perhaps our Earth can be a spaceship.

Ps 2 about the tachyon, it's few probable because we analyze them with our perceptible system due to our sun.....on the other side, if we pass the limit????

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:58 GMT
Dear Ray,

I know you like tachyons. I believe that photons include the speed of light and the fine structure constants as some of its characteristics. I think that virtual photons implement our laws of physics.

What if tachyons were really another kind of photon, with a different speed of light, that implemented some other some other laws of physics, and has exhibits different fine structure constants? They might not even interact with photons or electromagnetic fields at all.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear Jason,

Tachyons must have an imaginary mass. Therefore, they are not photon-like (zero mass). If a particle is one extreme of localized energy, then perhaps tachyons are the opposite extreme of non-localized energy. Do particles 'know' their quantum numbers by being in communication with hyperspace via tachyons and/ or via being in communication with spacetime via photons/ W's/ Z'z/ gluons/ gravitons?

In my book, I called the Grand Unified Mediating boson a GUM boson, so that I could make the play on words that "The Universe is held together with Strings and GUM (bosons)".

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 21:57 GMT
Ray,

Strings and GUM? Eeek!

Localized versus non localized energy? Cool idea.

"Tachyons must have an imaginary mass." Can this imaginary mass be zero? Can you help me understand the argument that says that tachyons have to have a non-zero imaginary mass, as opposed to a zero imaginary mass, which is more like a photon?

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 00:41 GMT
Dear Jason,

Back when neutrinos were assumed to have zero mass (the early '90's and before), they were also assumed to travel at the speed of light (not faster). Now we assume that neutrinos must have tiny positive masses to be consistent with the PMNS neutrino mixing matrix. Thus, neutrinos should travel *SLIGHTLY* slower than the speed of light.

I don't have a problem with a "tachyonic neutrino" in the sense that it has a tiny imaginary mass. In fact, I think these tachyons may be part of the origin of mass, and thus, have masses of comparable magnitude as the observed particles, but imaginary.

If you play with Einstein's Special Relativity equations, you will see that zero masses should travel at the speed of light, positive masses should travel slower than the speed of light (and tend toward c for infinite energies), and imaginary masses should travel faster than the speed of light (and also tend toward c for infinite energies).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
Hi Ray,

I honestly think that virtual photons implement space-time. Consider this, a photon ALWAYS moves at the speed of light, c. How is this possible? When light transitions from one reference fram to another, here is what happens:



In other words, when light moves from one inertial frame to the next, the wavelength and frequency will always change is such a way as to insure that the speed of light is always c. But guess what,

if the frequency changes, then time dilation is occuring; and

if the wavelength changes, then length contraction is occuring.

If this is true, then the photon has to be, somehow, implementing space-time and the laws of physics.

If this is true, then a photon with different constants can implement another space-time; perhaps even a coexisting space-time.

If a coexisting hyperspace is to exist, then it is being implemented with a "hyper-photon" that is similar to a photon, with the exception that its inherent constant (c, h, etc.) are different.

I'm not sure if a tachyon is required to interface between two space-times.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 02:24 GMT
If virtual photons are implementing space-time, then they will have the Lorentz transformation already built into their nature. They will radiate outwards in three spatial dimensions, but the "fourth dimension" is not a true dimension. Instead, this -ct gives photons the ability to regulate the flow of time to insure that the speed of light is ALWAYS c.

Since virtual photons are also responsible for the laws of motion, they cause 3D space, the flow of time, and motion to occur.

Without photons, there is nothingness. There is no universe. In fact, the laws of physics will not exist either. The photon manifests all of these.

report post as inappropriate


Jelle U. Hielkema wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 14:30 GMT
All,

Most interesting discussion which shows that in the some 400 years since Newton, Galileo and Spinoza humankind seems to only have divided itself on 'key questions' and therefore regressed, resulting in 'this our poor world'!

Those interested in my findings in this regard may wish to take a look at

the attached 'current manuscript' which was published as a book earlier in March this year and can be found at Amazon.

To my mind this material shows beyond a shadow of a doubt thatt Philosophy, Science and Art can have agreat deal of 'mutual support' and as such clarify 'what in why things happen in our part of the Universe.

For 'transparency sake' I attch a copy of my summary CV.

Regards from Rome

Jelle U. Hielkema

[manuscript file updated 6th Sept. 2010 at the author's request - eds.]

attachments: Dealism21Current_Manuscript.doc, CV_Jelle_U._Hielkema.doc

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Fast Fred replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Hi Jelle. I read some of what you provided. Most interesting. Thanks.

That experience comes in threes is interesting:

1) man, woman, child

2) Three dimensions

3) past, present, future

4) electromagnetism/light, gravity, quantum phenomena

5) emotion, feeling, thought

......ETC., ETC.

What do you think of the following please:

The structure and form of thought is generally reflected in the structure of experience, and this is ultimately reflected in the laws/forces of physics and in dreams.

This also reveals the limits of physics, as the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience (and forces/laws of physics). The known mathematical unification of gravity and electromagnetism proves this.

The dream is GENERALLY incorporating quantum mechanical phenomena as well, in keeping with the union of gravity and electromagnetism/light.

As DiMeglio says: Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

And, to quote Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: "Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)"

"The dream represents the underlying and fundamental process/manifestation by which the totality of experience is attained to and known/understood at its deepest level."

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 23:46 GMT
Jelle,

thank you. I have taken a look at your attached paper.I have not read the entirety of it. I do not believe in numerology, though I do think that numbers have their part to play in the world. You do include a lot of beautiful and interesting philosophical quotes from throughout history. I particularly like the ideas of Heraclitus. He was a very wise man.

Quoting from Dealism 21, You said "Maybe it is indeed time to reverse the "Tower of Babel"of currently some 6000 languages and establish a universally adopted cosmic language, based on the natural vibrations of all things, using the English language as its instrument of communication, a lingua franca. In addition to every person's natural mother tongue this may well fill this requirement in a highly sensible way and moreover not difficult to learn and master."

The English language is not easy. It has evolved over time, in part by incorporation of different languages, brought by foreign invaders and occupiers of the British Isles. It has led to a very rich and diverse language with multiple terms for the same or subtly different things with different linguistic roots. It has led to a language with spelling that is puzzling to many native speakers and very difficult for those learning English as a second language. It allows diverse means of expression and reflects the cultural history of the language but is also not straightforward to learn.

When English is used alongside other languages it is sometimes difficult to sustain the other languages, as the fall out of use. The Welsh language was in danger of being lost prior to the concerted effort to keep in alive in wales and the Maori language in NZ is in a similar predicament. The native languages themselves can be seen as a cultural treasure and identity, not something to be replaced by common English. The question then becomes how do you stop people using English and encourage them to use the native language instead.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 10:25 GMT
All,

As there is no 2 without a 3 -at least in Italy- and to answer Fast Fred's 'trinity argument' herewith another quotation from Chapetr 9:

At the Millennium changeover a few years ago humanity spent considerable energy and resources to overcome the global fear of the Y2K bug and entered the 3rd Millennium. Undoubtedly this inspired new hopes for our common future, only to be rather shattered 21 months later. On the basis of what we see and hear around us in recent years, it seems that there is a deeply perceived need for a radically new approach to counteracting drifting individualism, the ever-increasing mindless and certainly soulless quest for ‘money’’ and ‘power’, that champion ‘22’ and the highly frustrating and contradictory ‘28’, same as ‘military-industrial complex’ and ‘financial’ and the dominance of ‘technology’, the highly conflictuous ‘43’. This radical change requirement has only been exacerbated by recent global events and repetitively underlined in order to better the human condition in the natural world in the much-revered 21st Century. After all, 2+1 = 3; this is called the number of the Mind. In ancient geometry it is linked to the triangle, the symbol of logic, intellect and reason. In the number account of creation, God, i.e. Nature, is believed to have called upon the power of 3 to give consciousness to his creations on Earth."

And I say no more!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 22:57 GMT
Why philosophy is critical to physics -- Fast Fred's above post proves this.

Also, time marches in step with space. Dreams occur during one sixth of our lives because there are six dimensions/directions which involve/comprise the structure of dream space/experience. This is due to the compressed/energetic nature of dreams, whereby each of the three spatial dimensions is basically halved. This reduces the one third time (spent sleeping) by a further half (for dreams). This relates to the proportionate reduction of gravitational feeling and thought in dreams. From two comes one. Think! The child at the center of the body.

The integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought go hand in hand in and with time. Accordingly, we spend less time sleeping (sleeping includes dreaming) than waking. From two comes another (one third increase).

The proportionate reduction of thought, emotion, and feeling in dreams -- coupled with what is the emotion-centered experience therein -- accounts for the one third of time spent sleeping.

You all didn't even know what physics was (regarding its applicability/manifestations/involvement) until DiMeglio taught you better.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 08:33 GMT
All,

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments and you all make valid points which in my opinion warrant some further 'systematic' investigation! If you contact me at

dealism21@gmail.com I can let you have a powerpoint -too big for this blog- which nicely demonstrates the relationship between numbers and Nature.

For now in answwer to various points made two further...

view entire post


attachments: CULTURE.doc

report post as inappropriate


FAST FRED wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 18:14 GMT
Jason, "Electromagnetism establishes distance in space apart from our [natural] motion." -- Per DiMeglio.

You had said: "Without photons, there is nothingness. There is no universe. In fact, the laws of physics will not exist either. The photon manifests all of these."

Gravity may be reduced, and yet distance in space may remain as great -- as long as a relative immobilization, inertia, brightness, and energy compensate.

In other words, increased gravity increases distance in space (from the eye). However, lesser/no gravity increases distance in space as well (as in outer space). The key is to offset the decreased gravity with increased energy/inertia/immobilization -- this happens in dreams, the semi-immobilized state therein balances and unifies gravity and electromagnetism.

Distance in space becomes a function of balanced repulsion and attraction as feeling/energy is consistently experienced at the gravitational mid-range of feeling in dreams. Accordingly, emotion, gravity, touch/tactile experience AND vision all manifest in conjunction with this balanced mid-range of feeling. This balances distance in space as it is seen electromagnetically AND felt gravitationally.

Also see: http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphilfmd13.htm

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 19:42 GMT
A majority of the problems in this world can be traced back to one source:

the speed of light is too darn slow.

As a result, it takes too much energy to move anything. This causes poverty.

If the speed of light could be symbolized as information processing speed, the physical universe would be a SLOW computer that you had to sit and wait forever for it to get anything accomplished.

The solution is not to time travel to the past, which is like reloading the same computer game.

The solution is to buy a faster computer. Let's look for a universe with a faster speed of light. At least 2c, but preferably 10c or better.

FTL yields time travel IS NOT a fact; it is an interpretation.

It is an incorrect interpretation.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 20:15 GMT
Jason,

as we have evolved in this universe with this speed of light, going into a new environment with faster light speed would mess up our sensory perception. Everything would seem closer than with normal light speed.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 20:19 GMT
Georgina,

Wear glasses.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 21:49 GMT
Jason,

There is refraction through glass which can give a slower measured light speed but I don't think thats going to be enough with the extreme differences you are talking about. They will have to be very special glasses and you are just the man to invent them!

The human mind is very malleable. Perhaps in time it will adapt. Though prior to that I can imagine a really freaky claustrophobic illusion of reality. It wouldn't be safe to walk about.

report post as inappropriate


The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 20:23 GMT
Hi Jelle. Do you agree that when examining dreams and waking experience the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience? In this way, our growth and our becoming other than we are allowed/accounted for, correct? The Philosopher Plotinus says that nature contemplates. (The dream is a natural experience.)

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 18:31 GMT
LightBringer,

Can't help you much on that I think but do believe that in our sleeping self our 'societal box' -by no a formidable straightjacket like a medieval harness made of coins!!!- sets us 'free' -the extent is debatable- and we are allowed to assume our true natural self for a while and, indeed, maybe grow this way.

All I can say.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

The Lightbringer replied on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Jelle, being, expereince, and thought are more the same in dreams.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 15:33 GMT
LB,

Very much agree with that and JUST BEING happens to be the lead character, the '21', a '3' in my book.

I should also like to respond to James Putnam's Einstein comment with the question as to what 'Father Albert' meant by this:

ALBERT EINSTEIN

‘IF HUMANKIND WANTS TO SURVIVE, IT HAS TO ADOPT

A RADICALLY DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING’

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 20:24 GMT
Correction/addition --- In this way, our growth and our becoming other than we are are allowed/accounted for, correct?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 09:07 GMT
I was watching a really interesting movie called: The Phoenix Lights, Beyond Top Secret.

Apparently the "V" shaped object with lights on it is about a mile wide. It doesn't fit the description of flares. The lights are attached. What is interesting is that this object has flown across Arizona about 6 or 7 times over a period of several years.

There were other accounts of air force personnel who witnessed bright balls at an air force base:

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm

A UFO shot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. Other missiles silos were shut down while security officers were reporting strange red objects hovering above.

I had been thinking that UFO people were usually a bunch of idiots that could look at a piece of dust and think it was an alien spaceship. There really are some stupid people out there. However, Colonel Charles Halt, Sgt. Jim Penniston and Robert Jacobs come across as competent.

My opinion is that these are not alien spaceships capable of transporting humanoids. They're more like probes or organo-optical devices controlled by some "intelligence". They're signaling or advertising devices being used to subtlety hint that they're open to communication. It's like they're saying: "Look here! Look at me! I can do things you can't! Look at the light!"

About 80% of the UFO reports out there can be debunked as nonsense. But there is another 20% that is hard to explain.

I also found out that UFO's were seen during WWII. They were called FOO fighters. More balls of light and some saucers.

Anyway, it looks like were not alone. However, we should all cling to our paranoid paradigms anyway. By the way, I don't think they're using radio waves or else SETI would have discovered them.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 10:20 GMT
Since these gentlemen were very credible, Colonel Charles Halt, Sgt. Jim Penniston and Robert Jacobs, I predict that the media and/or government will attack there credibility. They'll put out reports that these men beat there wives and use hallucinogens. The paradigm has to be protected, you know. We need to be able to stick our heads in the sand, right?

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 00:52 GMT
William Orem

From your blog: "So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right. Not "influential," not "challenging us to see things in a new way," - just right. We don't have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers, such as "For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer's reference frame," or "In Einstein's view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature." These aren't positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being: they are something far more profound. They are true."

Would you please expound more upon why your above quote separates theoretical physics from philosophical musings? Is it the numbers that work out correctly that raises theoretical physics above philosophy? Does "So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right." hold true even if unity has not been achieved? What is your perspective about the nature of energy? Is the idea of energy the idea that makes philosophy unecessary? Why is energy not a philosophical speculation? If there is not a single idea, such as energy, that suffices to separate musings from truth, then are there multiple fundamentally separate ideas that do it? Can disunity be physical truth? How would one show that interpretations are truth so long as those interpretations are applied to equations for which the numbers work out correctly, insofar as empirical evidence informs us?

Repeating: "For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer's reference frame," or "In Einstein's view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature." These aren't positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being:..."

Why aren't they positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy...(His choice of belief about the fundamental nature of the universe)? Is it the numbers that keep his view truth? Is it your position that Einstein was "absolutely" correct about the invisible, untestable idea of space-time? If so, how do you know this? Is it the numbers that make his interpretations a certainty?

Repeating: "We don't have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers,..."

Is this because you personally chose to believe it or can you say more to prove it beyond a belief system? I am looking for input that applies to the interpretations of properties and not to the numbers. The numbers are fine, but, what are the properties and how do we know this?

Lastly, the first name, among philosophers, that you mentioned was Augustine. Have you read his book titled 'Concerning The Teacher'?

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 16:49 GMT
James,

Because I would be surprised if William responds, and because you and I have already been over the difference between science and philosophy about a dozen times, and because you still insist that philosophy supersedes science in some way, I would consider it a privilege to answer those questions for you again:

"Is it the numbers that work out correctly that raises theoretical physics above philosophy? Does "So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right." hold true even if unity has not been achieved?"

In the first place, do you think the Pythagorean Theorem is true? If logic means as much to you as you say, then the extension to four dimensional Riemannian geometry follows smoothly. In the second place, "unity" _has_ been achieved with general relativity -- the theory is mathematically complete; i.e., from first principles, the theory predicts phenomena that are experimentally verified in the classical domain to which relativity applies.

"What is your perspective about the nature of energy? Is the idea of energy the idea that makes philosophy unecessary?"

Unless energy is supernatural, the idea of it surely does make philosophy unnnecesary. If it is supernatural, it is beyond the range of scientific theory.

"Why is energy not a philosophical speculation? If there is not a single idea, such as energy, that suffices to separate musings from truth, then are there multiple fundamentally separate ideas that do it? Can disunity be physical truth?"

Disunity (discontinuity) _is_ physical "truth." That's the difference between continuous function classical physics and quantum physics. That's why all the bother to try and unify them with quantum gravity, into a single theory.

"How would one show that interpretations are truth so long as those interpretations are applied to equations for which the numbers work out correctly, insofar as empirical evidence informs us?"

The abundant physical evidence for relatiivty that William referred to is easily accessible. The numbers work out correctly, because they are in principle the same numbers by which the Pythagorean Theorem is deemed proven.

Disproving the Pythagorean Theorem should keep you occupied for a while.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 17:09 GMT
Tom,

I know that you are a believer. I do not agree with your philosophical ideas about what constitutes science. I will wait to respond to your message because I want to keep my message to William Orem the focus. If he chooses to not respond that is his perogative. I will find that out from him and not you. Lets see what transpires.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 18:17 GMT
If you're still not convinced of the important relation between the numbers and the science, try this attached article by Yvon Gauthier. IMO, it's a superior survey of the topic, and an outstanding tribute to Weyl, whose contributions toward the unity of science and mathematics are often underrated. A sample:

"A truly realistic mathematics should be conceived in line with physics, as a branch of the theoretical construction of the one real world, and should adopt the same sober and cautioned attitude toward hypothetic extensions of its foundations as is exhibited by physics." ~ H. Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, 1949.

Weyl on Minkowski/Riemann

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 01:59 GMT
Space-time is true. Quantum Mechanics is true. Lots of things are true. Autobiographies are true. Established facts are true. War, poverty and starvation all over the world, are true.

If something is true, do we just stop?

