Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SamBridge

  1. It's a hierarchy of discreet bounded finite bits of knowledge. IMO, only the strongest bits are coherent from a higher level perspective, but if you were to take a look at the whole ensemble, it would be very difficult to know which bits are conscious or not until you enumerate them.

    How do you have a "conscious bit"? A fundamental unit of information has consciousness? And how do you measure the "strength" of a bit? And how do you mathematically define "a higher level of perspective"?

  2. Fine

    Because I had a question in post #20 that was by-passed.

    You're right, but you also didn't specified which of my own articles you were referring to and I never posted the link about squeeze mapping that you seem to have said I did, and squeeze mapping isn't even referred to in the wiki article I posted if that's the one you're talking about. The 3 non-wiki research papers I presented show the effects of the Lorentz transformation can remain invariant in a gravitational field and the other 3 wiki ones have to do with showing time is linear. But you think u*v = x'*t' and x'*t' = the speed of light? Are you trying to say there isn't a constant speed that's approached? There's also another way to model the effect by using the mass-energy equivalence formula to say E=ymc^2, which shows that as something accelerates towards the speed of light, it gains more and more mass, thus making it take more energy to accelerate to even closer to the speed of light in such a way that an accelerating object hyperbolically approaches c, which matches up with the research articles I posted because mass creates a rotation of space-time as well via gravitation in which the Lorentz transformations can remain invariant which is further reiterated by the equivalence principal in which being in a gravitational field is the same as being in an accelerated frame of reference. Are you asking "where is the factor that keeps an object from accelerating past the speed of light"? It's in the gamma factor where you divide by c^2, it's already assumed the speed of light is constant from experiments and then the Lorentz transformations are considered the consequence of that constant and then Einstein extrapolated explanations for that constant with general relativity and mass-energy equivalence and the equivalence principal.

  3. I'm telling you, as a second person giving feedback, that your post was unclear,

    That's fine if there's a part of it that's not clear, but I can't respond in the right way when someone doesn't bother to elaborate what they want, regardless of how clear or unclear my post is.

  4. That's not for you to say, it's for ACG52 to say.

    Well it is if he doesn't make any effort to expand and disregards information relating to the topic, then it is for me to say, just like if someone is up for election and only one person votes, the election goes the way of that single vote.


    This is a double-edged sword: people asking for clarification from you is a sign that you weren't being clear in the first place. And ACG52 wasn't the only one who did not see any connection to acceleration and gravitation.

    Except that he didn't define he was asking for a connection between acceleration and gravitation, he originally quoted me saying time was linear and then requoted a phenomena that is explained by the Lorentz Transformation, which I had already posted about. It's not a double edged sword if I'm being specific and he isn't, it's just him being lazy in his post or not understanding something, so its more like a scimitar. Just look at his posts, they're one short sentence long, there's no reason to be so vague if you're seriously interested in a complicated phenomena. If he said "Can you provide evidence that the rotation of space-time caused by relative acceleration is a similar type of relative spacetime curvature that occurs inside a gravitational field?" then we wouldn't have a problem.

  5. How would you prove that I am conscious?

    I don't think I can/can't depending in type of way an average person thinks of it. According to you, it could all just be a result of deterministic, so if I assume you're model, an outside viewer wouldn't be able to tell for sure. Which brings me to another question, that if consciousness or free-will or "control" already doesn't exist, what are neurologists actually looking for and how haven't they found whatever it is? What exactly is so evading?

  6. Mostly we don't know what happens inside a black hole, but even if anti-matter was able to react with some kind of normal-matter singularity, the resulting photons and sub-particles would still be trapped inside the black hole, so it would still get bigger. Negative energy on the other hand as per Hawking radiation would make it shrink, eventually enough to evaporate.

  7. We actually have evidence of alien life, they sent us a greeting message


    I am *expanding!* It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!
    *Campers* are the best! I have *anticipation* and then what?
    Better parties in *the middle* for sure.


