Friday, April 29, 2016

Concept Formation in Children by Vygotskii

The notes below are taken from the psychologist Vygotskii's work called Thought and Language. He did a series of experiments and meditations with children and adolescents in search for insights into conceptualization and language.

I do not agree with some of his use of language, e.g. I would not describe concept as a formation. This is a misnomer and misleading use of language. Concept has no form and does not form. He also failed to understand that the word either refers to an object or to a concept even though he was sitting right on top of this insight (no doubt his failure is due to poor language usage, for Form is wed to Object). Still these are some valuable notes taken from his book. They add insight into the Object--Concept dichotomy which is so crucial in the work of philosophy and physics.

This book is considered the landmark of cognitive science.

Thought and Language by Vygotskii

From Chapter: Concept Formation in Children

Concept formation [misnomer] is the result of a complex activity in which all basic intellectual functions take part. The process cannot, however, be reduced to association, attention, imagery, inference, or determining tendencies. They are all indispensable, but they are insufficient without the use of the sign, or word, as the means by which we direct our mental operations, control their discourse, and channel them toward the solution of the problem confronting us.

Concept Formation

Phase 1

The young child takes the first step toward concept formation when he puts together a number of objects in an unorganized congeries, or “heap”, in order to solve a problem that we adults would normally solve by forming a new concept.

Phase 2

The second major phase on the way to concept formation comprises many variations of a type of thinking that we shall call thinking in complexes. In a complex, individual objects are united in the child’s mind not only by his subjective impressions but also by bonds actually existing between objects.
. . .
Remains of complex thinking persist in the language of adults. Family names are perhaps the best example of this. Any family name, “Petrov,” let us say, subsumes individuals in a manner closely resembling that of the child’s complexes. The child at that stage of development thinks in family names, as it were; the universe of individual objects becomes organized for him by being grouped into separate, mutually related “families.”

Phase 3

Complex thinking of the second type consists in combing objects or the concrete impressions they make on the child into groups that closely resemble collections. Objects are placed together on the basis of some one trait in which they differ and consequently complement one another.

Phase 4

After the collection stage of thinking in complexes, we must place the chain complex—a dynamic, consecutive joining of individual links into a single chain, with meaning carried over from one link to the next. . . . An object included (in a chain complex) because of one of its attributes enters the complex not just as the carrier of that one trait but as an individual, with all its attributes. . . In complexes, the hierarchical organization is absent: All attributes are functionally equal.

Phase 5

Because the chain complex is factually inseparable from the group of concrete objects that form it, it often acquires a vague and floating quality.
. . .
The diffuse complex is marked by the fluidity of the very attribute that unites its single elements.
. . .
To go with a yellow triangle, for example, a child would in our experiments pick out trapezoids as well as triangles, because they made him think of triangles with their tops cut off.
. . .
Complexes resulting from this kind of thinking are so indefinite as to be in fact limitless.

Phase 6

To complete the picture of complex thinking, we must describe on more type of complex—the bridge, as it were, between complexes and the final, highest stage in the development of concept formation.
. . .
We call this type of complex the pseudo-concept because the generalization formed in the child’s mind, although phenotypically resembling the adult concept, is psychologically very different from the concept proper; in its essence, it is still a complex.
. . .
In the experimental setting, the child produces a pseudo-concept every time he surrounds a sample with objects that could just as well have been assembled on the basis of an abstract concept.
. . .
Pseudo concepts predominate over all other complexes in the preschool child’s thinking for the simple reason that in real life complexes corresponding to word meanings are not spontaneously developed by the child: The lines along which a complex develops are predetermined by the meaning a given word already has in the language of adults.
. . .
The language of the environment, with its stable, permanent meanings, points the way that the child’s generalizations will take. But, constrained as it is, the child’s thinking proceeds along this preordained path in the manner peculiar to his level of intellectual development. The adult cannot pass on to the child his mode of thinking. He merely supplies the ready-made meaning of a word, around which the child forms a complex—with all the structural, functional, and genetic peculiarities of thinking in complexes, even if the product of his thinking is in fact identical in its content with a generalization that could have been formed by conceptual thinking. The outward similarity between the pseudo-concept and the real concept, which makes it very difficult to “unmask” this kind of complex, is a major obstacle in the genetic analysis of thought.
. . .
The pseudo-concept serves as the connecting link between thinking in complexes and thinking in concepts. It is dual in nature: a complex already carrying the germinating seed of a concept. Verbal intercourse with adults thus becomes a powerful factor in the development of the child’s concepts. The transition from thinking in complexes to thinking in concepts passes unnoticed by the child because his pseudo-concepts already coincide in content with the adult’s concepts.
. . .
Complex formation is also responsible for the peculiar phenomenon that one word may in different situations have different or even opposite meanings as long as there is some associative link between them. Thus, a child may say before for both before and after, or tomorrow for both tomorrow and yesterday. We have here a perfect analogy with some ancient languages—Hebrew, Chinese, Latin—in which one word also sometimes indicated opposites. The Romans, for instance, had one word for high and deep. Such a marriage of opposite meanings is possible only as a result of thinking in complexes.

Phase 7

The principle function of complexes is to establish bonds and relationships. Complex thinking begins the unification of scattered impressions; by organizing discrete elements of experience into groups, it creates a basis for later generalizations.
. . .
But the advanced concept presupposes more than unification. To form such a concept it is also necessary to abstract, to single out elements, and to view abstracted elements apart from the totality of the concrete experience in which they are embedded. In genuine concept formation, it is equally important to unite and to separate: Synthesis must be combined with analysis. Complex thinking cannot do both. Its very essence is overabundance, overproduction of connections, and weakness in abstraction.

Phase 8

During the next stage in the development of abstraction, the grouping together of objects on the basis of maximum similarity is superseded by grouping on the basis of a single attribute, e.g. only round objects or only flat ones. . . we shall call such formations potential concepts.
. . .
Only the mastery of abstraction, combined with advanced complex thinking, enables the child to progress to the formation of genuine concepts. A concept emerges only when the abstracted traits are synthesized anew and the resulting abstract synthesis becomes the main instrument of thought. The decisive role in this process, as our experiments have shown, is played by the word, deliberately used to direct all the part processes of advanced concept formation.

Phase 9

The transitional character of adolescent thinking becomes especially evident when we observe the actual functioning of the newly acquired concepts. Experiments specially devised to study the adolescent’s operations with concepts brings out, in the first place, a striking discrepancy between his ability to form concepts and his ability to define them.
. . .
The adolescent will form and use a concept quite correctly in a concrete situation but will find it strangely difficult to express that concept in words, and the verbal definition will, in most cases, be much narrower than might have been expected from the way he used the concept. The same discrepancy occurs also in adult thinking, even at very advanced levels.
. . .
Much more difficult than the transfer itself is the task of defining a concept when it is no longer rooted in the original situation and must be formulated on a purely abstract plane, without reference to any concrete situation.
. . .
When the process of concept formation is seen in all its complexity, it appears as a movement of thought within the pyramid of concepts, constantly alternating between two directions, from the particular to the general, and from the general to the particular.

Our investigation has shown that a concept is formed, not through interplay of associations, but through an intellectual operation in which all the elementary mental functions participate in a specific combination. This operation is guided by the use of words as the means of actively centering attention, of abstracting certain traits, synthesizing them, and symbolizing them by a sign.

The processes leading to concept formation develop along two main lines. The first is complex formation: The child unites diverse objects in groups under a common “family name”; this process passes through various stages. The second line of development is the formation of “potential concepts,” based on singling out certain common attributes. In both, the use of the word is an integral part of developing processes, and the word maintains its guiding function in the formation of genuine concepts, to which these processes lead.
. . .

Miscellaneous from other chapters of the book:

The meaning of a word represents such a close amalgam of thought and language that it is hard to tell whether it is a phenomenon of speech or a phenomenon of thought. A word without meaning is an empty sound; meaning, therefore is a criterion of “word,” its indispensable component. . . .
Word meanings are dynamic rather than static formations. They change as the child develops. . .
. . .
The relation of thought to word and word to thought is not a thing but a process. . .
. . .
Every thought tends to connect something with something else, to establish a relationship between things.

Meaning and Definition

Here are some interesting quotes I've collected over the past year or two in regards to meaning and definition. The word meaning originates in the German Language, from the word meinen which is still used today. It is translated as thinking or intention. It almost seems synonymous with 'intentional thinking'. The word 'definition' has its roots in Latin. Both names refer to ideas and have to do with a human's relation to his own thought, or what is happening in via his brain.

