August 5,
2012
Einstein as Newton, right relative to certain observable results in limited context. God or gospel only for awhile.
Most theories of physics are like big machines filled with constants and other kludges to make the numbers come out right so if you put one set of numbers in one end, or ingredients, a predictable product comes out the other end. As about the constants, kludges, and loop equations that make everything seem to work together, ask why they are the values they are, what their purpose is, or what they represent in the real world other than your appendix, and they have not a clue. It is like a big machine that does what you ask or expect of it, but even those who built it haven't the slightest clue in actuality about what it is or how it works.
The purpose of the sculptures is to enable or help people to spin the Universe on its head, 3 dimensionally speaking. To instead or also see space as folded into objects instead of existing outside or between them. That from a 4th dimensional viewpoint all points away from the center point to the antipole equivalently and equally outside of it and within it, for they are the same spot. This is similar to how the standard idea of an antipole in the sculpture would be another sphere halfway between the other two, yet also (would) be in actuality a single spot or place, not a circular area. This multidimensional viewpoint is a good way to view electrons existing within a set position in folded space instead of orbiting around a circular area. They would not be moving at all, yet seem to be at all points in a (seemingly) circular ball around the nucleus as well, at the same time. Yet another folded dimension around the nucleus could explain how they jump from one orbit to the next without passing the space in-between. Just because the level of space we perceive between what would seem to be 2 spheres from an outside viewpoint, seems 3 dimensional, that is no reason to believe that on the atomic scale, that space is not defined by or exists with more dimensions than we need to deal with "out here" (nor necessarily curled up so small as to not affect matter). The point of the sculptures is to see that inversible 3D sandwich, or that "out there" or "in here" is merely from an external viewpoint, (relative to where you are standing and) potentially equally the same spot.
How objects shapes (in hyperspheric space or a dimensionally curved back upon itself Universe) are determined by the curvature or anti-bending of space relative to the proximity in distance, size, and time of other objects in relation to their own. Bear in mind objects sizes can possibly be greater in dimensions we cannot measure or perceive from outside of them in "normal" space. A black hole, for instance, can seem very small from the outside, yet in a sense have a greater size or disproportionate size-like qualities in gravity or bending, or anti-bending of space and time. Traveling into one, something's shape might only seem to change relative to objects outside or further away from them, an effect simply more pronounced in a shorter distance than the distortion of objects shapes relative to each other in the normal larger curvature of the universe itself, were they able to get that far away from each other in space and time. If the Universe was as small as a solar system, and we still were as large as we are now, we could see objects shapes change as they approach and move away from objects of different sizes and relative to (the) distance from ourselves.
There is no evidence to support the Big Bang theory in light of understanding 4 or more physical dimensions which makes expansion hardly the only or optimal conclusion for the evidence used to support the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang merely is a search for Genesis in the Judea-Christian sense. A Universe with no beginning or end is not compatible with cultural predispositions.
General Relativity is a description of relationships and in that, it is correct. Its conclusions about how or why they are related, if any, are wrong. I can say how someone dying in China of lung cancer who smokes cigarettes is related to Columbus sailing to America. Relationships are everywhere. Trying to relate everything to the speed of light is like relating everything that came or comes out of America to Columbus. (Not exactly proportional as rate or speed of energy expansion is important but you might get the point.) Relationships are there, so what? They mean what you choose them to mean and only have that significance. A causal relationship it is not, an explanation it is not, a conclusive conclusion it is not.
Universe Inc, ball a through plane, big bang to big crunch (4D version of ball through a plane as is universe inc. a 3D ball through a 2D plane with time), just passing through.
Spring 2005, Pg 85
Electrons as tying together dimensionally atoms, here and there relative to both atoms center at once through all of its "movements", always an equal distance from center of each as good example of higher dimensional "movement" in which multiple environments actually change position relative to your position at once, and from your point of view (center out), mysteriously pass through each other inexplicably and constantly. Same example as above in regards to central reality of multiple timeball states affecting each others' "movement".
