the lion will have the "illusion" of a meal, and you will be a LATE human being.
The lion, the place, the world, the universe, and everything you experience is through your mind. If you believe you're mortal and if you believe you are helpless in a certain situation, then that's what you experience. You can only experience what your mind believes. Just like you believe that there is a computer screen in front of you and there is a post for you to read. They exist because your mind is wholly (holos, fully,) convinced of the concept of an "outside" world that is separate and independent from the concept of "inside". Ironically, the concept of "outside" depends on its opposite to fully define it -- they are therefore inevitably inseparable. Let's also keep in mind the Observation Problem -- a truth no scientist, no scholar, nobody can escape.
Quote:
How illusory is that?
It's only as "real" as you believe it to be.
Quote:
The quantum state of the lion's meal (you) will have remained UNCHANGED. (Edit - except that of your mind!)
You (the mind) isn't separate from the lion and the setting. The whole situation is a state of your mind. It is always changing in time (time is active, a state of persistence). The magnitude of change depends strictly on the magnitude of your belief. If you want to change your belief system, you must direct persistence (action) towards a different concept. This implicates time not instance. You need to persist the new concept to a very large amount (quantum) so that its angular momentum will have enough strength to overpower inertia (your old belief system).
So if you find yourself in that situation with the lion and you haven't persisted a new belief system, then your old belief system will win out. If you're not ready for a particular situation, don't get caught in it. Persistence = time. Only an instance is unchanged (a constant state of rest, inactivity, inaction), which explains why it can only exist as nothing. Instance is the opposite of persistence (persistence always has momentum whereas instance has none -- zero moments).
Note: The word Experience comes from Experientia which means "out of repeated trials". Therefore your range of experiences is a memory conditioning resulting from persistence, not instance. If you believe that mind is separate from reality, it means you subconsciously memorize and act accordingly to the flawed classical science that adheres to it. Therefore you experience life through those parameters.
Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:49 am
Sponsor
JazzRoc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008 Posts: 37 Location: El Medano, Tenerife, Spain
Re: Your belief makes it real
totalitariantiptoe wrote:
If you believe you're mortal and if you believe you are helpless in a certain situation, then that's what you experience.
How very "matrix" of you.
This is "does a tree fall in the forest if there's no-one to hear it?"
How come people die in their sleep? Were they ALL thinking about death? People asleep on a blown-up nightbound jumbo?
Why do predators have sharp teeth and claws? Have they ever met prey that disbelieved them? (Did it make any difference?)
Why didn't the allies tell Hitler they didn't think he threatened them? Why did they have to commission weapons and train people willing to risk death in order to hunt him down and kill him?
A "belief system" is some stable electrical/electronic/chemical system in our delicate brains. It hasn't been known to directly affect anything in its vicinity (as far as I know) - ever.
Even massed prayer hasn't ever modified events...
I enjoy this sort of argument, but within me I fear that external to me is an implicit denial of the scientific method, science and technological progress, which in the light of humanity's impending doom would just seem to accelerate it. Care to put my mind at rest?
That doesn't change the fact that the Observation Problem remains inescapable.
Quote:
does a tree fall in the forest if there's no-one to hear it?"
If there is no mind to experience a tree, there is no tree. The "tree" remains as a wave of potentiality until your belief system pertaining to "objective" reality makes it a tree.
Quote:
How come people die in their sleep?
Because you believe they are mortal; and so they are. People "outside" of you don't think, have no Free Will, have no memory, have no feelings, etc. They are merely projections of your deepest belief system. You wholly believe in mortality, and so, that is what you project.
Quote:
Why do predators have sharp teeth and claws? Have they ever met prey that disbelieved them? (Did it make any difference?)
Every predator, every prey, everything and everyone is a projection of your belief system. If you wholly believe in such concepts and their definitions, they become real. You are the only one who is capable of thought, memory, conceptualization, conviction, etc. The predators and the people you see "out there" do not define themselves. You define them. Only you.
Quote:
Why didn't the allies tell Hitler they didn't think he threatened them? Why did they have to commission weapons and train people willing to risk death in order to hunt him down and kill him?
Hitler, the allies, World War 2, and the history of mankind is a projection of your mind. You perceive a history because you wholly believe in the concept of linear symmetric time. They do not have Free Will nor feelings. You are the only one who is capable of these. What you experience "out there" is a reflection of your inner belief system. You cannot experience anything in life without mind. Plain and simple. The universe cannot exist without mind. If you say otherwise, you'd still be using your mind to say so. You cannot separate reality from the mind.
