Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm telling you guys we are on to something here. We may not have the technical training and expertise to fully express it but from your honest replies, when you start explaining to me something you are sensing, and I can see you're starting to connect some dots ... I'm saying back to you YES, I "see" it too and there is something there. And the more able we are to let go our preconceptions, bias, and what we've been told, and tap into our intuitive "knowingness" and look at it in different ways then ... there ... is ... something ... there.
Recovered: Cymatics
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject:
Could not agree more.
Bingo, as far as I'm concerned. And it's only far-fetched because we are breaking symmetry with old mind-sets and heralding a new integrative vision.
vk78 wrote:
Those tiny differences can, cumulatively, mean huge difference in the way people observe scientific hypotheses masqueraded as facts. Many TPODs are pointing this out, but unfortunately ordinary Joe or Jane don't know what "linguistics" is, let alone perceive the subtle but crucial "viruses" in modern programing (via science articles) of popular thought.
Could not agree more.
vk78 wrote:I have a far-fetched theory.
Bingo, as far as I'm concerned. And it's only far-fetched because we are breaking symmetry with old mind-sets and heralding a new integrative vision.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Cymatics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold onto that "all-EM" afterthought!
Wavicles, patterns, and structures of pattern. Try to get past what you've been told, exactly like you're doing here with this line of reasoning - no matter the lack of technical expertise for the moment - trust your intuition and your heart and it won't steer you wrong in such matters. Examine the possibilities, which will lead you to the areas you need to re-search and reexamine in a new light of possibility and curiousity, like a child. Who knows, maybe it's a dead end crock, but even that will have been useful in telling us what it isn't. But I have a strong hunch that there is something to it.
YES. What you're thinking is important here. You're sensing the same thing I've been trying to describe. Our problem is we're like fish trying to fathom the concept of water.
I'd not focus so much of the particle and collision aspect of it but the WAVE PATTERNS of it that appear to be consistent across the spectrum and/or levels. Just my opinion.
I really love this line of thought and welcome more input as to the possibilities. The more we try to express what it is we sense the more clearly will the vision come. And, hopefully, like I said maybe the right technical people will also come to see and write the book about what we well may have catalyzed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mgmirkin wrote:
To me it seems a bit like mixing apples and oranges, if one says that sound and light should all be lumped together? (afterthought: unless we're saying their either all-collisional, or all-EM...)
Hold onto that "all-EM" afterthought!
mgmirkin wrote:Now, another thought pops into my head... I guess I could see a unification , in some regard, IF we assume the neutrino-aether position. IE, particles are made up of neutrinos? (Or was it that neutrinos were collapsed/annihilated antiparticles? I forget.)
Anyway, if neutrinos are the "basic stuff" composing reality (the most-collapsed form of matter), I wonder if we're somehow saying then that neutrinos are tightly packed together into a neutrino-aether. Or do neutrinos have a high degree of mobility, and low-collision rate? IF they're packed together with high collision rates, then they could be basially treated as a super-collisional substance (neutrino-aether), where waves propagate easily through them. And perhaps it's simply the oscillation or waving of the neutrino-aether that we view as "light," whereas sounds is only collisions of much larger/heavier particles (more loosely packed, less collisional)?
IF we were to then say that neutrinos are "matter" (albeit most-highly collapsed matter?), AND other particles are also "matter" (albeit much more massive/energetic and lower density?), then I'd think that we could treat them BOTH the same way as collisional interactors. However, when considering more massive particles with a lower number of collisions, perhaps that's how we get different substances differing sound wave-conductivity? Now, granted, there would have to be other information relating to how well light waves pass through different materials (refractive index?)... In that way, perhaps, we could unift light and sound as collisional entities, albeit in different media. Might also solve that pesky [light] wave/particle duality thing in some roundabout way?
But I don't have enough science know-how to really know if what I just said makes any sense...?
Wavicles, patterns, and structures of pattern. Try to get past what you've been told, exactly like you're doing here with this line of reasoning - no matter the lack of technical expertise for the moment - trust your intuition and your heart and it won't steer you wrong in such matters. Examine the possibilities, which will lead you to the areas you need to re-search and reexamine in a new light of possibility and curiousity, like a child. Who knows, maybe it's a dead end crock, but even that will have been useful in telling us what it isn't. But I have a strong hunch that there is something to it.
mgmirkin wrote:I'm just thinking then that perhaps the ears and eyes are differently adapted to sense the same things but on different levels? IE, ears aregeared toward getting at waves of more massive particles with lower density, whereas the eyes are geared toward catching waves (from a specific part of the spectrum) in a medium of much less massive particles, but which are much more dense?
