Why <observers> modulate the world
Romano AMODEO
We <observers> (of physics) are the cause of what we see in the world,
dimensioned in <quantities> and <qualities>.
In <quantities> because the numbers of our count are depending on our
personal unit of measurement, used by our mind.
In <qualities> because mind confers <qualities> to the <quantities>, through
conceptions.
We have, in this situation, to look for understanding the unitary
modulation existing in the nature... and we discover that it is the idea of
volume, consisting in 3 cartesian components, which become 4 when Einstein
adds the fourth, of times.
The studies of New Italic School discover that our intelligence has an
entire cycle for the <space-time conception>, founded on 2 "times" (1 in a
direction and 1 in the inverse one, on the same line), and on 2 "spaces" at
the third power.
In this way 2+2^3=10 is all the time +all the spatial volume existing in
those 2 times, an entire cycle of reference, about <space-time> entire
conceptual quality-quantity.
In this situation the decimal mathematics (that corrently we use) becomes
important , having the same
cycle 10 of the space-time. Consequently all the algorithmi of the
mathematics are perceived as Physical Constants.
To read www.new-is.com. (the web site which explains duģiffusely these
matters) is an important matter.
Please, mathematicians, physicists, experts in our brain functioning, in
geometry, in intelligence and information technology... please, read it !
This is an interdisciplinary matter and your competence is needed to really
help Physics!
Thank you !
Romano AMODEO
Duane Bozarth
physics....
Romano AMODEO
Duane Bozarth <dpbo...@swko.net> wrote in message
3A40CEED...@swko.net...
> Say WHAT??? You be modulatin' on somthin', man....but it ain't
> physics....
I am not a Phisicist who takes the water of the river and makes it analysis,
I try to understand because the water arrives to him, and what is its cause.
I am not able to uderstand your message.
However do you think that colour, light... are existing as light and colour
in the nature or have understood that they are human <conceptions> ?
And suppose that is 1000 kg, and you ave only your glass to measure it..
Do you not think that the number resulting by your count is depending by the
volume contained in the glass?
The number that we measure in nature depend by the <entities> that we use,
mentally, to calculate them.
The calculus does not emplies numbers, but unitary masses summed in its
weight... but it is the same thing.
The number in an <abstract> mass of pure quantity... as pure that can be
anything.
Is this that you wished to know sayng <Say WHAT???>
This, afeterwards, I do not arrive to understand in its mean: <You be
modulatin' on somthin', man....but it ain't>.
Greetings
Romano Amodeo
Duane Bozarth
Romano AMODEO wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <dpbo...@swko.net> wrote in message
> 3A40CEED...@swko.net...
> > Say WHAT??? You be modulatin' on somthin', man....but it ain't
> > physics....
>
> I am not a Phisicist who takes the water of the river and makes it analysis,
> I try to understand because the water arrives to him, and what is its cause.
It's cause is it either came from snow melt, rain, outlet of a man-made
well or effluent pipe following gravity downhill....
> I am not able to uderstand your message.
> However do you think that colour, light... are existing as light and colour
> in the nature or have understood that they are human <conceptions> ?
Color is perceived, that is true, but that does not change the physical
processes that cause it....we have created a set of names for certain
wave lengths (red, blue, etc.) but I don't think it's significant
whether "color" exists...
> And suppose that is 1000 kg, and you ave only your glass to measure it..
> Do you not think that the number resulting by your count is depending by the
> volume contained in the glass?
The number? You mean how many times it is required to fill a pint lager
glass vs a 5 gal milk bucket to determine how much water is in a pond is
significant? Not hardly! All that's important is what it adds up too
in some mutually agreed on units and any of the numbers are
equivalent....although, of course, if we don't agree to use the same
<set> of numbers it can cause a problem (see the Mars lander, for
example)..
> The number that we measure in nature depend by the <entities> that we use,
> mentally, to calculate them.
> The calculus does not emplies numbers, but unitary masses summed in its
> weight... but it is the same thing.
> The number in an <abstract> mass of pure quantity... as pure that can be
> anything.
5?
> Is this that you wished to know sayng <Say WHAT???>
> This, afeterwards, I do not arrive to understand in its mean: <You be
> modulatin' on somthin', man....but it ain't>.
