The Mind Field

Lee Smolin:

Height is proportional to the number of things the theory gets right. Since we don’t have a convincing case for the right theory yet, that is a high peak somewhere off in the distance. The existing approaches are hills of various heights that may or may not be connected, across some ridges and high valleys to the real peak. We assume the landscape is covered by fog so we can’t see where the real peak is, we can only feel around and detect slopes and local maxima.Lee Smolin

See here for more information.

Without giving some coordinates to the thinking in Colour of Gravity I thought it important that such talk be given a new perspective that had not been considered in the context with how hierarchically how I gave meaning to such colours.

But the truth is, the Earth's topography is highly variable with mountains, valleys, plains, and deep ocean trenches. As a consequence of this variable topography, the density of Earth's surface varies. These fluctuations in density cause slight variations in the gravity field, which, remarkably, GRACE can detect from space.

See here for more info on Grace.

First I must say that having the sceptic aligned within oneself is a good thing. To maintain a questioning state to what is ever introduced. For me as I read the exchanges between "Susskind and Smolin" it was not without understanding that I might want to instigate "two other minds in the string debate" to engage them to bring forth "good information" about the model in science, for and against.

Who would ever of thought to give correlate the differences we see on earth as topographical features to have thought "Colour of Gravity" has now been implemented along with sound?

Do not forget "Titan's descent" and what "measure" do we have? We might want to see the surface in a way that you had not seen it before? What I have written so far in this post should open up a new concept in terms of what these measures do for us.

This recording was produced by converting into audible sounds some of the radar echoes received by Huygens during the last few kilometres of its descent onto Titan. As the probe approaches the ground, both the pitch and intensity increase. Scientists will use intensity of the echoes to speculate about the nature of the surface.

So have I lost you in regards to "subjectivity." Was the science reduced to innuendos of all kinds while showing such disrespect? It is less then the desired in exchange. So I have tried to hold this high in my values.

But alas what happens sometimes though, is that we can start speaking past each other, while most distinctly I would prefer the conclusion drawn, where both would agree on the differences. Admit, they would be working to not only support their positions and the reasons why, but instigate others to continue to question and deal respectively with the continued debate. What is gravity?

The immediacy of reactive perceptions would ask that any gravity be held in context of the reaction measured in calorimetric design.

Moving to a "fifth dimensional" understanding was a necessary part of our evolution?

If you join "electromagnetism and and gravity" what will become of your views of the world around you? I am the product of such thoughts. While scientists had been engaged qualitatively, I had become what their equations would allow them too in model design.

So I had to carefully take you to this point to have enlisted the idea of the Mind Field. It's relation to what is hidden in the subtle ideas related to Colour of gravity. That we could have this "multiversity idea held to any scientists mind", while thinking of only the technologies? It had to also have it's subjective valuation too.

How could you think as a scientist and not include this aspect of the thinking mind. That it had some "ascension" to it in terms of "pyramidal qualities." Colours that I might assign? Or, that the "bubble as a sphere" would reflect the scientists mind, as if it was a relation to "earth time variable measures" in the thoughts sequences of experience? You will reflect this, not only on a "verbal level" but one you had not seen before.

Out in Right/Left Field

If one didn't have their own "heart song" what said they couldn't "tap their way?"

Both left and right sides are necessary for complete perception of rhythm. For example, both hemispheres need to be working to tell the difference between three-quarter and four-quarter time.

The front part of your brain (frontal cortex), where working memories are stored, also plays a role in rhythm and melody perception.

So it is no surpise that I would highlight the following debate between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra would it.:)

Hope Springs Eternal Science, the Afterlife & the Meaning of Life-by Michael Shermer

The ancient Hebrew word for soul is nephesh, or “life” or “vital breath”; the Greek word for soul is psyche, or “mind”; and the Roman Latin word for soul is anima, or “spirit” or “breath.” The soul is the essence that breathes life into flesh, animates us, gives us our vital spirit. Given the lack of knowledge about the natural world at the time these concepts were first formed, it is not surprising these ancient peoples reached for such ephemeral metaphors as mind, breath, and spirit. One moment a little dog is barking, prancing, and wagging its tail, and in the next moment it is a lump of inert flesh. What happened in that moment?

In 1907 a Massachusetts physician named Duncan MacDougall tried to find out by weighing six dying patients before and after their death. He reported in the medical journal American Medicine that there was a 21-gram difference. Even though his measurements were crude and varying, and no one has been able to replicate his findings, it has nonetheless grown to urban legendary status as the weight of the soul. The implication is that the soul is a thing that can be weighed. Is it?

Taking the Afterlife Seriously by Deepak Chopra

If consciousness is an aspect of the field, then our brains should operate along the lines of a field. This seems to be true. For one thing, it’s impossible to explain how the brain coordinates millions of separate events simultaneously unless something like a mind field is present. Take a compass out of your pocket anywhere on earth, shake it, and a few seconds later the wobbly needle will always settle pointing north. If every person on the planet did this at exactly twelve midnight, billions of compasses would be doing the same thing simultaneously, a fact that doesn’t surprise us because we know that the Earth’s magnetic field is responsible. It would be absurd to claim that each compass decided randomly to pick north.

