Reality is...

[paddoboy]

Looks, however, as though Origin has been taking a Krash course.....(shrugs )

I believe someone has really gone off the deep end.

 

[Spellbound]

Are you kidding me????? Reported and have a nice holiday - or if it is a permant ban have a nice life. [shakes head and hears rattling...]

I don't think moderators, like you, will make a poor judgment in this case. You are not even worthy of consideration.

 

[Spellbound]

One problem with current physics, is Einstein showed that reference was relative.

Correct.

The problem this creates is connected to energy conservation. Energy and mass are not relative to reference, or else energy conservation is made invalid.

Are you saying that energy conservation requires an absolute reference? I gather that you are thinking of energy as being all over therefore impossible to be referred to? What do you mean?

If we have a train in motion and a person standing at the station, relative references says each can model the other by relative motion;

Indeed.

both see the same velocity. But if you do an energy balance, the kinetic energy of the train in motion is much higher than the kinetic energy of one person in motion. Relative reference may work for velocity, but it can violates energy conservation.

Interesting. But is not work and energy related to force and therefore the time derivative of velocity or acceleration?

Since we look at the universe from the earth and solar system, and these are relative references, we have no clue if this represent the proper energy balance of the universe.

Oh, now I see.

Say we underestimate or over estimate the total energy of the universe, due to using a relative reference. Eventually we will need to postulate invisible matter and energy; dark matter and dark energy, to fix the problem. These do not exist other than as a book keeper adjustment.

Makes sense.

The universe changing over time is often the result of the energy balance changing, because relative reference violates energy conservation. The estimate of energy from a relative reference may seem consistent with theory, but will eventually anomalies will appear and then bandaids will be added, to compensate for the needed energy.

THANK YOU!

Let me give an example of the energy problem of relative reference. Say we lived on the top of large plateau. The plateau has a one mile elevation relative to sea level. However, since it is huge and nobody is allowed to go to the edge; taboo, we call the center of the plateau, the point of zero energy. It is called zero energy, yet the place of zero energy has one mile of hidden gravitational potential relative to sea level, that we don't see and know exists.

Love it.

In reality there is no mystery energy needed,

Of course.

because the true zero potential is actually sea level, and not the lake at the top of the plateau. The earth is like the lake at top of a plateau, due to relative reference and violation of energy conservation. The changes we see are the adjustments to get back to energy conservation.

Very cool. Thank you.

 

[Daecon]

So who's "Nicholas Ibrahim Hosein"?

Did you just plagiarize this thread from an identical one at ScienceForums.net, or are you starting to infect other forums with your spam?

 

[Yazata]

So who's "Nicholas Ibrahim Hosein"?

That's Spellbound's name.

 

[origin]

One problem with current physics, is Einstein showed that reference was relative. The problem this creates is connected to energy conservation. Energy and mass are not relative to reference, or else energy conservation is made invalid.

That is a confused and false claim.

You repeat this over and over but never follow up on your claim. You just make an empty claim.

Show us where this issue arises with the following example (if you cannot perform the math I will help you).

There is a marble that has a mass of .1 kg and a bowling ball that has a mass of 4 kg. There is a relative velocity between them of 10 m/s.

Where is the issue?

Extra credit: You also have made the claim that you could tell which one was 'really' moving if they hit each other, show how that is possible for an extra 10 points.

 

[James R]

And while we're at it, suppose we take that 4 kg bowling ball and drop it from a height of 3 metres above the ground onto a table top that is 1 metre off the ground. How fast will it be going when it hits the table? Can you solve this problem using conservation of energy?

Now, suppose instead that we drop the same bowling ball from an initial height 2 metres above the ground onto the ground. How fast will it be going when it hits the ground? Can you solve this one using conservation of energy?

Is the answer in the second case the same as in the first case? If so, what happened to the idea of absolute gravitational potential energy that you sought to introduce with your mountain/lake example above, wellwisher? Can't we arbitrarily set the zero of potential energy at the table top in the first case and at the ground in the second case, and still get perfectly valid, testably correct answers?

 

[Spellbound]

Albert Fils-Aime The infinities symbolize the endless extent of self-awareness on top of itself to form an operator with ultimate self-creative capacity. And the paraentheses denote exactly what we're talking about. Also, the syntactic covering symbols designate dual self-containment between the items and the rest of the formulations.

Albert Fils-Aime Thank you for your responses, I appreciate them. I have to say that relating self-awareness to physically actualized energy and information is useful. But please make sure to employ the highest of generalities in metalogical argumentation, lest one's reasoning is riddled with paradox, which I honestly can say is difficult. However, there's a way to start off. And that is to strip away all constraints rested upon your view of reality, all the way up to self-containment, and then deduce constraints from thereon out. I would start off with understanding self-determinism's relationship to dual self-containment relations and complexities therewith, and why reality is composed of self-containment relations in the first place.

