These Message Boards Are Dead, or Terraform Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Interesting thoughts that go beyond conventional thinking.

Question: is there any connection of what you just described to String or M-Theory?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I shudder to think so, Makis. I would have to accept the notion of what? ten dimensions? What a backward step that would be! As I've attempted to point out, vibrational energy plays every dimensional role simultaneously, and that only by unifying our conception of dimensionality can we move toward the necessary unification, from there to an understanding of mass, and from thence, to the physics of energies unbounded by such limitations as this quality induces with regard to the propagation of energy. I note that the presence of 'mass' is directly related to the strength of gravitational fields, while gravity itself obviously exceeds these self-same limitations as defined by the speed of light. This tells us that gravity is a "pre-mass" characteristic; that is, it represents a manifestation of vibratory rates within the structure of particles that do not play a role in the cycling of energies involved in producing "mass." But I digress...

I meant to just say simply that dimensions are being used --as in the case of String theories-- as clever fudge factors. Rather than a new 'variable', a new dimension is presumed as a device to escape each new theoretical cul-de-sac, so they proliferate like cats or coat-hangers. Besides, to my knowledge, M-theory --the Mother of all String theories-- does not yet actually possess a true definition or formulation. Its primary function seems to be to keep physicists off the streets.

where exactly do we look for a graviton? do we do falling obversation to determine the force gravity plays, it is tricky for me, so if anyone has any suggestions please come forward.


The intuitive mind

I just suggested using the redshift of the sun for this search as we were attempting this a comment about money got the thread off course.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
...what do you think about Lee Smolin's work in LQG using causal Penrose spin networks to unite GR and QM? I think myself it is a clever mathematical construct to get ahead of M-theory but an escape from reality and of course, the typical effort to move ahead but keep GR in place. I would take TVF and gravitons over those theories just for sake of simplicity.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As to Lee Smolin himself, I find him fascinating as gifted synthesist; something I look for and admire most in a thinker. But he's not the "new Einstein" as others have termed him; otherwise he would not rely so heavily on Euclidean and Lorentzian space. Again the problem of dimensionality, as perhaps the deepest barrier to total integration, rears its insidious and ubiqutous head. Penrose spin networks mererly maintain the illusion of a window to deeper levels on two counts: mathematics is itself a construct of dimensionality, and has little meaning without frames of reference and quantification, and merely leads us in circles, back to the second obfuscating dynamic: the tautology of equations we discussed earlier.

It's highly significant to me that Albert E. himself did not acquire his greatest insights mathematically, but gained access entirely through his power to visualize. More 'modern' researchers seem to be using mathematics to lead them onward, so the tool is using the man. Like any language, syntax molds the thinking process, and in the context of that syntax, the logic is always very convincing, but --to coin a phrase-- places the cart before the horse.

These are not remarks intended to devalue the beauty of mathematical expression, nor its remarkable capacity to reflect nature. However, it's foundation is quantification, and everyone who is thinking is molded by mathematical training, not to mention the particularization of ordinary speech, is made almost blind to any reality more fundamental than particles. Such minds will always seek explanations in terms of particles. For example, even the interactions of particles are assumed to take place via other particles, which simply begs the question; for there is no comprehensive explantion for the means by which information is exchanged between, say, electrons and 'gravitons' in the first place in order to form a "fundamental explanation" of events.

The real problem here is an issue of a process more fundamental than particles themselves. In other words, the process by which reality quantifies its manifestation and formulation of events. I, myself contend that the process that forms a particle is synonymous to the process that maintains a particles' spin. Moreover, that the exchange of all energies between particles --and thus their relative characteristics and subsequent roles--is fundamentally spin-driven; in "particular", the quantity we know as "mass."

