Reality as Process*
Laurent
Reality as Process
Matter is a continuous, time dependent, self-organizing process.
Particle-wave systems, as they move through the CMBR, will
continuously re-ordinate the space that constitutes them. Particle/
wave systems must be, internally and externally, in constant motion,
continuously processing space in order to continue their existence, if
motion were to cease, they would simply disintegrate.
You could compare the movement of matter through the aether to the
movement of waves in a pond in the sense that what is really moving is
the form, the in-formation that gives its particular shape and energy
to the wave. Similar to what happens with radios or cellular phone
information carrying waves in which the information contained in the
shape of the EM waves is the information the receiver's tuner has to
decode in order for it to reproduce the original sounds that
mechanically ordered, or shaped the given waves. Reality is like a
wave propagating in water... the form moves carrying information as
water molecules are left behind. As we displace ourselves it is the
information that constitutes our material body which is really moving,
the underlying medium stays virtually unchanged. The particle is more
like a pattern of motion than a solid, permanent, and space
independent thing. Picture the rings that form and spread outwards
after you throw a rock in the water, now hit reverse and picture the
rings moving back, inwards, towards the rock. The particle represents
actuality and the inwardly flowing waves bring information about the
past, about what already happened to the particles around it. The
rings going towards and outwards the rock are, in reality, spherical.
It's a standing wave that is constantly feeding the particle
information about its inertial frame and environment, as a trajectory
develops in relation to the surrounding space.
Order arose from interactions within chaos, giving rise to self-
dependent, separated, cybernetic systems, which in turn, evolved to
take full advantage of matter's properties, after billions of years
interacting with each other, to the point where they became human
brains, for the purpose of experiencing/perceiving/measuring existence
from a 4D perspective, so Nature could continue to improve its methods
to use information to its advantage as a tool against entropy and
disorder. Why? Because all thermodynamic systems tend to move towards
thermal equilibrium, and in doing so they have to interact forming
physical geometrical relationships which are preserved in matter and
are accessible by these cybernetic systems when needed, as they evolve
towards stability and thermal efficiency.
Hyperspace is filled with information bits, matter precursors, a pre-
geometry comprised by non-material units of information which exist in
chaos and are ordered by logic and activity into spacetime. But for
natural reasons, i.e., energy conservation laws, everything that comes
into spacetime must be registered and energetically measured before it
can materialize.
There has to be a measuring device registering the particle's location
and momentum in relation with the rest of that inertial frame before
it can crystallize, as the quantum matter that constitutes it flows
radially from hyperspace towards its center in spacetime. But this
measuring device isn't some external being, it is the universe itself.
Thanks to wholeness, each particle 'senses' the other and their
relation to space (Mach), building an information network filled with
geometrical relationships (spacetime), which are in turn used as the
future is built on the already existing information.
Information emerges from and is preserved as matter (i.e., DNA). The
components, the ones generating this information, are all floating in
and interacting with space as particles, molecules, galaxies...
brains... All of which continuously exchange information as they
continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation as spatially
separated cybernetic systems. EMR is one of the tools which Nature has
successfully been using since the beginning of time to overcome space-
like intervals between objects in order to evolve as a whole.
The aether helps maintain the relations that give shape to a particle
as it moves, but that information stays always bounded by the laws of
spacetime. For example, virtual particles that pop-up from hyperspace
into spacetime are the result of random field interactions such as
resonance. Particles such as fermions stay in spacetime because they
have stable standing waves. So, as someone said, don't be bothered by
all those subatomic particles being detected, they don't play a
significant role in reality, only the ones you find in your every day
life have a real significance.
The aether contains all the energy available to the universe. As
bodies move through empty space, stress-energy tensors around that
body automatically adjust according to the existing environmental
conditions at each point in space and time, and this is possible
because of the continuous nature of the aether. That's the principle
behind inertia and momentum. The time a moving body takes to reach
thermal equilibrium with its surroundings is directly proportional to
the inertia and momentum forces it will experience. Each body's energy
requirements is tied to the total energy available to each given point
in space and time.
As objects are accelerated in a space-time metric, each new position
creates new energy requirements from the continuum. The aether
provides the unity needed for the inertial state to be instantaneously
registered. This information follows the laws of spacetime, laws by
which the structure is going to be held intact in spacetime only if
and when the spatial relationships are maintained in spacetime.
If we allow for three different scales of reality with aether as the
eternal substrate supporting hyperspace and spacetime, the whole
process can be coherently put together. We could say that aether,
hyperspace and spacetime are all different states of the same entity,
the difference between them being just a matter of the size scale in
which each develops. At the aether scale there are no reference
points, no meaningful motion, no time, no wave fronts, with empty
space as perfectly flat... then at a larger scale it becomes
hyperspace and we get EM waves, strings/branes, quanta... and finally,
at an even larger scale, we get Einstein's spacetime, the objective
universe as we naturally perceive it.
1) The Aether - (Sub-quantum level) Dimensionless, eternal. David
Bohm's implicate order, Basil Hiley's pre-space. The scale at which
non-local, instantaneous, state transfer occurs.
2) Hyperspace - (Quantum level). Wheeler's quantum foam. A medium
where more than one object can occupy the same space, allowing for
quantum wave superposition, therefore, parallel and non-linear
information processing.
3) Spacetime - (Classical level). Gravity, matter... the objective
universe.
We could conceive reality to have started with this non-material
indivisible substance from where hyperspace emerged. A reality that
shares the properties of both; the aether's omnipresence, and
hyperspace's non-linear information processing, which then turns into
spacetime as reference points and linear time emerge, containing the
properties of all three scales or realms.