There are many things Humanity is not ready to believe. That does not make them one iota less true. This may sound like a repudiation of relativism but it is not. Some may believe what most would not accept. Even if no one might believe some indisputable physical universal truths today, nor ever realize them in humanities time-frame, such notions, ideas, relationships, equations, still may exist ahead in a venue just never embarked upon, yet may or could be one day, if there is more to the world than what we do or can or will believe someday.
The Notes which these writings are meant to cover, setup or explain (the “5D” Notes, Parts 1 to 6 written between Oct 2003 and July 2007) began in Part 1 in a way that is hard to read. The previous section written here, ‘Events, Potentiality Spheres, Spinning "Up" and Out of a 3D Incorporated Universe, Day 40’, began to cover a bit why they are so cryptic or seemingly nonsensical at times (not that I wouldn’t say some parts were meant to be read as such). In the Notes, especially the early Notes (what would become Part 1), I developed a shorthand of using new and substitute definitions to remember concepts. Some of these are obvious like “negative space,” “backward time,” “double bubble,” (a 4D equivalent (breaking a hypersphere to 2 globes or bubbles to represent locations) of breaking a sphere into hemispheres or 2 circles), but with other new terms I simply just reused existing words in different ways, adding my own new definitions to them.
When I did this, often I would put the “new” definitions I made up into quotes to show that that word or term was not to be read in a tradition sense or by an accepted definition. Other times I did not. Often later, months later sometimes, I would add new notes mentioning a bit what the previous notes terms were meant to mean. “Spin,” “events,” “direction,” even “movement” slowly came to have meanings to me that were not exactly what people would necessarily understand by reading them as they often were new terms or ideas, simply with definitions of existing words which were there to be found in the text in other ways. Even when not specifically redressed, “what I mean by spin is…”, they were defined through repeated similar use in a non-traditional sense.
The earlier notes on these dates which I am covering in this, July 26th and 27th, 2003 were fairly straight-forward. In the previous post/section about July 25th, 2003, I stated how I started to use phrases to represent concepts which were not readily apparent from the phrases themselves. The shorter phases on these two days, though containing seeds of thought about things I might have wanted to write more about later, were not really worth trying to explain further now. However, the longer story written on July 27th, one very long “short note” as it turned out, was not nearly about what one might think from reading it.
The meaning behind the “Alien Abduction” story was actually written out in the previous day’s notes, “Einstein as Newton, right relative to certain observable results in limited context. God or gospel only for awhile.”
While reading multiple books on 4 dimensional space and suppositions on the General Theory of Relativity and causality, I slowly began to think that much of those suppositions were complete and total bullsh*t. There was just so much they were leaving out in their thinking. It was such a narrow, to me, line of reasoning, I thought it could be scarcely called reasoning at all in some of their conclusions about time.
I did not really have any other ideas to say it should be any other way, but it did more and more seem to be completely misguided. Within 6 months time, I was in a University in Estonia and was able to gain access to some books on alternatives to General Relativity. These alternatives were, unlike my own, better thought out and were written by actual Physicists or people with a lot more study in the field than I had done.
I will mention here 3 books I probably read in Estonia later, though not all are exactly Einstein skeptics: ‘Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics’ by Paul Marmet; ‘Relativity, Time, and Reality: A Critical Investigation of the Einstein Theory of Relativity from a Logical Point of View,’ by Harald Nordenson; and ‘Time, Space, and Things,’ by B.K. Ridley.
Marmet’s book I remember the most about, though I will readily admit, I did not understand all of it. But it seemed an attempt to address things which I did not think at all were addressed in Relativity in a way that made any sense, including using gravity.
But what was really enlightening, not that I could nor would try to disprove General Relativity, other than to say, this is not from what I have read consistent with what is possible, nor is it logical, nor is it necessarily a good way to explain anything. It is not that I find the so-called unreal or surreal or hard to believe as being unbelievable. Quite the contrary as I put in my later notes, “Since I start with the assumption that life itself is inexplicably weird, everything surprises me equally, and nothing can surprise me.”
But I balance that with “I don't have any opinions about a lot of things. What sets me apart is that I refuse to buy into others opinions which are not well thought out or based on reason. Most people are very sensitive to have foundationless points of views questioned even by merely not subscribing to them for it points out their lack of foundation for those who might one day dare to challenge them. (Most societal beliefs fall into this category in some respect).”
I probably did not know in July of 2003 that books had been written which were “Einstein skeptical” when I wrote these lines. But reading how such “heretics” from established notions of physics were viewed by their colleagues, being first exposed to the idea of that extreme retaliatory criticism, while in the former Soviet Union, I had to say it reminded me most of Marxism and Political Theory. Being a political scientist, studying Political Theory before the collapse of Communism I knew meant for them meant saying how Marx or Lenin was right about this or that. No real or meaningful dissent could be expressed without being totally shunned or worse to say Marx or Lenin was completely wrong about anything fundamental.
Keeping Marx and Lenin unquestioned really meant keeping sometimes your whole life’s work from being considered irrelevant or wrong as well if your whole life’s work was put in defending their theories. I am not saying that makes them wrong, or that Marx was wrong about everything, but propping up Marx and Lenin became an industry. And it was, at least there, an industry you could not knock without it knocking back a hell of a lot harder than an individual, no matter how right they might have been in that criticism, could ever generally withstand.
Now obviously Physicists would not like the idea that they are a slavishly devoted to propping up Einstein as Political Scientists in the USSR were to propping up Marx or Lenin. They are “scientists” after all! But as they say, the bigger they are, the harder they will fall. In doing minimal research today on the current state of how Einstein skeptics are thought of, one thing struck me was someone saying how you would like to be saying 100,000 physicists are wrong, meaning all those who have accepted General Relativity as an axiom, the greatest by far majority. Saying they all are wrong may not be as likely to get you arrested as saying Marx or Lenin was wrong in the USSR, but it is just as likely to kill your career.
The second story I wrote that July, 2 days after the first, ‘Alien Abduction and the Schrodinger Security Guard’ was basically a knock on what I considered some Physicists may never live to see, that being General Relativity one day proven wrong or limited. The story was to set up an absurd circumstance, seemingly impossible to explain, yet true and then to ask, “which is more true, what everyone believes which is wrong but you or they will never live to see it disproved, or what is actually true?”
Those at the end of the story who will never know they were wrong, if General Relativity does not hold up as Gospel (at the time I wrote this I figured it would not last 50 more years if that) years from now, were meant represent Physicists who accept it unquestioningly today. And if that wrongness never affects them, their reputations, their careers, their ability to earn a living, were they really wrong or were the people who were actually right in the long run really “in the wrong” for not accepting “wrong for right?” like everyone else did.
7/26/2003
Time as events of consciousness
Two people on deserted island, multiple consciousnesses.
Einstein as Newton, right relative to certain observable results in limited context. God or gospel only for awhile.
Stacked 3D worlds, stacked 2D worlds, mirrored?
Everyone can see everything from a limited point of view. Everyone sees everything from a limited point of view. Everything sees everything from all points of view. Everything's is the only full or complete point of view.
Ideal use - best qualified should always get the job they want when they want it if provable that they can do it better than current or previous persons. Societal structures block this, rewarding people who do not move upward with seniority or tenure. People should not be forced to do what they are best suited to do, but way should be made for them should they decide to do what they can do better than any others.
CEO versus mail room to other co.(company?) With government antitrust protection must fight economic gravity principle, without government anti-trust protection, hopeless. (Basically was that if someone can run a company better than the CEO, see above paragraph and Jim Croce's "Working at the car wash blues", with competition of other companies could have ones potential realized outside of a top down structure with lateral movement through other enterprises more effectively and with greater hope than rising through ranks of a single structure. Thus monopolies and centralized bureaucracies strangle potential through limiting upward movement to those who play the system better, i.e. take credit for others achievements rather than being passed by them. Open competition gives stifled talent ability to start their own companies and eventually move from mail room to CEO of own company to topple the first if they do not improve and evolve as rapidly by searching and rewarding their own inner resources better. Without such external advancement possibilities in monopolized industries, true unfettered upward mobility is replaced and becomes more like winning a lottery.)
Science and research only institutions which function in accordance with ideal use principles.
Using time so show 4D objects. Flatland would simply be circles over time to show what a sphere would look like.
7/27/2003
Circle is a line (1D world) through curved 1 dimensional space into a second Sphere is a plane (2D world) through curved 2 dimensional space into a third dimension Universe (stopped a bit early) is a 3D world through curved 3 dimensional space into a 4th dimension.
to a 1D person a circle, curved space, would go on forever
to a 2D person a plane, curved space, would go on forever
to a 3D person a Universe, curved space, would go on forever
DeconU. (Deconstructing the Universe) seeks to explain the Universe in terms of understanding multiple consciousness' perspectives. Time Roads seeks to explain (stops there)
("Alien Abduction and the Schrodinger Security Guard" written here next.)
Alien Abduction and the Schrodinger Security Guard
Imagine yourself to be at home resting in a bathrobe, pajamas, or your underwear getting ready to go to sleep. The next thing you perceive is to be on a UFO. Oh no, it seems your life has suddenly become a bad Sci-fi movie or an episode of the Twilight Zone. That’s ok, because it does not last long. Before you can panic or get worked up about what that would mean to your future retirement plans, you find yourself on Earth, in the woods, still in what you last remembered wearing in your home. Things seemed to work out fine but upon emerging from the trees you find yourself really not outside your home but inside a top secret military grounds of some cold war enemy of your own government. They bring you in for questioning and obviously want to know how you got in there and why are you only wearing a bathrobe, your pajamas, or your underwear.
You are lucky, this enemy government’s security guard is having a very busy day and will not torture you. He really does not care how you got in there and really has no problem with just shooting and burying you and covering the whole thing up. He offers you two choices, tell him the truth of how you got in there or he will shoot you. Though he is speaking your own language, you translate this to mean, "Tell me a lie I might believe and I won’t shoot you immediately."
You hesitate for a second and like Schrodinger’s Box, the Universe splits into two Universes. In one, you understandably are hard pressed to come up with an explanation he would believe and are shot before you finish your first complete sentence. In another, you are suddenly struck with an insight I obviously lack because I will not even attempt to come up with something believable for a situation like that. You mesmerize this security guard, satisfy his curiosity and intrigue him enough with the possible implications of your story that he gives you some clothes to wear, food to eat, and drinks while you talk things over, and then he shoots you.
In the first reality, he shoots you for failing to convince him you might be telling him the truth. From his point of view, you were obviously lying and he shot you for that, just as he said he would, brutal but honest. From your point of view, he shot you for saying what you believed to be the truth, if you had nothing else to go on, or for not lying convincingly enough, as you understood enough correctly to know what he thought he was asking of you is not really what would give the result of your remaining alive long enough to have a nice meal. You both agree on one thing though, that you died sooner rather than later, though your interpretations for the reasons for that result are the opposite of each other’s. His for you not being truthful convincingly enough, yours for you not lying convincingly enough.
Which interpretation was correct? From one point of view, his interpretation lives on, yours dies with you, he wins. From another point of view, you had more information about the parameters of the argument he was asking, namely that doing as he asked in this instance would result in the direct opposite action than he promised or believed, so if there is a God or an absolute reality or absolute truth, you win. Or you could reinterpret the situation or question as you so astutely tried to do. That is that it was neither the truth nor a lie that was at issue, what was at issue was what the guard believed was possible. The question was never a matter of truth or falsehood, but believability.
Someone could give humanity some revelation of some greater "truth" which might be false but take hundreds or thousands of years to disprove. In the interim, he or she might be thought very highly of, and if humanity does not outlive that time period, or ever progress enough or stay open-minded enough if it becomes dogma, it may never know that it, nor care that it, was in fact not true. Likewise, someone else could be saying the opposite of that person, be correct, but be scorned for hundreds or thousands of years, more likely forgotten though, simply for having been right. Know that when someone is asking "Tell me the truth or else," what they really mean or are asking is to give them something which they can, will, or might believe if you wish to please them or gain their favor. If you know what you believe to be true is at odds with that, know answering truthfully is a risky proposition. The point is that truth is relative to the observer and both observers must still agree upon a reality. Concurrent with both possibly mutually exclusive "truths", how they can both agree upon that and still remain within their own divergent perspectives is the interesting part of life.
Contents page