???...

True enough math, but we are not that "evolved".

Thus the existential issue for the entire species remains.

Regards.

**Edited by shaktiman, 08 May 2017 - 08:52 PM.**

Started by
shaktiman
, Apr 30 2017 04:22 PM

39 replies to this topic

Posted 09 May 2017 - 02:23 PM

Hi shaktiman,

Is this equation

Equations are supposed to use rigor to "prove" a hypothesis and basically show a relationship, especially those of equivalence. No more, no less.

The fruits of those relationships however may be far more important that the symbolic representations

.People living in cosmic ships?

The human species is more apt to live in a comic strip than a cosmic ship.

Cosmic ships can of course be any vessel but the changes in the frame of reference apply more to a conscious equity than a cosmic equestrian.

Forgive the mystery, that would be more of a "8".

Best regrards

Posted 09 May 2017 - 02:56 PM

And one more thing on the "higher dimensions" viewed by the misguided science majority AND most spiritual phony masters and gurus.

Talk is cheap. Doing it is another issue. Aye, and there's the rub! If you can't do it or better yet "have it done" the talk of these dimensions is mostly just nonsense.

I will state however that higher dimensional reality is real on more than a mathematical level but the experience is the key, (pun intended again).

The following is good stuff from the Taoists and Carl Jung, but you still have to do it. Christian monastic tradition in another important fundamental as is Buddhist meditation, Hindu Tantric and Vedic methods, and so much more. But the talk is cheap and the experience is a "Pearl of Great Price".

Viagra or Visagra?

Oh no! Not him again. No that's me not you or me. Maybe I'm talking to myself, whatever a "self" is or isn't.

Regards and Re - gards..

Posted 09 May 2017 - 07:03 PM

Here's a stupid article in Wikipedia probable written by a PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper)

The heat death of the universe is a plausible ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy).

If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are supported by current data), the universe will continue expanding forever and a heat death is expected to occur,[1] with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.

The hypothesis of heat death stems from the ideas of William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical energy loss in nature (as embodied in the first two laws of thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processes on a universal scale.

1) *The heat death of the universe is a plausible ultimate fate of the universe*

Don't be silly! "Plausible"? So you're not sure Dr. Wiki?

2) *Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work.*

Many thought it was absolute 0 or 0 degrees on the Kelvin scale but that wouldn't work in cryophysics so they use this double talk now LOL.

3)* it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (*maximum entropy

At this point the "language of physics" is reminiscent of a Philadelphia lawyer, one moment it means this the next moment something else. Now the issue of dimensions somehow are ignored as is the re-heat after entropy issue. .

4) *If the topology of the universe is open or flat,*

A topology means a few things, but it has a very specific mathematics (A topological space uses a (1) Universal set, an (2) empty set, an (3) inclusive infinite union of (Open) subsets and (4) an inclusive finite intersection of (Closed ) subsets - combine those 4 together to create the "topological space" ) The real world you live in is a topological space and the study of its geometry is profound.

So let's walk the planck with the great physics professor Max Planck. He agrees with old Shakt:

*Max Planck wrote that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[18][19] More recently, Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."[20] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."[21] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".[22] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."[23]*

I remember arguing this with a Tel Aviv like troll more than two years ago on the Forum. Apparently he had a thermodynamic bowel movement on himself.

If one really studies the geometry of all this, maybe just by looking at the empty space we live in, one gets a clearer picture of all this and how silly the Piled Higher and Deepers are.

Re-heating some delicious entropy with baked potatoes.

Regards

Posted 13 May 2017 - 02:22 AM

It may not matter if the laws of physics indeed conserve information, as is currently believed. Suppose that after 100 billion years the universe is in some heat death state. The exact physical state it is in is then given by a time evolution operator U(t) that applied to the current state yields that heat death state that will exist a time t later. And however enormously complicated this operator U(t) is and however infeasible applying that to the exact physical state to obtain the exact future physical state of the entire universe is, we can still derive from experiments that U(t) has the property that its never going to map two different initial states to the same final state. If somehow two different initial states could evolve into the same final state, then in that final state you could never know, even in principle, what the initial state was. So, the information in the universe that distinguishes these two different initial states would then have been erased. But we know as far as we can tell, and that includes even processes involving black holes, that information does not get destroyed. If you trow a book in a black hole and billions of years later the black hole evaporates due to Hawking radiation then that radiation will contain the information that was in that book, albeit in a very scrambled way.

This means that there exists a one to one mapping from any past state to any future state via the time evolution operator U(t). One can then say that the future or the past exist in the universe in the state it is in now, albeit in a scrambled way. But that scrambling is irrelevant from the perspective of any future or past observers, they will perceive living in their own time. So, the universe could well be in a heat death state and yet we could be in their experiencing living in the current universe, if you apply U(t = minus billions of years) to it you would see the universe as we perceive it with us existing here on Earth.

Posted 13 May 2017 - 12:56 PM

It may not matter if the laws of physics indeed conserve information, as is currently believed. Suppose that after 100 billion years the universe is in some heat death state. The exact physical state it is in is then given by a time evolution operator U(t) that applied to the current state yields that heat death state that will exist a time t later. And however enormously complicated this operator U(t) is and however infeasible applying that to the exact physical state to obtain the exact future physical state of the entire universe is, we can still derive from experiments that U(t) has the property that its never going to map two different initial states to the same final state.

Thanks MirrorMan.

You bring up some good points. I need to go over it in more detail but you seem to be moving on target except what we are all doing in this arena needs more work.

This Pravda article got to some egos. Today a letter on a 3 month old Scientific American feature shows the cosmology issue is "heating up", pun intended again.

I think Hawkins may be a brand name. By all accounts he should be dead given his disease. I suppose one could argue the same for our world.

*Stephen Hawking And 32 Top Physicists Just Signed a Heated Letter on The Universe's Origin*

*Sh*t just got real.*

I will go over your points in depth and reply.

*For now however, I think your take on the Universal operator "U" is appropriate provided the parameters are better understood by us. It is ongoing research as you may well know.*

The geometry of this is key. Klein used the relationships of Linear Transformations GL (n,F) to show they change "Geometry" as he defined

I don't think it is a far cry to also say that higher dimensions or not, the change of any Geometry affects the laws of physics.

Isomorphisms and bijections are indeed the basic math tool to find out what's going on BUT when we switch dimensions, even with sub-manifolds, there may be a need to augment any such bijective maps by complimenting it with another or more in order to describe what is going on.

I found that using (s_{1,} s_{2,} s_{3,} t ) is our standard but with vector calculus inherent in all this I know for fact the "information" obtained can be wrong if that R(4) standard is not flexible.

I know I am being a bit coy for now, but let us say I will review your comments and say that Russia is well ahead on this game at this point in time. (whoops, there I go again)

Best regards

Posted 13 May 2017 - 04:16 PM

And here's one more thing from the Hawkins' Bing Bang:

It was a bing and a bang, 'tweren't it?

a Scientific American feature published back in February, in which three physicists heavily criticised inflation theory - the idea that the Universe expanded just like a balloon shortly after the Big Bang.

The Original Big Bang Balloon (Presented by Eve from Eden)

BUT - if there was that very first Big bang, then the balloon must have "popped"

- SO - How could it inflate then????????

The New "Big Fan" Theory

But let's get serious folks!

**BIG BANG OR BIG BOUNCE? STEPHEN HAWKING AND OTHERS PEN ANGRY LETTER ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN**

http://www.newsweek....universe-608104

*"Instead, they claim the idea of a “big bounce” is a more likely scenario. In this theory, the universe works on a cyclical basis of expansion and contraction. At the moment, it is expanding. However, when it runs out of energy (or whatever happens to stop its expansion), it will start contracting. Eventually, it will get to the point where it is so small it starts expanding again."*

How original?????????????????

Now Hawkey and his assorted bird brains as well as the inflated balloonists are plagiarizing or arguing parts and pieces of the Hindus and their Vedic explanation especially a "cosmic day", the expand and contract phenomenon known as the "kalpa". But with all due respect to Hindus, their idea of death of the Universe is not death at all but the usual "partial" collapse opening anew in time/space and beyond. The whole Universe's "death" only happens as a cosmic day event and is more of the sleep of rest

The scientificos state: ** "or whatever happens": **Gee, that's pretty scientific, ain't it?

Then the "experts say: "Eventually, it will get to the point where it is so small it starts expanding again."

How come guys? Could it be solved in your equation that says galaxies form and spin and the Universe will shrink to zero because the gurfunkel in the reemwatz kabooks the deefergas?

Oh, oh. I hope we don't run out of deefergas.

Regards.

**Edited by shaktiman, 13 May 2017 - 04:24 PM.**

Posted 15 May 2017 - 09:58 PM

Revelation 21

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

..

Yes math, your "Revelations" insight is 100% accurate and doable

I almost forgot to thank you for the Beatles song

The song has Grace but the Beatles betrayed many

I will add that there are an "uncountable" new Heavens and new Earths

"My Father's House has many Mansions"

A few years ago I worked on this and took notes - Lifting The Serpent in the Wilderness as Moses did - The Kundalini - Macro/Micro Cosmic Orbits and more

A dash of Jung and the Golden Flower

Quite a Revelation

But then again there are those that would kill the Christ in us all

Best regards

Thanks

**Edited by shaktiman, 15 May 2017 - 11:34 PM.**

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:48 PM

And however enormously complicated this operator U(t) is and however infeasible applying that to the exact physical state to obtain the exact future physical state of the entire universe is, we can still derive from experiments that U(t) has the property that its never going to map two different initial states to the same final state.

And therein is the problem and the error of some physics even with H Weyl, the mathematician that corrected Einstein's poor math and a student of Hilbert (Hilbert Space has been jumbled as well into silly canonical forms).

Others followed suit and the errors became more glaring - especially with vectors, bases. and coordinates in R^{n}

So I will give that to you now in spite of the fact that your approach is correct from classical modern physics.

Construct your operator "U" along the "lines" (pun again) that you are comfortable with.

Now try U(t_{1 , }t_{2}) an you should have no problem - BUT the conceptualizing of the geometry beyond the analytic representation is difficult for us primates. It is doable.

BTW, your are not limited to that "operator" consider also some U^{* mapping from }R^{5 ---------> }R^{4 }, see how these dimensional changes open new "doors". The key is in evaluating (t_{1 , }t_{2}) relative to (s_{1 },s_{2} , s_{3} , t_{1} . t_{2} )

Best regards MirrorMan.

**Edited by shaktiman, 16 May 2017 - 12:08 AM.**

Posted 16 May 2017 - 11:34 AM

Steven Weinberg - How Many Universes Exist?

Thanks Hansel

I made similar points on How Big is IT?, the topology/geometry, the quanta, etc, over 40 years ago.

Weinberg is on the right track. "All this is Brahman?"

I made a stink on fakery in science and religion as I did with organized crime, the Clintons, and jew mafia.. I suppose I've been "all over the place".

Didn't finish my doctorate, though. Asked to many times. The BS was too much to digest. An interesting book by Lama Govinda (a Buddhist kraut) "Creative Meditation and Multi-Dimensional Consciousness" is helpful.

Best regards.

BTW, Nice stuff on the video. One of the better ones to explain to the layman.

Posted 17 May 2017 - 02:36 PM

And now for the age old question posed by philosophers, religious adherents, scientists and dog catchers alike.

*A physicist answers the grandest question of all: Why are we here?*

http://www.businessi...question-2017-5

By the way, he doesn't know either. In any case, no one can answer this for you. It's like dying, you gotta do it yourself.

The fecesist says:

*"But actually throwing of the dice and probability cause the structure that we see in the universe."*

How putative! Or should I say Pukeative?

**Here's the answer to that dice throwing** besides the need to go back to the roots of "modern" Probability Theory with Henri Lebesgue and his excellent work on "The Theory of Measure" that disproved even the conventional wisdom of mathematicians. ("Hint": start at the measure of an infinite number of discontinuities as points)

According to modern fecesists: The Universe is a "Crap Shoot".

"Snake Eyes And Box Cars At Once????"

I wish Albert would quit F*cking Around and Roll the Dice

And without further adieu, Roll 'em!

https://www.youtube....h?v=3I2FSBO9X0o

Regards.

**Edited by shaktiman, 17 May 2017 - 02:38 PM.**

Posted 21 May 2017 - 05:17 PM

See Pravda, you do well to shake up the apple cart. That is in spite of a few jews, israelis, and CIA shills trying to undermine a historic news outlet.

Now look at this garbage written by someone who claims to understand mathematics and physics and only shows him or herself to be the village idiot of science in journalism.

*The scientific breakthrough that enabled physicists to solve the puzzle of infinity*

http://www.businessi...lization-2017-5

Dr. Village Idiot, PHD, says "Wave Bye-Bye to all your Particles"

*"During the mid 20th century, physicists were grappling with a perplexing puzzle. It seemed that every time they applied equations to explain fundamental properties we see and experience around us — like the mass of a particle or what happens when two particles interact with each other — they always got the same answer: infinity.*

*But this wasn't a result at all. It was mathematics' way of telling them that they were doing something wrong. Here, professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University and co-founder of the World Science Festival, Brian Greene, reveals the story of how physicists ultimately tackled the puzzle of infinity.*

*............... Infinity is a way that nature, kind of, grabs you by the lapel and slaps you in the face and says, “You were doing something that doesn’t make any sense.”*

*So, one of the big problems that afflicted quantum mechanics is that when scientists started to do calculations with the structure, they found an answer that would pop out of the mathematics and did not make any sense.*

*The answer was infinity."*

So now all these physics and mathematics "experts", keep putting out the BullShit because now they believe their own BullShit.

I won't even try to set y'all straight. This article must have been written by a particle pundit who hasn't a clue of what the "infinity" is or what it may be. Ask Gregor Cantor a historic mathematics researcher on infinity. He went nuts trying to figure it out and wound up in the insane asylum waving bye-bye to everyone that walked by him. . Can't always count on infinity. (another pun!)

But since y'all science writers are such experts let me ask you this as long as y'all mention "Quantum Mechanics" (my field only peripherally) so, how in "light" (there i go again with the quantum puns) of Heisenberg's "particle - wave duality" do you know what's inside a "photon". I mean is it solid or hollow? Is the question understandable to those at NSF with IQs below a turnip? If you don't know that then how do you write about the "Death of the Universe" let alone comprehend the relations between change and the unchanging?

Is this icon infinite in any way or just another enigma? Her photons just turned blue and that's solid.

"Every time I try to balance my checkbook all I get is infinity."

I should be nicer. The problems learning mathematics almost everyone shares. It is not as Von Neumann said a function of the nervous system, rather it is an apprehension of the mind, whatever the latter is to understand what the former may be. But Von Neumann was correct in this, at least up to a point (pun intended again) ,* "Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them."* ( I'll add "sort of")

So whatever context the moron who wrote the article to dissuade us from "getting used to things" and learning something we all can do in mathematics we can tell him and his quantum mechanical models for photons that about the best one can do with their use of infinity in solving equations is just "track it".

https://www.youtube....h?v=_NBMDJpmoNs

Infinity? Isn't it that Crazy 8 that fell on it's side?

Is that a photon behind me with the camera? Why was Mr. Heisenberg so unsure?

I got a particle caught in my teeth once and I was so embarrassed! I couldn't smile.when I waved.

Yikes!

**Edited by shaktiman, 21 May 2017 - 05:20 PM.**

Posted 23 May 2017 - 10:25 PM

If we review some of the articles and my posts cited above, what do you think?

What is the probability that are we even more stupid than I said when I began this thread? ( (t _{1}, t _{2) - because fecesists don't even have a clue what this means except for a NASA engineer that asked me at Wal-Mart and a Math Research editor that was my friend - there's another time variable.})

I mean is stupidity and ignorance an ongoing divergent sequence of revelations?

Is that what black holes do to knowledge and consciousness when we spin around its rim?

*Science
Newfound ‘alien megastructure’ star leaves scientists baffled*

https://www.yahoo.co...-000011891.html

*"KIC 8462852[1] (also Tabby's Star or Boyajian's Star) is an F-type main-sequence star located in the constellation Cygnus approximately 1,280 light-years (390 pc) from Earth.[2] Unusual light fluctuations of the star were discovered by citizen scientists as part of the Planet Hunters project, and in September 2015 astronomers and citizen scientists associated with the project posted a preprint of a paper describing the data and possible interpretations.[1] The discovery was made from data collected by the Kepler space telescope,[1][6] which observes changes in the brightness of distant stars to detect exoplanets.[7]" (*Wikipedia)

You gotta wonder if ignorance and consciousness are symptoms of entering a Black Hole or what the fecesists call "The Event Horizon" or what happens on the rim or the edge as gravity "sucks" you over the edge.

Sound familiar? Columbus didn't believe it. But you know, there may be dragons ready to swallow all of us up.

Mommy!!!!

Where's my geodesic tensor?

PS, (In differential geometry, a geodesic is a generalization of the notion of a "straight line" (shortest distance between two points) to "curved spaces". (like airlines fly over our curving earth) The term "geodesic" comes from geodesy, the science of measuring the size and shape of Earth; in the original sense, a geodesic was the shortest route between two points on the Earth's surface, namely, a segment of a great circle. (Wikipedia with Shaktiman's parenthetical guide)

metric tensor is

given by

G _{λ γ }( A sort of "twist" to our measurements that underlie the application of the laws of physics)

= diag(1, 1, 1, 1)

Regards and don't get "dragged-in!"

Well, if Muslims go to Heaven for this, I suppose y'all are entitled

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2017 Pravda.Ru