Quote:
A "belief system" is some stable electrical/electronic/chemical system in our delicate brains. It hasn't been known to directly affect anything in its vicinity (as far as I know) - ever.
Because that's what you believe, those results reflect your expectations. No matter what anyone else you experience "out there" does or says. You project the "outside" world, all of it, literally. It is only you that can change those results. In actuality, in life that is, you are literally alone (all one).
Quote:
Even massed prayer hasn't ever modified events...
There have been some results, but they have been overall inefficient. Regardless of the results, only you can determine them. No amount of massed prayer "out there" can get things done. Only you can get things done. The fact that there have been some results shows that you are unknowingly believing -- to some limited extent -- in Quantum Physics.
Quote:
Care to put my mind at rest?
Your mind is never at constant rest (it is always active -- a process that is spiraling as it changes states). Rest (inertia) is simply a condition that has no differences (it has no reference frame to refer back to itself). It is therefore an unchanged condition. Additionally, the magnitude of that conditioning determines its magnetism. So for example, if you are so convinced of something's existence, any newly introduced concept that opposes that conviction will be easily attracted to its inertia. Therefore the only way to change that conviction is to persistently impose the new concept so that its quantum state has enough momentum to overcome the state of rest. When you persist something, your reference frame changes from the old belief system to the new. Your new concept, if it has built up enough momentum, will sustain itself with its own inertia. The bigger its quantum state (the amount of persistence involved), the more magnetism it projects.
The mind is the only one that is active. The direction of its activity determines its experiences. Activity is simply Time. It is the flow of the Present (which incorporates the concept of "past" and "future"). Because it flows (it is active), it has momentum (moments). That is precisely why Time in a given direction (intention) is the fundamental key to changing reality. Since Time is Action, persisting it according to an intention gives that intention life. Life = that which has activity.
If you intend something once, it won't last. If you intend it twice, you increase its momentum from the previous "past" reference frame. If you keep intending it, then it will eventually become reality.
Quote:
but within me I fear that external to me is an implicit denial of the scientific method, science and technological progress, which in the light of humanity's impending doom would just seem to accelerate it.
There is a reason why Humanity is accelerating through such hard times. The mind needs to find a way to stop the conspiracies "out there". But in order for it to do so, it needs a reference frame of difference so that a solution to shift from it can be considered. The problems in the world are becoming more evident and obvious through time. The more they become obvious, the easier it is to find an answer to solve them.
There is no other way to stop the conspiracies in the "outside" world but by the direct application of Quantum Physics through the volition of mind. Ultimately, the seemingly unsolvable conspiracies that Humanity faces are there to help you come to terms with your omnipotent nature. That is their purpose; which explains why their level of difficulty is very extreme. Also the fact that you perceive this thread and are reading these types of responses (even if you may disagree with them) is yet another signal that you are ready to take that next step.
Subjective reality (sugar-coated term for solipsism), the notion of it can be very depressing at first. But if you can accept it (which is optional), then you're certainly ready.
Quote:
I enjoy this sort of argument
Regardless of whether you disagree with my position on the quantum theory or not, it's been an enjoyment sharing viewpoints with you.
Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:09 pm
JazzRoc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008 Posts: 37 Location: El Medano, Tenerife, Spain
Re: Omnipotence
What a truly amazing set of consistent (and very good) answers!
What do you suppose might happen if I shot you?*
Would it just be a question of belief?
*(It's rhetorical - I don't own weapons and am quite happy on my island. Also if my will/belief were to be stronger than yours there'd be one less to fight the battle!)
Hey, and anyway, I'm not sure probability waves reach out beyond atomic boundaries, and what you're doing is extrapolating beyond an emergence phase-change.
I'll fight the battle in the wider universe and cleave to my late Yorkshire father-in-law's "wise words"
"Then turnin' to me he said "Arthur", (He could never remember mi name), "here's half a crown. Nip down to t'chip 'oyl an' get us a nice piece o' 'addock for us tea. Man cannot live by bread alone." He were a reyt tater, mi father. He said as 'ow workin' folk should have some dignity an' pride an' self respect, an' as 'ow they should come home to summat warm an' cheerful.
An' then he threw mi mam on t'fire.
We didn't 'ave no tellies or shoes or bedclothes. We med us own fun in them days. Do you know, when I were a lad you could get a tram down into t'town, buy three new suits an' an ovvercoat, four pair o' good boots, go an' see George Formby at t'Palace Theatre, get blind drunk, 'ave some steak an' chips, bunch o' bananas an' three stone o' monkey nuts an' still 'ave change out of a farthing.