    Other than that, there's no way to assume any other life forms exist without evidence. Otherwise we might as well assume there's an invisible lasagna monster that's always stays 5 feet from us so that we never touch it.


    I suspect that's closer to what was expected when the request for citations was originally presented.

    To some extent but not exactly. The 4th wiki article was about the Lorentz transformation and already refers to the phenomena as a hyperbolic rotation of spacetime coordinates. He also said he only counted 3 articles, somehow disregarding the only article (the 4th one) that actually had to do with sapcetime rotation. I'm not entirely sure what he was asking about, but he quoted the part about time being linear, so I showed him time was linear, and mentioned space-time rotation which I linked to, and assumed he already possessed knowledge that it's effects are often used to describe those that occur in gravitational fields since he didn't make an effort to specify exactly what about the scenario he wanted evidence for. It isn't necessarily a matter of knowing relativity, but rather how to communicate in any sort of effective manner, and I have no way of knowing the difference when he doesn't make an effort to elaborate.

  9. 1. Stephen Hawking - Michio Kaku - Brian Greene


    2. Albert Einstein - Brian Cox


    3. Carl Sagan


    4. Isaac Newton


    5. Schrodinger


    6. Dr. Sheldon Cooper ( :P) if only he was real lol

    Einstein isn't first? Maybe you need a new avatar lol


    You specifically mentioned "rotate via acceleration or gravitation. " Lorentz is dependent on just speed.

    An object must accelerate in order to get to a new speed where the relativistic degree of rotation is higher, and I was referring to the transformations as a function of velocity, allowing the effects to vary with the changing of speed, implying that as you observe something accelerate to near the speed of light, you notice a greater and greater relative degree of rotation that creates greater contraction and dilation. And, you can model a version of the lorentz transformation, the nearly exactly same phenomena of length contraction and time dilation, in a gravitational field http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0309023 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181993_f(T)_gravity_theories_and_local_Lorentz_transformation http://cds.cern.ch/record/641106/files/0309023.pdf

    Which I would postulate has something to do with the equivalence principal. Conceptually, the only thing where predictions might diverge is with something like a black hole. If you can have a gravitational field that exceeds the maximum observable relative rotation of space-time, and you use the equivalence principal, I don't think you're going to get a good result that suggests you can accelerate to past the speed of light, though both instances don't deal with experimental results of super-luminal velocities and have no real model for such. With receding galaxies, you do redshift until you become invisible almost like you would when approaching a black hole I suppose, but they are still different effects of space.

  11. They might be doing it wrong. I assume that the brain is a quantum computer, and judging by what you said, our classical computers

    Classical computers are physically quantum, but they aren't modeled to consider that nature, up util recently. They're forced to only deal with a limited scope of how data can be interpreted/analyzed.


    Therefor, I cannot find any classical explanation for how a point of interest is identified instantaneously from a list that could go on infinitely.

    The atoms are what hold all potential results simultaneously due to their inherent random nature, and the results are based on the position and quantum states that the particle was measured to have via photons, and when measured, the photon can give a result of the information of the particle that fits certain parameters of probability predicted by quantum physics, but its the photons that still travel at a finite speed and represent quibits from the particle they interacted with that can also take multiple simultaneous paths through different optic cables prior to when they are actually measured, so information doesn't actually travel instantaneously, there's just more of it at once that has the potential to be analyzed, and the speed of photons is still a limitation. Or at least that's a specific optic model of quantum computers, I'm not entirely sure how many versions of quantum computers there are, I remember seeing somewhere there's a model that uses something like super-cooled helium to slow down and analyze light.


    But my guess is that you're not going to learn how to build a quantum computer from me. If you're interested in using it for your career which I think you said deals with computers, you should take a classes with someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

  12. This is what I want a citation for, not three articles on wiki that have nothing to do with my question

    If you don't think the articles relate to your question which was in regard to my content, I suggest you learn about relativity and look at the articles so that you have some comprehension of the material to see that they relate. It's pretty strange you only counted three articles though.