Being silly, I also briefly wondered if that's why some people who drop 'acid' SEE sounds, and HEAR colors/images... Or is that just some weird chemical processing in the brain. Probably the latter, since it wouldn't convert the physical receptors (ears and eyes) obtaining input into each other... Yeah, must just be a neuro-chemical interaction and/or mis-routing or mis-processing issue with LSD. as a funny thought for a second, though... ;o]
YES. What you're thinking is important here. You're sensing the same thing I've been trying to describe. Our problem is we're like fish trying to fathom the concept of water.
I'd not focus so much of the particle and collision aspect of it but the WAVE PATTERNS of it that appear to be consistent across the spectrum and/or levels. Just my opinion.
I really love this line of thought and welcome more input as to the possibilities. The more we try to express what it is we sense the more clearly will the vision come. And, hopefully, like I said maybe the right technical people will also come to see and write the book about what we well may have catalyzed.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
vk78 wrote:I blame linguistics for the flaws in modern science. People tend to equate words with the phenomena the words describe, and that is wrong.
The specific linguistics used in popular articles, presenting theories and hypotheses as FACTS, simply by omitting some crucial keywords like "it is thought that" instead of "it is".
"The star observed here IS a black hole..." instead "The star observed here IS THOUGHT TO BE a black hole...".
I just recalled something else about this. It started in Jr. High School (I guess what they call middle school nowadays) and extended all the way to university level. My English classes. It was standard teaching to indoctrinate us to always be "assertive" and always come across in your writing as "authoritative" and "certain". So you should never use phrases such as, "In my opinion," "I think," "It's my thought that," and so on. These were always redacted and replaced with suggestions to always assert factually that "It is" thus-and-so. To this day it still kicks in as an admonishment in the back of my mind when I use or contemplate using such "weak" phrases as "I think."
Another one, avoid using the passive EDIT: voice. It also shows weakness. We are so-o-o-o conditioned, and they grab us early to make sure it sinks in.
Regards,
@rc-us
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check this out!! I noticed that the pics of Separatrix in Peratts paper fig 21.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... quityZ.pdf
are exactly like several formations in the utube video with rice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sonpvUx ... ed&search=
Look for the Xmen like symbol. Both the x and the hourglass top and bottom are seen!Brings more question to wave/sound and electric connection.What do you think
OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check this out!! I noticed that the pics of Separatrix in Peratts paper fig 21.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... quityZ.pdf
are exactly like several formations in the utube video with rice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sonpvUx ... ed&search=
Look for the Xmen like symbol. Both the x and the hourglass top and bottom are seen!Brings more question to wave/sound and electric connection.What do you think
OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Science-fiction vs science fact...
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject: Science-fiction vs science fact...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, okay, the title of this here post is maybe slightly misleading, as I'm not calling any of the discussion either fact OR fiction. Just interesting on a certain level.
I hear what you're saying @rc-us... Though I try to approach things from a "how does what we DON'T know fit with what we DO know" standpoint (granted I do occasionally enjoy flights of fancy). And, granted, some of what we THINK we know may be tainted by mis-perceptions.
Still... Basic understanding of solids/fluids/gases/plasmas tends to be one of the density and the [I think they call it?] "collision length" (how far a free entity or particle can move without hitting or interacting with another) in a given medium. IE, solids are usually tightly packed, low energy, with short collision length between entities (atoms/molecules and other particles like free electrons); liquids generally are more energetic than solids have a lower density and a therefor longer collision length; gases are generally much more energetic and have a quite long collision length compared to solids and liquids; plasmas are highly energetic atoms, to the point where atoms start to be ripped apart into 'charged' nuclei and free electrons, all of which are generally very high energy. Those are often more subject to electromagnetic effects than gases, liquids and solids. Though it depends on the configuration, I suppose.
So, I guess I try to see if what we don't know (how light operates in this case; wave vs particle, what composes it) can be reconciled with our other understandings.
It seems to me, as mentioned above, if we consider the idea of a neutrino-aether or some such other entity (or sea of entities), perhaps we can utilize the same concept of collisional interactions. Unless of course it's a CONTINUOUS, compressible medium (as opposed to tightly packed but separate entities), in which case one would think that wave theory or hydrodynamics themselves would be the most applicable theory to use...
Of course, I don't know how that would interact with the theory of "discrete" particles (separate entities). Unless what we consider to be "separate entities" we only consider to be so because we can't see the underlying stratum, only the highest peaks of a wave, or some such. IE, if what we call "particles" are simply waves with "larger" properties (highly reinforced waves?), like amplitude, or frequency that we can actually perceive or measure the "largest" portions of. Say there are large and small waves on an ocean, and you're looking at it from a plane. You eyes may only be able to RESOLVE the largest waves as separate entities, despite the fact that smaller waves in fact exist beyond your capability to perceive them. IE, you can only see the largest waves in the compressible medium (ocean). And the mind organizes those "largest waves" as separate entities, neglecting that they are all part of the larger body of interconnected compressible fluid.
