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
Regarding Dr. Dick, Harv, Aurino, Reality Debate

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on December 17, 2001 09:43:41 UTC

May I quote Dr. Stafford: "Everyone keeps thinking I am trying to
deny their results - that is just false. What I am denying is
that it confirms that their point of view is correct."

But just because Dick might show that classical mechanics is an
inherent property of the necessary logic of matching groups of
tagged events; does not mean that results that confirm classical
mechanics don't explain anything. Results that confirm classical
mechanics might be regarded as explaining that nature appears to
operate at the minimum logically possible level of constraint,
with maximum freedom.

Also; how can Dick not be explaining anything; when he
effectively is allegedly explaining with his paper what errors in
logic the physicists have made?

Dick talks of comparing two abstract sets of facts (comparing and
matching two patterns): (1) "description of the experiment" and
(2) "what results are obtained". He says a law of physics gives
the probability of one given the other.

Now, it appears that Dick has looked at the mathematical
structure, of the minimum necessary patterns, inherent in the
abstract exercise of: comparing and matching two arbritrary sets
of facts. But in the physics lab. one doesn't just compare
"description of the experiment" as facts, with "results of
experiment" as facts. One also matches, to these two groups of
facts, a NON-fact: a prediction about the experiment, a CLAIM by
the experimenter.

While it is a fact that the experimenter makes a prediction; the
prediction itself is not a fact; but a claim about the apparantly
unknown, a hoped-for finding of a fact to come.

Experimenter describes experiment: place object A in a lake of
water (fact 1). Result: object A floats(fact 2).
Two predictions (non-facts) could have been made by the
experimenter: (X) object A will float. (Y) object A will not
float.

So Dick's paper doesn't deny experimenter's result; but denies
that his result confirms his point of view? What if the
experimenter had the point of view, before the experiment, that
"object A will float"? How could Dick's paper possibly deny that
the experiment "place object A in a lake of water" CONFIRMED the
experimenter's point of view "that object A will float"?

Because experimenters can make mistakes; and wrongly predict
experiments; the experiments DO confirm whether their point of
view was right. Only if all the experiments delivered
relationships between facts that are the same as the logical
minimum necessary relations; and only if the experimenter always
made correct predictions based on applying the logical minimum
necessary relations; would the experiments confirm no more than
the minimum logic has held in practice.

I disagree that "real" means "that which needs to be explained";
"real" means "that which exists" in English usage. Also note that
things are always explained in terms of other things; in the
context of a larger network. When you run out of other things in
terms of which to explain something; the something just IS.

(The collection of all the explanatory networks might be viewed
as a multiplicity of Mandelbrot sets; and may be like the
imaginary-time sphere in Stephen Hawking's "The Universe In A
Nutshell". (Note that one object can be explained by a family-
tree of pattern-matching that extends into a deep fractal-space
of patterns. These patterns contribute at different levels to the
explanation/context of the object).

Any particular view of the entire structure of Mandelbrot
networks, might be regarded as a Mandelbrot-relativistic view of
the whole structure, creating a Mandelbrot-hologram of the whole
structure.)

Dick seems to notice that to know all the relationships of an
object involves some knowledge of all that the object is related
to.

D: "current accepted mental model ..... fundamentally represents
reality as "a collection of objects in three dimensional space"".
But many people regard space, or at least beyond-space, as having
more dimensions than that. Especially in physics you find a 10-D
space. A variety of opinions may be found, including an infinite
freedom-space, a mandelbrot fractal dimensional space, and so on.

Requiring only 'a changing object in 4-space' may look like
placing restrictions on physicists who prefer an n-space, or a 10-
D space, or a "pre-space" that builds "space".

Many people think there is more to life, and physics, than
objects moving in just 3-space. Unless you mean "3 in 1 Creator
space".

Harv appears to make valid points: If physics equations are not
relevant to Dick's paper, why do they play such a part in it?
If the paper gives logical foundations to physics reality; why
are no relations given, of modern supersymmetry, gauge, or
superstring theories; to the paper?

Maybe I can shed some light on possible connections; as the ideas
I have, seem to include Dick's paper, plus superstring theory,
plus particle gauge theory, plus (from what little I know): M-
theory, F-theory, Hyperspace, Stephen Hawking's imaginary-time,
plus maybe recent results of physics experiments, plus events that I
reported on from my newborn infancy that have been found to
include patterns that match hyperspace logic.

Aurino tells us that real physics came to exist through
derivation by abstract logic. So if one could map the necessary
logical foundations, that would be interesting.

Harv tells us that many logical schemes have been applied to
nature, and failed experimentally. However, it may be hard to
think of a falsification-experiment, if the logical scheme is so
strong as to make falsification appear logically impossible!