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 02:15 GMT
Jason,

Saying it is so is not enough. There must be more to say. There has to be more to say. The invisible and untouchable do not become visible and touchable unless the theorist calls upon experimental physicists to show proof. My message was written for the purpose of inviting evidence and not words. If the evidence is the numbers then that is fine for empirical equations. It is not sufficient to support the theoretically disfigured equations. Theoretical disfigurement results from philosophical ideas that are forced onto the equations by the theorists. The philosophical ideas ride the backs of the empirical equations and give the image of explaining the unexplainable.

James

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 02:29 GMT
Hi James,

1. Do we agree that QM and Relativity (GR & SR) are true?

2. Do we agree that the speed of light is always c, for all observers?

3. Do we agree that atomic clocks in free fall run a little faster than atomic clocks that are subjected to an acceleration field?

All three of these statements have experimental evidence to support them. Do you agree?

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 03:05 GMT
Jason,

The equations, meaning the numbers primarily, and possibly some of the theoretical ideas, work very well. My questions were directed toward inviting explanations that show that the theoretical ideas are as truthful as are the numbers.

The speed of light is always measured the same as a local constant. It varies for remote observers. The experimenter must be in the same conditions as is the light they are measuring for the speed of light to always measure as C.

Atomic clocks located at higher levels of altitude run faster than atomic clocks at lower levels of altitude. Atomic clocks in free fall are in an accdeleration field. If the acceleration field is not capable of replicating the near perfect consistency of gravity, then the results will be different. In any case, time is not the product of atomic clocks.

James

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 04:38 GMT
James,

You said: "My questions were directed toward inviting explanations that show that the theoretical ideas are as truthful as are the numbers."

I think that GR and QM will produce numbers that match measured results. The best I can do is to suggest that space-time is implemented by a quantum boson called the virtual photon. These virtual photons are being created everywhere in space. They emit outwards at the speed of light.

Virtual photons:

1. transmit causality

2. transmit energy

3. cause electromagnetism to work

4. the strong force relies upon color force which are partial charges; charges rely upon virtual photons.

5. are related to gravity in that they red-shift/blue-shift along the radial of a gravity vector.

6. virtual photons are responsible for atomic clocks running at different rates.

7. virtual photons define 3D space, time, and the laws of physics;

8. virtual photons manifest geometric properties everywhere in space.

9. the fine structure constant is a virtual photon characteristic.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
Jason,

"I think that GR and QM will produce numbers that match measured results. The best I can do is to suggest that space-time is implemented by a quantum boson called the virtual photon. These virtual photons are being created everywhere in space. They emit outwards at the speed of light."

I respect the quality of your knowledge and the originality of your ideas. The list you gave should be evaluated by professional physicists. The first sentence in the quote cited above is the most relevant to my first post to William Orem. I wondered how convinced he or others may be that matching measured results is sufficient to make physics theory independent of philosophical assertions. For me, it clearly is not enough, so I asked for more supporting argument showing that physics theory is free or nearly free of philosophy.

I say it is loaded with philosophy. I think every theoretical substitute put forward to stand in for cause is artificial and represents our ignorance and not our understanding of reality. I think that this practice places some limitations on the usefullness of the equations, but, does not harm their accuracy for matching predictions with observed measurements. That accuracy is inherent in the equations because they are based upon empirical evidence. The limitations, mentioned above, caused by imposing theory have to do with limiting the ability of those equations to reveal the true physical nature of the universe.

I say this because if we invent substitutes for cause, then our equations become subservient to that artificial 'understanding'. The equations cannot free themselves from our meddling. We did the meddling and we must do the unmeddling. My message to William Orem is restricted to asking for a more thorough justification for stating that " Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories." I say those ingredients, born out of theoretical guesses, are very much the fruit of philosophical assertions. I also say that reliance upon the correctness of the numbers involved does not prove theory nor does it remove philosophical assertions.

None of what I am saying here is intended to challenge your specific ideas. The real physicists here have been generous with their time and knowledge. Still, I would like to see more of their feedback about your ideas. It is their opinion that counts.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 23:45 GMT
James,

J: "I respect the quality of your knowledge and the originality of your ideas. "

I appreciate your encouragement.

J: "Still, I would like to see more of their feedback about your ideas."

So would I.

J: "I say it is loaded with philosophy. "

The idea is that if you can come up with a good philosophy, one might be able to predict possible consequences that can be tested.

For example, if the laws of physics are implemented by a continuous fountain of virtual photons, each of which carries 3 dimensions, causes time and causality, etc., then there are natural consequences that are testable.

First, virtual photons have to be able to explain everything.

Second, frequency shifting would be equivalent to gravity.

Third, RF antennas might be able to influence the laws of physics in useful ways leading to new technology; e.g. tractor beams.

In reality, the physics establishment is too stubborn to consider anything other than a narrow set of questions that don't lead to any new or useful technology.

The established physics community won't go anywhere near "unexplained" phenomena because they don't want to risk looking silly or hurting their career or reputation. They generally don't give a crap about humanity, civilization or anyone else.

In truth, the ufologists and the government are the major players in the advancement of technology and human development. Physicist are just disinterested bystanders.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 14:40 GMT
Jason et al.,

This statement:

"The established physics community won't go anywhere near "unexplained" phenomena because they don't want to risk looking silly or hurting their career or reputation. They generally don't give a crap about humanity, civilization or anyone else."

is 'bigger than a house' and probably the real crux of why philosophy, science, poiltics and religion can't see 'more productively' eye to eye and....get somewhere for the benefit of humanity.

Wellput Jason!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 00:22 GMT
Jason -- You said "3. Do we agree that atomic clocks in free fall run a little faster than atomic clocks that are subjected to an acceleration field?"

Do clocks run faster in outer space because motion (e.g., of photons) is more rapid?

Gravity and electromagnetism both ultimately relate to distance in space.

This, in conjunction with balanced attraction and repulsion, is how gravity and electromagnetism must be demonstrated as being unified.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 09:23 GMT
Many thanks for the compliment Jason which I am happy to share with 'Cosmic Ray' and, indeed, it is high time that we let the 'friendly extraterrestrial' into our part of the Universe as we desperately need to 'learn and understand' a few things aboout the 'bigger scheme'. Myopians we are in the extreme!!!!

Cheers from the Eternal City!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 09:47 GMT
Hi Jelle,

I think at first there's going to be a lot to learn; our paradigms are going to be blown away. It will be like drinking from the cosmic fire hydrant of knowledge. But eventually, after a new paradigm emerges, there will be a lot of new technology and physics. The world economy will boom. Evening news may become fun and interesting to watch.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 11:34 GMT
Let's hope that humanity will open itself up to the learning process and help a scio-cultural-schientific paradigm shift along Jason and that whatever technology is in stoe for us will always have a 'human face'. I see too much robotization on the way and kids can nether spell nor count anymore, and not only kids!!!!

And than this 'bloodthirstyness' at all levels. Madonna as we say here!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 00:41 GMT
I found some article quotes:

"Einstein predicted the gravitational redshift of light from the equivalence principle in 1907, " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity.

"By
measuring a spectacularly small difference in the ticks of two quantum clocks, physicists have proven a pillar of Albert Einstein's theory of gravity to be on firmer footing than ever before."

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100217/full/463862a.
html

I'm trying to establish that the rate at which atomic clocks progress in time is directly and causally related to gravity and acceleration fields. I am also trying to establish that the Equivalence Principle points to the direct cause of gravity/acceleration fields; it points to the frequency shifting of light.

I have to respectfully disagree; I don't see how distance in space is directly causal to gravity or acceleration.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 00:59 GMT
Gravity increases with distance in space, and a larger space (outer space) may more forcefully fix position/distance in space.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 01:19 GMT
You said:"Gravity increases with distance in space,"

Newtonian gravity states that gravitational attraction is proportional to 1/r^2, where r is the distance from the massive body.

"...forcefully fix position/distance in space..." What does this mean?

report post as inappropriate


The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Bravo Anonymous, words from one of the greatest thinkers ever.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 21:12 GMT
Anonymous Frank,

You said: "...but, with due respect, you need to broaden your thinking. "

Broaden my thinking!!! ROFLMAO!

Frank, my talking about UFO's is an indication that my thinking might be getting "too broad".

I troubleshoot electronics. When something doesn't work, it's like a phenomenon that I have to track down. If I can't find the part, I have to figure out what's causing it.

Physics is the same way. Physics is just a phenomenon. It is primarily caused by GR and QM. To save time, I accept that GR and QM are true. Then I ask myself: what causes GR and QM to work? I think it's virtual photons. I think virtual photons cause all of the laws of physics and the mathematical/geometric behavior. They pop up everywhere in space, and they travel outwards at the speed of light, carrying information with them.

Do virtual photons contain historic information in the form of previous quantum entanglements? I dunno. But if they did, that might give the past an existence of its own in the form of an accumulating database.

You said: "Gravity and electromagnetism both ultimately relate to distance in space." Using Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations, can you explain how this is so?

You said: "When thought (in general) is more like sensory experience (in general), here we have the unification of physics -- ideas and experience both together." What does this have to do with physics? Can you tie this into physics. I only have a bachelor's degree in phyiscs. But if you could explain how your ideas tie into physics, at an undergraduate level physics explanation, I would appreciate that.

Thanks.

Jason

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 14:33 GMT
Alll,

Nice thinking all this led by anonomous Frank. To my mind still human however and 'distinct from Nature' which we aren't! Two days ago, 'pushed' by the LightBringer I determined that 'BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS AND DREAMS' equals a '27', the ultimate number, called 'The Sceptre' like for instance

‘WE ARE PART OF NATURE’ ‘BEYOND 2012’ ‘UNIVERSAL PEACE’ ‘CULTURAL EVOLUTION’ ‘PRAGMATIC’ ‘SELFESTEEM’ and …… ‘THE SKY IS JUST NOT THE LIMIT!’ just to mention a few of very many 'meaningful characters'!

So I think that if we put our common brains ànd common sense together we actually might get somewhere and finally, 'W' being out of the way', let the 21st Century begin!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Superman wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 18:49 GMT
Jason, the experience of television is based upon Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism/light. Television is a form of dream vision AS waking vision (as the following proves). See if you can understand how dreams incorporate electromagnetism/light with gravity in accordance with the following.

The overeating during television occurs in keeping with the fact that TV is an extended, interactive,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 19:21 GMT
By "the dream" you mean consciousness. I still think that everything in the physical universe owes its existence to the photon (virtual/real). From the virtual photon, you get get to the paranormal as well as a universal consciousness. The universe (multiverse) can be described as ... dreaming.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Superman,

The Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity is also consistent with/similar to Kryptonite/Halucination experience.

Have Fun!

Your Nemesis,

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 20:08 GMT
Jason, the dream has a definitive and stable sensory, energetic/light, and felt/gravitational structure, as DiMeglio proved. The dream includes BODILY presence/sensation (to an extent), gravity, light, language, minor pain, emotion, thought, concern, intention, hearing, colors, touch/tactile experience, feeling, etc., etc.

report post as inappropriate


The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 19:33 GMT
FQXi, these posts by Anonymous prove DiMeglio's unification of grav. and electro.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 19:51 GMT
Thanks so much Frank! History in the making.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT
It's about TIME too Anonymous et al. and look at these 'cosmic equivalents' of That Word:

The word NATURE itself is a 5/23 like MODES and the word ‘GOD’ is a 5/14, like the words ‘SUN’ ‘ALL LIGHT’ ‘IMAGE’ ‘THE’ ‘THAT’ ‘ELECTROMAGNETISM’ ‘TIME’’ ‘MIND’ ‘BRAINS’ ‘EYES’ ‘IDEAS’ ‘TEAM’ ‘DAY ONE’ ‘WAR AND PEACE’ ‘JUST’ ‘SAINT’ ‘MYTH’ ‘GALAXY’ ‘ALL THERE IS’ ‘.COM’ and the statements ‘IT IS TIME’’ ‘EVERYTHING HAS ITS TIME’ ‘NONDETERMINISTIC’ ‘CYCLIC’ ‘TIDE’ ‘PHI’ ‘QUASAR’ ‘QUBIT’ ‘BIG BANG THEORY’ ‘BIG BANG MACHINE’ ‘ALL IS ENERGY’ ‘MASS-ENERGY’ and Albert Einstein’s immortal formula ‘E=MC-2’, ‘H2O’ ‘ROMA’ ‘S.P.Q.R.’ ‘VIA APPIA ANTICA’ and, funny and good enough, ‘LUCK’, ‘PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE’ ‘MAYAN CULTURE’ ‘COSMOTHEOLOGY’ ‘MULTIPLICATION BY TIME’ and ‘THE TRUTH IS IN THE HANDS OF NATURE ONLY’ and ‘THE TRUTH IS IN THE HANDS OF GOD ONLY’ and ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ ‘SMILE AT LIFE AND LIFE WILL SMILE AT YOU’ ‘PERFECTIONING THE WHEEL’ and ‘IN NATURE WE TRUST’ and….. ‘IN THE BEGINNING’, ‘A MATTER OF TIME’ ‘A MOMENT IN TIME’ ‘A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE’ ‘IN REALITY’ ‘I.O.U.’, all Mercury vibrations, which clearly underpins the connection between God and Nature.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Superman replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 18:07 GMT
Jelle, there is no "god". Christianity is a delusional, weak, vengeful, ungrateful, and toxic devaluing of people and THIS life. We only have this life and each other. Now let's start acting like it!

You mentioned time. The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time.

The 45-degree angle of the Chimpanzees back (while knuckle walking) is in the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 19:32 GMT
Superman,

Couldn't agree more with you on God, the word being in the English language however. I am totally with old Marcus Tullius Cicere who, about two thousand years ago, said:

All theology.....is a massive inconsistency derived from ignorance.....The Gods exist because Nature has imprinted a conception of them on the minds of men

Cicero, 3/21

Had he been listened more attentively this world would be an entirely different and much better place to live in!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 20:13 GMT
Philosophy just smashed physics into pieces, literally.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 20:18 GMT
Frank,

I really want to explain my ideas within the context of established physics; basic physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. To me, dreams, consciousness, and all of that "in the mind" stuff can be boiled down to: signal transmission and detection. The building blocks of signal transmission/detection are: photons.

Gravity is intimately related to the rate of flow of time: time dilation. I attribute that to photon frequency and the red/blue-shift of photon frequency.

Dreams and consciousness are not the building blocks I choose to use. Photons are much more deeply entrenched in the physics; every physicist knows what a photon is and what its accepted characteristics are.

Good luck.

report post as inappropriate


Synonymous wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 00:51 GMT
From Anonymous: "Honor consists of respect and pride, and it is to be earned."

To Anonymous: Therefore: You cannot award it to yourself.

"Great post Synonymous!!!"

Thank you Magnonymous! Now I must be gonymous! So longymous!

The Unknownymous

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 21:05 GMT
Upset Jason with what was said about "god"? Shooting the messenger (DiMeglio) won't work. Your big lies won't work either. You act like a childish idiot Jason. It is better to face the facts and acknowledge/realize the truth -- but you come up short here too.

Did you read the prior post about the limitations of vision Jason?

Here is overwhelming, clear, and simple proof of what is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 21:30 GMT
ROFLMAO

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 02:16 GMT
Thanks for sharing with us. Understandable response. I had not encountered that before, so I have learned something new today!

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 21:48 GMT
Projection A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others.

From Terms in the field of Psychiatry and Neurology John F. Abess, M.D.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 22:17 GMT
Georgina, you are not nearly as smart in ability as you think.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 00:01 GMT
Manners maketh the man

report post as inappropriate

Evil Sock Puppet replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
Frank,

I found a link that might be helpful to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 15:59 GMT
The community of skeptics and physicists is filled with Frank DiMeglios. If you believe in time travel, but you scoff at UFO's, then you are a FRANK DIMEGLIO. You are insane, and you are boastful. You are blinded by your own lies.

Where are the time travelers? Where are the time lords?

The Air Force hasn't seen any!

The missile silo commanders haven't see any!

The FAA hasn't seen any!

The Chinese government hasn't seen any!

The Russian government hasn't seen any!

The Mexican government hasn't seen any!

The French government hasn't officially announced the existence of Time Travelers!

The British government hasn't officially announced the existence of Time Travlers!

Community of FRANK DIMEGLIOS, of insane physicists, of insane skeptics, WAKE UP and EMBRACE REALITY!!!!!!

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 09:46 GMT
James, Jason and all,

James you asked "Lastly, the first name, among philosophers, that you mentioned was Augustine. Have you read his book titled 'Concerning The Teacher'? "

I haven't read Augustine's book but....found a most interesting account on the same by Prof. Peter King which I feel is worth going through in the context of this discussion. At least it supports my views that 'we all know all there is to know, we just have to remember'! Nature provided most generously!!!

Article attached.

Jelle

attachments: Augustine_on_Teaching.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 10:04 GMT
All,

Having said that I should also like to invite you all to spend a few minutes with

www.rainbow21122012.org which I developed as a sequel to my book and contains a number (no numbers!) of pertinent articles about 'where we are'. Particularly the ones behind the 'church windows'!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 14:25 GMT
James,

You wrote "For anyone who might wonder what intelligence I am referring to, it is the intelligence by which our intelligence is made possible. I cannot describe it except to say that it not only had to provide our intelligence, but, it had to have the means by which to do that providing. The act of providing is far more interesting than the act of receiving. It cannot come from dumbness.

The cause for our intelligence is an original cause and must be a significant, and perhaps total part, of the fundamental properties of the universe. Theoretical physics knows nothing of these properties. It would rather propose the magic of energy to us and avoid any mention of intelligence. It is very strange (I address this to theoretical physicists) that energy should be the key ingredient for this universe that gave birth to intelligent life, and, yet energy is purely mechanical and stupid."

Well here are some of my preferred '33's by 'chance' the number of my conventional as well as penname:

‘UNIVERSE’ ‘NATURE’S INTELLIGENCE’ ‘QUANTUM COMPUTERS’ ‘THE UNIVERSE IS US’ ‘AS THE INDIVIDUAL IS IS THE UNIVERSE’ ‘LIGHT OF THE UNIVERSE’ ‘AS THE UNIVERSE IS IS THE INDIVIDUAL’ 'INTUITIVE' ‘THE PLANETS ARE US’ ‘ANCIENT RELIGION’ ‘UNLIMITED’ ‘UNIVERSAL LAW’ ‘THE UNIVERSE IS UNKNOWABLE’ ‘NATURE AND NUMBERS’ ‘LOGOS IS NUMBER’ ‘NUMBER IS LOGOS’ ‘SOLITONS’ 'POLYMATH'

So, indeed it is not 'dumbness' it's just 'numbers' that provided the intelligence for our 'being and acting'!

