Solar Wave

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by akabrutus, Oct 5, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for the debunking....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    It won't make a blind bit of difference to you, though, will it? Eh? You will just carry on posting reams of this pseudoscience rubbish all over the forum.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member


    i am guessing river is running with(extrapolating) this idea currently.

    something i am (occasionally)pondering is the process of expansion as a mechanism of energy movement or generation(i realise the idea of generation is somewhat conflated language).
    an ever increasing expanding space like an explosion moving outward with force but from a common understanding of originating from an unknown point.
    expanding universe, big-bang theory etc...
    the wave function being a function of expansion yet as it expands each point of its expansion then also expands(is that called a cascade?).
    yet it is kind-of going in all directions, yet we percieve space as moving in a specific direction.
    measuring space expansion renders our perception to comprehend only what we have measured etc...
    does the point of generation remain constant in the middle ?
    or is the point of generation also expanding at the same speed as the first expansion ?

    it puzzles me somewhat when i take a moment to ponder it.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018 at 9:10 AM
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Whatever this thread was about at the start, it is now apparently about something else (what, I can't easily tell).

    Moved to Free Thoughts.
    exchemist likes this.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    if there was a standing wave in space, would it be measureable/detectable ?
    is gravity a standing wave ? (the photon, a particle AND a wave)
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What kind of standing wave? A wave of what? From where?

    There are gravitational waves. That doesn't mean gravity is a wave.
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    gravitational waves as opposed to waves in gravity etc...
    gravity is a pulling power only ?

    i was thinking of Einstiens version of a gravity field visualising the field as having a standing wave in it...
    (i have a bit of a cold virus and bacterial sinus infection so my head is not clear enough to source all my long term & re process it into my conversation)
    my appologies. shall return to this in a few days hopefully if i remember(we need a function that saves threads like a favourite list in our profile page).
    Fav list(current interests)
    to Read List(things to read up on)
    following list(everything we are following default follow)
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    How would I know it's pseudoscience rubbish, unless a scientist tells me it's pseudoscience rubbish? I am giving you the benefit of any doubt. But you never tell me why its pseudoscience rubbish, just that it is. Doesn't help me much does it?
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What's the difference?

    In general, yes, although Einstein's equations for gravity do allow for certain types of "repulsive" gravity. The dark energy that we think is driving the accelerating expansion of the universe is an example of such repulsive gravity. In general relativity this action is descibed by the cosmological constant in the Einstein equations.

    Conceptually, I don't see any problem with the idea of a gravitational standing wave. After all, it's just another kind of wave. When it comes to actually creating one in practice, though, I can't think of any natural process that would do it.
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Now that is just lies. We went through this long ago.

    Years, in the case of Shapiro/Teggers and the mathematical universe. I remember rpenner's phrase "The map is not the territory" came into it.

    A mere month in the case of this Penrose microtubule stuff. I'll quote you what I said on 13th Sept (this year) about that:

    "There is no evidence that microtubules are tiny quantum computers.

    The notion is mere speculation. The Orch-R concept of Penrose and Hameroff has made a number of false predictions and is fairly thoroughly discredited. I quote from the Wiki article on "Quantum Mind":

    " Hameroff provided a hypothesis that microtubules would be suitable hosts for quantum behavior.[20] Microtubules are composed of tubulinprotein dimer subunits. The dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that are 8 nm apart and that may contain delocalized pi electrons. Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that contain pi electron-rich indole rings separated by only about 2 nm. Hameroff proposed that these electrons are close enough to become entangled.[21] Hameroff originally suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–Einstein condensate, but this was discredited.[22] He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was experimentally discredited.[23]

    However, Orch-OR made numerous false biological predictions, and is not an accepted model of brain physiology.[24] In other words, there is a missing link between physics and neuroscience,[25] for instance, the proposed predominance of 'A' lattice microtubules, more suitable for information processing, was falsified by Kikkawa et al.,[26][27] who showed all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. The proposed existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells was also falsified.[28] Orch-OR predicted that microtubule coherence reaches the synapses via dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs), however De Zeeuw et al. proved this impossible,[29] by showing that DLBs are located micrometers away from gap junctions.[30]

    In January 2014, Hameroff and Penrose claimed that the discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules by Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan in March 2013[31] corroborates the Orch-OR theory.[15][32]

    Although these theories are stated in a scientific framework, it is difficult to separate them from the personal opinions of the scientist. The opinions are often based on intuition or subjective ideas about the nature of consciousness."

    It's not doing very well, is it?"