In other words, the search for and theorization by means of particles, in conjuction with any form of particularized logic, is subtly irrelevant and diversionary. However, this does not prevent me from appreciating Tom Van Flandern's common sense approach to the greater issues. 'Gravitons' notwithstanding, I otherwise find alot to agree with. I just don't believe they're necessary. Consider the phenomenon of molecular bonding, in which become much stronger instates of resonance. This is suspiciously parallel to the phenomenon of gravity, no? But just don't talk to me about covalent bonds and electron shells. these are handy devices for description and, with respect to more macroscopic levels, do indeed provide a measure of "explanation", but not with respect to the more microcosmic.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Actually, there could be more danger in a visualization based methodology than what is happening now with mathematical abstraction. Therefore, the fact that Einstein used visualization and ended up with Gr is accidental as far as the particular visualization is concerned. He probably had many others and that one seemed to work well in math.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My apologies for not making myself clearer, Makis. It wasn't my intention to advocate a 'visualization based methodology.' I raised the example of Einsteins' thought processes merely to indicate that there exists a more visceral clues to the problem of unification, upon which an understanding of gravitational propagation (and the problem of mass, as one and the same thing) depends.

As we know, the experimental evidence of quantum theory has, apart from its quantifiable aspects, brought to our attention that the observer and the observed are not separable phenomenon. I will simply assert that, rather than grist for a conundrum, this stands as one of our greatest clues to the problem of unification itself.

There are numerous means by which this can be elucidated, but a new one occurs to me as I write, and I would like to explore it a bit: Bear in mind that the integration of knowledge is an inherent process of perception. Further, all of the modes of our perception, as those of sensation, are vibratory. Thus we are presented with undeniable evidence that a process exists whose primary function and modus operandi is the spontaneous integration --i.e. unification via harmony-- of vibratory phenomena. Thus, the unification of "external" reality is necessarily preceded by the integration of reality as an internal event.

In Post Paradox Economics, I outlined the unfolding progression of relationships by which a single feedback principle is revealed to be at the heart of the most intricate expressions. However, without the proper perspective, this same intricacy appears as if it represented a system of extremely complex relationships --for example, as in the case of the global economic system. In reality, there is only a dynamic feedback of energy between consumer and consumer; thus I was able to demonstrate the reality of economics as an energy system, based on only a single principle.

Now extrapolate this in the microscopic direction, in which we see that every human cell is also a consumer, and the body as a whole, an economic system. In this environment, the system is not only energetic, but energetic because the information/energy of the system is transmitted and broadcast vibrationally.

So now we may be faced with perhaps the most cogent of questions: By what process is information-as-energy absorbed, integrated and organized -- granting that its form is vibrational and that we must account for feedback and states of recognition simultaneously? In a vibrational environment there is only a single phenomenon that fits this bill: states of resonance. Look closely and you will see that resonant states are inherent to every wavelength, as well as defining the only junctures at which energies are integrated, unified and amplified.

Couple this with the fact that the physics of perception cannot be in any wise different than the physics of energy everywhere: perhaps the ultimate symmetry. Think about it. <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle> It means that the physics of consciousness is but the unrecognized mirror image of our consciousness of physics.... Again, some of the joys of recreational thought [} But this does not preclude the use of math ...in the aftermath.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Consider problem of proving that for a body of arbitrary closed shape in 2D there exists a bisecting line of its area. Then try a proof by visualization and a mathematical proof.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

hmmm. An interesting proposition. I'll have to toy with that, though the meaning of the phrase, 'proof by visualization' may be a bit of a stretch, and perhaps only an artifact of syntax through the use of the word "proof." Still, there's considerable merit in an open mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
We started from tautologies and we may end it with a tautology!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This would indeed be a diabolical prospect, if it were true. For the underlying implication would be that we were merely dogs on a chase for our own tails.

But do not confuse the expression with the more basic intent. While the formulation, "the physics of consciousness is but the unrecognized mirror image of our consciousness of physics" is indeed tautological, this is only due to a manner of speaking. Consciousness as a "mirror", as a phenomenon that <i>reflects</i>, originates in its nature as a resonant function, and in the interplay of expression appears to convey the presence of "two" different things: thus the circular redundancy in expression. What it was meant to convey is that consciousness is not simply an artifact or product of purely biological processes --an "illusion" or "merely subjective" phenomenon-- but an integral characteristic of electromagnetic nature. This is a truly fundamental and unification; in which case, insight is not at all confined to a merely tautological existence.

Having said that, I would bring to your attention an absurdity of historical proportions; that is, the current conceit that all the forces in the universe could be unified in the absence of an explanation for the very phenomenon that could make succh an accomplishment possible. After all, the very act of theorizing is nothing more than a construct of awareness.