hyperion1is

I didn't write about it yet. I'm doing that now. OK, Thank you warmly for your replies. I will present my reasoning here and if you "were" to follow you can tell me if I'm right or where I make mistakes. I'm not a scientist or science savvy and theoretically I can easily make mistakes by not "staying inside my theory" reporting to different systems of reference at the same time or any other such inconsistencies. We take Axiom 2 as a starting point. "If light would travel faster than c than that light (beam) would "travel back in time" not sooner than the time it started (t0)." This would be an apparent effect to the observer and not a real thing. If this would be true why light would report to it's time and not mine, the observer? I.e. Taking a distance A-B = 3 millions km. 1. Light beam 1 with c speed will travel this distance in 10s. 2. Light beam 2 with "c" speed 600.000 km/s will travel this distance in 5s. But the axiom states that would travel back in time and thus making the trip in 0-1 seconds. How can we interpret this? If an Observer will observe that the distance traveled by Light beam 2 (Lb2) is actually 300.000 km or less than that Observer can infer that Lb2 traveled "back in space". A sort of inverse warp travel. And that light beam did this in 0-1s interval. No law broken here. If we mark here t0 as the starting point (in time) of Lb2 then in t5 (the fifth second) Lb2 would be in 3 mil km (would have traveled 3 mil km). But we only can take measurements in t10 at which point Lb1 would arrive in point B anyway so even Lb2 would have traveled with 600.000 km/s and arrived in point B in 5 seconds, but we wouldn't know about it and doesn't helps us because we can't take measurements in t5. So, for an observer making this experiment and making measurements Lb2 traveled with 300.000 km/s. If we were to take measurements in t5 we will "see" that Lb2 traveled 1.5 mil km (the same as if would traveled at c speed) and would infer that Lb2 traveled "back in space" since we know that it's speed should be 600.000 km/s. Now, since the axiom states that Lb2 travels "back in time" and not "back in space" Lb2 renaming in 0-1 time frame, we have the make the second measurement in t1 (not quite t1 but for ease...), and in t1 Lb2 would have traveled 300.000 km, not more. This might not make sense from what I wrote, but maybe I can be more explicit, in the following. What is the unit for space-time? Is it L? Or I can take L? L(light) = 300.000 km/s. I have space and time. In one dimension I have the meter 1m. 1m3 is in tree dimensions, a measure of volume. But here, I think it should be Sphere instead of cube. If I would have to go 300.000 km in any direction would result a Sphere with Radius of 150.000 km actually and the diameter being of 300.000 km. I don't know much math . What is the volume here, and can I report it to time, s?. Anyway, linearity is enough for the following. 300.000 km = 1s and vice-versa (not international system, I know). By the way. Theoretically traveling faster than light result in infinite speed? Such a person would be in any point of the space-time - in the same time? Theorized in Star trek Voyager. What's up with that? Now: If I were to travel with the speed of light. In this case space in front of me would be the same as the space in behind me. Right? One won't matter over the other. In this case, I can stop, meaning to consider my self stationary , in the degree in which you can consider yourself stationary in space-time. Can I say that? Related to space-time, I'm stationary? I have a fixed position? In this "moment": time would stay still for me (I'm in t0 always) and everything would move around me instantly (or instant speed). I couldn't distinguish one thing over the other. If a "rock" were to move around me (see pic) it would appear to me to be very "slowly". I will report it to the speed of light. How time would take that rock to travel 300.000 km. Note: I "imagined" the rock moving around me, because would have to move at constant distance relative to my position. I think. In this "state" if I were to travel 300.000 km (actually 150.000km, remember the radius) I will to that in 0s-0s interval (time-frame). Theoretically if I were to travel another 300.000 km it will be in 1s-1s interval. But only theoretically, because I can't do that. Time is staying "still" now. I can only be in 0s-0s time-frame now. If I were to be in 1s-1s