EPTCritical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 30
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
you see i hope you understand why i was confused as the op has kinda evolved on the last few pages we have been dealing with my dynamic model ( claims all intellectual property ) and the last two pages i was explaining this is relation to zero-mass spin 2 bosons and E.P.R paradox holographic models and more and then bam your post .. it just confused me | ||
|
ArKaDo
France121 Posts
Sorry to disturb your conversation  When i have the time, I will read your thing, it sounds interesting. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
no reason to put all the physics up when no one is going to go through it anyway | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
like the one i proposed we could be a passing thought in an holographic mind , the big bang was a firing of a synapse lol if this was true , this would be my version of god , | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
here is a link on graviton entanglement by the way shows faster than light interaction i never really explained E.P.,R paradox that in that mass A mass B post .. that mass A and mass B were gravitons .. i will edit that in | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
| ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
maybe to avoid these confusions i should have left the word graviton out ... as it is a controversial particle , and just left it at E.P.R paradox , and newtons action at a distance above is a link on graviton entanglement by the way shows instantaneous interaction , but electron can also be entangled or photons positrons etc.. any boson can , among other particles as well ... you can also just Google entanglement , or E.P.R paradox and find your own links and interpretations i never really explained E.P.,R paradox that in that mass A mass B post .. that mass A and mass B were gravitons .. i will edit that in . we were of course assuming they exist in that mental experiment basically i outlined all those 7 posts into these last 2 , as they were not very well written and probably did more to confuse the real points i was trying to make the issues i am focusing on here is : locality /// hubbels constant /// quantum and GR break downs....fine tuning issue( dark energy ) there was just to many different ways to try to explain it , and i found my posts too incoherent . and the issues i was covering not well outlined . this is not really outlined but at least continuous in nature .. that the question are followed by the explanations linearly , more or less to show how this model tackles the basic issues although there are many more smaller issues i have went through , some of which i showed on the above posts http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator Andre Linde models ,, of universes surprisingly similar to mine.. i was not aware of this this was published after i started working on mine 1. what causes the fine tuning problem ?????? all multiverse natural selection models are doing the same thing in one instance ... it is called the" fine tuning "problem in modern physics .. basically dark energy or whatever causes the Hubble constant .. or space to expand at an increased rate.... this is the effect of galaxies moving away from each other at faster than light speed according to the observer , this is what i meant about space-time itself accelerating faster than light i meant according to observation, you can view this like bread baking .. when we are at a singularity state pre big bang ,, the current analogy is usually described like this : our universe is a small piece of dough ,, then when we go into the oven the same mass of dough does not increase but does increases in volume while space inflates .. the light traveling through the dough while it also expands will appear to be moving at faster than light to observers when ti reaches certain red shift values, this process is called the rate of expansion or hubbles constant .., Einstein did not like it as it violated his original stance, but he was forced to reconsider and retracted his first cosmological constant that disagreed and changed it to allow space to do this for observers, and called his original CC the biggest mistake of his life , because Hubble's observations proved him wrong .. how do we know this ???? red shift ,,,,,, we take a certain value of light amplitude , like the gamma radiation electro-magnetic range of a super nova,, a huge supernova generally , or quasar accretion disc .. we know the output on these fairly well ,, so once we know the distance in parsecs.......we can judge its speed of expansion by the red shift blue shift that occurs ,, as light moves away from us it shifts red , and toward us it is blue shift ,, so if we know the value like say, a 60 watt bulb ,, we can judge its speed and distant by the shift as long as we know the output,, that is why we use things like super nova that we have seen within our own galaxy ,, we know their output reliably .. it seems space itself when curved or stretched can cause faster than light speed according to the observer .. that means there are galaxies we can no lounger see , they eventually get so far and fast that the light can no longer catch us and they disappear beyond our visible horizon , lost to us forever , as a result we have no idea how big our universe is farther than what our red shift limit flash light can see,,, /// it is compounding that as more dark energy is introduced into the system, and hubbles constant increases . it like a runner running on a track that gets longer while he runs it ... ,, over the years this has been accomplished with a theory of tension between gravity and the tension force being called dark energy equaling hubbles constant ,, this is the current leading theory anyway ... so the problem that arises is the fine tuning problem ,, where does the dark energy come from ,, what regulates it etc.. on the other hand in physics we have the central problem of entanglement and gravity ,, how does simultaneous interaction take place .. how does it work? . even if we do not view it as entangled , some