The Physics of Mind

It might be that the laws change absolutely with time; that gravity for instance varies with time and that this inverse square law has a strength which depends on how long it is since the beginning of time. In other words, it's possible that in the future we'll have more understanding of everything and physics may be completed by some kind of statement of how things started which are external to the laws of physics. Richard Feynman

While by myself and my explanations, it may seem mystical indeed. In my years of research previous, it was much so. But the research is no less important then the realization that the world in which we live is governed by the list of ways that we measure. A selection from the "sensorium" to have it gain in "probable pictorial outcomes, by recognizing "the crossed wired" in our views, as one more variable?


You may use the scientific measure to take "three pictures" of the same thing, and of this, what physics is attached to what we observe out there in space? What computer processes had we detailed in the "depth of seeing" as we explore the "physics of approach," and see what beautiful pictures of Hubble, or other satellites that we gain much from the beauty of pictures received.

So a picture of the sun taken "over time" in gamma ray detection. What view is that in our depths of reason to understand the sun has certain processes to it? That what we seen in the relation to mind as a physics approach is no less important to what we observe, and are a part of.



The Mind on Physics

Is it possible to predict what a person is thinking of - or even what they are planning to do - based alone on their current brain activity? This project investigates ways to decode and predict a person’s thoughts from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. The key is that each thought is associated with a unique brain activation pattern that can be used as a signature or for that specific thought. If we train a classifier to recognize these characteristic signatures we can read out a person’s thoughts from their brain activity alone. Such “thought reading” can reveal how information is neurally encoded in the brain. The idea is that it is only possible to decode a thought if one knows the correct code. This research has many potential application, as for example in detection of deception, in the control of computers and artificial prostheses by brain activity, or even (more controversial) in market research.

So the onus is on the researcher to gain much more with the depth of reason. So in having sought science to help, one might deal with how we are relating to our world. Is it the beauty that detracts from what lies underneath, or that we understand with a greater measure the valuation we have had with that exchange with reality?

Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin-

Brain regions from which it was possible to "read out" peoples' intentions. In specific regions fine-grained patterns of brain activity showed slight differences depending on whether a person was preparing to perform an addition or a subtraction. From activity patterns in the green regions it was possible to read out covert intentions before subjects began to perform the calculation. From the regions marked in red it was possible to read out intentions that were already being acted upon.

A Scientists Multiversial Bubble



I get excited sometimes when I write, and this is one of those times.

I have see how the scientists engaged. I had lacked a "complete view" of their reality. I saw records of what the "bubble of experience allows them too" in their writings. That they could be, separate from all that exists around them, yet, they are apart of the greater aspect of reality. How dangerous are their voices in lacking, what those of the layman are lacking, when a layman speaks with authority?

This is not to lash out at the scientist, but make him/her aware of the greater potential of information that exists. That speaking "from a solid foundation" just as important as what we read and take part in, as we read the journalism of science.

Who is the Teacher

For me it has been the many who now actively engage by participating in the world of blogging, that I can now say I been so lucky. That what was so distant from, can now become a part of my life. Before this it was books, and I had to piece meal, but now I see the result of many scientists who have helped, greatly developed by giving and that example.

I lacked experience, and thus too, am trying to find my way. Live by example. So too, the teacher assumes that what he teaches, is lived by in his own history, and so of his forbears. So should we become humble in our approaches? That we have so much to learn, and that as human beings, we are not so far apart in our adventures into describing what reality is to us.

There is this demand then of the qualitative measure of that reality that it could be infinite, holds uncertainty, yet we would only see part of it? We are a part of it.

That the mind and it's subjective thoughts could now become part of science is the route "that many a scientists lacked" while holding all the technological values to what is seen in front of them. It to arose out into "validations of measure" as to how mind can be seen.

So quickly I could be dispelled that I thought indeed am I a teacher? What credentials do I have? What gave me authority? While I most certainly say you would be right, and thus, I have been living my fate in amongst the world I develop by my opinion. By "how flowery" I had become.

But without the "physical teacher" what said that we could not develop into "a teacher" and that all of us could not have this teacher within them? I would not dismiss the "rules of law" or be "sanctioned a journalist" when I too blog. But imagine the access to the "greater ability of information" has changed the way you and I can see. What is your history?

WE give this empowerment to people by giving access of information to them. I would say that by seeing this empowerment "outside of themself," I would not want them to know that they could not live to the higher validation of what a good teacher may mean. I would have to say thus, that it is "by the parent in us," that we see what has been transmitted, and that what can be transmitted, will be sent on to further generations.

That even those without being the parent, as a physical result in children raised, has this parent in them. Would a teacher as a parent know of this feeling as I would? I do not dismiss this in them because of what is real in them. Every measure of the parent in them is the advice they have unconsciously now used as this rule of measure. As they form their opinion of what is a good government had been the realizatin that as a adult now they can selectively say this is now my moral standard of law. I defne this government by what I value, and we had quickly lost the parent in all this? No that parent became a part of you. But you learnt to discern these difference between you as a adult and your parent as a adult. You realized your differences. You realized who you are as a adult.

Now about Gravity

What could I loose if such thoughts are introduced to "what may be possible" and you will have to line up all your sceptics, and it would still not dispel what I already know and have observed against all the gravitational laws as we know them.

I do not ever say stop what you are doing as a scientist. Do not loose these values, but unfortunately, I had seen something that is much like the course of events that will change any person. A "license plate" that holds symmetry? Einstein who was given "the gift of the compass," and I in no way align myself with the brilliance of their moments. But point out that each of us may have been given our own anomalies in life which will propel our searches.

I have mine.


The medium DDHome levitating in front of witnesses during an 1868 séance. It was said on this occasion that Home became curiously “elongated” as he rose into the air. Shortly afterwards, he appeared to float upright outside a third floor window. Home had his detractors, but was never discredited.
Image: Fortean Picture Library

Tonal Perception Changes

Sir Isaac Newton

It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is Below is like that which is Above and that which is Above is like that which is Below to do the miracles of the Only Thing. And as all things have been and arose from One by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptationSir Isaac Newton

Of course I see these things a little differently then some of you because I have researched and found, "model changes using theoretical perceptions," allowed such perspectives to form. Sort of like "shifting perspective" by the shifting of the Tonal.

Now seen, and understood in context of current science valuation demonstrated, I thought it important to understand how the "effect of" the sun as a central theme, could have been transmitted to "our way of thinking," to a humanistic point of view?

Atheistic or not, you cannot change what the result of your biochemical thinking does and "subsequent states of consciousness" if you did not understand the deeper correlation to what "point of view" is being explored here.

Plato:

What if we “reversed” the way we believe the “mind is inherently embodied” to, “the body” is inherently embodied by the mind?”

Is this acceptable/not aceptable, to a scientist?

Now I don't want you to think that because my own life's research has been "shallow" and "just starting," that I might have been called a professor by now in years spent?

That I use the term "layman" because each departing point of perspective I find through such research, seems apparently "new" to my thinking. To others as well, I am quite sure?

What we have learned

We have found consciousness can be described as an emergent property of the complex electromagnetic process generated from predictable biochemical and biological processes. Although the terms soul and mind may have been useful at one time to describe this process, they are no longer required. They are more like the term "phlogiston" that was employed to describe why things burned before modern chemistry emerged. When there is no electrical current moving through the parts of a television, there is no picture. When the specific electromagnetic patterns are not generated within the brain structures there is no consciousness or awareness.

Some individuals with very different brain structures show different electromagnetic correlates that are associated with their ability to discern stimuli others cannot detect. Counter clockwise rotation of weak magnetic fields around the skull at specific rates of change (derivatives) can affect subjective time and allow the average person to experience many of the altered states reported by practitioners of mystical traditions as well as "paranormal" phenomena. The critical variables, like any chemical reaction, are the complexity and specificity of the temporal parameters. One component of consciousness may be "sequestered" within second or third derivatives of very narrow bands of changes in frequency within the theta range. Our calculations of resonance, based upon the power changes within quantitative electroencephalographic measures, suggest that one electromagnetic source of consciousness may actually exist within the 10 cm region outside of and surrounding the cranium.

I add this underline portion to show why I would assume such a statement represented in Cosmic Variance comment section under the God Conundrum presented by Sean Carroll.

Also the link in general to give Sean Carroll something to think about as he speaks of what the presence in terms of what a God might mean to him regardless of what he had to say from a atheistic position or from anyone else for that matter.

We are all responsible for building the walls/tonal around us. If you work hard enough to build the understanding you have and supportive positions then why would you not think the desired result would have far reaching consequences?

Plato:

While Persinger was not able to induce the desire state for even the “most skeptical,” the research is interesting nonetheless.

"Organized religion" for those "less then kind" for what a God might have meant to us? Those, "less then human" in their evolution, their actions in the name of?" Would this have been a safe statement under the guise of conformity?

We have seen enough rationalization under the "auspice of religious tenets," to know that such a statement is "shallow" from the animalistic brain? Fight or flight response?

As we evolve to the "frontal cortex," then does it not seem strange that our thinking would/should evolve too, while all the aspects of the brains physical development follows the thoughts accordingly?? Qui Non?

Project Satellite Energy Exchange (SEE)

December 15th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Tony Smith:

As to the time of Feynman soving the QED problem, in 1941 (according to Mehra’s Feynman biography The Beat of a Different Drum (Oxford 1994)) Feynman had the inspiration from Dirac’s paper of using the Lagrangian method, which led to Feynman’s 1942 Ph.D. thesis. As to that thesis, Mehra says “… Feynman mentioned that “the problem of the form that relativistic quantum mechanics, and the Dirac equation, take from this point of view, remains unsolved. …”. So, Feynman’s Shelter Island relativistic QED solution was developed after his 1942 Ph.D. thesis.

I must admit this morning, I woke up with some questions around non gravitational effects, and how we would see this in relation to the two body problem. Now again, I reiterate, that as a student, I am going to make mistakes, but I am equally enthralled with the idea that a "channel of movement" can exist in our perceptions, where high energy considerations where I had previously thought only the strong gravitatinal influences could exist. Now I know there is more to this then previously thought and I lay out the perception built over this

Scientific relevance of the Equivalence Principle

It is possible to ascribe two conceptually different kinds of masses to a body: an inertial mass and a gravitational mass. The inertial mass is the proportionality factor between a force (any kind of force) applied to the body and the acceleration it acquires in response to it in an inertial laboratory.The gravitational mass is a measurement of the property of the body to attract gravitationally anyother body (gravitational active mass), or to be gravitationally attracted by any other body(gravitational passive mass). Assuming the validity of the action−reaction principle (which leads toconclude that the center of mass of an isolated system must move with constant velocity in aninertial frame of reference) also implies that the gravitational passive and active mass of a bodymust be the same. Since both concepts refer to the same physical interaction, this result appears to be quite natural. The gravitational mass is the analog in a gravitational field, of the electric chargein an electric field −it can be viewed as a gravitational charge− while it has no apparent relation (in spite of the name) with the concept of inertial mass

Current experiments would have to say that our undertanding has changed a bit, by what we have currently and experimentally understood in our involvement as a measure of RHIC production, as philosphical endeavors to change what we now know?

Gravity is the missing link in Grand Unification.

Because of our uniquely poor knowledge of gravity--the weakest of all known forces-- and because gravity must have a key role in any Grand Unification theory, many aspects of gravity must be understood in greater depth and precision.

A SEE mission would improve our knowledge of a number of gravitational parameters and effects which are needed to test unification theories and various modern theories of gravity.

Science Objectives of Project SEE:

Test the inverse-square law at separations of
meters the radius of the Earth

Test the equivalence principle by composition differences at these separations

Test for time variation of G

Test for anisotropy of space and other post-Einsteinian effects

In this regard then, Langrangian perspectve in the Sun Earth relation, had some interesting perspective developements that bring satellite travel into perspective, so too our energy consumptions, for extended deep space travel, more then likely as we now "see" these relations.



Yes, I had indeed created some of the understanding that arises from Time Variable measures, and how we now percieve the earth. Not as some illustrous pearl that was the first images of mind, as John Glenn peered upon this planet, but now, through understanding and measure, we "see" the earth in new ways.



Not only having understood the lagrangian perspectve, I found some relevance to how we now "see" in the cosmo, but here now too, I can speak on the "WMAP mapping system" as a functionable reality of this lagrangian perspective, being pointed out in those same maps?

Dr Mark Haskins

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phemonenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

This conjecture stimulated much work by mathematicians, but a lot still remains to be done. A central problem is to understand what kinds of singularities can form in families of smooth special Lagrangian submanifolds. A starting point for this is to study the simplest models for singular special Lagrangian varieties, namely cones with an isolated singularity. My research in this area ([2], [4], [6]) has focused on understanding such cones especially in dimension three, which also corresponds to the most physically relevant case.

Sure, let's be true to ourselves and others, for sure.:)

Instead of the Pea, What New Paradigm?

Omega=?

Imagine for one moment that this is all wrapped in a bubble(universe). Our views of earth, the hills and valleys, of the gravitational perspective, as I showed of earth as "time variable measure" now brought to conceptual realization for society.

Einstein's playful example of the hotstove, remember?



The picture you refer belongs to ISCAP and if you "refresh" that page a couple of times, you will see a number of pictures. They are important. Especially the "Lagrange points" How this perspective is used with satellites in space travel.



This is a very important perception that is not understood very well. I have another picture that will explain it well. I have maybe given to much to absorb here?

Hey hey

Do you believe that Einstein will last forever and that presently visualized elementary particles are all there are?

What happens on a cosmological scale is indeed explanable as I have shown.

The trouble is when we move our perception to the quantum probabilities. I surmized these things in context of how we would determined information from the horizon, yet the value of energy determinations here ask us to consider the value assigned to particle inclinations. These energy determinations are still valid within context of the conformal field theories, as the map shows of Bekenstein bound.

At this site you will find the new black boxes and calibration samples for the LHC Olympics! See: Revolutions for Change

For example test runs in the olympics of the LHC to be done.

Blackhole Production

Blackhole production of course created some concern, while it was being answered in terms of strangelet developement. This spoke to blackhole production directly. But low and behold, how would any of us considered the context of the cosmic particle collisions that go on all the time, and from it, secondary particle showers that are presented to earth as microstate blackhole production, which quickly dissipates.

So you might have thought indeed strangelet production from microstate blackholes in terms of cosmic particle colllisions?




But the point is learning to identfy the very beginning, and like most I thought the singualrity was like a pea, while the energy valuation and quark gluon plasma created, has some effects that we have to consider? That were counter intuitive.

Produced tunnelling? :)

Thus, this changes the very dynamics of constructs that are being present here, in a philsophical format for consumption by a society that had reached critical density?

While the energy valuation here would created certain effects. How would you apply this to the sociological developement of a society that welcomes, and from it, is born new possibilities?

Paradigmal changes perhaps?

Mental Constructs

How would such a definition as mental construct find it's place among our interactions?

Would we not need some "mental construct," to say that if the processes exist and we are fundamentally part of that process, are there different ways in which to measure our valuations in relation to how we might now see earth?



So there is this "touching" in the way you have said it at a fundamental level and then there is the touching at another level? I am justing tryng to understand it from a frame of reference, yet the idea, ideal, is much finer in it's measure? Where did it begin?

electron wave packet repelling eachother by exchanging virtual photons

As you know this process is also encapsulated as part of GR.



When you engage Gauss's thinking, Gauss's coordinates, it is not without "seeing in ways" that one might not be accustomed too, that we ask, how might we treat this subject?



Yet, you look for "the consistancy" that is thread through all the geometric incursions we send our perceptions into? So what is this consistancy?

