Jump to content

ponderer

Senior Members
  • Posts

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ponderer

  1. Struggled for years to find the kernel of Jesus. I finally found it in one reference. Men lived by the letter of the law, the Ten Commandments. Jesus brought the message that men must feel and live by the spirit of the law. Failure to heed Jesus led to the destruction of Jerusalem,and the disporia, not long after the death of Jesus. If people had listened to him, the Jews would have been more peaceful, and this would not have happened. He would have been the saviour of israel. Israel was an occupied state. Many Jews hated the Romans, rebelling like the current Palestinians. The Romans responded brutally with scourgings and crucifictions. The radical Jews were not backing down. It was getting ugly. Anyone with half a brain could see that the Romans could do what they wanted with Israel. Jesus was trying to settle everyone down before they faced the inevitable outcome, when Rome finally lost patience.
  2. Lame. Do you want to take the blue pill or the red pill? OK here are some deductive conclusions, but you can take it further. God is developmental. God has always been all knowing etc, but in the beginning he was all knowing etc of nothing, because there was nothing. If God existed, he must have existed as a self aware purely emotional entity. God is love? Any primal God would have to know more only as he creates more, and the universe unfolds. He would create his own rational mind. At first his creations must be purely emotional. All ideas depend on order and chaos, which in turn depend on set theory and geometry. These do not exist in the beginning. Space-time-energy do not exist. Indeed any idea of order or structure, within the "brain" of God, must then have deeper primal roots, which evolved God. Thought cannot exist. There is nothing God can think about. If God is truly primal, then there can be no complex structure to God's initial existence. I think if you are to understand the nature of, or account for the existence of, any God believable within a philosophical and scientific framework, this is the place to start. Many believe without rational understanding.
  3. I'm trying to cut back. So no one is going to take a shot at the riddle. OK, I'll give you a hint. Change the order of the premises, to this order. In the beginning there was nothing, except god. God existed before the universe manifold. God is all knowing. God is all seeing. God is everywhere. God is all powerful. Consider God only in the beginning. What can God know? What can God see? Where can God be? What does God have power over? What could God remember? In the beginng there was nothing. Just reason it through. The rest follows from there. Deductive logical conclusions about the fundamental nature of any potential primal God follow from these premises.
  4. You didn`t solve the riddle.
  5. ponderer

    Existence

    I think you have to assume at least one thing exists to start with. I have been postulating an intial simple existance, that has three features. One: a single unchanging emotion Two: self awarness Three: will Emotion is meaningless without awareness. I feel, therefore I am. Emotion and awareness are meaningless without an outlet, so will is the outlet for emotion. Let us assume that emotion is directly tied to will, such that any emotional change of state must alter will, and manifest geometric energy. Now let us consider that this simple grouping of emotion, awareness, and will exist is an unchanging state of eternal bliss. If we consider that nothing exists except this grouping, then no transitions or changes are happening. There is nothing marking time. It is suspended animation. Time does not exist. A second equals a billlion years. Even if such a grouping were to exist for an eternity, it would be as if it instantly appeared, when time first starts ticking. Only when the first emotional transition occurs, and will manifests geometric energy for the first time, does time begin. From then on, something new exists, and time is marked by the expansion of the geomertic energy, relative to it`s wavelength. A single 5D dissipative spherical wave, a literal emotional outburst from an infant God, sweeps ever outwards, manifesting primal space-time-energy as the Yang wave. A second emotional outburst in another location, now that a geometric space exists, the Yin wave, eventually intersects the Yang wave, and the manifold is created, in an apparent big bang with a rapid initial expansion, later slowing.
  6. Is that all it takes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have been pondering this question. I think that the trail starts with these premises. God is all knowing. God is all seeing. God is everywhere. God is all powerful. God existed before the universe manifold. In the beginning there was nothing, except god. These premises lead to some profound logical conclusions, about the nature of God. Think about it. Use your scientific reasoning. Heck, use your puzzle solving reasoning.
  7. If you could build a booth-like worm, you could do something like teleportation, using a booth, say like a ski gondola, or a London police box.
  8. ponderer

    Why?

