To subscribe to this blog's RSS feed, just click the link below.
Full Blog RSS: http://www.gpofr.com/portal/blog7rss.aspxUpdate - Videos, Simulations, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Static Frame, and The Same Thing
Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:29:44 GMT
I have a few updates to post.
First I have added 5 videos taken during my presentation of my work to an international group of scientisits. My presentation was recieved much better than I expected because I know its fairly radical which doesn't mean its wrong or on the wrong track. I believe strongly that its on the right track.
http://www.gpofr.com/videos.aspx
I have also added a simulations tab to the homepage - a star system changing into a atom.
http://www.gpofr.com/documents/sims/Star2Atom/publish.htm
Lastly, I have added to the library page a document title "GPRA Project - Evolution 2.0 - Hypothesis".
http://www.gpofr.com/library.aspx
Recently I had a discussion by email about Darwinism and Intelligent Design:
"I'm of the school that infinity does exists (Universal size for example) but I also believe that introducing infinity to any equation breaks all the rules in regards to probability and this includes existence of an infinite entity. I'm not saying I believe in God because I like to debate to-and-fro about his existence. I like to play the devil's advocate on almost all subjects (so Greg we share a kinship there...dissentship). What I really don't like are conclusive statements either for or against. I'd rather hear, " I don't know," or," based on this there is a probability." Of course we're all guilty of making conclusive statements, but I also find science full of them (and their arguments should have been well thought out to be part of mainstream...evolution of science of sorts) which is why I don't like Neo-Darwinism way before I got involved on the outskirts of science. Let's say that Big Bang theory is wrong (partially or whole) and that the Universe has actually existed for an infinite amount of time and that the whole Universe is spacially infinite, with that I can in a probability formula (using a 3-spacial & 1-time matrix in a computer program) determine that there is an infinite probability that any formation is possible including any type of life form. The problem is it also includes, or concludes, an infinite probability for an infinite living entity (a life form that is all of space and time...has always existed and is everywhere) and that it is also probably infinitely intelligent. It's really crazy, but interesting. Essentially, we are all part of this life form (pantheistic view). When I've debated for God's existence (over a cold beer usually) the main argument against was usually, " why doesn't he make himself known?" and my answer has always been the same, " how do you expect him to say hi?" What I mean is how do you think an infinite entity should say/express or manifest himself? The answer is probably the simplest. This entity is probably always expressing himself through nature, over time, even through our own human actions because we are part of this entity. If I or you say hi, then it can be taken as this entity saying hi. Question then becomes, who is initiating the action, you or this entity and can we differentiate even if we knew. Of course I can debate that an infinitely large entity doesn't necessarily mean its infinitely intelligent (it's just an infinite probability) or that he created anything in his entity (like you or me), but you can't conclusively say ya or nay to that question. I think the reality is Darwinism and Intelligent Design together are are probably correct. Perhaps that's the rule. Opposing schools together make the correct theory for any subject.
Ok last video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related
Richard Dawkins proposing highly intelligent life designing life on Earth. The obvious question is how did that highly intelligent life come about, and was itself created in a similar fashion also designed by a higher intelligent life ... and so on."
