Harmonics and Shape of Space

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

I didn't say it was imagined visuals in the first place. I explained how it's an image that is produced based on analysis of information. Essentially, it isn't 'real', and it is a representation.

Sorry if I misread or misinterpreted your words or meanings in your original replies.

Atoms are real. Magnetic fields are real. Fermi bubbles are real, and are essentially shaped as the graphics have represented them.

Fermons are real ergo physical/energy

Bosons are real ergo physical/energy

Gravity and dark energy are quasi-real quasi-physical/energy. imho

Time as change, frequency and motion is real. imho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Sorry if I misread or misinterpreted your words or meanings in your original replies.

Atoms are real. Magnetic fields are real. Fermi bubbles are real, and are essentially shaped as the graphics have represented them.

Fermons are real ergo physical/energy

Bosons are real ergo physical/energy

Gravity and dark energy are quasi-real quasi-physical/energy. imho

Time as change, frequency and motion is real. imho

r6

I don't know what real is, but we don't know what anything is. We measure interactions and make statements. The statements are true because we that them and it works, yet, that which we know as atom, is not actually an atom. I always remember this strange statement by Max Planck, "We have no reason to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future".

[r6r6]

Gem--I don't know what real is, but we don't know what anything is. We measure interactions and make statements.

I do know what is real from direct experience.

..."Atoms ergo Fermons and Bosons are real ergo physical/energy"...

Collectively atoms fall our toes ergo they require steel( real ) toed shoes.

Ping! Bang! Pinch! Burn! are all real.

The statements are true because we that them and it works, yet, that which we know as atom, is not actually an atom.

I think your mistaken.

I always remember this strange statement by Max Planck, "We have no reason to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future".

Cosmic laws/principles exist eternally ergo inviolate as metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

Physical law is irrelevant aside to what were disscussing as to whether or not atoms exist. You state above that atoms do not exist or as "not actually an atom".

Think you go off on aside( irrelevant ) issue of physical law comments.

Atoms can hurt us or helps us. Photons can warm us or burn us.

Real comes from royal because it was the king who gave you deed to land/property.

Royal estate > real estate

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I do know what is real from direct experience.

..."Atoms ergo Fermons and Bosons are real ergo physical/energy"...

Collectively atoms fall our toes ergo they require steel( real ) toed shoes.

Ping! Bang! Pinch! Burn! are all real.



I think your mistaken.



Cosmic laws/principles exist eternally ergo inviolate as metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

Physical law is irrelevant aside to what were disscussing as to whether or not atoms exist. You state above that atoms do not exist or as "not actually an atom".

Think you go off on aside( irrelevant ) issue of physical law comments.

Atoms can hurt us or helps us. Photons can warm us or burn us.

Real comes from royal because it was the king who gave you deed to land/property.

Royal estate > real estate

r6

We only measure interactions, and we don't know what anything is. We have no reason to claim there is a 'reality'. The QM equations actually suggest otherwise.

The fact that we experience is the fundamental, and physics describes the relationships between experiences. It operates on a basic philosophy that comprises of three parts, the observer, his question and the universe. That is the essence of 'knowledge'. It means that the observers experience doesn't reveal anything 'about' the universe, so the observer questions - then the answers, the knowledge he gains, is in response to how he questions, but we have no evidence for an objective reality. This has usually been explained by saying we can't make real measurements. We rely on constants, and we can't separate the measurement from what is being measured, essentially, because we are part of that we measure. This then becomes a matter of our perception, or perception as a general principle, and what we perceive as 'the universe' is a congruence with the function of the mind. Planck (1944) expressed this by saying:

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

[r6r6]

Gem--We only measure interactions, and we don't know what anything is. We have no reason to claim there is a 'reality'. The QM equations actually suggest otherwise.

Your living in differrent universe-- conehead? --- than me Gem. Coneheads have some strange ideas......

Your below is just the conehead speaking.....