From Thought and Language (1986) by Lev Vygotskii

"The meaning of a word represents such a close amalgam of thought and language that it is hard to tell whether it is a phenomenon of speech or a phenomenon of thought. A word without meaning is an empty sound; meaning, therefore is a criterion of “word,” its indispensable component. . ." [note: in other sections he equated "word" with concept. All words first and foremost reference concepts and then, secondarily refer to an object or a concept).

"The adolescent will form and use a concept quite correctly in a concrete situation but will find it strangely difficult to express that concept in words, and the verbal definition will, in most cases, be much narrower than might have been expected from the way he used the concept. The same discrepancy occurs also in adult thinking, even at very advanced levels."

From The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism (1923) by Ogden and Richards

"Firstly, do we define things or words? To decide this point we have only to notice that if we speak about defining words we refer to something very different from what is referred to, meant, by 'defining things.' When we define words we take another set of words which may be used with the same referent as the first, i.e., we substitute a symbol which will be better understood in a given situation. With things, on the other hand, no such substitution is involved. A so-called definition of a horse as opposed to the definition of the word 'horse,' is a statement about it enumerating properties by means of which it may be compared with and distinguished from other things."
. . .
"They [definitions] are relevant to some purpose or situation, and consequently are applicable only over a restricted field or 'universe of discourse.' For some definitions, those of physics, for instance, this universe is very wide."
. . .
"And here we pause at the very pertinent question: "What then from the psychological point of view is this MEANING?" The answer is given without hesitation and in italics-" From the psychological point of view, MEANING is context." To explain: In every perception, or group of sensations and images, "the associated images form as it were a context or 'fringe' which binds together the whole and gives it a definite MEANING," and it is this "fringe of MEANING that makes the sensations not 'mere' sensations but symbols of a physical object."

From Ontology of Language: What is a Concept? by Fattie
"Furthermore, these objects of our environment are also used in associations which explicitly define and provide some intended meaning, like a type of motion. In the above example[the ball fell to the floor.], the word “fell” is a dynamic concept which describes and gives meaning to the relation between 2 objects, specifically, the motion between the ball and the floor. It is impossible to define the word “fell” without associating at least 2 objects. For example, you CANNOT define “fell” by simply referencing the ball by itself without any other relation. You cannot even imagine a lone ball falling in a Universe that is comprised of a single lonely ball. Even the dynamic concepts of energy, mass, time, field or force cannot even be imagined or conceptualized on a lonely object. Not even God Almighty can conceptualize them! Now you should be able to understand exactly why ENERGY, MASS, TIME, FIELD and FORCE do not exist, they never have....and they never will."

"Meaning is what WE explicitly define in the relation within each concept. Concepts don’t magically self-acquire meaning nor are they devoid of meaning, despite what some people will have you believe."

From Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong (1998) by Jerry Fodor

"Chapter 3 remarked that it’s pretty clear that if we can’t define “doorknob”, that can’t be because of some accidental limitation of the available metalinguistic apparatus; such a deficit could always be remedied by switching metalanguages. The claim, in short, was not that we can’t define “doorknob” in English, but that we can’t define it at all. The implied moral is interesting: if “doorknob” can’t be defined, the reason that it can’t is plausibly not methodological but ontological; it has something to do with what kind of property being a doorknob is. [FORM, form, form!!!] If you’re inclined to doubt this, so be it; but I think that you should have your intuitions looked at.
. . .
It’s sometimes said that doorknobs (and the like) have functional essences: what makes a thing a doorknob is what it is (or is intended to be) used for. So maybe the science of doorknobs is psychology? Or sociology? Or anthropology? Once again, believe it if you can. In fact, the intentional aetiology of doorknobs is utterly transparent: they’re intended to be used as doorknobs. I don’t at all doubt that’s what makes them what they are, but that it is gets us nowhere. For, if DOORKNOB plausibly lacks a conceptual analysis, INTENDED TO BE USED AS A DOORKNOB does too, and for the same reasons. And surely, surely that can’t, in either case, be because there’s something secret about doorknobhood that depth psychology is needed to reveal? No doubt, there is a lot that we don’t know about intentions towards doorknobs qua intentions; but I can’t believe there’s much that’s obscure about them qua intentions towards doorknobs.

Look, there is presumably something about doorknobs that makes them doorknobs, and either it’s something complex or it’s something simple. If it’s something complex, then ‘doorknob’ much have a definition, and its definition must be either “real” or “nominal” (or both). If ‘doorknob’ has a nominal definition, then it ought to be possible for a competent linguist or analytical philosopher to figure out what its nominal definition is. If ‘doorknob’ has a real definition, then it ought to be possible for a science of doorknobs to uncover it. But linguists and philosophers have had no luck defining ‘doorknob’ (or, as we’ve seen, anything much else). And there is nothing for a science of doorknobs to find out. The direction this is leading in is that if ‘doorknob’ is undefinable, that must be because being a doorknob is a primitive property. But of course, that’s crazy. If a thing has doorknobhood, it does so entirely in virtue of others of the properties it has. If doorknobs don’t have hidden essences or real definitions, that can’t possibly be because being a doorknob is one of those properties that things have simply because they have them."

[the single primary property he is looking for is form or shape. It is impossible to define an object, all one can do is point to it. The 'word' object references that which has form. Form is in inherent property humans have conceived so as to classify any and all objects as opposed to concepts. Meaning, definition, etc. arises from relations between objects, even if a human is relating an object to his or her self, or form or another form or idea as in the act of naming or symbolizing]

From What is a Scientific Definition? by Fattie

"A definition is simply a description of the conceptual relations between the objects invoked within the specified context of a term. Definitions place limitations on the extent or usage on the terms in question for the purposes of avoiding ambiguities, circularities and contradictions. Only then can the terms have consistent meaning in one’s dissertation. All concepts describe the relations between the objects they invoke; and this is their intrinsic meaning. As such, all concepts are necessarily defined, whether we like it or not."

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Inertial Mass and All Things

Modern inertial mass is a seminal concept in Newton's work. Inertial mass refers to a static concept. A picture. Inertial mass refers to an object's resistance to being pushed and pulled by other objects in the vicinity. In this context we could replace the word 'object' with 'atom' or 'proton'. Then we have to ask ourselves how is it that this object, this atom, resists being pushed or pulled by other objects in the vicinity? The reasonable explanation seems that an atom's resistance originates in all the atoms of the Universe gently nudging that atom from all directions . . . toward them. AS WELL that sample atom gently nudging on all atoms of the Universe toward it. All the atoms of the Universe are in a constant tension with one another. When an atom assumes a succession of locations all atoms of the Universe gently nudge on it and it gently nudges on all atoms. 

When a proton (or H atom) moves in a given direction by the proton's in the vicinity, for example in what we call gravity, the same is tugged in the opposite direction by all other atoms of the Universe. Inertial mass is always in the direction(s) opposite the net effect of gravity. It seems very reasonable to assume that all the atoms of the Universe are physically connected by some sort of fundamental object that is inherent to the atoms, to the very protons themselves . . . ALL OF THEM. 

Newton came very close to this conclusion when since he thought that the resistive forces were innate to the object. He uses the expression "innate force possessed by an object" or "innate resistive forces". What he failed to do is explain HOW or WHY these resistive forces are innate to all objects, and in our modern context all atoms. He did not understand the Form of an atom. An atom derives, or assumes it's Form from the same object that performs the work of light, gravity and inertia to and from all atoms. We could call this a double helix EM Thread, and there is a grand scope of implications that such an assumption entails. The object that performs the work of light to and from all atoms has wholly unique properties (such as the ability to superpose, overlap, or intersect without disturbance up to some critical anomaly or density). These properties are assumed by the atom itself for the atom seems to assume its Form from the same object. This is one of the reason's why we have seemingly inexplicable anomalies at the quantum scale.

