What is Real?

[Plasmatic]

I agree with Wal Thornhill and Plasmatic (shock-horror revelation) that you cannot get something from nothing. But to me that is simply because there is no such thing as 'nothing'.

I agree as well , There is no "nothing" . Nothing is a concept that only applies to the absensce of something that exist in a given context. Most folks take this to mean that "anything" is possible" because every possibility is a part of existence. As Ive said befor when I say theres "nothing" in my pocket , I am not declaring there is a concrete called nothing in my pocket. I think the biggest problem in philosophy and physics is failure to seperate the conceptually abstract from the concrete. So in the "real" sense there are no fairies and goblins , in this context they are non-existent.

[junglelord]

Even though you do not believe in nothing, you believe you have nothing...thats quite amazing.
You state you only believe in cause and effect, at the same time the universe just is.
Both of those statements or articles of faith you have are always non logical. Your own beliefs are at opposition to each other.

The current paradigm of more and more specialization, learning more and more about less and less, leads to a total knowledge of everything about nothing!
Carver Mead/Feynaman/Collective Electrodynamics
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... T0#PPA6,M1

One can learn everything about nothing....reductionism does that do you.

[Plasmatic]

One caould also claim that fals eideas about what is real as a concrete will lead on to think that "everything" including concepts are existents in the concrete sense making no distinction between the 2.

[bboyer]

I think thats a poor logical approach.
Do both of you believe in 3D space?
If so tell me how these non material constructs of 90 degrees are not real?

What's this both of you business?

They aren't non-material, now that I think about it. They are conceptual. So, yes, they are real concepts. I don't view thoughts and concepts as non-material.

Your seemly trying to say one cannot answer what is quantiative of the non material dimensions.

Einstein would laugh at that.

To clarify, now that I've had a little more time to cogitate I'm saying that dimensions are not non-material, they are material concepts and, of course, can be mathematically conceptually quantified, such as 6 ft, 50 gallons, 2x2x2, ad infinitum.

I should care what Einstein finds humorous?

Your trying to tell me we cannot quantify 3D space?

Of course, that's what conceptual math is all about isn't it? A room with 10x10 square feet of area could be useful to know. We take a tape or stick or whatever that has its own real material existence and superimpose on it our conceptual ideas about the dimension of length that we find useful to know. And from there we conceptually assign those units onto whatever physical entity we are measuring with the tape or stick for some useful purpose. But the dimensions are not immaterial - they are material thoughts imposed upon denser material (aka physical) structure.

You cannot put any of the three dimensions in anything, they are non material.
You cannot put time in a bucket either.
Yet all four are quite real.
In fact they are considered as real dimensions.

Buckets are just buckets. And those analogies are silly, of course, because you're mixing metaphors. I can't put a quart into a bottle. But I can make a bottle using my quart measurement standard that will hold a quart OF some thing. It is the physical bottle that gives meaning to and definition to the concept of a quart. The idea of a quart is a materially formed thought. So the dimension of a quart has some degree of materiality, no matter how tenuous.

Example: A jealous husband gets a fully formed thought of his wife cheating on him. He might even be able to describe to you in full vivid detail the thought-picture he is seeing. Subsequently, he feels a jealous emotional rage build up. Blah blah blah. Each stage condensed into denser materiality. I can't help it if our instruments aren't sensitive enough to measure the exact dimensions of a single thought but they are getting some indirect aspects of them such as brain "waves".

And it can be argued that there is an immaterial "source" behind our thoughts. I have no problem with that either, but THAT is NOT susceptible to dimensional measurement because it would truly be immaterial. Hence the trouble materialists have with notions of immaterial spirit and the like (which in most cases are actually only material thoughts about the immaterial which is like focusing on the fingers and not the reality being pointed to).

There has to be some direct connection to the denser physical aspect to give any possible meaning to our purpose of measuring dimension. In the example of thought, it would be the interface with the denser, physical brain, glands, etc if we want to draw off some sort of measurement about thought. At least with current instrumentation.

