Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 31, 2009, at 11:56 AM, grok wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mounted the barricade and roared out: It seems to me also true the probability of mating itself may change due to mutations, and this is a form of of natural selection. The gradual development of an appearance change amongst a sub-population of a species could gradually isolate that group genetically, even though it is not isolated geographically. The classic example of this being an ongoing fact all at once in the Here and Now, is with ring species: http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/classes/animal_behavior/ SPECIATE.HTM I'll bet you don't get THAT gene meme in the Bible. - -- grok. This is quite an interesting web site. Thanks for posting it. I have not had the time to read recent vortex posts, much less respond, so I'm glad I came across your post. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: This discussion is somewhat re-discovering or describing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physics, a unified theory: http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101 Hi, I've seen the introductory video, read some articles related to Dewey Larson's theory, and found some coincidences with previous ideas exposed here. But also some important differences, and what appears to be some gross misunderstandings, or confusions, on their part. First, I want to point out that this was the first time I've heard about Larson's Reciprocal System theory. The basic idea of RS theory is that time and space are something like the two aspects of the same thing: motion. I must read more about it, but at first sight this idea of reciprocity looks wrong to me, for the simple reason that time, as it was demonstrated before, has no physical existence. Time is an abstraction(a mental construction), whereas space it is not. So, they cannot be reciprocal. Moreover, RS theory is tridimensional, and Euclidean. This is inconsistent with both, a fourth dimensional theory of mass, and more importantly, a geometrical explanation of gravity. RS makes no clear mention of a fourth dimension, but instead talks about the Astral plane, and crossing the quantum boundary, which sounds as euphemisms to say that they don't know about what they are talking about. The ideas of a fourth spatial dimension, and of a rotation over the W-axis(the fourth coordinate axis) as the origin of mass(i.e. mass a W-Spin), as we have proposed before, are, as far as I can tell, original. They were first postulated here in vortex-l, on May 22, 2009. RS Theory proponents could benefit from hearing and thinking about them. To summarize, and also to correct some of my previous assertions, based in recent reflections: - Only movement and empty space exists. That is, movement and empty space are the foundations of our physical universe. To correct a previous error: Matter is a consequence of movement, but space(empty space) isn't. Let's say for the moment that empty space just is. - Matter(and consequently, mass) is the tridimensional manifestation of a rotation over a fourth dimensional axis(at an angular speed many times that of the speed of light), of what we call elementary particles. That is, matter is now a specific, identifiable, and probably measurable property of elementary particles; that what we've called W-Spin. - Gravity is a consequence of that rotation, which is propagated to the surrounding tridimensional space, as a geometrical distortion of that space. This makes a lot of sense, since as the rotation is fourth-dimensional, its tridimensional expression is no more than a geometrical distortion, a curvature. So, tridimensional space is non-euclidean, and its specific geometry is affected by the presence of matter, that is, by the magnitude of the rotation of the particles over the W-axis, and this effect is accumulative in the case of many particles(think people jumping over an elastic bed; also, think vortexes in a fluid, which distort and attract the fluid and the particles in the fluid). - This geometry could also depend on other higher dimensional factors (i.e. space could be cuatridimensionally spherical, by example, and have some kind of global curvature) but it nevertheless depends also on the presence of matter, i.e. it depends on density. In this article Crossing the Quantum Boundary: A Phenomenon of the Astral Plane? http://rstheory.org/articles/Hamner/CrossingQuantum.html There are a number of interesting ideas, but the author seems to confuse the Astral plane with the Etheric. It seems that they've borrowed ideas from Theosophy, in a somewhat confused, or partial, way. The Conclusion is interesting: quote Since crossing the quantum boundary produces non-local effects with infinite implications, and since the Astral Plane is, by definition, the next higher dimensionality, we would like to offer that these phenomena take place in the Astral Plane. An interesting consequence of this hypothesis is the following calculation: Since the space-time Progression is flying along at the speed of light, and since we are inextricably bound to the material aggregates of this corner of the galaxy, then each atom of our physical body must enter and exit a unit of space-time every 1.52 x 10^-16 seconds. That means that every atom of our body crosses the quantum boundary (2 x 1/1.52) or 1.32 x 10^16 times a second! Think of it, every atom of your body gets to take a brief (very brief) Astral holiday away from this mundane physical existence many (very many) times a second. But then, time and space do not exist in the Astral Plane,… so what do very brief and very many mean there? We hope that this article has piqued the reader's interest that our hard science might benefit from consideration of the higher planes, that boundary crossing is more complex than most would consider, and that the RS quantum theory is
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mounted the barricade and roared out: It seems to me also true the probability of mating itself may change due to mutations, and this is a form of of natural selection. The gradual development of an appearance change amongst a sub-population of a species could gradually isolate that group genetically, even though it is not isolated geographically. The classic example of this being an ongoing fact all at once in the Here and Now, is with ring species: http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/classes/animal_behavior/SPECIATE.HTM I'll bet you don't get THAT gene meme in the Bible. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoi4NYACgkQXo3EtEYbt3GLVwCg7SHbxK3WAvMf7waCC8Rgs1bB 8eUAoJDAhnpDd1Qm96YgzV1yxNfnPSwK =cIdl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 24, 2009, at 2:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 24 May 2009 01:03:41 -0800: Hi, [snip] The distinguishing characteristic is the inability to mate with the parents, or at least with some of the animals the parents can mate with, which can be due to a genetic characteristic that does not manifest in a visible way. Agreed this is the definition of species. In any case I don't think speciation occurs in a single birth, but rather as a gradual migration of combined traits through a population. Speciation often occurs due to the geographical separation of populations of a single species. If a single birth occurred of an animal unable to mate with any others, then that new species would have no future because it would need others of its kind with which to mate. This appears to lead to a problem with regard to the definition of species. In short how can any new species exist if it can't mate, and if it can mate, then it is not a new species. We seem to have a paradox. No paradox is necessary - provided speciation occurs gradually in a large population. It seems to me likely that the *probability* of offspring due to genetic feasibility must change gradually throughout a population as mutations occur through time. It seems to me also true the probability of mating itself may change due to mutations, and this is a form of of natural selection. The gradual development of an appearance change amongst a sub-population of a species could gradually isolate that group genetically, even though it is not isolated geographically. Speciation is likely the combined effect of many mutations, and sub- populations along the way might be less likely to produce offspring when mated with each other. The larger the number of mutations, the less the probability of offspring. I think even when some differing species are mated, there is a finite but very small probability of offspring surviving at least to birth. Eventually, mutation can drive the probability of viable offspring to zero for all practical purposes. The gradual nature of speciation is thus driven by probabilites rather than absolutes. This makes the chicken and egg problem difficult, because it is difficult to define the first chicken, or to distinguish it from its parents. IOW you are suggesting that small populations speciate as a whole, rather than individuals. Yes This would appear to be possible with regard