New perspectives on Relativity

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

Atlas,

Thanks for the perspective. I am fully awake now and can give a much more "clear minded" addition to our thoughts here. I am on vacation and the ocean fishing can help with this I had a nice striper bass on the line today but he got away! Good for him!

I think nature must operate with integer arithmetic. It works with real whole quanta. We, however, see it all differently.

I would agree partially with the "whole quanta" statement, of course our quantum physics understanding is not complete. Also, our unification theory lacks in completion as well as our mathmatica and spiritual + philosophical references. We should design a complete fully encompassing model that takes into account all things from the smallest quanti or sub quanti to the largest cosmological totality. We only see limited "slices" or "frames" because we are taught to limit our understanding due to our LEARNED assumptions of the immediate environment we live in. I would add that nature is not confined to our present numeric system of measurement because everything in nature is relative to everything else. I do not imply here that math does not apply to our physicality In specific terms. I just purpose it is not accurate or rich enough to properly perform this new model description. this is because everything is constantly changing and also very much interrelated. Understanding this changing and evolving relationtional interaction requires a complete understanding of all levels of the system and their locational probabilities through unification and all the ramifications of these interactions at all levels to all other levels. This new model of multi level perspectives, I think requires a new math and measurement system that could unify all these complex interactions and perspectives into one system of awareness. This is where I think human unity must come in. again I agree with our individual limitations hypo, WE NEED A COLLECTIVE AWARENESS. I do agree we as individuals can typically only focus on one set of perceptions at a time but if we Trust one another and KNOW truth and unify we can do great things. History shows us this. It also shows us that those who "divide" us can take advantage of these non linearities in almost any system. Thus The marketing profiteer of volatility is born. Intent and mutual understanding of truth is of utmost importance here. Create a problem with bad intent or ignorance of truth, a reaction will occur then provide a pre determined solution. then take a profit in the change created. Humans do it all the time to make profit. So my point is once we know the system at all levels and remove the "created" falsehoods in perception and unify then we can truly find a grand unification of truth. i really see no other way, we also may need to be trimmed in population before this can happen. Again, profiteers have caused even our overpopulation to happen for gain. It is very evident to me. If we do not see this we could very well perish in large numbers before total system balance occurs.

I hope not, but the math tells me so. The math system to measure the totally unified system would need to be far more rich than a simple base 10 counting system. the symbology would need to be from a much larger symbol set that would individually indentify each piece of the system without increasing the place holder "content" of the system. Anyway, please comment on my ideas so I can build more continuity here. I can evolve this process as we converse more.

Thanks,
gdnpd

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

I wanted to add after reading most of the posts here that we should first agree to some "base" level physics and philosophical principals to build a more unified group awareness. religion and tradition "assumptions" will have to wait for later because they can be an subjective perception mess!

This physics "base" is imporatant so we can put "assumptions" aside and build group "truth" and unity. (I dislike or like (not sure) this "assumption" word or concept as I have had to undue/redo assumptions my whole life it seems)

anyway, ohh yes the principa.

1. The physical world and its many parts "exists" reguardless of how we percieve them. we form concensus of percetion to bare witness to these objects existance.
2. These objects may change form or state but they do exist until that which created them or their many interactive levels of them causes them to cease. If significant base levels or enough numbers of higher levels are destroyed the whole system may revert back to base level.
3. Nothing can exist without being created by a "creator" at some level in the system. e.g. a house exists because a man builds it.
4. Perceptions of individuals or "groups" of individuals differ at different levels, therefore there does exist in a unified form a "similar" or mean average of perception of any one type of object, form or subject at any one level. This "unified perception" is derived by general concensus of the "group" or "groups" being identified as such groups at any one level or at the system level as a whole.
5. That which is created can be destroyed.

OK so if we agree to these lets sound off !!!yes!!! or change or "bang on" the model until we all agree.

I will start with hydrogen, we can not "see" it but from what we all have been taught we can assume it exists? maybe water would be better? it sure is abundant and has hydrogen in it, I am told! (i remember the H20 electralisys burn recombination experement)!
anyway, it seems hydrogen will be around for some time even if we destroy ourselves...so what concensus can we get here, can we agree we are all made up from "light" hydrogen/helium fusion reaction of the sun? Is this too big of a jump here? But we really are at a base level, the whole planet is made from our great sun fusion reactor plus cosmological ressonances right?

So if we agree to this then we can discuss from this premise how we all can be percieveing the light and other objects based on these premise. Ok someone help me here!!! chime in everyone!! lets get his "ball of light" rolling!!!

gdnpd

 

[Z]

I would say we have to disagree on 3), because plenty of things seem to exist without having been created.

 

[Atlas]

... WE NEED A COLLECTIVE AWARENESS. ... So my point is once we know the system at all levels and remove the "created" falsehoods in perception and unify then we can truly find a grand unification of truth.

Gdnpd,

I have only a few thoughts. While collective awareness is at the root of a business model and people management, I don't get the feeling that is what you are promoting. The profit motive has been essential in bringing the world to it's present state of technological advancement. I detect though that you have some real misgivings about the profit motive as a guide for human endeavor.

In your Principa you added a Creator but engineered humanity from star stuff. Science does not rule out a Creator but it does not assume one, nor has it found evidence for one. For the atheists, water exists much as you describe. But for the deists, theists, religionists, godists, and however you name that kind of idealist - water may or may not exist.

For some like wraith and lifegazer, the perception of water exists but that perception is actually holding you back from an enlightenment. Lifegazer insists that only God exists, but He is lost in a fractured multiconsciousness that is desperate for the same kind of reunification of consciousness that you seem to be promoting. Great power will come to any individual that achieves his God consciousness.

This is a wishful state, in my opinion. The evidence for it is entirely anecdotal. No power from prayer or meditation at an individual or group level is evidenced in the absence of a business model of action. A leader rallies people to act for a cause. Whether God exists or is carried in some or none of their hearts does not seem to make a whit of difference.

Computerization of data and communication of information are responsible for a broadening and deepening of the knowledge and consciousness base of humankind, but again, I don't think it is the type of collective awareness you refer to. But so far, it is the only one that seems to work. Nuns and monks may pray for world peace but their efforts have been pitiful. Education and technological advancement give each succeeding generation more to lose. It serves to promote the peace better than God.

That said, it must be noted that humans are a very superstitious species. The manipulation of gods and demons in the minds of the masses is easy and seems to have had an evolutionary value for the tribes that dwell here. That is, for a leader to move his tribe and enforce conformity it is desirable to show that you speak for God. Those are the so-called profiteers I remain the most leery of.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

1. The physical world and its many parts "exists" reguardless of how we percieve them. we form concensus of percetion to bare witness to these objects existance.
2. These objects may change form or state but they do exist until that which created them or their many interactive levels of them causes them to cease. If significant base levels or enough numbers of higher levels are destroyed the whole system may revert back to base level.
3. Nothing can exist without being created by a "creator" at some level in the system. e.g. a house exists because a man builds it.
4. Perceptions of individuals or "groups" of individuals differ at different levels, therefore there does exist in a unified form a "similar" or mean average of perception of any one type of object, form or subject at any one level. This "unified perception" is derived by general concensus of the "group" or "groups" being identified as such groups at any one level or at the system level as a whole.
5. That which is created can be destroyed.

Quick note. First of all, it is not that bad! Well argued, and of course debatible because of its logical structure.

I will object your point 3, this sounds better:

3. Nothing can exist without a reorganization of previous elements, e.g. a house exists because a living organism transformed raw materials in to something else.

Also, your point 5 doesnt make sense. This will conclude things better, IMO:

5. Everything can be transformed.

 

[uruk]

But we really are at a base level, the whole planet is made from our great sun fusion reactor plus cosmological ressonances right?

Actually, no. Our planets and our sun (our solar system) is made from the elements that were created in the core of other stars that went super-nova many millenia ago. Sort of a cosmic recycling center. But I think I understand what you mean.

Number 1 may be clarified by changing it to:
1. The physical world and its many parts "exists" reguardless of how we percieve them or wether we percieve them. we form concensus of perception because we share the same sensory systems which allows us to bare wittness to these objects existance.

But I could be nitpicking.

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

Good morning and day, I hope for everyone!

Thank you all for the refinements, this will continue I hope. It is my sincere hope that this model or creation of unity is all inclusive and that my or anyones personal skews of perceptions does not cause assumption

Ok all, thanks, lets bang the model "principa relativity unification"? should we name it, lets bang on the name too! or not do that until it is further along or until it takes "form" and "shape"? any ideas here?

uruk, you wrote a clarification of 1. YES we want nitpicking, this is important to clarify and remove assumption. Thanks, the model evolution needs to occur to accomplish this... more clarification to come I hope! I added more in paran to futher clarify, please re test and "nitpick" again


1. The physical world and its many parts "exists" reguardless of how we percieve them or wether we percieve them. we form concensus of perception because we share the same (similar) sensory (perception) systems which allows us to bare wittness to these objects existance.

much more to do! 3, 5 others to be added!

hmm, I got invited to golf by a relative! I would rater stay and work on the model refinement but my vacation fun calls! I will be back later thank you all again!

gdnpd four or is it fore!! hehe!

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

here is a rewrite of principal 1. Being open to correction, it should evolves to include as many possible perceptions of physical sciences, philosophy's and faiths as we can find. this i believe is proper inclusion of all things seen and unseen and things hoped for in unification through agreement. comments?

Principia unification

1. (The Reality of) the physical world and its many unified parts exist reguardless of how we percieve them or wether we percieve them (in part or as a whole). As all beings can contribute to form concensus of perception because we all (came from) and can share -the- (some) same (similar) sensory (perception) systems. which (this) allows us to bare wittness to (these beings and objects) of existance (in whatever form they take, (seen or unseen). ?

Comment: does this cover "faith" in the "unseen realm? Like historically people of the past may have thought that RF radio trancievers were the "tools of a whitch" or "stuff of only "dreams"? we know now science proves this is of "unseen "electromagnetic realm or "place of existance". Do some previous posts wrestle with these same concepts of "seen" and unseen e.g. "faith" or "hope" transfomations into reality?

Can I get more help here...?

Now time to evolve principia 2 and 3.
2. These objects may change form or state but they do exist until that which created them or their many interactive levels of them are significantly interupped so that this causes them to cease to exist. If significant base levels or enough numbers of higher levels of beings or objects are destroyed the whole system can and may revert back to more basic levels.
3. Nothing can exist without being created by a creator or creating force at some level in the system.

More input to correct 2 and 3...


I will redisplay the "original" so we can see the evolution of the unification principals. We can also include math and science as we go, help here too! any gurus in these areas are welcome to contribute.

Thanks,

gdnpd

rev A of principia unification.

1. The physical world and its many parts "exists" reguardless of how we percieve them. we form concensus of percetion to bare witness to these objects existance.
2. These objects may change form or state but they do exist until that which created them or their many interactive levels of them causes them to cease. If significant base levels or enough numbers of higher levels are destroyed the whole system may revert back to base level.
3. Nothing can exist without being created by a "creator" at some level in the system. e.g. a house exists because a man builds it.
4. Perceptions of individuals or "groups" of individuals differ at different levels, therefore there does exist in a unified form a "similar" or mean average of perception of any one type of object, form or subject at any one level. This "unified perception" is derived by general concensus of the "group" or "groups" being identified as such groups at any one level or at the system level as a whole.
5. That which is created can be destroyed.

 

[lifegazer]

Squire, I'm not sure what you're talking about here but it doesn't seem to be Relativity.
If I were you, I'd start a new thread entitled (whatever) and then take it from there.
Good luck.

 

[Z]

As much as my ego hates saying this - LG is right. This deserves its own thread.

This one is pretty much dead.

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

Does LG run this place? WHERE AM I IN HELL!!? Or some place of continual ASSUMPTION?

oops! wrong turn, time to call Angel Michael again!

gdnpd
I am NOT happy!

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

LG,

Have you ever read strategies of a genius vol 2? I bet not!!! relativity, hmmm, I am confused on HOW YOU THINK!
you seem to make many assumptions!
DO you do thermodynamics calculations too?

gdnpd
p.s. if this "hurts" the rethink you last post! I AM NOT HAPPY!

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

I will quote the constitution of the USA, the bible and other texts to show you how holding these "titles" like the ones this message board gives are FORBIDDEN if they are used with exousia and with ill intent, ego or pride! this is TREASON! Your own law and mans laws CONVICTS you! prove me wrong! Cmon! be reasonable! I beseech you.

LG, I have fought for you! ANd your beliefs!

must I quote scripture and the constitution?
I must do it in private to you alone!


gdnpd

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

LG,

I have thought about this, I give up in my own head! Even though I am upset with you for your assumptions! If you call the new thread "Thoughts on Grand Unified Field Theory" I will be ok with it!

here is a quote from http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/intro.htm

If you have not read this yet you should, also the clay math institutes 7 unsolved math conjectures!

Some fifty years ago, I started searching for an element or characteristic that is shared by all natural formation ns. I had the opportunity to delve into, as well as formally study, a wide array of fields. My love for physics and astronomy was matched by my affinity for math and nature. For two years, our class benefited from wonderful lessons on philosophy and religion given by a priest named Father Wojtyla, who currently serves as the Pope. He taught us that our souls predate our birth and are immortal. They merely enter our bodies until we pass on and then proceed onwards. This idea troubled me as I was unable to find any scientific explanations for this phenomena. I was also perplexed by man’s ability to think. If we indeed receive it as a gift, as Father Wojtyla contended, why isn’t it permanent? Why does it deteriorate with age along with the rest of the body? Moreover, how does our corporeal body, generate beautiful and sophisticated entities such as our spirit and thoughts? At the time, however, the available research ignored these great mysteries.

While observing the skies during astronomy lessons, I noticed a few traits that have remained firmly entrenched in my consciousness over the years. Firstly, I took note of the fact that, without exception, all the celestial bodies are in motion and are constantly active. In the early 1950s, all these phenomenon were said to stem from gravitational forces that came into existence following the Big Bang. However, this thesis did not correspond with my own observations, as it failed to explain the internal movements within some of the bodies, or the fact that these ostensibly inanimate objects closely resemble living, mercurial formations.




Deal?

gdnpd

 

[lifegazer]

Does LG run this place? WHERE AM I IN HELL!!? Or some place of continual ASSUMPTION?

oops! wrong turn, time to call Angel Michael again!

gdnpd
I am NOT happy!

Err, I'm a bit dumbfounded by your reactions to my post. All I said to you was that if you weren't spefically talking about Relativity - which you don't appear to be to me - then you'd be better off starting your own thread to discuss everything that you want to discuss. You'll get much more participation if you do so.

I never passed judgement on your theory or upon yourself. There's no need to call out the national-guard against me just yet. But you can if you want.

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

====Err, I'm a bit dumbfounded by your reactions to my post. All I said to you was that if you weren't spefically talking about Relativity - - which you don't appear to be to me then you'd be better off starting your own thread to discuss everything that you want to discuss. You'll get much more participation if you do so.

I never passed judgement on your theory or upon yourself. There's no need to call out the national-guard against me just yet. But you can if you want.====

ok, as you wish ... you "seem" to have a mind that divides where no "division" is needed! That is all I will say in short.

I will start my "own" specific threads in the future. DO these discussions have to all be within some sort of "boxed" area of topic to be validated or "on point"?

gdnpd

 

[Z]

====Err, I'm a bit dumbfounded by your reactions to my post. All I said to you was that if you weren't spefically talking about Relativity - - which you don't appear to be to me then you'd be better off starting your own thread to discuss everything that you want to discuss. You'll get much more participation if you do so.

I never passed judgement on your theory or upon yourself. There's no need to call out the national-guard against me just yet. But you can if you want.====

ok, as you wish ... you "seem" to have a mind that divides where no "division" is needed! That is all I will say in short.