    Why do I ask what?
  9. A buddy and I were driving in Quebec. I was doing the speed limit, but the topic of the Surete du Quebec came up - it think we saw a fuzzmobile going the other way - and of course speeding. I commented to him that we were actually moving backwards at very high velocy, because we were going against the spin of the earth, which moves much faster than the car. I pondered if we could actually go much faster and then argue in court that we were actually travelling backwards, and so beat the speeding ticket. But then they might give me a bigger ticket for going the wrong way on a highway, and doing a couple thousand miles an hour over the speed limit, in reverse. That's dangerous driving. I figured it was best to agree to the road being the stationary frame of reference and not use the sun. I stuck to the speed limit.
  10. We have a fundamental problem. It goes like this: Continuing automation of job functions allows for higher productivity and a reduced work force. The people who are removed from the work force do not go to state supported liesure activities. They must find work or make money in some fashion. In order to work they must provide a service or sell something. So people make up new crap that was never needed in the first place, consuming more energy and natural resources and causing more pollution. Continuing automation of job functions allows for higher productivity and a reduced work force. The people who are removed from the work force do not go to state supported liesure activities. They must find work or make money in some fashion. In order to work they must provide a service or sell something. So people make up new crap that was never needed in the first place, consuming more energy and natural resources and causing more pollution. Continuing automation of job functions allows for higher productivity and a reduced work force...
  11. Entropy tends to homogenize the energy density in a system, chaotic behaviour tends to form structure and complexity, localizing energy density in the process. Chaos theory, is possibly what you are looking for.
  12. The question "why?" implies sentient decision. "What intention", basically. The question "how?" asks by what method. You cannot say in this circumstance that you know "how" but not "why". It is exceedingly doubtful that the universe is making a sentient decision towards some goal, for every particle that moves. I think, you really mean to say, that you do not know "how", even though you think you do, because you have some math and call things forces, mass, inertia, and such. Without a picture you feel the "how" is incomplete. Is that a fair assessment? If so, join the club.
  13. Aspartate and Glutamate are both excitory chemicals, which affect NMDA receptors in the brain. Some people are predisposed to problems with these two chemicals. Chances are if you benefit from a low gluten diet, that you would benefit from also avoiding aspartame. It is likely that people who fall into this category are responsible for the negative publicity of aspartame. Interestingly, the response of the neurons to these excitory chemicals is very similar to what would happen with hypoxia. Some people who suffer from MS have found it beneficial (anecdotal) to avoid gluten. http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/Paleolithicdiet.html http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&q=gluten+free+diet+autoimmune&start=10&sa=N&fp=7c2ad2e84493b017 MS is now believed to be related to circulatory problems in the brain. Surgery to increase blood flow out of the brain appears to correct MS, in the majority of cases where it has been used. If we assume that the veins leaving the brain are constricted, one has to ask why. It is all well and good that surgery can correct the problem, but why are the veins constricted in the first place. This is a progressive disease. The veins must get progressively constricted. Is it possible that there is a system problem, perhaps related to nutritional status? Viens can be constricted naturally in the body. They can also be relaxed. Perhaps there is a chronic nutritional deficiency that is preventing them from relaxing, and this causes hypoxia in tissues due to poor circulation. It is interesting to note that low dose naltrexone causes remission from some chronic AI diseases. Singals from nerves are involved in the contraction and relaxation of veins. This suggests that neuron signalling may be impaired by some sort of upstream chemical deficiency related to diet. No one will research this because there is no money to be made, unless a new chemical drug can be made to sell. Proving that someone is short a couple nutrients is not going to turn a profit.
  14. ponderer

    Why?