to characteristics that do not influence the ability to produce fertile offspring, however that then is no longer the definition of a new species. It seems to me unlikely that single mutations produce new species, and that the process normally must take a long time, multiple mutations, and isolated populations, geographically or otherwise. The process of speciation might be highly influenced by environmental factors however, and such a speciation even could be rapid. A sudden change of environment could bring on the immediate and simultanenous *expression* of many genes at once via epigentic influence, and this expression could simultaneously impact large portions of a population, as well as their genetic compatibility. Alternatively, large segments of DNA could be sown throughout a population via viral infection, creating a group of individuals incompatible with the prior population, but compatible with each other. Evolution may have multiple pathways available. The only natural solution I can think of is that a new species is created when a genetic mutation occurs in all the offspring of a single individual, and those offspring mate with one another. The only alternatives I can think of are unnatural, i.e. genetic manipulation, or the same mutation occurring at the same time in different individuals, that then produce offspring that can mate. The latter would however appear to be far less likely than mating between offspring from the same parent. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
its not just genetic inability to mate. its also social. For example, bobcats will and still sometimes DO sucessfully mate with housecats with non mule offspring. but they generally do not, from a social standpoint. Darwins finches that speciated apart did so in large part not because of genetics, but because as they found different niches to feed in from teh changing bills, they simply were in different areas of the islands. Mud stabbing bug eaters just never associated with wide billed nutcrackers. doesn't meant that if you artifically changed their environments they COULDN'T possibly end up mating, they just don't. On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On May 24, 2009, at 2:07 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 24 May 2009 01:03:41 -0800: Hi, [snip] The distinguishing characteristic is the inability to mate with the parents, or at least with some of the animals the parents can mate with, which can be due to a genetic characteristic that does not manifest in a visible way. Agreed this is the definition of species. In any case I don't think speciation occurs in a single birth, but rather as a gradual migration of combined traits through a population. Speciation often occurs due to the geographical separation of populations of a single species. If a single birth occurred of an animal unable to mate with any others, then that new species would have no future because it would need others of its kind with which to mate. This appears to lead to a problem with regard to the definition of species. In short how can any new species exist if it can't mate, and if it can mate, then it is not a new species. We seem to have a paradox. No paradox is necessary - provided speciation occurs gradually in a large population. It seems to me likely that the *probability* of offspring due to genetic feasibility must change gradually throughout a population as mutations occur through time. It seems to me also true the probability of mating itself may change due to mutations, and this is a form of of natural selection. The gradual development of an appearance change amongst a sub-population of a species could gradually isolate that group genetically, even though it is not isolated geographically. Speciation is likely the combined effect of many mutations, and sub-populations along the way might be less likely to produce offspring when mated with each other. The larger the number of mutations, the less the probability of offspring. I think even when some differing species are mated, there is a finite but very small probability of offspring surviving at least to birth. Eventually, mutation can drive the probability of viable offspring to zero for all practical purposes. The gradual nature of speciation is thus driven by probabilites rather than absolutes. This makes the chicken and egg problem difficult, because it is difficult to define the first chicken, or to distinguish it from its parents. IOW you are suggesting that small populations speciate as a whole, rather than individuals. Yes This would appear to be possible with regard to characteristics that do not influence the ability to produce fertile offspring, however that then is no longer the definition of a new species. It seems to me unlikely that single mutations produce new species, and that the process normally must take a long time, multiple mutations, and isolated populations, geographically or otherwise. The process of speciation might be highly influenced by environmental factors however, and such a speciation even could be rapid. A sudden change of environment could bring on the immediate and simultanenous *expression* of many genes at once via epigentic influence, and this expression could simultaneously impact large portions of a population, as well as their genetic compatibility. Alternatively, large segments of DNA could be sown throughout a population via viral infection, creating a group of individuals incompatible with the prior population, but compatible with each other. Evolution may have multiple pathways available. The only natural solution I can think of is that a new species is created when a genetic mutation occurs in all the offspring of a single individual, and those offspring mate with one another. The only alternatives I can think of are unnatural, i.e. genetic manipulation, or the same mutation occurring at the same time in different individuals, that then produce offspring that can mate. The latter would however appear to be far less likely than mating between offspring from the same parent. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:22 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Mud stabbing bug eaters just never associated with wide billed nutcrackers. Didn't they play each other in the World Series a few decades back? Terry
RE: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
For a fresh scientific angle on the numerous inconsistencies in Darwinism: http://www.panspermia.com
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 23, 2009, at 9:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 22 May 2009 17:37:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The egg came first. It was laid by a non-chicken who was so dumb that it didn't even realize that what came out of the egg was a different species, and looked after it anyway. It has to be this way, because mutations occur in genes, which then get expressed as the creature grows. Now I hope never to hear this silly conundrum ever again. ;) I expect it will be around for generations. You are simply dismissing the creationist view, which was a previously stated part of the conundrum. Under that view chickens and eggs could have been simultaneously created all over the place, or just one or the other. If you take the evolutionary view, the line between what is a chicken and what is its immediate predecessor is probably indiscernible to the eye. Evolution typically does not make huge leaps in a single birth. It seems to me likely the parents of the first chicken(s) were not much different in appearance from the chicken(s), so the parents would not have to be very dumb to take care of the chicken (s). The distinguishing characteristic is the inability to mate with the parents, or at least with some of the animals the parents can mate with, which can be due to a genetic characteristic that does not manifest in a visible way. In any case I don't think speciation occurs in a single birth, but rather as a gradual migration of combined traits through a population. Speciation often occurs due to the geographical separation of populations of a single species. If a single birth occurred of an animal unable to mate with any others, then that new species would have no future because it would need others of its kind with which to mate. The dividing line between chicken and not chicken would have to be very finely defined in order to determine that a specific egg came from a non-chicken and produced a chicken. One thing seems to me to be sure, a chicken egg by definition only comes from a chicken, so the chicken comes before the chicken egg. Then there may be the not fully explored issue of meta DNA and the ability of species to consciously or quickly modify DNA expressions in response to environmental changes. Werewolves and werechickens unite! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
grok wrote:
As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
mounted the barricade and roared out:
The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack
underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
construction we call time, at the physical level.