thing simultaneous is occurring on the quantum level and observably on relativistic levels as well , so it must be explained some how ..ignoring it does no good , the only separate methods we have are reliable independent dogmatic approach such as GR and QM that work on inverse distance comparisons of macro and micro,. the only current theories that unify both well are various multiverse theories , M- string theories ... or holographic models ,,, the current standard model in my opinion is just a patched up dogma of local newtonian interaction , and refuses to consider folded dimensions ..or non locality other than to say it happens but we do not know why , but we also do not like any of your explanation however we do not know either... if space is bendable , why cant it be folded into dimensions we cannot see ?if the movement of objects in these dimensions went through the folds of our space the motion would appear non local because it never actually moved in our space .. it punched through its bends .. but that is not exactly what i am saying .. i am taking it a little further and saying our objective reality behaves like a holograph projected onto a scalar .this completely solves the locality issue ,.... also this model supposes the cosmological natural selection answer to solve the fine tuning problem .. subsequently the holographic solution also allows 11 dimensional super gravity , bubble universe model , multiverse theories , and quantum physics , GR in all aspects on our explicate level or implicate level, i consider this a working model and my biggest contribution besides seeing how these models can flow together that others created , is the pilot wave equations we came up with and the dimensional filtration values .. i am someone doing this in his spare time, somethings took me awhile , and a lot of help was needed... the process views dimensions being filters and their receiver states are particles having no exact parameters other than size and mass and receiver and dimension nature . i describe particles as p-branes as well.. they get the spin and charge from the pilot wave . t ...the curvature of space that the masses cause in Lorentz space as per GR is what tells the particle how to receive the force ( this is my idea !!) .. this allow the particles to receive in different ways in different scenarios and the space curvature is the control dial !!!.. which allows GR to still play a vital role on the explicate universe... . 2. the fine tuning issue and models explanation while answering non locality the multiverse is made up of a system of singularity sized open bound universes that lie on a scalar plane where a unified field pilot wave is projected onto .. the scalar could be considered a cross section and is open boundary....we will call the holograph objective reality we observe the explicate and the pilot wave itself the implicate the explicates singularities they reside within are mass regulators between oscillation states..... every universe is both a projected scalar and a single point at the same time on a cross section of the pilot wave,,,the single point versions of them selves exit in other explicate realities in order to balance energy and mass between all of the explicate states and control oscillation, via dark energy ,mass and gravity acquisition , or output .... quantum gravity wave theory describes it like a three dimensional field on a two dimensional scalar .. this is very similar to the holographic model i am using .. however i am going a couple steps further ,, instead of the gravity wave being its own objective particle wave in our Lorentz 3 d planes that behaves autonomously and runs into existential contradictions .. it is being projected from an ultimate unified pilot wave , that carries every force and fields. any force can be expressed via the dimension that filters it. .. particles are simply put receivers of the frequency the carrier wave assigned to it,,, how space is folded via relativity determined how the particle will receive the wave .. this feature of my model explains why gravity works different on the quantum and relativistic levels especially 11 dimensional super gravity is taken into consideration once i postulate both open dimensions and calai yau space dimensions are also filters of the unified pilot wave for any force p-branes that are the receiver and space curvature as the dialer ,, 3 what is bubble model and Hubble constant , and what did i mean by space time able to allow faster than light observation ? i am suggesting a bubble model multiverse like the post i showed,but more as like a balloon model becuase of how i tie white holes into it, each bubble is actually inside of a singularity that is observable on another axis of the pilot wave to open dimensions,, basically every singularity is manifested in someone else explicate holograph , ( dimension planes of there objective reality or in lay terms our black holes we would see inside our own universe are doorways to universes connected to their closed dimensional scalar ) the reason for this is simple .. the singularities serve two purposes to regulate mass and energy between oscillating states (fine tuning on a multiverse level.).. for both a source of energy for inflation ( to help create big bangs) ,, and as a regulator of negative energy , to have the tension force by converting its acquired mass into dark energy fro both single universes , and the entire pilot wave system is constantly rebalanced this way like tumblers in a lock,, black holes are like big bang , dark energy , fine tuning engines similar to Quentin smiths model of cosmological natural selection , we can visulaize the system like a basic holograph . the result of the scalar plane made up of all infinite closed dimension filters is they allow " on" and "off" current positions of the pilot wave , the first on and off filter switch ...this scalar of closed dimensions is projected onto by the pilot wave (holograph laser or unified field) ,,the pilot wave is carrying the unified field and infinite energy , there are infinite scalar planes , infinite combination of dimensional filtering therefore very strange strong anthropic models and various lifeforms could exist in other universes.. i hope this helps clarify this is the thesis assumption on this side of the "how " and what i am implying on the "why" paper when i mentioned gravitons " it had little to do with all of these crazy ideas in this paper ..... .what we take from it for the other side .. is only this "simultaneous interaction" is logically needed for the metaphysical third question Quentin smith asks " does the sum of everything in our universe require a cause or can it cause itself.."