Makes one wonder a bit if it isn't the same with measuring things like atoms, and basic particles (neutrons, electrons, protons, neutrinos, etc.)... IE, are we limited only by our ability to perceive things at specific scales, due to their size and the practicality of making measuring tools at those scales?
IE, maybe light waves are to a sea of neutrinos what sound waves are to the earth's atmosphere (and our bodies are adapted with different sense organs for the neutrino sea and the gas/fluid sea, and the brain cognitively treats them a bit differently; visual vs auditory systems in the brain)... Just waves in a compressible medium of what we perceive to individual entities (possibly due to the limits of our abilities to measure and/or perceive)?
Hard to say... Still, I enjoy toying with roughshod physical models. ;o] Even if they're not right, it's still fun...
Last edited by mgmirkin on Mon May 14, 2007 7:35 pm; edited 3 times in total
OP "mgmirkin"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, okay, the title of this here post is maybe slightly misleading, as I'm not calling any of the discussion either fact OR fiction. Just interesting on a certain level.
I hear what you're saying @rc-us... Though I try to approach things from a "how does what we DON'T know fit with what we DO know" standpoint (granted I do occasionally enjoy flights of fancy). And, granted, some of what we THINK we know may be tainted by mis-perceptions.
Still... Basic understanding of solids/fluids/gases/plasmas tends to be one of the density and the [I think they call it?] "collision length" (how far a free entity or particle can move without hitting or interacting with another) in a given medium. IE, solids are usually tightly packed, low energy, with short collision length between entities (atoms/molecules and other particles like free electrons); liquids generally are more energetic than solids have a lower density and a therefor longer collision length; gases are generally much more energetic and have a quite long collision length compared to solids and liquids; plasmas are highly energetic atoms, to the point where atoms start to be ripped apart into 'charged' nuclei and free electrons, all of which are generally very high energy. Those are often more subject to electromagnetic effects than gases, liquids and solids. Though it depends on the configuration, I suppose.
So, I guess I try to see if what we don't know (how light operates in this case; wave vs particle, what composes it) can be reconciled with our other understandings.
It seems to me, as mentioned above, if we consider the idea of a neutrino-aether or some such other entity (or sea of entities), perhaps we can utilize the same concept of collisional interactions. Unless of course it's a CONTINUOUS, compressible medium (as opposed to tightly packed but separate entities), in which case one would think that wave theory or hydrodynamics themselves would be the most applicable theory to use...
Of course, I don't know how that would interact with the theory of "discrete" particles (separate entities). Unless what we consider to be "separate entities" we only consider to be so because we can't see the underlying stratum, only the highest peaks of a wave, or some such. IE, if what we call "particles" are simply waves with "larger" properties (highly reinforced waves?), like amplitude, or frequency that we can actually perceive or measure the "largest" portions of. Say there are large and small waves on an ocean, and you're looking at it from a plane. You eyes may only be able to RESOLVE the largest waves as separate entities, despite the fact that smaller waves in fact exist beyond your capability to perceive them. IE, you can only see the largest waves in the compressible medium (ocean). And the mind organizes those "largest waves" as separate entities, neglecting that they are all part of the larger body of interconnected compressible fluid.
Makes one wonder a bit if it isn't the same with measuring things like atoms, and basic particles (neutrons, electrons, protons, neutrinos, etc.)... IE, are we limited only by our ability to perceive things at specific scales, due to their size and the practicality of making measuring tools at those scales?
IE, maybe light waves are to a sea of neutrinos what sound waves are to the earth's atmosphere (and our bodies are adapted with different sense organs for the neutrino sea and the gas/fluid sea, and the brain cognitively treats them a bit differently; visual vs auditory systems in the brain)... Just waves in a compressible medium of what we perceive to individual entities (possibly due to the limits of our abilities to measure and/or perceive)?
Hard to say... Still, I enjoy toying with roughshod physical models. ;o] Even if they're not right, it's still fun...
Last edited by mgmirkin on Mon May 14, 2007 7:35 pm; edited 3 times in total
OP "mgmirkin"
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I wasn't indoctrinated with quite that level of "assertiveness." Though I was often told to use the 'active voice' rather than the 'passive voice' to ensure it was clear which entity was doing what.