'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
It is an
The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
matter in space(whatever they are.)
emergent phenomenon. You start there.
You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
relation of matter
and space into something it is not.
You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
something that hasn't.
-- grok.
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Epigenetics crosses multiple generations. It may play a significant role in what makes a chicken a chicken. The chicken is more than its DNA. The chicken may in significant part be the egg, and the mother's egg, etc. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/821 http://tinyurl.com/re7bva Practicing good science led researchers to a novel discovery in a weed (weedy cress, Arabidopsis thaliana) (see Lolle, S.J., Victor, J.L., Young, J.M., and Pruitt, R.E., Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in Arabidopsis, Nature 434 (24 March 2005): 505-509.). What researchers found was that the weeds were inheriting their grandparents' normal DNA which did not exist in their parents' mutated DNA (see this picture [from article in NewScientist.com] for a great schematic image of this) - according to Mendelian genetics, that's supposed to be impossible! Offspring are not supposed to be able to have DNA that does not exist in their parents, unless it is a mutation (which researchers ruled out in this case). By following the evidence where it led, these researchers may have stumbled across a small piece in the complex developmental information puzzle that goes well beyond DNA. Rather than throwing out evidence that doesn't match the neo-Darwinian paradigm (in this case, Mendelian genetic inheritance), researchers practice good science and can make significant scientific discoveries. Some of the researchers speculate that there may be RNA playing a role in storing the normal genetic information for safe-keeping when mutations occur. Regardless of what the error-correcting mechanism turns out to be (which may show promise for helping cure various genetic diseases), it's clear DNA is not the definitive developmental information storer. A recent finding, published in the journal Cell (Bernstein, B. E., Kamal, M. et al. Genomic maps and comparative analysis of histone modifications in human and mouse. Cell 120, 169-181 (2005)), based on studies of histones in mice and humans, causes a problem for the rational behind relating different organisms through genetic comparisons. With the advent of genetic mapping technology, supposed phylogentic relationships have often been constructed based on comparisons of various organism's DNA sequences. Yet, this new finding shows that DNA may not be as reliable an indicator for evolutionary ancestral relations as previously thought. What was found was that histone modifications are highly conserved between mice and humans, even when the DNA sequences in these same histone areas are not. In fact, as noted in a Nature Reviews Genetics summary (EPIGENITICS: It's not all in the DNA), author Tanita Casci commented that, [w]hat was striking, however, was that the DNA sequence of functionally conserved sequences, as inferred from histone profiling, did not coincide with higher levels of sequence conservation, implying that comparative genomics is no reliable way of detecting stretches of DNA with conserved epigenetic marks. It turns out histones play a significant role as a genetic regulator rather than being passive molecules simply holding DNA. Interested readers may find a previous summary article on this interesting (see Li, E. Chromatin modification and epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 662-673 (2002)). Interestingly, the above site is apparently a pro-design anti-Darwin site. There appears to be a failure to realize that the fact evolution is far more complex than Darwin realized does not discount but rather supports the fact evolution exists. The existence of evolution seems to me to be independent of the question of creationism. The fact evolution exists, however complex, neither supports nor discounts the possibility it was created. The main concern for creationists then should be *when* the creation occurred. This is the essence of the chicken and the egg problem when considered from a creationist viewpoint. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 24 May 2009 01:03:41 -0800: Hi, [snip] The distinguishing characteristic is the inability to mate with the parents, or at least with some of the animals the parents can mate with, which can be due to a genetic characteristic that does not manifest in a visible way. Agreed this is the definition of species. In any case I don't think speciation occurs in a single birth, but rather as a gradual migration of combined traits through a population. Speciation often occurs due to the geographical separation of populations of a single species. If a single birth occurred of an animal unable to mate with any others, then that new species would have no future because it would need others of its kind with which to mate. This appears to lead to a problem with regard to the definition of species. In short how can any new species exist if it can't mate, and if it can mate, then it is not a new species. We seem to have a paradox. IOW you are suggesting that small populations speciate as a whole, rather than individuals. This would appear to be possible with regard to characteristics that do not influence the ability to produce fertile offspring, however that then is no longer the definition of a new species. The only natural solution I can think of is that a new species is created when a genetic mutation occurs in all the offspring of a single individual, and those offspring mate with one another. The only alternatives I can think of are unnatural, i.e. genetic manipulation, or the same mutation occurring at the same time in different individuals, that then produce offspring that can mate. The latter would however appear to be far less likely than mating between offspring from the same parent. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Horace Heffner wrote: Epigenetics crosses multiple generations. It may play a significant role in what makes a chicken a chicken. The chicken is more than its DNA. The chicken may in significant part be the egg, and the mother's egg, etc. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/821 Interesting article Horace. In particular I noticed the mention of Junk DNA. It's like me taking a machine, which I don't understand, apart and then labeling some of the parts as junk. It has been suggested that perhaps some of the information encoded in the DNA is in the folding. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Harry Veeder wrote: You mean the general phenomena of 'motion' rather than velocity. Yes. I've said velocity to be able to write the formula: t=s/v First it comes motion, and after that we can talk about rate of motion(i.e. velocity) and from then on we can talk about time. Incidentally, that's probably the reason why the second(the unit of time) is called that way. Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly. In an analog clock, what we observe is displacement of the small hands, at a given fixed angular velocity. A digital clock, although not so obvious, is similar, because a digital clock depends on an oscillator. And we know that an oscillation is produced from (and is equivalent to) a rotation. So again what we are observing is angular displacement, at a given angular velocity. So, time is in reality a compound unit. A unit of displacement per unit of velocity. This is probably not obvious to us because we have made velocity the compound unit. But that can be changed. We can define the unit of velocity, let's say, the /velox/, and from then on define the second as /meters per velox/. We can define the velox in an equivalente way as the SI second is defined. And this is straightforward. First it is convenient to define the /angular velox/. By example: The angular velox is 1 / /x/ times the angular velocity of the electron spin. That is, it is an angular velocity such that when the electron has completed x revolutions around its spin axis, our unit velox vector has completed one around its own. From then on, the linear velox, or velox for short, can be defined as a velocity such that when our unit velox vector has completed one revolution around its axis, our unit linear velox point has displaced 1 meter over a straight line. Alternatively, we can define the linear velox as the absolute value or modulus of the tangential velocity of our unit angular velox vector, with a radius r=1/(2*pi). Now, our unit second is defined as the time that it takes to displace something 1 meter at a velocity of 1 velox. All this confussion comes probably from the influence of the calculus, where we define velocity as the derivative of motion respect to time. That is a great achievement, and a very powerful mathematical technique, but nevertheless we must not forget that, regarding the reality of the subyacent physical processes, we're grasping at straws, so to speak, when doing that. Harry - Original Message - From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Date: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE Velocity does not need to be measured to exist. I'm talking about the intrinsic physical existence of movement, not about measurements. And what you say is anyways probably not true: you can measure velocity comparing it to other velocities, by example. Like in those two velocities are equal, or that velocity is 2 times that other velocity.