While we entertain these distances, quark to quark measures, how will this ocnsistancy of thought be held to "a measure" while we send perception all the way down to the reductionist levels, and find that such a fluid allows new physics and idealogical valuations to be now interpeted according to the measures enforced?



Of course the answer is very simplistic in my books and is one uesed to maintain this consistancy, yet, we would find there is no new geometry or new physics as far as we know, from that beginning point?

Intuitively Compelling

While it does appear that Einstein has indeed given us a paradigm which was indeed world-changing and affected everyone, how well might he have known himself?

He was "driven," as to the" focus and outcome" of GR's growth? Yet, being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?

So having engaged the wording of scientist as of late, I wanted to stay as close as I could to the thinking being developed as they engaged society through their blogging site perspectives.

It was most troubling that any discussing of the timeline and any other constructs place in accordance with that timeline, would/could have been insulting to some, even though it fit into a perspective in terms of microseconds, lesss then somany eseconds of expression.

Again for sure, "thought constructs," most appropriate measures as yard sticks of reality conforming to model approaches? Be open.

Thomas Torrance

In 1978, he won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his contributions to theology and the relationship between it and science

You must understand there is a current struggle in today's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted?

Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.

I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

The Nature of Reality
Having read all of Jane Roberts books( some might not have taken a shine to such information, but part of the developing perspective included information that was written "intuitively compelled"), so she might have answered a little different, but in essence, thought, to the nature of the universe.

I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.

So you are give this question as to what the nature of the unverse is? What is it, and people are lead through theoretcial constructs to develope perspective on what that question might be?

Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)

Self Organization of Matter, by Robert Laughlin

What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel

Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.

One had to indeed understand that the maps drawn, were drawn from thOught constructS engaged from wanting to understanding where first principles may have emerged from?

How would you do that without undertanding where this map began?




So what use to Engage Strangelets, New Physics



So from a resulting comprehension of such first principles, there came this resulting course of events, that went through all the phase transitions, to become what it is, in context of the strangelet, a perspective about a measure in the IceCap?



I have been following this research for sometime now. I will be updating this information here].

One has to know where to begin with all this information, and that such "mental constructs" had to know where this beginning was. While there are few here mathematically endowed, I wanted to come here and share perspectve in context of the neurological idea behind the mental constructs that we develope in science.

This is not without foundation that, "globally," when we now see, we had indeed step back to access the greater potential in "thought generation," and that "mass psychosis," (could we call it that as such a verification by the masses?)" endowed to measure, experimentally verified.

I'll wait to see if you want some time to digest and rethink, if you think, it worth doing that? :)

True creativity often starts where language ends-Arthur Koestler

Intuitively Compelling=Intuitive Grasp of Self Evident First Principles



No matter the ideology spread, is there something today that is quite useful in our approaches to cognizing relevance, from "thought constructs" to actual processes, currently asking us our about the beginning of the universe?

While such solidification ensues from taking a stand, as a concluson drawn, is it compelling as to the nature of what first principles might mean? You had to understand the current environment, to conclude an opinion about the measures and constructs, as to those measures asking if there was another way?

You couldn't know that, unless you might have read the links of Robert Lauglhin and understood reductionistic tendencies(science), as to the nature of our universe? It's like joining quantum perspective with General Relativity? You would have to known how this was acomplished? It's result, and hence it's application within society?

If one had not understood, shall we call it a "probabilistic discourse," to have now understood, that a new course may be set today, was different from the past, by "one additional grasp of self evident first principle?" That a new page may be written( what thinking had done so) which may change the course of our lives?

Of course, some will not have confidence yet. :)
That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.

Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?

It All Began in a Dream?

An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.Srinivasa Ramanujan

So to me, it is still all out there for us to look? How we might entertain that awe and beauty in nature?

"God does not play dice" by Thomas Torrance
Einstein was not a determinist but a realist, with the conviction that, in line with Clerk Maxwellian field theory and general relativity theory, nature is governed by profound levels of intelligible connection that cannot be expressed in the crude terms of classical causality and traditional mathematics. He was convinced that the deeper forms of intelligibility being brought to light in relativity and quantum theory cannot be understood in terms of the classical notions of causality–they required what he called Übercausalität–supercausality. And this called for "an entirely new kind of mathematical thinking", not least in unified field theory–that was a kind of mathematics he did not even know, but which someone must find.

Once Comsuming any Model

It is difficult to explain how one might have "the feeling" for curvature on cosmological plateau while such tendencies for quantum perception would be rule by uncertainty?

I wonder if such states held in context to what consciousness might be able to percieve at that level of high energy areas, would give indications to particle natures and the curvatures assigned to each particle nature. What gave these meomntum ad emotive feelings to such travel from the initial contact?

How are we able to pierce this veil and environment, while talking about the nature of such curvatures? We wouldn't survive realistically, yet, we are able to perform "thought constructs" to such models?

So looking at time dilation, the photon within environments, what indications for such curvatures, and one gets this sense of momentum, and in another way, something that I have called toposense.

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

Constants with and without dimensions

Nature presents us with various constants. Some of these constants, such as the fine-structure constant, are dimensionless and are not expressed in terms of units. However, other constants, such as the velocity of light or the mass of the proton, are dimensional and their numerical values depend entirely on the units in which they are expressed. The laws of nature do not, of course, depend on a man-made system of units.