Remember Heraclites who 'posted' 2500 years ago:

“Whosoever wishes to know about the world must learn about it in its particular details.

Knowledge is not intelligence.

In searching for the truth be ready for the unexpected.

Change alone is unchanging.

The same road goes both up and down.

The beginning of a circle is also its end.

Not I, but the world says it: all is one.

And yet everything comes in season”

Heraclitus of Ephesus

5th Century B.C.

And I, for me, find it very funny if not astonishing that this cannot be seen, accepted ànd acted on!!!

But then the same Ancients say 'The World is blind'!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 14:52 GMT
To the website moderator, can we go back to simple time stamping without the "sub threads"? I have spent 20 minutes looking for someones reply, and I can't find it. I copied and pasted the whole page into notepad and did a FIND. The comment wasn't on the page indicated by "Recent Blog Comments".

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 14:54 GMT
Would strongly support Jason's proposal as it's rather 'labyrintal' as is!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 15:07 GMT
I agree FQXi -- too controlling. The only way you control something/someone is by reducing it (or them). And you are moving posts, and deleting other posts that are excellent as well.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 09:47 GMT
FQXI moderators, please continue to delete derogatory, ill mannered, and libelous posts. It would also be good if the continuous blatant vanity and boasting, that has nothing to do with discussion of foundational issues, could also be removed. It is inappropriate, generally un-amusing and tiresome for the socially intelligent contributors to the forum. It is also an ongoing public disgrace to the poster and this site.

report post as inappropriate


THE MAN wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 16:40 GMT
FQXi, Jason and Jelle, what do you have to say about the following (below), regarding the limitations of vision? It is key to the limits of physical/mathematical understanding (and, ultimately and significantly relevant to your various ideas).

Jelle, you quoted Jason as saying:

"Community of FRANK DIMEGLIOS, of insane physicists, of insane skeptics, WAKE UP and EMBRACE REALITY!!!!!!...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 16:52 GMT
The Man whoever that is,

No I don't know FMdM but what I've read of him tells me that he is obviously a very clever thinker and may grasp 'elements of reality' but....makes it, in typical human fashion, way to complicated for any practical use. At least I cannot see that so it's bound to remain in the realm of theorethical physics where I feel he exactly intends it to remain, thereby precluding other avenues, for example those 'walked on' by Jason and James, to be seriously explored.And I do feel there is more 'light for humanity' there!

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

THE MAN replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 17:19 GMT
Jelle, you know you haven't read DiMelio (http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphil24fmd.htm)

DiMeglio is saying that we are basically "outsmarted" in the dream. Furthermore, he is sounding a loud gong that basically says: THE END OF PHYSICS! -- (including jobs/funding/grants) in physics. Why would he not have enemies/adversaries here? -- He does, of course.

CENTRAL to this entire discussion is the fact that the ability of thought to [mathematically] describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Accordingly, it is impossible that this known mathematical unification of gravity and electromagnetism is not basically/fundamentally correct. DiMeglio brings dreams into it of necessity. You do not agree? DiMeglio has proven many on here to be wrong and fundamentally off base/seriously lacking in what is their right and proper thinking. They do not appreciate it; indeed, they resent it.

DiMeglio truly leads FQXi and this forum in actuality/reality. What have you to say? Reading and comprehending DiMeglio is the requirement. His ideas are very consistent, extensive, and deep when taken/considered together.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 18:20 GMT
The Man,

I've read some more and stand to some extent corrected on my earlier statement. If what FdM allows for Mathematics -in the simplest of forms- to play its fundamental and deserved role I'm with him in declaring 'the end to physics as a dominant of all'. This has gone on for hundreds of years and, indeed, is firmly, too firmly entrenched!

I should like to re-refer to the 'Augstine Article' by Prof. Peter King, distributed earlier today, which in my opinion goes quite a length in 'connecting' these various issues for the benefit ànd understanding of humanity.

Frank diMeglio's writings are 'pretty abstract' to say the least and I should like him to descend a bit from his 'throne'. I'm saying this without wanting to be fascetious, not at all.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 16:54 GMT
The more I read DiMeglio/Anonymous/Superman, etc, the more he makes sense on fundamentals of great importance and relevancy to physics. He is like Brock Lesnar, in a sense, with the FQXi refs. not stopping the fight -- and with him coming out on top in the end. More power to you DiMeglio. You are doing loving, important, and great work.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 17:31 GMT
This idea does explain the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, and it pulls dreams into play as well (the "OR reconfigure..." part, that is):

The ability of thought to describe (INCLUDING MATHEMATICALLY) OR reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Dreams fundamentally make thought more like sensory experience in geenral, including gravity and electromagnetism/light.

Accordingly, "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE KNOWN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM IS A COINCIDENCE (OR UNTRUE)." -- I agree.

DiMeglio is a genius of the highest order. FQXi, seriously, you cannot continue to ignore ALL of these great truths (and others as well) -- that are all over this forum -- by DiMeglio.

Reply please. How do you even begin to get around all of it?

Brendan, any of you? This is a very serious and important matter that you keep evading and denying. The truth/reality matters.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 19:41 GMT
Anonymous,

Re my earlier reply the The man, more and more with you on this statement!

Would defintely wish for a better balance between 'quantitative philosophers' and 'physicists 'at the end of their rope'' in this discussion! Something has to move and it better be forward fr the betterment of the human condition!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 20:09 GMT
Anonymous and The Man,

I've done some further reading and this I think shows 'the other side of the coin' we are talking about and....to be taken into account. Too many selfproclaimed 'hero's of whatever' have 'bitten the dust'! Good, even great, thinking is highly valuable but it has always to be 'in touch and humble':

http://depletedcranium.com/frank-martin-dimeglio-aut
hor-great-thinker-ass/

The top line on this commentary about Kennedy reflects very well whhat I was trying to say earleir!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 23:11 GMT
FQXi deletes truthful posts of fundamental and serious importance. See all the above posts under review?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 23:14 GMT
Focus on the great ideas, not the messengers.

We are here to advance the human condition and human understanding.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 00:44 GMT
You cannot judge DiMeglio's work Jason. That is obvious.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 02:30 GMT
Frank,

Do you think that time travel is possible?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 03:00 GMT
I just thought of another reason why the photon implements physics and space-time. All, I repeat, ALL of the fundamental particles owe their existence to a particle-anti-particle creation with ... high energy photons at the moment of the Big Bang.

Photons implement all particles.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 08:33 GMT
Jason,

Don't know whether it will be of help to you but 'coincidence' has it that the word PHOTONS has, among others, these 'cosmic equivalents':

‘SINGULARITY’ ‘THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE’ ‘THE LAW OF RESONANCE’ ‘MAGNETISM’‘RHYTHM OF LIFE’ ‘MULTIVERSE’ ‘INCEPTION’ ‘THE SECRET CODE OF THE COSMOS’ ‘CALENDAR STONE’ ‘BEYOND BELIEF’ ‘SUPERNOVAE’ ‘FOUR MILLION YEARS OF EVOLUTION’ ‘SUNLIGHT’ ‘ALL LIFE COMES FROM LIFE’ ‘THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUN’ ‘MODUS PONENS’ ‘SUBTLE IS THE LORD’ 'THE POWER OF NOW' ‘THE POWER OF POLYTHINKING’ ‘THE POWER OF THE INTERNET’ ‘FREEDOM OF THOUGHT’ ‘THE AGE OF EMPATHY’ ‘GENUINE’ ‘THE SEARCH FOR THE BALANCE’ ‘THE CREATIVE MINORITY’ ‘SPACE, TIME, NUMBER AND IDENTITY’ ‘MATHEMATICAL TRUTH’

Good Sunday on which, according to the (ignorant) Christian world Mary went to Heaven and only God knows what she was coming to do there!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 13:25 GMT
Jason,

The movie at the beginning of this site shows PHOTONS and associated NUMBERS in all their glory.

http://www.rainbow21122012.org/

Enjoy as it's beautiful and true too!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 09:47 GMT
Jelle,

Everything you say about the photon is true.

I have said that the photon is responsible for implementing the laws of physics and causing the universe to exist. If you can name the passage from the Bible that says the same thing, I will declare you a genius.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 11:29 GMT
Jason,

You stated to my great satisfaction "Everything you say about the photon is true." To me that means that otentially, human nature permitting, philosophy and Physics might peacefully meet, cohabitate and get 'thing human' on a diffrent plane of understanding, perhaps?

The nice thing about PHOTONS is that it's a '30', i.e. another 3, the number of the mind. I have postulated with otehr physicists that Higgs Boson, n which billions of €€€€ are being spent under and around Geneva sofar without any breakthrough, is nothing else than the '21' = '3' of its very name. No reply from nobody!

At this point, and maybe to pull the 'Frak's of this word' also along, I should like to introduce this form to a most important character, the '8' and its mate '26' and below you will see why:

The ‘26’, which adds up to the number ‘8’, a Saturn vibration and the number of Destiny as well as the ‘Big Bang’, ‘Big Picture’ ‘Number is the within of all things’ ‘Metaphilosophy’ and ‘A Global Thinker’ as well as ‘Opportunity’, ‘To be or not to be, that is the question’ ‘Say No’ and ‘A Mayan Cosmogenesis’, carries the name ‘Partnerships’ and the following ‘26’ vibrations may provide an insight in this important cosmic character in the context of human relations and endeavour:

‘NUMBERS, SPACE AND TIME’ ‘NUMBERS, SPACE, TIME AND GRAVITY’ ‘PARTNERSHIP’ ‘TOGETHER’ ‘WE ARE THE WORLD, WE ARE THE CHILDREN’ ‘COMMON DESTINY’ ‘EXPERIENCE’ ‘BEING, EXPERIENCE AND DREAMS’ ‘BEING, EXPERIENCE, CONSCIOUSNESS AND DREAMS’ ‘MOTHER EARTH’ ‘MATRIARCHY’ ‘UNITED WE STAND’ ‘POWER TO THE PEOPLE’ ‘ENTHOUSIASM’ ‘LIFE IS A GAME’ ‘BIOGENESIS’ ‘EXISTENCE AND BEING’ ‘HUMAN NATURE’ ‘MATRIARCHY’ ‘INTERNATIONAL’ ‘PANTHEON’ ‘TASKFORCE’ ‘ORA ET LABORA’ ‘FIFTY-FIFTY ‘SPACE AND TIME’ ‘DIVINE LAWS’ ‘INFINITE JUSTICE’ ‘THOUGHT’ ‘MATHEMATICS’ ‘GOD IS MATHEMATICS’ ‘MATHEMATICS IS GOD’ ‘UNITY IS GOD’ ‘REALITY IS GOD’ ‘PRIME NUMBER’ ‘GROUP’ ‘CODE AND CYPHER’ ‘THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM’ ‘CHANGING THE WORLD’ ‘CRITICAL THINKING’ ‘COSMIC INSTRUCTION’ ‘COSMIC VIBRATIONS’ ‘ORDER OUT OF CHAOS’ ‘KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE’ ‘PLANET’ ‘EVOLUTION’ ‘MOTHER-EARTH’ ‘THE FORCES OF NATURE’ ‘THE POWER OF NATURE’ ‘THE COLOURS OF THE RAINBOW’ ‘SPIRIT OF BEAUTY’ ‘FAITH IN BEAUTY’ ‘UNIVERSAL VALUE’

on the 15th of August, an 8 by all the digits of the date!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 15:03 GMT
All,

Having been encouraged by Jason, Anonymus and The Man too I should like to 'exhibit' one of the key articles on my website as, human nature being what it is, maybe you just don't get there so easily!

It's from in my view key book, published right at the turn of the Millennium -and never have I read a more comprehensive book- as follows:

Quantum...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 18:26 GMT
The photon was first cause. The photon is at the heart of all physics. The photon was here before everything else. What is a photon? A photon is ... light.

From the Holy Bible, Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1.

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

That is where the light came from. Physicists call this the Big Bang. After about 10-37 of a second, all of the fundamental particles began to form. This is established physics theory.

Guess what! This proves that God created the universe; ipso facto, God exists. What?

GOD EXISTS.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 19:28 GMT
How far can we go with:Existentialism?

For instance, if it was humanly probable, if my 50 yr old Brain was transplanted into a donar body of say a 20 yr old physical complete body, would/could I experience my life over again?.. previous yrs between 20 and 50 birthdays? How would the human brain cope with the memories gained in the previous body, coupled withe the "new"experience of the transplanted brains "following" years?

Does this raise the question of: being?

If the process was repeated over and over, and lets say it was maybe Feynaman's brain, effectivly feynman and his thoughts on current stringtheory, may be beneficial to others currently working on the philisophical problems inherent to the theory.

Would this process enhance the Human Species?..the process for organ transplants has evolved to such a degree, genetically and physically to raise the philosophical question of living for ever, be it by organ transplant of the conscious vessel, brain.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 20:21 GMT
Whoever you are, you make some great points. Nothing wrong with organ transplants. Although, it would be better to improve rejuvenation/regeneration technology so that our own physical body lasts longer. It would be nice to maintain the physiological conditions of a twenty year old, as is one's preference. There is ongoing research to find a way to disable the genetic obstacle to immortality.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 20:42 GMT
Jason, you said "whoever you are" in your reply to Anonymous. Who cares who it is? That is why it is Anonymous. That is the message.

You do not run the show, nor are you capable of doing so. We are here to discuss concepts and to advance the understanding, not to battle and insult individuals.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 21:31 GMT
You said, "You do not run the show, nor are you capable of doing so."

That sounds like Frank. I don't have any problem you or anyone talking about ideas. It's when you reply to your own ideas and say, "DiMeglio is saying that we are basically "outsmarted" in the dream. " If you want to defend you positions and ideas, then tell us why they are applicable to every day life. Tell us how they come right out of the physics.

You said, "We are here to discuss concepts and to advance the understanding, not to battle and insult individuals. " But Frank, you were banned from this website for insulting people like Georgina and Ray. You've insulted me as well, but it doesn't bother me. Defend your ideas with good arguments.

For example, take something in physics like the photon, fields, gravity, I dunno, something in physics, and then tell us why it reproduces your argument, your point of view.

report post as inappropriate


Da Best wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 00:45 GMT
Here is the theoretical/actual quantum mechanical nature of being, experience, and thought:

"Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)" -- per DiMeglio.

Brendan, we told you that dreams make thought (in general) more fundamentally like sensory experience in general -- including gravity, electromagnetism/light, and quantum mechanical phenomena (as they GENERALLY relate to the union of/with gravity and electromagnetism/light, that is).

To the extent that there is/can be quantum gravity, it occurs in dreams.

The three questions Brendan. We are waiting.

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 10:09 GMT
Jason, sorry the anon you replied to was me about Existentialism?

Again sorry for the lack of identity.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 14:04 GMT
James,

"...do they exist through Reality? No, because the barren poverty of the particles reduced to themselves would be unable to sustain any symbols that might conceal the laws."

No because, they, the particles, i.e. REALITY, exist through the 'charge' of LOGOS which exists of the 'God-given' integers 1-9 and my 'research seems to fully support that 'quantum philosophy' statement from Prof. Em. Omnès, whose book, published by Princeton Press in 1999 I can recommend to all.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 14:17 GMT
Jelle,

My questions were: "Could you please expound upon 'the barren poverty of the particles'? How barren are they? We recognize a 'barren' particle by what remaining means?"

Quoting your response: "No because, they, the particles, i.e. REALITY, exist through the 'charge' of LOGOS..."

What is "the 'charge' of Logos."? It is the use of the word 'charge' that I am questioning.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 15:04 GMT
James,

Sorry to make this so 'deceivingly simple' but then Nature is, the 'charge' are the properties of the numbers, the 1 vibrating with the Sun, 2 with the Moon, 3 with Jupiter, 4 with Uranus, 5 with Mercury, 6 with Venus, 7 with Neptune, 8 with Saturn and 9 with Mars.

Ever thought of the statement "hey this doesn't add up" or 'One's number being called' when it's time to go horizontal?! And many, many more in our languages!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 18:01 GMT
Jelle,

"...Nature is, the 'charge' are the properties of the numbers, the 1 vibrating with the Sun, 2 with the Moon, 3 with Jupiter, 4 with Uranus, 5 with Mercury, 6 with Venus, 7 with Neptune, 8 with Saturn and 9 with Mars."

A number can vibrate? What is a number? How does it vibrate? What is gained by your use of the word 'nature'? What is 'nature'? How does it differ from an intelligent Creator? How does it create? If you are saying that the numbers come first, what created them or where did they come from? How did they acquire meaning? Are the numbers a priori? I am looking for explanations that go beyond assigning numbers as if that explains things. Is the Sun real or is it the number one that is real?

James

James

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:11 GMT
James, Steve and Ray,

I obviously wasn't there when it all started and neither were you so we have no reason to blame each other for anything. My findings over the past 21 years which I am partly sharing with you -and sorry if it's disturbing Steve- and am happy to share more extensively with you if you contact me on dealism21@gmail.com have tought me and convinced me of what somebody said 1900 years ago as follows.

The Universe seems......to have been determined and ordered in accordance with Number, by the forethought and the mind of the Creator of all things; for the pattern was fixed, like a preliminary sketch, by the domination of number pre-existent in the mind of the Universe-creating God

Nichomachus of Gerasa, 5/32

ca. A.D. 100

to which Pythagoras had already 'added' 600 years earlier when postulating his 1st Law "Everything is Number":

Number is the ruler of form and ideas and is the cause of gods and demons

Pythagoras’ Sacred Discourse

6th Century B.C.

and to which Albert Einstein most seriously added what I've said before when postulating his 1st Law: "Everything is Number":

‘IF HUMANKIND WANTS TO SURVIVE, IT HAS TO ADOPT

A RADICALLY DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING’

And I feel we should get on with that seriously too. The code which I am using was 'handed down' to us by the Ancient Sumnerians who, like the Maya, had suberb astronomers who knew more than our currentday rather 'mehanistic astromers' and were able to cature 'meaning in the Universe' it seems. And ...my experience is that it works and rather unfailingly!

Over.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:17 GMT
All,

Sorry for a typo. This "and to which Albert Einstein most seriously added what I've said before when postulating his 1st Law: "Everything is Number":" should be

"and to which Alebert Einstein most seriously added what I've said before"

Sorry for any confusion!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:24 GMT
Jelle,

"The code which I am using was 'handed down' to us by the Ancient Sumnerians who, like the Maya, had suberb astronomers who knew more than our currentday rather 'mehanistic astromers' and were able to cature 'meaning in the Universe' it seems. And ...my experience is that it works and rather unfailingly!"