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, 5-23-09 Time, like truth, is subjective; it is a feeling about something. In terms of natural selection, it is to our advantage to be able to predict what is going to happen; and time is a series of events, heart beats or sunrises, that lets us keep track of things. You're right, regarding the general conception of time. But we're trying to define 'physical time', that is, the subyacent reality (or not) of time in the domain of physical processes. Jack Smith Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? After all, there are ways to measure time independently of velocity, but no way to measure velocity independently of time.
RE: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro, Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have not made a good case for the assertion that velocity (motion) is more basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is time. In every case you site, you are in effect eliminating 'relativity' considerations by injecting the POV of a preferred viewer. For instance, when you say: Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly. Not exactly true ! Or at least it is the same situation when we observe and measure space, since we also do that indirectly as well. Any observer must depend on physical inputs - inputs that either the viewer instigates, or else the viewer receives - such as reflected photons. You must eliminate the local viewer - in order to make the case for what is to be the most basic variable in our mental understanding of how to measure anything. And of course that is hard to do, in the abstract. But all-in-all, let's step back a moment. Isn't this exercise little more than a tempest in a teapot? I mean- what are the furthest implications which you could imagine for the correct answer, even if there were one? OK - moving on... And being one who like to indulge in meaningless trivia on occasion - and for the sake of argument, I will contend that only with time as the prime and most basic variable - is the local viewer and his particular POV most nearly eliminated. This is because the universe does contains it own mechanism for gauging duration accurately, a universal clock if you will; and this functions to eliminate the local POV of any viewer throughout the entire expanse of space. That mechanism can be reduced to the standard clock with a ticking rate of 1420 MHz - and is timed precisely by the spin isomers of hydrogen; and most importantly is available everywhere in the Universe, independent of POV. The ball is now in your court. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Jones Beene wrote: Mauro, Although I do not completely disagree with anything you say, you still have not made a good case for the assertion that velocity (motion) is more basic, as an underlying measurement standard - or prime-variable, than is time. In every case you site, you are in effect eliminating 'relativity' considerations by injecting the POV of a preferred viewer. For instance, when you say: Please note that when we observe or measure time, we always do it indirectly. Not exactly true ! Or at least it is the same situation when we observe and measure space, since we also do that indirectly as well. Any observer must depend on physical inputs - inputs that either the viewer instigates, or else the viewer receives - such as reflected photons. When we measure space, we measure space, that is, we measure the underlying physical reality we know as space. There's a POV, and a measurement process, of course, but there's also something underlyingly real(altough as I've said, this is also debatable in the case of space) that we're measuring. When we measure time, we measure displacement in space at a certain velocity. There's no such quantity as time, physically. We are not measuring any intrinsic physical property, but abstracting a value from other physical properties(movement.) That's what I meant with 'indirectly'. Not the indirection that results from the measurement process, but the one that results of deducting time taking as a basis changes in displacement, that is, taking as a basis other physical properties. We later on attribute reality to this abstraction, which is incorrect, physically speaking. You must eliminate the local viewer - in order to make the case for what is to be the most basic variable in our mental understanding of how to measure anything. And of course that is hard to do, in the abstract. But all-in-all, let's step back a moment. Isn't this exercise little more than a tempest in a teapot? It is, in a sense, but it's not in another(epistemological). More about that below. I mean- what are the furthest implications which you could imagine for the correct answer, even if there were one? The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. You can do it, of course, but epistemologically speaking, you'll be not doing good, sound physics. The best thing you can do regarding time in your physical model, is to define an absolute time(because that's what time is, a mere abstraction with no real existence) If you do that, the other real physical properties will reflect the underlying changes to which they are subjected. That is, you will not be masking the reality of the physical processes under time distortions and correlations of your reference frames. It's better if you stick to putting 't=0' in all your reference frames (that is, if you define 'now', 'instant' and 'instantaneously' independently of the velocity of anything) and later take the real consequences of the observed physical phenomena. That way, your physical model will be more according to reality. OK - moving on... And being one who like to indulge in meaningless trivia on occasion - and for the sake of argument, I will contend that only with time as the prime and most basic variable - is the local viewer and his particular POV most nearly eliminated. This is because the universe does contains it own mechanism for gauging duration accurately, a universal clock if you will; and this functions to eliminate the local POV of any viewer throughout the entire expanse of space. That mechanism can be reduced to the standard clock with a ticking rate of 1420 MHz - and is timed precisely by the spin isomers of hydrogen; and most importantly is available everywhere in the Universe, independent of POV. That's incorrect, as I've showed before. Frequency is again not a direct measure of something physical called time, but of a number of cycles(rotations) during a *given* duration of time. It is a consequence of rotation, which is a result of angular velocity, which is the real underlying physical process(i.e. circular *movement* around a center, at a certain *velocity*(rate of displacement.)) The ball is now in your court. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar mounted the barricade and roared out: The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental construction we call time, at the physical level. 'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are. It is an emergent phenomenon. You start there. To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this relation of matter and space into something it is not. - -- grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoYMlwACgkQXo3EtEYbt3F3HQCdHY4kzO+BHFNNH2VuypsRdMng 910AnRUnR/nM2ZUbjOqpXkkTbYbKdKMx =jJ5z -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
This discussion is somewhat re-discovering or describing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physics, a unified theory: http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101 A motion or space/time unit is the fundamental particle of the universe, and exists in 3D. Note it is not a unit moving around in space it IS the space and the time --difficult to visualize, I know, but not as hard as modern physics theories with many dimensions 3 ( which I think are mostly bogus, BTW ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The problem of which comes first is even more difficult in the particular case of discussions about time, because the very notion of first involves the notion of time, i.e. it involves a temporal sequence. Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? ...