... that is all i am presupposing on the metaphysical discussion on page 27 .. all of this is a completely separate arena .. the one thing in common is the issue of action at a distance ....but this paper is more concerned whether we should start seeing reality in a new way to explain these violations of objective reality ..the black hole con paper i probably should not have used because i was assuming gnosis would follow the contradiction logic i was asserting but it only served to confuse him and the issue of what i was really supposing all i am asserting on page 27 in that metaphysics model is simultaneous interaction is logically possible , and give various forms of support to the priori hope this all helped clarify what is going on in physics conflicts right now , and how different people are approaching it , and how i am approaching it .the problem of gravity systems breaking down and non locality are the main conflicts as well as gauge theory breaking down . cosmology has gotten very philosophical at the moment because if there are multiple universe we cannot see them so there is no way to experiment ,, all we can do look at various system breakdowns as the visible interactions between multiple universes or dimensions | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
as they were not very well written and probably did more to confuse the real points i was trying to make Indeed You seemed to be trying to use Zeno's paradox to prove acausal causality. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
| ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
dimensions are the filters , three types .... closed is weak force dominate and act nolocaly toward folded and open types.......... they filter the signal in various ways .. the particles receive them in according to how space curvature is telling them to dial in to the pilot wave signal .. the, mass and dark energy is regulated by the singularities in between the universes they reside, forming, this oscillating , tumbler system or kerr , hawking , and vacuum kerr types ..it is hard to visualize ,, especial l when i add the black hole fine tuning aspect and oscillation theory .,...but this may have gotten more across then all the other mumbo jumbo combined in the other posts .. i just thought of the radio tuner analogy ,, but instead of tuning in a radio signal , we are tuning our holographic realty , and their are infinite holographic reality .. like a quantum holograph / radio.i would need to draw pictures to really get he idea across , but this is probably the simplified illustration ,,how quantum computers use entangled particles would be another approximation but slightly different anyway i will take that stuff down and just leave the links but i am done thx for looking at it no need for a new thread | ||
|
boshhead
United States8 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:47 JinMaikeul wrote: My only problem with these videos is that a lot of it essentially runs under the assumption that if something is logically impossible, it is indeed impossible. The reason I have a problem with this is that it assumes that our logic is absolute, which it isn't. Do you have any examples of logic failing? Of something which is logically true or false, but not actually true or false? While I do believe there is an underlying logic to the way this universe functions, I do not believe we can assume our understanding of it is indeed correct or valid. And we don't. That's why proper scientific theories are always disprovable, you just need some evidence. This really isn't meant to be a defense of God, religion, etc. or anything else, but rather a call to accept that perhaps we may not know as much as we believe we do. And so long as we argue on the basis of something we do not know or understand to be irrefutably true, what makes an atheist any different from a theist? The difference is that to a theist, not knowing everything is taken as a license to just make things up. An atheist doesn't take such liberties. As an atheist, I don't say that there is definitively no God. I say that to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that God exists. The truth is we're arguing with eachother along two completely different lines of thought. The theist will argue on possibility whereas the atheist's argument is completely about probability simply because he cannot make any definitive statement as to what exactly is impossible. But there's an infinite amount of things that are possible. Why give some of them (God/religion) a special status and respect? | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
that is the" paradox of place. every thing has a place , then so must that place, and so and and so forth .. i view the solution of this paradox as a holograph ,, that solves this paradox by making non locality possible , i answer aristoltles paradox by creating a new one , / " every place has a place and its place is the sum of all places " this desrcibes a on local system like a holograph this is my solution to Aristotles paradox ,a holographic reality , and synergy ,, ... if you cut any sized pieced from a holographic image , you still have the entire picture , cut a piece from the piece , and you have it smaller yet again .. ad infinity ,,no matter how many times you cut it .. ( of course you lose resolution ) also once you unify space and time .. many of these zeno paradox instantly fail because he uses them as separate in his questions ......... i remember them from calculus. interval convergent series, also solves many of them as well i think .... but there are a lot of metaphysical implications still from them .. if you are