According to Timothy Boyer, the CBR (space) is constituted by at least
two different spectrum ranges. One is noisy and expanding, while the
other is ordered and condensing. One exhibits negative gravitation,
the other positive gravitation. From one, space is created, from the
other, matter. Quantum matter waves are inwardly and constantly
flowing into matter, while heat and light are continuously flowing
away from matter. There is a continuous condensation and expansion of
space taking place.
We need two separate matter states, two types of motion with opposite
directions, one deterministic and the other indeterministic, objective
and subjective, matter and quantum matter. Particle-wave systems in a
continuous exchange of information between matter and space in a non-
ending quest for self-consistency. Order (matter) coming out of
entropy (quantum matter). It is a semiclassical process, an endless
back and forth information exchange between the metric and quantum
matter. Schroedinger waves evolving in curved spacetime.
The Schroedinger equation must be solved according to the spacetime
geometry, but then, as the system continues to move in spacetime,
stress-energy expectation values need to reset to a new spacetime
geometry, making it necessary to again solve for the new quantum
state. This process repeats itself ad infinitum in a continuous cycle
without end in the form of standing waves.
It is a process where an object's matter waves are described as being
continuously condensed by gravity.
Leon Rosenfeld (1933, 1963) considered:
G_uv = 8pi(T^uv)psi
Where PSI is the quantum state of the matter fields and:
*Gravitation is the beginning of a semi-deterministic process. The
gravitational force is a product of the electromagnetic properties of
the medium, and is a classical, non-quantized phenomena.
*Gravity and wave packet collapse are interrelated.
*Gravitation is caused by a space pressure differential created by the
inwardly radial space flow that occurs as the object's state wave
continuous collapsation.
*Quantization and organization of space is determined by the exclusive
dimensions (information) of matter fields (pilot-waves) which
originate from already existing matter (particles).
--
Laurent
xx...@comcast.net
xxein: Just skimming but I can buy it. As long as I can wipe the
dust off of it.
Michael Gordge
> Reality as Process
>
> Matter is a continuous, time dependent,
Nope not even close, time is matter dependent.
MG
Laurent
Right, time is a product of matter. A product of process.
--
Laurent
Laurent
>
> read more »
Modern Scientific Theories of the ancient Aether
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
--
Laurent
Michael Gordge
check your premise, A is A, matter and time can not both be time
dependent.
MG
Laurent
There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
motion.
--
Laurent
Michael Gordge
> There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
> motion.
Motion of what? Dont be silly.
MG
Laurent
Time, matter and space are not fundamental because they are dynamic,
in constant change. As proven by Relativity. It is a fact.
Matter and the time it takes to for it to form are the products of
pure energy.
--
Laurent
Uncle Al
>
> Reality as Process
>
> Matter is a continuous, time dependent, self-organizing process.
1) atoms
2) bullshit
Matter is discontinuous - hence 230 periodic crystallographic space
groups.
Protons are forever.
Entropy.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
MobyDikc
This conversation first took place 3000 years ago.
It's different schools of Greek thought.
I think I've taken Greek Monism and brought it into our current
century, just as Leibniz had done in the 1700s.
Check this out:
Laurent
> Laurent wrote:
>
> > Reality as Process
>
> > Matter is a continuous, time dependent, self-organizing process.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> 1) atoms
> 2) bullshit
>
> Matter is discontinuous - hence 230 periodic crystallographic space
> groups.
> Protons are forever.
> Entropy.
>
> Idiot.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
I said it is a continuous process, not whether matter itself is
continuous or not. That is answered in the lead post, but read it
before commenting. MENSO!
Laurent
>
> > Reality as Process
>
> > Matter is a continuous, time dependent, self-organizing process.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> 1) atoms
> 2) bullshit
>
> Matter is discontinuous - hence 230 periodic crystallographic space
> groups.
> Protons are forever.
> Entropy.
>
> Idiot.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Here MENSO, get up date.
Is spacetime primary? ----- by Basil Hiley (1999)
"I first came across this possibility from a lecture by Geoffrey Chew
(1960). He pointed out that there is no necessity to start an
explanation of quantum processes in space-time. Complementarity
shows that we could either start in space-time, or we could have
started in the energy-momentum plane, but we can never start
with both together.
This is actually an old idea stressed by Bohr (1925) in the early
days of quantum mechanics. He writes -
"I am quite prepared that the view we proposed (Bohr-Kramers-Slater
theory) on the independence of the quantum process in
widely-separated atoms should turn out to be incorrect... the
Ramsauer's results on the penetration of slow electrons through
atoms, presents difficulties for our ordinary space-time description
of nature similar to those presented by a simultaneous understanding
of interference phenomena and a coupling through radiation of the
changes of state of widely-separated atoms. I believe that these
difficulties so thoroughly rule out the retention of the ordinary
space-time description of phenomena."
Chew (1960) brought this idea out in a new and striking way by
drawing attention to the S-matrix approach to high-energy processes.
Here the energy-momentum plane is taken as basic so that we can
exploit strict energy and momentum conservation. But then the role
of the spacetime manifold has to be derived since it can no longer
be regarded as basic. This brings us to the question of the role of
space-time itself. Why is it regarded as primary and basic?
When we come to consider the problems of quantising gravity while
retaining general relativity, we face the following dilemma. As is
well known in general relativity the gravitational potential is
identified with the metric tensor. Now in any quantum field theory,
the fields themselves are subject to quantum fluctuations. Thus the
quantised gravitational field would imply fluctuations in the field
and since the gravitational potential reflects the metric properties
of the space, the space-time itself must be fluctuating. But what
then is meant by a fluctuating space-time?