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from My arguments(and they are not mine, by the way, I just happen to expose and defend them, because I've thoroughly thought and meditated on them, and found them to be sound) cannot be negated, nor affirmed, by an experiment, because they are epistemological in nature. They can only be negated, affirmed, or comprehended, through the use of sound thinking. John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: This discussion is somewhat re-discovering or describing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of physics, a unified theory: http://rstheory.org/video/rs-101 A motion or space/time unit is the fundamental particle of the universe, and exists in 3D. A motion does necessarily needs to be described as space divided by time. I've showed that before. Note it is not a unit moving around in space it IS the space and the time --difficult to visualize, I know, but That sounds like what I'm trying to say, but I wouldn't talk about the space and the time, but about the space and the velocity. We can think of a motion as a displacement of a discrete entity in what we may call 'empty space' (but this can probably be simplified further.) That motion has an intrinsic velocity. The most basic motion is probably a circular one, which has an intrinsic angular velocity. Those are physical realities. The rest is an abstraction, including probably the very concept of 'space' we're using as an aid here. That is, space is also an abstraction, being in reality the sub-product of (very specific) motions. not as hard as modern physics theories with many dimensions 3 ( which I think are mostly bogus, BTW ). Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The problem of which comes first is even more difficult in the particular case of discussions about time, because the very notion of first involves the notion of time, i.e. it involves a temporal sequence. Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? ...
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 23, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry It is interesting to me that the planned experiment described is very similar in some ways to the means I suggested to establish FTL communication: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FTL-down.pdf One difference is the use of a moving lense at Alice's location, to change the detection mode to particle vs wave. A particle detection eliminates the interference pattern at Bob's location. This has a similar problem to my method, which is the practical problem of being able to establish an interference pattern at both Bob and Alice's location. Such a pattern establishes the wave-like measurement. Cramer's method uses slits to accomplish the interference pattern instead of the wave splitters I suggested, and this is probably a major improvement. I would think using straight line communications for the experiment, as shown in Fig. 2 of my article, instead of fiber, would greatly reduce the noise and reduce the number of photons that lose entanglement due to interaction with the fiber atoms. Perhaps the planned use of Anton Zeilinger's periodically poled crystals, instead of down converters, to vastly increase the paired photon production will overcome the fiber limitations. Cramer has a beautiful plan. I hope it comes to fruition. If the practical problems are overcome then the results will be most interesting. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
What I find most interesting is that it is funded by people who know no physics but want to physically know. Terry On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On May 23, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The furthest implications are that you have no right in physics, epistemologically speaking, to talk about relative time scales, or which is the same, time dimensions. I believe your argument would be negated by successful results from John G. Cramer's experiments: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL When NASA dropped funding for such advanced projects, John received funding from public donations. His present status: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/20/1938752.aspx Since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, Cramer's entanglement experiements will require the dimensionality of time. Terry It is interesting to me that the planned experiment described is very similar in some ways to the means I suggested to establish FTL communication: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FTL-down.pdf One difference is the use of a moving lense at Alice's location, to change the detection mode to particle vs wave. A particle detection eliminates the interference pattern at Bob's location. This has a similar problem to my method, which is the practical problem of being able to establish an interference pattern at both Bob and Alice's location. Such a pattern establishes the wave-like measurement. Cramer's method uses slits to accomplish the interference pattern instead of the wave splitters I suggested, and this is probably a major improvement. I would think using straight line communications for the experiment, as shown in Fig. 2 of my article, instead of fiber, would greatly reduce the noise and reduce the number of photons that lose entanglement due to interaction with the fiber atoms. Perhaps the planned use of Anton Zeilinger's periodically poled crystals, instead of down converters, to vastly increase the paired photon production will overcome the fiber limitations. Cramer has a beautiful plan. I hope it comes to fruition. If the practical problems are overcome then the results will be most interesting. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 22 May 2009 17:37:22 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The egg came first. It was laid by a non-chicken who was so dumb that it didn't even realize that what came out of the egg was a different species, and looked after it anyway. It has to be this way, because mutations occur in genes, which then get expressed as the creature grows. Now I hope never to hear this silly conundrum ever again. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Jones Beene wrote: All this talk about ESP and its possible scientific basis -- got me thinking about the “z-word” once again. Not to mention how hard it is to separate the pursuit of free energy from less divine pursuits (depending on one’s z-orientation, of course) Caveat: Lethal Text follows... meaning that it usually confounds non-believers… …and/or … “what you don't know can't skill you” “Back in the day” I could remember how to pronounce “zitterbewegung”. Not any more, much less spell it. It is almost “lethal text” and everytime the word pops into consciousness, I feel compelled to consult the internet (and spell checker). You can, of course, take the implications of the z-word to extremes. For instance – that a “modulation of z” can transfer info and supply a very provocative answer to many theological questions. It’s almost like- “in the beginning was the word, and the word was… you know: “zitterbewegung”. That one is kinda hard to get into Hebrew, so they changed it to a few consonants. Perhaps that is another reason for the “addiction” of “free energy” and for trying to accomplish what the Grand Poobahs of fissix tell us is an impossible goal. This time, when the wider implications of ZPE came to mind, an old mini-essay on LT also popped-up in connection with the word and it mentioned “lethal text” which is like a forbidden-fruit kind of thing... you know, cosmic foaming at the mouth - but its what they call ZPE in them ivory towers and if there is such a thing as modulated zitterbewegung (aether-conditioning so-to-speak) then it may be the driving force for finding free-energy in two very different ways – one of which has ‘information transfer from afar’ overtones. Side Note: As for what are the wider implications of lethal text - in Piers Anthony's story - Macroscope, an alien message destroys the mind of anyone intelligent enough to understand it- no doubt that it contained the z-word. All of which was kind of a take-off on Sir ACC’s infamous earworm from a short story called The Ultimate Melody. Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash has the LT show up in broadband as a computer virus. The most famous version – that is, outside the Bible (where we find the original LT (i.e. YHWH)… that probably goes back to the Sirens' song of the old Odyssey, not to be confused with the remake A Space Odyssey and the five notes you will never forget: zit...err..be...we...gung? At least in the good-book you were once no-vowelly protected from a lethal dose. Anyway, in one of his most widely read essays (both short and 'pregnant'), Hal Puthoff opines that Gravity can be understood as a kind of long-range Casimir force. This kind of ties into the notion to how it is that YHWH could whisper little secrets in W’s ear about WMD, and also the apprehension that when we finally do harness ZPE for free energy, there will be a cost. (hell to pay??) Some of this goes back to the ruskie H-bomb man, physicist Andrei Sakharov, who put forward the radical hypothesis that gravity might not be a fundamental interaction at all, but is another form of resonant aether-conditioning so-to-speak. If gravity is a secondary or residual effect associated with other the EM field and with interdimensional effects, then the ZPE connection is somewhat easier to understand. If correct, gravity would then be understood as just another variation on the Casimir theme, in which background zero-point-energy pressures were again responsible, and with implications for “information transfer”. Anyway, the z-approach to gravity was addressed by Puthoff by showing that every particle is situated in the sea of electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations develops this jitter motion; and when there are two or more particles they are each influenced not only by the fluctuating background field, but also by the fields generated by the other particles, all similarly undergoing a contact-high of epo-moderated motion, add the inter-particle coupling and a measure of large scale asymmetry brought on by curvature… …and voila – there you have it: the zed-connection and its ubiquitous signature - not exactly the mark of Zorro but the ultraviolet glow of foamy cosmic glue. That's wonderful, Jones. Thank you for all those literary, musical, and scientific references. Zitterbewegung, the observed oscilation or modulation between interacting positive and negative particles, can be again some kind of interference pattern between these hyperdimensionally rotating vortexes we commonly call particles, which are rotating over an hyperdimensional axis (i.e. appearing and disappearing into our tridimensional reality) at a frequency much higher than the observed frequency of the interference pattern. May ‘z force be with you, Jones
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Reminds me of my thoughts the first time I was introduced to superstring theory. the expanding contracting strings sure sounded to me as the 3 from 4 dimensional equivilant to cutting a chord across a 3 dimensional wave form, and as the wave moves, getting shrinking and contracting lines on your 2 cut. On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Jones Beene wrote: All this talk about ESP and its possible scientific basis -- got me thinking about the “z-word” once again. Not to mention how hard it is to separate the pursuit of free energy from less divine pursuits (depending on one’s z-orientation, of course) Caveat: Lethal Text follows... meaning that it usually confounds non-believers… …and/or … “what you don't know can't skill you” “Back in the day” I could remember how to pronounce “zitterbewegung”. Not any more, much less spell it. It is almost “lethal text” and everytime the word pops into consciousness, I feel compelled to consult the internet (and spell checker). You can, of course, take the implications of the z-word to extremes. For instance – that a “modulation of z” can transfer info and supply a very provocative answer to many theological questions. It’s almost like- “in the beginning was the word, and the word was… you know: “zitterbewegung”. That one is kinda hard to get into Hebrew, so they changed it to a few consonants. Perhaps that is another reason for the “addiction” of “free energy” and for trying to accomplish what the Grand Poobahs of fissix tell us is an impossible goal. This time, when the wider implications of ZPE came to mind, an old mini-essay on LT also popped-up in connection with the word and it mentioned “lethal text” which is like a forbidden-fruit kind of thing... you know, cosmic foaming at the mouth - but its what they call ZPE in them ivory towers and if there is such a thing as modulated zitterbewegung (aether-conditioning so-to-speak) then it may be the driving force for finding free-energy in two very different ways – one of which has ‘information transfer from afar’ overtones. Side Note: As for what are the wider implications of lethal text - in Piers Anthony's story - Macroscope, an alien message destroys the mind of anyone intelligent enough to understand it- no doubt that it contained the z-word. All of which was kind of a take-off on Sir ACC’s infamous earworm from a short story called The Ultimate Melody. Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash has the LT show up in broadband as a computer virus. The most famous version – that is, outside the Bible (where we find the original LT (i.e. YHWH)… that probably goes back to the Sirens' song of the old Odyssey, not to be confused with the remake A Space Odyssey and the five notes you will never forget: zit...err..be...we...gung? At least in the good-book you were once no-vowelly protected from a lethal dose. Anyway, in one of his most widely read essays (both short and 'pregnant'), Hal Puthoff opines that Gravity can be understood as a kind of long-range Casimir force. This kind of ties into the notion to how it is that YHWH could whisper little secrets in W’s ear about WMD, and also the apprehension that when we finally do harness ZPE for free energy, there will be a cost. (hell to pay??) Some of this goes back to the ruskie H-bomb man, physicist Andrei Sakharov, who put forward the radical hypothesis that gravity might not be a fundamental interaction at all, but is another form of resonant aether-conditioning so-to-speak. If gravity is a secondary or residual effect associated with other the EM field and with interdimensional effects, then the ZPE connection is somewhat easier to understand. If correct, gravity would then be understood as just another variation on the Casimir theme, in which background zero-point-energy pressures were again responsible, and with implications for “information transfer”. Anyway, the z-approach to gravity was addressed by Puthoff by showing that every particle is situated in the sea of electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations develops this jitter motion; and when there are two or more particles they are each influenced not only by the fluctuating background field, but also by the fields generated by the other particles, all similarly undergoing a contact-high of epo-moderated motion, add the inter-particle coupling and a measure of large scale asymmetry brought on by curvature… …and voila – there you have it: the zed-connection and its ubiquitous signature - not exactly the mark of Zorro but the ultraviolet glow of foamy cosmic glue. That's wonderful, Jones. Thank you for all those literary, musical, and scientific references. Zitterbewegung, the observed oscilation or modulation between interacting positive and negative particles, can be again some kind of interference pattern between these hyperdimensionally rotating vortexes we commonly call particles, which are rotating over