time-frame I would be in other conditions altogether. A conceptual Observer can give as false reading sometimes. No? This is known in physics? There is a difference between an actual observer and a conceptual observer. We may want to leave this state, but let's not. Let's "take" this as a normal state. Why? This is not the case? The light "hits" our eyes with 300.000 km/s. We have to ask ourselves the question "What gives us topology/geometry?" It is not the sight? We "record" everything at light speed. Everything else is an attempt to "slow down" the light speed, or in other words a shuttering effect (attempt). Note: I hope I don't make a mistake here or other to have made a mistake, but every detector build by man is not to convey signals into signals associated with senses? A microscope allows the human eye to see. A telescope the same. Detectors at CERN does the same? Turns signals into signals that we can detect? You get my idea ? Now we need to add a dimension: Time. If we report to a second (1s) interval what we "see" (above) starts to make sense. The light "slows down". We "switch" from a time-frame to another. If we travel at 300.000 km/s and we take as an interval 300.000 km, after 300.000 km we have "another" 300.000 km. t0 - 300.000 km - t1 - 300.000 km - t2 and so on. At t1 we can compare the space behind us with the space in front of us and we have an idea of time, and we have 4 dimensions (now). I guess my point being that the Observer (the person who makes this "travel in time" or through time) should be included in the equations. This is done right now in physics? If not it's not a mistake? From the definition, Reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality". "things as they actually exist" - who can tell? Unless you include the observer. Anyway, I don't want to lose anyone (that I didn't lose already). An attempt to include the Observer (O) into equations. From what I know the image remains on retina for 0.3 seconds ( I don't know the exact value). O=L/0.3s<>O= 300.000 km/s divided to 0.3s = 90.000 km/s2 . I don't even know what that means. We don't have a definition for time anyway, it's just related to space. L= Light. To heave a measure for time, meaning to define a second (s) we need additions "dimensions". Light, related to sight is just one of the senses. We have into account all senses (if we can know them all). One of our senses is related to Energy (hot, cold, temperature). Since the Human has to incorporate different signals (of different type) at a fixed rate (perception) we have to establish "the ratio". The brain has to incorporate "Light" signals along with "Energy" signals. But at which rate? If we were to quantify these signals (integers), we could say that the Conscious incorporates 5 Light signals on each 3 Energy signals. So would be 5/3 ratio. So, I guess, a way to define (quantify) Perception to give us a value for the Observer. The Observer being a quanta, is this right? In this manner you can include the Observer into equations, to be used as an Universal. But I don't think that would be a constant, not in the same conditions. In "places" where energy is higher the Observer would incorporate more energy signals over the others, so it's value changes. That's it for now. It made more sense to me, when I thought about it the first time (yesterday), and I didn't think I will need a block of text, for this. Sorry. I will have to revise this. Conclusions: 1.Things can travel faster than the speed of light, but we have "build" our (conceptual) Universe with c=300.000 km/s as a constant. We have to have c>300.000 km/s or at least in some equations to envision another Universe to define some particles to be detected later. I don't know if we can detect Thahions, because Thahions may have other proprieties then those envisioned. 2.Light can't travel faster than 300.000 km/s because it wouldn't be light. Something else can, and it would "intersect" our Universe. 3. Each with it's frame. If we have the frame 300.000 km/s (space time) then I can't exchange information with an Observer, over a distance greater than 300.000 km. If a detector would be at 600.000 km (to me position) and theoretically I would receive data from it (instantly), these data (mine and his) would create paradoxes (for me) because we don't have anything in "common". Different space, different time. I would be in t0 and it in t1 and "we" exchange informations in t0 .

