01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [461][462][463][464][465][466][467][468][469][470] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1140 |
1141 |
Dr. Barrie Trower: Experimentation on the Public ... **
1142 |
1143 |
I think that I have actually learned something from this thread. **
1144 |
|
1145 |
Intelligence is a dangerous business. **
1146 |
Intelligence is dangerous, but it is, necessarily, not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.
Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.
The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion. **
1147 |
Abrahamic religions made the world a worse place to be in spiritually. **
Anyways, lies and hypocrisy don't achieve much imho [e.g. all pagans are the baddies], so its time people took a second look at their ancestral spiritual birthrights. **
1148 |
Arminius wrote:
»So in your thesis (Why the Nazis actually won ...) is much truth, if you don't separate globalism from nationalism / national-socialism because globalism is nationalism / national-socialism in global dimensions.« ** **
Except not the kind of socialism like the germans had based on kinship feeling around common language and heritage values. Today's global socialism has only one kinship feeling, the weak and the disinherited joining together. Nothing unites them but their shared sense of resentment at the »well-offs« and their victim culture. **
1149 |
|
1150 |
|
1151 |
|
1152 |
1153 |
1154 |
Arminius wrote:
»Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: either you help the USA or you will be put in prison! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.
Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.« ** **
Do you have any references for that? (not that I seriously doubt it)? **
1155 |
The »service economy« was declared for America back in the 60's. **
1156 |
The East is to be the manufacturing economy. Thus the West is to be female and the East is to be male ..., until they each get completely replaced with machines (women are no longer needed once there are no men). **
|
1157 |
1158 |
1159 |
With only a 130 day orbit, that has to be a pretty cold Sun. **
1160 |
1161 |
1162 |
1163 |
Niall Fergusson, the historian, referred to the way that cultures around the world are losing their uniqueness and becoming more and more the same as one of the great paradoxes of history. In other words, historians recognise the phenomenon but cannot explain it. **
1164 |
In Reality, there is no limit to smallness. And no absolute zero. **
1165 |
Arminius wrote:
»Dark matter is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory.« ** **
How do people know this? **
1166 |
Actually, although I do agree that Science over-uses excuses to an extreme, in this case, I can verify the necessary existence of dark matter (unless they foolishly define it wrongly as they did with aether).
Dark matter is actually a gravity field without a mass object presumed to be the cause of it. In reality, mass does not create a gravity field, but rather a gravity field creates the mass object. Dark matter is the field before it has created the mass. And it might not ever create that mass because it requires an extreme accumulation and concentration for particles to form to produce matter.
Within a vast cloud of dark matter, there are very probably small particles, possibly even rocks, merely too small to see from a great distance. But the particles are not required for the gravity effect to still be present. So Dark Matter is simply a cloud of gravity field or better known as a large cloud of Affectance. **
1167 |
Socratus wrote:
»Nature and Infinity.
=.
There are two separate infinite substances that exist in Nature:
infinitely big and infinitely small.
The infinitely big substance is Zero Vacuum: T=0K.
(spacetime continues forever)
The infinitely small substance is Plancks constant
- quantum of light - ( h, h*).
These two constants are fundament of creation everything in Nature.
....« **Planck's length has, well, extension, it is not infinitely small. You could come up with a smaller number rather easily. Not saying it is a real limit or not, but it not infinitely small. **
1168 |
Arminius wrote:
»My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.
The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.« ** **
Yes. And interestingly, if our Sun were to suddenly stop orbiting the galaxy, the Earth would fall into the Sun. **
1169 |
Arminius wrote:
»Energy and mass are equivalent, they are interconvertible.« ** **
Both mass and energy are properties.
Mass is a property associated with inertia.
Energy is a property associated with ability to affect through time and distance.Inertia is an inverse measure of something's ability to be affected over time and/or distance (affect / speed).
And energy is a measure of the ability to affect something through time and/or distance (affect speed).So naturally inertia has a relationship with energy, the ability to affect. The more affecting that is already involved (the more energy), the less affecting can be added and thus the more inertia is present (the inability to be affected). And the more inertia involved (the inability to be affected), the more affecting is present to be redistributed (energy). What is interesting is that it is the speed of light that defines that relationship.