If it works unfailingly then why did you answer in this fashion? Jelle, I don't have any grudge against you or what you say. However, when you or anyone else makes the declarative statement to the effect that "God is not necessary." I want to hear why? I don't have a religion. I don't try to describe God. What I think I do know is that no one knows the cause of our origin. When God is dispensed with, I want to know why? If your numbers fit well with effects that is one thing. The interpretations of theoretical physics fit well also. However, we had an origin and anyone proposing that God is unnecessary needs to explain the other original cause that they believe in.

James

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 20:49 GMT
You physicists talk about parallel universes, faster than light travel, time travel. The question becomes: Have you lost your minds?

No wonder you ran DiMeglio off this forum/site and deny and discredit the man and his ideas. He is too much truth -- and that means less money -- for you all. It is clear to all on here that have seen the man get gang banged from the start.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 15:55 GMT
You said, "You physicists talk about parallel universes, faster than light travel, time travel. The question becomes: Have you lost your minds?"

So your official position is that all of these things are impossible? Nobody has ever seen time traveling phenomena, so I agree with you that time travel is impossible. However, there have been millions of reports of the supernatural, ghosts, UFO's. I would think that those reports constitute observations of parallel universes and FTL propulsion. Why am I wrong?

Your ideas involve unifying gravity and electromagnetism with dreams. What new technology do you anticipate will come from this?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 19:54 GMT
DiMeglio is the overall leader and authority of unification theory in physics.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 19:59 GMT
Frank,

Let me give you an example. By following my approach to physics, the following technologies will be achieved:

a. faster than light propulsion; travel to other star systems in minutes or hours;

b. tractor beam technology;

c. artificial gravity between two parallel plates to maintain 9.8m/s2;

d. force fields

e. invisibility

What new technology will your ideas manifest?

report post as inappropriate

Physics Master replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 16:16 GMT
FQXi members, Jason, here is your answer. See if you can fill in the blanks.

TRUE, COMPLETE, AND NATURAL/SUSTAINABLE GROWTH/EXPERIENCE. The goal is to increase the integrated extensiveness of one's thought, being, emotion, feeling, and experience generally. Indeed: "The ultimate and legitimate goal of truth, knowledge, and experience in general is the fundamental advancement and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:07 GMT
Frank,

You dodged my question, again. What new technologies would emerge from your ideas?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:13 GMT
Frank,

WHAT NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES FROM YOUR IDEAS??????

Do you know what "technology" is? What new capabilities come from your ideas?

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Jason,

I think that Frank should develop a prototype Dream machine and sell the idea to Nintendo.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:29 GMT
Ray,

That's what I thought. But he's not even suggesting that. In fact, using non-invasive brain implants, maybe there is a way to use computer networks to create shared dream experiences with your friends and loved ones.

Is that one Frank is suggesting?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:21 GMT
Frank,

Man up! What new technology can your ideas offer?

Even the efforts to prove time travel are for the purpose of creating a time machine. I don't think they can realize it, but that is there goal.

Do your ideas even offer a new technology?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:37 GMT
Frank,

This website is here for people with new ideas; strange ideas; unpopular ideas. It's OK to be creative.

But Frank, you have no reason to boast.

You dodge questions!

You blither on with your nonsense!

Then you congratulate yourself for NOTHING!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:57 GMT
Cosmology is in a shambles because, as DiMeglio has shown, it is an interactive creation of thought that bears significant similarities with dream vision. That is, telescopic/astronomical observations and dream vision both involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. Telescopic/astronomical observations and dream vision both make space more invisible/transparent. This accounts for magnification (and the red-shift).

The unnatural lessening/reconfiguration of visual experience in telescopic/astronomical observations lessens the comprehensibility thereof.

The dream, however, includes the visiual experience therein as part of what is a fundamental integration and spreading of being, experience, vision, and thought.

The interactive and integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand, in and with time as well. Pepole readily resist this idea, because it is so shocking!

Now, back to where we were. FQXi, admit that DiMeglio has unified gravity and electromagnetism.

Is Jason FQXi's spokesperson? If yes, why?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 21:15 GMT
Remember FQXi allowing posts to stand calling DiMeglio an ass, as Florin did this? Remember Florin lying as well, saying DiMeglio lied about Corda's statements on Frank's article -- and then FQXi declaring him (Florin) a winner.

You probably should be reported for this Florin. You thought DiMeglio was some punk you could insult and walk on, with FQXi's help. Frank's book is in the University of Maryland's library. Did you know that? We might report you yet to your bosses. You want so badly to discredit him. We are interested in what else you may have said and done.

FQXi -- You are lying and denying about what is the fundamental truth in physics, because it is goes directly against your funding, agenda, interests, and credibility. The dream unifies gravity and electromagnetism.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 02:14 GMT
Florin,

I agree. I just wish it was easier to find comments by name, date, and topic. In any event, I'll refrain from responding him.

report post as inappropriate


Kevin Washington wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 16:05 GMT
The flattening of space in all 3 dimensions that DiMeglio has shown in dreams does seem to represent quantum gravity. How DiMeglio has now incorporated quantum phenomena with gravity and electromagnetism cannot be ignored.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
Steve even commented upon how Florin and Corda ganged up on Frank. It was obvious.

report post as inappropriate


Jay Johnson wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:07 GMT
Not so fast Florin. How do you explain the known mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism, as DiMeglio says? Let's talk facts Florin. Keep your insults to yourself.

"The next ultimate theory/understanding will explain how thought (in general) is fundamentally more like sensory experience in general BECAUSE:

The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." Answer Florin.

You know math Florin. You are not qualified, capable, and knowledgeable enough to speak of a theory of everything. What disciplines and other areas are you published on? DiMeglio has far more expertise and knowledge than you do when it comes to understanding being, thought, sensory experience, vision, experience, thought. His book, prior FQXi essay, and published work prove it.

report post as inappropriate


BEST MAN wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:22 GMT
Florin, your prior essay, as it was commented then, relied upon multiple and TOWERING assumptions. Talk truth Florin, not evasions and personal insults.

The Big Bang idea precludes (or "kills") what must be the related experiences of thought, life, gravity, experience, being, and electromagnetism/light.



The fundamental laws of physics must be unified and also understood in a fashion that allows life and experience (in general) to be.

Consistent with this, dream experience is essential to the proper (and complete) understanding of both life and experience in general.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:32 GMT
FQXi, Florin, Corda, Georgina, Ray, Lawrence, Jason...Gravity increases and decreases with distance.

You do not even know the basics upon which physics ultimately and fundamentally rests. DiMeglio proved this, and you go after him personally, and you deny and ignore his ideas.

He embarrassed you by exposing how much you don't know and by unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Now he has showed quantum gravity in dreams.

FQXI -- you continue to delete great posts here with great ideas by DiMeglio.

FQXi -- remember how you selectively deleted DiMeglio's posts in the prior essay contest with Florin, and yet you let his "replies" stand? So much for a record of the facts in the comments under/with Florin's garbage essay.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:43 GMT
Hi Jay. Florin, how did you win in the past contest saying what is mathematically possible in physics while failing to basically address this????:

"The next ultimate theory/understanding will explain how thought (in general) is fundamentally more like sensory experience in general BECAUSE:

The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." -- the KNOWN mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism is plainly and significantly evident in our experience Florin. How could you win without addressing this, and by being totally wrong about it? Dreams make thought (generally) more like sensory experience in general Florin -- including gravity and electromagnetism/light.

report post as inappropriate


FAST FRED wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:53 GMT
Nice post Anonymous. Florin, your essay about what is ultimately possible in physics mathematically totally blew it (and was wrong). Here is why:

"The next ultimate theory/understanding will explain how thought (in general) is fundamentally more like sensory experience in general BECAUSE:

The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." The known mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism HAS to be plainly and significantly evident in our experience, and this proves it. And this proves that in dreams it is.

DiMeglio is right, and you are wrong. And, you STILL insult him.

Next time Florin, quit while you are unfairly ahead.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 18:11 GMT
FQXi, Florin is your buddy. That is obvious.

On the other hand FQXi, DiMeglio's ideas will ultimately cost you a fortune in funding, grants, participation, and articles/"research" by friends, associates, and members of FQXi. You get the point.

Tell the truth FQXi.

How long will lies, deception, money, insults, articles generated by/involving disputes over NOTHING/NONSENSE and "business as usual" rule the day over truth, nature/reality, health, sustainability, and people.

If we walk away from reality, reality will walk away from us.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 18:44 GMT
DiMeglio, to me, seems to have unified gravity and electromagnetism with quantum gravity as well. The more he says, the more he is opposed.

The quantum mechanical, gravitational, and electromagnetic nature of being, experience, and thought are now clealy demonstrated at rock bottom as follows:

Here is the [theoretical/actual] quantum mechanical nature of being, experience, and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 07:54 GMT
All,

And here is another angle to the 'continuing yes-Frank---no-Frank saga' whih seems to lead nowhere. This is what I found in my computer this morning:

"In order to assess fairly the visions clairvoyants claim to have,

you have to understand that the nature of these visions is

identical to that of dreams. It is just a question of degree of

awareness, with the clairvoyant's vision occurring during the

waking state and the dream occurring during sleep. You may wonder

whether you can give any credence to either... Yes, you can, but

only inasmuch as they inform you of the degree of evolution of

those who experience them.

Dreams and visions always have meaning, but anyone who has not

succeeded in freeing themselves from the lower astral plane will

receive their visions and dreams from those dark regions. And, of

course, you cannot trust that these will give you true

understanding or the right answers to the questions you are

asking yourself. Only when human beings succeed in raising

themselves up to the causal, buddhic and atmic planes will their

visions and dreams be capable of enlightening us about reality."

Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov

Great visionary this bulgaran 'chap'. Look him up!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 16:10 GMT
Ray,

It was 'sinister' indeed and...glad to see you breaking up The Pentagon. About time too!!!

Herewith some equivalents for PENTAGRAM fYI:

'POLYMATH' ‘PENTAGRAM’ ‘TRIANGLES BEAT SQUARES’ ‘SAPPHIRE’ ‘COMMON UNDERSTANDING’ ‘SPEAK-SPEECH’ ‘COUNT-LETTERS’ ‘UNIVERSAL SOUL’ ‘INFINITE LOVE’ ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGN’ ‘THE MASTER OF THE SCHEME’ ‘BIOLOGICAL SPACE’ ‘QUANTUM PHYSICS’ ‘QUANTUM THEORY’ ‘PROTON’ ‘SUPERSTRING’ ‘MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS’ ‘THEOREMA’ ‘HUMANKIND’

Certianly agrre with your statemnet on the need for a scientific approach to the meaning of numbers. But 'empiricism' is still valid isn't it?

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 18:32 GMT
Jelle, DiMeglio's ideas lead nowhere? Is that what you just said? We need new thinkers here. Bigtime!

report post as inappropriate


The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 22:51 GMT
Jay Johnson, Kevin Washington. Thank you for your posts. Excellent post Anonymous.

Here is further clarification of the matter:

Decreased gravity may be offset/balanced by increased inertia/immobilization, thereby balancing scale (distance in space). This balances attraction and repulsion, and this demonstrates space as gravitational/electromagnetic energy -- in these different manifestations of the same. The MID-range of gravity is equivalent with the SEMI-immobilized condition therein -- (picture us in outer space/the sun) vs. earth (full gravity) -- in dreams. Touch/tactile

experience is also at the same energy/feeling level as the gravitational experience in dreams. Read Mach on inertia and gravity.

Understanding that the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience is crucial to ULTIMATELY understanding mathematical description and physics, and the limits thereof.

The gravitational contraction (to the center of the body) may be understood as being balanced by (and involving) an electromagnetic repulsion/expansion. Larger and smaller spaces (contracted space vs. outer space). The heightened concern/energy, touch/tactile experience, the gravity in dreams, semi/half immobilized/"inertialized" - they are all manifestations of what is essentially the same. Union of gravity and electromagnetism in/as dream experience.

This is the most important discovery in physics that quite possibly has ever been, and will ever be, made.

Now DiMeglio has demonstrated quantum gravity in dreams too (see the prior posts please.)

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 12:59 GMT
Hi all,

The ergodicity is always there.

This way towards the ultim energy is fascinating,as a partition of spherization of course.

The recurrence about time and space for our concrete mesurements are essentials.

When Boltzman has inserted this theory of cinetics gas,the uniquity of the entanglement and its pure finite number correlated with thermodynamics, statistics and mechanics show us the road of the rotations implying mass.

The fractal is specific of course, and the system of rotating spheres more the volumes seem implying the codes of becomming on this line time.

Our invariances when we analyzze even a discrete system rest as they are.The locality and the globality are evidently the same in their pure dynamic.

All systems are proportionals and the ultim limit of physicality is in 3D and this time constant permitting to have our actual datas and rationalities.

The spherisation( quantum spheres ...specific numbers....evolution...time constant....cosmological spheres....increase of mass.....Universal sphere)

The system of ergodicity is essential to encircle our reals numbers.

Hamilton will be happy to see these fractalizations of rationality.

We can't imply the confusions for the public, the foundamentals are our foundamentals.

If we don't consider the temporal moyen and space moyen with their invariances, thus how can we know the real serie inside the correct referential.

If the infinity is inserted without rationality and limits, it will be difficult to encircle and to understand the real Alephs of Cantor.

All that becomes a real problem about the interpretation of infinity, the harmony and the chaos, sim^ply because some dicreteness are bad understood or bad inserted without real topology in 3 dimensions.

Conclusion.The chaos is just a photo.A short instant ,...a bad

interprettion....

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 14:15 GMT
Joe,

You asked:"You are telling me in all seriousness that I am who I am either because of the exertions of an omnipotent God, or because of billions of years of an evolutionary process. "

Are you suggesting a third alternative?

You said,"We can dispense with the God theory immediately. "

Why? In what way is it obvious where the universe came from? In what way is it obvious where the laws of physics came from.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 20:00 GMT
Jason, experience is not "created" because it is not thought/thinkable.

Thought is different from vision, for example. Thought is interactive and integrated with sensory experience (and more so in dreams), but to a limited extent -- but this then reduces the totality of experience (and thought) in dreams.

God is the teddy bear that you no longer have.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 13:09 GMT
William Orem,

My boss called my reasoning "sowas von fundamental". Others called it philosophical. In brief: Future effects cannot yet be measured. They are more or less uncertain. Consequently, spacetime cannot describe reality. Is there a mistake to be found as to elucidate pertaining paradoxes? Critics tend to attack Einstein and his precondition of constant c. I suspect, there might be a deeper rooted mistake. That's why I am dealing with the already paradoxical putative length contraction in case of two objects that move towards each other with constant speed. It looks as if I have found a hidden flaw in metamathematics. See above.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
Who dealt with "Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz ..." by Aleksandar Vukelja 2005 http://www.masstheory.org?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 06:01 GMT
In this blog the notion of God is very often mentioned. In fact GOD is the most philosophical aspect of philosophy itself. Weinbergs impression that philosophy is murky and inconsequential compared to the dazzling successes of physics goes back to this aspect.

Until today no one has an idea how to deal with it in a scientific way. The main problem is: How can something be proved or tested if it is considered of being invisible?

The answer: It can't be tested. If something is really (!) invisible in the truest sense of the word, there is, in principle, no empirical test so far.

Is this the end of all philosophy, especially of metaphysics?

No. Actually the property of invisibility includes very restrictive conditions with respect to the visible physical universe. It is quite obvious that a Universe must be organized in a very specific and unique way if it shall base upon an invisible foundation. Although Einstein asked: Did GOD have any choice in the creation of the universe, he did never make use of the properties, which are intimately connected with this philosophical term of GOD. But these properties are highly effective tools, if we are going to ask for their physical implications resp. conditions in a systematic way.

These conditions can't only be found they can actually be precised in such a way, that they are even testable. It seems that our (!) universe does satisfy just these conditions. There are empirical datas which do point to the existence of an invisible foundation of the UNIVERSE.

In brief, if a modern metaphysics is truly possible, it will change the course of modern physics, because it deals with a foundation that is by its very nature of fundamental character.

Further Details - see: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/502

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 07:28 GMT
Helmut,

Very glad to 're-opened' this discussion with some substance! Without going into details here I should like to invite you -and others- to giev a look at the content of the attachment which has come about over the past 21 years. To my humble mind this might be the key to a peaceful and fruitful cohabitation between Philosophy, Science -notably Physics and Biology-, Religion and Politics and....for the benefit of humankind!

Just today I established that mathematically, according to The Ancient Sumerians, these 'terms' are equivalent:

‘WHERE HAS OUR NATURE GONE?!’ ‘COMPASSION-ETHICS’ ‘THE POWER OF IMAGINATION’ ‘BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS AND DREAMS’ ‘COGNITIVE SCIENCES’ ‘INCARNATED LOGOS’ ‘INCARNATED TIME’ ‘INCARNATED NATURE’ ‘INCARNATED GOD’ 'LATERAL THINKING' ‘POWER OF SPEECH’ ‘THE POWER OF THE WORD’

Cheers.

Jelle

attachments: 2_Dealism21Current_Manuscript.doc

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Jelle,

I've no doubt that numbers are highly important to decipher the fundamental blueprint of the physical universe. This view is quite common within the scientific community.

Einstein f.e. maintained a long-term interest in the question of constants of physics. His most interesting statement on the matter occurs in private correspondence with Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider. In a letter, written in 1945, he expressed the idea, that dimensional universal constants such as the velocity of light are not really fundamental. Instead of that he believed that in a truly fundamental theory pure numbers like e or pi are the genuine universal constants. That we still relate to dimensional constants like c was due to the fact that we have not penetrated deeply enough into nature's secrets.

I myself followed this Einsteinian kind of numerilogical reasoning and discovered that the geometrical "picture" of the MANDALA is probably a secret blueprint of the universe. It shows as conceived by how space and time are organized at the most fundamental level. It includes space-time-segments which are not covered by the relativistic spacetime.

In brief, different persons make different assumptions about the scientific meaning of numbers.

The most important thing in science is of course the experiment: Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth. (Feynman)

It seems to me that an unexpected (!) experimental prediction is the best proof for a convincing approach.

Have you got anything like this? I couldn't recognize that in your paper.