We'd lots o' things in them days they 'aven't got today - rickets, diptheria, Hitler and my, we did look well goin' to school wi' no backside in us trousers an' all us little 'eads painted purple because we 'ad ringworm.
They don't know they're born today!!!"
Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:14 am
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8221 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
People think they can fly, jump off a building and die.
Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:50 am
alexclaton VIP
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 674 Location: Hell on earth
madthumbs wrote:
People think they can fly, jump off a building and die.
those people are stupid and deserve to die, they should have tried from the ground first.
What a truly amazing set of consistent (and very good) answers!
Thanks. You have raised a very solid argument as well and I really appreciate the fact that you have brought it up for discussion.
Quote:
Would it just be a question of belief?
The magnitude of the belief is what counts. The more you persist a concept, the more it establishes its own inertia. When it gains enough inertia, it becomes stable resulting in a more consistent range of phase change (but it remains active in time, which always persists in the present tense where the "past" and "future" are incorporated phases in curvature). This is exactly how objects are. They are highly stable thought-forms ("wave-forms" is the term that scientists like to use). They are so stable in fact, that you no longer need to think about them manually in order to sustain them. Your subconsciousness sustains them for you.
The best way to understand material objects is to consider them as consistent actions (waves) rather than bodies. In an old post in another thread, I alluded to Planck's Constant and how its size in relation to the overall mass (the quantity) of an object (wave) is proportional to the magnitude of its action.
Quote:
Also if my will/belief were to be stronger than yours there'd be one less to fight the battle!) Smile
There is no "other" person "out there". Everything and everyone exists within your mind. It is an internal battle which the Self experiences pertaining to differing belief systems with different magnitudes and such.
Quote:
Hey, and anyway, I'm not sure probability waves reach out beyond atomic boundaries, and what you're doing is extrapolating beyond an emergence phase-change.
Probability waves are proportional to the degree of persistence. When you persist a concept, you increase its quantum (amount) state. Emergence phase change isn't linear, but curved; which is what persistence is. Persistence is curved because it changes states. For something to change states, it needs action (activity). For something to be active, it needs to have Self-Reference. Self-Reference always incorporates the concept of difference to completely define itself -- it uses a difference as a frame of reference to refer back to itself.
Something that has no difference, cannot change. And because it cannot change, it remains linear (symmetrical). When something is linear (symmetrical) throughout, it remains an instance. An instance cannot persist for persistence implies time. An instance has no phase change, has no difference, has no frame of reference, has no time, has no activity, and therefore has no probability. For anything to exist, it needs to persist, and it can't be linear (symmetrical); for it must be curved (which represents a continuous change of state and / or direction).
Time itself isn't linear, it is curved (more specifically a spiral). It is always active in the present. Because it is active, it has momentum (flow of moment). This flow gives the illusion of "past" and "future", but they are nothing more than phase changes within an active present.
Note: The word Probability comes from Probabilis which means "provable", and is composed of the words Pro which means "for", "forth", "to put forth" and Ability -- another name for Habilitas (Habilis) which means "habitual, ableness, to do". In other words, a probability is simply an action persistently put forth. The more repetitive it is, the more provable it is (the higher its occurrence, frequency in spacetime). This is what Quantum Physics is all about.
Similarly, the word Fact is another name for Facere and Factum, which mean "to do, to act, to take action, an occurrence, an action". Reality is therefore composed of actions, not bodies. Actions are dynamic, they are persistent, they are curved, and they change states through process and recursion. That is the nature of probability waves and the nature of how they come into material form. That being said, action can be a choice.
Quote:
People think they can fly, jump off a building and die.
The people who exist "out there" are inseparable from your interpretation of them. In reality, it is only your mind that exists. When people "think" they can fly but jump off buildings and still die, it is only your mind completely believing that that is how reality is. No matter what they "do" or "think" or "believe", they can only operate within the parameters which you associate with your interpretation of the laws of nature. They have absolutely no control of anything, no matter what they "think" or "do". They are simply your interpretations of them.
According to the Observation Problem (the fundamental key of Quantum Physics), reality is completely subjective. You cannot interprete anything, interact with anything, know anything, experience anything, give an opinion about anything, deem anything "objective", come to terms with any "outside" empirical nature, without the mind. If there is no mind, there can be no reality of any sort. It is impossible to refute that argument. Even if you try to, no matter what you do, your mind is always involved 100% of the time.
I challenge anyone to answer this question to prove the existence of an "objective" reality independent of the mind: How do you experience anything, learn anything, know anything, do anything, perceive anything, remember anything, condemn anything, form an opinion about anything, and interact with anything and anyone in life without the mind?
If you can answer this question without the mind, then you would have refuted the Observation Problem. But of course you already cannot, since upon reading this question, you're already using the mind to do so. Reality is completely, absolutely, irrefutably, subjective.
The Moment of Inertia and the Distribution of Mass
Contrary to popular belief, the feat in the video is hardly a display of super-human "strength". While it still requires a lot of effort and training, any average person with proper technique and experience can actually do this. This feat really depends on how the distribution of a given mass of a medium can be used to generate vector momentum. The distribution of mass of a medium in this case is the wheel shape.
Force (F), the cause of momentum supposedly has the equation F = MA, where M is Mass and A is Acceleration. It is a formula based on Newtonian point objects -- objects that are infinitely symmetrical; thereby disregarding the existence of shape and dimension altogether. Therefore applying this formula is unrealistic in the real world.
In the real world (the true quantum nature of reality), everything is curved -- is ultimately asymmetric (imperfect) in other words; which in turn implicates a state of persistence and therefore a change in state. Because everything is ultimately curved, there is a delay in the changing state of existence (instance is the opposite of existence). Additionally, because everything is constantly changing (regardless of what the degree of the change might be), everything has activity (action), and therefore has momentum (the flowing of moment).
Therefore the true formula for Force (which is action) is called the Moment of Inertia (aka the Torque Equation). It is T = IA, where T is Torque, I is Inertia, and A is Acceleration. With this equation, angular momentum comes into play, for it pertains to the shape (the curvature) of a mass (where certain areas of an object have more mass than other areas of itself).
In the Moment of Inertia, rotational mass is fundamental. It is that thing in an object which is in a state of inertia, the most. Inertia (the tendency of a thing to resist changes in state of existence) and mass are inseparable to each other. The more mass, the more inertia, basically. And this is why the shape of an object (the distribution of mass) is imperative to determining the momentum of an object in action.
Because the truck is on wheels, its overwhelming force of weight (not its mass), is somewhat redistributed into forward motion due to the wheels' Moment of Inertia + the involvement of the athlete pulling it. Mass is not weight. Weight is the force of mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity, which is W = F = MG, where G is ~ 9.8 m/s/s. Because there is gravity influencing Earth as well, all the mass in direct relation to it are influenced by weight. Without this medium of gravity, the only inertia the truck would have is its own very existence as a mass, which would result in near effortless pull from the athlete's part.
So what is mass? Mass is simply a presence of a thing. That of course, ultimately implies that existence itself has mass. Thoughts too have mass, because they have quantity. Mass and quantity, by their very basic definitions, are the same thing (Mass is Quantity). When something has more quantity of itself, it has more inertia. And because it has more inertia, its presence (its existence in spacetime) is more persistent -- its changing state of existence is less likely to be radically transformed by secondary forces (including external gravity).
A hollow wheel for example, would more than likely be crushed by the weight, the force of gravity on the mass of the truck, than a solid one. In this case, there isn't enough Moment of Inertia from the hollow wheel to resist transformation. It therefore, changed its shape in high accordance to the force of gravity acting upon it. When something has more mass, its degree of inner transformation in response to external gravitation diminishes. Inner gravitation, on the other hand, is an object's Moment of Inertia (the rotational force that keeps it existing in spacetime).
Joined: 16 Jun 2008 Posts: 37 Location: El Medano, Tenerife, Spain
Re: The Moment of Inertia and the Distribution of Mass
totalitariantiptoe wrote:
the feat in the video is hardly a display of super-human "strength". While it still requires a lot of effort and training, any average person with proper technique and experience can actually do this.
Yes.
Quote:
This feat really depends on how the distribution of a given mass of a medium can be used to generate vector momentum. The distribution of mass of a medium in this case is the wheel shape
No discernible sense here...
Quote:
Force (F), the cause of momentum supposedly has the equation F = MA, where M is Mass and A is Acceleration. It is a formula based on Newtonian point objects -- objects that are infinitely symmetrical; thereby disregarding the existence of shape and dimension altogether. Therefore applying this formula is unrealistic in the real world.
Wrong. No, er, RIGHT.
Quote:
In the real world (the true quantum nature of reality), everything is curved -- is ultimately asymmetric (imperfect) in other words; which in turn implicates a state of persistence and therefore a change in state. Because everything is ultimately curved, there is a delay in the changing state of existence (instance is the opposite of existence).
Could be immeasurably small.
Quote:
Additionally, because everything is constantly changing (regardless of what the degree of the change might be), everything has activity (action), and therefore has momentum (the flowing of moment).
Could be immeasurably small.
Quote:
Therefore the true formula for Force (which is action) is called the Moment of Inertia (aka the Torque Equation). It is T = IA, where T is Torque, I is Inertia, and A is Acceleration. With this equation, angular momentum comes into play, for it pertains to the shape (the curvature) of a mass (where certain areas of an object have more mass than other areas of itself).
No.
Quote:
In the Moment of Inertia, rotational mass is fundamental. It is that thing in an object which is in a state of inertia, the most. Inertia (the tendency of a thing to resist changes in state of existence) and mass are inseparable to each other. The more mass, the more inertia, basically. And this is why the shape of an object (the distribution of mass) is imperative to determining the momentum of an object in action.
Yes.
Quote:
Because the truck is on wheels, its overwhelming force of weight (not its mass), is somewhat redistributed into forward motion due to the wheels' Moment of Inertia + the involvement of the athlete pulling it.
No.
Quote:
Mass is not weight. Weight is the force of mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity, which is W = F = MG, where G is ~ 9.8 m/s/s. Because there is gravity influencing Earth as well, all the mass in direct relation to it are influenced by weight. Without this medium of gravity, the only inertia the truck would have is its own very existence as a mass, which would result in near effortless pull from the athlete's part.
Yes, but No. 60 TONS has considerable inertia, but a 4 year old child could impart acceleration to it. In fact AN ANT could. The REAL WORK being done is in overcoming the ROLLING RESISTANCE - the drag on all those axle bearing surfaces (consequent upon the applied gravitational force), and the non-elastic energy of deformation put into all those tyres (they start heating up!). There is some additional work being done adding angular momentum to all those wheels, shafts, and flywheels. Oils and greases will start warming too.
Quote:
So what is mass? Mass is simply a presence of a thing. That of course, ultimately implies that existence itself has mass. Thoughts too have mass, because they have quantity. Mass and quantity, by their very basic definitions, are the same thing (Mass is Quantity). When something has more quantity of itself, it has more inertia. And because it has more inertia, its presence (its existence in spacetime) is more persistent -- its changing state of existence is less likely to be radically transformed by secondary forces (including external gravity).
The difference in persistence will not be detectable.
Quote:
A hollow wheel for example, would more than likely be crushed by the weight, the force of gravity on the mass of the truck, than a solid one. In this case, there isn't enough Moment of Inertia from the hollow wheel to resist transformation.
You are mismatching concepts here. Moment of inertia does not resist buckling forces - tensile and compressive strengths do.
Quote:
It therefore, changed its shape in high accordance to the force of gravity acting upon it.
No, it didn't.
Quote:
When something has more mass, its degree of inner transformation in response to external gravitation diminishes. Inner gravitation, on the other hand, is an object's Moment of Inertia (the rotational force that keeps it existing in spacetime).
No, it doesn't.
In macro-reality NONE of these manifestations take place.
I'm not sure that here, particle probabilities actually exist IN UNISON. They certainly act as if they are individually alone.
Whereas, you may notice, in the real world, EVERYTHING DOES. Well, nearly.
This feat really depends on how the distribution of a given mass of a medium can be used to generate vector momentum. The distribution of mass of a medium in this case is the wheel shape
No discernible sense here...
If the wheels were shaped as blocks, the athlete would have a mighty hard time pulling that truck. Vector momentum would be significantly hindered due to the shape of the wheels if the wheels were cube-like in their distribution of mass (their shape).
Quote:
Quote:
In the real world (the true quantum nature of reality), everything is curved -- is ultimately asymmetric (imperfect) in other words; which in turn implicates a state of persistence and therefore a change in state. Because everything is ultimately curved, there is a delay in the changing state of existence (instance is the opposite of existence).
Additionally, because everything is constantly changing (regardless of what the degree of the change might be), everything has activity (action), and therefore has momentum (the flowing of moment).
Could be immeasurably small.
No. In Quantum physics, everything comes in discrete wholes (whole numbers). Every quantity is a whole. Everything is already a measurement to some degree. It is a matter of scale, and scales can be measured. To say something is immeasurable is to find an excuse to obscure. We are trying to expose the dynamics of Quantum Physics, not mystify it. The people in power want to keep us in the dark about all of this.
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore the true formula for Force (which is action) is called the Moment of Inertia (aka the Torque Equation). It is T = IA, where T is Torque, I is Inertia, and A is Acceleration. With this equation, angular momentum comes into play, for it pertains to the shape (the curvature) of a mass (where certain areas of an object have more mass than other areas of itself).
No.
Yes. Go to the links. It's like me giving you actual scientific sources of information and you still saying "no". That is a matter of choice on your part, and you can keep saying so no matter what I present to you.
Quote:
Quote:
In the Moment of Inertia, rotational mass is fundamental. It is that thing in an object which is in a state of inertia, the most. Inertia (the tendency of a thing to resist changes in state of existence) and mass are inseparable to each other. The more mass, the more inertia, basically. And this is why the shape of an object (the distribution of mass) is imperative to determining the momentum of an object in action.
Yes.
Lol. Yes, no , yes , no.......This isn't a test for you or for me. Nobody has all the answers and your interpretation is every bit as subjective as mine.
Quote:
Quote:
Because the truck is on wheels, its overwhelming force of weight (not its mass), is somewhat redistributed into forward motion due to the wheels' Moment of Inertia + the involvement of the athlete pulling it.
No.
Yes no? No yes? No no? Yes yes? Make up your mind already. Lol.
Quote:
Quote:
Mass is not weight. Weight is the force of mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity, which is W = F = MG, where G is ~ 9.8 m/s/s. Because there is gravity influencing Earth as well, all the mass in direct relation to it are influenced by weight. Without this medium of gravity, the only inertia the truck would have is its own very existence as a mass, which would result in near effortless pull from the athlete's part.
Yes, but No. 60 TONS has considerable inertia, but a 4 year old child could impart acceleration to it. In fact AN ANT could. The REAL WORK being done is in overcoming the ROLLING RESISTANCE - the drag on all those axle bearing surfaces (consequent upon the applied gravitational force), and the non-elastic energy of deformation put into all those tyres (they start heating up!). There is some additional work being done adding angular momentum to all those wheels, shafts, and flywheels. Oils and greases will start warming too.
Don't try to make it out as if I'm putting this all on one factor. In fact I did say, that effort, proper technique, etc. are all required to accomplish this feat. I'm simply saying that the shape of the wheels is a significant factor. Imagine how hard it would be if those wheels were blocked shaped? This is what I mean by the distribution of mass within a given medium.
Quote:
Quote:
So what is mass? Mass is simply a presence of a thing. That of course, ultimately implies that existence itself has mass. Thoughts too have mass, because they have quantity. Mass and quantity, by their very basic definitions, are the same thing (Mass is Quantity). When something has more quantity of itself, it has more inertia. And because it has more inertia, its presence (its existence in spacetime) is more persistent -- its changing state of existence is less likely to be radically transformed by secondary forces (including external gravity).
The difference in persistence will not be detectable.
You perceive because of differences. Without differences, there can be no perception of any sort. A rock looks different from other rocks and the air around it. They feel different too. Every experience is slightly different from each other. As soon as you stop seeing objects as inanimate, and start seeing them as quantum of actions, you will understand that persistence is the only thing that can be perceived.
Quote:
Quote:
A hollow wheel for example, would more than likely be crushed by the weight, the force of gravity on the mass of the truck, than a solid one. In this case, there isn't enough Moment of Inertia from the hollow wheel to resist transformation.
You are mismatching concepts here. Moment of inertia does not resist buckling forces - tensile and compressive strengths do.
Tensile of compressive strengths is a type of Moment of Inertia. Moment of Inertia is simply the general dynamic pertaining to rotational (torque) mass. Tensile and compressive strengths are specific types of Moment of Inertia; specific types of torque. For example, an object with most of its mass condensed in its center will have a greater stress tensor and resistance to change in that area than in its outer edges. Likewise, the shape (distribution of mass) of an object that has more mass condensed in an area that isn't in the center will have greater resistance to change (Inertia) in that area.
Quote:
Quote:
It therefore, changed its shape in high accordance to the force of gravity acting upon it.
No, it didn't.
There you go again, no, yes, no yes. Simplistic answers aren't always effective. You need to elaborate and I will gladly concede if you can convince me. Simply saying yes or no only gives me the impression that you try to assume an official position of confirmation.
Quote:
Quote:
When something has more mass, its degree of inner transformation in response to external gravitation diminishes. Inner gravitation, on the other hand, is an object's Moment of Inertia (the rotational force that keeps it existing in spacetime).
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. Anything with more mass, has more inertia -- therefore a higher degree to resisting change. Wherever that distribution of mass is, so too is where its inertia is present. Inertia and mass are inseparable, period. Inertia, in a less scientific description, is (in my opinion) the persistence of a mass (it is the significance of its physical presence in spacetime).
Quote:
In macro-reality NONE of these manifestations take place.
To say so is to say objects aren't perceived. Yet they are. Like I said, as soon as you stop considering objects as inactive bodies, and start considering them as actions, the sooner you will get what I've been trying to express all along. Persistence is the only thing that exists and can exist. What is persistence? That which is active (action). Different objects are simply different types of persistence (action). You perceive because of the existence of difference. Without difference, there can be no reference frame of any sort.
Quote:
I'm not sure that here, particle probabilities actually exist IN UNISON. They certainly act as if they are individually alone. Whereas, you may notice, in the real world, EVERYTHING DOES. Well, nearly.
Because in the discrete wave / particle domain, probability is low. There isn't enough persistence (action) in cohesion to increase the probability of physical macro perception. Remember, I mentioned before that Planck's constant's being so small is directly proportional to the magnitude of its action -- that its wavelength is so small that it is rendered invisible in the macro world? See old post.
Objects are waves. Waves are actions. The more they persist, the more they become established standing waves (or in "pseudo" terms, scalar waves). The appropriate term is Quantum of Actions, really.
You see, when you build something from scratch, you will always have to start with in-visible concepts first. When you persist, you increase its probability (provability). Just like when two athletes have the same winning percentage in their career records, but one athlete has played significantly many more games than the other, that his chances of dropping a full percent in his record are signficantly less than the other. Simply put, the more you do something (anything), the more you increase its inertia in spacetime.
Anyways to conclude, I think this exchange of points could go on and on, which would in turn only get in the way of knowing how extremely important this thread actually is. Regardless of whether other people get it or not, I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that I tried -- with the best of my ability -- to share what I felt is necessary in the increasingly grave times we are living in. This is truly the ONLY way out of the conspiracy. You cannot win this battle against global domination with protests, and appeals, and guns, and so and so forth. What needs to be changed is how Humanity thinks for itself. To unlock the true power of the mind is the only way to free ourselves. Because ultimately, everything we see "out there" is inevitably completely linked to our mind.
Yes, debating is fine and is necessary as well. But time is of the essence. I have literally shared with you the keys to the universe, the keys to free yourself, now. Like Morpheus said, "I can only show you the door, you are the one who has to walk through it".
Regards and good luck.
Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:01 pm
Sponsor
JazzRoc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008 Posts: 37 Location: El Medano, Tenerife, Spain
Re: The Moment of Inertia and the Distribution of Mass
totalitariantiptoe wrote:
If the wheels were shaped as blocks
Ah, I understand you now.
Quote:
Not immeasurable. Max Planck called this the Quantum of Action
I thought one could infer it alone. Nothing gets near the smallness of it.
Quote:
because everything is constantly changing (regardless of what the degree of the change might be), everything has activity
Hence momentum, got that.
Quote:
To say something is immeasurable is to find an excuse to obscure.
It wasn't my intention.
Quote:
Go to the links.
I went there. They were familiar.
Quote:
In the Moment of Inertia, rotational mass is fundamental.
I have a problem with that. Where does rotation enter into it?
Quote:
This isn't a test for you or for me.
Speak for yourself.
Quote:
Because the truck is on wheels, its overwhelming force of weight (not its mass), is somewhat redistributed into forward motion due to the wheels' Moment of Inertia + the involvement of the athlete pulling it.
I got that on the second pass.
Quote:
that the shape of the wheels is a significant factor.
And that.
Quote:
You perceive because of differences. Without differences, there can be no perception of any sort. A rock looks different from other rocks and the air around it. They feel different too. Every experience is slightly different from each other. As soon as you stop seeing objects as inanimate, and start seeing them as quantum of actions, you will understand that persistence is the only thing that can be perceived.
Rather a long time ago now I flashed out on persistence as a concept. It was while pondering what was one's TRUE velocity, which could only be with reference to the the start point of the Big Bang (yes, I know, I know! - which we'll never know! ) and I concluded that it couldn't be less than many miles per second that the energy signatures comprising our masses were hurtling through the "ether" - and persistence was certainly the miraculous thing.