a philosopher who views time as things in motion .. then they pose particular problems ... luckily my view is a little more complex on time ..so i do not run into these problems ... you maybe could claim at least as far as the dichotomy argument goes, it is a little similar to my t(U)=o argument on page 27 but as far as i know i am not arguing from any of zenos except this one .. i use a half open interval to describe the first moment of time in our universe , which also was an infinite moment of time which is similar to the interval zenos paradox of dichotmety uses , i believe that is the infinite task one right ?.. so yeah i guess this one i use but not in any of these posts on the 3 last pages you could say i am driving the holographic model as a solution to Aristotles paradox of place though , but it came in the reverse order from you mentioning it ..i derived aristotles paraqdox ... from my model in answer to your post ... so i guess yi are correct about two that i see i was not aware my model solved this until you got me thinking about this in those terms .. so i thank you | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
Achilles and the tortoise experiment ... Achilles = the light from a super nova in another galaxy moving away from earth tortoise = an observer on earth looking at Achilles through a telescope ok..... picture a galaxy traveling away from earth... Achilles is the light from a super nova in this galaxy .. and the observer on earth is the tortoise .. ..he is racing Achilles in space .. eventually the tortoise will win and Achilles will disappear in the past never to be seen again .. ok a test to see if you have been paying attention i .. the question is .. why does Achilles win in the real zenos paradox .. but why does he not win in this thought experiment light and observer race i posted here ? ( heheh i know i know) kinda simple really ,,, but still it is anti-intuitive answer i think a philosopher in zenos day , never would have been able to answer this .. but today i saw the connection in two seconds after you made that allusion to zeno got me thinking about infinite series , and that flavor ,..... just shows you how far we have come in philosophy this is the kind of stuff i was asking for .. when i asked for interpretations ,, thank you i am actually kind of embarrassed i forgot about these and did not already think of the connection and answer to the question i ask on this post with Achilles paradox...,, and that the place paradox describes non local systems like holographs as a solution perfectly it has been a long time since i studied the greeks and i admittingly have not thought of these logical paradox for a while becuase i generally look at time differently than these set of greeksdid .... which is connecting time to motion .i did read the post troy epic, the journey of Aeneas recently . but that is roman | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
I've finally had a chance to read this thread, and I have found the discussions extremely interesting and the coherency of the posts refreshing. Please don't take anything offline in PMs or emails without notifying me. Unfortunately, I don't have the same amount of "free time" as some of you have/had so I haven't read as much as some of you, but I do have perspectives I believe would add to and perhaps change some of your viewpoints. I specifically enjoyed the discussion on objective morality and the discussion of time. These are the two areas which you guys have naturally come to, because I believe they are some of the most important questions and the unexplainable flaws in our (humanity's) thinking. I won't be able to post contiguous and long responses like some of you because of both time constraints and difficulty forming ideas (indeed, there are books which I have not yet started which I need to read before I can answer some of these questions). I sure hope these issues don't get solved too quickly in this thread before I have a chance to join in .As a preview, I do have a physics degree, and I think its a subject that cannot be ignored. But I also think that our scientific models have some serious flaws. The concept of time is of central importance in this area. As far as objective morality, I'm not sure what that means. I suppose I view things differently, I will be happy to discuss these things. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
i just got calculus going for me and only basic level.. and i have taught myself some basic gauge theory stuff GR QM and some different types of m-theory p-brane interaction , but i am pretty weak on it all , i always need help doing the math i forget alot of the symbols.. i understand the concepts coming from a strong geometry and decent calculus background though.also strong logic background... but most of my more adcanced understandings i have taught myself in my spare time... my buddy is phd in low energy quantum fields and i used to hang with him in the lab all the time , we would get high and play with spectral analysis .. he taught me .alot about low energy wave manifolds. but i am pretty weak over all compared to you i am sure ....i would like very much to get your opinion about this model .. if it is a viable oscillating system or not ,,, i am approaching the fine tuning problem of hubbles constant and dark energy from a quentin smith approach of black hole naturalism , but the model is slightly different ,... every universe is both a single point and an open boundary projection at the same time .. different from smiths models in three major ways... i use transactional time between universes as well | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
Do you have any examples of logic failing? This statement is true, but unprovable; ie Godel But there's an infinite amount of things that are possible. Why give some of them (God/religion) a special status and respect? Religion allows the gifting of useful philosophy, without the need to understand it. Atheism has an easy job of attacking religion. Religion is irrational in exactly the same way society is. There is plenty of room for improvement in most religions. But to attack all religion without providing a competitive philosophy is self destructive IMO. | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
