I'm not sure about Mythbusters. I really like the show, but they may try to blowup the Notre Dame!
Physicists at Indiana University have developed a promising new way to identify a possible abnormality in a fundamental building block of Einstein's theory of relativity known as "Lorentz invariance." If confirmed, the abnormality would disprove the basic tenet that the laws of physics remain the same for any two objects traveling at a constant speed or rotated relative to one another.
I win! Like I said......Lorentz(?) = 'Blow Me'.
At least as far as general proofs to/for the 'general public' goes, which means that it's mainstream---long before they end up hearing bout anything, at all.
http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html
I win! Like I said......Lorentz(?) = 'Blow Me'.
At least as far as general proofs to/for the 'general public' goes, which means that it's mainstream---long before they end up hearing bout anything, at all.
http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html
"No dedicated experiment has yet sought a seasonal variation of the rate of an object's fall in the Earth's gravity," said Kostelecky. "Since Newton's time over 300 years ago, apples have been assumed to fall at the same rate in the summer and the winter."
More proposed experiments, no results. G has been measured to 9 or 10 digits many times. More BS.
Higg's boson is coming and it will blow you away. 🙂
More proposed experiments, no results. G has been measured to 9 or 10 digits many times. More BS.
Higg's boson is coming and it will blow you away. 🙂
Notice that he didn't cite this one:
http://www.physorg.com/news143295554.html
where there actually IS experimental verification. Yawn.
http://www.physorg.com/news143295554.html
where there actually IS experimental verification. Yawn.
Instead of polluting John's thread, I will bring it here.
Then we get into the strange science of the Offices of the Naval Academy of Research showing, with no exception or room to wiggle out of it..that the human nervous system is superconductive and works faster than the speed of light...or you can accept human multi-dimensionality and connectivity on the quantum level.
Those are your two choices. There are no others. The reality is that both are true, as they stem from the same function.
99.99% or more of the people here will reject either option on the table...as this disturbs their world view to an extremely high degree and causes panic in them on the animal underlayer of their existence.
In essence, to say that we understand 'human aural memory' as lasting only ten seconds is to to be full of what you read, or 'know' but not that which is really out there, waiting to be understood. 20 audiophile magazines and their empirical knowledge of over 30 years of knowledge in the field.....say that the 10 second thing is absurdly wrong.
One must understand in the engineering sense that if multiple sets of empirical data indicate a flaw in the premise, well then, the premise is wrong. Start again. Find the missing points. Of course, one essentially must allow themselves to actually look at the proffered data (my earlier point), otherwise - no progress will occur.
For example, studies are now starting to emerge that the Lorentz Invariance (and then relativity unwinds-which 12,000 years of recorded anomalous data has shown to be the overarching point, here) is indeed a false data point that has been taken to dogma status and needs to be 'fecal-canned' along with it's formulaic associations in order to be able to move along any further in science's cutting edge. Hundreds upon hundreds of points in modern science have shown this data and it can be put together all in one spot, easily.
The point I'm making is that many times one must be careful of taking science theory as 'fact', (all science is theory, not fact - critical to remember) when it is only theory and Dogmatism is the danger. An interesting point is like anything take to extremes, it can slowly become the problem, not the solution to the question of 'creation of stability' in human terms -it originally was.
Anyway, your own particular given backside will disallow these point to enter your mind until you clear yourself completely. And since the vast majority of people have not gone on the attack with regards to tearing down their ego structure, the result is continual denial, which I see here. I foolishly give your ego a point to attack, ie -me. The problem is deep inside the individual, folks, it's not external.
For science to understand the infinite science will have to become infinity. For you to understand infinity with respect to science you will have to become infinity. For you to understand infinity, you will have to force your ego to release it's control of what you are. That requires you to understand that the voice in your head that puts internal 'sounds' or a 'voice' to these words you are reading right now...actually IS the internal face of the problem itself.
To re-iterate, people ask me how come I can't explain such things to them clearly, in easy to understand terms, with respect to some scientific progress in quantum considerations. I actually have done that. Repeatedly.
The reality is..that they themselves won't allow it to happen.
You really have to want to know.
You really have to be willing to give it all up to know.
And then you have to act on that - and be relentless in your pursuit.