Well, it sorta' implied you might have been hallucinating a little when
you wrote the message....
Wolf Kirchmeir
=>We <observers> (of physics) are the cause of what we see in the world,
=>dimensioned in <quantities> and <qualities>.
If this horribly ambiguous statement means that we create the world out
there, it's utter nonsense.
If it means that we create images of the world out there, it's so obvious
there's no point discussing it.
If you have discovered that all you know of the world is the image you create
of it, good. But you should've figured that out around Grade 8 IMO.
Now get back to hard problems, eh?
--
Wolf Kirchmeir >>wol...@onlink.net<<
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train? (Anon.)
Romano AMODEO
>
>
> Romano AMODEO wrote:
> >
> > Duane Bozarth <dpbo...@swko.net> wrote in message
> > 3A40CEED...@swko.net...
> > > Say WHAT??? You be modulatin' on somthin', man....but it ain't
> > > physics....
> >
> > I am not a Phisicist who takes the water of the river and makes it
analysis,
> > I try to understand because the water arrives to him, and what is its
cause.
> It's cause is it either came from snow melt, rain, outlet of a man-made
> well or effluent pipe following gravity downhill....
Naturally. I spoke through imagins. The Physicist take the water "mass".
What is "mass" exentially? The water covers "space"... What is "space"
essentially? And so "time", energy. Oh don't say me <how they job>, I care
to know what is the exence that make as mass, as time, as space, as energy,
etc.
When I arrive to this <entity>, I discover that this basis is only the
quantity in itself, whithout any quality. We attribute the qualities to the
quantitative numbers.
These quantities are unitary carriers, called <dimensions>.
1 dimension is the side of a cube, and 3 are the cube generated by these 3
equal and distincts carries.
This is the Origin I told. The dimensional carriers.
A "mass" is a cerrier perceived frontally, as an impact getting istantaneous
stop to the speed. Like the mass of a car which invests a body, or that
which opposes itself to the starting of the same car.
A speed is space/time referred to the same car when the observer is not
invested by it. So the same phenomenon of a moving car shows "mass" or
"space/time" in relation to the position of the observer, and "mass" or
"speed" become "personal matters".
When I told what was the <exence>, I meant that the quality difference was
depended by subject and not object.
Also a camera (so an object) perceives a <mass of light> (like the lamp of
the car), if it is in direction with the movement, and a <line of light> if
it is not on the advancement line of that car.
>
> > I am not able to uderstand your message.
> > However do you think that colour, light... are existing as light and
colour
> > in the nature or have understood that they are human <conceptions> ?
> Color is perceived, that is true, but that does not change the physical
> processes that cause it....we have created a set of names for certain
> wave lengths (red, blue, etc.) but I don't think it's significant
> whether "color" exists...
But you think significant, obvious, that space, time, mass and energy there
are in itself (like they appear to us, having space, time, mass and energy)
if we don't observe them. Colour not! Colour don't exist if we don't see and
conceive... while space, time, mass and energy exist properly how we
perceive the quantity (frontally or laterally) and conceive...
I'm sure that all qualities are <human attributions> that have neither
quality and quantity.
Also this second is a quantity depending by us observers. Nature is like a
linear and indiscrimateted string. We take a measure unit and get on
quantities of these units. So the quantitative numbers (of Planck) do not
depend on objective situations, but subjective ones.
Afterwards our brain (as a computer) attributes or shapes or calculations to
the 256 areas 12*12, and the <program> of perceiving through calculations
and attributions of shape to the 256 areaolas gets out the wordl kinetic
representation, as in a digital system of attributing evidence... to that
water of the river I told before, when I thought <the origin> of that
apparent situation...
>
> > And suppose that is 1000 kg, and you ave only your glass to measure it..
> > Do you not think that the number resulting by your count is depending by
the
> > volume contained in the glass?
> The number? You mean how many times it is required to fill a pint lager
> glass vs a 5 gal milk bucket to determine how much water is in a pond is
> significant? Not hardly!