Quote:
Tensile or compressive strengths are types of Moment of Inertia. Moment of Inertia is simply the general dynamic pertaining to rotational (torque) mass. Tensile and compressive strengths are specific types of Moment of Inertia; specific types of torque. For example, an object with most of its mass condensed in its center will have a greater stress tensor and resistance to change in that area than in its outer edges. Likewise, the shape (distribution of mass) of an object that has more mass condensed in an area that isn't in the center will have greater resistance to change (Inertia) in that area.
(Grits teeth.) Sorry, still can't see where rotation comes into it... EDIT - unless you mean ALL the rotational components within matter (Is that the Sun coming up?)
Quote:
Simply saying yes or no only gives me the impression that you try to assume an official position of confirmation.
No, it's just my funny sense of humor. Or not... Apart from which, no-one else is "nibbling" and without me you'd be one hand clapping.
Quote:
When something has more mass, its degree of inner transformation in response to external gravitation diminishes. Inner gravitation, on the other hand, is an object's Moment of Inertia (the rotational force that keeps it existing in spacetime).
(Curses as teeth splinter.) - Er...
Quote:
Yes it does. Anything with more mass, has more inertia -- therefore a higher degree to resisting change. Wherever that distribution of mass is, so too is where its inertia is present. Inertia and mass are inseparable, period. Inertia, in a less scientific description, is (in my opinion) the persistence of a mass (it is the significance of its physical presence in spacetime).
I never thought differently from this part.
Quote:
To say so is to say objects aren't perceived. Yet they are. Like I said, as soon as you stop considering objects as inactive bodies, and start considering them as actions, the sooner you will get what I've been trying to express all along. Persistence is the only thing that exists and can exist. What is persistence? That which is active (action). Different objects are simply different types of persistence (action). You perceive because of the existence of difference. Without difference, there can be no reference frame of any sort.
I buy this.
Quote:
Simply put, the more you do something (anything), the more you increase its inertia in spacetime.
Yes, but "doing something" is a vast understatement when you have to C squared things to achieve this. It's on a par with "precision" at Planck scales. Imagine a nuclear bomb in reverse... gets you...
"Beam me up, Scotty."
Last edited by JazzRoc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Jazz I know you mean well. I also know you are probably not completely convinced with my arguments. That's your choice and I'm fine with that. I feel that my arguments are consistent with the fundamentals of how Quantum Physics really works. I have no intention of making any extra points, because I made them all. I don't judge the outcome of a discussion on how many times people choose to respond to each other or who gets the last word -- though many others would. I'm fully confident in the quality of my argument and the deep importance of its implications.
This is so important in fact, that I feel a bit disappointed in myself on how I may have presented it. I feel I could have presented it in a more efficient way. But anyways, like I said before just recently, regards and good luck.
This is your only way out.
Last edited by totalitariantiptoe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:28 pm
JazzRoc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008 Posts: 37 Location: El Medano, Tenerife, Spain
totalitariantiptoe wrote:
Jazz I know you mean well. I also know you are probably not completely convinced with my arguments. That's your choice and I'm fine with that. I feel that my arguments are consistent with the fundamentals of how Quantum Physics really works. I have no intention of making any extra points, because I made them all. I don't judge the outcome of a discussion on how many times people choose to respond to each other or who gets the last word -- though many others would. I'm fully confident in the quality of my argument and the deep importance of its implications.
This is so important in fact, that I feel a bit disappointed in myself on how I may have presented it. I feel I could have presented it in a more efficient way. But anyways, like I said before just recently, regards and good luck.
This is your only way out.
As I said. I'm interested in what you say. I don't believe anyone wins arguments. I'm not sure there's any single way that it's possible to present such arguments. I'm certainly not convinced by my own.
I believe in your sincerity, and will mull your arguments until they finally sink in, but meanwhile I still believe we share an identical world, and find myself unable to believe in a universe which is infinitely proliferating as we make our choices.
As to the upcoming crisis, I have always been an advocate of self-sufficiency. My intention is to NOT intrude upon the outside world and if possible, provide a haven and support for its refugees when they arrive. I already live in a warm climate in which one could NEVER die of exposure, replete with a nutritious soil, water, and sunlight.
It's going to be a last-ditch thing, in that I've given away my support already, and I'm a sort of sidelined pensioner, and I have no tools, and am as poor as a church mouse, etc., etc. Details, details... Red pill... Blue pill...
Last edited by JazzRoc on Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
