Jump to content

lets discuss the future.


ruthless
 Share

Recommended Posts

i took my act's when i was 20. i scored a 32. they said that was pretty good, i dunno. but i was trying to get financial aid, since i have no money and no family. i was trying to claim independent status or something. but the folks i was living with didnt want to give them their stuff, and i didnt either. it was a great big hassle, they ended up telling me i had to be 24 to claim independent status, 24 came, and i just didnt have the time, i quit caring for a minute and did some stuff i shouldnt. i have alot of people that dont like me in my hometown. im thinking about going to school. its just gonna be hard with nothing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RMT

 

As such, even though we perceive TIME as passing linearly, that is because our senses are limited... TIME actually has more than one dimension.

I was beginning to think I was the only one entertaining that thought. Have you ever given thought to gravity as having an orthogonal time flow base? I do have the odd gravity wave observations on my scope which show the wavelength getting smaller with time. I'm interpreting this to mean that a gravity wave does not actually propagate in linear time. What I believe I am seeing on the scope is the initial gravity wave the whole time. But as time flows linearly we are moving away from the event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello paladius,

 

massspacetime. of course they are related. and they are related by their components and the interactions (or brother and sister components).

Mmmm, yes. That is very much a systems view of the issue. I like it. It appears we may have some important areas of common thought on the matter.
mass is what? atoms, then netrons, then protons and electrons, then quark and lepons, then rotations and spins yes?

That is the reductionist view, yes. The systems view would stop reducing once one could identify mutually "orthogonal" components. For me, this is the notion of the proton, electron, and neutron. This represents an ordered set of three which tends to show up all over nature, at least when applying a systems theory analytical approach. One could claim (and this is exactly what I have done in several older threads here) that much as Space has orthogonal subdimensions (as you point out below), why do we not also observe that Mass has similar "orthogonal" subdimensions...namely, electron, proton, and neutron? There is really no need to reduce any further once you identify the systemic elements that are interacting with each other to create the "Mass effect".
space is x,y,z in exponential mathematical terms

Yes...or depending on if you choose a different orthogonal coordinate system you could say "rho, theta, phi" (radius, azimuth, and elevation). They key systemic notion is that the dimension we call Space (which, let us not forget is "artificial" if we accept that Massive SpaceTime cannot be reduced without introducing error) has 3 orthogonal "subdimensions"... much like a larger system can be broken down into subsystems.
time is t and broken down into frequency and ??

Just a slight correction here. Time is not broken down into frequency. Rather Time and Frequency are mathematically reciprocal measures... (i.e. f = 1/T). Mass and Space have similar reciprocal measures, and in science we refer to them as "Specific Mass" and "Specific Volume", respectively.The question I put to you with regard to your statement/question is this: If we all agree Space has 3 othogonal subdimensions, and we also can see how Mass has 3 "orthogonal" subcomponents (electron, proton, neutron), then why would we single-out Time as only being uni-dimensional?? The answer I would give is that we do this merely because our senses appear to report to us that Time is a single, linear dimension. This may not be so, and I argue it is NOT so. In my Massive SpaceTime theory, I put forth that if you are going to try to "pull apart" Massive SpaceTime into components, you have to do it equally. Thus, Time should also have 3 subordinate, and "orthogonal" subdimensions. I claim it does, indeed... and we call those subdimensions "Past, Present, and Future". In much the same way that we understand that the neutron acts as a neutralizing element to the electron and proton, one could make the argument that the present acts as the neutralizing element between the past (passive) and the future (active).

 

So what are the common denominators?

IMO the common denominators are that, as a result of our physical makeup and perception, we live within a "3-manifold" universe. IOW, our integrated matrix of energy decomposes into orthogonal sets of 3 dimensions (Mass, Space, and Time), and further to this each of these decompose into 3-fold subdimensions. One could easily observe a fractal system decomposition scheme here...
well what about energy? where shall we place electro-gravation-frequency-EMF-enthalpy? what about thought and perception?

All very good questions. Some I have direct answers for, and some I have my suggestions. I will give a direct answer to the question of energy right now: Energy is a 3-fold (complex) metric of the Integrated Massive SpaceTime "reality". It is "more real" than any measure of Mass, Space, or Time because a measure of energy does not decompose or decouple Mass, from Space, from Time. This is reinforced by the Conservation of Energy law. Get that? To be more direct: The dimensional breakdown of energy is as follows:Energy is proportional to Mass*Velocity^2. This decomposes to: Mass*Space^2/Time^2. Much can be said to describe exactly what energy is from this analysis... but perhaps you would like to start a new thread to discuss these... so we do not get off topic in this one?