The third problem in assuming that space-time is fundamental arises
from the appearance of quantum non-locality. If space-time is taken
as primary, then, ipso facto, locality is absolute. Indeed the
space-time manifold dominates classical physics because it has
locality built into it right at the beginning. If we retain the
space-time manifold, then quantum non-locality sits very
uncomfortable in such a structure.
Could it be that our insistence on taking a given space-time as
basic is at fault?
Could space-time merely be an appearance, a feature that has to be
abstracted from some deeper structure, a structure where space-time
itself is not taken as basic? If this were the case, then it would
be establishing locality that would present the problem. Could it be
that locality itself is merely a relationship? This relationship
dominates the macroscopic world, but it would not be universally
valid at the quantum level. Yes there is relativity, but does that
theory apply to the level of a single photon or only to a
statistical ensemble of photons?
The first suggestive example of showing how locality could be a
relationship appears in the hologram. Here a picture of an object is
recorded as an interference pattern. The image of the original
object can be re-created by using an appropriate light source. If
the hologram is now torn in half and the light passed through this
half, we again see the whole object, albeit with some loss of
overall definition. Clearly the local regions of the original object
are mapped into the whole of the photograph, so that locality is
being carried in a non-local way. Thus locality here is clearly
carried as a relationship. Can this idea be generalised?
Suppose locality is a relationship, could it be that quantum
phenomena are in some sense beyond space-time and are merely
projected into space-time by our macroscopic instruments? In other
words, could quantum processes be evolving in some more general
space, which for convenience we call simply 'pre-space'. This
pre-space (Hiley 1991, Hiley and Monk 1993) would then give rise to
Wheeler's (1980) pre-geometry. In this view, the space-time of the
classical world would be some statistical approximation and not all
quantum processes can be projected into this space without
producing the familiar paradoxes, including non-separability and
non-locality. In classical physics everything is local so that a
single space-time can provide a contradiction free description. If
we adopt this radical view, we can see that it is not necessary to
insist on the Cartesian division between res extensa and res
cogitans. Matter actually has its origins in a deeper structure, a
structure where space-time and hence extension is not primary. If
such an approach were viable then matter and mind need no longer
be separated by space-time constraints."
Michael Gordge
There is no such thing as a matter-less energy, dont be silly.
MG
Androcles
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:39594471-1fda-48d6...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Of course there is, don't be stupid.
Oh wait, you can't help it.
Go get some matter-less sunshine, you spending too long
at the keyboard.
Laurent
Pure energy, which is neither hot nor bright.
--
Laurent
festu...@btinternet.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your both right wave-particle duality of energy. Matter/mind works for
me.
Right move on to next argument please.
Were getting bored here...
Thank You.
Fessy
Traveler
wrote:
>Could space-time merely be an appearance, a feature that has to be
>abstracted from some deeper structure, a structure where space-time
>itself is not taken as basic? If this were the case, then it would
>be establishing locality that would present the problem. Could it be
>that locality itself is merely a relationship? This relationship
>dominates the macroscopic world, but it would not be universally
>valid at the quantum level. Yes there is relativity, but does that
>theory apply to the level of a single photon or only to a
>statistical ensemble of photons?
Wow man. This is cool stuff. Were you trained as a physicist or are
you self-taught? I would be surprised to learn that you were a trained
physicist. Brainwashing is a powerful drug, something that I had to
find out the hard way.
You are absolutely correct, IMO, to question the reality of space and
time. Neither exists physically. They are abstract illusions of
perception. Only positional properties and interactions (change) need
to exist. Space and time can be *abstractly* derived from those two
things. I (and others) have been saying this for a long time.
It is easy to prove logically that neither space not time can possibly
exist.
Most people think that nothing can move without time. The astonishing
truth is that nothing can move *with* time. Why? Because changing time
is an oxymoron. A time dimension makes it impossible for anything to
move. Nothing can move in spacetime! This is the reason that Sir Karl
Popper (of falsifiability fame) called spacetime "Einstein's block
universe in which nothing happens". This gives new meaning to the
expression "frozen in time". ahahaha...
Space too is abstract. I've explained why many times before. You can
read the simple arguments for the non-existence of space here:
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
Louis Savain
PS. Here's what Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the
University of Central Arkansas had to say about time:
What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will
be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even
fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical
systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or
that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the
objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of
time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one
"way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result
of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one
might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual
disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a
change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.
From "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?"
Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994
Rosen was a firm believer in both nontemporality and nonspatiality.
But this stuff is not new though. Leibniz was saying essentially the
same thing centuries ago. This is the kind of stuff that goes over
the heads of people like John Baez, Uncle Al and the other ass kissers
on the physics newsgroups. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Good luck in your work.
Androcles
"Traveler" <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote in message
news:v010o3hh1baghqqtq...@4ax.com...
Brainwashing is a powerful drug, something that I had to
| find out the hard way.
So you know you are brainwashed, then?
Well, I knew that, but it's nice to see someone admit it.
Kissed Wabnigger's arse yet?
Michael Gordge
> Pure energy, which is neither hot nor bright.
I wasn't talking about the temperature or light, I am saying, matter-
less energy is oxymoronic Kantian inspired mystical trash.
There cant be energy / motion without a distance traveled, so why not
make distance the beginning?
MG
Immortalist
Do you mean concepts of time are necessarily dependent upon other
concepts of matter? Thats like saying water is ice cube dependent, but
water is water wether, solid, liquid or gas. Matter may be frozen
energy;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/285d1493a0a3bd06
> MG
Michael Gordge
> Do you mean concepts of time are necessarily dependent upon other
> concepts of matter?