IE, "Jack won the race by kicking it into high gear," (Jack is the subject and it's clear that jack was the one who did something) rather than "The race was won by Jack after kicking it into high gear" (wherein it seems slightly confusing as to who is the subject and who is doing what). Did the race do anything? Well, no, Jack did. But when the race is mentioned first, it confuses who the active entity in question is...
Just more to add to the linguistic muddle we sometimes get into, and must extricate ourselves from. ;o]
But I definitely hear you on the whole "black hole" thing. A lot of times, I hear people say "we now have pictures of black holes!" And I just want to smack them and say "So, what, you walked right up to the event horizon and snapped a shot? How'd that turn out for ya'? Get a good snapshot of the light NOT ESCAPING did we?"
They should really be a bit clearer in saying "we see 'stuff' rotating around a common point or axis (hard to say sometimes) and we BELIEVE it's a black hole, but we cant' ACTUALLY see anything in the middle. So we simple ASSUME we are correct in labeling this object a 'black hole,' unless some future observation contradicts that position."
My 2c.
~Michael
OP "mgmirkin"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@rc-us wrote:I just recalled something else about this. It started in Jr. High School (I guess what they call middle school nowadays) and extended all the way to university level. My English classes. It was standard teaching to indoctrinate us to always be "assertive" and always come across in your writing as "authoritative" and "certain". So you should never use phrases such as, "In my opinion," "I think," "It's my thought that," and so on. These were always redacted and replaced with suggestions to always assert factually that "It is" thus-and-so. To this day it still kicks in as an admonishment in the back of my mind when I use or contemplate using such "weak" phrases as "I think."vk78 wrote: I blame linguistics for the flaws in modern science. People tend to equate words with the phenomena the words describe, and that is wrong.
The specific linguistics used in popular articles, presenting theories and hypotheses as FACTS, simply by omitting some crucial keywords like "it is thought that" instead of "it is".
"The star observed here IS a black hole..." instead "The star observed here IS THOUGHT TO BE a black hole...".
Another one, avoid using the passive tense. It also shows weakness. We are so-o-o-o conditioned, and they grab us early to make sure it sinks in.
Regards,
@rc-us
Hmm, I wasn't indoctrinated with quite that level of "assertiveness." Though I was often told to use the 'active voice' rather than the 'passive voice' to ensure it was clear which entity was doing what.
IE, "Jack won the race by kicking it into high gear," (Jack is the subject and it's clear that jack was the one who did something) rather than "The race was won by Jack after kicking it into high gear" (wherein it seems slightly confusing as to who is the subject and who is doing what). Did the race do anything? Well, no, Jack did. But when the race is mentioned first, it confuses who the active entity in question is...
Just more to add to the linguistic muddle we sometimes get into, and must extricate ourselves from. ;o]
But I definitely hear you on the whole "black hole" thing. A lot of times, I hear people say "we now have pictures of black holes!" And I just want to smack them and say "So, what, you walked right up to the event horizon and snapped a shot? How'd that turn out for ya'? Get a good snapshot of the light NOT ESCAPING did we?"
They should really be a bit clearer in saying "we see 'stuff' rotating around a common point or axis (hard to say sometimes) and we BELIEVE it's a black hole, but we cant' ACTUALLY see anything in the middle. So we simple ASSUME we are correct in labeling this object a 'black hole,' unless some future observation contradicts that position."
My 2c.
~Michael
OP "mgmirkin"
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael - thank you for subtly correcting my terminology. I realized my gaffe after I'd shut down but was too tired to come back and fix it. And you're quite right about the passive voice - I was gotten the better of by my passion
and this bit of conditioning can be agreed with by me and since it has been duly examined by me it would have to be said by me that into the realm of learning it has fallen. (whoa, shades of Yoda) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/mgmirkin wrote: Though I was often told to use the 'active voice' rather than the 'passive voice' to ensure it was clear which entity was doing what.
Michael - thank you for subtly correcting my terminology. I realized my gaffe after I'd shut down but was too tired to come back and fix it. And you're quite right about the passive voice - I was gotten the better of by my passion
and this bit of conditioning can be agreed with by me and since it has been duly examined by me it would have to be said by me that into the realm of learning it has fallen. (whoa, shades of Yoda) There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look also at this one from my 2nd, "Singing The Universe Electric" post in this same topic. It shows the the dynamic, flowing "X" pattern, particularly in the quadrantic part of the clip near the end. And the hourglass as well in the figure "8" infinity patterning.
EDIT: Forgot the link! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3csi-2Hrzhg
EDIT:051807:Notice the "zebra" wave background patterning towards the end of the clip. Similar to how the aetheric background sea might be envisioned?