The speed of light is what it is because it is logically impossible for any affect to propagate faster. It is logically impossible because the propagation of light is what determines what we call distance (the separation of affects) as well as what we call time (the measure of relative change / affect). If the universe were to instantly alter merely the speed of light, everything throughout the universe would expand or contract and speed up or slow down accordingly and thus there would be no perceptible change. The propagation of light is the »god« of time and distance, »speed«.
What E=Mc^2 is saying is that if you take the measure of ability to affect something through time and distance (energy = affect * speed) and divide out the speed (time and distance) you are left with merely an amount of affect independent of speed of affect,
E/c = A.And if you take the measure of something's inability to be further affected over time and distance (inertia = affect / speed) and multiply it by the speed of affect, you get that same amount of affect as before,
Mc = A.Thus;
E/c = Mc
E = Mc²{{Brought to you by Affectance Ontology}}
1170 |
Arminius wrote:
»My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.
The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.« ** **
Like this: Http://rhysy.net/solar-system-vortex.html ? **
![]() | ![]() |
That's a great theory, because it's right. **
1171 |
Arminius wrote:
»So for you the equation E = mc² is not false, isn't it?
Because for you the affect is given by E / c and by m c.
In other words: You use Einsteins equation in order to show what your theory is all about. For you affect is energy and matter in relation to speed.« ** **
From what I understand their E = Mc^2 is not actually precise. They do not define mass or energy very precisely by my standards, so I don't presume relations that they profess. Affectance ontology is about affectance and logic and from that, I derive what their »energy« and »mass« must mean. But those are not terms in AO. AO has its own terms and units of measure. So I have to translate.
Things like »gravity attraction«, »charge attraction«, and »forces« don't exist in AO, but what does exist in AO reveals why those things have been noted and named. Energy is almost exactly equivalent to Affectance. But there is no equivalence for »mass« in AO. In AO, a sub-atomic particle is merely a spot of high density affectance with no discernible borders. In AO, there are no forces pushing or pulling on anything. Things move only due to the affectance field being uneven and particles migrate through the gradient field due to the fact that they are under constant reconstruction and they reconstruct more readily in a more dense field than less dense, not being aware of another particle anywhere (no forces). A particle is just a spot of electro-magnetic noise. **
|
1172 |
![]() |
Toyota is developing devices to help carry the elderly or provide mobility support and Toli Corp has created a mat with a wireless sensor that can track and deliver feedback if an elderly person is moving around.
A special robot with 24 fingers has been developed for hair washing and head massage, useful if a person has limited arm movement. It is something Panasonic has also tried out in Japanese hair salons. **
1173 |
1174 |
1175 |
1176 |
1177 |
Arminius wrote:
»If a particle is merely a spot of high density affectance with no discernible borders ... and ... a spot of electro-magnnetic noise, as you said, then it would be a bit difficult to define a particle like physicists usually do. Because in that case no border means that there is no difference between a particle and its environment (visible, cognizable), and electromagnetic noise is just energy with a medium.« ** **
Ab = »Ambient Affectance Level«True, and also they presumed that a particle is always of a fixed size. But in reality, a particle chooses its size based upon its ambient environment
This is a little anime to give a visual for the size and shape concerns of a particle relative to its ambient affectance:
The small green spikes represent MCR occurrences gauged by probability, exponentially increasing as the affectance level increases. Each of those spikes would actually be reaching for infinity. While MCR points gather into a center for a particle, they inherently form a maximum change density, MCD. A monoparticle's center is at that density. The density then drops off in three dimensions by the Lorentzian equation.
I was expecting the Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) to be the final equation realized, but for some reason it seems to be inaccurate at far distances from the particle. I can't get positive proof of the exact equation because I require a particular surface integral that it seems not even Mathematica has in their library, which has to be the largest in the world. So I check the equation using the old fashion method of merely incremental estimations.