I'm not an expert on relativity, General relativity, Special relativity or any other kind. From what I know the Light (or any other object) can't travel faster than the speed of light c=300.000 km/s (aprox or exact in psychical equations?). My reasoning started from the question " Why light can't travel faster than c?" Or any other object. This doesn't constitute a paradox? Because stating that an object can't travel faster than c in this Universe means that something limits it's speed. (like a rock in water-rough analogy). Another way that I know this is expressed is that theoretically an object could travel faster than c but is nothing that can accelerate that object to such a speed. (to imprint that speed). I don't know if a law expressed in this way is a law. It enough to detect ONE object faster than c to proves us wrong (like is enough to see a single black swan to in-confirm that "All swans are white") and that object will have that speed on it's own independent to the speed of other - that we are aware of - so no need for it to be accelerated). Anyway. Some axioms: Axiom 1: Light travels at c regardless of the direction (or it is vector?) and speed of the source. In General relativity this may not be a Axiom but a theorem; but I can take this as an axiom for my "theory"? Also, my question is: this is not a paradox also? Because in "day to day experience" the velocity adds up. If I'm on the ground stationary and throw a rock, that rock would have a speed. If I'm in a moving vehicle and I throw a rock that rock would have a combined speed for a stationary observer (related to my position and speed). Axiom 2: If light would travel faster than c than that light (beam) would "travel back in time" not sooner than the time it started (t0). It is this true? Is this an hypothesis or was "somehow" experimented? How people came to this conclusion? In this axiom I don't need "anti-telephone". I stick with cause and effect. Axiom 3: We people, and probably any other living things, are travelers in time. We travel forward with each second. I heard this somewhere, but I don't know where. I know "heard" is not very scientific this is why I'm asking you. It's the Axiom 3 true? and in which conditions (how it can be interpreted)? Or it is an apparent phenomenon and how we define the "second"? Using the assertions I come to the conclusion that objects can travel faster than c but is a problem of measurements and detections in which we define our Reality. I would need feedback from you first. I'm making mistakes along the way? I'm reporting in one case to General relativity and in others to Special Relativity? And this is a study of Reality or Universe or what? Thanks!

Thanks for that. I didn't understood what do you mean by Objective though. Something that is outside (a human) and exists regardless of the human interpretations?. If that is true, it can be said that if a object is not related to me I can't observe it, I can't understand it. It can only understand itself.

This topic of this discussion may be too much for me. I'm interested of you definitions for Subjective and Objective. Colour is subjective, correct. In physic White not being a color, from what I know, that doesn't fall under Subjective, but to Objective. Red, green and blue combined makes White (short version). White being a Whole related to spectrum is Objective. In other words we can "construct" it in our mind and deconstruct it into it's spectrum. On any "side" you position yourself on White you "see" the same thing. The coincidence is that we can perceive something that is already objective. I guess it's a thing of a "partial" and a "whole". I'm I correct? Also I would point out that all communications from humans to humans are subjective. (on your impulses to the brain approach). Even if you want to see it as: Subjective message emitted (from human) through Objective media (air) to subjective interpreter (human).

Hi, I’m a novice related to science but sometimes you can’t stay „still”. For a long time now I felt the need to work on a theory to explain the human psychic. As far as I know Psychology is not an exact science since doesn’t have a scientific theory to explain the human psychic (like in physics) but is more about observations and borrows elements from exact science like statistics and so on. I hope I’m not offending anyone, this is not my purpose. So, I have worked on a theory for some time now, but I’m stuck because I don’t know what are the scientific methods to validate a theory, or to apply math to a model. Maybe you can help me with that, or, I’m afraid, you might say that I’m hopeless and mind my own business. I have read this topic http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50970-how-would-one-publish-a-groundbreaking-scientific-idea/ and I’m finding my self in md65536 shoes, with the exception that I don’t know how „groundbreaking” it is or not. Only you can tell me. I publish here a part of the theory (some elements) hoping that „No one here will steal your ideas, and claim them for there own” is true and from what I know you have rights on a intellectual propriety only from the fact that you have publish it (first). I had to post in the right section, and a forum moderator can move it if this is not the right place, but bear in mind that I will like opinions of people from physics domain (also) firstly if they can help me on how to work with a theory/model (I hope they visit this section). I will start (presentation of) my theory and along the way I think you will understand the title of the topic. I started this with the intention of exactly that, is not my intention of explaining the human brain. I don’t think (that being only my opinion ofcourse) that the brain is the best starting point to explain human psychic, because we don’t know much about the human brain anyway (at this point) and about the human being overall, I.e. if it has a soul or not. My approach is desired to be a scientific one and not to dwell in metaphysic, and if I managed to do that you can tell me. Also, I