Ideas:

Seeing around corners of time is what enables you to see around
corners of space! The photons come to you from objects in the
past (with the speed of light being less than instant). The
objects are in the present, or in the future compared to the
light-wave-front reaching your eyes.
When you see a 3-D cube, you see the front face of it in the more-
recent-past compared to the walls that angle away into the more
distant (micro-)past. The front of the cube is "future" compared
to the back edge of the cube: the whole cube is perceived as a 3-
D space object by your stereo vision; but may be regarded as a
localised past-future object. Seen of course as a distant-micro-
past/recent-micro-past object; synchronised by c, the ratio
between past and future illuminated object perception.

Witnessing a starter's gun for a distant athletics race: the
"depth" of the smoke/bang (light/sound 'holistic object') is
experienced by seeing the smoke from the gun in the past, and
hearing the "bang" in the future, relative to the midpoint
between those two different speed waves, light and sound,
reaching you.

If there were just two different sound-waves, of different
speeds, coming towards you from an object; although your movement
towards or away would effect your measured speed of the sounds;
the ratio of the direction of your movement, to the ratio of the
measured two sound speeds to each other; should be constant.

This suggests that Einstein is not the only way to explain
apparant constancy of speed of light. Suppose light consisted of
two light speeds that we can not tell apart. Suppose we can only
measure the ratio of our direction of movement, to the ratio of
the two light speeds to each other. Perhaps then we would always
get a constant ratio, irrespective of movement of the observer or
the source. Suppose light consisted of a binary particle, each
rotating about a common axis. Suppose that the faster that you
traveled toward the light wave-front; the more the spin and
direction in this binary system fed information into your reading
of the wave-fronts movement, so as to exactly compensate your
movement and direction to give a fixed ratio c? Just ideas.

This could explain why recent very precise measurements involving
gamma rays gave some variation in speed of light. If the binary
system was spinning at c, momentarily one part of the light would
be momentarily staionary with the opposite part at double light
speed; but us measuring just a one speed c ratio to our reference
frame (if information we got was compensating our speed and these
two speeeds to give constant c).

Another possibility is that the speed of light we measure is just
the net tiny fraction of positive speed forwards in time; left
over from the almost cancellation of two nearly compensating much
faster light speeds. One of these going very fast backwards in
time, the other going very fast forwards in time; and the
difference being a little bit (!) of forwards-time speed that we
call "c".

Maybe there are two light speeds where the difference gives the
appearance of a micro-hyperdepth dimension?
Speed of light from the past, speed of light from the future?

Consider the event: athletics race starter gun gives smoke and
bang. Relative to the midpoint between seeing the smoke and hearing the bang; the sound wave goes forwards in time, and the light wave goes backwards in time.

Two-speed light might operate like this, the speeds so close together that only the precise recent experiment that showed variability in c could discern some of this effect from a physics equipment viewpoint.

It's interesting to note that the so-called father of superstring theory, F-theory, involves two time co-ordinates.

There actually are, who knows how many, types of time. My "hyperclock" froze when I "collapsed my hyperspace body" as a newborn baby to cope with the unnatural lack-of-awareness of higher-dimensions by older human beings.

They seemed unable to see me (hyper me); unable to communicate the natural hyperspace way (telepathic); they seemed out of touch with the natural hyperspace of the unborn/ justborn child.

Just as a cubelander can see all of flatland; at the moment of "changing state"; where my higher-dimension body went from occupying a space up to the size of my future adult body, to seeming to be concentrated in a small space somewhere behind the eyes; I saw my "flatland" future at that moment... up till...and I couldn't allow recall of that without returning to hyper-life, reversing the state-change.

If I changed state, it would just be the next moment after the initial change (probably within a few hours of birth). A whole lot of time in "flatland" is but an instant in higher-dimension space.

The fall of man probably was among other things a fall in dimension; the forbidden fruit may have contained a wormhole and the illusion of power over a lower dimension space. Of course there was little power; Hell would be man building an artificial "cube" in flatland; from where he can see the wonders of cubeland, but can not go there; like the rich man and the eye of the needle?; without dismantling his artificial "false" cube; and realising that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and no-one comes to the Father except through Him. Including, I presume, through one's natural built-in baby Christ-like nature and natural hyper-presence. We are all naturally hyperlanders!
Naturally telepathic, probably naturally teleportational, naturally in harmony with creation.
Seems as babies we collapse very small our hyper-dimension and try to cope in "flatland" rather than die a hyper-lander.

The time I saw, as an adult, as if with another dimension of seeing; the spiritual hyperbody of a child in a pram: that description I gave "like a vertical puddle of water in the air" turns out to tally with what one would expect a higher-dimension to look like; based on Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" book!

-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