Hello & Welcome to our community. Is this your first visit? Register

Thread: psychobabbling

  1. #601
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey swede! We previously discussed the origins of the way we structure our lives and perceive the world around us some time ago. I think we had pretty much agreed that, instinct or basic programming along with social programming (parents and family, friends and society as a whole), being added throught our years, si what makes us all who we are as individuals.

    To quote swede:

    "From many points (belief-systems etc) we observe one aspect of existence. In normal language this means, that we look at one specific phenomena from as many angles as possible."

    I tend to think that as you, I, our lost comrade ham and certainly a few others try to view things this way, but most actually do the opposite... especially the hardcore religious types, as they seem to see everything around them only as it can be molded within which ever doctrine they have taken in as the undeniable truth.

    Asking a competent priest (or equalent religious person), scientist, psychologist, linguist, historian, philosopher, idealist etc etc the same question would be like starting armagedon if they are in the same room![B)] But, I understand what you mean. Still, try as we may, things often revert back to and centralize around our own perceptions, and that is a very hard habit to break.

    As people like you and I continue to try to keep our minds open to what is possible, so many forces of conformity also continue to try to squeeze such thinking out of us every day. But, I like to believe that I have remained somewhat open.

    I tend to have many pre-senior moments, and forget things, or not quite remember them accurately, but still, even though your chaos theory seemed a bit abstract at the time of that particular discussion, it did stick with me in some manifestation. I personally like to believe this was because I really do have an open mind toward what is possible, and can be more than my basic and social programming.

    And yes, even within this babling about the cosmos and relion, the thought of what it takes to understand different concept does prevail. And to tie it to scamming, I feel as though WMs need to try to expand their narrow perceptions of the FSU, it's culture, it's women and socio-economic systems to better understand why scamming takes place, but first, we all need to look in the mirror.

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Hi PeopleS,

    the temptation of, at least momentarily, returning to the subject of cosmology is simply irresistable for me, but just now I'm too tired to express myself comprehensible. So it'll have to be tomorrow.

    Where I will ofcourse also try to respond to associated subjects, you brought up.

  3. #603
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Sleep tight sweet prince... don't let the badgers bite![8D]

  4. #604
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Just a short thought:

    The universe is contemplating itself, by mirroring all its myriads of facets in each other. An endless series of reflections inside reflektions inside reflektions.

    But is this information sent and recieved by reflektions true or flawed?

  5. #605
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Goody!!!!! Another point of contention that we can debate (in a most civil manner of course) and beat on like a dead dog!!!!

    I hope you will elaborate on this thought more and not leave me to interpret your meaning incorrectly.

    In the mean time, I will be working on a lovely little mathematical formula to explain EVERYTHING!!!!! Except of course the parts I have no clue about, in which case I'll just make something up that can't necessarily be disproven, like any good theoretical physicist would![:0]

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    347

    Default

    "Approximate truth" is the same thing as "relative truth," which begs the question: "Relative to what?"

    Last time I checked there are 6.7 Billion people on our little spec of dust near the edge of the Milky Way, so there are approximately 6,700,000,000 versions of truth floating around on any given day of the week. One man's fact is another man's fantasy. Is a Ph.D's version of truth any more trustworthy than an Aboriginal tribesman's? The answer obviously depends on where you are. In the outback, I'll take the Aboriginee's version as a better bet for my own survival.

    So while I do not discredit your cerebral jousting gentlemen, don't throw your arms out of socket slapping each other on the back. The jaguar is still hungry. The truth to him? We're dinner.

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey Prometheus! Basically, what you said is similar to my thoughts on perception. What an individual holds to be true is often based on his/ her perception, be it what they see, hear, feel etc, or what they have been "programmed" with whether instinctually like a hungry jaguar or through social interactions of various origin including religious beliefs.

    A golfer sees the course at the local country club as a woderful use of land for recreational purposes. The farm see a total waste of space that could be feeding the country.

    Besides, our babbling is merely an outlet for thoughts and perceptions. References to the absolute truth are more comic relief than statements of fact.[)] Wait 'til you read my next incoherant rant!!!!![:0]

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    As I am quite bored... and getting well lubricated, I find myself now preparing to babble a bit about my thoughts on "Infinite Limitation", or "Limited Infinitum". Which when finished will only create a much bigger question.

    First, we have our big bang. The creation of everything... or at least the components to create everything. The amount of energy involved can't be measured, or accurately theorized, as the results of it's release are unknown, and it's limits (being how far the universe will expand) can not be hypothesized for a simple lack of sufficient viable information. Simple mathematics dictates we must have 2 of 3 parts to reach a conclusion of fact. E=mc2. We know the speed of light, 186,282 miles per second or for our European pals, 299,792,458 km/ second.

    We don't know the mass of the singularity to find it's energy, and since it's energy is still pushing outward at an immeasurable rate, we can't determine mass. Anyone who claims to know the rate of universal expansion is just blowing smoke up your butt, because we can't see that far. If we could, we would already know everything. Spectral shift only tells us so much.

    swede has proposed the theory of chaos, which as I understand, simply means, "That without structure". At least, that is the definition I will be using, because it fits. Full credit will be given to swede when my theory is published in "Physicists Weekly". To this, it must be said that the singularity of origin, was formed from chaos. Who or what formed it is another debate all together, and where chaos came from... well, one thing at a time. This also infers that all materials necessary for the creation of our universe must still exist within chaos in some form unless they were all consumed in the formation of the singularity.

    I say this is highly unlikely, as many cosmologist and physicists have recently been perplexed by a lack of total mass in the universe already. Thus the new "Dark Matter" theory to compensate. However, for the universe to expand, it needs to create new mass. To do this within itself, you would have to expend energy and thus lose the ability to expand. Even the new matter is limited in the amount of energy it can give off if some of that energy is being used to convert matter from chaos. Thus, it becomes a zero factor concerning energy replenishment of the original big bang.

    This part of my theory again relies on swede's chaos. Just as chaos supplied the unknown amount of mass to create the singularity and fueled the big bang, it continues to supply fuel, or mass, to the expansion process. Be it dark matter or possibly some hydrogen atoms (this is something that can only have a minimal effect), they most certainly must come from the collision of our universe with chaos as the universe continues to expand and so create new matter within our universe, which equates to mass.

    It is possible that the dark matter that has been introduced by others as an explanation for missing mass in the universe, is matter generated or simply absorbed from chaos which is not of an elemental nature as we know it, or element X, having mass with no other notable characteristics that we can determine beyond having mass. Basically, a completely inert material. Possibly made purely of neutrons, with no positive charge at all. Simply individual, free floating neutrons.

    Now for the part about universal contraction... it's limitation. Because of the lack of mass in the universe and it's need to pick up new mass from chaos, it can be said that the original singularity was of a finite mass, otherwise, the universe wouldn't need to push through dark matter and absorb it as part of itself to fill the gaps in mass. Remember that it can be assumed that the mass of dark matter must be gained anew as the universe expands, otherwise there would be an abundance of mass in the universe already. Assuming that the theory the universe remains balanced, mass to volume, the original mass must have a limit. Enter gravity. The universal mass creates a gravitation pull toward it's denser center which is always acting upon the energy of expansion. Through curved space, etc, science has already shown that gravity effects even light, which by definition, is always traveling at the speed of light and that within black hole theory, not even light can escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, which just happens to be at the center of our universe.

    As the original energy of the big bang is lost to gravity, it slows and it's light is pulled back to the center. This is aided by an equal, but opposite push from chaos against the outward push of the universe. As we know, information is not lost within a black hole, therefore, any mass absorbed must remain and then add to the existing mass of the black hole which strengthens it's gravity. As the energy of the original big bang is spent, and with both the mass of chaos pushing in and the gravity of the cntral black hole pulling, the universe will then stop expanding, and collapse back in on itself. Since gravity pulls differently on objects of various mass, acceleration and momentum will in fact cause collisions between masses during the collapse and like a dying star, the universe will throw off the matter and therefore, the mass it gained back to chaos in the form of energy. This energy will then slow the push of chaos, however, gravity has taken cotrol and will at this point finish the collapse. At which point, a singularity is formed as the push of chaos closes around the singularity, pressure builds until it again makes a really big bang.

    I was so long winded that I actually ran out of alotted characters...

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    381

    Default

    To my knowledge, the present scientific favourite for the universe's existence is the Bang. The main competitors, 'baby universes' (Hawkins) and 'steady state'/'continous creation' (Fred Hoyle) have been completely or partly retracted. So a beginning and an end to the universe is in vogue now.

    The beginning:

    The creation of the universe also included the creation of space/time, matter/energy, the forces regulating the mechanisms of the universe, plus (this is my guess) something humnity doean't know of yet, because we have some severe blind spots in our perceptual process. I here refer to my former posts, where I postulated, that higher emotions don't function very well in us; we neither have them functioning in us on a regular basis, nor do we have the 'perception' process, which should be associated with them. I guess empathy and/or compassion is the closest description I can give for this missing function in us.

    Cosmos (alternative for the universe) means 'order', and in scientific, esoteric and theological terminology everything 'not-cosmos' is variously described as chaos, the void, the silence, the emptiness, ultimate enthropy (and probably much more).

    Actually there should be no reason for science and theology to argue about the nature of chaos (..etc), as none of the parts have any evidence whatsoever about it (this doesn't usually stop anyone from having opinions about anything though). The only persons who have a first-hand experiental knowledge of chaos (...etc) are the socalled mystics. And the mystics have for millenia given some information about chaos. Some of it showing surprising similarity to quantum physics. And mystics, no matter time or culture, usually 'agree' amongst themselves. (But that's a subject for another time).

    The concept 'zero-point' has recently gained in popularity, and as far as I understand it, this is a level on par with 'string' or 'M(embran)' theory, where quantum-fluctuations take place. Personally I know too little of this to know where to place this in a creation process: In Chaos (I doubt this), in the initial moment of the Bang itself, or maybe at a later stage (thus making it a part of the present universe).

    String theory postulates some really interesting ideas, from which inductive arguments about creation, chaos and (intelligent) design can be formed. There seem to exist far more dimensions, than the four we can percieve. Eleven are mentioned (sometimes more). These dimensions are 'hidden' (my comment: Maybe we don't experience them because of insufficient perceptions). But that's not the strangest thing. String theory suggests, that the 'parameters' upon which the universe are created and 'maintained', are NOT fixed constants. Apparently it's possibly to make a universe in any old way you want, with completely different natural laws.

    The end:

    Depending on the amount of matter in the universe, it (the universe) will either continue to expand or eventually contract, and then there will be the 'Big Crunch'. But gravity is a relatively unknown force (no-one has sofar found the transmitter particle. The graviton, it's still a theoretical construction), and besides gravity itself seems to be a bit weird. Maybe some of the gravity (as a force) which should be here in the universe (because of the amount of matter here), ISN*T here inside the universe, but somewhere else. (I'm not talking about an asymmetric universe without reason).

    But so that PeopleS shall not despair about a beginning and an end, there are plenty of other options for the end of the universe. Enthropy, black holes gobbling up everything, or the wearing out of the strong nuclear force (the one which keeps matter together). This last will take 10 (with 32 zeros after it) years. No need for panic.


    Cit Prometheus:

    "Approximate truth" is the same thing as "relative truth," ......."

    Not quite. 'Relative' refers to structures inside the truthseeking process relating to each other. My 'approximation' relate to something outside, ultimate truth. But for practical purposes, I don't think we disagree at this level.
    Cit PeopleS:

    "What an individual holds to be true is often based on his/ her perception, be it what they see...."
    Science (through e.g. mathematics) and the mystic's completely different perseption can sometimes bypass this restriction.
    PeopleS:

    "We don't know the mass of the singularity........."
    Didn't have any, matter wasn't yet invented at that point.

    PeopleS:

    "This also infers that all materials necessary for the creation of our universe must still exist within chaos in some form unless they were all consumed in the formation of the singularity."

    That's the funny part. 'Something comes from nothing' (or at least what humans call nothing). Hne, hne, I'm really looking forward to this one.









  10. #610
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Hey swede!

    To quote swede:

    "So a beginning and an end to the universe is in vogue now."

    And I boldy go one step further by proposing that it begins again. This is the Infinite part of "Infinite Limitation" or "Limited Infinitum" as I am now beginning to prefer.

    Again I must disagree that emotion is a real problem for mankind. In many ways, our personal experiences and the emotions we have because of them are part of what makes us individuals. The problem also is not having bad emotions, but rather how we react to them.

    Zero point is basically used to provide a baseline to energy levels within quantum theory, so any quantum theoretic work would involve it's use at some point.

    As in my theory, the gravity that brings about the eventual collapse of the universe comes from the black hole popularly theorized to be at the center of the universe, left over from creation itself. The thinking is that an object of mass has gravity. Increase the mass and gravity increases. Current black hole theory is that information, in this case mass, is not lost. So, if an object, planet, star, etc is consumed by a black hole the mass of those objects is not lost, but retained within and added to that of the black hole.

    It's like a snowball rolling down a mountain. The more it draws in, the more it's mass increases and so the greater the gravitational attraction which pulls in more mass, etc, etc... But also, I theorize that the universal expansion into chaos is met with building resistance, which is what prevents the outer reaches of the universe from flying apart.

    It is these two forces in tandum that will eventually lead to the inward collapse of the universe.

    E=MC2 ; F = G M1M2/d2 where F is the force between the bodies of masses M1, M2 and d is the distance between them. G is the universal gravitational constant.; This is mine:[:0] E (energy) is less than G (gravity) times F (force) plus M (mass) times d (distance) squared. That light can not escape the gravity of a black hole is the basis for this thinking on my part. Besides, it sounded good when the voices told it to me.[)] Although, probably highly flawed and easily shot full of holes by a real physicist, it would be interesting to see the same physicist run with it and maybe make sense of my babbling. I'm still working on this as a true theorist would... say it then try to prove it! I plan to give Stephen Hawking a call later and bounce it off his big brain. He might buy into it since it involves black holes!!!!

    I was really lubricated last night!!!!!!!

    To quote swede:

    "Didn't have any, matter wasn't yet invented at that point."

    There is a fairly new theory that absolutely everything needed to create the universe was expelled from the singularity at the time of the big bang... Highly concentrated mass with no form like a thick firey goo. The elemnets as we know them, came from this goo in the following nano seconds as the universe expanded, but there was an undifined matter.

    A neat little place I found: http://www.physicsforums.com/

    Hey! watch me make the religious guys think... We can't see a black hole right? Only it's effects. As I see the beginning and the end being within the singularity, black hole, maybe it's GOD himself!?![:0]

    I have tried several times to write mathematical equations above, but for some unknow reason it won't show in the post? Very strange indeed? I see it in the write message window, but not in my post? Cosmic conspiracy?????

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com