So it's not about toting around buckets full of mental concepts like dimensions. But it is about relating those self-same material concepts to the denser, explicit material reality that we want to measure.

Time doesn't go with buckets, although buckets like every physical thing (even thoughts and concepts) do exhibit duration. Again, mixing metaphors. Time goes with clocks and time pieces. And cesium "atoms" or whatever they're using as the standard nowadays. Like length goes with tapes and sticks. It's just a superimposition of conceptual thoughts onto denser physical objects.

In the case of time, a stick wouldn't do unless it was vibrating at a certain detectable, reliable rate. Sticks don't usually do that. But compressible watch springs, oscillating quartz crystals, vibrating bits of cesium - physical things that move with a consistent rate that correlate well with our traditional sense of days and nights those are useful "time sticks." Tracking, measuring the duration of some motion is again a materially mental ongoing activity. But it is completely useless to think of time as a THING, and most particularly useless to think it's something immaterial that somehow stands on its own AS A DIMENSION. It is the THOUGHT of time that gives us the sensation that it exists as an entity of its own right. It is entirely and completely conceptual.

As you have said - but I have to question whether you really live it and know it to be true - the only time there is is NOW. And that cannot be measured and is truly immaterial. If you start counting "The Now" then you are no longer IN the now but are IN your mind distracted from The Now by keeping track of past-present-future "dimensional" time; an illusion. Honestly, if you really, fully knew that then I don't think you'd be granting any credence to the likes of Bearden and whoever else is advocating such things as waves traveling in "backward" time as something that supposed to be meaningful.

Your ok with that, but not with anyother validation of the nonmaterial?

Just so I understand your view on the standard model

Guess it'd be safe to say then that I am not okay with the concept of measuring non-materiality. Makes no sense. That does not equate to a denial of the reality, the experience, of the non-material. Only that it is dimensionless and unmeasurable. The immaterial can only either be directly experienced or avoided (as most commonly in mental noise and distraction, ignoring it, having a belief about it one way or the other). Hence, it is beyond the grasp of science simply because it cannot be grasped and measured.

That should fly like a lead balloon. Maybe I should go back to being a recluse.

[bboyer]

To Arc-us, Plasmatic and Junglelord.
Gentlemen, it seems to me that you are falling victim to the age old problem of language. Or, as I think of it, labels.

Ah, but then you commence to come out and play.

[Michael Noonan]

What is real is a question I have been looking at for over a year now. This idea is not quite electric universe but it has some very strong similarities and deals with energy and heat distribution of structure. I came in from a gravity background but found that there is so much more to the dynamics of energy.

Briefly one can describe matter from the big bang in this fashion using structure.
1. An initial inflating ball of energy.
2. Turbulence with localised hot and cold spots.
3. Tornadoes form from the cold spots like any weather pattern.
4. The vortex forms a hot swirling centre some distance from the opening.
5. The storm continues for the full 130,000 years of bright inflation,
6. No use of nuclear forces has been required.
7. Without further energy a dark epoch in which vortices merge.
8. Equalisation of size mostly small and swallowed by a few grand vortex structures.
9. Connection as the vortices or tornadoes join to form tubes.

In this way the most stable of matter the proton is a structure of energy and is able to interact with energy. The symmetry is equal for the estimated size of the universe to the proton to the smallest movement Planck time and both relate to light.

The strong nuclear force is simulated by the circular opening of the worm hole which is what connected tornadoes would be. They are an energy structure. The weak nuclear force would be the slight asymmetry almost barely detectable of a gate opening and the electromagnetic force is the charge separation of one end of the worm hole to the other.

Quantum theorists didn't like the idea of the forces being simulated by energy so it got a rough time. The charge separation comes from the static of the initial inflation preserved in the proton structures. Gravity is the rest energy attraction relative to the gate of the worm hole and is very small compared to the simulated forces holding the gate together.

The universe contained this way is a thermal distribution pattern of heat or energy and conservation of static charge. There is more. The structure is a six dimension construct which can be calculated on the fourth derivative of x^4 which if calculated from the middle reduces to the second derivative of distance making it a snapshot of the universe ds^2=x^2+y^2 the x,y component structure recognises that charge must be conserved and gives a position on one side the wall of the tornado.

Using some quantum there is an energy that holds all structure together but not in the entirety at the end quantum works at. For a fully captured universe there is pressure of energy. An analogy is the human body can be described in a six dimension geometry using coordinate x.y and is used in CADCAM and in circulatory and nerve distribution and flow diagrams. Like blood pressure there is a high and a low but no zero. All the energy and electric charge is capture within the universe. Using six dimensions the proton can equally be seen as the inner boundary or the outer boundary but is easier to picture as a central boundary with quantum energies being reflections and not particles.

In electric universe the connectedness of structure right through the universe is recognised. What I would add that is a bit different is there need not be an outer charge provider. Each human body has the energy if converted to do major damage to a city in the strong nuclear simulated component but we do not feel it. As such our position as impartial observer is compromised. This leads to numerous theories based on the look from within the bounds of structure. There is an energy we are part of even space is part of that we can not register and so absolute zero is at best a false zero which is why helium is still liquid until subject to 25 atmospheres at absolute zero.

Galaxies are huge tornado structures in space and space itself is plastic able to be bent deformed stretched dragged or have holes poked in it. A hole becomes an energy hole and so is a worm hole structure. As conservation of charge is vital symmetry of galaxy arms means one is charged opposite to the other and bound in structure. Now here is why the Relativists didn't agree. A star can bend a beam of light. A galaxy of 400 billion stars should be able to connect it and so the orbits are the same for much of the length of a galaxy. If light is constant in a uniform density of electrical and other energy then it is the dragging of space that gives the galaxy an edge as light is unable to reach us due to the stretch and velocity of the drag of space. The inner is bright as light is concentrated from what looks like the flat interior. If you drive quickly through a tunnel it appears to flatten somewhat. Lorentz effect.

Redshift is the very slight increase of density as the structure of the universe is deflating. It only appears open based on our perception. Protons absorb the increase and show very minimal decrease in size so based on our proton composition it is natural to assume an even expansion. The interesting footnote to this is that gravity based relative to the worm hole gate increases more than in the voids so early birds that could not fly in our time would have had much less resistance in prehistoric times and dinosaur musculature would be more like the slim reptiles of the present. Redshift as in the high ping given off by a patrol boat is heard in a submarine as a considerably lower pitch note.

In solar terms when a sunspot forms it is a tornado going inwards and when the tip is energetic enough it may describe one or more arches and at a point open up to briefly form a worm hole to give a coronal mass ejection which is immediately followed by the tsunami like collapse of the sunspot which if at the surface would be the epicentre of collapse. Reconnection is when the tip of the vortex or tornado holds closed and the gravity of the sun lets it fall back inward where it may fall into the vortex mouth or along the tornado structure itself.

The sun in an energy environment actually draws on the static electricity of the galaxy which the galaxy in turn gets from larger super galaxy structures and so on. The sun is a planet and at 99.9% of the mass of the solar system is the reason our earth i not at the temperature of the local bubble we are travelling through which is also at 6000 degrees the same temperature as the surface of the sun. We receive heat as the sun processes the vast bulk of the charge it collects. A black hole is then a non phenomenon meaning it is a worm hole linking to structure elsewhere in the universe, most likely nebula as superluminal effect have been observed although dismissed by the relativists. Jets notably the Virgo super cluster galaxy M87 has also got a superluminal jet approximately dragging space at least at three times the speed of light to give an overall effect of four times the speed of light and again dismissed by relativists.

So ds^2=x^2+y^2 is an energy distribution formula for an ellipse with structure of energy and charge within in much the same way the expanding balloon analogy is used to describe what looks like four dimensional expanding space from within the universe. It didn't take into account a base energy level outside our perception that could only be derived from logic from the few clues we have. AS movement is continuous the situation is flow and dynamic with rotation and structure being very important.

I hope this idea is of some use. It is intended as a framework to help link the various theories at common points but has met resistance on some forums.

Michael

[Grey Cloud]

Ah, but then you commence to come out and play.

Hoist by my own petard.

[Plasmatic]

Maybe I should go back to being a recluse.

Ah stay a while, that "arc" aint gonna mind if your enjoying expressing your own conceptual choices no matter who agrees , including myself if it shows up.

[bboyer]

Maybe I should go back to being a recluse.

Ah stay a while, that "arc" aint gonna mind if your enjoying expressing your own conceptual choices no matter who agrees , including myself if it shows up.

Just waiting for the next big Birkeland wave ... er ... current outta here. Whole new meaning to "surfing the Internet," indeed.

[junglelord]

I know the structural engineering principle that creates matter from the non material, it is tensegrity.

I made a post for that revelation.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... ?f=8&t=550

To Arc-us, Plasmatic and Junglelord.
Gentlemen, it seems to me that you are falling victim to the age old problem of language. Or, as I think of it, labels.

Is that not the truth! I called spin a dimension (the fifth) yesterday for several hours.
Dave Thomson corrected that...spin is a unit.
Dooh


I will be gone all week until I have APM fully and simply understood.

It reorganizes unit, measurement, dimension, constant with the observations of Classical Mechanics.

Clearly I am still caught in some of the classical mess over language. Some of that my own fault, most of it the fault of the classical mess we are taught. APM is the only source I will study for a week. My trying to use comparative methodolgy with other models I have encountered on the journey has me still snagged in the classical trap when bridging the gap between them and APM.

APM is not a classical trap, I feel that is a 100% truth.

Back in one week forum
cheers...wonder how quiet it will be with me locked in a room with my APM Book for a week. Have fun group.

[shrunkensimon]

"Thoughts and dreams - existence but no being, yet both are 'real'. Many of us have woken from a dream drenched in sweat. Your body thought the dream was 'real' but 'you' 'know' it was 'only a dream'." - Grey Cloud

Hmmm i disagree with this statement. If you consider that all existence everywhere is merely the interaction of certain potentials and waveforms, then the "Physical" world is no more tangible than the dream world. Its all equally unreal. Anyone who has ever experienced Astral Projection or even Lucid Dreaming knows that there are realms outside the physical one that seem just as real, if not infact MORE real than this one. But just because they lack a concrete foundation that we humans are so used to calling "real", does not make them any less "being" than the physical dimension.

"So time is not a dimension?
Time is not real?" - Junglelord

In my honest opinion, no. Time is neither real nor a dimension. I can not prove what im about to say, and i know those who refuse to acknowledge more to physical existence will have trouble even accepting the idea; Time does not exist. Time only exists when one is seperated from "spirit" as it were, when one forgets in every waking moment his/her connection to "all that is". Left brain vs right brain consciousness. Left brain thinks linear. Right brain sees the whole picture. Right brain experiences can be had on entheogenic substances, and also through meditation and other such practices. Time is a concept, a useful concept though, for humans to navigate this experience. Same for the 3 dimensional construct. This is also nothing more than a concept, and not a reality. Thats hard to accept if one has never seen beyond the senses, so to speak.

"What is real" then..

I think most people subconcsiously associate "real" with "solid" and "matter", thanks to our 'fantastic' education system. And most people picture matter or solid, as spheres/balls of energy.. despite the fact that most atoms are 99% empty space lol..

In sanskrit, there is no word for "matter". There is a word however, for "form", which i personally think is helpful when trying to contemplate the question "what is real"..

As Bill Hicks once said;

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration … that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And here's Tom with the weather..."

[shrunkensimon]

I disagree with the assertion that you "can not get something from nothing". If you think in terms of strictly physical, and never venture outside this mindstate and cross over into metaphysical ideas, then you will indeed fail to ever see the real possibility of "something from nothing". And "reality" is anything but just physical. If you haven't realized this, and are strictly stuck within the confines of the modern "logical" scientific type approach, then you really are missing out on what life is all about..