Kind regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 10:43 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thanks for your quick and good reply! As for your question about a 'verification experiment', no I don't have that but you may wish to have a look at

www.rainbow21122012.org (scrolls to the right) which is a follow-up to my book and which contains 1) an emotionally beatiful movie from Cristonbal Vila about 'Nature and Numbers' as well as a number of articles, particularly behind the 'church windows' which further 'dress u my findings.

Also, if you contact me on dealism21@gmail.com I can send you a 'visualizing powerpoint' on all this including the relationship with Nature.

By the way, I have see your article 'The Taming of the One' and it's right out of my heart and have include LOGICAL POSITIVISM, being equivalent with NATURE in my manuscript! Lots of future there but....the Sci-Establishment is tough, very tough!!!

Lastly I can agree with you on teh MANDALA being equivalent with the name ALBERT EINSTEIN and a '19' containing both the '1' and the '9' and all else is inbetween.

Cheers.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear Helmut,

I spend some more time with 'Taming the One' and consider it fascinating! At this point I should liek to let you have these equivalents as they have a bearing on what you are postulating I think.

‘COSMOS’ ‘HEAVEN’ ‘THE DIVINE PRESENCE’ ‘METAPHYSICAL UNIVERSE’ ‘THE NATURAL SPIRAL’ ‘HEAVEN AND EARTH’ ‘GARDEN OF EDEN’ ‘EXISTENTIALISM’ ‘EXISTENTIALIST’ ‘PRINCIPLES, LAWS AND FACTS’ ‘THE LAW OF DYNAMIC BALANCES’ ‘NOT, AND, OR, IF….THEN’ ‘FORCE OF NATURE’ ‘QUANTUM GRAVITY’ ‘PHOTON’ ‘ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM’ ‘ENTROPY-SYNTROPY’ ‘FORM-CONTENT’ ‘ADDITION’ ‘IMMUTABLE LAWS OF NATURE’ ‘MATHEMATICAL’ ‘MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE’, a triple ‘27’

Moreover, be informed that your own name is equivalent to the words UNIVERSE as well as ONENESS as well as OUT OF THE BOX and quite a few other 'key characters'!

Best

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 14:35 GMT
Helmut and Eckard et al.,

Coming back to GOD -who Im sure we'll never get rid of anyway and shouldn't there be room for everybody always!- I came across, speaking of the MANDALA you brought up the other day, of a nice defintion of God as follows: "God is a circle with the centrepoint everywhere and the circumference nowhere".

Could it maybe therefore be that we are often going in circles without getting anywhere?!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Helmut:"Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth"? While I agree with your intention, I do not exclude misinterpretation. Nimtz repeatedly measured a velocity of signal propagation in excess of c. Wasn't he definitely wrong? Your "unexpected (!) experimental prediction" looks silly to me. You meant confirmation of a prediction by an unexpected outcome of an experiment.

The unexpected explanation of an effect found by Eddington apparently supported Einstein's theory. Meanwhile, alternative explanations were also found.

May I ask you to check arguments against what has been accepted from the majority for about one hundred years while it still does imply paradoxes?

Please comment on Vukelja, if possible with respect to Lorentz and Voigt too.

If I recall correctly, Louis Essen the Lord of measurement at NIST considered the 1905 paper perhaps the worst he ever read. I partly share his opinion because Einstein did not quote key papers he relied on which were indispensable as to understand his reasoning. Essen further meant Gedankenexperimente do not provide a sound basis.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 08:59 GMT
Anonymous Frank,

You seem to think as Einsteinian as is a physicist you are blaming for not understanding you. Einstein called the distinction between past, present and future an obstinate illusion. I maintain: The notion present is fuzzy physics. It may include near past as well as near expected moments. How large is |sign(0)|? Since Dedekind replaced Euclid's notion of number as a measure, mathematicians prefer arbitrary instead of reasonable rules. Hilbert was among the most brutish ones.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 10:16 GMT
All,

Further to my message earlier -about which I am serious mind you!- I just discovered, while having a 'capuccino freddo' in my favourate bar in Rome, that:

'PYTHAGORAS AND PLATO' and 'SPINOZA' and 'ABSOLUTELY RIGHT' all have the same 5/32 vibration, called "Communication" and....5+3+2 adds up to ONE like its 'counterpart' 5/23 for the word NATURE and...LOGOS and a host of other 'parameters' ruling our lives!

We have to get out of that 20th century 'box' -so carefully constructed by the combined forces of politics and religion- people! Doesn't get us anywhere but to endless bickering over everybody'e 'marbles' as I have witnessed on this blog over the past few weeks!

Cheers

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 10:43 GMT
Hi Jelle,

Do you consider Essen bickering? Doesn't it relate to MP3, to LHC, and to mind-impairing paradoxes that millions of people must learn to swallow? Essen called Einstein's relativity a cause for delay in development of science. FQXi claims to deal with foundational questions, and therefore it abstains from censorship even if Frank DiMeglio is perhaps very annoying to anybody.

I apologize for trifles like writing "as is" instead of "as does". However, do not consider me just drinking a Cappuchino. I learned a lot here at FQXi. Maybe it is still not yet sufficient.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 13:39 GMT
Ciao Eckard,

Most interesting article which goes to show on what 'high and no doubt lonesome' pedestal the World has put Albert Einstein. In the context of his time it is understandable that, following the disaster of WW I, the world very badly needed 'a real hero' who was after all, as he often said himself, also just a human being! And what is 'cleaner' than Science?!

But it continues and there is no doubt in my mind that 'Father Albert' has helped Science, and Physics in particular, tremendously forward. Also probably because he was a Philosopher of quite some standing in his own right and, for me personally,I have always admired him more for hat he said than for what he did.

There was no name on the article. Is that on purpose?

Finally my reference to the 'bickering' was the still continuing 'yes Frank-no Frank' game which is quite annoying to say the least! Thre must be intersets at stake somehow is my european judgement!

Cheers.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 13:47 GMT
Eckard,

What I forgot to mention was that CLOCK PARADOX is 'equivalent' to the name ALBERT EINSTEIN. Coincidence or what?!

And these two are furthermore equivalent with FYI:

The number ‘19’, a Sun vibration, was described by The Ancients as one of the most fortunate and karmic reward numbers and it should be no surprise that the word ‘BEAUTY’ is a ‘19’ and so are the words ‘SPIRIT’ ‘SOUL’ ‘THE SOUL IS ....’ ‘SELF’ ‘DREAMS’ ‘LIFE AND DEATH’ ‘ODD AND EVEN’ ‘THE MIND’ ‘MIND’S EYE’ ‘KEEN EYE’ ‘WOW!’ ‘TIME AS MULTIPLIER’ ‘THE NATURE’ ‘POLY’ ‘THE GOD’ ‘CODE’ ‘THE SECRET CODE’ ‘REALISM’ ‘THE HUMAN GENOME’ ‘INNER BEAUTY’, a double ‘19’, ‘TRUST’ ‘FAITH’ ‘FACTS’ ‘MANDALA’ ‘DIGNITY’ ‘THE SUN’ ‘SHINE’ ‘FUN’ ‘SO LONG’ ‘1960s’ ‘UP AND DOWN’ ‘LAUGH’ ‘ENJOY’ ‘WHY WORRY’ ‘SHELL’ ‘LIVING’ ‘CHAOS’ ‘INERTIA’ ‘RESET’ ‘SEARCH’ ‘SPEAK’ ‘MAKE A WISH’ ‘PRAYER’ ‘MAKING LOVE’ ‘MAKING SENSE’ ‘USE AND DISUSE’ ‘SINGER’ ‘PAINT’ ‘GUIDE’ ‘ANIMAL WORLD’ ‘WE ARE....’ ‘TWO HEARTS’ ‘THE DIVINE CREATION’ ‘FATA MORGANA’ ‘MIRACLE’ ‘APPIA’ ‘REGINA VIARUM’ ‘NEW YORK’ (although composed of a destructive ‘16’ and a ‘12’ ‘The Victim’!) ‘BLUES’ ‘KABBALIST’ ‘MASTER’ ‘THE GENIUS’ ‘HERO’ and ‘MAGICIAN’

And yo will have seen that the HERO is there too!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 14:56 GMT
Jelle, Let me say it with very bitter irony: "Wer ein Volk [von Wissenschaftlern] fuehren will muss heroisch denken!" (Who aims leading a nation [of scientists] has to think heroic!)? The devil to whom I am alluding mislead the Germans.

Do we need heroes at all? Maybe it is by chance that the Czech Petr Beckmann as well as a Serbian uttered criticism against a German hero. They would have many reason for hating Germans.

By the way, Einstein was fostered by Max Planck. Well, Schroedinger seduced his 14 years old pupil Itha Juenger and later he caused her aborting his baby. I also dislike his pornographic poem Zittern. Nonetheless, his scientific thoughts seem to be honest. Schroedinger arrived at a non-relativistic quantum model of hydrogen.

In contrast to him, I consider Heisenberg even more speculative than Einstein and anything but a philosopher when he suggested: "The path comes into existence only if we observe it". Einstein derided entanglement as a spooky action at distance. In that he was most likely right.

What about Frank, nobody besides himself says yes. He cannot hide his stupidity. Maybe he intends to disturb us or has even been hired for doing so.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 17:37 GMT
Eckard, how dumb are you for calling DiMeglio stupid? Are you ok?

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 20:39 GMT
Any help will be appreciated. Who dealt seriously with Vukeja , Van Flandern, or other critics? While my approach is different, I found coincidences concerning sign matters and consequences. Apparently I am the first one who demands strictly to exclude what is future with respect to the process of concern. Baez already understood that the laws are valid for future too while "states" are restricted to the past. However he has been reluctant to accept the due restriction of reality to IR+.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 22:13 GMT
Mere denial of paradoxes and dazzling hints to allegedly confirming accuracy makes me even more suspicious. I feel reminded of the time when I was forced to propagate also questionable political doctrines. The question whether Einstein did cheat can be clearly answered with yes: He cheated his wife. Whether or not he also cheated in science does not matter at all.

I do not consider Einstein the first one who possibly went wrong. We have to look at Voigt and Lorentz. Well, Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik ..." reveals more obvious weak points. However, the twin paradox is already rooted in some earlier papers by Lorentz. Lorentz added a remarkable Anmerkung to his 1904 paper in 1914. Lets focus on delta psi=1/c^2 d_round^2 psi/ d_round t^2. I appreciate that someone picked up my finding: DEQs are not the primary relations. In reality, influences are superimposed and accumulated. Originally integral relations were stripped off and lost their immediate connection to the embedding reality. This does not only create redundant ambiguity but it also gives rise to possible mistakes.

Eckard

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
Everything is possible when less assumptions are made, when one thinks more broadly and consistently, when one has increased ability to think broadly and consistently, and when one is educated in great thinking by the greatest thinkers.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 18:36 GMT
Frank,

Isaac Newton gave us an equation for gravity, about 400 years ago.



report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT
Quantum gravity requires constant energy, balanced attraction and repulsion, and inertial/gravitational balancing. Do you agree DiMeglio, or are you too lacking in physical understanding to reply?

report post as inappropriate


The Lighbringer wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT
That is correct: "Quantum gravity requires constant energy, balanced attraction and repulsion, and inertial/gravitational balancing." DiMeglio showed this in dreams already to you all.

Einstein's universe is unstable (contracting OR expanding), and it is an incomplete approximation. DiMeglio has shown gravitational/electromagnetic space as contracting and expanding AT ONCE.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 19:30 GMT
Nothing to say freaks?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 05:25 GMT
TO ECKHARD:

Dear Eckard,

I mean an unexpected explanation of a well-known phenomenon accompanied by an unexpected experimental outcome.

Although I share your doubts about special relativity, but Einstein's theory is a very good example for what I mean: Einstein explained the invariance of the speed of light c in an unexpected way (by denying the ETHER), predicting that there is no difference between the motion of the source and the motion of the observer. According to Einstein only the relative velocity between both was important. This prediction was quite unexpected because it contradicted all our knowledge about the behaviour of waves.

Today this relativistic view is a kind of paradigm.

And just this view can equally be "transcended" by an unexpected explanation (two "faces" of c) accompanied by an unexpected experimental outcome, i.e. a subtl ether-drift.

I've written a paper in which the basic idea of this view is presented.

Its title: About the Dual Parametrization of c

Further Details see: http://www.worldsci.org/people/Helmut_Hansen

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate


Eckard wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 16:35 GMT
Experiments with unexpected to visitors outcome are most convincing contributions to an unbiased philosophical framework in a permanent exhibition that demonstrates the whole history of science, to be seen in Magdeburg at the river Elbe upstream to Hamburg where Helmut Hansen lives. If it didn't also show diverse biographies and explanations, children could get the impression that no hard work by means of mathematics is always required as to make genuine progress and to avoid mistakes.

Why are mathematicians and physicists mesmerized by idols like Cantor and Einstein, respectively? Perhaps, they collectively shy back from the admission being unable to understand them.

Florin demonstrated to me how increasingly abstruse even professional experts are trying to resolve paradoxes without admitting the possibility of any fundamental fallacy. Baez and others are letting the field of a critical analysis to those like Helmut Hansen who are perhaps not in position for finding any flaw in mathematics. I feel that e.g. a Dirk van M. may behave rude because he is correct in terms of usual mathematics while possibly nonetheless incorrect in a wider philosophic perspective.

Helmut, wave equations relate to a medium, ether, or elysiumn neither to c_source nor to c_observer. By the way, relativity was already described in 1632 by Galileo Galilei. I recall my teacher at school attributing what was clearly just Galilean relativity to Einstein.

I found strong but possibly not deep enough arguments by Thomas Van Flandern . So far I failed to decipher Voigt's paper although his style of introduction of unknown coefficients reminds me of what has been declared wrong by Vukelja .

Proponents of SR belittle Galilean Electrodynamics as just simpler. Should we accept a Lorentz relativity LR as suggested by the late Van Flandern? Could a new GR at all be build on LR?

I envision a clarification: The imaginary "ict" of spacetime might not belong to the already completed past but to a quite different extrapolated abstraction from it. This clarification would also affect QM. Could parts of GR and QM be united as being trash?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 16:45 GMT
Dr, Eckard .,- do you here state that motion and inertia is dependent upon accelerasion thet involves equal repilsion/atraction???

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 21:30 GMT
Let me add an easily understandable recast of Beckmann's book Einstein plus two by Tom Bethell. .

Anonymous Frank Di Meglio alias ..., you might call me either Eckard or Dr. Blumschein but please not Dr. Eckard unless you intend being impolite.

I decided to omit "Blumschein" for the sake of more space for details instead.

The name Eckard is rare enough as to avoid ambiguity.

I maintain calling you stupid, mainly because you are trying to hide your identity behind anonymity or names like Fast Fred, The Lightbringer, Superman, etc.

It happens, someone forgot using the option of indicating his name and is unintentionally called anonymous. He is still identifiable if he finishes his posting with signing his name or something characteristic, e.g. "have fun". You might guess who deliberately signed with anonymous for just one time ;-).

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 19:25 GMT
Philosophy provides the superior and knowledgeable interpretation of physics:

Sir Arthur Eddington: "When science has progressed the furthest, the mind has but regained from nature what the mind has put into nature. We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint, and lo! it is our own."

Sir James Jeans: "Fundamental physics, then, tells us something about our own minds, but nothing about the outer world."

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 19:29 GMT
To whomever,

"Philosophy provides the superior and knowledgeable interpretation of physics."

Maybe or maybe not. Why don't you explain why you believe what you believe?

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 19:44 GMT
ok James, ready to reject the truth AGAIN :

Sir Arthur Eddington: "When science has progressed the furthest, the mind has but regained from nature what the mind has put into nature. We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint, and lo! it is our own."

Sir James Jeans: "Fundamental physics, then, tells us something about our own minds, but nothing about the outer world."

The ability of thought to describe (ncluding mathematically) OR reconfigure (as in dreams) sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. Dreams make thought more like gravity AND electromagnetism/light.

In dream experience and in waking experience, the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience. Experience then becomes a more direct expression of the self that is increasingly representative of a greater totality of experience as well.

It's all consistent.

AND James Clerk Maxwell: "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism/light, and they demonstrate quantum gravity as well. The highly ordered (and flattened) structure/form is balanced by increased "chaos"/randomness.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 19:55 GMT
Frank,

I didn't recognize your new messages. Carry on with The Truth.

James

report post as inappropriate


Ukgatuba Ilgabaga wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
"Dreams make thought more like gravity AND electromagnetism/light." what this mean? Dream reduce thought, gravity, and elcecromahgnetism, thereby making them all more the same. Is this what you say??

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 20:27 GMT
Excellent Ukgatuba. Precisely.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 20:35 GMT
Physics has a foundation of quicksand at this point, the more the physicists say, the less sense it all makes, and the more they are sunk.

I put my money on DiMeglio.

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 04:57 GMT
Dear Eckhard,

it is true relativity was already described in 1632 by Galileo Galilei - and that is just the problem. Galilei's observation was related to a branch of very low velocities compared to the velocity of light. As Einstein made this observation to a universal principle he made a huge step. He generalized an observation made in the everydayworld to all kind of inertial motions. He stated - at least implicitly - that every forcefree motion of an object will last forever idendenpently how fast the object is. An object with a velocity of f.e. 12 km/sec will not slow down at any time, if it is moving along an inertial path. That's the core of relativity. I think the Pioneer Anomaly has opened up the possibility that this implicit statement of relativity which includes the validity of the first law of inertia could be wrong.

It is quite remarkable that Einstein used the outcome of the Michelson-Morley-Experiment as a proof for the principle of relativity, whereas great parts of the scientific community did see this outcome as proof for the ivariance of c. (J. Stachel - Einstein Studies). Einstein used this outcome as a strong evidence for the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference, but it could be as conceived by me a second still unseen version of the fundamental constant

of c.

By the way to deny relativity does not necessarily include a denial of the Lorentz invariance.

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 18:35 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thanks and good to know that that definition also has, in addition to the spiritual context and powerful image of THE ALL, a '21' called 'The Universe', a physical basis!

Cheers.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 19:12 GMT
Helmut, inertia is ultimately related to the strength of gravity, as this all relates to motion and distance in space. There is an ultimate/fundamental inertial/gravitational equivalency that relates to distance in space as we ultimately can and do experience it. This is based upon/linked with the scale that we physically occupy and typically experience -- gravitationally and electromagnetically. This then makes possible a low energy union with electromagnetism, at this constant and balanced/centered gravitational/inertial energy. This representation is implied in the Einstein/Maxwell mathematical union (i.e., equations).