don’t know if my theory is original, and in which degree it can be considered original, because I didn’t read that much on Psychology topic, to be aware of all ideas. Please take note, that I’m not claiming that this is, will be the first (scientific theory) in this area, the first probably being „Brain, a decoded enigma” by Tudor Moise. You can refer to that if you want. That theory tries to explain the brain and from my point a view is a good work in this field but doesn’t explain Self-concious, even if the author tries to explain that as well. Theory about the Human being (human psychic). Model: The human being = I + (Human mind + Human body + Self + Consciousness). Legend: H.M. = Human Mind component, H.B. = Human Body component, S = Self component, C = Consciousness component., I = the "I" component. Green line = Decision making process (abstract). Explanations of the terms: I will use along the way the „human being” instead of „human psychic” for dis-ambiguity of the terms. Please take note that here we „study” the human being from a psychological point of view. Because is a model and theory associated to the model the terms here has significance only inside this theory and not outside of it. I used those terms only so that readers can make an association with some notions that we have, but I hope, not confusion also. The „I” term can be associated with Self-consciousness. The part of us which allows as to say „I”, and doesn’t let us to say „I don’t care”. Even if we say that we don’t mean it. When I started this, I started from this axiom: that we care, about everything (that is relevant to us) even if some of us try to numb certain aspects. But the „I” ofcourse is not the same as Self-conciousness as it is understood from other areas of study. The „Human mind” and the „Human body” it is expressed in this way because this is a study about the human being (homo sapiens) and not about the animals. I’m aware of the similarities, but what aplies to animals may not aply to humans. (the intention here is actually not to be biased). The „Self” and „ Conciousness” are just terms that will be explaind further. Presentation of theory, the model and it’s elements. The assertion here is that the Human being is composed from a system with 5 elements/components, or expressed in another way, the Human being can be studied from this point of view, as a system of components, and the study is made by studying each component and their interactions within the system. There are 4 components within the system: The Human mind, the Human body, the Self and the Consciousness component. The fifth component, the „I” is an emergent of the system, within the system. Even if the „I” is an emergent is a component in itself with it’s own proprieties, that can be different from all the other ones. I.e H2 + O = H2O a different substance altogether. And the I works with the other 4 elements forming a system. The term „component”: within the system all the „elements” can work individually and also collectively. And thus an element „behaves” as a component. The Human Mind (H.M) role is to find solutions, return answers to interrogations and to establish correlations between items. HM works with concepts and the basic function of the Human Mind is manipulation of concepts. It has its own way of operating that can not be changed. HM intrinsically learns new concepts both through his own work independently and through processing tasks from the decision process. Human Mind operates independently and impartial (to all the others or to all things). The HM doesn’t work with moral concepts (not it’s role). Human Body component: an interpreter of the physical human body (not the human body itself). A close analogy: in It, a driver for a piece of hardware and not that piece of hardware. The Self : a component that is „static” and it has informations (maybe data) written into it. This data is always the same, is not changing. The component it self is not changeable; immutable. The info written into it is: Importance and „self-persevering”- which is to be read: I existed always, I exist, and I will always exist. (continuity may be another term for it”. „Importance” is to be read correctly just „Importance” – not in a superlative form. Outside view: if we ask our selves „I’m more important than another person or less important than another person?”. If we do that is wrong and is not attributed to the Self component. What we can say is „I’m important”. Consciousness ©: a component that is designed to check new values ​​based on (against) a value system. The value system is "placed" in Consciousness and Consciousness assess what it is to be assessed on the basis of that Value system. What is to remember: consciousness is "unbiased" to the value system. It doesn't decide on the value system in any way. This system value can be "taken" changed, modified by the H.M and the I. The I: is in „charge” of the Decision making process and another role is Conflict Resolution between the system elements (the I included). The I is on the „other side” of the Decision making, meaning that the interactions between the I and the other components is realized indirectly. Relations between elements: components can exchange information between them. All elements have access to the same information about „External reality”. The components operate independently of each other and at the same time together. This may appear as contradiction, but is not. Ie: in quantum physics (from what I know) there is a principle which can be expressed: a switch state can be: ON, OFF, ON and Off both at the same time.This applies here also. I’m also working on a concept of „apparent contradictions” which happens/appears when decision is applied to soon (before grasping a new concept that explains the contradiction/the paradox”). This explanation derives from the theory. Axiom 1: None of the components in the system can not be eliminated (once created). Axiom 2: I has indirect capabilities upon other components but it can not create a conflict within the