    One could also consider to wonder what the total distance even is?

    Yes, distance is also relative.


    We can travel half the distance to infinity and never reach that particular destination,

    Though I have no idea what that means.


    We may "see" we are traveling a complete path from point A to point B, but are we really fulfilling that particular path that we are restricted by in terms of time.

    Well spacetime has both space and time, you can't describe special relativistic effects without both, and you can't put all of space transformations into terms of temporal transformations, that's why there's a whole host of variables that deal with the transformations of time and space in the Lorentz Transformation and other relativistic effects.

  13. Do you have a citation for this?







    Time on its own is a dimensional line orthogonal to all spacial dimensions and in general is said to be moving in the same direction between events, i.e. forward, supported in large by the fact that entropy always increases and breaks time symmetry.




    "The Lorentz transformation is a linear transformation. It may include a rotation of space;"


    "They describe only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space."

  14. Perhaps it is not as much of a constant as I thought.

    Definitely not, varying measurements of time is part of the basis for post-Newtonian relativity.


    Too linear of a perception I suppose.

    No time is still linear on it's own, it's just that the entire coordinate system in which events are measured appears to rotate via acceleration or gravitation.

  15. Because time is a dimension and matter moves forward about its axis as it would a spacial dimension. We see direct evidence of this when we observe special relativistic models in particle accelerators causing muons to last longer than they should in the manner predicted by special relativity due to their relative translation about the temporal axis slowing while they were traveling near the speed of light. There is also the fact that we measured clocks on a plane ticking faster when further from Earth's surface in the manner predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Essentially, we say time exists because when we model it as a dimension, the model matches up extremely accurately with experimental results.

  16. There is no force of compression. The atoms don't get any closer to each other, in their own frame, they don't get any denser.

    You didn't even read what I said which isn't indicative that your points are valid in any way. And it still doesn't matter if they don't get denser in som particular person's own frame because if every physical property that was measured in one frame was indicative of everyone else's measurements, relativity wouldn't exist. It doesn't matter what someone else measures a density or any other physical property to be. Again, it doesn't matter what someone else reports, it only matters what you report, and only you can report for yourself what the density of an object is which is completely irregardless of whatever someone else says it is from their frame, you can't magically be in their frame of reference when you have your own frame. All you've been doing is remained purposely defiant in the face of all the evidence I've presented even without presenting a shred of evidence yourself, or do you think you're too good for evidence and reasoning?

  17. Its not a matter of the object's own frame being preferred over all others, md65536. All frames are equally valid, however if an object doesn't gravitationally collapse in its own frame where relativistic effects are not manifested, then it cannot gravitationally collapse in any other frame where relativistic effects are manifested, either.

    That's because when you measure density increase due to compression force, the atomic structures don't contract by the same proportion as the total object volume that is due to the force compression so individual atoms actually end up bumping into each other and feeling a more intense and frequent effect each other's repulsion, whereas with relativistic density increase the atoms don't do this.

  18. It's for that reason that I think that our classical computers may alrady be quantum.

    The real life computer uses physical elements that are quantum, but the completely mathematical version of a completely deterministic computer isn't physically real. It's also a problem of the way computers are modeled that don't incorporate improbability in their parameters. In terms of computers, if a computer said 1+1=3, it would be considered a glitch, but the statistics of that random glitch occurring are actually just as physical as getting the result 1+1=2, because both instances are based on the motions of electrons throughout the system. In reality there will always be the inherent possibility of things like glitches in a physical computer, which show contrast between a mathematical model and a physical model. So with biological systems, the important thing is to not call anything that doesn't fit a given model a "glitch" since any result you get is the product of the same system, and since there is likely always going to be glitches, you are left with trying to create an indefinitely accurate model.