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 19:20 GMT
Anonymous, electromagnetism and electromagnetic energy/gravity are both central to distance in space regardless of/independent of our natural motion.

This is an obvious connection with inertia.

Increased inertia can offset/balance decresed gravity. This point is key to any unified theory of gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. This representation is implied in the Einstein/Maxwell mathematical union (i.e., equations) as well.

What are you inclined to think?

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 10:51 GMT
Hi Helmut

Of course the reverse is also then true. Have you considered the actual postulates may be correct but the Lorentz Transformation wrong?

Observation tells us that light passing from glass to air accelerates instantly from say 140,000 to 180,000 miles/sec. with respect to each of those materials, no matter what direction or speed they're moving at with respect to anything else (i.e. Locally).

So why does mainstream physics tell us that light passing from the glass of a train windscreen to the air outside will do 'c' with respect to (wrt) the glass it just left, or the emitter and air inside the train?

Doppler shift can be as much evidence of light having changed speed between media as evidence of speed of observer. If 'n' is a function of relative speed as well as density etc of a medium the solution is not longer hidden.

But you must be prepared to drop some unproven paradox ridden preconceptions and find more mental dexterity than most posess to unveil the final theory.

I wish you luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 21:09 GMT
Light does not accelerate instantaneously when it changes media. Photons always obey c. In a medium, a photon tends to intersect an atom, and when that happens the atom is energized and then kicks out a different photon. If the new photon is kicked into empty space, it is statistically less likely to intersect another atom, and therefore the light ray at that point appears to "accelerate." But the individual photons obey c.

I say photons "obey" c, and "intersect" atoms, because I don't like to say that they travel or collide. Photons don't experience proper time and experience no distance (t and s both contract to zero in their frame), so "travel" isn't strictly correct; that is an anthropomorphic invention which leads the mind astray. They only *appear* to travel, to external observers. It is better to think of c as the space/time conversion factor (akin to 2.54 cm per inch), than to think of it as the velocity at which a photon "travels" or "zooms through space" -- a notion outdated by 100 years, even though you see it all the time in popular science articles.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 21:14 GMT
Dear Karl Coryat,

What is your evidence?

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear Karl Coryat,

Since I do not know you, I want to soften my previous message. Is your evidence some interpretation of theoretical physics? If you are depending upon empirical physics, then, what is your evidence?

James

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 15:25 GMT
Hi Peter,

I gave several links and asked for comments on Voigt, Lorentz 1895, 1904, and 1914, Einstein 1905 and 1920, Minkowski, Ritz, Yakovenko, Paul Davies, Beckmann, Essen, Van Flandern, Pavlocicc, Vukelja, and finally Bethell 2009. I did not yet mention FitzGerald, Poincaré, Ruggero Santilli, Herbert Ives, Howard Hayden, and many others. Certainly at least some out of them were at least partially wrong. Did you thoroughly deal with at least one of them? What overlooked mistake or antinomy did you find out? What do you confirm?

For instance, one could check whether the example given by Paul Davies is quantitatively correct and independent of the chosen value v/c.

Aren't you almost an expert concerning the Doppler effect?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi Eckard.

I liked Dopplers science. And believe Essen correct. And Maxwell needs extension by both multiple field limits/boundaries and multiple frequencies.

LT/Doppler and Observers frame are key to the solution. I don't believe any here will understand the following or its implications, but live in hope;

Optics revision would help. Ewald-Oseen Extinction extends Huygens Principle, saying not only does a new medium condense new oscillators but the new waves created travel at 'c' wrt the MOTION as well as the 'n' of the new medium.

The 'old' waves phase change cancels each other out (leaving a ground state 'flat' wave form with no power to condense more). This is niether just empirical or theory, it's the proven basis of optics, classically. The quantum equivalent is that the fine structure boundary electrons absorb the photons and pas them on (emit) at 'c' wrt the new mediums MOTION as well as 'n'. The definition of something in 'relative motion' is that it's in a different inertial frame.

This creates the Doppler shift of EM waves, and Fermats priciple emerges, but the modern Fermats priciple. And we are not seeing an optical illusion in M87 and all the apparent 'superluminal' gas jets. Like the middle of a fast flowing stream, no water molecule passes its neighbour at more than 1mph, but the middle will still be doing 6mph wrt the riverbank.

Einsteins train and light box are inertial frames. Only if we remove sides of the box will the light pulse, bouncing between the mirors, be left behind in the background inertial frame as the mirrors are, as one, moved away.

Wang is entirely correct. Light does 'c' locally. There is no-one to tell it how fast anything is moving apart from the media it is propagating in at any time.

Forget Lorentz, Fitsgerald, Larmore etc. We need to go back to Stokes-Planck and start again and it all works properly without paradox or anomaly. But it is very difficult for a mind not trained in the right way to conceive, and I suspect even you Eckard will not bother and find some preconception to avoid thinking it through. You must always envisage all 3 observer frames and changes betwen them to follow the frequency / wavelength transformations.

Einstein was so right in many ways, just not quite perfect, but the solution is both real and local.

Oh, and sorry Helmut, your 'subtle ether drift, like the 'Elecric Universe' is very consistent, also allowing Eckards absolute velocity.

If anyone else can do this please let me know, or do ask for help with how or links to any papers.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 23:04 GMT
Hi Peter,

Having read several original papers repeatedly, I agree with you in that Lorentz contraction is perhaps based on an inappropriate consideration. Already Poincaré used the same ABA travel as did Einstein 1905 and he called t' = t - xv/V^2 the local time when dealing with recoil in his 1900 paper "The Theory of Lorentz and The Principle of Reaction" on p. 20.

The consideration is different from ABA travel in case of Doppler effect where one observer A sees or hears the length BC or wavelength of an emitting object increased, i.e. red-shifted or with a lower pitch, respectively in case of growing distance but decreased in case of decreasing distance.

Let's test the ABA procedure with sound. Given, a sender and receiver of sound, e.g. a flying and calling bat A or an airplane and a reflecting object B are moving toward each other with constant velocity v smaller than the velocity c of sound in air. Since light travels about a million times faster we may measure the positions as function of time with sufficiently small error as to judge whether or not there is a length contraction. Will we find any justification for application of Lorentz contraction on sound?

Recall, Voigt introduced what was later called local time when dealing with the Doppler effect for waves in an elastic medium with an approach similar to that by Lorentz 1895. Maybe, the idea of length contraction goes back to speculations by Heaviside and by FitzGerald.

While perception as well as measurement confirm that the Doppler effect depends on the sign of v. Lorentz contraction depends on v^2. This is plausible because ABA means doubled Doppler, back and force including the past before B has been reached and the future thereafter. "For us believing physicists the ..."



Let me add a correction to an error of mine:

While I do not expect the youngster Chris Kennedy having solved our problems I will give his correct page .

Peter, I do not understand, why did you mention Clausius-Mossotti?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 05:53 GMT
I quote from Kennedy: "This means that if SR is correct, it would not be possible to sync the satellites with the ground and have the ground be in sync with the satellites at the same time."

Please check this.

I would like to further comment on the ABA vs. AB issue: Some insects have adapted to bat calls. Their ears are located at the muscles of their wings. Immediate reaction to a heard call causes their wings to try and save their lives. For them the insect where the call arrives at B the time of call flight from the bat A counts. ABA merely matters for the echo-locating bat.

For those who are more familiar with a duel using laser cannons: Here AB does also matter, not ABA.

Is there still any justification for ABA?

Concerning Vukelja I should add that his derivation of Lorentz transformation reverses the dependency of Minkowski's cone on LT. Nonetheless, Vukelja's criticism seems to be at least partially correct.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Will Pryuhyen wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 19:38 GMT
Anonymous, you said: "Inertia is ultimately related to the strength of gravity, as this all relates to motion and distance in space."

That is superb, as the Sun may be understood (usefully) to not basically move, and photons move the fastest, but we do not move relative to photons either (as in outer space). Both photons and the Sun involve extremes of distance/size (of space).

Gravitational contraction (a smaller space) may be offset/balanced by electromagnetic repusion (a larger space). Gravity may then be reduced, but inetia increased (on balance). They would then be equivalent and would balance scale/distance. On Earth, gravity is attractive; in outer space, it is relatively repulsive. That matters in relation to distance/scale and balanced inertia/gravitation -- as this all then relates to an "averaging" of distance in space. Increased gravity does "push space back", so to speak.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 18:26 GMT
These four: electromagnetism, gravity, inertia --- and quantum mechanics (consistent with these three, that is) --- are what we need for a final theory in physics.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 18:58 GMT
Anonymous,

Now that makes quite a bit of 'common sense' as the string ELECTROMAGNETISM GRAVITY INERTIA QUANTUM MECHANICS is a straight '9', which i call 'The Cosmic Servant of Heaven ànd Earth' and equivalent with thsse characters:

‘PHILOSOPHER’ ‘PHILOSOPHY-PHYSICS’ ‘MARIA’ ‘INRI’ ‘IHS’ ‘PRINCIPLES OF HEAVEN’ ‘SIX’ ‘144’ ‘YIN AND YANG’ ‘IN LOVE’ ‘VIA APPIA’ ‘A CIRCLE’’ ‘ADD’ ‘A KEY’ ‘E.T.’ ‘JOY’ ‘OK’ ‘BIG BEN’ ‘SUN-MERCURY-VENUS-EARTH-MARS-JUPITER-SATURN-URANUS-NEPTUN
E’ ‘ALL MATTER’ ‘MONDAY-TUESDAY-WEDNESDAY-THURSDAY-FRIDAY-SATURDAY-SUNDAY
‘NUMBERS GODS OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM’ ‘SUPERCOMPUTER’ and ‘GOOD HORSE SENSE IS JUST STABLE THINKING’ the age-old universally valid and timeless three-word expression ‘I LOVE YOU’ and the simple word ‘YES’ ‘UNCONVENTIONAL’ ‘SPONTANEOUS’, the simple question ‘IS IT?’ and its confirmation ‘IT IS’ and ‘RNA-DNA’ ‘CONSCIOUSNESS’ ‘ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM’ ‘FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION’ ‘A PURPOSEFUL UNIVERSE’ ‘PRINCIPLE OF LEAST TIME’ ‘A HUMAN CONSTITUTION’ as well as ‘A BETTER WORLD’ ‘A REALITY’ ‘A HEART’ ‘A LIFE’ ‘CV’ ‘ENLIGHTENMENT’ and ‘THE MORE WE CHANGE, THE MORE WE STAY THE SAME’ and…..’MILLENNIUM ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR’!!!

Curious to hear how that 'hits' you!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 06:12 GMT
Dear Peter,

thank you very much for your comment.

The general idea behind my work is the archetypal blueprint of MANDALA. It is composed of circle and a square, which are intimately "entangled" to each other. It was the physicist Wolfgang Pauli who suggested that such universal archetypes like the MANDLA could the underlying matrices of our universe.

I took this suggestion seriously - and I made some surprising discoveries. One of these discoveries concerns the meaning of the Lorentz transformations.

Actually there are two types of Lorentz Transformationen, which are slightly different. And just this difference is not matched by special relativity.

This difference is in a way the result of two different views of this archetypal structure. In other words: the archetypal structure of the Mandala is always the same but it was seen from two different perspectives. As these two different perspectives lead to two very similar Lorentz-Transformations we didn't see that - until today.

Therefore I suppose, that in special relativity these two different perspectives are explained in a completely misleading way. Einstein has postulated two different principles, but there is only one (!) structure behind.

In a way it can be said that the Lorentz Transformation as we know them is indeed wrong, but we can't see this, because there are only as already mentioned very subtle differences involved.

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 23:21 GMT
Dear William,

Why do you take 'philosophical' pronouncements of only *some* well known scientists seriously (with *all* due respect), e.g. Weinberg and Feynman, who are uncomfortable with philosophy?

I think you are stirring unnecessary controversy, simply because such scientists misunderstand the nature and the role of philosophy in science.

For example, here is the above...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 02:38 GMT
Lev,

I agree with your basic point and think there is a basic conundrum which everyone recognizes, but doesn't get the degree of attention it deserves. That of the relationship between the more linear and object oriented western philosophy and the more dualistic, relational, eastern philosophy. Even the western concept of dialectics looks for that synthesis of the thesis and antithesis, but that seems to try to place the dichotomy within an overall monolithic frame. What if the two sides of the coin cannot be framed together? Physics would seem to be running up against this wall in trying to relate the quantum with the classical and there seems to be a similar philosophic conflict between determinism and free will. This relationship between order and randomness runs through everything we consider. Is order ultimate, or infinitely subjective? The patterns multiply endlessly.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 08:59 GMT
It's well said to both of you,

Thanks for this realism.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 13:00 GMT
All,

Lev posted "Why do you take 'philosophical' pronouncements of only *some* well known scientists seriously (with *all* due respect), e.g. Weinberg and Feynman, who are uncomfortable with philosophy?

I think you are stirring unnecessary controversy, simply because such scientists misunderstand the nature and the role of philosophy in science."

I couldn't agree more and see preciously little objectivity in this regard in this discussion. It's like 'selecting a red horse to draw a cart because the cart told you it would only be drawn be a red horse'. If that's the method of Science, Physics in this case, even a three year old would question you seriously!

Consider Herclitus, Plato, Phytagoras, Spinoza ànd Einstein àand Hawking seriously and the answers stare you in the face!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 13:54 GMT
Modern philosophy is essentially blocked by the so-called Muenchhausen-Trilemma, which aims at showing that ultimate foundations are unattainable.

As long as this view is taken philosophy will be ineffective, because philosophy is traditionally looking for such an ultimate foundation. Nowadays very few modern philosopher, like Karl-Otto Apel, have shown that this trilemma is unconclusive, because the exclusion of any possibility of an ultimate foundation represents also a kind of ultimate foundation. The main task to make philosophy more effective is to connect it with scientific methodology. That means, we have to look for empirical data in a systematic way.

If we suggest that the ultimate foundation as proposed by philosophy is actually of transcendent nature, then there is a very specific place within the physical universe: it is the "threshold-zone" - a physical area very close to the invisible field of reality.

Most physicists are operating in this twilight-zone at the edge of the universe without knowing it consciously, because boundary conditions at infinity are related to this specific zone. In general relativity these boundary conditions are still an unsolved problem because they have to be added explicitly as an extra hypotheses, to find reasonable solutions.

To solve this problem Mach's principle is one of the most preferred path of research, but this principle is still highly diffuse. In the book "Mach's principle", edited by J.Barbour and H. Pfister, 20 different formulations of Mach's principle are counted.

In other words: We only need a point to begin with. The investigation of boundary conditions at infinity could be a serious way to make philosophy more effective.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 15:01 GMT
Thanks Helmut, that was a proper intervention on the subject I feel!

I feel that Philospy and Physics could fruitfully -and peacefully- meet in Mathematics where they have a great deal in common already and all that seems needed is a formal acknowledgement by physicists that 'figures' have a meaning beyond their 'house, garden and kitchen' use and were 'issued' as numbers in the let's now call it 'spontaneous Big Bang', a straight '8' called Destiny like 'BIG BANG' itself mind you, and....are the elementary matrix of Plato's Logos which 'drives' Reality as we experience it and have all kinds of fun with!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 16:17 GMT
Helmut

When I can make sense of what you say it makes good sense. Lev's contribution is also perceptive, as usual.

You seperately refer to the impotance of boundary conditions, and problems with the Lorentz transformation and SR.

May I offer a viewpoint where the two are one and the same issue, and the key issue. Someone also mentioned the philosophical difficulties of trying to combine classic and quantum physics. The solution may, as Einstein and Feynman said, be quite simple, but just look wrong at first glance.

Maxwells equations are, like gravity, local. There are also infinitely many EM filds. Around every massive particle or group of same. This means there are boundaries everywhere, and these infinitely many areas of 'mass..spacially extended' (Einstein) have boundaries commonly between the same medium but in relaive motion.

Crossing these then may be the real incarnation of Lorentz transformations, or moving between inertial frames. And we find they are real, in space!, condensed particle shocks emitting synchrotronic and various frequency radiation dependant on relative motion in each case. This is combining reality with locality. And relativity with QM. All is really one, but as Bragg (and AE) said, it is just our way of looking at nature that needs changing.

If Ewald-Oseen Extinction results in 'c' being with respect to any new medium on transformation across a boundary, the only reason there ever was to remove the ether to expose only paradox, would itself be removed.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 17:35 GMT
Peter:

... very interesting view, especially the Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem. D. Dialetis has seen a connection between this theorem and the nonlocal boundary problem:"Equivalence of the Ewald-Oseen extinction theorem as a nonlocal boundary-value problem with Maxwells equations and boundary conditions," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 68, 602-610 (1978)

May be a hot trace.

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 19:38 GMT
Peter,

Do we agree that EVERY electron will ALWAYS absorb and emit a photon,

a) with a momentum given by



and,

b) an energy



?

Can we at least agree on such a basic Modern Physics concept?

Second, can we agree that the speed of light is ALWAYS



in a vacuum?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 18:10 GMT
Helmut

Thanks. Excellent. It now seems certain that a proper understanding of frame and EM field boundaries is the key to resolving all the paradox. I'll check out the paper. If you'd like to look over the latest offering of my current series it's on http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

Do give your views.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 18:00 GMT
Hi Jason

No. I don't beleive I can agree that because it does not consider a change of inertial frames due to any relative motion of the new medium the electron belongs to.

Energy must be conserved. thus the Doppler shift.

Photons arrive at 'c' in the fist frame, are absorbed, and are re-emitted at 'c' in the 2nd. This is the solution to the problem I've just identified for you under Ted's article.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 19:28 GMT
Hi Peter,

It's strange how, from my point of view, SR/GR and the absolute velocity of c make perfect sense; the idea that the speed of light is inertial frame dependent seems unlikely. It is strange that you have the opposite view. I'm not at all opposed to the idea of FTL physics. I'm not even opposed to frame dragging. I just don't understand how an electron can miscalculate those three equations above without violating conservation of energy.

We can agree that an aether exists. I disagree that it relegates photons to "water waves".

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 10:44 GMT
Hi Jason

You misunderstand the SR postulates, which say 'c' is constant and physics is identical within all inertial frames. This means light IS inertial frame dependant. if we were on some planet spinning round and orbiting a sun somewhere it would still be 'c', just like it is at every other star.

As I've said to you before, this is the exact OPPOSITE of FTL physics.! EM waves even go to the great effort of changing realtive speed at inertial frame boundaries to keep 'c' absolutely constant within all inertial frames!! This means the postulates are correct, but a silly assumption was made before we properly understood QM.