. this describes a filter switch on the GR geodesic at Quantum sub planck scales below i describe how a closed dimensional filter allow the graviton to pass through calibi yau filters to our three open dimensions.. here is my graviton filter model right now i am using please give me your honest opinion if you have the time fight or flight , i would greatly appreciate it , everything but the dark energy value at the end is fairly simple , and you should not have too much trouble with it.. i would just ignore my dark energy CC values at the bottom they are not important this is a concept of spin 2 gravitons being exchanged by two objects of mass and are entangled at 1/2 spin ...through the closed dimension filters.. such that a quantum entanglement has been previously postulated at a distance r, and it eventually collapses when finding its object of gravitational desire the dimensions filter setting was easy to find for the spin 2 zero mass bosons ...at 1/2 when entangled , i only need off and on settings for the filter on the closed dimensional level ( the scalar ) 1/2 is a simple and fluid equation spin value The graviton system collapses to the proposed geodesic tumbler*receiver dial) at on and off settings for both the filter and the force , |0>|0>, or |1>|1>. We can address this gravitational interaction with only the collapsed state |0>|0> meaning repulsion, and |1>|1> attraction .....so basically the symmetry particle states are brought by the same particle , it gets its value ( dark energy ,gravity ) from the filtered signal for this boson in the geodesic ,. space curvature geodesic 's communicate how much of the weak force it needs to exchange to propagate the weak field ; the closed dimensions are non local nd open boundary to the open dimensions (4d space-time)so this explains quantum gravity waves and entanglement or any form of field non locality... the entangled particles never actually moved on the non local level ... .. basically the filter is on another dimensional scalar that is hollographically nonlocal to our lorentzian universe , while the geodesic tunes the boson into the folded dimensions* calibi yau space) which then filters it on through to our open objective reality lets call gravitons spin 2 entangled at 1/2 spin and are virtual particles that are receivers for a pilot wave ,, Call beta the probability for a particle to act as a receiver for the gravitational force towards the other one as wave = r and alpha, at the the probability for it resulting on opposite direction, we can express the collapsed state, |s>, of the entangled gravitational system as: |s> = alpha|0> + beta|1>, such that alpha + beta = 1, than |s> is either |s> = |0>|0> , or |s> = |1>|1> This means that a filter dial geodesic(what i call it) addresses the wave signature of the gravitational interaction as on- off , and repulse- attract and the geodesic sets the gain. Once it is known whether it is an attractive or repulsive force needed, we can apply the quantum or classical law if needed to equate the gravitational forces alpha is a wave function of distance r.and then alpha = 0 r = 0, , if r = R_h, where R_h is Hubble radius, and at alpha = 1. elementary masses, which are coupled quantum gravitational entanglements at distances close to R_h, should be showing repulsive gravitational attributes , with an ever increasing probability symmetrically, elementary masses, coupling at sub Planck scales, would be exhibiting an alpha close to the fine-structure constant in the filter manifold the dark energy value is repulsive at a third (in geometric units) of the total density. p < LaTeX Code: - \\frac{1}{3}\\rho c^2 . dark energy cosmological constant, LaTeX Code: \\Lambda , tension force at < LaTeX Code: - \\rho c^2 .in open dimensions .hot gas or radiation field such as the CMB is the positive value of deceleration in this process of states as currently predicted this is why we cannot see the gravitational field or gravitons , they annihilate each other once the force is transmitted and the field takes place within folded dimensions,, graviton are only good for transmitting quantum information not classical in this filter model in human application .. hey mr. physicists if you could glance this over i would appreciate it greatly it is fairly straightforward .....this is the most parsimonious model for this filter and receiver concept i came up with as i have never taken physics ,, and taught myself advanced calculus from a basic level in my spare time... i was wondering if this physics is working or incorrect..i currently have no help .. and am trying to solve these filtering issues.. the weak fields should be the easiest to solve, why i am starting here..it is just a matter of finding the spin states of entanglement, so everything equals out in a simple , symmetrical way , and the force gets there correctly , but i need to to predict what we are already seeing experimentally to of course......and tie 11 dimensional super gravity into it , because i need folded dimensions for htis model to work i have to be able to plug calibi yau space inot this model and most m-theory p-brane characteristics ,, luckily there is alot of symmetry already in m-theory . so i am just looking for the right puzzle pieces .. .,. does this filter work toward getting the graviton behaving like it needs to in our 4d space-time on both a GR and QM level where the gauges break down ?are the p-brane models compatible with this ? since i am plugging calaibi yau space into a plank scale GR geodesic, i am allowing the pbrane string model to work on our space-time ,, is this a symmetrical solution ? my guess is.. since the GR level wave on the geodesic is the dialer .. and the virtual particle at spin is the receiver ,, is should always be able to do what it needs as these two are simultaneously interacting between the relativistic and quantum states .. it balances itself to accomplish tunneling or whatever else its virtual business is.. except we can explain tunneling in a new way now with this model . it gets there non locally .., | ||
| ||