Nope, I mean that ideas concepts theories of knowledge, which means,
ideas concepts theories claimed to be of or about reality, must be
able to be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level
of perception IN THEIR ORIGIN, why?
Because if or when they aint, then they have originated in the mind,
thats where the god stuff comes from Mortal.
The mind forming concepts originating from inside the mind, is the
mind eating itself to death, its the hungry retard chewing its hands
off.
Man's concepts must be formed (originate) from existence external of
his mind, just as man's energy must be derived from food existing
outside, external of its body.
When both the mind and the body are feeding on themselves death
eventuates, I cant help that Mortal, its called reality.
> Thats like saying water is ice cube dependent,
No its not, it IS saying, feed your mind your mind then your death is
imminent.
See how long your body lasts chewing on your fingers when hunger aches
your belly!
If you want to talk about the sensory matter required for the concept
"time", then its an "event" (which requires matter) is the next
concept heading back down the trail heading in the right direction,
"the right direction"? which is? towards the sensory evidence existing
OUTSIDE of the mind!
Then you need to go a little deeper, ask, what event can be sensed
that the concept time originates from, where time can be applied?
Answer; matter in motion, the sensing of a physical non-constant
relationship between two or more existing entites of matter.
Where do these entities exist which time is applied to? Outside of the
mind of course? Why must they be there? How long do you want you mind
to last?
Michael Gordge
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 5, 4:56 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 9:08 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is time because there is motion and matter can't exist without
> > > motion.
>
> > Motion of what? Dont be silly.
>
> This conversation first took place 3000 years ago.
>
> It's different schools of Greek thought.
>
> I think I've taken Greek Monism and brought it into our current
> century, just as Leibniz had done in the 1700s.
Now take a physics course so you have something relevant to contribute
to physics newsgroups.
schoenf...@gmail.com
[...]
> You are absolutely correct, IMO, to question the reality of space and
> time. Neither exists physically. They are abstract illusions of
> perception. Only positional properties and interactions (change) need
> to exist. Space and time can be *abstractly* derived from those two
> things. I (and others) have been saying this for a long time.
Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind. You live in your
own brain, the imagination of yourself. One could say a conspiracy
waged by the subconcious mind against the concious. The subconcious
layers extend into and become the physical universe that the concious
mind thinks it observes and is separate to. Once you expand your
awareness it becomes pretty obvious. Reality is just a trick.
[...]
Michael Gordge
> Go get some matter-less sunshine,
The sun is matter-less energy? Have ewe had your medication today?
MG
Traveler
wrote:
>Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind.
Well, if reality is an illusion, and since Schoenfeld's mind is part
of reality, if follows that Schoenfeld's mind is an illusion as well.
I knew that. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:36:08 -0800 (PST), schoenfeld....@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind.
>
> Well, if reality is an illusion, and since Schoenfeld's mind is part
> of reality, if follows that Schoenfeld's mind is an illusion as well.
> I knew that. ahahaha...
Know your enemy, know yourself.
Jeckyl
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:36:08 -0800 (PST), schoenf...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>Reality is an illusion sourced from your own mind.
>
> Well, if reality is an illusion, and since Schoenfeld's mind is part
> of reality, if follows that Schoenfeld's mind is an illusion as well.
> I knew that. ahahaha...
Aren't you now arguing against what you were just saying .. the space and
time are not real. If they are not real, then they must be illusions ..
yes?
Jeckyl
> You are absolutely correct, IMO, to question the reality of space and
> time. Neither exists physically. They are abstract illusions of
> perception. Only positional properties and interactions (change) need
> to exist. Space and time can be *abstractly* derived from those two
> things. I (and others) have been saying this for a long time.
Interesting metaphysics / philosophical idea .. and certainly possible ..
all we really know about 'reality' (whatever the means) is our perceptions
and of space and time .. but we do know that whatever it is, it works in a
certain ways for everybody (and that we are discovering more about them as
we advance). What the reality is behind what we measure is really unknown.
> It is easy to prove logically that neither space not time can possibly
> exist.
No .. it isn't .. as everything we can determine about them implies that
they do.
> Most people think that nothing can move without time.
It can't .. by what we describe as time. Without time there could be only a
single state and so there could not be any change in that state and so no
motion. Its pretty basic stuff.
> The astonishing
> truth is that nothing can move *with* time.
Well .. that is just nonsense .. as ther is 'something' that we call time,
and things move, hence proving your assertion wrong
> Why? Because changing time is an oxymoron.
Who said you have to change time? Motion refers to spatial movement.
> A time dimension makes it impossible for anything to
> move.
Utter nonsense .. as the reality we measure proves
> Nothing can move in spacetime!
Aha .. now you are saying something different. Yes .. there is no
'movement' in space time . .there is only existence. And hence you've just
proved your earlier statements wrong.
It is what we call 'time' that allows for what we called 'motion'. The
exact opposite of what you earlier claimed.
> This is the reason that Sir Karl
> Popper (of falsifiability fame) called spacetime "Einstein's block
> universe in which nothing happens".
Everything happens.
> This gives new meaning to the
> expression "frozen in time". ahahaha...
Not really .. no
> Space too is abstract. I've explained why many times before.
Yes .. when you look at it metaphysically .. it is.
> You can read the simple arguments for the non-existence of space here:
> Nasty Little Truth About Space:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
I've read it .. the arguments are quite flawed. Just because you're talking
metaphysics doesn't mean you can talk nonsense and be logically invalid.
I'm sure I've pointed out the problems before .. certainly others would
have.
> Louis Savain
>
> PS. Here's what Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the
> University of Central Arkansas had to say about time:
>
> What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will
> be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even
> fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical
> systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or
> that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the
> objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of
> time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one
> "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result
> of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one
> might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual
> disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a
> change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.
> From "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?"
> Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994
Nicely put
> Rosen was a firm believer in both nontemporality and nonspatiality.
> But this stuff is not new though. Leibniz was saying essentially the
> same thing centuries ago. This is the kind of stuff that goes over
> the heads of people like John Baez, Uncle Al and the other ass kissers
> on the physics newsgroups. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Indeed . .because its really metaphysics and philosophy .. not physics. Its
not so much over the heads of people who do physics .. but simply orthogonal
to it .. and is a distraction from the physics. That doesn't mean it isn't
interesting in and of itself, of course.
Traveler
[snip crap]
ahahaha... You're an idiot, Jackal. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... hahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Jeckyl
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:14:57 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> ahahaha... You're an idiot, Jackal. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... hahahaha...
I thought I might get a better response .. seeing I gave a sensible and
intelligent response to you. I should have known better .. you're nothing
but a rude little troll.
Traveler
[snip crap]
ahahaha... jackalito capuchino... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Jeckyl
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:29:22 +1100, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> ahahaha... jackalito capuchino... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Further proof that you are an immature little child and a troll. Thanks for
showing the rest of us are correct in our estimation of you. Now .. just
fuck off little cunt-face.
Androcles
On Jan 6, 6:31 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
> Go get some matter-less sunshine,
: The sun is matter-less energy?
I didn't mention the Sun. Sunshine is matter free, yes.
So is the energy transfer here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/spin.gif
Addition is number-less.
Perhaps you don't know the difference between an operator and an operand.
: Have ewe had your medication today?
Yes. Have ewe, sheep shagger?
Michael Gordge
> "Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
Stupidty finds you easily doesn't it?
MG
Androcles
Yes, people like you surround me.
Now fuck off, you ignorant troll.
*plonk*
hanson
news:13o12l6...@corp.supernews.com...
ahahaha... jackalito capuchino... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
Further proof that you are an immature little child and a troll.
Thanks for showing the rest of us are correct in our estimation
of you. Now .. just fuck off little cunt-face.
>
Awe. Mikey!, Mickey!.. Did Louis make you crank yourself?
But since you do not know how Savain looks like, why did you
project your own impression of the face from your girl friend
or from one of your female kin-yolk's onto Savain?. Sheesh...
>
... & Louis, don't be so mean with Mikey. After all, Mikey was
asking you some justifyable ED questions earlier. I mean
be nice to him because in -' Mike Varney aka "Jeckyl" '- the
"aka" may be read as "ass kisser as". So, take that into
consideration in your kind & loving replies.... ahahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs, guys!... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
with all due respect, "ED" does not refer to nor infer any
physical condition, but instead it alluded to the habitually
religious habits of/by Einstein Dingleberries... ahahaha...
John Jones
> Reality as Process
>
>
> Particle-wave systems, as they move through the CMBR, will
> continuously re-ordinate the space that constitutes them. Particle/
> wave systems must be, internally and externally, in constant motion,
> continuously processing space in order to continue their existence, if
> motion were to cease, they would simply disintegrate.
>
> You could compare the movement of matter through the aether to the
> movement of waves in a pond in the sense that what is really moving is
> the form, the in-formation that gives its particular shape and energy
> to the wave. Similar to what happens with radios or cellular phone
> information carrying waves in which the information contained in the
> shape of the EM waves is the information the receiver's tuner has to
> decode in order for it to reproduce the original sounds that
> mechanically ordered, or shaped the given waves. Reality is like a
> wave propagating in water... the form moves carrying information as
> water molecules are left behind. As we displace ourselves it is the
> information that constitutes our material body which is really moving,
> the underlying medium stays virtually unchanged. The particle is more
> like a pattern of motion than a solid, permanent, and space
> independent thing. Picture the rings that form and spread outwards
> after you throw a rock in the water, now hit reverse and picture the
> rings moving back, inwards, towards the rock. The particle represents
> actuality and the inwardly flowing waves bring information about the
> past, about what already happened to the particles around it. The
> rings going towards and outwards the rock are, in reality, spherical.
> It's a standing wave that is constantly feeding the particle
> information about its inertial frame and environment, as a trajectory
> develops in relation to the surrounding space.
>
> Order arose from interactions within chaos, giving rise to self-
> dependent, separated, cybernetic systems, which in turn, evolved to
> take full advantage of matter's properties, after billions of years
> interacting with each other, to the point where they became human
> brains, for the purpose of experiencing/perceiving/measuring existence
> from a 4D perspective, so Nature could continue to improve its methods
> to use information to its advantage as a tool against entropy and
> disorder. Why? Because all thermodynamic systems tend to move towards
> thermal equilibrium, and in doing so they have to interact forming
> physical geometrical relationships which are preserved in matter and
> are accessible by these cybernetic systems when needed, as they evolve
> towards stability and thermal efficiency.
>
> Hyperspace is filled with information bits, matter precursors, a pre-
> geometry comprised by non-material units of information which exist in
> chaos and are ordered by logic and activity into spacetime. But for
> natural reasons, i.e., energy conservation laws, everything that comes
> into spacetime must be registered and energetically measured before it
> can materialize.