To verify the equation, I assume an extremely small sphere around every point throughout the region and take 50 million sample measurements of the density on the surface of the sphere, average them, and check it against the center of the sphere. A stable particle must have every point's affectance level equal to the average of the surface of a differential sphere about that point. And when I do that, the Lorentzian turns out to be more accurate than the Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) except in the very center of the particle. That indicates that either the density isn't exactly a Lorentzian (perhaps a Viogt is better) or the verification method isn't accurate in that region. A Lorentzian produces a little sharper point at the center, so I would expect my verification method to be less accurate. It surprised me to find that the Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) has considerably more error at far regions where the density is relatively flat.
As the ambient affectance level (the density) gets high, new particles can spontaneously form. If they do that, especially close to the original particle, the region's affectance level increases more than merely the addition of the two. And if the second particle is very close to the first, it is likely to spawn a third which would be enough to begin a Black-Hole of ever increasing mass/affectance. I would like to find the exact equation for that, but I seem to have limited resources. A professional mathematician would of course help.
A Black-hole doesn't actually have a peak center but rather many peaks within a center region, all in great turmoil. So the mass or affectance density distribution changes from that of merely a monoparticle. The mass distribution (and thus gravity) around a Black-hole is different than that of merely a very large particle. But until I can get a more accurate means to verify the exact equation, I'm not really interested in finding out what equation would suit a Black-hole and its gravity field. **
1178
Arminius wrote:
»Maybe that the »dark matter« exists, but who really knows?« ** **
I know (even more certainly than they guess).
It certainly exists, but I can't say that it is the cause of what they are talking about. I am not an astrophysicist.
Yes, but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes to argue like them. **
1179 |
1180 |
Arminius wrote:
»When the servants have reached a certain percentage or even a majority of the population, they can not be stopped anymore. This is proved by life experience.« ** **
And that is why religions and races play "the numbers game" with peasants.
Androids play into the numbers game by removing all human races out of the servant position. But by doing that, the androids become the new race. **
1181 |
A race is a race. It doesn't matter who made the runners of it. **
1182 |
What's wrong with robots? They haven't committed any crimes and aren't likely to be religious, political or hypocritical liars. Why give them a resume of evil before their careers even started. **
Since there is so little empathy by humans for humans and robots unlikely to feel hate assuming there is no human contamination, I can't really object if that became the future. Far preferable to Muslims with Koran in hand taking over most of Europe in fifty years who are creating their own little robots programmed according to scripture. **
1183 |
I do not want human made - read:flawed - empathyless, neutral machines to have a tremendous amount of power. **
They might kill everyone because it seemed logical to them. **
1184 |
It all seems to be in an effort to maintain a religious belief in early thermodynamics (which kicked off the Secular religious movement). **
1185 |
| |
![]() |
I take it that Gaußian is the German for Gaussian, which would mean that Gauß would be the German for Gauss? **
1186 |
1187 |
Arminius wrote:
»Carl Friedrich Gauß was the greatest mathematician of all time.« ** **
That is quite possibly true. I was impressed long before I knew much about him simply from the few formulae that were attributed to him. I remembering thinking at the time, »damn, whoever envisioned this had to be seriously sharp«.
But most geniuses come and go without notice. It is good when one gets a little attention by being in the right place at the right time.