But you're right in that most still don't fully understand this now. Refer also to my derivatives of Frequency and wavelength at LT under Ted Jacobsens article.

Like Bragg said, it's how you look at it that's important.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 18:51 GMT
Energy is conserved. Energy never goes into nothingness. But Stephen Hawking's recent says energy comes from nothing.

There's this explanation in www.kinematicrelativity.com with energy being of an infinite amount - both the observable cosmic energy and dark chaotic energy.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 19:09 GMT
Peter and Helmut, average inertia and average gravity are the key to fundamentally unifying electromagnetism and gravity and balancing scale/distance. Gravity cannot be shielded. This balances attraction and repulsion and prevents space/the universe from expanding or contracting.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 10:51 GMT
Hi Nonymouse

Agreed, but Stephen H's energy condenses from the dark energy field as QM etc confirms. It was only AE who said that was nothing for SR, but then had to bring it back for GM. But now you'll see fields, with limits, can actually work for SR as well if you read the above posts and can handle logic.

I'll try to get to your link.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 05:23 GMT
Dear Peter,

At first I have to say I am not a physicist. I am looking at the universe from a highly specific point of view. This view is essentially determined by a sort of modern metaphysics, which is still in its infancy.I have only discovered a few pieces – in physics and in cosmology.

But already these pieces make clear: Metaphysics is a highly important

discipline which can change the course of physics, because it deals with an entity, which is really fundamental. In philosophy this entity is called the ONE (Plato). A physicist would call it probably the vacuum or the ether. I am convinced that the archetypal structure of the MANDALA is the key to a deeper understanding of this entity: It represents he visible expression of it. It shows the fundamental geometrical blueprint how light is acting. From this point I am looking at the nature of light. One the most important insights I found was the dual parametrization of c, which means, there are two faces of c.

To come back to your paper in ArXiv: I agree totally with the spirit of your paper:-- The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.--

Though I did not understand all the stuff presented in your paper but I have found some parallels which seem to point to the same direction. You wrote that Einstein wrestled with the gap between relativity and quantum physics until he died. In modern physics there is still no clear consens how to fill this gap. The source of this problem could indeed be the relativistic view of the nature of light. For me it is striking that SR, especially the principle of relativity, is completely independent of the nature of light. Gaining a proper understanding of light, that is, of the wave-particle-dualism, is therefore the most promising path to fill this gap, but to fill it we need indeed a credible falsifiable alternative to SR. Such an alternative theory has never been proposed until today.

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 08:49 GMT
Helmut and Peter,

Most interesting discussion that is to which I should like to add my 'two cents' by communicating these 'cosmic equivalents' according to the Ancient Sumerians.

The word NATURE itself like also the combination GRAVITY-ELECTROMAGNETISM is a 5/23 like MODES and the word ‘GOD’ is a 5/14, like the words ‘SUN’ ‘ALL LIGHT’ ‘QUANTIZATION OF LIGHT ENERGY’ ‘IMAGE’ ‘THE’ ‘THAT’ ‘ELECTROMAGNETISM’ ‘TIME’’ ‘MIND’ ‘BRAINS’ ‘EYES’ ‘IDEAS’ ‘TEAM’ ‘JUST’ ‘SAINT’ ‘MYTH’ ‘GALAXY’ ‘ALL THERE IS’ ‘.COM’ and the statements ‘NONDETERMINISTIC’ ‘CYCLIC’ ‘TIDE’ ‘PHI’ ‘QUASAR’ ‘QUBIT’ ‘BIG BANG THEORY’ ‘BIG BANG MACHINE’ ‘ALL IS ENERGY’ ‘MASS-ENERGY’ and Albert Einstein’s immortal formula ‘E=MC^2’, ‘PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE’ ‘META’ ‘MAYAN CULTURE’ ‘COSMOTHEOLOGY’ ‘MULTIPLICATION BY TIME’ and ‘THE TRUTH IS IN THE HANDS OF NATURE ONLY’ and ‘THE TRUTH IS IN THE HANDS OF GOD ONLY’ and ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ ‘SMILE AT LIFE AND LIFE WILL SMILE AT YOU’ and ‘IN NATURE WE TRUST’ and….. ‘IN THE BEGINNING’, ‘IT IS TIME’’ ‘EVERYTHING HAS ITS TIME’ ‘A MATTER OF TIME’ ‘A MOMENT IN TIME’ ‘A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE’ ‘IN REALITY’, all Mercury vibrations, which clearly underpins the connection between 'God' and 'Nature'.

In the week of the appearance of '"The Grand Design" by Hawking &Co!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 12:52 GMT
Thanks Jelle

I hope you're gaining a better understanding of my spacial equivalence than I can of your cosmic equivalents!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 13:23 GMT
Thanks Helmut.

You saw it here first! But finding the truth seems less of a problem than finding a way to bring it into the light, however falsifiable.

I don't consider myself, or anyone in my small group, 'physicists' either, despite a few Masters etc. It's not 'cosmology', and metaphysics can mean too many different things, so perhaps 'natural philosopher' is better, as it's all about developing conceptual mental dexterity, though - like computers, the rule is; 'Rubbish in - rubbish out! so good research is crucial.

Your 'two faces' of 'c' is far more real to me than the Mandala. 'c' must transform at all limits, i.e. boundaries, to maintain 'c' localy. In fact, as Einstein predicted in 1952 there should actually be infinitely many faces of 'c' as there are; 'infinitely many spaces', which is consistent with the infinitely many EM fields we often forget exists, and the infinitely many inertial frames which go with their parent mass in relative motion.

The astonishing thing is that Duality was thus solved in Newtons time, but not by Newton. He was mainly right but made such a hoo-ha that Christiaan Huygens work, still central in optics, was ignored. Oscilators ('virtual photons') are condensed by wave perturbation at frame/field boundaries and propagate new waves, which do 'c' in the new medium, whatever relative velocity that medium is doing compared to the previous one.

There lies the simplest solution, yet too complex and unfamiliar for physicists steeped in maths and mainstream preconception. Lee Smolin was right. Or perhaps it needs Physics itself to go out of fashion in favour of philosophical logic before we can see the simple unification solution and move on? How are you at logic?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 19:43 GMT
Hi Jelle

The one identifying where physics went wrong in the first place, the latest of 5, is at http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022

You'll find likks to the others there is you're hungry for other aspects. I'll try to read yours.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 19:56 GMT
I can see some analogies there Helmut, but I work far closer to mechanistic reality than you.

Einstiew was working on trying to link Reality and Locality after Bell. He was too timid turning away from Copenhagen to reality to find it. I've just continued that work.

I went off and trained as an Architects to find the new way of thinking he recognised would be needed. I found it. Manipulating physical volumes in motion and relationship to light in my mind is now well practiced. But I have to physicaly be able to create what I construct in my mind, and real people live in my structures. I race yachts as well, and when I appraoach and turn a leeward mark I experience precisely what a change in relative inertial frame does to wavelength and frequency (including from different observer frames).

To me metaphysics carries the danger of too much abstraction. I turned away from pure maths as I objected to the Alice in Woderland World Lewis Carrol was objecting to. So you may seee why I'm struggling to find a hard physical reality link with or indeed genuine relevance of the Mandala except as an abstraction.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 20:25 GMT
Peter,

In your message to Helmut: "I work far closer to mechanistic reality..." Could you please expound upon what is "mechanistic reality"? Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 04:06 GMT
nolo contendere.

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 06:56 GMT
Helmut and Peter and all,

In the context of this discussion I would liek to share with you 'for reflection' a message which I received this morning as 'Thought for the Day' which in my view puts the finger on a 'few hundred year old sore spot' and....will we ever heal this sore?!:

""Scientists cannot be faulted when it comes to describing

minerals, plant life, animals or even human beings. But this

truth is only partial. For it to be complete, they would have to

place the object of their study back into the context of cosmic

life, where it belongs. When stones, plants, animals and human

beings are removed from this life, they are deprived of what is

most important. This is why, as long as researchers continue down

this path, what they call scientific truth will always be an

incomplete, impaired truth.

Do not misunderstand me; it is not a question of doubting the

value and relevance of science. The real problem lies elsewhere,

in the mentality of researchers, in their attitude toward life,

in their inability to link their particular objects of study to

the whole of life. Beings and things do not exist separately;

they exist as parts of a whole, and these parts are connected.

Branches, leaves or fruits are removed and cut up to be studied.

No, the fruit should be studied on the tree; that way they will

understand that it is the end result of all the energies

circulating in the universe."

Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov

Say no more as this guy summed it up pretty neatly I think!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 09:46 GMT
Dear Friends,

Have you seen the works of Prof sir Roger Penrose and prof.Stuart Hameroff about the consciousness and the microtubulars systems of brains and the proteinic captors....very relevant .

These researchs are interestings about our captors of evolution.

I have contacted him,the oxford institute seems on the road of rationalities.It's well.

Cheers

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 10:02 GMT
Steve,

Good initiative and those 'guys' have come a long way acknowledging:

‘Digging into Reality’

9/27

while acknowledging that.....

Reality is unknowable

9/27

but......

“Eyesight can learn from Reason”

as.....

Appearances betray!

9/27

and I say:

"Life as experienced by humans is only the 'appearances tip' of a 'reality iceberg', the hidden part of which drives 'the show' and causes the 'collisions' according to natural and mathematical quantum laws!

Being a 9/27 myself which maybe gives me some 'natural right' to postulate this.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 10:23 GMT
And what's more ‘FORCE OF NATURE’ ‘QUANTUM GRAVITY’ ‘QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS’ ‘PHOTON’ ‘ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM’ ‘ENTROPY-SYNTROPY’ ‘FORM-CONTENT’ ‘ADDITION’ ‘IMMUTABLE LAWS OF NATURE’ are all 9/27 "The Sceptre", equivalents.

Say no more indeed!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Jelle,

concerning the "thought for the day", especially the statement that truth is only partial as long as the study of the objects and structures of the universe is not put into the context of the cosmic whole, where it belongs. That's certainly true. But it is a remarkable fact of our universe that most physical subsystems can be described quite well without relating to the cosmic whole. Our Solar System is the best case. In brief, we can practice physics without reflecting about the so-called big questions.

But on the other side there are fundamental concepts in physics like INERTIA which cannot be understood without such a cosmic reference. (See: Machs Principle) Whereever this reference has to be taken into account difficult questions are going to come up, because we have no clear idea about the ultimate foundation of the universe. But there are advanced philosophical systems, like the Madhyamaka-Doctrine in Buddhist Philosophy, which makes very clear statements about this ultimate foundation and its consequences for our understanding of consciousness.

According to this specific doctrine the MIND is the foundation of the universe: All things are preceded by the mind, led by the mind and created by the mind.

And Mind is clearly described as having the aspect of KNOWING. In other words: the Universe is fundamentally pure consciousness. But usually this pure consciousness is limited and obscured by the notion of an I or Ego. Hence, we didn't see this aspect very clearly. Instead of that we do relate this feeling of consciousness to the brain, but the brain does not generate this consciousness it is only the receiver. Therefore it depends to a high degree on our philosophical view how we look at consciousness. If we believe f.e. in the fundamental character of matter we will probably choose a materialistic interpretation of consciousness. Consequently, we will interprete the brain as the transmitter of consciousness - and not as the receiver.

Although this materialistic view is more common in modern physics J.A. Wheeler was a theorist, who preferred the contrary view - the KNOWING-view. His notion from IT to BIT is inspired by this view.

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Helmut,

Thanks for your 'thoughtful message' and....I couldn't agree more and the consequence is that have will have to 'look for and walk' differnt and more integrated ways between the sciences. And, MIND you, it is happening with Physics, Biology, the Cognitive Sciences and.....yes Philosophy moving closer all the time as 'driven by natural forces' if only we humans were not so I-ish.

That's why I am proposing the concept of Dealism, being Idealism with the 'I' thrown away and by that moving from a blind '22' -remember catchtwentytwo?- to a universal '21' a 3 like A KNOWING VIEW!!! But it will be one hell of a job, if not a trick, to get 'people concerned' into a 'common box'!

There is a nice saying as follows: "The problem with the ratrace is that even if you win you're still a rat"!

Best

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 16:54 GMT
Helmut,

To further underscore what I said, the '3' being the number of the MIND, herewith a few 'equals' with the 33 vibration:

‘UNIVERSE’ ‘NATURE’S INTELLIGENCE’ ‘QUANTUM COMPUTERS’ ‘THE UNIVERSE IS US’ ‘AS THE INDIVIDUAL IS IS THE UNIVERSE’ ‘BEING COMBINES REALITY AND LOGOS’ ‘LIGHT OF THE UNIVERSE’ ‘AS THE UNIVERSE IS IS THE INDIVIDUAL’ ‘THE FREEDOM OF MIND’ ‘INTUITIVE’

And I think your point about Buddhist Philosophy is entirely valid. It's the western world that went 'bonkers and greedy and mechanical and 'stpid' on the imagined achivemnets of the industrial revolution and what followed after that and goes on and on while devasting both our own as well as Nature's nature!

Cheers for humanity!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Achilles replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 00:10 GMT
Helmut, you said: "But on the other side there are fundamental concepts in physics like INERTIA which cannot be understood without such a cosmic reference."

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience (and physics) --- BY COMBINING CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. Sorry Helmut, but this includes dreams.

The eye has a black space Helmut.

Gravitational contraction must be balanced/equivalent with electromagnetic repulsion, or stable distance in space and constant energy are not possible. This is done by stretching space (as the fourth dimension indicates). This fundamentally balances repulsion, attraction, inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism/light. Increased inertia offsets/balances decreased gravity.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 21:57 GMT
I just read an excerpt on abcnews.go.com about Stephen hawking's 'Grand Design'. This is premature since I have not read the book; but, the excerpt gives me confidence that this is more low level mechanical, theoretical, even philosphical deception. I wonder if we will be having someone expert present an opinion?

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 04:14 GMT
Hi James,

I'd like to see someone apply Occam's razor to Hawking's "Grand Design". I'd also like to see a "reality check" applied.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 16:54 GMT
Quoting from the excerpt:

"M-theory is not a theory in the usual sense. It is a family of different theories, each of which is a good description of observations only in some range of physical situtations."

In other words: if you fail to find a fundamentally unfied theory, then, just declare that it makes better sense to have multiple theories.

"It is a bit like a map. As is well known, one cannot show the whole of the earth's surface on a single map."

In other words, we cannot see both sides of a coin simultaneously, therefore, a coin must be described by at least two separate theories.

"M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing."

If that is the case, then, it is telling us back that which we put into it. We begin with nothing and cannot find a beginning something so we develop theory that begins with nothing. We have failed to learn answers that connect, so, we give each answer its own universe so that we may pretend that we know our own universe. Afterall, all objections to our existence lie in other universes. This is theoretical physics?

James,

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT
James,

Would you call two sides of a coin two coins?

Tom

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 18:09 GMT
Hi Tom,

You read the analogy made between physics theory and a map of the world. I simplified it so that its absurdness could be clearly seen.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 11:03 GMT
James,

What appears absurd to you is not absurd in quantum logic, and though counterintuitive, quantum logic appears to be just how the world works.

Imagine a two-headed coin of zero thickness. One can "flip" the coin only in the Hilbert space. The real local result is continuous with the function of "flipping," even though discontinuous with the "map of the world" whose nonlocal events are in superposition until one observes the coin's face.

The relation (the map) between discontinuous results and continuous functions is well understood from countless experiments, not from physics theory, which was developed to explain the results.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 12:36 GMT
James,

To follow up, considering your emphasis on "cause," as apparently opposed to any "theory of causality," consider this from John Wheeler:

"It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it' -- every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself -- derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely -- even if in some contexts indirectly -- from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom -- a very deep bottom, in most instances -- an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes - no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe." ("Information, physics, quantum: the search for links," in _Complexity, Entropy & the Physics of Information_ W. Zurdek, ed.

The "immaterial source and explanation" would obviate your idea of a radical empiricism. How do you feel about that?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 13:17 GMT
Tom and James,

Nice coincidence has it that 'IT FROM BIT' bieng a 6/15 has 'magic qualities' and these'friends':

At this point mention should be made of another most important 6-vibration, i.e. the 6/15, called by The Ancients ‘’The Magician’’ and the interesting thing about this magician is that the numerology of ‘The Magician’’ is also a 6/15, and so is the cosmic number for the string of numbers ‘ZERO-ONE-TWO-THREE-FOUR-FIVE-SIX-SEVEN-EIGHT-NINE’ ‘PROPOSITION FOR A HAPPIER SURVIVAL OF HUMANKIND’ ‘RADICAL’’ ‘DEITY’ ‘NAME’ ‘WISH’ ‘WISE’ ‘QUARKS’ ‘SUPERCONDUCTIVITY’ ‘A BEAUTIFUL MIND’ ‘ARTIST’ ‘THE MASTER’’ ‘TEAM SPIRIT’ ‘WIN-WIN’ ‘GAME OVER’ ‘SAVE’ as well as ‘THE SEARCH’ ‘ALL LIFE’ ‘ALL REALITY’ ‘ALL THOUGHT’ ‘ALL IS GEOMETRY’ ‘ALL MATTER IS SPIRITUAL’ ‘METAPHILOSOPHICAL’ ‘HIS HAND’ ‘MAYAN PROPHECY’ ‘AVATAR’ ‘ALL IS REVEALED’ ‘CLARITY’ ‘RIGHT’ as well as ‘OBAMA’ ‘I AM A NEW MAN’ ‘REAL CHANGE’ ‘SAY NO TO RACISM’ ‘DUTY’ ‘CHARM’ ‘JOKE’ ‘IN ODD WE TRUST’ and…..’SMART POWER’ and……’AWE AND WONDER’!



So all for John Wheeler's reasoning!

Cheers.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 19:09 GMT
More from the excerpt:

"The naive view of reality (my insertion: i.e. before physics) therefore is not compatible with modern physics. To deal with such paradoxes we shall adopt an approach that we call model-dependent realism."

The naive view of theoretical physics put forward above must be replaced with what I will call realism dependent models. Get it right from the start and you will need silly answers, such as: there are other universes. What is the evidence for another universe let alone multiple ones? Is it physics theory? Big deal. Evidence is either empirical or it is not evidence.

James

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 19:14 GMT
And even more silliness from the excerpt:

"...M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing."

No theory ever began with nothing. Null points on graphs are not nothing. Theorists either begin with something or they never have anything.