I will start my "own" specific threads in the future. DO these discussions have to all be within some sort of "boxed" area of topic to be validated or "on point"?

gdnpd

1) YOu can use the "Quote" button, or just enclose quotes in the [quote ] tag (remove the space in the tag to use, [/quote ] to close).

2) General etiquette on the Internet requires posts to stay relatively on-topic, yes. Once a subject expands to the point of total digression from original post, a new topic ought to be started.

Hope that helps GDNPD(IMO).

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

1) YOu can use the "Quote" button, or just enclose quotes in the [quote ] tag (remove the space in the tag to use, [/quote ] to close).

Agreed, I will comply for your and others benefit. is this better?

2) General etiquette on the Internet requires posts to stay relatively on-topic, yes. Once a subject expands to the point of total digression from original post, a new topic ought to be started.

Agreed, Although I think you may not understand the ramafications of the use of the word "relatively" or relative in science or in proper scientific measurementation termonologies!

Maybe "justification by faith" ""not "works"" does that help you relate the word "relative" to science as God would to each of us as unique individuals? Thank goodness for the creators GRACE!

Ohhh no! here i go again! there is only 1 absolute, that is GOD!
(imho) I hope this helps anyone! someone!

gdnpd

 

[Goddoesnotplaydice]

zaayrdragon,

Please, in advance, excuse this long message but i thought it was necessary to clarify my earlyer statements.

I just wanted to scientifically and gramatically validate the claim I made about the word "relative" "relatively" and "relativity" the proper interpretation and usage and how we may ALL make assumptions about this word in its conceptual hierarchy and usage in the english language. I will make an assumption (correct me if I am in error) that "relativity" as used in this post was held in this context to mean:

special relativity
n.
The physical theory of space and time developed by Albert Einstein, based on the postulates that all the laws of physics are equally valid in all frames of reference moving at a uniform velocity and that the speed of light from a uniformly moving source is always the same, regardless of how fast or slow the source or its observer is moving. The theory has as consequences the relativistic mass increase of rapidly moving objects, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, time dilatation, and the principle of mass-energy equivalence. Also called special theory of relativity.

(Although I do not personally totally agree with this definition) imho. it will again be brought to a higher level as we Unifiy the sciences, arts, philosophy's and religion's to a more correct or true relation.

This is a BIG word in true meaning and we as humans view it typically as only in meaning physically and usually not ethereal in its use. Although in actuality the manifestation of the usage of this "special and general relativity concept" was to create deeper understanding of forces of nuclear physics and quanti energy relations at a higher level, thus the nuclear age was born. Before this point in history this understanding of the forces of energy conversion was "only in ones thoughts and dreams". We as human animal beings can NOT be completely seperated from anything on this planet we live on. We RELATE on many levels seen and unseen to everything on the planet. To name a few: bio, chem, electromagnetics, plants, animals, cosmos etc etc... and other "relations" we DO NOT EVEN YET SEE!

I hope you see my point. As I agreed though, I will start a new post. I hope I do not get to worn out and go elsewhere before I do this as I enjoy many of you on these boards, I hope we can learn not to "lord it over one another"!

the partial conceptual "art" hierarchy of the word relative is as follows:
from this link:http://www.gibson-design.com/philosophy/organon-hierarchy-$.html#RELATIVE_2

EASG Conceptual Hierarchy - in progress
©1999,2000 Frederick Clifford Gibson, all rights reserved

Output from Organon v3.0
(Conceptual Hierarchy Program by Frederick Clifford Gibson using CLOS: the Common Lisp Object System)


relative:
A hierarchy of 656 interrelated concepts among a total of 1251 concepts:
existent { }
unit { classified as a member }
units { plural }
entity { differentiated }
mental-entity { mental }
thought { produced by thinking }
representation { produced by representing }
expression { using symbols }
name { in the form of a combination of vocal sounds or one such sound also expressable in writing symbolizing an existent }
word { symbolizing a concept or individual with a grammatical function in a language }
designation { symbolizing an individual }
second-middle-name { that is the second middle name for a man }
first-name { that is the first name for a man }
middle-name { that is the middle name for a man }
last-name { that is the last name for a man }
syncategorem { dependent on other words to form a complete term }
categorem { that may be independent of other words to form a complete term }
sentence { in words of a predication that is complete and grammatically independent }
simple-sentence { containing a single predication }
proposition { that expresses a judgement }
propositions { plural }
compound-sentence { containing two or more main clauses }
compound-complex-sentence { containing two or more main clauses and one or more dependent clauses }
phrase { of related words not containing a subject and a predicate }
periphrasis { of meaning by several or many words instead of by few or one word }
part-of-speech { that functions as a component of a larger expression }
verb { capable of predicating }
verb-present { }
verb-present-indicative-singular { }
verb-present-indicative-singular-active { }
verb-phrase { in the form of a phrase comprising a verb and an auxiliary-verb }
verb-past { }
verb-infinitive { }
transitive-verb { which indicates that there is a receiver for the action the verb expresses }
passive-verb { which indicates that the subject is acted upon }
intransitive-verb { does not require the addition of a direct object to complete its meaning }
finite-verb { capable of making a complete and independent expression }
active-verb { which indicates that the subject acts }
verbal { derived from and sharing the nature of a verb but incapable of predicating }
auxiliary-verb { used with another verb to form a verb-phrase }
substantive { used to name an existent }
verbal-noun { that is a verbal }
infinitive { that may have an adverbial modifier and can take a subject object or a predicate objective }
gerund { that takes an object and can be modified like a verb }
proper-noun { used to name an individual }
title { descriptive }
file-name { of a computer file }
pronoun { }
noun { that is a single word not derivative of a verb }
plural-noun { that indicates plural units }
words { of a word }
modifier { used to limit define qualify or describe the meaning of other expressions in the sentence }
adverb { of a verb or an adjective or another adverb }
adjective { of a noun or pronoun }
participle { that is a verbal }
participle-present { }
participle-present-active { }
participle-past { }
article { which indicates that one is referring to a single instance of the following concept definitely or indefinitely }
das { German neuter }
die { German feminine }
der { German masculine }
the { definite }
a { indefinite }
an { indefinite }
connective { used to connect and relate expressions }
preposition { used with a substantive to form a phrase showing the relation of the substantive to another expression in the larger expression }
conjunction { that is a word used to show the relationship between expressions }
complement { necessary to complete the expression of a verb or verbal }
objective-complement { that is a noun or adjective referring to the same existent as the direct-object }
object { used to indicate the substantive affected by the action of a transitive-verb or the substantive following a preposition }
indirect-object { indicating the substantive indirectly affected by the action of the verb }
direct-object { that receives the action of a verb or verbal and frequently follows it in an expression }
expressions { plural }
clause { in words of a dependent predication }
independent-clause { that is an independent expression }
dependent-clause { that depends on other words as it cannot stand alone as an independent expression }
argument { of an inference }
enthymeme { expressing a syllogism with one judgement suppressed }
apprehension { formed by apprehending }
term { of a subject or predicate }
relative { that indicates the object is related to another concrete or abstract }
privative { that implies the absence of a quality where it has been or might be expected to be present }
positive { that implies the presence of an attribute }
intension { referring to the nature of the units of a concept }
genus { that is commensurate with the subject concept and is predicable of additional objects }
summum-genus { that is the most general }
subaltern-genus { that can be divided into species and is itself a species to another genus }
proximum-genus { which is the most commensurate to the subject concept }
essence { identifying the attributes that cause the most other attributes in a class }
species { indicating a concept commensurate with and less extensive than a subject genus }
infimae-species { which can not be a genus to further species }
correlative { which is the object of another relative }
convertend { that is the original judgement in a conversion }

gdnpd

 

[Pahansiri]

Ohhh no! here i go again! there is only 1 absolute, that is GOD!
(imho) I hope this helps anyone! someone!

gdnpd

I respect you believe that and would never seek to have you not believe what you wish to believe.

Can you have the same respect for people who do not believe what you do and not seek to try to "make" them believe what you do?