Moderator: Flannel Jesus
EugeneMorrow wrote:1. How can you show that the Equation for Space is correct, or even approximately true? The size of the computer used seems to be the limiting factor. What can you do with the current computers you have access to?
EugeneMorrow wrote:2. If it potentially predicts human behavior, does that mean we don't have free will? If we don't have free will, then a big enough computer will tell you what will happen if the Equation of Space is known, so you can work out if it's safe to reveal it.
EugeneMorrow wrote:3. Sometimes events can have two or more routes that can cause them. For example, a car might be parked in location A, and a short time later it is parked in location B. What route did the car take to get from A to B? There is potentially an infinite number of ways the car could have been moved - different routes it was driven, and who drove it, and how fast. How can RM decide which one happened? Measuring the position and velocity of every air molecule seems a tad unrealistic so I can't see how the information could be provided. Surely there is not enough information to determine how some events happened, even if you had a huge computer.
EugeneMorrow wrote:I see the Equation of Space as potentially a "simulator" where you could design some experiment, and then show the results given by the Equation of Space, and then do the actual experiment to see if the answers agree. This would be a pretty definitive way of proving how useful it is.
A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do.. all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.
In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method "Afflate Analysis" which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.
An Afflate is merely an "affectance oblate" or simply put, "a clump of turbulence". It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper "rules of afflate engagement" equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.
What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.
The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the "why" behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.
victorel21 wrote:Humans as they stand cannot have that kind of power since we are all self interested. The pinnacle of human interaction is the balance between once needs and that of others, the only reason someone would care for someone else is because of the necessity we have of working together due to our limitations which creates a need to live in harmony. Nonethless if this computer was made, then the users wouldnt need others and emotions would never arise, with that power they would seek their own benefit even at the detriment of others.
victorel21 wrote:Although, it would not be too bad because even knowing what will happen does not mean that you can control it, humans are in the humility era they will learn that they do have limitations, somethings are just impossible to do.
James S Saint wrote:Rational Metaphysics, RM, is an ontology for physics formed without the presumptions inherent in the Science of physics and is introduced here.. Rational Metaphysics (what else would I be talking about).
Within RM is an equation that mathematically describes any portion of space, regardless of what is in that space. Anything within that space merely alters a few parameters without change in the equation itself. And of course a part of that equation is time.
The time variable in the equation allows for both post- and predictions throughout all time. In effect, it allows for someone to predict the exact state of that space and whatever might have been in it throughout the future. Or it can be used to calculate what state the space had to have been in prior such as to get to the state it is in.
Of course there are inherent problems. Knowing the truly exact state of any bit of space is all but impossible so trying to simulate any real space would inherently erroneously predict due to improper initialization. Whatever its first given state is, it could never be truly and totally representative of any particular portion of real space. But sometimes close enough, is close enough for the need.
Also amongst the problems is the fact that space is actually infinite in all directions (despite theories and fantasies to the contrary) and thus there is no actual boundary. And because there is no actual boundary in real space, there are affects stemming from outside the given portion under study that will affect the actual future state. Without including the entire universe, trying to calculate the future for any one portion is limited.
Another problem is that to truly represent all of any significantly large space (anything greater in size than a pea) a horrendously large computer would have to hold all of the parameters.
But such limitations do not make the equation entirely useless. When investigating particle reactions, one need not build a multi-billion dollar particle collider, a multi-thousand dollar computer can do the job setting in someone’s office. And the good thing is that it is likely to be even more accurate than the collider without all of the potential dangerous of blowing up the user or the world.
But let’s say that such an equation was advanced to the point where it became practical to truly represent all of the activity on Earth with a high degree of accuracy, every atom, ever blade of grass, every human endeavor. What do you suppose would happen then?
With such a system, one could predict the consequences of any and every proposed change in laws or environment. One could get creative and predict the probable outcome of many proposed changes in environment, politics, social science, religion, or simple moving of these people from point A to point B. And all without having to go kill anyone to get it done. Danger would be minimized. Well, except for that one.