Thanks much for catching the additional link to Peratt's images!
To anyone else interested in this topic, you really do need to see all the video clips if you haven't yet taken the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plasmatic MnemoHistory wrote: Check this out!! I noticed that the pics of Separatrix in Peratts paper fig 21.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... quityZ.pdf
are exactly like several formations in the utube video with rice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sonpvUx ... ed&search=
Look for the Xmen like symbol. Both the x and the hourglass top and bottom are seen!Brings more question to wave/sound and electric connection.What do you think
Look also at this one from my 2nd, "Singing The Universe Electric" post in this same topic. It shows the the dynamic, flowing "X" pattern, particularly in the quadrantic part of the clip near the end. And the hourglass as well in the figure "8" infinity patterning.
EDIT: Forgot the link! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3csi-2Hrzhg
EDIT:051807:Notice the "zebra" wave background patterning towards the end of the clip. Similar to how the aetheric background sea might be envisioned?
Thanks much for catching the additional link to Peratt's images!
To anyone else interested in this topic, you really do need to see all the video clips if you haven't yet taken the time.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~Michael
OP "mgmirkin"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though, in contrast, I don't think I was ever prodded to be-more-assertive-than-necessary. IE, if unsure, expose points of contention and let the audience make up their own minds, as opposed to acting as THE authority. I hope I don't ever come off as authoritative, 'cause I'm usually not, as it were. If I ever get that way, please, by all means "fight the power..." ;o] *tongue planted firmly in cheek.*@rc-us wrote:Michael - thank you for subtly correcting my terminology. I realized my gaffe after I'd shut down but was too tired to come back and fix it. And you're quite right about the passive voice - I was gotten the better of by my passion and this bit of conditioning can be agreed with by me and since it has been duly examined by me it would have to be said by me that into the realm of learning it has fallen. (whoa, shades of Yoda)mgmirkin wrote: Though I was often told to use the 'active voice' rather than the 'passive voice' to ensure it was clear which entity was doing what.
~Michael
OP "mgmirkin"
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Science-fiction vs science fact...
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Science-fiction vs science fact...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Arc-us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very perceptive, and I believe has much merit. We are in need of such "analogy generation" to serve those of technical ability in seeing the possibilities and drawing out the particulars. Many, or much, of those particulars will be in need of considerable tweaking, but I see that as a problem for those self-same technicians of genius with the necessary integrative imagination and vision of life and universe as continuum to iron out.mgmirkin wrote: <snip>
Unless what we consider to be "separate entities" we only consider to be so because we can't see the underlying stratum, only the highest peaks of a wave, or some such. IE, if what we call "particles" are simply waves with "larger" properties (highly reinforced waves?), like amplitude, or frequency that we can actually perceive or measure the "largest" portions of. Say there are large and small waves on an ocean, and you're looking at it from a plane. You eyes may only be able to RESOLVE the largest waves as separate entities, despite the fact that smaller waves in fact exist beyond your capability to perceive them. IE, you can only see the largest waves in the compressible medium (ocean). And the mind organizes those "largest waves" as separate entities, neglecting that they are all part of the larger body of interconnected compressible fluid.
Makes one wonder a bit if it isn't the same with measuring things like atoms, and basic particles (neutrons, electrons, protons, neutrinos, etc.)... IE, are we limited only by our ability to perceive things at specific scales, due to their size and the practicality of making measuring tools at those scales?
IE, maybe light waves are to a sea of neutrinos what sound waves are to the earth's atmosphere (and our bodies are adapted with different sense organs for the neutrino sea and the gas/fluid sea, and the brain cognitively treats them a bit differently; visual vs auditory systems in the brain)... Just waves in a compressible medium of what we perceive to individual entities (possibly due to the limits of our abilities to measure and/or perceive)?
Hard to say... Still, I enjoy toying with roughshod physical models. ;o] Even if they're not right, it's still fun...
Regards,
Arc-us
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Science-fiction vs science fact...
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: Re: Science-fiction vs science fact...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For lack of better starting terms, I'll use analog vs. digital. Well, okay, perhaps continuous vs discrete would be a better comparison, but I'll start with the former and work toward the latter...
The difference between analog and digital media is that the former is generally regarded as a "continuous" medium, such as a record. IE, the entire thing is one long uninterrupted (ostensibly infinite) "continuous" thing. In mathematical terms, there are no "discontinuities" (in math that would be things like asymptotes or 'limits') where the graph suddenly breaks at a particular value, then at the other side of that value does something different. Whereas a "digital" representation of the same information (say a sound wave) does not represent the entire wave, but only a large collection of discrete points on the wave. The higher the number of points on the wave we sample, the closer the end product comes to approximating the original "complete" wave. At some point (a high enough sampling rate for digital speech or music), the human ear ceases to distinguish a difference between the approximation and the original.