same component under the law of non-interference. This is the main „body” of the theory. English is not my native language and I apologies for any mistakes. If I did mistakes and it creates confusion please let me know. There is more to this (theory) but all the work was done in „my head” and not with a pencil and a paper. So I think you can understand my dilemma. Maybe you can direct me to the right approach here, what is necessary for a theory to be coherent, valid and if it applies to a „section of reality” that is to be studied. How can I work with a model/with this one, math can be applied to it? As a recap and wrap up: the I and the HB components are to be considered „biased”. HM, C, Self – un-biased. What is relevant to the Human being (and to this theory): Thought (process) – Decision (making process) – Action. This being a system an „effect” cannot be attributed only to a specific element, instead the system must be understood on Overall. I.e: different regions in the brain are associated with sight, hearing and so on, but what is to be said is that if that regions are affected a cognitive function is affected (from here the association) and doesn’t really mean that that specific region of brain if is responsible with a cognitive function (from what I know, I hope I don’t mistake). Anyway, I think that this is known about a system. That being said you can associate Thought to the Human Mind component, Decision to the I component and Action as an understanding of the decision taken. Thought and Decision as processes can only be attributed to the sistem (overall). Thought – Decision –Action (with Decision in the middle) work together but there are not tied (ironed) to one another. To understand the human psychic you need to understand this processes independently. Some of us may be conditioned to tie them all together. As a religion theme: if you think of you neighbor wife, desire may appear, if desire appears Decision follows and Action (in that direction) also. So the highest you can do is to „purge” those unholy thoughts. Which is not the case, these work independently and one doens’t conditions another (like in cascade or another form). The system revolves around the stability of the Sistine and not related to survival (survival of the human body). The system is more stable when there are less conflicts and more instable when there are more conflicts within the system. So a simulation can be: A person wants/needs to steal something: The I is in charge of Decisions and takes decisions in relation to the other components (and it self) and in relation with Impartiality( I won’t go into details here about the Impartiality, is enough to say that it can be expressed mathematicaly and Free Will also. We can associate here Impartiality with O- zero). A necessity is acknowledged from the HB and not only. A necessity like food (the simplest form) or a watch. The I needs to make a decision. The HM helps it to identify „all” the elements (such as risk) and also can provide a solution to that action ( to steal an object, in this case). If I interrogates HB it returns that that specific item is needed (food). If interrogates the Consciousness component a belief Sistine is needed, such a moral system. Checks the value (from the I) against the values present in the Value system and returns a result. In this hypothetical case it can go either way. That such an action can be moral or immoral. There is no absolute in no field whatsoever so there is not an absolute here, like an absolute moral system- point of reference). In other words the Values system is related to the individual in cause and not with something outside of it. What is „outside” is the risk of getting caught. If/when the I interrogates the Self, „I always existed, I exist and I will always exist” so a piece of bread won’t make much of a difference, in layman terms. If the I interrogates the HM about the risk HM can provide a risk assesment. Related to „If such an acton is worth it” HM is impartiall to that, to death (to all things) and it can go either way. The I also interrogates it self and a decision derives. Is hard to predict here in this hypothetical case what that decision will be, considering that is a specific/singular case, disregarding past events. A decision is made as part of a strategy. The point is: the I can make an arbitrary decision (is not conditioned by the HB), can take a „totally arbitrary” decision disregarding HB component-which will lead to system instability or a decision which falls into a strategy or in the scope of the system. For dis-ambiguity: the I has to take into account each component when adopting a decision (as part of conflict resolution) and not to disregard an interrogation. Taking into account doesn’t imply following.

That might be the case and the analysis ends here. If that's not the case you might have something else. I don't know what, intuitively I can say that you have a localized form of extracting (collecting) energy from the Universe through a local method of "lack of balance" (this what the dictionary gave me). I think that the "use" of human in this analysis might distract us (those who study this system) because of the chemical energy. Others like you understand this but for me to be certain will require to "replace" the human with another subsystem and you will have 2 subsystems, one of which can apply an algorithm to ensure "you don't end up in equilibrium" like you stated and a way to transform kinetic energy into electrical kind. In such a theoretical (and maybe practical) system you can register the input and the output of energy to draw the conclusion. If I'm not mistaken in such an example you have a "minimal" input of energy in the sense that you need energy only for "readjustment" which in theory (in my head-not very scientifically I know) will be lower than the harnessed energy. Thanks for your input, and I'm not trying to be difficult but I think this a case in which when you don't have the proper knowledge (me) your are not sure that the things add up.