I mean that nature flows linearly whithout any scanding, just like a line
without any quantity, that is 0. It is measured in power, as N^0 =1,
supposing a N basis of measurement, supposed different by 0. And in this way
a pure <spirit>, supposing <cogito ergo sum>, and attributing lenght,
extension, to this "sum" (extension in time), gets in the <1 carrier>,
perfectly linear, without any real section... a pure lenght, an abstraction.
But putting 3 together, perpendiculars, as the cartesian tern, tre pure
lines becom a real volume.
This is the <glass> that we use to interact 3 pure lines involving a volume.
From O origin, as the 3 carriers advance, as the volume is enacted.
Afeterwards the origin (a true 0) becomes a flow of cubes, and it is the
water of the river that Physicists analyse, weighting, measuning,
distinguisching in qualities, after tey have get in the quantities itself.
If we aren't, the quantities there aren't. But Physicist, who care the
solid, weight, measure, and say to my: <You are mad! How is it possible that
it is not! Don't you see it?>
And I: <to perceive the movement it means not that it really is. Look the
cinema, look television. Look your computer, in which you see shapes in
movement... You see, but put your fingher on the glass and see if samething
is moving. Think if the speaker so well moving, so well speaking, there is
really!>
<Oh, there is, in the studios! We reproduce the reality...>
<Also Miky Mouse is real and alives, because we see so?>
Now days we cannot be sure that what we perceive there is really or if it is
not only a program, that we are getting real.
I think that the truth is properly that of a virtual existence, became
possible enacting the power N^0, on the pure basis of our <cogito ergo sum>,
linear evolution of the mental activity.
> All that's important is what it adds up too
> in some mutually agreed on units and any of the numbers are
> equivalent....although, of course, if we don't agree to use the same
> <set> of numbers it can cause a problem (see the Mars lander, for
> example)..
The discussion at the level of the water really seen to flow in the river,
and of the Scientists only occupied to weight and measure - on the basis of
what is the appearance - all that we see has to be conceived existing. Also
if the truth is a pure virtual suppositions. When people live its
illusion... they are real, as they wass reall (and it is the same thing).
But if we do not investigate in depth, we do not arrive to unify fisics on
the elementar basis of the carrier of the <1 movement> referred to the
simplest essence of the <cogito ergo sum>.
This littlest <line 1> of cogitations is the quantitative basis of all the
world representation. If we arrive to number it exacly <1>, all the
quantitative nature shows itself as the number told by Pithagoras, and we'll
be able to make perfect calculations.
Today this <1> is not 1. This 1/1 is the speed of light in one line, 1/1 m/s
(referring to IS units). But the volume only is <real and integer>, so, in
one time, must be 3 simultaneous carries xyz, generating the volume.
The speed generating the volume can be only 3/1 if in each line it is 1/1.
On the contrary, the speed of light (at the size of M= 10^8 m) is not 3/1
M/s, but 2,99792458/1 M/s, and this indicates that the speed, in each of the
3 sides xyz, is 0,999/1 M/s and not 1/1 M/s.
This permits to quantify exacly the 1 M/s, cutting away the current
difference between 3/1 and 2,99792458/1.
>
> > The number that we measure in nature depend by the <entities> that we
use,
> > mentally, to calculate them.
> > The calculus does not emplies numbers, but unitary masses summed in its
> > weight... but it is the same thing.
> > The number in an <abstract> mass of pure quantity... as pure that can be
> > anything.
> 5?
5 is the half of the cycle 10 of our conception regarding the space-time.
The complete space is a 3, the complete time is 2, and 2^3+2 =10 is the
complete space (the volume) reagarding the side 2 + the complete time 2.
All the advancing in depth is appearing (advanging 1+1+1...) as 1/10
+1/10... because 1 is 1/10 of its entire cycle of 10 decimals.
Frontally, the time is ruled in fourths. The plan xy has its presence only
in the first trigonometric quadrant entirely positive, +x+y
>
> > Is this that you wished to know sayng <Say WHAT???>
> > This, afeterwards, I do not arrive to understand in its mean: <You be
> > modulatin' on somthin', man....but it ain't>.
> Well, it sorta' implied you might have been hallucinating a little when
> you wrote the message....
No. My study is referred to the Origins of the river we see.
Greetings