But it's a useful concept: continuous media (indivisible) versus discrete media (divided into discrete units or 'packets' that each have a value different from the others).
I guess one of the fundamental questions then becomes whether the base level of "reality" is analog, or digital; continuous, or discrete; a perfect compressible fluid (with no space between one region and the next) or something more akin to tightly packed marbles (with voids of 'nothing' between discrete entities packed closely together).
It seems to me that the answer to this question will dictate certain things about nature. One of the fundamental questions we have relates to elementary particles. IE, what is the most elementary particle, or is there a "most elementary" particle at all? Is there a "smallest," "indivisible" particle? We used to think that the atom was it. But then we discovered 'subatomic' particles. So, then we thought that protons, neutrons and electrons were the 'indivisible' arbiters of the universe. Except then we discovered yet more exotic particles: neutrinos, quarks, etc.
So, the question of a continuous versus discrete substratum of reality may lead to answers about 'indivisibility.' IE, can we find a "smallest particle" that cannot be further reduced? Or can we continuously devise ways to delve further and further down into smaller and smaller particles that make up sub-particles, and sub-sub-particles, etc. Might we not eventually find that all we're doing is dividing energy or matter into smaller and smaller units? Say an atom is 10,000 units. Perhaps a Neutron is 5000 units, a proton is 3000 units and an electrons is 2000 units (I know these numbers are nowhere close to actual proportion). But then we say these are composed of smaller units. So, perhaps the quarks or neutrinos are only 1000 units. Well, what if we divides those into something of 500 units? Is it possible if so have we discovered an even more "fundamental" particle? Or have we simply found a way to further divide the same thing and simply labeled the smaller quantity with a new "name."
If the medium is continuous, it seems to me that we could potentially be sub-dividing forever, assuming technology get advanced enough to do that. Whereas if there is a discrete smallest unit (say, the neutrino), then that makes our job easier as it would simply be a matter of categorizing that smallest unit and measuring its properties with as much certainty as we're able.
I'd also tend to think that a continuous medium would then also have to be compressible, and would be described by some form of fluid dynamics or MHD. Whereas if there's a discrete medium, tightly packed, I'm not quite sure how it would be described. Would it be compressible, or would some other force have to be at work? 'Cause if they're tightly packed there would be no range of motion since everything would be locked in place. So, I guess there would have to be some kind of vacuum in which those discrete particles could move, albeit perhaps with less vigour and a much smaller collision length than larger particles. But they'd have to be relatively packed in order to transmit waves, right?
Anyway. Just a long drawn out odd question... Guess I'll end there, for lack of more speculation.
~Michael
OP "mgmirkin"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, to add some more perception, or at least reiterate a thought I had long long ago on an armchair far, far away: we might also need to make a distinction that was made to me in a computer class.@rc-us wrote: This is very perceptive, and I believe has much merit. We are in need of such "analogy generation" to serve those of technical ability in seeing the possibilities and drawing out the particulars. Many, or much, of those particulars will be in need of considerable tweaking, but I see that as a problem for those self-same technicians of genius with the necessary integrative imagination and vision of life and universe as continuum to iron out.
Regards,
Arc-us
For lack of better starting terms, I'll use analog vs. digital. Well, okay, perhaps continuous vs discrete would be a better comparison, but I'll start with the former and work toward the latter...
The difference between analog and digital media is that the former is generally regarded as a "continuous" medium, such as a record. IE, the entire thing is one long uninterrupted (ostensibly infinite) "continuous" thing. In mathematical terms, there are no "discontinuities" (in math that would be things like asymptotes or 'limits') where the graph suddenly breaks at a particular value, then at the other side of that value does something different. Whereas a "digital" representation of the same information (say a sound wave) does not represent the entire wave, but only a large collection of discrete points on the wave. The higher the number of points on the wave we sample, the closer the end product comes to approximating the original "complete" wave. At some point (a high enough sampling rate for digital speech or music), the human ear ceases to distinguish a difference between the approximation and the original.
But it's a useful concept: continuous media (indivisible) versus discrete media (divided into discrete units or 'packets' that each have a value different from the others).
I guess one of the fundamental questions then becomes whether the base level of "reality" is analog, or digital; continuous, or discrete; a perfect compressible fluid (with no space between one region and the next) or something more akin to tightly packed marbles (with voids of 'nothing' between discrete entities packed closely together).
