In a nuclear shell

Researching off the grid is fun, but also way too muck trial and error to be efficient. The fun part is when I find my "speculations" to match perfectly with some more credible source. For a moment I feel less alone. Today I found that the idea of protons and neutrons as orbits was in fact an old and even well established one. The nuclear shell model fits nicely with my theory of atom nuclei as angular momentum bent circular by gravity. The trouble when trying to learn about chemistry is that all texts has it backwards. What I consider gravity, i.e. orbital momentum, is depicted as electrons outside radiation, which is the angular momentum in nuclei. In my model, protons are distance/space contracted and bent by time/place at a gravitational center of electron orbit(s).
Up until today, the few I have told this (my wife and our dog) have given me a vacant stare at best. They both know that electrons orbit the nucleus. But then again, they and others cannot tell me what gravity is. Therefore, I've been forced to figure that out by myself.
Electrons carry gravitation and sometimes gravity is displaced by angular momentum. As long as there is observable energy, orbital and angular momentum always come together. In high energy radiation like gamma rays, the short wavelength comes from a high degree of orbital momentum, contracting the linear quality of angular momentum, paired with an equally high degree of angular momentum causing the wave to have velocity/direction despite its gravitational property. Without this orbital momentum, the gamma ray would be a straight line with zero energy.
Anyways, for the benefit of all sentient beings enlightened by light, good night!


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/shell.html

Force and Energy 101

It’s not easy to figure out cosmos without knowing the nature of force and energy. It seems most people don’t, and that bothers me some. If you confuse force with energy, everything from there will be complicated.

Force is momentum, and momentum have two opposite qualities:
- Contracting (orbital, gravitational, particle)
- Expanding (angular, radiating, wave)
These two are described in Newton’s 3:rd Law as motion and velocity. They are the most fundamental aspect of our physical universe as described in the conservation of momentum.  

Energy is how force manifests in mass. To create energy, forces must interact as stated in Newton’s 3:rd Law: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. Because Newton was not familiar with particle-/wave duality, he didn’t know that the mutual actions on a microscopic level was of orbital and angular momentum. Newton’s “bodies” are equal to the quality of mass which is caused by a pairing of orbital and angular momentum creating a twisted helix, a particle/wave. So particle-ness is caused by orbital momentum, and wave-ness by angular momentum. On a microlevel, they are not mass by themselves, but cause mass when interacting.
When not interacting, orbital momentum is gravity with infinite time, and angular momentum is radiation with zero time. While separate, forces have zero energy so they cannot be empirically observed, only inferred. An example of - almost - separate orbital force is the black hole, or matter/energy if you will. But keep in mind this “energy” is only potential. An example of - almost - separate angular force is the cosmic background radiation, but since we can observe it, there is at least a tiny fraction of orbital momentum there to twist it enough to cause a wave that is not 100% linear. If it was, we wouldn’t pick it up.
It is reasonable to imagine that separated forces, when occurring as in a wave collapse, will immediately be re-paired within the global system of energy.
We now see that mass is a quality of energy that emerges/manifests when orbital momentum increases in relation to angular momentum. That is, when the orbital part of energy contracts the angular, the effect is what we perceive as mass. We might define mass as an intermediate state of energy dependent on dual force dynamics.

Now, all observable energy has per definition both orbital and angular momentum, and therefore amplitude, frequency and such wave qualities. This being the case, we can simplify some equations to make matters clear.
- Energy is always a relation of angular and orbital momentum.
- Angular momentum causes space
- Orbital momentum causes time

So E=mc2 means  p2=E

Momentum p is always angular x orbital momentum, thus p2. Poetically put, Energy is space times time. The p2 interaction causes Energy. That’s it! If you want to impress Dalai Lama, you can say “Absolute Reality is One energy of Two forces”, and I’m sure he will smile in delight.
The problem with E=mc2 is the implication the E is primary, and that forces are hidden behind notions of mass and speed of light. What I’m trying to tell you is that
- Forces are primary (p)
- Mass and speed are energetic manifestations of orbital and angular force (2)
- Energy is the effect, caused by forces (=E)

Based on this you might want to look at equations on mass flow and the likes. How it affects understanding on a quantum level is up to others to decide. I only know basics, but being a hard-core physicalist, I’m pretty sure “below” and “above” follows the same principles. Anyone who follows the above lead will instantly start questioning most, if not all of mainstream science. Meditate on this and you will have material for infinite articles. I’m not allowed to write them, lacking the formal credentials, but would love to see someone else doing it.

One of many things to calculate is this one; if p2 = c2, at what relation between orbital/angular momentum is potential energy extracted/emitted/released as kinetic energy? That is, how much angular momentum must orbital momentum absorb in order to emit light/photons?
My guess is that a unique quality of light is a balance of forces so that quasars jets from black holes when the initial orbitality has bent enough angularity to be overpowered.
Note here that, on the micro level, a particle is created when orbital momentum forces angular momentum to bend full circle as to unite “there” with “here”. In this way, angular force is conserved by orbital force. This is what causes black holes to rotate at high speed, and in general what causes all forms of rotation. But I guess that is better explained in a separate post. Today the main thing was to clarify the relation force-energy and how E=mc2 is better understood as p2=E.

For those wondering about positive and negative energy, those two are caused by whether orbital momentum is clockwise or counter clockwise or/and orbital momentum going in opposite direction to angular momentum. I'm not sure about the specifics here, only that momentum is the cause while charge is the effect. How that relates to the arrow of time and the bending of angular linearity into circular linearity will be dealt with some other day.

Lunch break is over.
Back to work.

 

 

 

Angular Orbital Momentum/Mass AOM

A few years ago I learned what it is. Since then I've tried to explain it to a few others, but failed miserabely. It's very easy to elaborate too much when pointing to simplicity. This time I will try the short version and see if someone resonates to that simple tune.

Force is angular momentum (AM) or orbital momentum (OM).
When the two come in a pair, there is both angular and orbital momentum (AOM).
AOM form a helix that is forced energy.
Forced energy is either positive, if OM is clockwise, or negative, if OM is counter clockwise.
If the both are equal in force, the AOM will collapse and be discharged. Forces are then released as being free within the system. That is the wave collapse.
If OM is twice as forceful as AM, the later will be bent and contained by OM.
Time began when the first radiating AM was bent by OM. That is what happened before Planck time so there was no "time" as long as the face of the clock was linear. When bent by OM full circle, time also began. This is why time is rotation.

That is the physics of the One Turn (Uni Verse).

Based on that, the rest comes naturally and that's the full story, and that is to long for a blog post. But I will add that evolution comes from this and our future comes from this, so does all our myths, religious as well as scientific. Force generates energy, energy generates mass, mass generates complexity and complexity is geared towards most efficient ways to generate more energy.
Evolution is a measure of this effiency.
The heat death of the universe is not coming. The future is increasing turnover in generations of energy. Humans are extremely efficient in this. That is why we seem to evolve faster the other forms of energy.

Revelation, if you will

Today I will question a passage in Revelations 17-18, one a lot of us are familiar with: 
"... so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark,⁴⁰ which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.⁴¹ This calls for wisdom.⁴² If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number.⁴³ His number is 666." 

Cross      Now, I’m not a religious man by conventional measures. I don’t read scriptures like the official believers do. I think they are reading it backwards, as a consequence of how mind works. What I do know is that mind is of matter and thus in direct relation/contact with physical reality. No ideas are made up or “false”, be they spiritual or scientific. Every statement must, in an all physical universe, by necessity be “true” to reality.
No tree is of “false” shape or form, nor does it sound “wrongly”. Likewise, no human thought is false and no human sounds wrong. Not in an absolute sense that is. From a relative perspective there is nothing but right/wrong, true/false, but I’m not about relative reality. I’m about What Is!

References for ReSo 17-18 must be a true sound coming from man, but how should we understand its truth?  It is said that when humanity is really up shit creek, totally confused, the “beast” will reign supreme. If you’re stupid enough, you will say “There are no beast here, only evil people, so the text is just a fairytale”. Then you forget that all language is symbolic, as is math. Wise up. Of course it is not about a dragon spitting fire or a fantasy beast coming alive to actually exist.
This beast is just as real as your beloved “sense of self”, in fact it IS your sense of self. It is all about your/our imagination, our shared beliefs about reality, how it is and how it should be.

If you question consensus and a priori assumptions, what you have to offer will be rejected or ignored.
The consensus, which is of human intellectual understanding, is that one is many and many are one. This is a trap.

Because if our basic assumption is wrong, every single following statement will be flawed. We will run around in circles repeating ourselves, as in “666”. The three sixes are symbols of perfect imperfection. It is getting it completely right, but totally wrong. It knows everything about Donald Duck except that he is fictional. In biblical symbols, realizing DD is considered “7” as in perfection. At “7” all our previous knowledge stands true and need not be revised, but now it is known for what it is i.e. based on the flawed premise  that everything Donald is actually true.
If you know my take on intelligence, you know it operates by creating an alternative to the absolute, so perceiving One will always add a not-One. Every thing is defined in relation to some other thing. By this, all of us have a subjective reality and our own truths. Being so, there can never be peace and common understanding, but forever a war of ideologies and beliefs. No ones truth is truer than My truth, and so say all of us. Fighting for peace is as confused it gets.

But just as in Buddhist scriptures the Bible sees a way out of this i.e. the change of perspective from subjective/Ego to objective/Shared. But to get there, mind must figure mind out. As long as mind only figures, calculates on everything that is not-mind, it will be stuck in relativism.  Like a broken record it will play the “right” song, but in a broken way. That is how contemporary science, religion and society sings in unison:
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election
One more study, one more result, one more equation, one more resolution, one more election

Any potentially progressive statement will be questioned and understood based on flawed statements. Anything genuinely new will immediately be part of the old. If you, like I do, are baffled by the fact that despite all these “One more...”, we are as far from consensus as ever before.  To be correct, I was baffled until I learned what intelligence is. Now I’m just surprised no one else seems to even consider my very simple “theory”.

Anyways, read as totally true (in the sense described above) the Bible and all scriptures alike are as readable as any research study published. Take a panoramic perspective and study them as various expressions of physical reality and they will fuse seamlessly. There is no contradiction at all between science and religion. The polarity comes from intelligence seeing one and defining it as opposite to not-one. So science view religion as opposite, and religion view science as opposite. Same goes for every position of thought you can imagine:
Material vs. mental
Expansion vs. contraction
Finite vs. eternal
Particle vs. wave
Order vs. disorder
Symmetry vs. asymmetry
Me vs. You
Everything vs. nothing

No concept will be left as similar for long. If two are similar, we will soon ask “Which one is primary”, and so we fuse the two into one. When they are fused/contracted, we define this one “X” as not being not-X. That is, we define how it specifically differs from not-X. If we don’t do this, someone will soon point to X and say “Tell me why X is different from Y, because I believe them to be the same”.  In this way, human intellect by default enforces the creation of defined opposites, even when there is none. Without these definitions, we cannot argue or reason intelligently.

So what the book of Revelations tells us in this specific passage is to let go of trying to “get it” by means of intellect. It is said that this enterprise will look like a closing in on truth, but it will never get there. Intelligence will have the acute sense of new discoveries and progress, but from a distance it is clear that it is just repetition. You need not believe in God or any other symbolic entity to see this. As with me, not believing in anything particular is helpful. Paradoxically, if you are totally indifferent to opinions/theories/beliefs, they all turn out to be equally true/false. This requires a certain perspective when dealing with them.
- They are the physical minds direct response to its physical context.
- They are not made up by individual humans choosing to think this or that.
- They are based on polarity that is not inherent in nature, but a property of minds intelligent responding.
- Nature is dualistic as in being and not being both and neither particle and/or wave i.e. it is potentially both.
- Intelligence is dualistic as in not accepting natures uncertainty, and therefore it will define reality as either this or  that.
- Rejecting reality as it actually is - definitely uncertain - makes theories and prediction possible to a certain point, but not all the way.
- Science will never present anything but relative truth, but is able to show for it.
- Religion will never show for its truth, but present one that is absolute.

Keeping this in mind,  reading  about The Holy Trinity and Three Generations of Matter is a lot of fun. Most of all, it makes absolute sense seen as relatively true. Sticking to the Bible theme, let’s look at another passage:

1 Corinthians 13

1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

The above is, more or less, what I’m trying to tell you. Note that in 10, the "part" is not polarized to “whole”. It does not say “Parts will be whole”, and this is, to me, a reason to believe the author has wisdom extraordinaire. For it is true that reality, or God’s creation if you will, is not of “parts” or “whole”.  With complete knowledge the illusion of “parts” just disappears. This is same insight as in Hindu/Buddhist saying reality is “Not One, Not Two”, but not elaborating on what it is instead. Wisdom has it that mind cannot intellectually grasp what is this and that, so it stays silent and points to direct experience as a way to complete knowledge. Note also that love is central, as is compassion in Buddhism.

With that I have probably scared away all of you. As you now know, intelligence will always define the one pointing to religion as non-scientific. It is no different from pointing to physics when talking to “spiritual” people, who will instantly define me as a non-spiritual “materialist”. Intelligence has it that truth must be either this or that.
My mission is begging to differ while agreeing totally.
Reality is so.
Mind is so.
So it is.

 

Good news, bad news

My perspective on intelligence is a simple one - it is an automatic, conditioned response based on subjective beliefs rather than objective input. This is relevant to AI since it challenges the mainstream belief about the nature of intelligence. Most people believe that intelligence is had and utilized by the intelligent agent, and that intelligence requires a correct, unbiased processing of information.

This means we must defend the idea of free will, of an intelligent entity that chooses to believe and act in a certain way. The problem AI research then faces is one about safety. If AI has free will, how can it be 100% safe? We might solve that by eliminating its emotions so it has no intrinsic motivation or desires. But without that, why would it be of any help to us? Ok then, let’s build in some motivation to help humans, to be at our service. Now AI is free from emotions and only wants to obey its masters. To me that sounds a lot like weak AI.

But if we challenge the illusion of an agent with free will and agency, we get another perspective on this. If intelligence is automatic, it can be engineered and conditioned. If it is based on subjective, unconscious patterns of belief, there must be a certain configuration to generate such patterns. And if so, there is no need to program AI to recognize all possible novel input as to execute the correct response. It is enough to make it respond to bigger classes/sets of input as if they were a single representation of the whole class/set. We call that prejudice and humans do it a lot.

The following paper is one of many obituaries on free will: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021612
When we consciously experience the making of a decision, it is just the final firing in a neural process that started several seconds earlier. Like it or not, that goes for all of your conscious experience. Consciousness is a dashboard displaying what has just happened. It is not a crucial component of intelligent action.

The next paper explains why you will probably reject the first one:
http://journal.sjdm.org/13/13313/jdm13313.pdf
You are likely to believe that intelligent people are the ones able to correct their misconceptions and flawed conclusions, while stupid people ignore obvious facts and hold onto their “fantasies”. Again, not knowing the nature of intelligence leads us astray. In reality, the more intelligent you are, the less likely will you process input objectively and unbiased. The more you have invested in a certain belief system/theory, the more biased your processing of new data will be. This is why arguing with experts will never lead to progress.

Bottom line is this: when we finally give ourselves up, the designing of intelligence is not about millions of elaborate details and infinite storage. It is about idiosyncratic processing of all data as if it had a certain, predetermined meaning. It is about classifying, valuing and interpreting input so that none of it is perceived as novel. That’s how intelligence avoids the horror of not-knowing novel input while maintaining the ability to create novelty from old input. We re-create input as to create output, and it is all done before we know it.

 

No work, all heat

Today the Q-mind asks; is God the primary worker assumed in the laws of thermodynamics?

From an absolute standpoint, there is of course only exchange of heat, no work. Also, there can be no "systems" at work in describing an initial state pre Big Bang. There can only be one, or we have not answered one single question. 

So how does these laws play out before system a can interact with system b?

Q-mind holds that the one system is functionally two and that "interaction" is instead "intra-action". 

It is Self Generating, speed/gravity producing energy of alternate currency. No worker is added beside the one human mind invents to make sense of what happens in terms of causality. 

A questionable disc

Yesterday I started designing a piece of string. Or rather, the device generating that fabrice of time. 

The generator is massless and would look like the symbol Yin/Yang, slightly revised and re-designed. 

It spins and it has two irregularities at its perimeter. 

A questionable mind says: why are both e and Phi irrational numbers in reference to the area inside/under a curve? 

After all, we cannot spin the disc without getting skewed bumps if the two spinors are + and - chasing each other. 

Question is: is the disc really spinning or its perimeter only waving. 

The black hole keeps assembling energy. It just gravitates without work to be done. 

Ideas are indeed generated.