In order to interact with 99.9999% or more of 'humans', you must have the ego mask in place. Otherwise, they freak out. If you remove your ego mask, then others will try and (unconsciously or otherwise) force you to put it back on. And the problem, once clear is that the ego always creeps back in. Always. A constant battle that societal norms enforce with a vengeance.
In the end, boys and girls, it ain't the science, it ain't the facts, it ain't the studies. It has never been any of that. Ever.
It's your freakin' head. That's the problem.
PMA said:
Then we get into the strange science of the Offices of the Naval Academy of Research showing, with no exception or room to wiggle out of it..that the human nervous system is superconductive and works faster than the speed of light...or you can accept human multi-dimensionality and connectivity on the quantum level.
Those are your two choices. There are no others. The reality is that both are true, as they stem from the same function.
99.99% or more of the people here will reject either option on the table...as this disturbs their world view to an extremely high degree and causes panic in them on the animal underlayer of their existence.
In essence, to say that we understand 'human aural memory' as lasting only ten seconds is to to be full of what you read, or 'know' but not that which is really out there, waiting to be understood. 20 audiophile magazines and their empirical knowledge of over 30 years of knowledge in the field.....say that the 10 second thing is absurdly wrong.
One must understand in the engineering sense that if multiple sets of empirical data indicate a flaw in the premise, well then, the premise is wrong. Start again. Find the missing points. Of course, one essentially must allow themselves to actually look at the proffered data (my earlier point), otherwise - no progress will occur.
For example, studies are now starting to emerge that the Lorentz Invariance (and then relativity unwinds-which 12,000 years of recorded anomalous data has shown to be the overarching point, here) is indeed a false data point that has been taken to dogma status and needs to be 'fecal-canned' along with it's formulaic associations in order to be able to move along any further in science's cutting edge. Hundreds upon hundreds of points in modern science have shown this data and it can be put together all in one spot, easily.
The point I'm making is that many times one must be careful of taking science theory as 'fact', (all science is theory, not fact - critical to remember) when it is only theory and Dogmatism is the danger. An interesting point is like anything take to extremes, it can slowly become the problem, not the solution to the question of 'creation of stability' in human terms -it originally was.
Anyway, your own particular given backside will disallow these point to enter your mind until you clear yourself completely. And since the vast majority of people have not gone on the attack with regards to tearing down their ego structure, the result is continual denial, which I see here. I foolishly give your ego a point to attack, ie -me. The problem is deep inside the individual, folks, it's not external.
For science to understand the infinite science will have to become infinity. For you to understand infinity with respect to science you will have to become infinity. For you to understand infinity, you will have to force your ego to release it's control of what you are. That requires you to understand that the voice in your head that puts internal 'sounds' or a 'voice' to these words you are reading right now...actually IS the internal face of the problem itself.
To re-iterate, people ask me how come I can't explain such things to them clearly, in easy to understand terms, with respect to some scientific progress in quantum considerations. I actually have done that. Repeatedly.
The reality is..that they themselves won't allow it to happen.
You really have to want to know.
You really have to be willing to give it all up to know.
And then you have to act on that - and be relentless in your pursuit.
In order to interact with 99.9999% or more of 'humans', you must have the ego mask in place. Otherwise, they freak out. If you remove your ego mask, then others will try and (unconsciously or otherwise) force you to put it back on. And the problem, once clear is that the ego always creeps back in. Always. A constant battle that societal norms enforce with a vengeance.
In the end, boys and girls, it ain't the science, it ain't the facts, it ain't the studies. It has never been any of that. Ever.
It's your freakin' head. That's the problem.
Ken a general question, why the disdain for relativity in particular? Not just you of course. Most scientists I know would love a negative result especially a clear strong one. It would guarantee that $1,000,000.
It's a disdain for things taken as gospel. No more than that.
As we move into quantum considerations and attempt to break what was previously known as inviolate, we begin to break the paradigm of agreed upon human existence. Ie, the group consensus, in the underlying and overarching mechanistic aspects of human grease or social/cultural discourse in the grander overall human sense.
In the end if you want to truly understand the quantum considerations, the framework -with respects to where it goes and leads to....the framework in existence now ----has to be altered.
Two of the key points to unraveling the extant framework, in order to move forward...are Lorentz and Heaviside, as mentioned earlier. Lorentz is co-incidentally, quite fundamental to Relativity. Relativity is ultimately Newtonian in the human applications sense and overall understandings.
The real PO for science in general, is to learn that the Religion aspects of Buddhism (and other older aspects of humanistic religion and associated aspects) is that they had it least half right 1000's of years sooner than the science/literal crowd, while Science holds the other half of the key, if they would each allow the other access to that key.
However, the polarity of the mindsets of each given group is part of the aforementioned internal issue.
Yes, human psychology 'At play in the fields of the (mechanistic) Lord'.
For those who understand the subject, none of this matters at all. Even the fear of death leaves one, but the body still fears it, thus the attempt to re-erect the ego to keep the systems together and working. Relentless, it is.
I attack relativity as it is a foundational point of modern science.
The math is flawed, as the premise is flawed, ie Lorentz and Heaviside. Einstein will always be a great man, in my mind.
From my readings on his musings he understood this in totality, as a man with no fears in his explorations would be. That after the publication of general relativity and he noting how it took over science in the most basic sense. That how he published his UFT and that it is gone...that he understood how man was not ready for the implications-at that time. How that after it had actually been in publication for three weeks..it is now impossible to find.
There is extensive literature that shows these things as fully established sciences with multiple decades of work and research that has advanced and moved forward in these areas.
Dr. Paul LaViolette, a few months ago, published a book that shows one area of these fields in full and feverish bloom for the past 5 decades. Look it up. The man has nine degrees. Not an idiot.
As we move into quantum considerations and attempt to break what was previously known as inviolate, we begin to break the paradigm of agreed upon human existence. Ie, the group consensus, in the underlying and overarching mechanistic aspects of human grease or social/cultural discourse in the grander overall human sense.
In the end if you want to truly understand the quantum considerations, the framework -with respects to where it goes and leads to....the framework in existence now ----has to be altered.
Two of the key points to unraveling the extant framework, in order to move forward...are Lorentz and Heaviside, as mentioned earlier. Lorentz is co-incidentally, quite fundamental to Relativity. Relativity is ultimately Newtonian in the human applications sense and overall understandings.
The real PO for science in general, is to learn that the Religion aspects of Buddhism (and other older aspects of humanistic religion and associated aspects) is that they had it least half right 1000's of years sooner than the science/literal crowd, while Science holds the other half of the key, if they would each allow the other access to that key.
However, the polarity of the mindsets of each given group is part of the aforementioned internal issue.
Yes, human psychology 'At play in the fields of the (mechanistic) Lord'.
For those who understand the subject, none of this matters at all. Even the fear of death leaves one, but the body still fears it, thus the attempt to re-erect the ego to keep the systems together and working. Relentless, it is.
I attack relativity as it is a foundational point of modern science.
The math is flawed, as the premise is flawed, ie Lorentz and Heaviside. Einstein will always be a great man, in my mind.
From my readings on his musings he understood this in totality, as a man with no fears in his explorations would be. That after the publication of general relativity and he noting how it took over science in the most basic sense. That how he published his UFT and that it is gone...that he understood how man was not ready for the implications-at that time. How that after it had actually been in publication for three weeks..it is now impossible to find.
There is extensive literature that shows these things as fully established sciences with multiple decades of work and research that has advanced and moved forward in these areas.
Dr. Paul LaViolette, a few months ago, published a book that shows one area of these fields in full and feverish bloom for the past 5 decades. Look it up. The man has nine degrees. Not an idiot.
For example, that the 2-d stress field interactive that creates the vortex, that becomes the vector that describes 3-d reality, thus the essence of the unidirectionality of time and inviolate characteristic of 'history' or the past, that the symmetrization of these minute differential aspects of Maxwell's works by Heaviside and the refinement and removal of the last traces by Lorentz....that these two things removed the mathematical possibilities of quantum physics making sense of the vectoral result-unidirectionality of time, ie the destruction of what is ultimately possible to see as a multidimensional quantum lattice model.
Fluidic analysis of systems, or EHD or MHD analysis ends up requiring the asymmetrical aspects that Lorentz and Heaviside removed from maxwell's works ---- to be put back in.