When two objects, say stars, like the Sun and the Earth come close, the number of these double helix thread connections INCREASES, exponentially in effectiveness. A decrease in distance, between the two sample objects in Newton's equation, say Earth and Sun, spontaneously generates a geometric increase in the number of effective thread like EM helices connecting all the atoms of these two objects. The M1 and M2 in Newton's equation represent the number of potential connections. When Earth and Sun are theoretically separated at great distances, beyond the inverse square regime, the nudging between the two is unidirectional and this would perhaps almost be the same between Earth and a star in Andromeda. Ineffective in terms of the concept of gravity, but effective in terms of inertia. When the two stars come close enough, many pairs of atoms are in a sideways tension with one another at various angles. The tension is multi-directional, a sideways tension from multiple locations. Effective. The 'innate resistive forces' are happening at various angles between the two objects considered in the equation and used for explanation.  The net effect of local tension (gravity) is as if objects are being pulled straight down toward one another, but in statement in fact in assumption, an astronomical object like Earth or Sun would have effective EM ropes from multiple locations opposite the target object considered. Many pair of atoms between these two objects are in tension with one another at various angles.  The closer they are the steeper the angles of many atoms nudging on one another. 

We can use this assumption that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an double helix EM thread to make manifest and define inertial mass so that this concept is crisp, clear and used consistently in all physical contexts. For example we could use this definition in context to Einstein's equation. That equation seems to tell us that inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light because we have c squared on the right side of the equation with m. Atoms constantly flickering light signals to and from all atoms via the fundamental physical mediator of light (which connects all atoms) maintains this bi-directional tension necessary to explain inertia. This bi-directional tension maintained by the atom's constant work of light (or radiation) obeys Newton's action-reaction principle. For every radiation the atom performs there is an equal and opposite reaction. From here we could get into Mach's principle. 

E on the left side of Einstein's equation refers to an atom's capacity to do the work of light. All E does is calculate an object's capacity to do the work of light, specifically receive and send off light signals. What is interesting is that the more resistance an object has to being pushed or pulled is proportional to that object's capacity to do the work of light. An exponential increase in an object's 'Energy' or capacity to do the work of light seems to imply that that object has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe. So a Caesium atom has more fundamental and permanent connections to all the atoms of the Universe than a Hydrogen atom. 

Matter is an ill-defined concept come out of Greece. 

We could define it as the set of objects, or the set of existing objects.

The fundamental unit of matter is the atom, but there also seems to be an object that is more fundamental connecting all atoms and from which all atoms are derived.  This is an EM Rope or double helix thread.  This object is inseparable to all the base hydrogen atoms (or protons), or in other words the proton assumes its Form or derives its From from this fundamental object. 

Object refers to that which has Form

Exist refers to that which has Form and location OR simply that which stands out.  Atoms and the fundamental object connecting all atoms exists in spite of the fact that the features of the atom (e.g. proton, electron, neutron) as well as the fundamental object has unique properties, such as the ability to superpose, overlap or intersect to a critical density or critical anomaly which initiates fundamental interactions (such as light, push, pull, etc.). 

Mass (Inertial) refers to an an object's resistance to being pushed or pulled by objects in its close vicinity.

Energy refers to an object's capacity to do work (in Einstein's equation the work referred to is distinctly the work of light or radiation)

Monday, March 28, 2016

What is Real?

Real is about as Latin of a word as one can find.
It comes from the Latin realis.

Re is a variation on the Latin word res
alis just means: of, related to, connected with, belonging to

So realis is literally that which is related to things.

Res was a Roman staple, e.g. res publica literally public matter or public things.

In the dictionary they also try a trace Res back to Sanskrit:

"From Proto-Italic *reis, from Proto-Indo-European *reh₁ís (“wealth, goods”). Cognate to Old Persian [script needed] (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”), Avestan (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”) and Sanskrit रयि (rayí, “property, goods”)."

And note that in Latin the spelling RES is the same for singular and plural. So its like res are your things. Your land, your house, your bike, your car, your husband or wife, your body, your children, your money, your clothes, your food supply, and any relation in regards to your things. Your stuff! A very simple down to earth word and much less technical than the other Latin word: Existentia

There are hundreds of English words that use RES, e.g. resurrection, residue, reservoir, residence, etc.

The way the Romans used the word is similar to how people use the English word 'thing' or 'matter' or 'stuff'. In English 'thing' or 'matter' is basically used as a placeholder for any word in an ordinary conversation. But in physics and philosophy these words are used differently and people will be trying to figure this stuff out until the Sun explodes.

If we are to use the word REAL in physics and philosophy then we have to define it.

The Latin is literally that which belongs to things. Thing is just synonymous with object, entity, body, etc. What belongs to all things I ask? Form. Form is the primary quality of all things. So real has a lot to do with form. Form refers to that which is bounded or contained from the immediate surrounding. Then if you want you can add the idea of location. So this form has a location. That star you see every morning has form and location. And guess what? Your act of observing it or thinking about it doesn't determine this. The Sun is just there. It stimulates the atoms in your body and forces you to wake up. Very profound!!! So in real there is this sense that the thing is independent to your thought or act of perception.

Your wife you wake up to every morning has form and location. Once you tie the knot you can't escape her. Your car or bike or skateboard has form and location, that magnet you used in science class has form and location, as do all the atoms that constitute these. HOWEVER that woman you dreamed about last night seemed to have a form but no location. If you look around you will not find her. You can think about her, but you can't relate TO HER. Your brain just generated a picture and made a movie of her. Or that triangle you traced in geometry has a form but no location. Or those spacetime lines your curved don't seem to be found. These forms are not real. They have no relation to all the atoms of the Universe.

So its very simple. The Romans were no fools. They conceived and used words like REALIS and EXISTENTIA because some of their Greek neighbors were insane. These are static concepts used to describe objects.

In philosophy and mathematics they start messing around with the word real and for thousands of years this word is never resolved or defined. And then we have mentally ill philosophers, mathematicians and so called physicists preaching to the masses about the word real. And then they build trillion dollar devices to decide what is real or what is not real because they are confused about how the philosophers use the word real.

All these imaginary problems could be resolved in an instant if the philosopher, physicist or mathematician defined the term REAL and used it consistently in his presentations. Simple as that.

so in summary for physics and philosophy I would define

Real: that which has form (object) and location independent of any human action whether thinking, perceiving, observing, measuring, dreaming, hallucinating, etc. Not all objects qualify as real.

Location & Real vs. Existence

Location refers to a static concept (a picture imaged by the brain). Where form is a primary quality of objects used to resolve the ontology of the word referent, location refers to a sort of secondary quality sometimes used to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists.

Real and existence are often used to mean the same, however they are strictly speaking a little different. Real is more down to Earth. A sober concept and has to do more with that which has form independent of any sort of human intervention. Existence is more technical. Existence literally refers to that which STANDS OUT and seems to imply the three classic dimension (length, width, and height). So one could argue that existence implies a human observer. But on the other hand if one has a perfect understanding of the crucial word 'Form' and takes into account mercurial assumptions, I think one can do away with need to toy around so much.

But location can be defined more or less in an observer independent manner so as to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists

Location refers to the set of static distances from an object to all other objects.

If an object is described by real or exist, one should hypothetically be able to measure its distance to all objects of the Universe. So if superman is real and/or exists he should be located X distance from the Sun, Y from the Moon, Z from the Earth, A from you and so on. One doesn't have to do the measuring but the basic concept is powerful. It serves as a sound conceptual exercise.

Location can tell you right away whether or not some form is imagined or traced. For example a triangle. A triangle is an object. It has form, HOWEVER. does it have location? And even more 'what' could we possibly imagine bounded or contained of a triangle? In between the boundaries all one does is conceptualize space or some other imaginary forms. Space lacks form. So obviously a triangle is an abstract or imaginary form used in some context of utility. A triangle has nothing to do with reality and/or existence and all to do with a human brain conceptualizing. Similar with all concepts such as love, justice, gravity, etc. These concepts have no form, and neither to they have location. Where are you literally going to find love? Love is what an object does.

Really once one takes on some mercurial assumptions all one needs is Form. But now one can make a list of objects and ask whether or not they have location so as to help resolve whether or not they are real or exist. And so it becomes clear that humans imagine objects, hallucinate objects, project objects unto their environment, trace objects on paper and via computers, dream objects, abstracts objects, idealize objects, hypothesize objects, etc. However none of these can be located and strictly speaking they have no form. Their form also has to be described with the same modifiers. They have imaginary form and so on. We thought of them, we pictured them via our brain and used them to think, but there is no what contained, or bounded from immediate surrounding, no essence, no three classic dimensions, etc. You will never be able to locate a triangle or the ideal woman or superman. None of these objects stand out, none have three dimensions, none of them are connected to all the atoms of the Universe much less constituted by atoms. None of them are qualified in the abstract nest called matter. These imaginary objects have no foundation.

Are Memories Real?

Memory is a brain capacity. The brain or neural objects move to re-image an object of the past or imagine objects collectively mediating an event which happened in the past. The objects used in memory are not real since they lack location or a 'foundation' object from which they derive their form. They are imaginary objects or objects of memory. Just like dream objects or objects in hallucination. In this scenario we could just assume the brain and neural objects or human performing an act of memory are real.

Memory refers to a concept about what an object (brain) is able to do. Memory or memories lack form. There aren't any objects called memories constituting one's brain. Strictly speaking, real describes object. Memory lacks form and so relates back to a concept that we worked out about what our brain is able to do. Thus memory is not object and cannot be described by a static comparison called real. Similar with event. Event lacks form.

REAL is a word that describes and helps to discern objects in our act of understanding and communication.

Naming Our Brain-work

We have the ability to name objects (that which has form) or relation between objects that our brain has worked out.

So in assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption then we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth) or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number,) and we decided to label by the act of naming or even tracing. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. And the criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. This Gottlob Frege never figured out. He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.

But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brainwork. We reify our brainwork (that is convert concept into object) and establish a sort of false relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, discerning that which has form and naming it. But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept is form. Does the word referent have form? Yes or no?

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Naming Our Brain Works

We are able to name objects (that which has form) or to name a relation between objects which our brain has worked out.

In assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth) . . . or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number, etc.) and we decided to name. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. The criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. Form is that which is bounded from an immediate surrounding. This Gottlob Frege never figured out when he said "the concept horse is not a concept". He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.

But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation or comparison. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brain-work. We treat our brain-work AS IF this were an object.  In doing so we establish a sort of suprarational relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying, that is imagining that this concept is an object and ourselves relating to it. This is sort of a transcendental if you want.  As far as I know animals are not able to accomplish this, and this is one qualifier that sets us apart from the animals.  We are freaks of nature, or children of God made in his image.  Take your pick.  I believe in the latter, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.  

And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, and naming that which has form (objects). But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept in any given context is form. Does the referent have form? Yes or no?

Blah

I have this concept. . . I call it blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah, is not a thing. Blah has no form, but I treat blah like a thing in the act of naming, thinking and communication. I reified. I converted this idea into an object. But I just ignore the fact I reified blah blah blah. Now I literally think that blah is an object that performs verbs and is involved in causal relations and undergoes change effects with the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and all atoms. Blah does it all. Blah is real. And with blah we can work miracles like travel back in time! Blah will take us to new galaxies. With blah we will inhabit new worlds!

But remember blah is just an idea I thought so don't take me too seriously. This is just for shits and giggles, and we make millions off of this concept. And besides we need another trillion dollars of public funds to validate this concept.  And when we do we will announce this to the world, and all wonder.   

Friday, March 4, 2016

Facts vs. Statement of Facts in Assumption

6.2.3.1 A relativist is a person who confuses a fact with the statement of the facts

Like all scientific theories, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of fact and opinion, evidence and theory, and we must learn not to confuse them. The Darwinists confuse finding bones in a given layer of earth (facts and evidence) with their interpretation of the finding (theory, conclusions, and proof). A fossil is evidence of a fact (i.e., that something happened). How long it has been there, why it is there, and whom these remains belong to are either statements of fact or theories, but never facts. Even assuming that Gould and Rennie could convince everyone on Earth that a bone is a million years old, this theory will never become a fact. The reason for this is that theories and facts pertain to different stages of the scientific method. In science, a juror may vote for a theory, but not for a fact. A fact differs from a theory in that it is observer-free and belongs to the hypothesis stage. In Law, a verdict is the fact-finder’s opinion with respect to a fact: a conclusion. In science, there are no ‘triers-of-fact’ or verdicts because facts are strictly part of the assumptions. When we say that it is a fact that this cup is on this table, we are not giving an opinion or asking for a verdict. We are making a statement about a real film clip of the Universal Film. That this cup is on this table is a fact. That you say that this cup is on the table is a statement of the facts: an assumption. Both belong to the hypothesis. Why the cup is on the table (meaning HOW it got there – by what mechanical process) is an issue that belongs either to the hypothesis or to the theory, depending on how the statement is used. You can believe the theory proposed by the prosecutor, but your vote will not retroactively modify what actually occurred (true fact). If God sweeps the floor, it won’t alter the fact that it was dirty a minute ago, even in the case where He wipes the entire incident from everybody’s memory."

(Bill Gaede, From Why God Doesn't Exist)

Gottlob Frege Commentaries

Today I will resurrect some poignant quotes from Frege and others who have studied him. The most important aim to keep in mind with this is that Frege was on the verge of understanding how to resolve the ontology of the nominal referent which is IMHO, THE, if not one of the pinnacles of philosophy, critical thinking and all those good healthy practices expected from a tried intellectual. He didn't quite figure it out, but later another would come up with the way.

Frege Quotes


This is taken from Frege's article titled ‘On Sense and Reference’
Now languages have the fault of containing certain expressions which fail to designate an object (although grammatical form seems to qualify them for that purpose) . . .

Comment: Some words refer to a concept, conceived by a human, however they are surreptitiously used in a syntactical grammar AS IF they refer to objects. Understanding HOW to resolve this distinction is of the utmost important when processing communication ESPECIALLY in a study of fundamental physics. Understanding this distinction will also help lead to an ultimate appreciation of objects and their essential role in brain works.

Continuing Frege says:
So language brands a concept as an object, since the only way it can fit the designation for a concept into its grammatical structure is as a proper name. But in so doing, strictly speaking it falsifies matters. (Gottlob Frege, 1892a, 168-69)

Comment: I would not say it falsifies matters, since validation/verification of statements is another matter that is subjectively performed by humans. I would say in doing so renders that expression irrational, contradictory or at best figurative. Now we treat concepts as if they were objects all the time. This uncanny ability is proper to humans. And yet in a rigorous intellectual setting such as physics, these matters must be clarified for the sake of communication, sanity, consistency, honesty, and helping to produce brilliant, rational assumptions, theories, conclusions, etc.

Quotes from Studies on Frege

From Philosophy of Language and Logical Theory by Khatchadourian (p.309-11)
A concept-word, according to Frege, is predicative; it is a possible grammatical predicate of a range of otherwise different sentences. To predicate a concept-word of a grammatical subject is to relate a concept to a logical subject, i.e. to an object. Another way of saying this is that to predicate a concept of an object is to state that the object falls under the concept. The predicative character of concepts is what Frege calls “incompleteness” of concepts. In terms of this the difference between a concept and an object is that an object falls under a concept but that the converse is impossible. “An equation is reversible; an object’s falling under a concept is irreversible

Comment: So concepts are based in objects. Frege never figured out why: objects have form, concepts lack form; they are relations between two or more objects worked out by the brain. Concepts are based on objects, but objects are not based on concepts. An object has the referent of Form independent of our conception or even perception. The referent of Form is inseparable from an object. So for example the form of that object across the street named woman does not rely on our seeing it or on our naming it ‘woman’. Now this might sound trite or petty semantics but I assure everyone that understanding how to resolve the ontology of word referent in all contexts can help enable one to accomplish immense intellectual tasks for example:

1. Ability to discern and interpret figures of speech, and perhaps learning how to conceive of one’s own figures
2. Ability to interpret obscure and difficult texts, etc.
3. Ability to understand the roots of all languages. All languages have their roots in objects.
4. Identifying intellectual charlatans who make millions even billions off of concepts that refer to nothing in reality
5. Enabling one to see through intellectual hogwash and acquire a sort of natural wisdom.
6. Initiating intellectual revolutions in self and others
7. Appreciating the great value of existing objects and understanding that a dynamic concept such as love will never happen or even be conceived without that object named woman who grew up down the road from you. Thus one would imagine that this woman is very valuable and should be treated with great care and dignity. Understanding that without the two objects named man and woman and what they have the ability to do continues the human family. Understanding that objects such as food, clothes, water, house are more valuable than concepts such as money.
8. Understanding the great darkness and devolution of Western Civilization as it currently operates. Many are enslaved to, burdened and lost in the concepts conceived by themselves or others.
9. Understand how people manipulate each other via use of concepts.
10. Tracing back to the fundamental object that underlies and connects all existing atoms of the Universe and understanding that this fundamental object cannot possibly rely on a concept called space for its form.
11. Figuring out devishly difficult problems in physics such as what object may mediate gravity and light between stars and planet, how atoms work, what electron, proton, and neutron refer to, what sort of assumptions can we make about the fundamental entity, explaining fundamental interactions, exposing the wave-particle duality, balancing the continuity of all objects with their discontinuity, and so on.
12. Enable one to attain freedom of thought.

Continuing with Frege Study:
It seems to follow from this that “completing” a concept can be regarded as stating that a given object falls or does not fall under the concept. We “complete” ‘() conquered Gaul’ by ‘Julius Caesar’, when we state that Julius Caesar falls under the concept conquered Gaul, i.e. when we make the statement ‘Julius Caesar conquered Gaul’.

Comment. We base the concept ‘conquered Gaul’ on Julius Caesar. Without the referent of Julius Caesar the conquering of Gaul would have never happened. Frege took a sort of . . . how do I want to say this . . . backwards approach to solving these problems.
. . .
Concepts are attributes. Hence what we have said about the “incompleteness” of concepts, put in terms of this notion, is that attributes are “incomplete” in isolation from objects. Another way of saying this is that attributes, in order to be attributes at all, have to be attributes of objects. An attribute is “completed” when it is related to an object, is thought of as attributed to the object [objects precede concepts]. Relations [also concepts], which are in a similar position, are functions with two arguments, i.e. are doubly “incomplete”, and so require two objects to be “completed”. Speaking about concepts Frege says:
"It is clear that a concept cannot be represented independently as an object can but that it can occur only in combination. One can say that a concept can be distinguished out of it. All apparent contradictions which one can come upon here result from treating a concept as an object, contrary to its incomplete nature. (Uber die Grundlagen der Geometrie)"
Black says that this suggests that Frege’s contention that functions (and so concepts) are “incomplete” is that “it is logically impossible to make a function the subject of an assertion” (p. 246).

Comment: Obviously attributes and relations lack form and cannot possibly exist. Attributes and relations refer to our thoughts about objects. Attribute refers to a comparison of objects. What does this thing have or not have in comparison to that thing. What can this thing do that another cannot do.  
Attribute is a subcategory of concept.  Once we establish a category Concept by resolving the ontology of the word-referent i.e. asking whether or not the referent has form, we see that one can modify the Concept category into many subcategories.

So, concepts refer to a relation between two or more objects worked out by the brain. A concept is 'incomplete' without a minimum of at least two objects since one of those objects is the man conceiving the relation or at least two neurons consummating the relation in the brain of the man.

Frege began to understand the hierarchical relation between objects and concepts. Objects precede concepts. Without objects there would be no events (moving relations, syn: phenomena, happening, etc), no perceptions completed by sense organs of humans, animals and possibly plant, no conceptions completed by the brain, no verbs, etc. Verbs refer to what we think objects do. The woman sings . . . stars illuminate and gravitate. How they do this is a matter of explanation and we may have to suppose an un-perceivable object such as air or invisible mediators so as to explain the action. But it is contradictory to make a verb or a grammatical function the subject of a sentence because then it is treated as an object. Verbs, attributes, or relations CANNOT perform actions or reactions. Objects perform causal relations and undergo change effects via objects and this makes our conception of verbs possible and it is rational to acknowledge this order.

With objects all we can possibly do is name them, assume them, draw them and explain how they work in relation to other objects. Naming refers to a dynamic concept completed by a human and can be traced directly to the object that is named (to that which has Form). We also have the tricky ability to perform the work of naming our conceptions, our brainworks. We name our brain works, to organize, develop and stimulate our brains and also so as to communicate directly with other objects such as humans and animals. Naming concepts modifies objects, describes them, etc. This name can indirectly trace back to the objects of our brains (atoms, electrons, neurons, connectors, etc.) performing causal relations and undergoing change effects in the referred concept or to objects of our environment remembered and used in the conception. The name of our conception serves as a placeholder for the objects of our environment we conceived in a relation via our sensory organ or the objects of our brain performing the work called conception and serves to modify, describe, explain the objects. So we perceive water molecules, remember their locations, think and name that thought wave. Wave is what an object does. Wave does not refer to an object. We can trace back wave to objects even if these objects are no longer perceivable or even unperceivable.

If we conceive an abstract concept such as Universe then we can trace back that abstraction to a nest of all existing objects and the static separation we conceived (space). If we do not at least make note of this, then we may begin to think that our conceptions literally have form and perform causal relations and undergo change effects when clearly this is impossible because our conceptions are already the objects of our brains performing causal relations and undergoing change effects. And bye the bye, we are always conceiving. So naming our conception is sort of a convenient illusion to stimulate our brains, understand and communicate. It is the goal of intellectual life to master this stimulation and not become a slave to this work or use this work to deceive others, lord it over others, or swindle others.

But the reverse is impossible. An object cannot possibly refer to or resolve to a concept.

Our intellectual activities better end on objects that have forms and hopefully exist. In a strict intellectual environment objects should never be used as a concept or vice versa: Concepts should not be treated as objects. When all is said and done, two or more objects induce concepts or make concepts possible. Frege took a sort of negative approach and never completely solved the problem because he failed to understand that Form resolves the ontology of the word referent (does the nominal referent have Form? Yes or No???) Form is the most important name in all philosophy. It is in a category all its own. The Sun, Moon, Stars, atoms, the fundamental object underlying all atoms and the woman or man across the street all had their unique Form and performed their actions before you saw them, remembered them or thought about them.

Frege also wrote an article "On Concept and Object" (1892a) where he struggles with the contradiction that "the concept horse is not a concept". Had he known how to resolve the ontology of the word referent he would have solved some of his own problems.

All names, first and foremost refer to conceptions, verbs, or brain-works performed by a human. Its what we do! These either directly refer to an Object (that which has Form) or indirectly to two or more objects embodied by the brain in a relation with the aim of understanding, communication, praxis, organization, etc, in other words Concept.

Syntax follows this rational order, however for whatever reason, because we are free, i.e. not bound by artificial laws of syntax or of logic, because we are creative, or because we are freaks of Nature or children of God, we break these laws all the time and switch the order treating referred concepts AS IF they were objects. Thus we need to parse sentences and discern communication so as to make sense of what the author meant to convey. In other words we resolve the context. If the author is confused we should be able to figure this out rather quickly by using these conceptual tools at our disposal.

From object, form, and concept we can graduate to exist. Exist refers to an object that stands out. Exist implies three dimensions (length, width, height) however these are measurements and whether or not an object exists has nothing to do with our act of measuring. The Sun had Form and existed before any human came along to observe it and measure it. Another possible definition of exist is that which has Form and Location. With this enlightened understanding we can clearly see that 1D, 2D, 4D objects of geometry cannot possibly exist or be used in assumptions, explanations and conclusions in physics. Geometry is a nihilistic religion.

Concept lacks Form and so is automatically disqualified from existence. This does not entail that Concept does not HAPPEN, however these dynamic concepts must ALWAYS be performed or worked by objects that exist.

Intellectual Virtues vs. Vices

Virtues

* clarity
* consistency
* non-contradiction
* sanity
* honesty
* forthrightness (going straight to the point; frank; direct;)
* subtlety
* profundity
* analysis wed to synthesis (or unification) (often times thinkers don't balance these two intellectual skills. They go to an extreme analysis without synthesis. It seems much more difficult to synthesize ideas)
* poise
* wisdom (an ability to conceive underlying or hidden relations beyond appearances)
* elan
* athleticism (sometimes thought strikes me as almost athletic. It mimics a state of health in the body. In terms of intellectual life, it doesn't pay to sit around smoking and drinking all day! This might payoff in poetry but not in physics and philosophy)
* genuine joy (if the person doesn't seem to enjoy his subject chances are he won't have a high-quality of insight)
* organization (if one wants to understand Mother Nature, one has to get one's head together)
* definition
* rigor
* freedom (you don't have to rely to much on authority)
* simplicity
* newness (conceptions no one else has thought of)
* detachment (emotionally as well as intellectually. One can even detach oneself from one's own ideas)

* open-mindedness

not easy to mingle all these together, and we are always in the process of rethinking and growing, but its good to have some references as to what is considered virtuous thought.

Vices
* ambiguity
* inconsistency
* contradiction
* overuse and over reliance on figures of speech
* laziness
* confusion
* disorganization
* shallowness
* pettiness
* dishonesty
* stubbornness (imagine that an idea you came up with may have happened on a day when your brain was overloaded with toxins or you were malnourished or fatigued. Or perhaps you didn't marshal enough facts. It doesn't pay to hold to that idea until you die. Always good to rethink, and move forward)

* over-sensitivity
* over-thinking, cluttered thought. too many ideas
* foppishness (excessively refined and fastidious in taste and manner.)

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Light Emission: Strength by Numbers

In spite of its heuristic value, however, the hypothesis of light quanta, which is quite irreconcilable with so-called interference phenomena, is not able to throw light on the nature of radiation. I need only recall that these interference phenomena constitute our only means of investigating the properties of radiation and therefore of assigning any closer meaning to the frequency which in Einstein’s theory fixes the magnitude of the light-quantum. (Niehls Bohr, 1922 Nobel Speech) 
One possibility in this direction is to regard, classically, an electron as the end of a single Faraday line of force. The electric field in this picture from discrete Faraday lines of force, which are to be treated as physical things, like strings. One has then to develop a dynamics for such a string like structure, and quantize it.... In such a theory a bare electron would be inconceivable, since one cannot imagine the end of a piece of string without having the string. ---Paul Dirac, Bombay Lectures (1955)  the electron and proton are not really independent, but just two manifestations of one elementary particle. ---Paul Dirac, (1930) 
The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real. --- Richard Feynman, From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, p. 70 
Everything is still vague and unclear to me, but it seems as if the electrons will no more move on orbits ---Heisenberg in a letter to Pauli after conceiving Matrix Mechanics, June 9th 1925
Introduction

I enjoy to think about the atom, how it is constituted and how it works. So I offer a little brainstorm. I've said in the past that light (like gravity) generates strength by numbers and I want to try and divulge what I mean by this. Please note this is a very simple and idealized explanation. Honest to goodness this is just a conceptual baby step. But I think this could be a key concept that could be developed and utilized universally from emission spectra and across the electromagnetic spectrum; radio to gamma.

I invite you to use your imagination when reading this . . .

Star Model

Call the atomic model I will be using Star Model. This model is more physical and less mathematical. It is a modification of Gaede's atomic model. I give a basic introduction to it here:

What Does a Hydrogen Atom Look Like?

The root assumption of Star Model is that the hydrogen atom is constituted by a set of fundamental objects that mediate light and gravity between all H atoms (or protons & neutrons). These fundamental objects converge from all other H atoms to the Universe so as to impart form to the H atom. Call these EM Ropes. In Star Model they are unique double threads with 0 wave amplitude (amplitude taken in a classic wave mechanics sense).

Torsion and Revolution

Lets just say that there are 10^100 H atoms (or protons and neutrons) of the Universe so there are 10^100 (-1) converging EM Ropes from which the H atom derives it's form. One set of threads straightens and converges at a tiny center point less than a femtometere in height and width to form the proton. Call these proton threads. Projecting out from the proton, orthogonal in a divergence is a set of electron threads. The electron threads are not a single thread but a double thread also set at 0 amplitude. Perhaps they are reverse twisted out from the proton by the converging action of the EM Ropes or by the proton. And we will just say that there are about half the number of electron threads as there are EM Ropes, so 10^50. For a 'normal' H atom the electron threads are picometers in length as opposed to the EM Ropes which tend to be inordinately long, since they interconnect all H atoms of the Universe.

The form and behavior of the electron threads and the EM Ropes is similar. They both torque along, signalling. If we stopped them we could almost think of the section between each signal as a link or link length hence when frequency increases, linklength decreases and vice versa. More importantly they have this majestic quantum quality not found in the macro world, in fact this quality underpins all macro-relations we conceive. Call this quality superposition (not to be confused with how this word is used in mathematical circles). These EM Ropes and electron threads can superpose (that is occupy the same location) up to a critical abundance or maximum number that could be two times the number of H atoms in the Universe or more. So the converging EM Ropes superpose with the diverging electron threads at the H atom within the atomic radius. However one difference between an EM Rope and an electron thread is that an electron thread not only torques along but can also possibly revolve around the proton like a hand on a clock whereas an EM Rope is rooted at two ends by the proton. So if left alone electron threads of the H atom have two simultaneous motions

1. torsion signalling or torsion wave along (like a twisting rope)
2. revolution around the proton (like a hand on a clock)

Both of these actions could be kept track of using the concept of frequency. A single electron thread could be torquing at X Hz, and revolving the proton (360 degrees) at Y Hz. (Hz is event repeated per second)

Lets focus on motion # 2 for a moment. Since the electron threads ultimately derive their form from the EM Ropes which at least in our location, converge from all directions to an intersection point that is proton, the electron threads could possibly revolve [like a clock-hand ticking] around the proton in every imaginable plane or cross section, to keep them consistent motion with their specific mother EM Rope (from which they protrude in an orthogonally). So its like we take 10^50 hands on a clock revolving in every imaginable direction around the proton, but these double stranded hands are also in a double helical torque mode.

Because of electron degeneracy (only so many electron threads and EM Ropes can interface at a time), this revolving motion could be more complex, perhaps restricted in time lapses with increasing atomic number. In other words, it may take longer or more work to get the electron threads of a heavy metal revolving, for example in a qualified metal conductor we might need to use a magnet and rotate it next to the lattice the free electron threads (not occupied in bonding) to rotate a little in one direction but perhaps not revolve. But here we are thinking of a simple Hydrogen atom. So to revolve the electron threads perhaps we would need incident ultraviolet light at 13.7 electron volts.

Strength by Numbers

The main question I wanted to probe here is how can we possibly explain emission. Take red light for example. Red light is 4 x 10 ^ 14 Hz. How could the mediators of light possibly torsion wave @ 4 x 10 ^ 14 Hz??? I think the basic answer is in strength by numbers, specifically the number of diverging electron threads coming together to interface with a set of converging EM Ropes in a sort of critical anomaly where one can influence the other.





Lets just say that we have a set of EM Ropes converging from all the atoms of the Andromeda galaxy to help form an H atom in our solar system. There is an astronomical number of H atoms in Andromeda, maybe 10^70, so there as many EM Ropes converging at a single location to form every single H atom. These EM Ropes probably won't shift a whole lot. And lets just say that we have incident light to move the electron threads and that 4 x 10 ^ 14 electron threads come together from all different planes to align themselves with these same EM Ropes. At this moment, these electron threads are literally pointing rectilinearly at all the atoms of the Andromeda galaxy. Each electron thread is torquing at 1 Hz. As they all come into alignment each electron thread torques each of the superposing EM Ropes once. We can think of this dynamic relation where the electron threads act on the EM Ropes as charge, or electron, or wavefunction or quantum state vector or matrix or critical ethereal thread anomaly. It doesn't matter what one calls it, what matters is a basic explanation. Add up the torques consummated by our electron threads on our EM Ropes ending on Andromeda in a second and we have 4 x 10 ^ 14 torque events at a single location. And I think we could easily change the parameters so that we have only half the electron threads aligning and torquing the same number EM Ropes at 2 Hz and get the same results which is interesting.

Now since in a simple H atom left to itself the electron threads will continue to revolve around the proton like clockwork, we see that as the electron threads tick on there is transition. All of a sudden these same EM Ropes could drastically decrease in frequency of torquing. So its like they turn off for a split moment, only to turn on once again as another cascade of electron threads align over them and torque them again in accord with whatever incident light is happening on our atom. Now we can't discern this with our eyes, since these events happen so quickly, but others have discerned this in ideal quantum jump experiments done in the eighties using a microscope.

There are endless possible frequencies and patterns one could conceive. And each atom has its own pattern that matches with their emission spectrum in certain circumstances. Now when atoms come together in nuclear or chemical bonds, react in a bath of high frequency incident light from an external source or relate in electricity, the electron threads could come together to produce all sorts of frequencies on the EM Ropes. One can think that as two H atoms are being crushed together in a fusion all of a sudden there are twice the potential number of electron threads that could be interfacing with each other and the EM Ropes to enact more events per second until the electron threads stably organize themselves into Helium electronic configuration which is more complex.

In conclusion, atomic electron transition is a game of numbers.

What Does a Hydrogen Atom Look Like?

If we could stop a hydrogen atom from moving and see it, I think it would look something like this mineral:


a radiating mass of slender crystals serve as a likeness to my supposed 
electron threads originating in the proton

From a tiny critically abundant and central convergence point called proton countless subatomic objects, call them electron threads in a sort of double helical mode, emanate and diverge.

But this is only half of the picture. In the background and superposed or interfacing this H atom we would have gazillions of subatomic objects converging from all atoms of the Universe to impart form to our Hydrogen atom. Call these EM Ropes (picture two below). These EM Ropes mediate light and gravity between all atoms. A set number of these EM Ropes are fundamental to each and every H atom, so that the H atom constantly assumes it's form from them:




For each Hydrogen atom there is a set # of EM Ropes converging to form the proton (the # of H atoms ((or protons and neutrons)) of the Universe minus 1), and set # of electron threads emanating and diverging from the proton. These objects have unique qualities, one of which is that they are able to occupy the same location (called superposition, interfacing, etc.). From here each location surrounding the proton has a whole number of EM Ropes and electron threads superposing at any given time.





In other words we have integers of threads in superposing alignment. Integer multiples are essential to quantum mechanics. Once we set the H atom in motion there are infinite possibilities of how the EM Ropes and electron threads can align to consummate light events, especially if we have atomic collisions. The electron threads have more freedom to move around the proton since they are not connected at two ends. So in addition to turning CW or CCW along their lengths, they can revolve around the proton like hands on a clock. In opposition the EM Ropes are always rooted in at least two protons (or neutrons), so they will shift a little less dramatically as the atom moves. These subatomic objects act like fingers tapping into and torquing one another CW or CCW.

I think the best way to think of electron is not an object, but as dynamic concept of the threads converging to form the proton and the threads diverging from the proton threads . . . influencing one another. Perhaps there is a critical # of EM Ropes and electron threads which must align in order for them to influence one another and so trigger a light events, i.e. two stranded threads in a torsion wave. When the atom gets disturbed by high frequencies or collisions perhaps electron threads may bunch up and outnumber the EM Ropes or vice versa at any given location or quadrant around the proton. Electron happens at any possible locations around the proton. In addition we would have extraneous EM Ropes interconnecting other atoms crossing through our H atom, and even extraneous electron threads from other atoms when they get close to our H atom.

The atom is a double star like pattern or texture of DNA like threads, converging to proton and diverging from proton. And light (or radiation) ultimately generates strength, that is higher and higher frequency, by numbers, numbers of electron threads and EM Ropes aligning around the proton.

How the proton stays held together in a consistent form as it constantly reforms itself by the EM Ropes while it takes on two or more locations is to me inexplicable. How the proton even forms the electron threads is also a bit of a mystery to me. What can I say?

One the one hand the interior of a proton is a dynamic place, with things [threads] moving around. On the other hand all protons of everywhere and everywhen behave exactly the same way. (Wilczek, The Lightness of Being, p. 44, brackets mine)


I dont know. But if someone asked me to model and explain the Hydrogen atom, the above is more or less what I would present to them. Call this model Hairy Head, or Star Model. It is a modification of Bill Gaede's Hydrogen atom which I think is great just don't like the jump roping magnetic threads. This is not perfect and I might have blind spots in my thought but this is at least something.

As we get to fusion the number of these EM Ropes and electron threads increases in whole numbers. In fusion electron threads bunch together and organize into well defined groups around the nucleus. Electron threads are also responsible for chemical bonds. They interlace with electron threads of adjacent atoms in a bond. And these electron threads are also in part responsible for electricity. In a current through a lattice imagine them as acting like in a domino effect or (a cascade), from one atom to the next, shifting and superposing in the direction of the current, so that on one side of each atom in the lattice we have a dominant concentration of electron threads acting to torque the next set of electron threads & EM Ropes in line.

But to return to my point above, if we are using counting and integer representations in physics we at least consider that we are counting OBJECTS. Right?

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Alternative Explanation of Gravitational Lensing



Above is an alternative explanation of gravitational lensing.  Instead of a star or galaxy bending an abstract concept called spacetime.  This is irrational.  Light is simply relayed at an angle by a corona of a star or halo of a galaxy via the fundamental subatomic thread like objects interconnecting all atoms.  There are such things as reflection nebula.  It could be the carbon dust, and the heavier metals such as iron and nickel present at the fringes of stars and galaxies arranged in such a manner to work a relay light of a hidden supernova, quasar or whatever giving a similar appearance.  

Why c squared in Einstein's Equation?

The c squared factor in Einstein's equation can be interpreted in a few different ways . . .

Establishing a Basis of Interpretation and Physical Context


First, one has to establish a physical context in order to understand what Einstein's equation describes and all its implications. And what better place to start than at the atom, say a simple hydrogen atom the building block of visible matter? The hydrogen atom will be our basis of interpreting Einstein's equation and we will see that Einie's equation serves as a sweeping schematic of the H atom's form which can be refined by reason and imagination.

Energy, in Einie's equation is the hydrogen atom's capacity to do work. Its a sort of raw potential equation, prior to taking motion into consideration. An H atom's potential to do work is proportional to it's mass and velocity of light squared. Mass and c2 coupled on the right side of the equation hints toward an assumption that the invisible (dark) subatomic objects that mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms of the Universe are one and the same. Furthermore, the H atom (or proton and neutron) takes on its form from these invisible subatomic objects, all of which converge from none other than all other H atoms of the Universe. And logically the next assumption is that these set of dark subatomic objects interconnect all atoms of the Universe (and/or all protons and neutrons).

One could imagine a hydrogen atom as a bundle of gazillions of these subatomic objects converging and superposing from all the atoms of the Universe and imparting form to it at a central location which is the atom. Gaede called this subatomic object the EM Rope. Imagine an inordinately long double stranded threads indissolubly connecting all atoms. It is the presence of these gazillions upon gazillions of EM Ropes converging into a central bundle we call atom (or proton/neutron) that gives the H atom its enormous potential to do work, especially in a nuclear reaction. These dark subatomic objects impart form to the Hydrogen atom, and so the atom and these subatomic objects are somewhat the same and yet there is an inequality since in order to build a Hydrogen atom we need as many as these subatomic objects coming together as there are Hydrogen atoms in the Universe.

An atom has the ability to tap into the EM Ropes, or work it and be worked by it, by various means, for example in a nuclear reaction, a chemical reaction, in atomic electron transitions, etc. In these sort of mysterious and ethereal phenomena, the atom taps into the very set of subatomic objects from which it derives its form. And all of these subatomic objects keep a single H atom in tension with all other atoms of the Universe and this is called inertial mass. Gravity/Inertia is tension of these supposed dark subatomic objects. Light (or radiation) is torsion of these same invisible subatomic objects which a. converge to impart form to the H atom, and b. interconnect all H atoms (or protons and neutrons) of the Universe.

This subatomic object has some unique properties not associated with macro-objects, but it still obey's Newton's third law, or rather we can use Newton's third law to describe this object. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The subatomic objects that interconnect all atoms, impart form to them and mediate both light and gravity obey Newton's law. So when an atom taps into these or acts, the EM Rope has an equal and opposite reaction always toward at least two atoms of the Universe. Thus the square factor. This is how light is able to retrace its path so to speak. Its almost like strumming a chord and the chord reacts in both directions where it ends on at least two atoms. The c2 concept is a to and from idea. Bidirectional.

Newton's Third Law: action, equal and opposite reaction is the easiest way to understand the c squared concept in Einstein's equation. If the atom at one location torques a set of superposing EM Ropes, it would seem that the EM Ropes would be signalling in two directions, say N & S along the double stranded threads. The threads are signalling in two directions. Some of the EM Ropes will end and transform into the atom that enacted the light event, and others will end at other atoms. The light event will react back through the atom that enacted as well as end on other atoms in opposite directions. If at different locations of the atoms the torsion events are happening at different frequencies, perhaps the highest at any given time is the set of superposing EM Ropes that will cause the recoil. Einstein said,

Outgoing radiation in the form of spherical waves does not exist [he meant does not happen]. During the elementary process of radiative loss, the molecule suffers a recoil of magnitude hv/c in a direction which is only determined by ‘chance’, according to the present state of the theory." (On Quantum Theory of Radiation)

Radiative loss, could just refer to any location of the atom that suddenly increases its frequency of light events along the superposing set of EM Ropes aligned at that location. The chance is just an illusion. I think the chance has to do with the number of EM Ropes and my supposed electron threads in an aligned superposition around the atom, and this will always increase or decrease in accord with extraneous EM Ropes and motion and realignment of electron threads. No one has the ability to count them so we use quantum jump concepts as well as the almighty random variable and statistics. But I think light, like gravity, is a strength by numbers relation.

Another way to think of it is that by assumption that all that atoms of the Universe are connected and formed by these subatomic objects . . . light behavior constantly acts through the H atom, equally, from opposite directions, and this may in someway help maintain its structural integrity. Or the H atom can signal equally in opposite directions via the mediators. This implies that light or radiation is always working to and from all atoms. Structurally, this further implies that an H atom derives its form from one and the same set of objects that mediate light between all atoms, and these same objects also maintain mass, and are also involved in what we call gravity. An atom constantly tapping into these subatomic objects keeps a constant action/reaction tension between all atoms that is basically inertial mass, and is exponentially increased in gravity when we model objects like Sun & Earth at close distances. But it would seem that all the atoms of the Universe are inseparably connected via the mediator of light and gravity. There is a perfect, profound, balanced and consistent connection and activity happening between them all. I guess we can say that God made all atoms well, perfect, symmetrical, clear, and Einstein's equation can be used to describe this.

Another way to interpret c2 is to say that the H atom has an ability to emit and absorb at a characteristic range of frequencies. In either emission or absorption the atom is simply relaying along our subatomic objects in two different directions pending emission or absorption.

Bidirectional, Diametrical, Two-Way


c2 is diametrical . . . two-way. 

The direction of light phenomenon if we can even put it that way, regardless of location, is diametrical (or bi-directional). It is "aimed" at the source atom as well as the target atom since when the EM Ropes are tapped into they signal in a polar manner. Light happens in two possible directions: to or from every atom of the Universe. There are always two or more atoms involved in light and gravity. Tapping into a single mediator (our EM Rope, or subatomic object) always influences at least two atoms. Thus the squared factor.

There is no preferred direction of light, like in silly CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) interpretations. Light begins and ends at at least two atoms. And the atom is constantly signalling atoms and being signaled to by atoms via the mediators of light interconnecting all of them.  In addition there is always an abundance of extraneous EM Ropes crossing through atoms.  These extraneous EM Ropes begin and end on atoms other than our test atom.  It is these that are possibly responsible for the "strain" detected by LIGO.

Einstein's equation is probably the most refined and simple equation in history. It is an all-encompassing, advanced and abstract way to describe an H atom, but it needs some fundamental assumptions and traced objects to understand. Unfortunately most people spit out nonsense about energy converting into matter or mass or gravitational waves. . . in other words: concepts converting into concepts. They haven't a clue what they are talking about. There can be no explanation without appealing to something. A theory, explanation, or manifestation is built upon objects: that which have form. These objects perform causal relations with other objects.

At Least Two Atoms . . .


When we talk of this invisible subatomic object that mediates light . . . when acted upon by the atom, two atoms will always be induced to motion. The signalling atom as well as the receiving atom. 

At least two atoms are always influenced by a light event which is a result of all sorts of atomic interactions like nuclear, chemical, random electron transitions, and so on and so forth. Of course in reality this is multiplied gazillions of times over because these mediators converge and superpose at the atom and in addition there are extraneous mediators of light which begin and end on other atoms, crisscrossing and superposing through the source atom. So if an atom consummates a light event it is possible that gazillions of pairs of atoms are influenced across the Universe. Because if you tap into that mediators it will act in a polar manner, inducing motion along it in opposite directions to where it ends on atoms which could be located at the edge of the Universe. All this is further illustrated in the inverse square law of light.





There is a rich interpretive potential in c squared concept. It also teaches us that light is impossible without two or more atoms.

Why Does a Hydrogen Atom have an Enormous Capacity to Do Work?


Many have wondered about this.

Suffice it to say that it is the presence of gazillions upon gazillions of EM Ropes converging from all the other atoms of the Universe into a central fiber bundle, a single object that we call atom (or proton/neutron) and in a single location that gives the H atom its enormous potential to do work, especially in a nuclear reaction.

In a nuclear reaction we have twice the number of these subatomic objects all vying for a single location. It seems that only so many can overlap, crisscross or superpose in a sort of critical abundance of thread. So when two H atoms are forced together to their 'convergence points' an event happens that perhaps taps into every single one of these subatomic objects wherein chemical reactions or atomic electron transitions perhaps less are tapped in an the event that is less volatile. But in a nuclear reaction we might have the action/reaction for an astronomical number of these subatomic objects in a single event.



Two atoms crushed together at a single location means two times the # of these subatomic objects in shock, all acting upon one another in a moment, and this causes a reaction along the EM Ropes which will disturb every surrounding atom since all atoms of the Universe are of course inherently constituted by these subatomic objects that also mediate light as well as gravity.

It would be well to reread famous quotes from Heisenberg and Feynman who sort of flirted with these ideas. In so many words:

"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry." ---(Richard Feynaman, The Character of Physical Law) 
"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." ---(From "Introductory" in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 10.)

Above we have some simple explanations and descriptions leaving some details out, but there is enormous potential in the H atom or a proton and/or neutron because of its fundamental and indissoluble connection to all other atoms of the Universe which each supply it with an EM Rope so that it can assume its form. If you see an H atom through all the atoms of the Universe then you see its potential.

And this is the 'miracle' of an H atom, as well as the genius hiding in Einstein's equation . Very abstract and lofty but IMPOSSIBLE to even begin to unravel without the assumption that all H atoms are somehow interconnected by an inordinately long subatomic object with unique properties and behaviors. With each successive location the atom assumes, it mysteriously reforms itself out of these subatomic objects, so that it's form remains consistent even as these subatomic objects are always shifting, adjusting, held together, and so on so that:



One the one hand the interior of a proton is a dynamic place, with things [threads] moving around. On the other hand all protons of everywhere and everywhen behave exactly the same way. (Wilczek, The Lightness of Being, p. 44, brackets mine)


Gravity: Atoms Shift their Constituent Fundamental Subatomic Objects

When an object is located at the surface of the star, gravity is strong between the two since there are many pairs of atoms effectively in tension with one another, generating pull with a net effect toward a center.  Hypothetically, one can calculate the number of fundamental subatomic objects connecting any two objects comprised of atoms (or protons and neutrons) by multiplying the number of atoms of the two.  With decreasing distance these fundamental subatomic become more and more effective in tension at steeper angles.  

If we separate these two objects at great distances, gravity is weak. Gravity effectively flattens out. The reason is when any two objects are separated by great distances the atoms of the two cannot effectively tug on one another at any steep angle via the fundamental subatomic objects which mediate gravity (and light). They fan in so to speak. Their effectiveness is by comparison that of two H atoms with one effective 'line' of tension. And this is also why distant stars appear as dots in the sky. The same fundamental subatomic object which generates gravity also works light between any two stars or any two atoms. And these all converge between any two distant stars as if a single 'line' between the two.

Gaede's Famous Illustration


The locality vs. non-locality debate is irrational. People are debating and discovering ideas that are WAY out of context.

When two stars are separated at great distances all their interconnecting mediators cannot possibly shift via their constituent atoms. Why? Simple geometry. Take two stars and separate them by a gazillion kilometers and draw straight lines between all their atoms. It doesn't matter how much their distance changes, there will only be a single 180 degree angle. But when they start getting within a few astronomical units of one another the angles will have changed as the mediators remain rectilinear. So what happens is that the atom has a way of instantaneously shifting the mediators when taking on a succession of locations. This shifting of the mediators is gravity. It presupposes that all the H atoms (or protons and neutrons) of the Universe are permanently connected by a fundamental subatomic object from which they all derive their form.  This fundamental subatomic object is like a double twined thread it is rectilinear:

As for the power by which the Sun seizes or holds the planets, and which, being corporeal, functions in the manner of hands, it is emitted in straight lines throughout the whole extent of the world, and like the species of the Sun, it turns with the body of the Sun; now, seeing that it is corporeal, it becomes weaker and attenuated at a greater distance or interval, and the ratio of its decrease in strength is the same as in the case of light, namely, the duplicate proportion, but inversely, of the distances [that is, 1/d²]. (Astronomia Philolaica, Ismael Bullialdus)

Bullialdus' "straight lines" is his way of saying there is a rectilinear mediator interconnecting all the atoms of the Sun and planets.  This is is an object, Gaede's EM Rope.  


The atomic shift of the mediators to instantaneously activate adjacent atoms and generate strength by numbers is different than light or radiation, but the same object is used in light. The atoms tap into these objects and they twirl or signal at a reaction that is the speed of light. And they do this AS the atom shifts them when two objects are at close distances.

Einstein never figured this ought. He instead caused more confusion. You see this new LIGO discovery is a ruse. They are answering questions that are OUT OF CONTEXT and patting themselves on the back for this all while spending millions of public funds.