To put this another way, if we want to measure a dimensional constant, we need a "yardstick" to make the measurement. But if we obtained one value when we measured the speed of light on a Monday, say, and a different value when we measured it on a Friday, how would we know that our yardstick had not shrunk or expanded? We would not. Moreover, if we were to interpret our observations as a change in the length of the yardstick, how could we verify it without reference to a second yardstick? Again, we could not. And so on.

However, dimensionless constants are fundamental absolute numbers, measured without reference to anything else. Therefore, if we want to investigate if the laws of nature are changing we must measure dimensionless quantities such as the fine-structure constant or the ratio of the electron and proton masses

Computer Language and Math Joined from Artistic Impressionism?

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."- Lisa Randall

Cubist Art: Picasso's painting 'Portrait of Dora Maar'
Cubist art revolted against the restrictions that perspective imposed. Picasso's art shows a clear rejection of the perspective, with women's faces viewed simultaneously from several angles. Picasso's paintings show multiple perspectives, as though they were painted by someone from the 4th dimension, able to see all perspectives simultaneously.

Sean from Cosmic Variance writes his opening post by including the title, "The language of Science".


I would have said maths as well, yet, as a Layman there is much for me to learn.


THOMAS BANCHOFF has been a professor of mathematics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, since 1967. He has written two books and fifty articles on geometric topics, frequently incorporating interactive computer graphics techniques in the study of phenomena in the fourth and higher dimensions

The marriage between computer and math language(Banchoff) I would say would be important from the prospective of displaying imaging, seen in the development of abstract language as used in numerical relativity? Accummalated data gained from LIGO operations. Time variable measures?



My first demonstration was with a Calabi Yau model of the torso. Visually seeing this way, helped to progress understanding. The transferance from the math structure to imaging in computer, to me, seemed very hard thing to do.


Alain Connes

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition.

If the math is right, the "concepts spoken," will be right also?



How such reductionism is held to the values of science, is seen in the work of the calorimeters. Glast and LHC designs give introspective views of how fine our perspective is being shaped. Can we see the underlying imaging as a toll, respective of reductionism as seeing the dynamical and geoemtrical background to all events measured? LIGO in data accumulation, describing the infomration released into the bulk perspective.

Toroidal_LHC_ApparatuS

In the theory of relativity, momentum is not proportional to velocity at such speeds.) Thus high-momentum particles will curve very little, while low-momentum particles will curve significantly; the amount of curvature can be quantified and the particle momentum can be determined from this value.

Apollo Moon Measure

Reference was made by Sean Carroll while he is up in Toronto lecturing.

Georgi Dvali


NYU’S Dvali Says Change in Laws of Gravity, Not ‘Dark Energy,’ Source of Cosmic Acceleration

"This is the crucial difference between the dark energy and modified gravity hypothesis, since, by the former, no observable deviation is predicted at short distances," Dvali says. "Virtual gravitons exploit every possible route between the objects, and the leakage opens up a huge number of multidimensional detours, which bring about a change in the law of gravity."

Dvali adds that the impact of modified gravity is able to be tested by experiments other than the large distance cosmological observations. One example is the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment that monitors the lunar orbit with an extraordinary precision by shooting the lasers to the moon and detecting the reflected beam. The beam is reflected by retro-reflecting mirrors originally placed on the lunar surface by the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission.

It is important to understand that with this operation running for 35 years the benefits of using existing experimental opportunites are worth considering. I am of course referring to Georgi Dvali's proposition above.

Better than a stopwatch...In essence, we measure the time it takes for the pulse of light to travel to the moon and back. This can take anywhere from 2.34 to 2.71 seconds, depending on how far away the moon is at the time (the earth-moon distance ranges from 351,000 km to 406,000 km). We can time the round trip to few-picosecond precision, or a few trillionths of a second.


Einstein's Equivalence Principle, upon which General Relativity rests, claims that all forms of mass-energy experience the same acceleration in response to an external gravitational force. This is to say that the inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent for any form of mass and/or energy. This is very difficult to verify for gravitational energy itself, because laboratory masses have no appreciable gravitational binding energy. One needs bodies as large as the earth to have any measurable self-energy content. Even then, the self-energy contribution to Earth's total mass-energy is less than one part-per-billion

The benefits of seeing and using time clocks, as a measure of perspective has a solid base and the ocnsiderations of GR has lead our views into a world much different then wha we seeon the surface of life. I make reference here to other ways in which we see these relations.

Gravity and Light in the Fifth Dimension perhaps?

Links which extend our perceptions are always greatly appreciated Chris W.

Towards a new test of general relativity?

23 March 2006

Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity.

See:

A Sphere that is not so Round

What! Superficiality has extra dimensions to it?

Time-Variable Gravity Measurements

UV Fixed Point

Genesis Spacecraft uses Tubes as Freeways

A Myth Created: Truth Felt, and a Life to Accomplish?

I sometimes have a problem with the thought, that the brain in human beings back 2000 years time, had less intelligent brain matter defined, that we could have had less than the truth of things required?

The plate below speaks to this. Observation maybe on the inherent principals embedded with myth, seems interesting, if held in context of what the emotive truth would have implied. Having given meaning to "lightness in the heart of things."