James

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 19:39 GMT
And more:

"Only a few (universes) would allow creatures like us to exist. Thus our presence selects out from this vast array only those universes that are compatible with out existence. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

Allow us to exist? So there are other universes with human life? What is the empirical evidence for that? The lords of creation?!! No question about it, the proponents of this view have to be theoretical physicsts. Self-projection of those who think they are leaders in final knowledge about the universe. These authors are at the beginning of learning.

We are the most significant objects in the universe because, compared to having understanding all else is size only. Big deal for size! That matters to mechanically minded theorists; but, it has nothing to do with our position of stature in the universe. We are its ultimate accomplishment.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 13:54 GMT
James,

It is ridiculous that entire universes can spring up from nothing. If entire universes can just spring up, then conservation of energy is abandoned. If they chose to go down that road, then theoretical physics becomes inconsistent with reality. It would be more intellectually honest that physicists admit they don't know how the universe got here. Hawking should admit that maybe it does take a God-like being to create a Big Bang.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 20:25 GMT
Jason,

"It is ridiculous that entire universes can spring up from nothing."

Of course it is. This theoretical work to develop something from nothing is incredibly anthropomorphic. When a theorist puts a zero up on the chalk board and starts to talk about it, I will be interested in hearing what they have say about it. However, as soon as they say something to the effect that zero is equal to A-A and therefore we can begin our anylisis by studying A I stop them. I want to know where plus and minus came from, then we will talk about A.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 21:42 GMT
Dear James,

Likewise, I worry about 1/A. I think the solution is Scales. However, the Multiverse could have always existed beyond the observable Universe. Does a decision always necessitate a new Big Bang / Universe / etc.? Or does a decision alter our trajectory along a previously existing (since THE Big Bang birth of the Multiverse) part of the Multiverse?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 19:46 GMT
M-theory is a lie. Low energy/gravity is the only way to unite gravity and electromagnetism -- by STRETCHING space (4th spatial/electromagnetic dimension) and thereby balancing inertia with acceleration/gravity -- distance in space is then balanced due to balanced attraction and repulsion in keeping with the constant energy that assumes different manifestations/forms of what is essentially the same (energy/gravity).

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 19:51 GMT
Electromagnetism ultimately and fundamentally determines motion AND distance in space in conjunction with fundamentally uniting and balancing it with/as gravity and inertia.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 14:19 GMT
If Big Bangs can just...happen, then why can't Hawking invent a perpetual motion machine?

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 15:30 GMT
Jason,

"If Big Bangs can just...happen, then why can't Hawking invent a perpetual motion machine?"

Probably, most probably simply because Stephen Hawking's intelligence, for all his cleverness, is a number of orders of magnitude smaller than that of Nature.

This happens all the time, that we are giving too much decisionnmaking power to humans, only mostly with disastrous results!!!

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 16:57 GMT
The universe _is_ a perpetual motion machine.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 18:40 GMT
Tom,

You seem to be getting somewhere and , as we know, there always has to be a 'balancing factor', the '2' being the 'femaie principle' in this case and maybe not too far off either. Besides, ODD, spelled as 744, itself is equivalent to IN ODD WE TRUST, the 6/15 magician.

Responding further to what ason said earlier about the 'perpetual machine', the key difference between humans and nature is that no human being has a magic want but Nature definitely has, by virtue of its selfgenerating 'number machine'!

Sooner or later I'm sure we will have to collectively bow our heads to Pythagoras once more and acknowledge that he was right from the start with "Everything is Number".

Good weekend to all.

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 00:59 GMT
Dear Tom,

I wasn't sure if you really knew what a perpetual motion machine really is, so I included the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

I also included a link about Loch Ness monster, reptillian aliens and Big Foot. Amazingly, none of these violate conservation of energy or the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockness_monster

http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_aliens

http://en.wikipedia.or
g/wiki/Big_foot

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 02:34 GMT
Jason,

Entropy only applies to a closed system. In an open, or infinite system, energy is simply traded around.

The reason we logically reject infinity is because logic is definition and definition and infinity are not really compatible.

Maybe, in those multiverses, there are Lock Ness monsters. Any life form would certainly qualify as alien.

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 04:12 GMT
To add some information:

Big Bang - Perpetual_motion.

The physicist G. Ellis constructed a spacetime in which matter circulates between two centres - it is pumped out from one and sucked in at the other. Both of these centres are singularities. Though this universe does not expand, the impression of expansion is given by the continuous movement away from one singularity and towards the other. The conditions at the first singularity are identical with those at the initial singularity in standard cosmology. According to Ellis this model cannot be disproved by observation.

Ellis. G.F.R (1978) Is the universe expanding? General Relativity and Gravitation 8 pp. 87 - 94

Ellis developed this model in order to investigate the empirical status of the Cosmological Principle. He found that its place in cosmology is guaranteed more by philosophical than by empirical evidence.

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 07:00 GMT
Dear Helmut,

How much energy can this dual singularity store?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 04:16 GMT
Hi John,

I'm not rejecting infinity. I'm just a little irritated at the "intellectual elite" for disbelieving in God, psychic phenomena, UFO's and the supernatural - none of which violates conservation of energy. Simultaneously, they think time travel, grandfather paradoxes and absurd violations of conservation laws are perfectly reasonable.

I think anybody who believes in extreme violations of conservation of energy is a crackpot. Stephen Hawkins is a crackpot!

If Hawkins has to destroy physics to disprove God, then God exists!

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 10:07 GMT
Jason,

I sympathize, but there are obvious physical processes underlaying the political realities controlling the various centers of power in society, whether religious, political, economic, academic, etc. in which broad based, bottom up movements coalesce into self serving power centers, more concerned with their own perpetuation , than their original purposes. The problem is this shift from an outward focus to an inward focus isn't marked. It's more like the perihelion of a planet, the point it is actually moving the fastest, and has least resistance, but the shift from acceleration to deceleration is real, none the less.

It's not that their motivations change, but that they don't recognize the context has shifted, so those who believe in the mission advance, while those who question the situation are thrown overboard, because, as a recent president once put it, "If you're not with us, you're against us."

So religion loses its most deep and subtle nuances in favor of rigid dogma, while physics ties itself into ever more fantastical knots. Compared to where our economic and political powers are leading us though, it's mere entertainment.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 14:30 GMT
John,

I wasn't looking for sympathy. I was looking for an interpretation of the physics that is consistent. I see evidence that wave functions really do exist by the mere fact that they produce interference patterns for single photons/electrons. Yet, there existence is shadowy and ethereal. There is a consistent theme between collapsing wave functions and making choices; freewill seems to be a consistent theme for both physics and reality. I wouldn't be shocked if nobody else sees this, but this is what I see:

If wave functions exist (more than just mathematical artifacts), and wave collapse selects an eigenstate by some unknown process, then what happens if a sequence of ten or 100 or 10,000 wave functions collapse as part of one circuit? Does this in any way mirror neuron depolarization in any way? Without organic components, the vacuum energy can still do this.

If it can do this, then why can't it do this in such a way as to produce a naturally occurring phenomena. Why can't the vacuum energy itself, the Higgs field (itself a seething froth of wave functions), why can't it produce consciousness to some degree, independent of organic material?

This type of phenomena is, after all, very deeply entrenched in human experience.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 20:23 GMT
Jason,

Look at it this way: Physics is a wave. Physicists are particles. Now physicists would certainly agree there is no such object as "physics," but they certainly wouldn't argue with its dictates. Just because something can't be put on a scale and poked and prodded and smashed against similar things, doesn't mean it isn't real, it just means your definition of what is "real" doesn't fit...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 10:25 GMT
Conspiracy theorists,

"Hawkins" did not kill God. God herself made a creator god unnecessary to the sustainment and proliferation of an apparently self organized universe. I expect that most scientists reject conventional religious views of cosmology because they are simply infantile, and completely disconnected from how the world actually presents itself.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 16:59 GMT
Tom,

"I expect that most scientists reject conventional religious views of cosmology because they are simply infantile, and completely disconnected from how the world actually presents itself."

The practice of answering questions about the cause for the existence of intelligence by referring to religions is misleading and not helpful. Theoretical physics has put itself in a bind by refusing to address the existence of a cause or causes for intelligence. Their theories are held captive to a low level of analysis of the operation of the universe, because, their causes have nothing to do with addressing the cause of intelligent life. That is not a religion question. That is a scientific question. It cannot be avoided by pointing to beliefs of religions as being unscientific. Religion is not the issue. The existence of intelligence is the scientific issue, along with the fact that intelligence cannot be brought into existence by lack of intelligence.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 20:23 GMT
James,

Intelligence did come from non-intelligence. It's a comparative term, having no meaning when used as thing existing alone.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 20:50 GMT
Tom,

"Intelligence did come from non-intelligence. It's a comparative term, having no meaning when used as thing existing alone."

Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. Evolution did occur and we will learn more and more about its details; however, our practice of defining the original properties as non-intelligent in no way demonstrates that intelligence did result from non-intelligence. What is clear is that our definitions of original properties represent philosophical preference and not reality.

James

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 13:18 GMT
Dear Jason,

in his paper Ellis relates to the energy density in the form of neutrinos and in the form of gravitational waves.

Neutrinos: 10-20 g/cm3; Gravitational Waves: 10-27/cm3

Such models are not unusual in physics. It seems f.e. to be very similar to an idea that was already presented by J.A. Wheeler, who interpreted the universe as a self-exited circuit, but Wheeler had a very specific idea about this circuit. According to him this circuit is a kind of closed loop that excludes any reference to a preexistent ultimate foundation of physics. Consequently, there is no way out from this circuit. Every explanation that could be found had to come from within this circuit. By this model of a closed circuit Wheeler wanted to avoid the danger of an infinite regress of causations toward an ultimate foundation. (One type of the already mentioned Muenchhausen-Trilemma).

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 14:17 GMT
Hi Ellis,

You said, "Neutrinos: 10-20 g/cm3; Gravitational Waves: 10-27/cm3" I don't think I understand. You're saying that neutrinos make up 10 to 10grams per cc? I've worked with glass enclosed scales that can measure mass down to a microgram.

As for self excited circuits, I dunno... There is too much of a gap between measurable results versus this type of speculation.

By the way, does this model offer any models of how gravity is implemented?

report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 08:12 GMT
Hi Jason,

I am not Ellis, I mentioned Ellis to make clear, that there are different approaches among modern physics which are dealing with cosmological models beyond the standard Big Bang theory. George F. R. Ellis is one of these men.

On the Webpage --Closer to Truth-- different talks with George Ellis are available.

In one of these talks Ellis is explaining what f.e. expansion does mean.

http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/George-Ellis/3
2

One of his more actual papers can be found in ArXiv.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605049

In this paper Ellis proposes a Block Universe, in wich spacetime is a fixed whole, whereas the flow of time is an illusion etc.

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Helmut,

In order to better understand physics, I would submit to you that a study of Law and Justice would be appropriate. By simply watching small claims court reality TV, for example, one can watch how judges listen to the both sides and then build a causal chain of events. There will be established facts mixed with possibilities/hunches/biases/etc. Physicists would do physics a little better if they this kind of training. The laws of nature might follow mathematics, but it also obeys logic as well; admittedly a logic skewed by c and h.

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Tom,

you have actually touched the main problem, why conventional religious views of cosmology are rejected by most scientists, because they are completely disconnected from how the world actually presents itself. But I think this connection can be found. The key to it are just those properties, which are usually ascribed to GOD, like omnipresence and invisibility.

These two properties are the most "classical" properties used in theology. Most scientists believe, that these properties are physically useless. But the opposite could be the case. This conclusion appears almost natural if we think about a universe with an "invisible" foundation more seriously. Even an atheistic thinker like Richard Dawkins admits that a universe with a supernatural foundation must be a very different kind of universe from one without such a foundation.

Just this basic idea is as conceived by me the key to a modern scientific metaphysics. The main task, of course, is to clarify how the universe must be structured if it shall be compatible with such a foundation.

But at the same time it is near at hand, to suppose, that the conventional religious view of the universe cannot be the same afterwards.

Whenever science has conquered an unexplored area, it has changed the inner meaning of this area. Darwins Theory of Evolution is certainly the best example.

Helmut

report post as inappropriate


Achilles wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 21:01 GMT
ALL conceptions about gravity relate necessarily and directly to our experience of gravity -- and that includes bodily/the eye.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 17:01 GMT
James

Is a stem cell intelligent? You say "Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence." Is a single cell organism intelligent? Are eggs intelligent? Relatively to grown humans?

Furthermore, are humans intelligent? I've been carrying out a search among physicists and, despite some odd limited signs, my conclusion is no (relativistacally).

I suspect Einstein was right saying; "We do not yet understand 1/1000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us."

And our current approach to improving this is such that development stays slow.

If the root of intelligence is something to do with the capacity of our brain cells superposed 'wave functions' to store more and more complex codes to interact causally with other signals and cells...

Then if we excercise and develop our conceptual logic skills... perhaps we'll get too far ahead of the flock and never be understood.

I suspect if there is an almighty intelligence inspecting our progress towards full understanding s/he may be a little disappointed so far. But if everything's relative perhaps we're only a 1st year BSc. experiment to see if intelligence can really come from non intelligence.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
Hi Peter,

"Is a stem cell intelligent? You say "Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence." Is a single cell organism intelligent? Are eggs intelligent? Relatively to grown humans?"

Your 'relative' reference reveals limited perspective. Is the stem cell intelligent? I assume you might be asking if a stem cell has a brain? Of course not. It can do better than that. It can build a brain. It can provide all necessary ingredients so that that brain can function intelligently. In other words, all possible understanding had to be provided for the brain before the brain even began to be built. The brain can do nothing original. Is that the answer you would like to hear and challenge?

James

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 10:04 GMT
James, Tom et al.,

Having made it past 9/11 again I think we should focus on 'what is' and particularly 'what is possible' for us limited human beings: I'll keep it short today and just communicate these powerful '33's -and let's hope and pray that this number will do its wonders for the 33 Chilean miners!- to give you an idea of this:

‘UNIVERSE’ ‘NATURE’S INTELLIGENCE’ ‘QUANTUM COMPUTERS’ (our brains)‘THE UNIVERSE IS US’ ‘AS THE INDIVIDUAL IS IS THE UNIVERSE’ ‘BEING COMBINES REALITY AND LOGOS’ ‘ABSOLUTE SIMPLICITY’ ‘PLATONIC FIGURES’ ‘LIGHT OF THE UNIVERSE’ ‘AS THE UNIVERSE IS IS THE INDIVIDUAL’ ‘THE FREEDOM OF MIND’ ‘INTUITIVE’ ‘THE PLANETS ARE US’ ‘ANCIENT RELIGION’ ‘UNLIMITED’ ‘UNIVERSAL LAW’ ‘THE UNIVERSE IS UNKNOWABLE’

Also I should liek to invite you all to read up on Leonardo da Vinci's 'guru' Hermes Trismegistus who had it 'close to right':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus#Orig
in_and_identity

With both 'ORIGIN AND IDENTITY' and his own name being the '27 "The Sceptre" equal to 'NO ENTITY WITHOUT IDENTITY'

Jelle

report post as inappropriate

Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 18:37 GMT
James,

"What is an example of math without units? I include implied units in this question. In other words, if they are not shown, but they are understood."

How about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0????

Jelle

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 18:21 GMT
I'd like to ask the FQXI moderators to take a vote of the following question(s):

1. Did you think that the Big Bang really occurred?

2. Does the Big Bang contradict conservation of energy?

3. Should theoretical physics abandon conservation of energy?

I think that the real issue is that experimental physics and the Big Bang theory are contradictory. They fundamentally cannot be reconciled without destroying the value of theoretical physics.

I suggest that they physics community admit that there is no reasonable answer. Let's move on to physics that we CAN solve: like how to break through the...

SPEED OF LIGHT BARRIER

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 00:17 GMT
Newton's f=ma is based upon empirical evidence of changes of velocity of objects. Change of velocity involves measures of only distance and time. We can know nothing about force or mass that is not revealed to us by acceleration. The units of acceleration are meters per second per second. I am not going to try to redefine either mass or force in this message. I am going to point to the fact that all derivations must depend upon empirical evidence and that means all properties in all derivations must be expressible in terms of the evidence that brings them to our notice. Both mass and force must be expressible in terms of distance, time and their possible multiples. If this step is sidestepped then, we only have unempirical guesses to fall back upon.

James

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 01:30 GMT
James,

In my paper Prime 'physis' and the Mathematical Derivation of Basic Law I show how Newton's Second Law of Motion can be mathematically derived. How force, energy, momentum, temperature, and other such basic results, can be mathematically defined. My conviction is that Physics must be mathematically based. Empirical formulas describing physical quantities is totally inadequate and as 'approximations' are always suspect. In fact, if Physics is to acquire logical validity and consistency it needs to be mathematically grounded. The real dispute I think is what that ground (that view) should be. I argue that it is describing interactions of measurement through mathematical truisms.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 02:12 GMT
Constantinos,

In a past message you expressed the view that units could be assigned to one property or another so long as they mathced for the equation. This is not the way you said it. I don't know where your message is any longer. I did not agree with what I understood you to be saying. However, I thought that your work deserved evaluation by qualified people. So, I let my disagreement go undiscussed. However, I have read your papers, although some were quite some time ago. In order for me to evaluate your definition of mass, I need to know what the units of mass are? I am not asking about kilograms. I am asking about what I think you are referring to as prime physics. What are the most fundamental units of mass to you?

James

report post as inappropriate

Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 04:33 GMT
If you are looking for prime physics, you are already in trouble with Newtons first law. The law of inertia, which empirically enforce the occurrence of second derivatives in the equation of motion, is fundamental for classical mechanics. It, however, represents a causal paradox. Aristotle understood motion as a change of state, and thus force as the cause of motion. In classical mechanics, however, inertial motion is just the motion without any forces acting. In the seventeenth century one still felt the paradox thererin; Descartes and, following him, Newton defined the state of a body in terms of its velocity such that only acceleration was seen as a change of state. But this is inconsistent, as two bodies with the same velocity but at different locations are in different states, as correctly put by the modern description in phase space; and during inertial motion the point in phase space varies. In other words an inertial motion is by definition no acceleration, but it acts like a force. An bullet following a rectilinear path can destroy a window. If one wants to think causally in a consistent way, one has to solve this paradox, f.e. by radicalizing Machs ideas and interpreting the inertial motion as being caused by the universe (the distant masses). And just this task is still undone.

report post as inappropriate