Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:51 pm

Nevyn, I thought B-photon meant bombarding photon.

Now I remember viewing those x-, y- and z-spins before. My internet is a little slow, so the motions are rather jerky. I guess the 4 different panels are different viewpoints, but I'm not sure. Or did you say each is a set of higher order spins than the previous one? It's nice to know you set the spins all to c. Do the spins work out okay if they're set at random velocities below or even above c?

N: You can't define pressure without first defining force.
You can't define force without first defining velocity (and some would say mass too, but I define mass as velocity).
You can't define velocity without first defining position.
L: And you can't define position without consciousness. Long ago, I had to rethink everything, so I asked myself what do I know for sure. So I started by looking up the definition of "know" and found that indeed consciousness is what I know for sure. Then I determined what kinds of consciousness there are, including the subconscious. From that perspective distance is an aspect of perception. We can see, feel and hear distance. Can a blind person be a physicist? They can (mentally) picture distance as sound and feeling. They can use braille metrics. I suppose they get pretty good at estimating distance by sound too, but I bet they can't come within 1 meter for anything over 5 meters away. Right?

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:38 am

LloydK wrote:I thought B-photon meant bombarding photon.

Yes, that is correct, all they do is collide which means they can only provide force.

LloydK wrote:Now I remember viewing those x-, y- and z-spins before. My internet is a little slow, so the motions are rather jerky. I guess the 4 different panels are different viewpoints, but I'm not sure. Or did you say each is a set of higher order spins than the previous one? It's nice to know you set the spins all to c. Do the spins work out okay if they're set at random velocities below or even above c?

My current suite of apps run on the client side. There is no internet required once the page has loaded. So if it is jerky, then it is your computer that isn't up to the task. You might need a graphics card update (which will probably lead to a CPU upgrade which leads to a motherboard upgrade which leads to an empty wallet).

The link I supplied above leads to the documentation for SpinSim, which explains the 4 viewpoints.

All spins have a tangential velocity of c. Before I worked out the math for that, I tried all sorts of speeds and relationships, and got some pretty weird shapes, but I didn't have any confidence in any of them. I could create torus shapes (as in the complete boundary of the torus, not just the general idea of one) and vortices (Miles was especially interested in that one) and I even created something that resembled a bicycle seat, of all things. But, in the end, I realised that they were all wrong and what you see now uses Miles angular velocity equation to apply all of the rotations. I now have confidence in what SpinSim generates.

LloydK wrote:N: You can't define pressure without first defining force.
You can't define force without first defining velocity (and some would say mass too, but I define mass as velocity).
You can't define velocity without first defining position.
L: And you can't define position without consciousness. Long ago, I had to rethink everything, so I asked myself what do I know for sure. So I started by looking up the definition of "know" and found that indeed consciousness is what I know for sure. Then I determined what kinds of consciousness there are, including the subconscious. From that perspective distance is an aspect of perception. We can see, feel and hear distance. Can a blind person be a physicist? They can (mentally) picture distance as sound and feeling.

Ahhhh, now I see where you are coming from.

You have taken a philosophical argument, which does have merit, but applied it in the wrong place.

Philosophically, we only know ourselves. I can't tell if you exist or are just a figment of my own imagination. I don't even really know if I exist, but I assume I do because I can think. I think, therefore I am. That is an existential argument. An argument about existing, to put it bluntly. But it has no validity in science, because science makes one huge assumption, right at the start. That is, that the universe does exist. Science is the study of how it works and you don't waste time studying things that don't exist (black holes and 11 dimensional universes aside Smile ). Science also assumes that the universe does not require consciousness to exist, for that would be untenable. How can the universe exist long enough for consciousness to arise if it requires consciousness itself? The only response is God. If we let science use God to explain even just one thing, then there is no reason not to use it to explain anything. To put it bluntly, God is not a scientific argument!

You are confusing knowing with existing. We can't know about the universe without consciousness, but that is only because knowledge requires conscious beings. But we can certainly exist without knowing how the universe works (most of human history was in this state, some would say it still is). Does a plant know that it exists? No, because it is not conscious. Does a plant know that the Sun is shining from a certain direction and can move itself to get more of it? Yes, it can. The plant doesn't care about existence, or knowing, or anything other than eating up those juicy charge photons.