Maybe new light shed on Einstein's relevance to gravity held in perspective of length of time past with a pretty girl.

Subjective as this may be, it shows some relation to the "time variable recognitions" held in perspective, while looking at the nature of the sphere of earth seen in a new light.

The feather, because of its name, "shut", was a symbol of Shu. Shu was the Egyptian god of the air and the father of the earth (Geb) and the sky (Nut). Shu was often shown wearing a feather in his hair. Occasionally Geb was shown dressed in feathers, a representation of the air which covers him.

Usually, the feather was a symbol of Ma'at, the goddess of truth and order. The goddess was always shown wearing an ostrich feather in her hair. The feather by itself was her emblem.

In art, the feather was shown in scenes of the Hall of Ma'at. This hall is where the deceased was judged for his worthiness to enter the afterlife. The seat of the deceased's soul, his heart, was weighed on a balance against the feather of Ma'at. If the heart was free from the impurities of sin, and therefore lighter than the feather, then the dead person could enter the eternal afterlife. Other gods in the judgement hall who were part of the tribunal overseeing the weighing of the heart were also pictured holding a feather.

A mechanism would have been needed to see such a development in the definitions of those ephemeral qualities. Could have "hidden" within the "emotive content" our subjective life experience. Why do we remember?

The understanding that such reactionary states allotted to experience, would have seen less of the material attachment held to the emotive content necessary? So for measuring our truthfulness to ourselves, rests in our assignment of what purity, and quality of life assigned to our undertaking of this life expressed in thought.

Taking such a stance on the idea of what came before and what came after would then take us to the question of relevance? Why is it necessary outside of these two points of existence, to have them included now.

How well then our understanding, that if such a "emotive quality to truth" had been assigned, then the draw to matter defined states of experience, might not be as strong. Awareness. Thus we will have unleashed the ephemeral quality of mind?

So it ventures forth from the confines of the home, in which it lives. Deals, in the abstract nature. Would we have abandon such a merger of emotive and intellectual qualities risen into a higher recognition necessary. What is the value of that truth personally?

It shed light on a personal experience in nature, with which all experience is remembered?

Resonance Curve

Some might inference a very spherical world, but when you take "this view below" the world becomes very bumpy indeed. This was only possible by a revision in thinking and science of measure. Perspective was changed. The "biological genetic result" are lead by the mind, and not the other way around?:) Evolution of the brain structure makes me think this. Evolution of Emotive IQ, makes me think this.

This of course, in regards to biological thinking, runs in contradiction to everything that has been built up? What neurological pathways is built in thinking when your thinking "fires" neuronic pathways that never existed before?

While these pathways are already established, in our unthinking coordinated body movement these had been relegated to such a product of the species, after much travelling and exercising the mind's connection. Then w let it go, like we let many things go after repeatingly reliving the experience and assuming such idealizations. All thinking becomes biased then, yet we can meet the memory, and current daily incursions comparatively lived, by changing the way we see. By the way we meet situations. We had to open up our memory and track the evoluton of reaction.

That these migh tbe seen on anotherlevel, would have not been so far remved from the work being done on how gravity is thought about.



It's an ole way of thinking(GR perspective) and how measurement above, and at the earth, helps one see? That this process had been taken to very precise mesurements gravitationally considered?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

I mean when you take your thinking and transfer it to what happens within context of the gravitational field, then you soon learn the value of the photon within that environ.

The "spectrum" had been modified to a way of thinking, and is representative. But in order to do that, you had to move the thinking from GR to abstract valuations. You might not have seen this before, if you had not moved to a fifth dimensional understanding. "Spacetime wording" then becomes self explanatory, about it's every nature. "Spacetime" then becomes the "fabric of the cosmos."

Oscillatory Universe(21 Febuary 2006 Wiki)

The oscillatory universe is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.

Has Speed of Light changed Recently?

You have to remember I am not as well educated as the rest of the leaque connected at Peter Woit's site. But how could one think anything less, then what perception can contribute, as less then what the educated mind might have thought of? If it did not have the scope enlisted by others in consideration cosmology might have expressed, then we might have reduced the value of reducitonism role in how we perceive the beginning of the cosmos?

So what Does Peter Woit say here? I am glad that the support(choir:) moved to Peter's cause for truth and enlightenment, is clarifying itself, instead of the ole rants that we had been witnessed too, in the past.

Understanding the clear disticnctions make's it much easier now, instead of what opportunities might have been past by? Of course I understood that he is quite happy with the life given, makes it all the more reason that the value of opinion will have direction(not hidden causes). Contributions by the the opinions generated, held to a educative process that we all would like to be part of.

Peter Woit:

In general, what I really care about and am willing to invest time in trying to carefully understand, are new physical ideas that explain something about particle theory, or new mathematical ideas that might somehow be useful in better understanding particle theory.

Strings /M theory moved to cosmological thinking because of where it had been?

Life, the cosmos and everything:

Lee Smolin stressed that it is only justifiable if one has a theory that independently predicts the existence of these universes, and that such a theory, to be scientific, must be falsifiable. He argued that most of the universes should have properties like our own and that this need not be equivalent to requiring the existence of observers.

Smolin's own approach invoked a form of natural selection. He argued that the formation of black holes might generate new universes in which the constants are slightly mutated. In this way, after many generations, the parameter distribution will peak around those values for which black-hole formation is maximized. This proposal involves very speculative physics, since we have no understanding of how the baby universes are born. However, it has the virtue of being testable since one can calculate how many black holes would form if the parameters were different.

So what are Lee Smolin's thoughts today, and one can see where the interactions might have, raised a claerer perception of what falsifiable is meant in context of today's reasonings. Has this changed from 2003?

Lee Smolin:

My impression, if I can say so, is that many cosmologists undervalue the positive successes of CNS. It EXPLAINS otherwise mysterious features of our universe such as the setting of the parameters to make carbon and oxygen abundent-not because of life but because of their role in cooling GMC’s. It also EXPLAINS the hierarchy problem and the scale of the weak interactions-because these can also be understood to be tuned to extremize black hole production. Further, it EXPLAINS two otherwise improbable features of glaxies: why the IMF for star formation is power law and why disk galaxies maintain a steady rate of massive star formation.

So while we are engaged in the thinking of what can be measured from the big bang till now( Sean Carroll has given us a positon to operate from), but having the Poor man's collider introspective, helps us to consider how we may see the developement of particle interaction, as Pierre Auger experiments have reminded us?

Since the COBE discovery, many ground and balloon-based experiments have shown the ripples peak at the degree scale. What CMB experimentalists do is take a power spectrum of the temperature maps, much as you would if you wanted to measure background noise. The angular wavenumber, called a multipole l, of the power spectrum is related to the inverse of the angular scale (l=100 is approximately 1 degree). Recent experiments, noteably the Boomerang and Maxima experiments, have show that the power spectrum exhibits a sharp peak of exactly the right form to be the ringing or acoustic phenomena long awaited by cosmologists:

Then how would we see such changes and views that might of held the mind to variances in the landscape, as hills and valleys, portrayed in our cosmo? Perception between the Earth and the Sun. What shall we say to these values in other places of the cosmo? Will we see the impression of the spacetime fabric much differently then we do with the fabric as we see it now? Some might not like this analogy, but it is useful, as all toys models are useful?

Had we forgotten Wayne Hu so early here, not to have thought before we let this all slip from our fingers, as some superfluid and how we got there, Whose previous existance we had not speculated(what about Dirac), yet we understand the push to the singularity do we not?

"How do you actually make a collapsing universe bounce back? No one ever had a good idea about that,” Albrecht said. “What these guys realized was that if they got their wish for an ekpyrotic universe, then they could have the universe bounce back."

Such gravitational collapse sets the stage for what was initiated from, yet, we would not entertain cyclical models, that would instigate geometrical propensities along side of physics procedures?

So what do we mean when I say that we have pushed the minds eye ever deeper into the world of the Gluonic phases, which we would like so much to validated from such "traversed paths" that such limitations might have then been projected into the cosmo for a better perspective of time? Langangrain valuations alongside of the cosmic string? Which view is better?



When I started to look at the idea of these xtra dimensions, and how these would be manifesting and the experimental attempts at defining such, I recognized Aldeberger with eotvos contributions here, that a few might have understood and seen?

Together now such a perspective might have formed now around perspectve glazes that we might now wonder indeed why such a path taken by Aldeberger might now have been seen in such fine measures?

The Shape of the UNiverse in Omega Values

Having walked through the curvature parameters, in the Friedmann equations while understanding the nature of the universe, I thought would have been very important from the geometrical valuations, that I have been trying to understand. That it might arise in a terminology called quantum geometry, seems a very hard thing to comprehend, yet thinking about CFT measure on the horizon(Bekenstein Bound) is telling us something about the space of the blackhole?

So people have these new ideas about quantum grvaity and some might have choosen monte carlo methods for examination in the regards of quantum gravity perceptive.

Plato:

Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.

JUst as one might have asked Max Tegmark what the shape of the universe was, he might of quickly discounted John Baez's soccer ball? Yet little did we know, that such a push by Magueijo might have had some influences? How would you measure such inflationary models?


Plato said:

When I looked at Glast, it seemed a fine way in which to incorporate one more end of the "spectrum" to how we see the cosmo? That we had defined it over this range of possibilties? How could we move further from consideration then, and I fall short in how the probabilties of how we might percieve graviton exchange of information in the bulk could reveal more of that spectrum? A resonance curve?

Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.

One of the ways that has intrigued my inquiring mind, is the way in which I could see how xtra-dimensions might have been allocated to the views of photon interaction? We know the ways in which calorimetric design helps us see how fine the views are encased in the way Onion people work?

I had recognized quite early as I was getting research material together of Smolin's support of Magueijo, had something to do with the way in which he was seeing VSL approaches to indicators of time valuations?

Again, this is quite hard to conclusive drawn understanding, in that such roads lead too, would have instantly said that (speed of light in a vacuum)C never changes? How many good teachers would have chastize their students, to have this held in contrast to todays way we do things when looking at Magueijo?

Magueijo started reading Einstein when he was 11, but he wanted to comprehend the theory using mathematics rather than words. So he read a book by Max Born, which explains relativity in the language of mathematics. He quotes Galileo as having said, "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics."

Let's look at what is being said from a fifth dimensional perspective, and tell me why this will not change the way we see? Why model comprehension has not sparked this foundational change in the way we look at the cosmos and the spacetrime fabric?