Thanks, if my English is good on the other hand I'm lacking technical notions to make my point. So I will try in my own words referring to the basics. You are right about that, I'm not saying that you don't (especially without technical notions to support any contrary point), what I'm saying is that IF "we" accounted for everything in the case of the human-swing system. And you are right, it can be compared to a double pendulum system. You stated "If you do the maths you'll find any increase in energy is due to the energy expended" this means that is equal? Expended energy= the "increase" in energy? If this is true we have a starting point. In the "human-swing" system you have a system in which the law of conservation of mass and energy applies, if you make abstraction to an element that I stated earlier: the algorithm. So let me try this approach with you. The algorithm that the human body uses (as an simple object) is external to the human-swing system. This algorithm makes the resultant of gravity to be outside the system thus increasing momentum. (if this is correctly stated). Anyhow, "take" a double pendulum system, study his movement and you will notice a pattern which if this is not a mistake can be described by an algorithm. Now you can come with another algorithm in contrast with the algorithm of the double pendulum system which creates an asynchronism. When I say that you came with something "external" might be confusing because we may refer to 2 systems in which the elements might be harder to be isolated. But not to complicate things, from my point of view, the swing-human find itself un-centered, in a state out of equilibrium, at a certatin point (from a static point of view) and tries to re-balance through the law of physics. The human comes up with an algorithm (a new state) which prevents the system to re-establish equilibrium. The question is that if exists such an algorithm which will always will leave the system out of equilibrium and this "out of equilibrium" in correlation with gravity generates momentum with higher and higher values. I don't know if this makes sense

Thanks for your reply. I don't want to contradict you but I think this is a false assumption that we are tempted to make. Any chemical energy turned into kinetic energy if for the person to move his legs and arms in relation to him self and that energy is returned to the human. If you stretch your legs, switch your center of gravity and then move your legs in symmetry you collect the invested energy back. I haven't done the math but I think this is why this can be done effortlessly by any person who learned how to do it right and any fatigue comes from muscle weariness. I don't know how to make my point about this but when I say that the energy is coming back to the human I refer to a principle which applies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake I don't know if this is to the point. Later edit: sorry for any inconvenience from my lack of grasping the English language. English is not my native language.

Hi, I'm new to this forum and I'm an amateur regarding science but passionate about it. I see that this topic continued since 2006 and I hope it hasn't got "cold" now. I have a question, unclarity which, how other users stated, "it's driving me nuts". The topic is Gravity as an energy source, and for me the Swing is such an example. I didn't read all the posts in this topic, and I'm sorry about it, but I skimmed through. If I'm not mistaking Gravity is referred as potential energy and for me the Swing is an example in which the the potential energy of gravity is transformed into kinetic energy. If you take a person and you place it in a swing you have a system. At first it may seem that the energy of the human is powering the swing(imprints momentum) but since this can be done without the "human" touching the earth from my point of view no external energy is injected into the system. A person and a swing creates a system made up by two subsystems (if this is a correct expression) in which one can find it's self in opposition with the other related to the center of gravity of the system. After the momentum has been created if you eliminate air friction and ball bearing friction I guess you have a Perpetuum mobile in which energy is conserved but my point is that energy can build up in the system and that is trough gravity. I thought about it and from my point of view not the energy in the human is powering up the swing but the algorithm which the human brain can devise. I'm not sure because I'm not a scientist but any energy attributed to the human is for the human (the subsystem) to position him self in opposition to the swing according to an algorithm which created an asynchronism between the system center of gravity related to the earth gravitational center. My assumption is that any energy the human uses gets back to him and if that is not done entirely the energy can get back through collecting (friction from ball bearing) and the collected energy will be higher than any invested energy. Note: the idea is that any other object can be used in this example instead of the human as long it can assure the algorithm. I hope it makes sense to someone what I wrote here and maybe you can tell me if this is a false assumption or not so I can "rest easy" in either case.