    There is really only one question, and it is "what?". Other questions are just justr more specific version of "what?" When is what time. Where is what place. How is what method. Which is what one of a group. Why is what reason. So you question is really for what reason. The question "what reason?" is meaning less without a context.
  15. Circular logic. You start with the logical premise that there is no preferred frame of reference. From this you conclude that the speed of light is constant in all frames. That's where you start. From this we can calculate the relative space-time distortion, between frames, which is required to make that conclusion correct. This relative space-time distortion must exist, in some physical form, beyond those calculations. You can't go back to the speed of light as your explanation, without some further explanation of how space and time are distorted to accomplish this. That is a circular logic loop, that explains nothing.
  16. One last thought however. How do you go about distorting the relative space and time, for the moving frame, in such a manner? It is all well and good to say that the relative space-time is distorted, but what underlying mechanism accounts for the distortion? What I mean is the stationary observer should see the first graphic. It is only because space and time are distorted according to the second graphic that you see, a more or less normalized view. So what underlying mechanism accounts for the space-time distortion of the second graphic, that allows you to see a more or less normalized view?
  17. I am beginning to think that I may have an error in logic, in that I am considering the sequence of events inconsequential. I have to consider this more. It now seems to me that if we consider that space-time is distorted accordingly, that the sequence of events will be the same for both frames. In effect the transformation is being performed. That should give a flat result. So I have been seeing things differently, because I was in error, interpreting the data incorrectly. Thanks.
  18. There is no transformation being done. We are just experiencing the moving frame in its native state. The sequence of events in the moving frame will be seen differently than the same events seen from the stationary frame. In order for the moving observer to see things normally, his space-time must be different than the stationary frame. The sequence of events is inconsequential to the shape of the space time distortion of the moving frame, other than to assess the actual space-time distortion. It is evidence of the space-time distortion. Space-time is distorted in the moving frame compared to ours so we see things in a different sequence as a result. If the space-time of the moving frame is different, the shape of the moving potential wells must be different in the same way, to the stationary observer. The moving observer also experiences the stationary frame to have a similar distortion, but in the opposite direction. Why does nobody understand this simple thing?
  19. Yes, I think I am proposing something new. That is why I asking if I am obligated to publish. Still dicussing observations of a distant galaxy moving across our field of view, the top light cone is how the stationary frame experiences the moving frame, and the bottom light cone is how the moving frame experiences the stationary frame. It's us looking at them. We are not interested to doing any transformations. We are not interested in making them look stationary, and have everything run normally from our perspective. We are just looking. We are just observering their mess-up sequence of events and their distorted space-time. We must love this galaxy because we are accepting it with all its faults and not trying to change it. However, for things to run normally in the moving frame, time and space must be altered in that frame compared to the stationary frame. A circular set of reference points was used, only to get a geometric picture of the space-time distortion in the moving frame, compared to the stationary frame. This geometric picture must be applied to the potential wells in the moving frame. The moving observer will also experience the potential wells in the stationary frame to be distorted in the same way, but the opposite direction. This is important for cosmic observations, and for the manifestation of magnetic force. This graphic is the space-time distortion, for a galaxy moving from left to right across our field of view: The top part of the graphic is a cross-section of a normal light cone for the stationary frame, representing the space time distortions of the moving frame. This distortion must be applied to our experience of the moving potential wells. You take the shape of the top light cone cross-section and you multiply that by the normal geometry of the potential well. The bottom part of the graphic is how the moving frame experiences the potential wells in the stationary frame, also distorted in the same manner but the opposite direction. It must be so, by simple deductive reasoning. It just seems that nobody bothered looking deeper into the transformation. I felt the topic was rushed and not thoroughly examined. I didn't like that. I thought it was a glossed over leap of faith, without due analysis. I needed a bigger picture. My first impression was that I had satisfied myself, that the transformation would apply across the frame uniformly and