>
> There has to be a measuring device registering the particle's location
> and momentum in relation with the rest of that inertial frame before
> it can crystallize, as the quantum matter that constitutes it flows
> radially from hyperspace towards its center in spacetime. But this
> measuring device isn't some external being, it is the universe itself.
> Thanks to wholeness, each particle 'senses' the other and their
> relation to space (Mach), building an information network filled with
> geometrical relationships (spacetime), which are in turn used as the
> future is built on the already existing information.
>
> Information emerges from and is preserved as matter (i.e., DNA). The
> components, the ones generating this information, are all floating in
> and interacting with space as particles, molecules, galaxies...
> brains... All of which continuously exchange information as they
> continuously emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation as spatially
> separated cybernetic systems. EMR is one of the tools which Nature has
> successfully been using since the beginning of time to overcome space-
> like intervals between objects in order to evolve as a whole.
>
> The aether helps maintain the relations that give shape to a particle
> as it moves, but that information stays always bounded by the laws of
> spacetime. For example, virtual particles that pop-up from hyperspace
> into spacetime are the result of random field interactions such as
> resonance. Particles such as fermions stay in spacetime because they
> have stable standing waves. So, as someone said, don't be bothered by
> all those subatomic particles being detected, they don't play a
> significant role in reality, only the ones you find in your every day
> life have a real significance.
>
> The aether contains all the energy available to the universe. As
> bodies move through empty space, stress-energy tensors around that
> body automatically adjust according to the existing environmental
> conditions at each point in space and time, and this is possible
> because of the continuous nature of the aether. That's the principle
> behind inertia and momentum. The time a moving body takes to reach
> thermal equilibrium with its surroundings is directly proportional to
> the inertia and momentum forces it will experience. Each body's energy
> requirements is tied to the total energy available to each given point
> in space and time.
>
> As objects are accelerated in a space-time metric, each new position
> creates new energy requirements from the continuum. The aether
> provides the unity needed for the inertial state to be instantaneously
> registered. This information follows the laws of spacetime, laws by
> which the structure is going to be held intact in spacetime only if
> and when the spatial relationships are maintained in spacetime.
>
> If we allow for three different scales of reality with aether as the
> eternal substrate supporting hyperspace and spacetime, the whole
> process can be coherently put together. We could say that aether,
> hyperspace and spacetime are all different states of the same entity,
> the difference between them being just a matter of the size scale in
> which each develops. At the aether scale there are no reference
> points, no meaningful motion, no time, no wave fronts, with empty
> space as perfectly flat... then at a larger scale it becomes
> hyperspace and we get EM waves, strings/branes, quanta... and finally,
> at an even larger scale, we get Einstein's spacetime, the objective
> universe as we naturally perceive it.
>
> 1) The Aether - (Sub-quantum level) Dimensionless, eternal. David
> Bohm's implicate order, Basil Hiley's pre-space. The scale at which
> non-local, instantaneous, state transfer occurs.
>
> 2) Hyperspace - (Quantum level). Wheeler's quantum foam. A medium
> where more than one object can occupy the same space, allowing for
> quantum wave superposition, therefore, parallel and non-linear
> information processing.
>
> 3) Spacetime - (Classical level). Gravity, matter... the objective
> universe.
>
> We could conceive reality to have started with this non-material
> indivisible substance from where hyperspace emerged. A reality that
> shares the properties of both; the aether's omnipresence, and
> hyperspace's non-linear information processing, which then turns into
> spacetime as reference points and linear time emerge, containing the
> properties of all three scales or realms.
>
> According to Timothy Boyer, the CBR (space) is constituted by at least
> two different spectrum ranges. One is noisy and expanding, while the
> other is ordered and condensing. One exhibits negative gravitation,
> the other positive gravitation. From one, space is created, from the
> other, matter. Quantum matter waves are inwardly and constantly
> flowing into matter, while heat and light are continuously flowing
> away from matter. There is a continuous condensation and expansion of
> space taking place.
>
> We need two separate matter states, two types of motion with opposite
> directions, one deterministic and the other indeterministic, objective
> and subjective, matter and quantum matter. Particle-wave systems in a
> continuous exchange of information between matter and space in a non-
> ending quest for self-consistency. Order (matter) coming out of
> entropy (quantum matter). It is a semiclassical process, an endless
> back and forth information exchange between the metric and quantum
> matter. Schroedinger waves evolving in curved spacetime.
>
> The Schroedinger equation must be solved according to the spacetime
> geometry, but then, as the system continues to move in spacetime,
> stress-energy expectation values need to reset to a new spacetime
> geometry, making it necessary to again solve for the new quantum
> state. This process repeats itself ad infinitum in a continuous cycle
> without end in the form of standing waves.
>
> It is a process where an object's matter waves are described as being
> continuously condensed by gravity.
>
> Leon Rosenfeld (1933, 1963) considered:
>
> G_uv = 8pi(T^uv)psi
>
> Where PSI is the quantum state of the matter fields and:
>
> *Gravitation is the beginning of a semi-deterministic process. The
> gravitational force is a product of the electromagnetic properties of
> the medium, and is a classical, non-quantized phenomena.
>
> *Gravity and wave packet collapse are interrelated.
>
> *Gravitation is caused by a space pressure differential created by the
> inwardly radial space flow that occurs as the object's state wave
> continuous collapsation.
>
> *Quantization and organization of space is determined by the exclusive
> dimensions (information) of matter fields (pilot-waves) which
> originate from already existing matter (particles).
>
> --
> Laurent
With that display of nonsense metaphysics I think we can understand why
the logic that serves it can be found barricaded behind a wall of
formalism.
For a starter, how does one distinguish between disorder(noise) and
order? It's no good appointing an "aether" to seat these disparate
guests at the same dining table. An "aether" is not so much explanation
as the place where we have blindly pinned the tail on the donkey. You
can't offer a self-consistent system as explanation if the elements of
that system depend on at least one grammatically incoherent unknown. And
it's no good sharing an unknown between elements or moving it along.
I will tell you what the science exemplified by the post 'reality as
process' reminds me of. It reminds me of that other pseudo-science we
call 'psychology', where ids and illnesses fly around in an equally
unlikely aether of the mind. I say bin it.
Traveler
ahahaha... Varney, aka Jackal, goes ballistic everytime I compare him
to a trained capuchin monkey (jackalito capuchino, ahahaha...), you
know, those funny looking monkeys that are trained by street organ
grinders to collect money from the audience. An organ grinder monkey
is what Jackal is. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
hanson
[Traveler]
ahahaha... Varney, aka Jackal, goes ballistic everytime I
compare him to a trained capuchin monkey (jackalito capuchino,
ahahaha...), you know, those funny looking monkeys that are
trained by street organ grinders to collect money from the
audience. An organ grinder monkey is what Jackal is. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... oh, yeah, that surely conjures up memories.
Every time I was in Karachi, Pakistan, these "trained
capuchin monkeys" were a common sight on the streets.
The Muslim "Einstein" kept'em on a chain, and as soon as
some passerby approached he yelled at the little animal
an order that sounded like "Allah Akbar", upon which the
little simian Varney began to masturbate himself furiously,
... in the hope that his exhibition would to get/earn some
"baksheesh" for his trainer.
Hey, indeed, and as usual: "Different strokes for AND
by different folks"... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
Laurent
> "Traveler" <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote in message
>
> news:l6e2o3ljbs54tpovo...@4ax.com...
> Mike Varney aka "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in messagenews:13o12l6...@corp.supernews.com...
Hanson, Einstein based his new insights on already existing
information which had been previously uncovered by other great
thinkers before him, but that isn't plagio, that is synthesis... and
imagination.
--
Laurent
hanson
the prestigious and coveted 2008 Award for "Reality as Process"
since he wrote in message
news:b528734d-d08d-4747...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
"hanson" <ha...@quick.net> wrote:
< http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/6cddb11fba6d0b22 >
wherein it said in response to "Traveler":
>
ahahaha... oh, yeah, that surely conjures up memories.
Every time I was in Karachi, Pakistan, these "trained
capuchin monkeys" were a common sight on the streets.
The Muslim "Einstein" kept'em on a chain, and as soon as
some passerby approached he yelled at the little animal
an order that sounded like "Allah Akbar", upon which the
... in the hope that his exhibition would get/earn some
"baksheesh" for his trainer, his beloved master "Einstein".
Hey, indeed, and as usual: "Different strokes for AND
by different folks"... Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
>
Hanson, Einstein based his new insights on already existing
information which had been previously uncovered by other great
thinkers before him, but that isn't plagio, that is synthesis... and
imagination.
>
[hanson]
.... AHAHAHAHA... I have seem'em come and I have
seen'em go; but you take the cake, Laurent!... ahaha...
>
ahaha... Are you trying to crank me, Laurent?... ahahaha...
ahahaha... There I am portraying the behavior of Einstein
Dingleberries in the most sarcastic parabole... & you come
along, in all earnestness, to their defense, as if you were
their self-appointed and self-anointed savior... ahaha...
That is too much!... ahahaha...
>
Do you know what an Einstein Dingleberry is, Laurent?
Get some new insight, Laurent:... Look into a mirror!
Do you need some "baksheesh" to do that?.. Be careful,
that's not the same as the "bukkaki" that Varney dispensed.
>
Thanks for the laughs... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson
>
Traveler
ahahaha... My earlier tentative admiration for Monsieur Laurent just
evaporated. Pouf! ahahaha...
Laurent
> AHAHAHAHAHA... "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> gets
One more thing, he may have been a Jew but he wasn't Jewish, he was a
Pantheist.
hanson
the prestigious and coveted 2008 Award for "Reality as Process"
>
"hanson" <ha...@quick.net> wrote:
< http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/6cddb11fba6d0b22 >
One more thing, he [Einstein] may have been a Jew but he
wasn't Jewish, he was a Pantheist.
>
... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
(1) Yep, that's what you like to believe because you didn't
notice in your grave ED condition that there was Varney's
bukkaki on your mirror, clouding your judgment... ... and
>
(2) Yep, and Einstein wanted you to believe that he was not
really Jewish but Pantheist which (note sarcasm again) is
why the Jews drafted Einstein in 1948 to be their first Prez
-PM of Israel, which of course is also not a Jewish but a
really a Pantheist state too, ... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
(3)... all of which (1 & 2), were it not for your very severe ED
condition, should have invoked in you starkly & immediately
Sid Snead's axiom which says:
:S: I am sorry to hear that Einstein is a Jew. I enjoy the clarity of
:S: his writing, but will now have to treat his opinions as suspect,
:S: since, being a Jew, he believes that what is good for Jews
:S: is more important than the truth.
>
So, Laurent, let me lead you a bit deeper into the gruesome
machinations that are involved in the "Reality as Process"
Look at these anagrams, Laurent. Don't they tell you that:
>
"Pantheist" means "at the spin" of "that penis" there is a
"thin paste" with a "phase tint"...
>
... which ought to phase you, Laurent, especially if you move
even deeper into the "Reality as Process" which shows you
again that in an anagrammically processed reality...