So, consciousness is required to know something, but it is not required for that something to exist. You have to separate the two concepts because they are about totally different things.


Last edited by Nevyn on Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:13 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typo)
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:32 pm

N: So, consciousness is required to know something, but it is not required for that something to exist.
L: That's your assumption. I doubt if there's any way to prove that anything exists outside of consciousness. So I prefer to study how the universe may exist within (universal) consciousness. We may not know if each other exists in the manner in which we appear to exist to each other, but we know "others" exist, because we don't control by volition much of what we perceive or sense (esp. of "others"). We don't even control volition itself much, assuming that everyone else is basically similar to me.

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:21 pm

Have you ever seen an organism that is conscious, but not complex? Complexity takes time to build. The universe is not born with complexity, things slowly move towards it. But you are requiring that the universe instantly has consciousness or worse, that consciousness existed before the universe.

Here's an even better argument: If existence requires consciousness, then how does consciousness exist?

With respect to knowing others exist, no we do not know anything of the sort. You think because you see results in the world that you yourself didn't consciously make, therefore someone else must have made them, therefore someone else must exist, but this is false (a fair assumption, but not a fact). You mentioned the sub-conscious earlier, so I assume you believe in that, well that is something that is inside of you and you have no control over, so how can you assume that anything outside of your own mind exists? You can't even control all of your own mind, so what's to say that everything else that you think you perceive is not a figment of that imagination? Everything you have ever known, everything that you ever thought existed could just be conjured up by your own sub-conscious.

Even if we acknowledge that it is an assumption, how can you make any other assumption? What makes my statement an assumption but your statement a reality? You are just making a different assumption, but you are making one that doesn't help what we are trying to study. This is all philosophy, not science. Science has to make some assumptions or it can't even get started. If science assumed that consciousness is required before anything, then they are admitting defeat before they even get going because that position is already taken by religion.

This isn't a religious forum. We are not here to discuss religion or philosophy (apart from how it impacts physics, which is very important). So you can think that if you want to, but it is not an argument on this site or anywhere else that is discussing science. At least, not at the level we are talking about here. There may be some area that science and philosophy intersect in a scientific way, but it is no where near the quantum realm.

I don't want to argue about philosophy. I have an interest in it and it is extremely important to understand how it applies to science, but that is not why we are all here and it is not what this thread is about. This is a forum about a mechanical universe, so we should stick to mechanical arguments.


Last edited by Nevyn on Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typo)
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:03 pm

While I don't want to dwell on this too much, I am interested to hear your definition of consciousness and also your definition of universal consciousness (whatever that is). You seem to think that they are outside of the universe. Actually, you are saying that consciousness is primary and everything else is secondary, so I would like to know what consciousness is. What is it made of? Well, I can answer that because if it is outside of the universe, then there is nothing for it to be made of. You have backed yourself into a corner of nothing. You have left all physics behind and are only left with the term 'consciousness', like that explains itself. Actually, you better define universe too, because my understanding of universe is that it contains everything. It is the collection of all that exists, but you have put consciousness outside of that, so I don't see how the two equate.

Here is the first definition of consciousness from the net: the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

How can consciousness be primary when it requires being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings? In your model, there are no surroundings to be aware of or responsive to. In fact, you don't even have the one that is being aware and responsive. Do you see how consciousness requires something to be conscious? It is a manifestation inside of the universe, not outside of it and certainly not primary to it. That is why I say that consciousness is so far above the quantum world that it is not applicable to our discussion.

I also think that is enough to make my statement about knowing and existing more than an assumption. Existence is required for consciousness, therefore consciousness can not be primary. It is a tautology. Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time. Existence is clearly primary to everything else. It is primary to knowledge and it is definitely primary to any being that has that knowledge. You have to exist to know! You have to exist to be conscious! Your surroundings have to exist to be conscious! Clearly the universe is primary to consciousness!
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Fri Mar 31, 2017 1:13 am

Never mind.

LloydK

Posts : 442
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum