Have you actually tried? As in, made any testable predictions at all?
Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything
- Thread starter •Ik•
- Start date
@funkstar: Yes, I have tried. I do experiments and review experiments every day as part of my own research and peer-review of journal articles, grants, and presentations.
@jmpet: Yes, silly.
@AlexG: Yes, there is. I would politely point out that no psychologist, psychiatrist, philosopher, neuroscientist, cognitive scientist, or mystic has been able to position the mind in a model that fits all of the evidence. Only the correct theory could do that.
Peace,
Ik
@jmpet: Yes, silly.
@AlexG: Yes, there is. I would politely point out that no psychologist, psychiatrist, philosopher, neuroscientist, cognitive scientist, or mystic has been able to position the mind in a model that fits all of the evidence. Only the correct theory could do that.
Peace,
Ik
I spent some time today discussing the gyre as a core model undergirding nature. I welcome commentary. Here is the link:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre: A core model compatible with the requirements of chaos, complexity, emergence, evolutionary, and systems theory
And here is an excerpt, IYI:
Ik
Turning and turning in the widening gyre: A core model compatible with the requirements of chaos, complexity, emergence, evolutionary, and systems theory
And here is an excerpt, IYI:
Peace,Recently, I was asked, “What’s a gyre?” While the answer to this question is readily and easily determinable by a simple google search or dictionary thumbing, I deduced a deeper discussion of the character and form of the gyre was necessary to explain My Self to Myself. This is a long post, as there is much to discuss.
In the course of compiling this post, I realized that I have not yet provided an overview of gyre structure and function in this blog. Moreover, I have not descibed the merits of simple gyre from a standpoint of theoretical unification. Indeed, many fields that want to unify the empirical evidence in multiple fields – chaos theory, complexity theory, emergence theory, evolutionary theory, systems theory – lack a core framework upon which the data can be fit.
Figure 1 - too big, at link
Mea culpa, since I have already introduced and explained the gyromodel (where the gyre is modeled as the two half-turns in the left side of the equation in Figure 1) and applied it to the photogyre (origin of visible energy), electrogyre (origin of visible matter), hydroxygyre (origin of phased water), carbogyre (origin of organic matter), phosphogyre (origin of phosphomembranes), ribogyre (origin of RNA), aminogyre (origin of protein), and deoxygyre (origin of DNA) – all of which use the gyre as infrastructure.
An overview of the gyre is fundamental to understanding why it is a leading candidate as the core model of the Universe. So, then, what is a gyre? Basically, a gyre is a spiral or a vortex, derived from the Latin gyrus – a ring. Looking at it en face reveals the swirling, turning, churning architecture around a central point (Figure 2).
Figure 2
All gyres in nature share many key aspects. Here, I introduce, define, and refine these characteristics as they relate to the gyromodel and provide specific examples to facilitate understanding. I close with a brief discussion of how the gyromodel elegantly fits the requirements and expectations of four prominent mainstream theoretical fields.
Ik
Had a quick skim and noticed there is no mention of universal constants ie. gravity.
Wondered if poster Ik would like to state he has a solution to how the universal constant of gravity can be modelled successfully as universal constant and how this constant can allow for cosmic inflation and expansion and still remain exactly constant universally.
BTW I do know you wont be able to because of other badly premised assumptions already disclosed and I also already know there can be only one solution...
Apart from the above I just thought I'd join in on the fun... Merry Xmas every one!
Wondered if poster Ik would like to state he has a solution to how the universal constant of gravity can be modelled successfully as universal constant and how this constant can allow for cosmic inflation and expansion and still remain exactly constant universally.
BTW I do know you wont be able to because of other badly premised assumptions already disclosed and I also already know there can be only one solution...
Apart from the above I just thought I'd join in on the fun... Merry Xmas every one!
Last edited:
Still struggling with that? Not bothered to look up any relativity? Inflation is to do with the time dependency of the scale factor a in the FRW metric. How that varies is independent of how G varies, if it varies at all.
Well I thought it would be even more fun to see Ik's solution...given that you don't have one.
Edit: I apologise Alphanumeric as your point about the FRW metric is a good one and deserving of recognition.[not that I fully understand it].. however Ik has made some pretty grand claims and as yet no one has picked him up on the main ommission [ as far as I have read that is] and that being he offers no method or model for obtaining the absolute uniformity of the universal constant of gravity of all "massive" objects even though they are presumed to be separated by space and time.
Last edited:
The fact you don't listen or don't understand doesn't mean there's no answer. Besides, you have it backwards, inflation can account for the homogeneity of the universe. Even if the value of any 'constant' varies in space inflation expanded areas of space smaller than an atom to be the size of the visible universe, meaning even large changes in G in the early universe are smoothed out to almost nothing now. So its not that a seemingly constant G has a hard time explaining inflation, its that inflation explains a seemingly constant G.
Physics allows for varying coupling 'constant', that's what renormalisation and running couplings relate to, so its not some never before considered concept.
now that's an interesting take on it...
I wonder what Ik's is? If he has one?
is there any evidence to support this notion that G has not always been constant? Link or reference perhaps?
I was always under the possibly mistaken impression that G has been thought of as always being absolutely constant.
[ the G was and is constant universally at any given t=0 ]
Last edited:
yes I understand this in this context.
However I am referring to universality at any given moment [ t=0 ] but thanks all the same..
specifically:
I was and very quickly loosing interest(ed) in whether poster "Ik" has a solution for the universality of the gravitational constant.
Last edited:
yes I understand this in this context.
However I am referring to universality at any given moment [ t=0 ] but thanks all the same..
specifically:
I was and very quickly loosing interest(ed) in whether poster "Ik" has a solution for the universality of the gravitational constant.
Yes, you're right.
G is a constant.
And the big question is:
How is a constant universal, when massive bodies are separated by a void of space [ vacumm ] and according to current thought, time [ due to the theoretical Einstein/Minkowski space time model ]
In other words :
What is the cause for the cosmological "simultaneous entanglement" of all "massive" objects?
example:
I have an Apple in one hand and an Orange in the other.
What "entangles" them so that the apple and the orange no matter where in the universe they may be will always share the same Gravitational constant?
Last edited:
I would submit, Quantum Quack, that there are no assumptions that undergird Unity. Being a complete and consistent theory ensures this very fact. Whether there are "badly premised assumptions already disclosed," I deduce that this is surmised from a first-person perspective of the current materialistic, mechanistic, reductionistic paradigm.
Speaking of assumptions, I find it intriguing how the intellectual redoubt of the theoretical physicist and mathematician is the number - despite the fact that the metaphysical nature of numbers is an unresolved problem. On this note, let us address the issue of the universal constant of gravity as modeled by Unity:
Iq <–> denergyre (denergon) <–> ombregyre (ombron) <–> photogyre (photon) <–> electrogyre (electron) <–> hydroxygyre (hydroxyon) <–> carbogyre (carbyon)<–> phosphogyre (phosphon) <–> ribogyre (ribon) <–> aminogyre (aminon) <–> deoxyogyre (deoxyon) <–> cellulogyre (cellulon) <–> organogyre (organon) <–> envirogyre (environ) <–> visigyre (visuon) <–> phonogyre (phonon) <–> linguigyre (linguon) <–> symbogyre (symbon) <–> numerogyre (numeron) <–> econogyre (econon)<–> lapoligyre (lapolon) <–> geniugyre (geniuon) <–> Igyre
1. The universal gravitational constant is derived from examining the physical relationships between objects (note: a fundamental assumption) with mass.
2. The universal gravitational constant is a number, 6.67 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.
3. The universal gravitational constant is a symbol, G.
4. The existence of G is fully dependent upon hominid sensation.
5. The dissemination of G is fully dependent upon hominid communication of sense qualia.
As Unity proves there is Only One I, I, the Experimenter (made up of a conscious mind, quanta, water, carbohydrates and hydrocarbons, phosphomembranes, RNA, protein, DNA, cells, and a body in an environment - modeled from the denergyre to the envirogyre), have observed (visigyre) Myself - the physical matter (photogyre and electrogyre) - and bestowed a number and symbol (numerogyre and symbogyre) onto Myself that I disseminate by spoken and written word (phonogyre, linguigyre, and symbogyre) and given value to this information, made a physical law of it, and recorded it as part of Man's evolutionary knowledge (econogyre, lapoligyre, and geniugyre).
Hence, Unity proves that the gravitational constant is that number, is constant throughout the Universe, because that's how I created Myself, that is, the Universe.
Indeed, Unity proves that I am G.
If I, QuantumQuack, am disillusioned with this explanation, I would submit that this entire endeavor - to Me, Ik, the trained-to-be rational, cynical, skeptical, critical scientist - is disillusioning.
Indeed, consider what Unity proves: I created the Universe just to find My Self creating a theory to describe My Self to Myself.
Peace on Earth,
Ik
Last edited:
Yes, AlexG, of course. Thanks for providing empirical evidence validating Unity by transmitting information via a polymerized structure termed a symbonexus.
Perhaps other polymers in physics and biology and society may help reveal how Unity reveals a law of polymers:
[e•γ]n polymer: e.g., atomic orbital, Luttinger liquid, electrons linked by photons
[O•e]n polymer: water, oxygen atoms linked by electrons
[C•o] polymer: carbohydrate, carbon atoms linked by water
[C•e] polymer: hydrocarbon, carbon atoms linked by electrons
[P•c] polymer: phospholipid raft, orthophosphate linked by C1 of glycerol
[R•p] polymer: RNA, nucleotides linked by orthophosphate
[A•n] polymer: polypeptide, amino acids linked by amide bond
[D•a] polymer: DNA, deoxynucleotides linked by DNA-binding proteins
...
[L•Φ] polymer: Speech, spoken words linked by phonemes
[Σ•L] polymer: Symbols, written words linked by spoken words
...
and so on.
Thank goodness the empirical evidence is there for all to see.
Peace on Earth,
Ik
Perhaps other polymers in physics and biology and society may help reveal how Unity reveals a law of polymers:
[e•γ]n polymer: e.g., atomic orbital, Luttinger liquid, electrons linked by photons
[O•e]n polymer: water, oxygen atoms linked by electrons
[C•o] polymer: carbohydrate, carbon atoms linked by water
[C•e] polymer: hydrocarbon, carbon atoms linked by electrons
[P•c] polymer: phospholipid raft, orthophosphate linked by C1 of glycerol
[R•p] polymer: RNA, nucleotides linked by orthophosphate
[A•n] polymer: polypeptide, amino acids linked by amide bond
[D•a] polymer: DNA, deoxynucleotides linked by DNA-binding proteins
...
[L•Φ] polymer: Speech, spoken words linked by phonemes
[Σ•L] polymer: Symbols, written words linked by spoken words
...
and so on.
Thank goodness the empirical evidence is there for all to see.
Peace on Earth,
Ik
an interesting and somewhat saddening response... Thanks Ik for taking the effort to attempt to explain your rational.
When discovering the true nature of the "I" one needs to realise that in doing so renders all need for communication moot and a mere entertainment.
If you experience the need to communicate your thoughts and desires then you have yet to discover the true nature of the "I".
To obfuscate a simple request and fail to demonstrate how the most important physical requirement of this universe is accounted for by stating that it is so "because you made it so" is truely a sad inditement of where you are at and where you are most probably heading.
It takes intelligence to write as you have, this there is no doubt of, but it takes wisdom, humility and reflection to make it useful and of benefit not only to yourself but the rest of the universe.
I believe that the one "I" is sane and rational. I believe that that it is more a little "i" than a big "I' as humility allows the greatest abillity to be inspired.
It is unfortunate and as I said saddening that your "i" is a big "I' which renders your obvious intelligence to commit a fraud upon yourself [ self deception - arrogance] nothing but ultimately self "I" destructive.
How do I know this? Because I and every member of this forum [or universe as you may] is also an "I" and in most cases a variation of degree between the small "i" and a big "I".
That being said best wishes for the future and possily your "smarts" will pull you through eventually.
Last edited:
Yes, saddening. Disappointing, even. On several levels.
By differentiating between i and I, right there is a fundamental epistemic assumption.
As proven by Unity, I am Quantum Quack. Quantum Quack does not have his own 'i' that is separate and distinct from any other, nor does Ik, nor does anyone that exists now or has ever existed in the history of Mankind.
No obfuscation. Rather, Truth. Indeed, what's worst of all is that I, the Mathematician, will not be satisfied with the true explanation, of course. I must suffer the most horrible Self-inflicted punishment - just like Sisyphus - of chasing after an explanation for a number that I created in hopes of an explanation that rules out that I, Myself, created it and I, Myself, am that number.
What a shame that I am unable to come to terms with this most simple, irrefragable conclusion of Unity.
Wisdom, humility, and reflection? My Brother, coming to terms with who and what I am requires the deepest and ultimate Self-reflection I can have in the Universe. It is the most humbling, awe-inspiring, ineffable experience. And, because it occurs only through the first person perspective, an admonishment of lack of humility is ironic. Likewise with wisdom.
And indictment? Theory proves that I cannot help but indict My Self. Were I not to do just this, the theory would be false.
Finally, Self-destructive? Yes, indeed. The final theory destroys the entire edifice. It could be no other way.
Fair winds.
Peace,
Ik
By differentiating between i and I, right there is a fundamental epistemic assumption.
As proven by Unity, I am Quantum Quack. Quantum Quack does not have his own 'i' that is separate and distinct from any other, nor does Ik, nor does anyone that exists now or has ever existed in the history of Mankind.
No obfuscation. Rather, Truth. Indeed, what's worst of all is that I, the Mathematician, will not be satisfied with the true explanation, of course. I must suffer the most horrible Self-inflicted punishment - just like Sisyphus - of chasing after an explanation for a number that I created in hopes of an explanation that rules out that I, Myself, created it and I, Myself, am that number.
What a shame that I am unable to come to terms with this most simple, irrefragable conclusion of Unity.
Wisdom, humility, and reflection? My Brother, coming to terms with who and what I am requires the deepest and ultimate Self-reflection I can have in the Universe. It is the most humbling, awe-inspiring, ineffable experience. And, because it occurs only through the first person perspective, an admonishment of lack of humility is ironic. Likewise with wisdom.
And indictment? Theory proves that I cannot help but indict My Self. Were I not to do just this, the theory would be false.
Finally, Self-destructive? Yes, indeed. The final theory destroys the entire edifice. It could be no other way.
Fair winds.
Peace,
Ik