 

We can place the photons in the mass category and frequency in the time category. What is a photon if did not have a frequency?

In my view these are starting to muddy the water, one reason being that they do not recognize the point I made before which is that Time and Frequency are merely reciprocal metrics for the same "human illusion" (i.e. component of the Integrated Massive SpaceTime Matrix). Photons (specifically) and light (more generally) are experiences of our perceptions which totally defy the normal "decomposition" into Mass, Space, or Time. That is one thing that makes light "special".A good start, paladius. As I mentioned, it seems we think alike on some counts. That may be worth exploring. I leave it to you to start a new thread if you wish to explore these issues further.

Kind Regards,

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ruthless do you know php/web design? If you want, I can make myself available for questions if you want to learn. All the software is free, all you need is access to a computer and a dialup connection and time. The pay n' pensions are a lot better with a degree, but web design on the side on your way to getting a degree could help buy beer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings Einstein,

 

Have you ever given thought to gravity as having an orthogonal time flow base?

Not sure I understand what you mean here, so more explanation of your thought may be in order. However, I will offer-up that my view of gravity is based on a systems theory approach. I view gravity as an "emergent property" of the integration of Mass, Space, and Time in precisely the same way that we say (in systems theory) that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. New "things" emerge when you have multiple subsystems interacting in specific ways. It is my view that gravity emerges from the integration of Mass, Space, and Time simply because it must in order to cause cosmological conservation laws to be "enforced". I also believe that your namesake was saying pretty much the same thing (gravity is an emergent property) when he showed us how matter warps spacetime, and this is what we call gravity.
I do have the odd gravity wave observations on my scope which show the wavelength getting smaller with time. I'm interpreting this to mean that a gravity wave does not actually propagate in linear time. What I believe I am seeing on the scope is the initial gravity wave the whole time. But as time flows linearly we are moving away from the event.

I think you are aware that I do not always share your "jumps" of interpretation with you. I do not seek to deny you making those leaps, but I am just not along for the ride! :) As I mentioned before, it is my opinion that you have not done enough work to isolate instrument dynamic response effects (your accelerometer), and that I think the large majority of what you are seeing on those scope traces is related to the resonant response of the sensor itself, especially since these waves always follow a step change. As I also mentioned before, we spend an awful lot of time in aerospace control systems making sure sensor resonances do NOT couple-into the phenomenon we wish to measure. If I were you I would spend more time trying to quantify the sensor errors in this regard, and less time interpreting what you see until you do so. But that's just me. ;) RMT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The pay n' pensions are a lot better with a degree, but web design on the side on your way to getting a degree could help buy beer."

 

i cant drink anymore. ive got really bad ulcers. i drank heavily for a long time, and glad that i got away from that. :)

 

"ruthless do you know php/web design?"

 

no i dont, but i would like to. i would also like to learn C and perl, among other things. anything that anyone can teach me would be much appreciated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: PHP Web Site Development

 

CigSmokinMan,

 

As long as Microsoft continues to support FrontPage there is no reason to drop it. The only drawback is you have to pay for it, and it's closed source so you can't inspect it for security problems or other bugs.

 

ruthless

 

The reason I'd choose PHP is because it has a large community who have written great tutorials

 

http://www.w3schools.com/php/default.asp

 

http://ca3.php.net/tut.php

 

Perl has a lot of "syntactic sugar" which means the same line of code can be written different ways. This can be annoying when you are trying to read someone elses perl code and they don't use the same syntax you do.

 

I think the best way to learn a new web language is to figure out an idea for a web site you want to build, and just start asking questions... [email protected] is my MSN.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
i have considered that. black holes are a little bit hard for me to comprehend, because i find it hard to grasp the idea of turning something into nothing.

I should know self questioning better than you friend.

the only limits in life are the..

 

You know the answers to these things much better than I, but maybe I can serve to just remind you of what you already know...

 

turning something into nothing.

 

Matter/Antimatter

 

Don't think I'm trying to humble you for an instant. I probably need 10^10^10^10... more reminders daily.

 

:D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...