- CTMU Discussion on Facebook.

So reality, along with itself, is nested within itself, and therefore exists as the prime reason for its existence. Hence, the primary syntactic operator. These self-deterministic arrows symbolize the dual aspects of a perfectly self-contained, self-actualizing reality.

 

[Spellbound]

The matrix is multiplied with the state vector via a process operating one row at a time. Here we see the top row of the matrix being rotated and aligned with the vector, then the functions are applied to the corresponding data. Each element of the matrix row represents an input channel for a particular system. It's input functions receive and process the available data.

(...)

This program has been optimised as a software algorithm and has thus diverged from the matrix mathematics (whilst retaining exact logical equivalence) and it has converge onto a more SCSPL oriented approach.

(...)

This indicates that matrix mathematics is an information process that is logically equivalent to a set of iterative processes operating on a shared information space.

(...)

I am dealing with mathematical and software representations of both a system theoretic and an SCSPL based metaphysics.

Taken From: http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/IST_CTMU.html

Reality complies


Energy comes in the form of a wave.

Reality complies with Damped

and forced harmonic motion.

As well as any particle in simple Harmonic.


(xi) = A sin (

t - k )


(equation for displacement of a molecule in

Simple Harmonic Motion)

 

[Write4U]

And while we're at it, suppose we take that 4 kg bowling ball and drop it from a height of 3 metres above the ground onto a table top that is 1 metre off the ground. How fast will it be going when it hits the table? Can you solve this problem using conservation of energy?

Now, suppose instead that we drop the same bowling ball from an initial height 2 metres above the ground onto the ground. How fast will it be going when it hits the ground? Can you solve this one using conservation of energy?

Is the answer in the second case the same as in the first case? If so, what happened to the idea of absolute gravitational potential energy that you sought to introduce with your mountain/lake example above, wellwisher? Can't we arbitrarily set the zero of potential energy at the table top in the first case and at the ground in the second case, and still get perfectly valid, testably correct answers?

Perhaps I do not fully understand your question , but according to the Law of falling bodies

"law deals with the falling of bodies. The law of parabolic fall claims that the distance traveled by a falling body is directly proportional to the square of the time it takes to fall.
For example: A stone falling for twice as long as another stone will travel four times the distance.
A ball falling for three seconds will travel nine times the distance traveled by a ball falling for one second.

Galileo reached the conclusion that bodies fall on the surface of the earth at a constant acceleration, and that the force of gravity which causes all bodies to move downward is a constant force. In other words, a constant force does not lead to constant speed but to constant acceleration.

http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/galileo_low_of_fall.html

Tegmark demonstrated this in his clip "the mathematical universe".

 

[wegs]

So reality, along with itself, is nested within itself, and therefore exists as the prime reason for its existence. Hence, the primary syntactic operator. These self-deterministic arrows symbolize the dual aspects of a perfectly self-contained, self-actualizing reality.

What is a ''self-contained'' reality? Is that the same as saying reality is however we perceive it to be - purely subjective? Sorry, I don't entirely follow.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Why would you follow a bullshit topic, except to fit in?

 

[wegs]

Must be a lot of people who want to ''fit in'' if this has gone on for 23 pages.

 

[Daecon]

Most of these 23 pages are Spellbound posting thread after thread of "Reality is..." spam, all merged into one thread.

See post #52 on page 3.

 

[wegs]

Most of these 23 pages are Spellbound posting thread after thread of "Reality is..." spam, all merged into one thread.

See post #52 on page 3.

lol Oh.

 

[river]

Life

And

Everything known and will be known.

Have a good day.

 

[Spellbound]

Reality Combined as Coulombs

Coulombs are the force experienced per unit of electric charge and exist as invisible field lines that emanate from a point charge or particle in space. Invisible forces like these help unify the building blocks of matter and combine reality to some extent.

 

[Dr_Toad]

It doesn't seem to work in some notable cases.

 

[exchemist]

Reality Combined as Coulombs

Coulombs are the force experienced per unit of electric charge and exist as invisible field lines that emanate from a point charge or particle in space. Invisible forces like these help unify the building blocks of matter and combine reality to some extent.

This is not correct.

A coulomb is a unit of electrical charge, not a force.

The field lines you speak of are a way of representing an electric field.

An electric field is the distribution in space of the electrostatic force experienced by a unit charge at any point. The units of electric field strength, at a point in space, are thus Newtons/Coulomb, which happens to be equivalent to volts/metre.

But I think you would be right to say that electrostatic force plays a dominant role in causing molecular matter to behave as it does: the chemical bond is largely an electrostatic phenomenon.

 

[Dr_Toad]

the chemical bond is largely an electrostatic phenomenon.

Too bad this is in Pseudoscience, because I'd love a clarification on the 'largely' part. I was under the impression that chemical bonds are purely electrostatic.