Imagination, for example, is something from nothing. The ability to construct something in the minds eye, completely new and unrelated to anything you had previously experienced with the 5 senses. Tesla would have something to say on this i believe

I know one will be tempted to say, "but thoughts/imgaination are not real.. and matter is real".. however, and i can't convince you this is the case, but both are equally real. If one tends to think purely in terms of physical units and such, one will never come to the simple realization of his/her place within existence.. its the same as if you consider "you", your awareness, to be purely the product of the human brain, when it is clearly not the case (awareness can exist outside physical structure).

To be caught within the confines of thinking strictly in terms of physical units and dimensions etc, is to be totally fearful of ones own existence IMHO. Eventually you will come to the realization, even if its during the process of death of the physical body, that there is FAR more going on here than meets the eye.

You will probably also realize how irrelevant and pointless constructs such as "time" and "space" really are.. they are useful tools for the completely logical sentient being to navigate this realm with.. but they are no more real than a "car" or a "tree".. they are conceptual objects labelled upon reality itself.. but that does not make them tangible or anything to do with whats really going on here

[junglelord]

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration … that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And here's Tom with the weather..."

I have seen several very good shows in the last two months on the human experience and the mind and the universe when seen through various plant chemicals. LSD, mushrooms, payotte, are just very small portion known to the american public. The more powerful substances that some aboriginal people use in the Amazon are very interesting. Not a single person who has done these drugs has ever seen the universe the same again. I often wonder if the ancients knew what they did from simple drug use? I think that is quite possible and valid.

What is real is often only in the eyes of the observer. We are so faithless unless we see if for ourself, and often the footprints mean nothing....once you do see the object of the footprints and then relate it to others, they will call you crazy....


To cosmology "experts" the idea of an EU is pure fantasy, merely footprints, probably a hoax....I however have seen the plasma stabilites and instabilites and the rock art to prove otherwise. Those footprints in the rock and the plasma lab are walking around in the universe....I swear to god!

[shrunkensimon]

I have seen several very good shows in the last two months on the human experience and the mind and the universe when seen through various plant chemicals. LSD, mushrooms are just very small portion of the more powerful substances that some aboriginal people use in the Amazon. Not a single person who has done these drugs has ever seen the universe the same again. I often wonder if the ancients knew what they did from simple drug use? I think that is quite possible and valid.

Mushrooms break down into psilocin when ingested, and psilocin is practically identical to the "holy grail", DMT (which is what you were referring to by "more powerful" substances )

And you're quite right about "never seeing the universe the same again". I have personally had the great pleasure of being able to experience DMT firsthand, and also through natural means such as meditation and lucid dreaming. I tell you now, in all honesty, you have to be a VERY closed down person to not come away from that experience feeling that, without a shadow of a doubt, that you and God are one and the same.. In the experience, there is a hidden voice almost, except its not a voice, more like direct telepathy, saying "do you see? do you see now? do you understand?"..

I think what the ancients knew, for example the Mayans and Ancient Egyptians, comes from something other than entheogens.. an entheogenic experience is more personal rather than an informative information giving experience, if that makes sense. The wisdom on display in these cultures has come from something else.. sacred geometry for example, you can experience directly on entheogens, but to understand the logic behind it all requires something else entirely IMO, a whole new way of thinking, because it is holistic knowledge, and at the same time can be broken down into pieces of immense power.

I don't doubt entheogens play a role.. but i think there is more to this puzzle than is currently realized, even by the more "fringe" amoung us, like myself

[Plasmatic]

<inappropriate remark deleted> Physical concretes fundamenatally are the constructs of concepts . One cannot form the concepts that are reqired for one to even make such confused statements without the conceptual abstraction from concretes of the concept "entity" or "unit". Even contradictions such as "they are no more real than a car" could not be formed without the concrete world of particular entities that are the source of our conceptual data. If theres no difference between cars and thoughts and the unrelated thoughts are just as real how about a demonstration. Please use your thoughts to turn my car into a square circle of gold. Whats that ? you cant ! I gues well have to stick to the rational use of concepts that reflect the world of concrete units.