It seems to me that the answer to this question will dictate certain things about nature. One of the fundamental questions we have relates to elementary particles. IE, what is the most elementary particle, or is there a "most elementary" particle at all? Is there a "smallest," "indivisible" particle? We used to think that the atom was it. But then we discovered 'subatomic' particles. So, then we thought that protons, neutrons and electrons were the 'indivisible' arbiters of the universe. Except then we discovered yet more exotic particles: neutrinos, quarks, etc.
So, the question of a continuous versus discrete substratum of reality may lead to answers about 'indivisibility.' IE, can we find a "smallest particle" that cannot be further reduced? Or can we continuously devise ways to delve further and further down into smaller and smaller particles that make up sub-particles, and sub-sub-particles, etc. Might we not eventually find that all we're doing is dividing energy or matter into smaller and smaller units? Say an atom is 10,000 units. Perhaps a Neutron is 5000 units, a proton is 3000 units and an electrons is 2000 units (I know these numbers are nowhere close to actual proportion). But then we say these are composed of smaller units. So, perhaps the quarks or neutrinos are only 1000 units. Well, what if we divides those into something of 500 units? Is it possible if so have we discovered an even more "fundamental" particle? Or have we simply found a way to further divide the same thing and simply labeled the smaller quantity with a new "name."
If the medium is continuous, it seems to me that we could potentially be sub-dividing forever, assuming technology get advanced enough to do that. Whereas if there is a discrete smallest unit (say, the neutrino), then that makes our job easier as it would simply be a matter of categorizing that smallest unit and measuring its properties with as much certainty as we're able.
I'd also tend to think that a continuous medium would then also have to be compressible, and would be described by some form of fluid dynamics or MHD. Whereas if there's a discrete medium, tightly packed, I'm not quite sure how it would be described. Would it be compressible, or would some other force have to be at work? 'Cause if they're tightly packed there would be no range of motion since everything would be locked in place. So, I guess there would have to be some kind of vacuum in which those discrete particles could move, albeit perhaps with less vigour and a much smaller collision length than larger particles. But they'd have to be relatively packed in order to transmit waves, right?
Anyway. Just a long drawn out odd question... Guess I'll end there, for lack of more speculation.
~Michael
OP "mgmirkin"
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Science-fiction vs science fact...
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: Re: Science-fiction vs science fact...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPOD Stellar Ouroboros
Papyrus of Dama Heroub Egypt
I would think implicit in any notion of a vibrating sea-continuum would be the aspects of expansion and contraction (breath if you will permit the slightly suggestive metaphor
) at many if not all levels of media density.
In the continuity of a "solid" steel plate that is relatively tightly packed from the aspect of its exteriorly viewed form it is still internally vibrating is it not? Whether viewed as consisting of densely packed particles arrayed as nodes in a vibratory crystal lattice network or as tiny bits of discrete matter orbiting other bits of discrete matter or from whatever other perspective you care to look at it, it still is connected with the environment in which it appears and is capable of "receiving and transmitting," or conducting, nonsubstantial (in the sense of no-substance) waves of energy either along its exterior surfaces or through whatever degree of internal motility or elasticity it is capable, EDIT: or both.
Is there any real state where matter, particulate or not, is locked in place in an *absolute* sense (outside the realm of our mental concepts)? Where motion in terms of oscillation is not occurring at some degree? If there would be then it seems to me that it would border on the (anathema to some observers) mystical and the absolute stillness of the divine ("Be still and know that I am God" ). In this context, absolute stillness represents the unmanifestable, non-physical, non-material "pure" energy that operates through matter. Where stillness and motion meet and coalesce as the physical universe. Where the unknowable engenders the knowable, and vice versa, in the dance of paradox. But I don't think we want to go there in this thread, do we? I am sure it sounds like bordering on the meta-physical and therefore possibly offensive to certain delicate sensibilities ( 
).
My Best Regards,
Arc-us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess it's no secret by now that I favor a viewpoint that the universe is very accomodating. Because of the way in which I see we relate to it (see my undoubtedly lunatic fringe slant on it elsewhere) I suspect it is not unlike the Ouroboros symbol and will continue to appear as small or as large to whatever degree and scale our scientific instruments of measure develop, for as long as we are cabable of mentally challenging and chasing after it.mgmirkin wrote: So, the question of a continuous versus discrete substratum of reality may lead to answers about 'indivisibility.' IE, can we find a "smallest particle" that cannot be further reduced? Or can we continuously devise ways to delve further and further down into smaller and smaller particles that make up sub-particles, and sub-sub-particles, etc. Might we not eventually find that all we're doing is dividing energy or matter into smaller and smaller units? Say an atom is 10,000 units. Perhaps a Neutron is 5000 units, a proton is 3000 units and an electrons is 2000 units (I know these numbers are nowhere close to actual proportion). But then we say these are composed of smaller units. So, perhaps the quarks or neutrinos are only 1000 units. Well, what if we divides those into something of 500 units? Is it possible if so have we discovered an even more "fundamental" particle? Or have we simply found a way to further divide the same thing and simply labeled the smaller quantity with a new "name."