And since I don't have the »ß« key, and it reminds me too much of a »B«, forgive me for continuing to use the »ss«). **
Besides, I suspect that the »ß« was actually merely his script for »ss«? **
Ahh ..., so it really was a double »s« ..., »Ss« **
1188 |
The best thing one can say about humans is that they themselves are nothing more than malfunctioning machines. **
1189 |
|
1190 |
1191 |
1192 |
I don't think Islam will in the long term withstand »Western« Culture, just as Christianity and every other religion is falling to modernism, physicalism, capitalism, consumerism, »I am my surface«-ism, modularism, and then transhumanism which is the fart at the end of this indigestion. Not that I am rooting for Islam. In general we are supposed to choose between bullies with poor and damaging Weltanschauungen. **
1193 |
![]() |
1194 |
Heathen is too broad a term. It more or less means, not Jewish/Christian and I suppose Islamic. **
So heathens lead all sorts of kinds of lives. **
I am not sure he has to live it in any particular way. Those heathens who might resist the current winning worldview also do this in a variety of ways. **
1195 |
Arminius wrote:
»But not a monotheistic one, right?« ** **
If only technically. **
How should a heathen live to bring freedom back? (is that the question?) **
It depends on what lines of causation one believes in. Which varies from heathen to heathen. **
|
1196 |
Old hat! **
When haven't jobs been lost to new technologies? It's not that which causes economic collapse. **
It's the absolute stupidity of governments .... **
It's the absolute stupidity of governments - what they qualify as expediency - and the massive rampant greed of corporations who are »too big to fail« though fail they should, who get bailed out every time at the expense of main street, the producers. That's what completely distorts economics not new technologies which usually have the opposite effect, though admittedly, there is an adjustment period. One of the most technological countries on the planet, Germany where robotics are rampant, don't seem to be suffering under a huge unemployment problem. **
1197 |
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** ** | |||
Yes
(by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention | |
Arminius, | Dan, Mr. Reasonable, Fuse, Esperanto, Only Humean, Gib, Uccisore, Zinnat Phyllo, Barbarianhorde, Ivory Man. | Obe, Lev Muishkin, Kriswest, Mithus, Nano-Bug, Lizbethrose, Cassie, Eric The Pipe, Backspace Losophy. | |
Sum: | 6 | 11 | 9 |
1198 |
I'll change my vote when I see four holy men passing notes. **
1199 |
![]() |
I seem to recall me saying in this thread that if the international elites have their way that they will initiate programs where machines virtually replace everybody on all levels of civilization Arminius. Abstention? **
1200 |
Work nowadays takes up a majority of my time and soon going to school at the same time will also. **
1201 |
Imagine that you have a completely blank notepad and you are not going to write anything at all onto it until what you write is absolutely certain to be true, »incontrovertible«. At that point, most people give up for a variety of excuses already. But the reality is that it actually can be done despite that irrational proposition that "I am absolutely certain that nothing is absolutely certain ....« **
1202 |
1203 |
1204 |
Will the elites themselves eventually get replaced by their very own creations? An interesting question. **
1205 |
|
1206 |
Humans replace humans with a race of androids = »too late« to save the species.
Reality has limited forgiveness. **
1207 |
1208 |
1209 |
1210 |
Arminius wrote:
»James, I recommend you to open a thread: AFFECTANCE ONTOLOGY.« ** **
Really?
Realize that Affectance Ontology is a very precise ontology of ALL existence. It covers the fields of Physics, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Religion, Governance, Intelligence, Consciousness, All Sciences .... It is a different mindset, more fundamental than what Man has been using (as well as being more precise). It isn't merely a university course. It is at least an entire university curriculum. One should expect to get a PhD in merely one facet of Affectance Ontology. So where to begin?
What part of reality would you want to focus on?
For what purpose would you be interested?
I need something to narrow down the topic, else it is a thread on »ALL EXISTENCE«. **
1211 |
What does »symmetry of time« mean? **
1212 |
Cosmology or astronomy is not a field that I have much interest or great knowledge about. **
Why are you interested in it? **
I haven't been terribly interested in cosmology .... **
During the next 500 years, so much more will be known for certain .... **
And you did read The Fundamentals page, right? Do I need to repost that whole thing, or was there any particular part of interest or question concerning it? **
1213 |
![]() |
1214 |
1215 |
The past is different from the future. One of the most obvious features of the macroscopic world is irreversibility: heat doesn't flow spontaneously from cold objects to hot ones, we can turn eggs into omelets but not omelets into eggs, ice cubes melt in warm water but glasses of water don't spontaneously give rise to ice cubes. We remember the past, but not the future; we can take actions that affect the future, but not the past (we can't undo our mistakes). We are all born, then age, then die; never the other way around. The distinction between past and future seems to be consistent throughout the observable universe. The arrow of time is simply that distinction, pointing from past to future.
Why is there such an arrow?
Irreversible processes are summarized by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: the entropy of a closed system will (practically) never decrease into the future. It's a bedrock foundation of modern physics.
What's »entropy«?
Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. A nice organized system, like an unbroken egg or a neatly-arranged pile of papers, has a low entropy; a disorganized system, like a broken egg or a scattered mess of papers, has a high entropy. Left to its own devices, entropy goes up as time passes. - Sean Carroll.
1216 |
»The time asymmetry violates what we think are the laws of physics.« **
==>
|