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 22, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. Terry I think, therefore I change. I change, therefore I change the universe. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 As the smoke cleared, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mounted the barricade and roared out: There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along-it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment. There's no need to bring gods into the picture -- thru the backdoor or otherwise, as many bourgeois scientists are wont to do these daze. The Universe -- however it began and wherever it's heading -- is an emergent pheonomenon of matter/energy in constant (perpetual?!) motion. It *self-assembles*, in other words. By successive iterations. Fractally. And then *natural* selection chooses what is to remain/be -- and thus what we are, and what we now observe. It's damned simple, really. Prove me wrong. No wonder the religious hate Darwin. (And someone else I won't name. ;) - --grok. - -- Build the North America-wide General Strike. TODO el poder a los consejos y las comunas. TOUT le pouvoir aux conseils et communes. ALL power to the councils and communes. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoW8KQACgkQXo3EtEYbt3Eo/wCfYa+GyU9ovgl7zXVtEyUSP7Wm YxsAn2aRKtrGYlkodcP3eKaapIH8rX2N =7L4v -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Jones Beene wrote: All this talk about ESP and its possible scientific basis -- got me thinking about the “z-word” once again. Not to mention how hard it is to separate the pursuit of free energy from less divine pursuits (depending on one’s z-orientation, of course) Caveat: Lethal Text follows... meaning that it usually confounds non-believers… …and/or … “what you don't know can't skill you” “Back in the day” I could remember how to pronounce “zitterbewegung”. Not any more, much less spell it. It is almost “lethal text” and everytime the word pops into consciousness, I feel compelled to consult the internet (and spell checker). You can, of course, take the implications of the z-word to extremes. For instance – that a “modulation of z” can transfer info and supply a very provocative answer to many theological questions. It’s almost like- “in the beginning was the word, and the word was… you know: “zitterbewegung”. That one is kinda hard to get into Hebrew, so they changed it to a few consonants. Perhaps that is another reason for the “addiction” of “free energy” and for trying to accomplish what the Grand Poobahs of fissix tell us is an impossible goal. This time, when the wider implications of ZPE came to mind, an old mini-essay on LT also popped-up in connection with the word and it mentioned “lethal text” which is like a forbidden-fruit kind of thing... you know, cosmic foaming at the mouth - but its what they call ZPE in them ivory towers and if there is such a thing as modulated zitterbewegung (aether-conditioning so-to-speak) then it may be the driving force for finding free-energy in two very different ways – one of which has ‘information transfer from afar’ overtones. Side Note: As for what are the wider implications of lethal text - in Piers Anthony's story - Macroscope, an alien message destroys the mind of anyone intelligent enough to understand it- no doubt that it contained the z-word. All of which was kind of a take-off on Sir ACC’s infamous earworm from a short story called The Ultimate Melody. Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash has the LT show up in broadband as a computer virus. The most famous version – that is, outside the Bible (where we find the original LT (i.e. YHWH)… that probably goes back to the Sirens' song of the old Odyssey, not to be confused with the remake A Space Odyssey and the five notes you will never forget: zit...err..be...we...gung? At least in the good-book you were once no-vowelly protected from a lethal dose. Anyway, in one of his most widely read essays (both short and 'pregnant'), Hal Puthoff opines that Gravity can be understood as a kind of long-range Casimir force. This kind of ties into the notion to how it is that YHWH could whisper little secrets in W’s ear about WMD, and also the apprehension that when we finally do harness ZPE for free energy, there will be a cost. (hell to pay??) Some of this goes back to the ruskie H-bomb man, physicist Andrei Sakharov, who put forward the radical hypothesis that gravity might not be a fundamental interaction at all, but is another form of resonant aether-conditioning so-to-speak. If gravity is a secondary or residual effect associated with other the EM field and with interdimensional effects, then the ZPE connection is somewhat easier to understand. If correct, gravity would then be understood as just another variation on the Casimir theme, in which background zero-point-energy pressures were again responsible, and with implications for “information transfer”. Indeed. Elaborating further: In a framework like the one I propose before(particle rotation along a fourth dimensional axis), gravity can be explained as no more than gentle variations of this second spin of elementary particles (I think that we can call it W-Spin, because it happens along the W axis). Subtle variations of this spin, will account for so called etheric phenomena, including (but not limited to) gravity. So, there's no graviton, but a new axis of rotation of many(or all) of the elementary particles. A new property, not a new particle. Regarding the causes of these variations, in the particular case of gravity, the cause can be (at least in part) local interactions between particles, which slow down this spin. So, that way gravity will be dependant on density and temperature. Information transfer, as you call it, and non-locality, would both be explained due to the four-dimensional spatial nature of this interaction. Something that is non-local tridimensionally speaking, could be local cuatridimensionally. Regarding the angular velocity of this spin, it is probable many order of magnitudes greater than the speed of light, and that explains why it wasn't observed or detected, except indirectly. Maybe doing and interference pattern model and calculus for the Zitterbewegung(as it is a german noun, it must go capitalized) phenomena, the frequency can be estimated. Best regards, Mauro
RE: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
-Original Message- Terry Blanton wrote: There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. Horace Heffner wrote: I think, therefore I change. I change, therefore I change the universe. Well, speaking of approaching change, no one can deny that the big U (U-42?) did indeed disappear for the sayer of the above; and thereafter was undoubtedly replaced by something changed, for better or worse, maybe something even more bizarre or maybe less, even 'prime', this time, shall we say (43?) ... ... as it may change for the rest of us, 'real soon now' ... but do not assume the risk of that happening because of a mistranslation in a silly stone calendar ... ... because, like it or not, we are still living in a subprime universe. http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m5d19-The-r isks-of-believing-that-the-Mayan-calendar-ends-December-21-2012 Wish You Were Here Doug. How did we let the anniversary pass unnoticed, 11 days ago? Hey - U-43 probably isn't so bad. After all, 43 is the smallest prime that is not a Chen prime. It is also the third Wagstaff prime, a Heegner number and the largest natural number that is not an (original) McNugget number ;-) Jones (putting google through its paces) BTW One special case of lunacy (the coin problem) is sometimes referred to as McNugget numbers. A McNugget number is the total number of McDonald's Chicken McNuggets in any number of boxes. The original boxes (prior to the introduction of the Happy Meal-sized nugget boxes) were of 6, 9, and 20 nuggets. The largest non-McNugget number is 43 meaning that any number of McNuggets larger than 43 can be purchased. ... does that say anything about U-43?