    But you just carry on preaching the same stuff, day in, day out, regardless, whether it is relevant to the subject of the thread or not.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And Mathematics is a map? Values do not make a territory?
    What is a mountain, a map or a physical construct, a mathematical pattern of physical stuff?
    No representation of a thing is the thing, but the thing itself present its own mathematical structure and pattern. Else it could not be mapped, right?
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Mathematics was invented by humans for the purpose of (among other things) mapping things accurately.
    Nothing was mapped until humans invented mapping.
    Nothing was mathematical until humans came along and assigned numbers to them.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Well now, what kind of a statement is that?
    All opinions are based on intuitive or subjective ideas about nature. That's how science starts , no? One has an idea and then sets out to prove the idea. At that stage we must trust the scientist who has the proper credentials (knowledge) to make an "educated guess" and not dismiss the ideas out of hand because they have not yet been proven.
    Thanks for presenting a balanced picture. It is true, this is a new area of research and needs considerably more study. But if an expert, who renders people unconscious and then brings them back to consciousness (a matter of life and death) every day, voices an "educated guess", I take them seriously and will support them in their quest for greater knowledge.

    When we go to a doctor for a medical opinion we trust his expertise in that area, that his medical knowledge and practical experience will aid in his professional diagnosis.

    It depends who is doing the opining. If the person has the qualifications to make educated hypotheses in his/her field of expertise, it is premature to dismiss their "considered opinions" out of hand. Especially if there is supporting evidence.

    I would say that Japanese article does indeed tend to support Orch-OR theory. More to come soon, I hope.

    I KNOW that I am not qualified to make definitive statements on this "cutting edge" research, other than expressing my enthusiasm for the project and it's potential life-altering applications if proven true and usable in practice. It's a worthy cause, IMHO.

    (I just don't like to see "witches" burned at the stake for practising "witchcraft", especially if their potions are effective in easing one's discomfort.)
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018 at 9:52 PM
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You are now replying to a post I made a month ago. Do you really think I want to go over all this with you again?
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I disagree, IMO, mathematical values and functions were/are determined by the fundamental structure of the universe and have existed since the very beginning. Humans have been able to symbolize these universal attributes into codified values and equations. That's all. Except for some very abstract theoretical mathematics, everything we know about mathematics is from observation of natural processes.
    What you are doing here is saying that humans invented apples, because we named this particular fruit an "apple" as distinct from a "pear". We could even cite human invented mathematical symbols as the Map and mathematical values and functions (patterns) as the Territory.

    Newton saw an apple fall to the earth and wondered what caused it and how it could be described and mathematically accounted for.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . He did not invent gravity or the mathematical laws of gravity, he translated the attendant values and functions and gave it a name "gravity" (gravitas).
    Of course he didn't, he recognized an existing function, accounted for it's attendant values, and invented names for it, "gravity" and "force of gravity"... difference.
    Leibniz also saw the effect of gravity and represented it illustratively with a little picture.

    We did not invent atoms, we invented (symbolized) the periodic table of elements (values of atoms), difference. We did not invent mathematical values and functions, we symbolized them. We did not invent the Higgs boson. We made it visible.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018 at 11:14 PM
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    thats my question.
    is there a difference ? kinda Re my next question.

    is a gravitational wave a wave that is not part of a existing field etc...
    can a wave be/travel/exist by its self ?
    i was attempting to conceptualise the manifestation of a standing wave.
    have been for some months now.
    various next to come associated questions like. 'does time change dependant on which part of the wave you are on/transiting etc'
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Can you for once provide a meaningful contribution to the conversation? Please move on from this "witch hunt". You want to burn me at the stake don't you?
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Sticking my neck out..... how about; "can a wave function (law) exist independent of physical properties"? As in; "a mathematical essence" or "potential" of spacetime ?
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018 at 11:33 PM
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i dont follow the whole "space-time" thing as i have not found any relivent material to base its principals around as working examples.
    the theory may well be sound in some physicists theorys but they have an awful lot of educational principals to back it up with.
    postulating the existance of a quantitative field of relativity seems a little outside my current interests.

    while i do not state an opinion that "space-time" does not exist or can not exist, i have no ability to functioanlise its princiapls so it remains on the shelf until i can pick it up and pull it apart and put it back together.
    at the moment it seems timey wimey(whovian comment).

    i mean a gravitational wave as a single entity of force existing in a field that perceptually has no existing force on it, so the collective state of energy(say a black hole) is singular and self contained in its abiltiy to remain independant and also have travel... or no travel based on ability to interact at a distnce from other bodies and become a standing wave which has variant forces interacting on it(much like a current of fluid but applying particle interaction and radiant frequency intersection etc).

    for example just for argument/potulation complex debatable principals aside.
    say 2 galaxys over lapping with a quasar shining through it. would it create a standing wave of gravity which is a gravitational force outside th ebasic principals of a singular body concept etc...
    could we possibly have these standign waves of gravity in the galaxy and be able to find them. what do they do ? how do they effect things ?
    can they be surfed or is there some type of magical interaction which is atributable to black hole theory which may be a missing link ?
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018 at 11:49 PM

Share This Page