...Gem--The fact that we experience is the fundamental, and physics describes the relationships between experiences.
It operates on a basic philosophy that comprises of three parts, the observer, his question and the universe. That is the essence of 'knowledge'. It means that the observers experience doesn't reveal anything 'about' the universe, so the observer questions - then the answers, the knowledge he gains, is in response to how he questions, but we have no evidence for an objective reality. This has usually been explained by saying we can make real measurements, and we rely on constants, but because we are part of what we measure. This then becomes a matter of our perception, or perception as a general principle, and what we perceive is a congruence with the function of the mind, which Planck (1944) expressed by saying:

I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Your living in differrent universe-- conehead? --- than me Gem. Coneheads have some strange ideas......

Your below is just the conehead speaking.....

That's peculiar, because I'm saying quite the same thing as Plank.

Lets see what other QM geniuses have to say.

Schrodinger:

"Our mind, by virtue of a certain finite, limited capability, is by no means capable of putting a question to Nature that permits a continuous series of answers. The observations, the individual results of measurements, are the answers of Nature to our discontinuous questioning."

"What we call thought (1) is itself an orderly thing, and (2) can only be applied to material, i.e. to perceptions or experiences, which have a certain degree of orderliness. This has two consequences. First, a physical organization, to be in close correspondence with thought (as my brain is with my thought) must be a very well-ordered organization, and that means that the events that happen within it must obey strict physical laws, at least to a very high degree of accuracy. Secondly, the physical impressions made upon that physically well-organized system by other bodies from outside, obviously correspond to the perception and experience of the corresponding thought, forming its material, as I have called it."

"The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist."

Bohr:

"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems"

"We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing fact as with creating images and establishing mental connections".

"For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."

"physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience. "

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

"I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary." -

"developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as "objective" and "subjective" are"

"Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. To that extent, every physical process may be said to have objective and subjective features."

Bohm:

"Consciousness is much more of the implicate order than is matter . . . Yet at a deeper level [matter and consciousness] are actually inseparable and interwoven"

"if we try to use the prevailing world-view based on the notions of particles, we discover that the 'particles' (such as electrons) can also manifest as waves, that they move discontinuously, that there are no laws at all that apply in detail to the actual movements of individual particles and that only statistical predictions can be made about large aggregates of such particles."




Wait a minute! That sounds like something similar to what cone head said.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

That's peculiar, because I'm saying quite the same thing as Plank. Lets see what other QM geniuses have to say.....
Wait a minute! That sounds like something similar to what cone head said.

Reality exists as fermionic and bosonic reality and collection thereof.......I repeat myself because coneheads are from another universe ergo.......they dont concede realitys existence.....only their cones....

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Reality exists as fermionic and bosonic reality and collection thereof.......I repeat myself because coneheads are from another universe ergo.......they dont concede realitys existence.....only their cones....

r6

Since it's degenerated into something petty and condescending, I'll leave it there, and talk to you another time.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

Since it's degenerated into something petty and condescending, I'll leave it there, and talk to you another time.

Your taking it too personal Gem......its ok to deny the facts of observed reality because your from another Universe of coneheads /\ that do not accept facts of reality/physical.

We dont hold it against them we just accept the fact that is how they are....no biggie and no rational logical common sense will get through those cones/\....

The have a lot of planck( like plaque ) coating their cones/\.... and they cant absorb any facts regarding reality/physical because of the planck coating on their cones/\

The dengeration began with denial reality/physical existence. No biggie only facts of the matter( fermions and bosons ). imho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Your taking it too personal Gem......its ok to deny the facts of observed reality because your from another Universe of coneheads /\ that do not accept facts of reality/physical.

We dont hold it against them we just accept the fact that is how they are....no biggie and no rational logical common sense will get through those cones/\....

The have a lot of planck( like plaque ) coating their cones/\.... and they cant absorb any facts regarding reality/physical because of the planck coating on their cones/\

The dengeration began with denial reality/physical existence. No biggie only facts of the matter( fermions and bosons ). imho

r6

I think you intend it personally. I don't take it personally, though. I just think it's trivial, and there's bigger fish to fry.