>
"Einstein Pantheist, not Jewish" simply means:
"See a jew pin shit on the Tits' Inn"... which is were Albi met
his younger REL-twin & said: "Shit, see a twin join the ten pins"
>
Now Laurent, can you finally see now how realities form and
deform as processes... If you can't, then thanks anyways, but
most of all, thanks for the laughs... AHAHA... ahahahanson
>
>
PS:
Advanced Study Sermon (ASS) in the "Reality as Process" :
>
Some few brilliant posters have noticed early on and have
efficiently used the profound cranking ability which comes
along with/from/by attaching ::"... ahahaha... AHAHAHA..."::
to their statements.
>
But there are MORE benefits that inherently come along with
"... ahaha...-ing" then just making malevolent & antagonistic
EDs and assorted mooches crank themselves... ahahaha...
Listen, it allows one to lie like a dog, twist, spin facts & make
up things like Eisnetin did... and you are free to fantasize like
Einstein Dingleberries do .. all with impunity and full immunity.
>
All scientists do that (whether they admit to it or not).. & it has
always been that way... all the way from the top dogs down,
God (in whose name it is done to save your nonexistent soul)
and the State (where lying is done for the greater good)... ahaha..
... and for those with a particularly slow fuze who wonder about
me: "Yes I too lie like a dog, twist, spin facts & make up things"
>
In its latest large scale revival this general lying philosophy has
been advocated and sold by the founders of environmentalism
who instructed their little green idiots in their Green Bible that:
>
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
>
So, in stark contrast "... ahahaha...AHAHAHA" is a virtous, honest
true and polite expression to the reader that you intend to address
fools, political fanatics, gullible mooches and religious zealots...
Of course none of those will ever realize and much less admit
(if they could) that they fell victim to ::::: "Reality as Process" ::::
....
Thanks for laughs.... ahahaha.... ahahanson
Laurent
> AHAHAHAHAHA... "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> gets
Such a waste of talent...
festu...@btinternet.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Laurent
IMHO Spacetime is hyperspace flowing into our universe. In hyperspace
our universe appears as a black hole, sucking up all matter and
converting it into gravitons in this side of the black hole.
Gravitons are hyperspace particles being converted into mass.
Magnetic fields are lower order of only processing chargeed particles
in this universe.
Matter is frozen energy, space and time slows down making energy
appear to slow down from the speed of light.
In doing this act, gravitons are pulled from hyperspace.
F.
hanson
news:56727755-42b9-4972...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Such a waste of talent...
>
... a whiff of cunt is in the air... I swear!
... I shall be baak... after the faak!
hanson
>
"Laurent" <cybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56727755-42b9-4972...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
[1] Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace.
[2] Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW.
[3] Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
[4] Stephen Schneider Stanford Prof., ... in this following links:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/6cddb11fba6d0b22>
< http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/b62bea5496664874>
wherein they said:
==== "It doesn't matter what is true ...
it only matters what people believe is true"... by [1]
==== "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are
simply not accurate. We use hype."...by [2]
==== "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then make
it up on the spot for the mass-media today.
The truth is irrelevant. [3]
==== "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest." [4]
>
Now Laurent, can you finally see now how
>
... to which I might add, in the same light and fashion, Einstein's
own confession to Besso, in 1954, one year before he folded
the tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass and
conveyed:
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
[Laurent]
Such a waste of talent...
>
ahAHAHA... Fucken-A-right you are!... & all this ought to tell you
finally, for you to stop what YOU are doing!... ahahAHAHAHA...
>
With/after that single half sentence of yours, above, you can rest
and stop posting any and all of your inquires and arguments...
.. because yours & all those searches by the hordes of the
Einstein Dingleberies are indeed: "Such a waste of talent..."
>
Laurent, in case you still have NOT gotten it, still not seen the
light, nor not found "it" and much less fondled "it"... ahahaha...
let me drag you even deeper into "it" then I did in my last post
< http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/b62bea5496664874>
into the gruesome machinations that are involved in "it", "it"
being the "Realities as Processes"...
>
Your searches remind me of the movie goer's plight who sees
in the final scene of the film the tragic hero(ine) disappear by
a train passing in front of her. But undauntedly you go and see
the next showing of the movie, and the next, and the next...&...
because deep down you "know" that sooner or later the train
will have passed and you will see your hero/ine, the object of
your search, again... yet being oblivious to & fully disregarding
the background music that plays the old pop song:
** "S/he don't know what s/he looking for.. s/he come undun" **
>
If you are the same Laurent who once went under the nym of
<DUCH...@home.com> then you have lost a lot of
intellectual real-estate since we exchanged posts first, almost
a decade ago. It appears to me that you are still searching, prolix
frantically and vociferously in all the SAME nooks and crannies
that have already have been licked clean for more than a century
now, by the hordes of Einstein Dingleberries and Kant-alopes.
>
So, what exactly do you hope to find in that sterile "clean room"?
>
Thanks for the laughs, Laurent... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
Immortalist
> On Jan 6, 11:56 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you mean concepts of time are necessarily dependent upon other
> > concepts of matter?
>
> Nope, I mean that ideas concepts theories of knowledge, which means,
> ideas concepts theories claimed to be of or about reality, must be
> able to be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level
> of perception IN THEIR ORIGIN, why?
>
> Because if or when they aint, then they have originated in the mind,
> thats where the god stuff comes from Mortal.
>
The sensory level is prone to error, dreams, hallucinations, etc...
how can this sensory stuff be trustworthy in the search for how much
certainty there is to have? A distaste for some religious system
doesn't seem to make impossible the ide that something can happen just
in the brain.