RE: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
-Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy Elaborating further: In a framework like the one I propose before(particle rotation along a fourth dimensional axis), gravity can be explained as no more than gentle variations of this second spin of elementary particles (I think that we can call it W-Spin, because it happens along the W axis). Mauro, I like this concept, and am wondering if it would not work as well with 3+3 dimensions? i.e. three of space and three of time ... That more general idea, based on Chen's theory of three time dimensions, or a version of it, is going around (so to speak) and has a lot of appeal. It assumes that we are located now in (S3,T2) but the net effect of a fourth spatial dimension cannot be distinguished from (S3,T3) and in fact 'space' (as opposed to space time) is in reality limited to the common verbal and mental framework or understanding of three spatial axes. There are some advantages to this slight change in perspective, and probably disadvantages as well. I wish I had time to dig deeper into it. Really, all it does for me now is to better facilitate the merger of the language of mathematics with verbal wording. Nothing against Rucker, and the others who have tried to merge the math withon the limitations of the human brain by describing what a real 4-space would be like - but he never really makes a strong case for four full spatial dimensions to me. Curvature or fractals is about as far as you get without resorting to magic. Not that substituting one kind of magic for another is going to make a huge difference. But it could. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy Elaborating further: In a framework like the one I propose before(particle rotation along a fourth dimensional axis), gravity can be explained as no more than gentle variations of this second spin of elementary particles (I think that we can call it W-Spin, because it happens along the W axis). Mauro, I like this concept, and am wondering if it would not work as well with 3+3 dimensions? i.e. three of space and three of time ... Jones, I'm glad to hear that you like it. I like it too, and it was also thanks to your insights that I come up with that. The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental construction we call time, at the physical level. This is not the case at the vital or living level, because for living entities time has intrinsic reality; but that is another issue. This is an important epistemological consideration for physics. You can of course build models and formulae around time distortions (so called time dimensions), but it is important to remember that there's no such thing as time, at the physical level. The Universe does not have a clock rate and a clock source, as computers have, to be completely clear. Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. Regarding the physical reality of a spatial fourth dimension, and the means to visualize it, it really isn't that difficult, once you grasp the way of doing it. As discussed before, a rotation over a fourth dimensional axis, will appear to a tridimensional observer as a pulsation. That is, you must imagine that the axis of the fourth dimension runs into space; it is like a kind of inwardness (and the english language is very appropiate here, as in spanish we don't have a word for inwardness). So, when a fourth dimensional quantity changes, tridimensionally you'll see something as appearing or dissapearing; that is, growing from inwards on, or diminishing towards inwardness. Now, surely it is possible, to map a fourth-dimensional spatial construct into a tridimensional spatial construct, plus additional time dimensions, and viceversa. You will be considering changes in velocity or space(tipically, changes in angular velocities) as changes or distortions of your time scale. The point is: why would you really want to do that? it is much more elegant, and physically sound, to consider higher spatial dimensions. After imagining a fourth dimension, higher dimensions will again be seen tridimensionally as changes of radius, but it is important to consider that these higher dimensions will be qualitatively different from the fourth, as the fourth really is from the third lower ones, by the way, and that their effects will act on the fourth also. That is, we are talking about modulations of modulators, or higher level modulations. You can explain a lot of unexplained(or better said, badly explained) phenomena when you start considering these higher dimensions, but I will not talk about that here, and if you're interested, you will have to investigate further on your own. The important thing to begin to understand all this in a sane way is to always remember about the qualitative aspect. That is, these higher dimensions are not to be tought of as mere additional coordinate axis, as they really(as in reality) are much more than that. Mauro That more general idea, based on Chen's theory of three time dimensions, or a version of it, is going around (so to speak) and has a lot of appeal. It assumes that we are located now in (S3,T2) but the net effect of a fourth spatial dimension cannot be distinguished from (S3,T3) and in fact 'space' (as opposed to space time) is in reality limited to the common verbal and mental framework or understanding of three spatial axes. There are some advantages to this slight change in perspective, and probably disadvantages as well. I wish I had time to dig deeper into it. Really, all it does for me now is to better facilitate the merger of the language of mathematics with verbal wording. Nothing against Rucker, and the others who have tried to merge the math withon the limitations of the human brain by describing what a real 4-space would be like - but he never really makes a strong case for four full spatial dimensions to me. Curvature or fractals is about as far as you get without resorting to magic. Not that substituting one kind of magic for another is going to make a huge difference. But it could. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 22, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Jones Beene wrote: BTW One special case of lunacy (the coin problem) is sometimes referred to as McNugget numbers. A McNugget number is the total number of McDonald's Chicken McNuggets in any number of boxes. The original boxes (prior to the introduction of the Happy Meal-sized nugget boxes) were of 6, 9, and 20 nuggets. The largest non-McNugget number is 43 meaning that any number of McNuggets larger than 43 can be purchased. ... does that say anything about U-43? 43 is ... the answer. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro Lacy wrote: Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
- Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? After all, there are ways to measure time independently of velocity, but no way to measure velocity independently of time.
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? I love this question because it solely depends on whether you are a believer in ID or evolution. Those followers if Intelligent Design would say that YHWH made the chicken without other means of intervention. Whereas, the evolutionist would know that the first chicken was made in the egg of the proto-chicken with the genetic deviation which hatched the chicken. Me? I let the chick come first. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
On May 22, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? I love this question because it solely depends on whether you are a believer in ID or evolution. Those followers if Intelligent Design would say that YHWH made the chicken without other means of intervention. Whereas, the evolutionist would know that the first chicken was made in the egg of the proto-chicken with the genetic deviation which hatched the chicken. Me? I let the chick come first. :-) Terry As a side note, in either case, evolution or creation, the chicken must precede the first *chicken* egg, that being defined as an egg laid by a chicken. By evolution, the first chick that hatches does so from an egg not lain by a chicken, and thus not a chicken egg. The chicken comes before the chicken egg, but not before the egg from which it hatches. Perhaps more definition is needed to solve the problem. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Mauro Lacy Only velocity exists, physically. From then on, time is derived as t=v/s. That is, in physics time is no more than a mathematical construct. I meant: t=s/v Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? The problem of which comes first is even more difficult in the particular case of discussions about time, because the very notion of first involves the notion of time, i.e. it involves a temporal sequence. Why not say that only time and space exist, physically, and that velocity is derived therefrom ? (In the following paragraph, when I say exists, I mean has intrinsic physical reality.) Simply because time does not exist, as a physical process. Let's suppose that space exists(this is debatable also, but I wouldn't go into that for the moment), and in that existing space nothing is moving at all, all is completely static. Does it have sense then to talk about time? So, time is a result or a consequence of movement; that is, of velocity. When I say velocity, I'm talking about rate of movement. By example, movement of discrete matter in empty space, which, as you can see, is something that has intrinsic physical reality. Imagine a discrete piece of matter moving through empty space. That discrete piece of matter physically does not need anything like time to move, it is enough for it to have movement(velocity) and empty space in which to move. Physically, time comes later, if you excuse the pun. After all, there are ways to measure time independently of velocity, but no way to measure velocity independently of time. Velocity does not need to be measured to exist. I'm talking about the intrinsic physical existence of movement, not about measurements. And what you say is anyways probably not true: you can measure velocity comparing it to other velocities, by example. Like in those two velocities are equal, or that velocity is 2 times that other velocity.
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
You mean the general phenomena of 'motion' rather than velocity. Harry - Original Message - From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar Date: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE Velocity does not need to be measured to exist. I'm talking about the intrinsic physical existence of movement, not about measurements. And what you say is anyways probably not true: you can measure velocity comparing it to other velocities, by example. Like in those two velocities are equal, or that velocity is 2 times that other velocity.
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
- Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Friday, May 22, 2009 9:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Which comes first - the chicken or the egg? I love this question because it solely depends on whether you are a believer in ID or evolution. Those followers if Intelligent Design would say that YHWH made the chicken without other means of intervention. Whereas, the evolutionist would know that the first chicken was made in the egg of the proto-chicken with the genetic deviation which hatched the chicken. Me? I let the chick come first. :-) Terry If YHWH layed the first egg, then YHWH is a chicken... ;-) Harry