    What's funny about it, quite ironic, is that they're quantum computer is only slightly faster than a classical computer.

    That's because they're trying to use quantum computers to process 1s and 0s still, and information doesn't transfer between two points faster than light, you still need to confirm a classical result in a manner that obeys relativity. The thing that quantum computers do differently is they use atoms to create a superposition of many possible outcomes that can be analyzed rapidly until you get the result you want.


  19. I'm actually pretty young. People were surprised at first when they realized how young I actually am and how I took it upon myself to share my ideas with others at approximately the same age that Newton started sharing his ideas. The original question that I had that put me in this sort of mindset was this, "what does it take to make a computer able to learn any language?" I asked that question at the age of 17 and I concluded back then that the one absolutely necessary function for acquisition was pattern recognition. It's a widely accepted belief by this time and has a lot of practical applications. It's theoretical and it's also practical and it is the main assumption of computational neuroscience, CMT, machine learning, etc.

    Well Newton's mechanics were also useful approximations for a wide variety of applications at the time and even today, until you went near the speed of light and wanted better orbital projections and a way to explain frame dragging and the equivalence principal and that light was the speed limit. Then relativity then faced a revolution of its own and we're trying to recycle it into current theories, the same is to come for neuroscience and it's already happening in psychology itself if you look at the difference between how psychologists dealt with environmental determinism and emotional problems like anorexia. Of course it would be useful for people if it was as simple as boiling everything down to some set functions seeing as how it would imply we could easily create AI and transfer synaptic patterns into digital patterns, but it's not quite so simple, and you wouldn't be ruling out that the approximation model for transference created limitations that didn't previously exist in biological systems, but I guess that would just be a matter of making the approximation indefinitely more and more accurate.

    I'm actually pretty young.

    What!? You're avatar doesn't match your real appearance!!??


    Incidentally a 'series' is already a sum.

    For semantic purposes I have do to identify an object and then identify an action applied to it. I can't just say "could I series of points and then series of lines and then series of planes...?"


    Is your question about notation? Also the "sums" that you are talking about have to be integrals in order to go up a dimension.

    Sort of both, the notation and process of turning a series of only points into a 3-D object.

  21. Yes, but only based on spatiotemporal proximity, meaning that your most probable universe may be different from the subjects most probable universe. The universi split per every subjected unit.

    That's too philosophical though, CMT should be entirely programmatical

    Well, you might want to have a look at quantum mechanics then, and maybe even some chaos theory. I guess chaos theory on its own doesn't rule out causality and can actually agree with determinism, but it will still yield unpredictable future conditions, it makes the requirement for predictable determinism in the context you're presenting it as to be an infinite amount of knowledge, sort of like trying to calculate the "last" digit of pi. But QM rules this out as a potential universal model through inherent randomness and violations in bell's inequalities. What you're proposing is that you can create a single equation that describes what the coordinates must be for all matter/energy in every dimension, as if it were an equation for such who's correlation was always upheld. But, over time, we have found this cannot be the case. Einstein tried to do the same thing, but at the same time ignored new components of physics because of how attached he was to describing universe like clockwork. You seem much older, so I guess it would make sense that you'd be attached to that viewpoint in the same way and didn't notice the passing of the Newtonian era. However, what current theories suggest is that even if you re-arranged all matter and energy in the universe to previous dimensional coordinates in a way that is equivalent to time travel, you could still get different end results, or in other words, Einstein shouldn't be telling god that he/she can't play with dice, and this is because the very exact position of particles and photons, vacuum fluctuations and more, have no causal relationship to previously measured locations. Particles for instance appear by chance in probability distribution clouds and it is the distribution of probability that may change in size or translate about different axis.

  22. Has it now. Yes it has. I want to reread your post but I can't ignore what's happening right now so I'll respond later

    Wait a minute, you seriously think every actions is pre-determined, despite everything that's been said? And that you can create a model that represents the correlation?

  • 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.