thus I had a general proof for the Lorentz transformation. After some consideration, I also realized that my bigger picture was also showing me this. I was concerned with 5D potential wells for E-M. This was important for that, but nobody wants to hear about 5D E-M. So I did not concern myself with the discrepency between my way of thinking and everybody elses. It did not seem to matter. Then I recently realized that gravity wells must also be affected, and I am hearing about dark matter, and how the bending of light does not match the apparent mass of the constituents of the galaxy, and things about the universe suddenly expanding, and I am wondering if this might affect cosmic observations. Well actually to my way of thinking, it must. In any case, for now it seems, nobody wants to hear about 5D E-M, but everybody is interested in cosmic observations. So, am I obligated to publish something? Will anyone listen?
  20. You aren't getting it. Everyone learned a transformation, and now nobody can think in other terms. Let me make it as plain as I can without graphics. Because space and time are altered in the moving frame compared to the stationary frame, the shape of the potential wells in the moving frame must be different in the same way. It is not a simple length contraction over the whole frame. Length is contracted, in front of every potential well, and stretched out, behind every potential well in the moving frame, compared to the stationary frame. If you draw a plane perpendicular to the vector of motion, through the center of any potential well in the moving frame, the side of the plane towards the front of the potential well has contracted space-time and the side of the plane towards the back of the potential well has elongated space-time. Do you get it now. It seems a bit strange, but that's seems to be what you get if the space-time of the moving frame is considered altered compared to the stationary frame, due to the speed of light being constant.
  21. OK, simple question. Does QM describe the probability of an electron being in a given location as a probability wave form? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Electrons - Electrons become more like photons in some ways, the faster they travel, since their relative motion causes the manifestation of increasing magnetic chiral behaviour, about the vector of motion. Being difficult - No problem with that, but you know, whenever I do it, I ususally try deal with the logic of the argument. In any case, we seem to be getting somewhere now. You did not answer my question about probability wave form. Now, your point about one interpretation of the theory is interesting, where is the divergence?
  22. Self interference is not a problem for me. I have a general idea of how it works. I do not understand why you keep throwing up this topic. It seems trivial. I am not saying cars are electrons. I have never heard of an electron stopping at a gas station either. I am questioning the reasoning, using a mundane analogy, where cars are substituted for electrons. Electron in motion will exibit some wave-like properties, but they are still distinct and have a distinct location, if you are not slamming them through a cheese grate at high velocity. You have to realize, that with the slits, you are creating a dimensionally reduced constriction for a higher dimensional behaviour. Electromagnetic force is chiral. The dimensional reduction inhibits that chiral behaviour, which undoes the quantum bundling. Big deal. That's all I am going to say on that topic. In order to get another universe, you need another big bang, and you need a few billlion years, and the chances of getting another one anywhere near identical to ours would be astoundingly worse than finding two identical snow flakes. So what, I guess these parallel universes just materialize instantaneously out of the Quantum Vaccum. Poufft! Instant universe, just toss out reason. If you wish to materialize a whole universe, you need much better logic than that, and to consider an infinite number and variety, you need a much better causality. Where did these mulitple universe come from? How are they arranged? In order to provided complete uncertainty with all things possible for every particle, the universes would need to exist in an infinite number of dimensions for each particle, to form any sort of adjacency. Physicist will argue over there being any more than 3 dimensions. 21 dimensions is a stretch. I would like to know where quantum physicists get off making such crazy conjecture.
  23. All of this works out statistically perfectly, for budgeting and business planning. Most accidents happen close to home, just like the statistics say. The accidents happen in the right statistical percentages every year, and we have the whole thing analysed from top to bottom statistically. Our actuarials are the best in the industry. You have to expect that it will work out statistically and provide good outcome prediction I am sure that Q-M is a very useful tool and that it is excellent theory Are you being purposely difficult? But OK, I'll bite. Tell me how the double slit experiment gives you <snicker> multiple universes. Educate me. I am sure that Occam will be rolling in his grave. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No analogy is perfect. That is why it is an analogy. I guess you missed that comment.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.