There are no perfect circles or squares, but natural selection gets it as close as possible.funny side-bar: There is a rodent that poops cubes presumably via natural selection. They live in hilly/mountainous regions and mark their territory with their droppings. Round droppings would roll away.
We now return to our slightly re-directed topic:
funny side-bar: There is a rodent that poops cubes presumably via natural selection. They live in hilly/mountainous regions and mark their territory with their droppings. Round droppings would roll away.We now return to our slightly re-directed topic:
marks territory on logs and rocks - hence the cube. Not from living in hilly/mountainous regions.
Time as a dimension: What is the difference between:our “Present” point in Time, with future in one direction and past in another
andOur “Current” position on an “x-axis” with “stuff” in front of us and “stuff” behind us?
We are able to move in our 3-dimensions such that we can return to a particular x,y,z coordinate. We just can’t move that way through time … (yet?) Or, in another read about a 4th dimension (not time) someone says “we just can’t look in that direction”Regardless of going forward or backward in space you will always be going forward in time. It's your own temporal chronology of existence.
We can “look back in time” (observation), but we can never physically “go back in time” (travel).
IMO, it’s a paradox that would literally rip you apart at quantum level.
A temporal coordinateA spatial coordinate
What if this existence were just a “classroom” for a “greater” self. And we will be returned if we don’t get it right?
… again, branching out into different disciplines.
What if this existence were just a “classroom” for a “greater” self.Oh clearly it is. David Bohm called it the "Wholeness" and named its inherent potentials as the "Implicate Order"
The universe started as a singularity and it still is, just a whole lot bigger. The “self” needs not be conscious, it needs only a fundanental mathematical consistency, a dynamical quasi intelligent process.
This is why I feel comfortable using the terms "self-referential “and self-organizing” without implication of some motivated spiritual causality.
I try to base my beliefs axioms, those natural processes which are constant, can be measured, can be translated, and can be symbolized with human maths.
I believe Max Tegmark when he posits that whereas the compound mathematics (folds within folds) of the universe are prohibitively large, the underlying processes are really very simple. This makes logical sense, when we consider that there is no known justification for the notion of irreducible complexity. It all started with a few fundamental “quantum values” and “organizing forces”, from which all physical reality evolved. It’s astounding, but there can be no other explanation without entering into the spiritual.
The Standard Model The Standard Model is the current state of knowledge about the structure of matter. According to the Standard Model:There are a number of fundamental particles that make up all matter.
There are a number of fundamental forces via which the fundamental particles interact.
Each of the fundamental forces is carried by a force carrier particle.
For each matter particle there is a corresponding antimatter particle.
The Standard Model The Standard Model is the current state of knowledge about the structure of matter. According to the Standard Model:There are a number of fundamental particles that make up all matter.
There are a number of fundamental forces via which the fundamental particles interact.
Each of the fundamental forces is carried by a force carrier particle.
For each matter particle there is a corresponding antimatter particle.
https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/undergrad-projects/3rdyear/PPguide/stand.htm
... time moves forward and evolution happens.
?
To @mrmhead.
<hr />
To @citizenschallengev3 and to @write4u.
<hr />
Thank you for your last interesting posts. Need some time to consider them carefully. (@mrmhead is an extremely valuable member of this forum, don’t you think so?
This is obviously a person of good qualification in many fields of physics. (Not flattering, only sharing opinion.:))
To @citizenschallengev3 and to @write4u.
<hr />
And what about Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics? These two cannot be true simultaneously and this is the basic problem of modern physics. What do you think about this contradiction?
To @mrmhead.
<hr />
What happens with our zig-zags? Any ideas? Any suggestions? Any experimental results?
What if this existence were just a “classroom” for a “greater” self. And we will be returned if we don’t get it right?… again, branching out into different disciplines.
Our consciousness is the inside of our physical being - we live, we experience and process, then we die. Like every other animal that dies, our body decomposes and our consciousness disappears. It’s a horrifying thought for most, and I’ll admit it’s not easy adjusting to the notion, but given time it becomes rather self-evident and no big deal. (Incidentally, eternal deep empty sleep sure beats worrying about being judged and stranded in an eternal hell or heaven, one as nightmarish as the other.)
Creature are aware individuals that focus on living the moment and doing the best they can with what they have.
Ah but we are human, we can reflect on physical reality, we can talk to each other and remember and learn, we have culture and we leave behind interactions and accomplishments and memories in those we’ve touched. Turns out that’s actually enough to give a lot of satisfaction, if your ego doesn’t have you by the cojones.
Once ego’s get involved, we need gods, which are consistently in the image we personally want them to be, yet we fight and argue as though one religion were better than another, when they are all equally self-delusional.
Will, did you ever answer mrmhead’s question about why the two tubes, rather than just one?
Negotiating zig zags consume energy.
MRM, Wombats, I never knew that. An intestine like a candy press. As Spock would say, fascinating.
<hr />
Hi there,
1 Is pretty straight forward response to the notion: “What if this existence were just a “classroom” for a “greater” self.” Which is religious/philosophical trope. Perhaps if Evolution was clearly defined and it were referring to genetic material it could be rescued, but as it stands it’s airy fairy religious conjecture.
2 Okay, guess you got close at #345767 June 21, 2021 at 7:16 am. But, what you wrote provided no clarification. Although you’d better take that up to mrmhead, he had a much more respectful take on what you’re trying to accomplish, me, I’ve kinda given up on making sense of it. You talk of REAL experiment, but you don’t have a physical apparatus, where you can make your experiments, and measurements, to then see how the numbers add up to your ideas. You created an apparatus in your imagination and give it properties you want it to have. That is not science, it’s more like philosophy, and just like philosophy it seems to be more dog chasing tail, than substance we can do anything practical with in our real world.
3 Well okay, now we are getting anywhere. So what is your experiment about, how can behavior in the straight tube duplicate behavior in the zigzag tube? What are you trying to accomplish?
=============================
Hi there,
Thank you for your reply.
I am absolutely sure solely and only about the validity of the experiments, described in PART 3 of our first video. The text below is a combination of our posts of June 15, 2021 at 5:01 am and of June 14, 2021 at 8:07 am. As if this combination clarifies entirely our zig-zag concept both theoretically and experimentally.
=============================
Please look again at PART 3 of the link Perpetual motion and reactionless drive - YouTube . Please focus on the “upper” zigzag case.
Ma = 1 kg.
Mb = 4 kg.
Va’ = pre-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = 1 m/s = const.
Vb’ = pre-zig-zag velocity of the black component = 0 m/s; the black component is motionless.
Va” = during-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = variable and comparatively difficult (but not impossible) to calculate.
Vb” = during-zig-zag velocity of the black component = variable and comparatively difficult (but not impossible) to calculate.
Vy = during-zig-zag velocity of each couple blue rod-blue ball along the Y-axis = variable and comparatively difficult (but not impossible) to calculate.
Va”’ = post-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = 0.6 m/s = const.
Vb”’ = post-zig-zag velocity of the black component = 0.1 m/s = const.
According to the third Newton’s law and to the related law of conservation of linear momentum we can write down the equalities
((Ma) x (Va’)) + ((Mb) x (Vb’)) = ((Ma) x (Va”’)) + ((Mb) x (Vb”’)) <=>
<=> ((Ma) x (Va’)) + 0 = ((Ma) x (Va”’)) + ((Mb) x (Vb”’)) <=>
<=> (Ma) x (Va’) = ((Ma) x (Va”’)) + ((Mb) x (Vb”’)) <=>
<=> (1 kg) x (1 m/s) = ((1 kg) x (0.6 m/s)) + ((4 kg) x (0.1 m/s)) <=>
<=> 1 kg.m/s = 1 kg.m/s.
In one word, the values of Va”, Vb” and Vy are actually of no interest to us. Actually only the values of Va’, Va”’ and Vb”’ are of interest to us as these three values determine the validity of the third Newton’s law and the related law of conservation of linear momentum.
@mrmhead wrote: “…take gravity and friction out of equation and consideration…”. Perfectly agree with this.
The mass of each couple blue rod-blue ball is much smaller than the mass of the blue T-shaped component. For example if Ma = 1 kg, then the mass of each couple blue rod-blue ball must be equal to, let’s say, 0.0001 kg (and even smaller).
In our numerous real experiments we strongly reduce friction (force of friction = 0.0000001 N) and the mean values of Va”’ and Vb”’ are equal to 0.5999992 m/s and to 0.0999997 m/s, respectively, that is, Va”’ = 0.5999992 m/s and Vb”’ = 0.0999997 m/s. The latter clearly shows that the experimental error (due to friction) is much smaller than 1 % and this experimental error is perfectly acceptable.
Let me remind only again (it is written in the explanatory text of the link Perpetual motion and reactionless drive - YouTube ) that the zigzags generate a mechanical effect (let us call this mechanical effect the “X effect”), (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat. (We “…take gravity and friction out of equation and consideration…” as @memhead mentioned in his/her last post.) And really even if the mean experimental value of force of friction inside the zigzag channels is equal to 0.0000001 N (our last experimental result), then the “X effect” still remains and can be clearly observed as in PART 3 of the link above.
================================
Do you have any objections against any of the above items 1 - 16? (If no, then it’s ok. But if yes, then please specify exactly which item you do not agree with and why.)
Looking forward to your answer.
Looking forward to your answer.Get a hint, I'm not interested in airy fairy intellectual riddles.
16) ... the zigzags generate a mechanical effect ((a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and
(b) which does not generate heat.
We “…take gravity and friction out of equation and consideration…”
And really even if the mean experimental value of force of friction inside the zigzag channels is equal to 0.0000001 N (our last experimental result), then the “X effect” still remains and can be clearly observed as in PART 3 of the link above.You keep saying "experimental", but. you have no physical model to text your result on.
Vary the length of your zig-zag. What are the results?
Vary the masses and starting velocities. What are the results?
There is “something” (your x-factor?) that transfers momentum from the ball to the apparatus. It is in the zig zag. I wouldn’t be surprised if some mathematician has already described this transfer.
I was once familiar with an application called “Minitab” that did all sorts of statistical analysis. Throw in the variables and results I described above and it would tell you which ones are more significant than others (it would even tell you how to set up the experiments … i.e the settings of the “dials”)
I think that rolls back to one of the first replies … “not enough information”
To @mrmhead.
<hr />
Hi there,
Thank you for your reply.
Well, you give an interesting idea again – to use an application called “Minitab” that did all sorts of statistical analysis. The latter to be used for a statistical analysis of a wide variety of zigzags’ shape and number (as well as may be for a wide variety of masses of the bodies, taking part in the experiments, and for a wide variety of different values of the force of friction). Did I understand well your suggestion? And if yes, then how to find and how to adapt this “Minitab” to our particular zigzag experimental case?
Looking forward to your answer.
To @mrmhead.
<hr />
I am absolutely sure solely and only about the validity of the experiments, described in PART 3 of our first video. And these are as follows. (Let me only remind them again.)
<hr />
Please look again at PART 3 of the link Perpetual motion and reactionless drive - YouTube and at our post of June 26, 2021 at 3:08 am. Please focus on the “upper” zigzag case.
Ma = 1 kg.
Mb = 4 kg.
mass of each couple blue rod-blue ball = m = 0.0001 kg (and even smaller)
V1 = Va’ = pre-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = 1 m/s = const.
Vb’ = pre-zig-zag velocity of the black component = 0 m/s; the black component is motionless.
Va”’ = V2 = post-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = 0.6 m/s = const. = theoretical value
7A) Va”’ = V2 = post-zig-zag velocity of the blue component = 0.5999992 m/s = const. = mean experimental value
8A) Vb”’ = V3 = post-zig-zag velocity of the black component = 0.0999997 m/s = const. = mean experimental value
Number of zigzags = 4
Force of friction inside the zigzag channels = 0.0000001 N = mean experimental value