Continued correspondence:
"I agree in intelligent design as in intelligent people designing and building things. I also believe that we are the most intelligent beings on this planet but not necessarily in the whole Universe, and with that in mind, if other more intelligent beings exist out there than we as humans can't comprehend the engineering marvels by these other beings. It's like a dog trying to understand how his master built his dog house. Essentially I believe in fractal intelligent design because we're doing it, or on the verge of doing it, today in computer science with AI and robotic technology. Self reproducing AI's that preform a specific task such as maintenance (another discussion about entropy decaying everything unless its maintained). Point is that's what we can do now at our level of intelligence so imagine what a much higher intelligence can do? Its incomprehensible to us. In a fractal intelligent design perspective, a highly intelligent species builds another less-intelligent species (like a robot of sorts mechanically or genetically) who in turn has the ability to learn and improve themselves and could actually in time design and make another species...and so on. I believe in that, but to believe that then you have to also go that extra mile and bring infinity into the equation. Fractally at an infinitely high intelligence, what can such an entity make/create? His creations would be incomprehensible to our level of understanding. And then there is designing species where the designer inherently maintains control over every aspect of his creation through the programming, the designed mechanics and the designed environment (enclosure like a cage or...computer matrix). And what about the intelligent entities near but not at an infinite intelligence? Infinity breaks all the rules when you apply it to probability equations and fractal mathematics. Have you every wondered what it would mean if the light speed limit of c was removed (not that it actually is a speed limit at all). It means that an infinite velocity would be possible and that brings with it a lot of craziness, like an object traveling at infinity being everywhere in the infinite Universe at the same time. So if it takes, as a rule of thumb (and history shows this), that the more intelligent a species/people become the faster they can travel (through engineering breakthroughs), than at an infinite intelligence that species or entity can be everywhere at the same time. But an object, or entity, traveling at infinity and being able to be everywhere at the same time has huge implications. Does it mean that this object becomes space itself it is literally everywhere?? In my scaling theory (Realitivistic Relativity), at an infinite velocity an object would become infinitely small, a point singularity, and could be everywhere at the same time all the time. Now what if that object is intelligent? Could this intelligent entity traveling at an infinite velocity change the mechanics of physics as we know it at will because he is in between every physical event/action? I can't even fathom the implications on fractal existence of things in a space where the space's main body is an object, or entity, traveling at infinity making up that space or existing in the space. The whole thing is crazy, but we have to push the limits if only for argument sake.
As far as I'm concerned (and agreeing with you), if God exists, and I'm inclined to believe that he does based on my own research, than he expresses himself through us in our actions, consciousness, derivative works (like the Bible) and in everything around us through the infinite levels of fractal life at an incomprehensible level."
Static Frame of Reference
In regards to the question of an absolute rest/static frame of reference. It exists if the Universe is infinite and is defined simply through concept and mathematics.
Conceptually, the larger the system (star system -> galaxy -> galaxy cluster -> super galaxy cluster) the slower the system changes.
Mathematically, the w=(r X v)/r^2 = (v)(sin(angle))/r^2 where r=radius, v=linear velocity and w=angular velocity. Pick any arbitrary point in space and extend r outward pointing at a planet, then a star system, then a far away galaxy and then a galaxy cluster and so on.
If pointing at a planet (r), within your life time w>0.
If pointing at another star system (extending r further), within your life time w~0. Angular velocity will stay virtually 0.
If pointing at far away galaxy (extending r even further), within your life time w~=0. Angular velocity will be much closer to absolute 0.
An absolute rest/static frame of reference comes into play where r->INFINITY. If r=INFINITY, w=0.
This has immense implications on relativity of motion of objects. If the Universe has a diameter of d=INFINITY where from any arbitrary point in the Universe to the edge of the Universe is still INFINITY then anything "in" that system has a static frame of reference the ENTIRE WHOLE INFINITE SYSTEM. Essentially, relativity must always reference this rest/static frame of reference since everything we know is "inside" it including the actual space we live in which obliterates Einstein's relativity or augments it extensively.
Coulomb (C) = Kilogram (Kg)
A reply to an argument about why I've concluded that coloumb and kilograms (charge and mass) are the same thing in my work:
"In regards to metric Coulomb and Kilogram unit being interchangeable in this framework, you have to fully understand that if the same thing, same object, and its mass are perceived differently at large differences in velocity, such as between low velocities and those near, at and beyond the speed of light, than Coulomb and Newton themselves did not have insight into the possibility that they were defining the same thing by two different units by defining characteristics of mass and charge and that is why we inherently developed two separate units for the same physical quality experienced differently due only to a difference in velocity. This has baffled me why people have a hard time understanding this. Its because current dogma is so ingrained."
And because I'm feeling a bit sentimental I want to leave you with the following video by one of my favourite bands:
Robert L. DeMelo (www.gpofr.com) Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009
...