Man, throughout his history has constantly sought to be a god. Not merely a god, but THE GOD in absolute control of all things throughout the world and even the universe. There are a variety of reasons that keeps such a thing on his limited mind and heart, but there is no question that anything allowing him to become more of a true prophet, is something he would kill anyone and everyone to get his hands on. And with such a computer, he would have such a thing.
With a large enough computer and the Equation of Space, anything that is possible to be accomplished could be designed in serious detail. Any invention imaginable that was actually doable could be designed to a tee. Any and every cure for any illness could be fully designed along with the required means to deliver it. Of coarse, also any and every potential disease could also be designed. Every type of religion could be designed, every type of governance as well. Whoever had such a computer could answer any and every whim whether for good or bad.
So what would you do with such a device if it was in your hands? What goal would you seek for the human race?
Realize that what I have formed in RM, was already formed in perhaps a more crude way back in the 1950’s. Of course there have always been crude forms throughout history. And by being to close right without being exactly right, the more powerfully dangerous people get. So today, as such endeavors get closer and closer to being “close enough”, the threat to all humanity increases greatly depending on the sanity of the people running the program and making the choices as to what future will be constructed.
Many stories and films have been made with such a thought in mind. Many worries and many hopes have been dreamt. Television shows such as Dr. Who explores in fanciful form the types of concerns that are revealed by being able to see (or “travel”) into the past and future, “do this, and lets see what comes of what you just did”.
What I find most disturbing is not the potential power of such a device in the hands of the wrong people, but rather that there seems to be no “right people” who actually have a sane idea concerning what the future “should be”, what goal to design toward.
With a great deal of experience toying with such a device without actually implementing the proposed changes in the world, the lusts for power gets quailed into a far more moderate understanding, less passion and more compassion. The final question of “why bother to do anything” gets answered without passion presumptions or primitive yearnings. But how do you stop the lust to implement “close enough” before the more favorable designs have been explored?
Given the chance, the rationality in RM settles into the soul to allow the noise of lustful passions for control and domination to calm and fade. Man then has to decide for what purpose he is to actually do anything for sake of the future. His mind and heart becomes clear of his presumptions. The “Sin” within Man himself fades.
I said that the Equation for Space has already been developed in crude form and by some very influential people. But how do I know it is in “crude” form? I know by comparison of the fruit of such a “tree of knowledge”. What I see is exemplary of the “close enough” equation in the lustful wrong hands. What I see is insidious manipulation where none was needed, death, misery, and destruction where none was needed.
The RM model does not inspire to seek total domination of all reality. It displays the consequences of such attempts to be disastrous and eventually futile. It shows a more sane way of achieving sanity among homosapian; less death, misery, and destruction of what humanity is, more freedom and less struggle for all concerned.
A man once asked, “what do you do with 300 million insane people?” I now must ask, “what do you do with 6.5 billion of them?” Let them see the futures they propose? Will that bring sanity among them? Will that inspire true rationality in Man for perhaps the first time? “Close enough” is going to make him extinct. That part is already foreseeable.
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:What exactly is it that you have formed? What are you talking about with this "device"?
James S Saint wrote:WW_III_ANGRY wrote:What exactly is it that you have formed? What are you talking about with this "device"?
In short, a scaled model of a device that allows for extreme accuracy in predicting and thus total control of the future of Man. In effect, it is Dr Who's TARDIS without the actual "physical travel" feature.
Yes, I know that you don't believe it, but there is a big difference in speculative opinion and well founded assessment.
The question of the thesis is what should one do with such a device? It isn't the entire true scale version and thus can't be currently used to predict what would happen. But it offers that someone could merely fill in the blanks. Should it be given to the "world", or to whom, if anyone?
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:What is your purpose for posting this if you don't think anyone will believe you?
tentative wrote:I'm reminded of the movie "War Games", where the computer plays tic-tac-toe with all possible nuclear destruction modes and decides that it is all a lose-lose situation, shuts down our nuclear armaments and quits the game.
tentative wrote:Even a computer capable of 100% accurate prediction could only make predictions that would hold true for perhaps a nano-second until more variables forced it to make new predictions which would make "good enough" the same modality we use today. There might be an increase in accuracy prediction in the VERY short run, but ultimately, it's accuracy would be no long-term better than what we experience now. "Fixing" the universe is nothing new. We been at it since we climbed down out of the trees, but even as we finally grasp that all is a constant flow of noumena, predicting that flow escapes us - and it doesn't appear likely to ever change until the universe itself changes, which is highly unlikely.
James S Saint wrote:This is that "Equation of Space" that provides a single field which explains all others in physics.
That equation is absolutely necessarily true, although I have not explained how to use it.
Arminius wrote:Would you mind telling me a bit about the equation itself (for example about the term to the right of the "p +")?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:Would you mind telling me a bit about the equation itself (for example about the term to the right of the "p +")?
In common English, the equation states that every point in space is defined by the sum of its potential-to-affect, "p", and all changes to its potential-to-affect - the time derivatives.
In philosophical terms, it is merely stating that every point in existence is defined by the rate of change of its potential to alter the degree of existence (its ability to affect anything = its degree of existence).
The terms following the "p +" are the sum of all changes at all rates in p through time, expressed as the sum:
a2*d³ p/dt³ + ...
wherein the "a" values are scalars suited to each point.
Arminius wrote:How did you figure out the use of the equation? Did you use the equation? And if you did: How did you do it?
Arminius wrote:The word "afflate" means probably the compound word of the two words "affectance" and "oblate". Is it a tiny objectified affectance? Is it a tiny thing of affectance?
surreptitious57 wrote:This is all very interesting but practical demonstrations are more valid than either computer simulations or elegant theories. Potentially falsifiable hypotheses subjected to the rigour of the scientific method are what is needed here.
surreptitious57 wrote:Without that it is just speculation. Even if what you propose is actually true there is
no way of knowing. Your own self confidence is simply not good enough and so try and work towards testing these theories of yours if you can. I am especially interested in the theory of faster than light travel regarding semi particles. Have you run that past any theoretical physicists and if so what was their reaction
In the double-slit experiment concerning singularly generated particles, a double-slit screen is positioned between a particle source and a detection screen or device. The screen then displays what is seen as an “interference pattern” revealing the location of where each particle struck the screen after passing through the slits. For more than a century people have been confounded as to exactly why an interference pattern would appear when it seems impossible that any interference could exist.
Using a new theory producing method, dubbed “RM”, and a new ontology, Affectance Ontology, I hypothesize that if the inner surface of the double-slit screen was altered to a specific surface shape, particles would no longer create a significant interference pattern, but waves still would. Since a photon seems as a particlized wave, I suspect that photons would show little difference from their typical interference pattern, as their inherent wave properties would still have predominate effect. But if they also stopped showing the interference pattern, it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles.
Note that the inner walls of the screen must be randomized in height such that its greatest height is equal to or greater than the expected largest interference pattern wavelength. All inner walls should have a random surface. It would be good if the display screen was also shaped similarly, but such should not be necessary.
surreptitious57 wrote:One does not have to believe any thing scientists say for two reasons. Firstly belief is an article of faith and has zero place in science
Secondly all scientific experiments can be replicated or explained. So it is not necessary to have to just accept the word of scientists
surreptitious57 wrote:Regarding faster than light travel : objects of mass cannot travel faster than light because time would stop and start going backwards. Which would
violate the law of cause and effect so it is not physically possible. For even photons cannot travel faster than light and they do not experience time
[/quote]Light photons are normally (and almost always) produced by a puff of stored affectance escaping from between the orbiting electrons and the nucleus of atoms. To make a laser beam, they are produced at regular intervals and thus described, somewhat inaccurately, as a sine wave.
The little puffs tend to maintain their shape as long as they don't run into anything substantial. When they pass through mass fields (gravity fields), they appear to alter their course, but in reality, they are being reformed (losing some affectance going one direction and picking up some that is going the new direction) such as to slowly migrate toward a different direction.
The following depict extremely small afflates or photons. Normal light photons are huge compared to particles.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users