Thus the essence of time and gravitation spills out onto the floor.
Fluidic analysis of systems, or EHD or MHD analysis ends up requiring the asymmetrical aspects that Lorentz and Heaviside removed from maxwell's works ---- to be put back in.
Thus the essence of time and gravitation spills out onto the floor.
>Dr. Paul LaViolette, a few months ago, published a book that shows one area of these fields in full and feverish bloom for the past 5 decades. Look it up. The man has nine degrees. Not an idiot<
The guys that write creation science so that carbon dating is "flawed" and predicts nothing more than a few thousand years old also have mucho degrees. Paul's stuff makes my head hurt.
The guys that write creation science so that carbon dating is "flawed" and predicts nothing more than a few thousand years old also have mucho degrees. Paul's stuff makes my head hurt.
Ken, I'm curious- do you have a random generator that makes this stuff up? Like that automated "artist's statement" or the "Post-modernist" generators?
I remember trying to teach a French friend of mine the phrase, "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys." He said, "I understand each of zees words, but you put zem togezer zees way, eet make no sense."
I remember trying to teach a French friend of mine the phrase, "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys." He said, "I understand each of zees words, but you put zem togezer zees way, eet make no sense."
SY said:
I generate random pretty good by myself.
I'm not fully capable of putting it in engineering speak, and frankly, it's not a good idea to do so. Those who know what I speak of do understand that. Things tend to not ever be as simple as they look. Until you get past the confusing parts, that is. As well, it might be prudent to mention again that the one of the greatest sins a man can commit against himself and the world is to assay the world (and thus project into it) via the limits of his own intelligence.
Actually this is an area of interest, and an opportunity for being off-topic.
The better you get at something, the harder it gets to think random things about it. However... When you are a Zen master, randomnocity is easy.
Strangely enough, people fear other people who are unpredictable. Unpredictabilityness is generally associated with mental instability.
However, the mechanism for prediction relies on us knowing the dependent variables of that which we are to predict.
Those who are completely self-reliant have no dependent variables, and they are also not dependent variables in themselves (if I may speak of people as variables).
So, the fact that we must know what a person is dependent on in order to feel secure underlines an insecurity in modern society. Were we independent ourselves, we would not need to depend on predictability to handle our surroundings...
So, if an independent person does not choose to be dependent, then they would seem completely random to anyone who was dependent. Only after they chose to abide by a number of variables would they begin to make sense to us...
So that is my quasi-mathematical analysis of the implications of KBK's RNG (of course I don't think he is a Zen master, however...).
Sounds fun anyways. If my analysis is correct, and we are striving for independence, then it is also correct that this thread is a good influence since it emphasizes randomnosity.
- keantoken
The better you get at something, the harder it gets to think random things about it. However... When you are a Zen master, randomnocity is easy.
Strangely enough, people fear other people who are unpredictable. Unpredictabilityness is generally associated with mental instability.
However, the mechanism for prediction relies on us knowing the dependent variables of that which we are to predict.
Those who are completely self-reliant have no dependent variables, and they are also not dependent variables in themselves (if I may speak of people as variables).
So, the fact that we must know what a person is dependent on in order to feel secure underlines an insecurity in modern society. Were we independent ourselves, we would not need to depend on predictability to handle our surroundings...
So, if an independent person does not choose to be dependent, then they would seem completely random to anyone who was dependent. Only after they chose to abide by a number of variables would they begin to make sense to us...
So that is my quasi-mathematical analysis of the implications of KBK's RNG (of course I don't think he is a Zen master, however...).
Sounds fun anyways. If my analysis is correct, and we are striving for independence, then it is also correct that this thread is a good influence since it emphasizes randomnosity.
- keantoken
There is a book called "who moved my cheese?" that I read once out of boardom, perhaps it may hold the answers you seek...
Pretty much a "type-A" self-help book, though. Not much really useful in there.
- keantoken
Pretty much a "type-A" self-help book, though. Not much really useful in there.
- keantoken
That wasn't an insult, BTW.
http://www.articlearchives.com/science-technology/medical-science-brain/337691-1.html
- keantoken
http://www.articlearchives.com/science-technology/medical-science-brain/337691-1.html
- keantoken