If the medium is continuous, it seems to me that we could potentially be sub-dividing forever, assuming technology get advanced enough to do that. Whereas if there is a discrete smallest unit (say, the neutrino), then that makes our job easier as it would simply be a matter of categorizing that smallest unit and measuring its properties with as much certainty as we're able.
I'd also tend to think that a continuous medium would then also have to be compressible, and would be described by some form of fluid dynamics or MHD. Whereas if there's a discrete medium, tightly packed, I'm not quite sure how it would be described. Would it be compressible, or would some other force have to be at work? 'Cause if they're tightly packed there would be no range of motion since everything would be locked in place. So, I guess there would have to be some kind of vacuum in which those discrete particles could move, albeit perhaps with less vigour and a much smaller collision length than larger particles. But they'd have to be relatively packed in order to transmit waves, right?
Anyway. Just a long drawn out odd question... Guess I'll end there, for lack of more speculation.
~Michael
- 061110ouroboros2.jpg (1.71 KiB) Viewed 14255 times
- ouroborosegypt4.jpg (10.62 KiB) Viewed 14255 times
I would think implicit in any notion of a vibrating sea-continuum would be the aspects of expansion and contraction (breath if you will permit the slightly suggestive metaphor
) at many if not all levels of media density. In the continuity of a "solid" steel plate that is relatively tightly packed from the aspect of its exteriorly viewed form it is still internally vibrating is it not? Whether viewed as consisting of densely packed particles arrayed as nodes in a vibratory crystal lattice network or as tiny bits of discrete matter orbiting other bits of discrete matter or from whatever other perspective you care to look at it, it still is connected with the environment in which it appears and is capable of "receiving and transmitting," or conducting, nonsubstantial (in the sense of no-substance) waves of energy either along its exterior surfaces or through whatever degree of internal motility or elasticity it is capable, EDIT: or both.
Is there any real state where matter, particulate or not, is locked in place in an *absolute* sense (outside the realm of our mental concepts)? Where motion in terms of oscillation is not occurring at some degree? If there would be then it seems to me that it would border on the (anathema to some observers) mystical and the absolute stillness of the divine ("Be still and know that I am God"
). In this context, absolute stillness represents the unmanifestable, non-physical, non-material "pure" energy that operates through matter. Where stillness and motion meet and coalesce as the physical universe. Where the unknowable engenders the knowable, and vice versa, in the dance of paradox. But I don't think we want to go there in this thread, do we? I am sure it sounds like bordering on the meta-physical and therefore possibly offensive to certain delicate sensibilities ( ). My Best Regards,
Arc-us
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you ever come across this site, because it does touch upon the questions you're putting. And prof.dr. Meyl has a very interesting solution
to things. Maybe you want to check it out.
http://www.k-meyl.de/
I'm no expert on this but I found in his work the probable solution to some of your questions.
OP "StefanR"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you ever come across this site, because it does touch upon the questions you're putting. And prof.dr. Meyl has a very interesting solution
to things. Maybe you want to check it out.
http://www.k-meyl.de/
I'm no expert on this but I found in his work the probable solution to some of your questions.
OP "StefanR"
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
-
bboyer
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
- Location: Upland, CA, USA
Re: Cymatics
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link, Stefan. I read through his Scalar.pdf and Scalar Waves Experiment.pdf and he does appear to address many of the issues, but I'm afraid the awkward translation into English combined with my own English-only simplistic, elementary technical understanding resulted in little comprehension of the description of what was happening and the claims made for the results. I follow a little of it but get lost in the poor translation of detail. Speaking only for myself, of course.
Regards,
Arc-us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
StefanR wrote: Did you ever come across this site, because it does touch upon the questions you're putting. And prof.dr. Meyl has a very interesting solution
to things. Maybe you want to check it out.
http://www.k-meyl.de/
I'm no expert on this but I found in his work the probable solution to some of your questions.
Thanks for the link, Stefan. I read through his Scalar.pdf and Scalar Waves Experiment.pdf and he does appear to address many of the issues, but I'm afraid the awkward translation into English combined with my own English-only simplistic, elementary technical understanding resulted in little comprehension of the description of what was happening and the claims made for the results. I follow a little of it but get lost in the poor translation of detail. Speaking only for myself, of course.
Regards,
Arc-us
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests