Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Musical Chairs: To Smartguy

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on October 15, 2001 21:54:16 UTC

Thanks Smartguy- yes, I did come up with it myself; though I had been investigating several questions thanks to a challenging post of Luis Hamburgh's.

I had written up some stuff on another forum,and invited the severest criticism; Luis Hamburgh gave me the opportunity to dig deep to defend the stuff I'd written.

In the process I think I figured out essentially how the brain works (comparing and matching patterns; groups and sub-groups and sub-sub-groups; selecting actual pattern-matches from possible pattern-matches; building complex ideas from simple ideas). (Partly arranged like Microsoft windows).

I was thinking about how things called 'mechanical holograms' work; how the very existence of that type of hologram requires the TWO eyes of the observer to complete the match between a pattern of curved scratches on a surface and a pattern of light falling on that surface. The one phenomenon only takes place when the three patterns occur together.

I had read a very clear explanation of wave/ particle physics in a 700+ page physics textbook called "Light" by Ditchburn; so I had the physics background clarified.

A variety of other ingredients led to the realisation of the theory.

The first stage of realisation astonished me; it appeared one could explain almost anything in highly revealing ways; not just physics but outside physics too.

When the sheer simplicity of the "musical chairs, join the dots, know the difference" dawned on me: that was a dramatic day: events of that day you would probably not believe but they suggested to me that I was on a good track with that idea.

I think it should be possible to show how Dick's ideas and Alexander's ideas fit together with the theory.

Interesting that you have some ideas that may fit with this; I think a feature of the theory is that it dissolves confusion and distils a clear view.

I have to read more physics and write a clear demonstration of the theory at work.

Incidentally: there exists a piece of technology: A vertical panel of eight blinking lights, swings from side to side. A computer chip controls the blinking of the lights and the panel oscillates side to side too fast to see. All manner of written words/figures appear to be suspended in space (giving the time; messages; words can go up, divide left to right, go down, dissolve, etc.)

All this by synchronisation of the oscilating lights and the at-right-angles oscillation of the panel. If you stacked several in a row no doubt you could create 3-D 'objects'. Gives an idea what variety can be derived from synchronised oscillations. Alex's math has a lot to do with synchronisation creating physics 'objects'.

Have to dash; am away from the city and internet here costs a fortune. Wonder what your ideas are.

-dolphin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins