|
But you are not me!
I thought you agreed with that!
cheers,
Alan
By the way:
seen "2001. A Space Odyssey"?
Remember that "black monolith"?
Guess what:
"Planck's constant" appears to be "the scale of scale": a holographic "monolith" projected by repeatedly mixing two reference frames giving the impression of a floating fixed "plank" as a door to "outer space" where the outer space is all the other reference frames that are mixed through the repeat iterations of the initial two.
But the real door is I understand Jesus Christ where God meets man so cushions the shock of man meets God...
?
Speed of light constant:
this is apparantly "speed of speed":
from the perspective of "any other perspective outside two initial reference frames":
consider a series of sentences each containing the words "mile" and "hour":
1. The car travelled 50 miles in 1 hour
2. The boat travelled 40 miles in 3 hours
3. The bike travelled 15 miles in 1 hour.
and so on
From the perspective of "assignment of definitions" to quote Dr. Dick;
A whole lot of such sentences in themselves (without even defining what number is) could be thought of as defining a constant meeting place for "mile" and "hour";
If you did define what number is you could then connect this constant "mile:hour" space with "number" to get your plank constant (like a piece of 4 by 2: like Chris Langan's "conspansive duality" and "info-cognition": you get the mile: hour in NUMBER and the NUMBER in mile:hour:
try to get a handle on this and you collapse the lot into you (like a big bang) with a cosmic background radiation (consisting of particles of "big bang" with space-time strings attached?):
and six quarks for your chosen two-world perspective:
quark top: number (in mile: hour)
quark up: mile in the above (chose what comes up)
quark down: hour in first (top) quark
quark strange: mile: hour (pick which) in number
quark charm: mile: hour (pick the now chosen (other) one in number
quark beauty/ bottom: number perspective of mile: hour in number
The patterns of theoretical physics can occur in any measurement?
In the set of sentences example:
what sheds "light" on the collection?
Light does: light as true free meeting.
This generates "logical consistency" which becomes mass (room to move within an agreed reference frame)?
Planck mass:
the localised collapse of "space-time" on each perspective:
in my sentences example:
each sentence has a "plank mass" being "every way the other sentences can meet in that sentence's space without breaking it...
So a minimum definition of the curvature of the sentences-space (the space in space)
Planck length:
minimum string:
one sentences space meets another: all the others might attach strings to this meeting say:
the minimum definition of the concept "direction" requires two sentences mutual agreement on defining "mile" and defining "hour":
and agreeing on a direction (a variation that points to the other sentences (what Dr. Dick calls "adding unknown data" but he has used a math seive it seems and ended out with "noodles" (or pasta) (which Chroot calls a "straw metric"?)
?
Take every way a three can meet with respect to every other way (as in Heaven: every voice gets a hearing) in our sentences and we get a minimum definition limits for "threesome" giving "planck length" as "the limit on our ability to define length here"
Speed of light constant:
One thing meets another:
call this "speed" but how calibrate it?
Super calli fragilistic expi alla docious?
Over callibrate (so "super") requires overshooting so overlapping sets;
So is it supposedly fragile? (how overlap can happen? requires input of others)
expi: expedience: mathematics uses numbers and claims togetherness which sticks things together
alla:
but with what do they stick together? (a la....)
docious:
forbidden fruit? Bits of us? Since numbers are not defined you have to cobble together bits of the original things you were trying to calibrate in order to calibrate them?
I am aware of the wildly metaphorical nature of the above play....
Maybe the fall of man was about getting hung up on number? Subjecting himself to number? An illusion that we are stuck ...?
Something wrong in the above somewhere it may ....?
This may help:
Jesus referred to bread and wine as His body and blood; said that "man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" and that "no one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jesus) and that "he who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God has already overcome the world".
The Catholic Mass celebrates coming together; there is a way of understanding all this and physics is right in the middle it seems?
?????????????
Returning to speed of light:
Every way "three can happen" with respect to every other way:
gives "light (three as one) from light (three as one) as a constant background of light (three as one)? But what is three and what is one?
???????????
Who ?
We are told God is three and God is One...
In physics:
A local minimum definition of number meets "every way three can be three" or time can be space and space can be time: gives an apparent fixed speed if you interact with math:
In the sentences example:
any two definitions of "mile" and "hour" that agree with each other and with every other logical possibility there; are BOUND by the minimum/maximum definitional freedom of a four-way split (Michelson Morley experiment!) of two items ("mile" and "hour").
The Michelson Morley experiment is "rigged" in that it cannot detect direction: it mixes it up?
If one looks at it without assuming a rigid space upon which it is constructed.....?
Or you could break it up into mini-MM's called "axions" that seem to be conscious of each other (they by definition know each others limits in defining their mutual space in this simplified pattern perspective here)?
Dr. Dick's maths seems to generate a space full of little crosses (Dirac delta functions) that collectively appear to project a universal Dirac delta function (a cross sees a cross while considering other crosses: you get a delta function attached to one cross's perspective?)
The more you iterate the meeting of two crosses; the third one perspective on this seems to fan out (delta) in a way functional to the other crosses?
His conclusion seems logical:
the universe operating on a quantum system he does not understand?
Because a universal Dirac Delta function is going to involve a lot of fuzzy deltas all muddled up?
But math did that......
You can see the deltas: the number pyramids that numbers are built of.....
But beyond number....
Heaven is all around us......
God invites us to sign in.........
Wow
?
Did I make a mistake somewhere?
Your view of "I" would not be fixed because it is a matter of our agreeing on a space where you can be and I can be....
but my own "I" is fixed by definition or how could I question if it is fixed without a constant me that knows he is using a logically consistent space?
-Alan |
