Mitch Bass

I'm asking members of this society this question although its been almost a year since I last was active...i assure you...what i was getting at has been streamlined and revamped...I am goibg to stop this because i realize i am not following protocol so...

so a source tells me about Velocity x Vector x Volume as something to do with an explanaton for all activity from the macro to the micro...I'm hearing that this explanation allows for easily repicable working models and utilizes not gravity, nor any of the other three forces but yet can mimic all known activity ....comparing the quantum world and relativistic stop making sense as both are considered moving for the same reasons but with only apparent, but not actual, difference in terms of consequential activity. I tried incorporating the VxVxV into a post offering an explanation as to the "erratic " movement of a towel let go. i do not want to be accussed of hijacking the topic but i I doubt my contribution to that post allowed for a greater understanding. Really, all i am requesting, is if anyone knows about the potential legitimacy of the name of this post i started being an equation that is a central part to a cutting edge understanding of the universe or am I getting compeletly false intell?

Had i known people still cared about the first code i would have started with the reality that one person cracked the code. This being said the first clue to the code was not properly worded and was two contain the idea that the last two out of three words were a result of pressure...The first word and third word are considered by humans materials to be adorned, the second word "makes cars go"... All three considered amongst the highest valued items. So to continue where i left off so many months ago...G.O.D. is the code and now you have my clues to cracking the code worded as they were supposed to have neen worded. I apoligize painfully for messing up the way in which i worded the clues in the first place. As far as knowing puzzle folk ...i consider myself within this group although perhaps also a " renegade from the human race" i am so maybe i am an atypical puzzle enthusiast and perhaps i dont know puzzle folk as well as i would have guessed considering "solving puzzles" is essentially what I "do" for a "living". This being said, when i think about it, i whole heartedly agree with the responses to my saying to start with a fresh code. Phi for All thank you for reminding me that a true puzzle enthusiast would rather me clear up the broken clues than begin with a new code. Simple code inspired by you. P4A But if there are really puzzle enthusiasts let me perhaps throw out a few codes with the knowledge that i will be quick to respond to any "attempts" swiftly at least for the next three months five days and sixteen hours , more or less R.A.D./S.A.D. This is one code to be cracked First clue...incorporating R.A.D. and understanding S.A.D. are both almost always vital to any corporations potential sucesss. From pharmaceutical companies to toy manufactures to sellers of any and all things A code that might take months or maybe minutes to crack is: TTHCTWSTTOMT/OSOSOCWOCAK/AWTSIBHAWPHW First clue: TTHCTWS2TOMT/OSOSOCWOCAK/AWTSIBHAWPHW Another code : TDTHLATBOH Clue: ThDo2HeLiAtThBoOfHe

my educated guess is that the seeming duality can be explained by undestanding the objective reality of what light is

I know to the senior mentor who wrote about misunderstanding conclusions to double slit eXPERMENT. But this knowledge comes from only personal obsrvarions leading to what seems so insanely relative theories to Ll universal motion rheories

just now having watched a "physics documentary" called "the Universe" final episode of final season (on Netflix currently) called the microscopic universe. The widely reknown "double slit" experiment was discussed or as they called it "double hole" experiment. This documentary was made in 2007. Let me ask first...does the notion of the consquequnces of the experiment still produce the idea that a particle could exist in two places at once due to the "strange" "against common sense" "spooky" world of "quantum physics". Let me ask second...has all the technical understanding of why the experiment results are dependent upon whether or not the experiment was being observed?

i've been a way for awhile and now the gameshow is my main priorotity. Let me start with a fresh code. W.B.W. first clue B.R.B.

THE more intrigued you are the more chance I will invite you to help me wih production I give codes to participants if no one cracks the Code clues are given G.O.D. first clue all valueABLE and pressure

you say this matter has been dealt with. what was the conclusion why has the post before mine asking a question that you said hAS BEEN DEalt I stared this post in response to the post which is asking the question am I right r wrong does time have motion /\? \\

there is a rule when two objects of equal energy collide head to head to the two objects cancel each other

time is a means to measure matter in motion

interestingly enough in the Evolution of Consciousness, what you are indicating about parts of the brain being hardwired for all the possible sounds that languages contain (they "can"contain of hard wire limitations) is exactly the point of the idea the author talks about being true. While I am sure you are correct about the same areas of the brain being used for language, same area is where all the potential pathways exist at first of which most are shut down.

WHen you wrote "as time passes from t=0"....is this meaning the same thing as saying "as things occur from a point in the past to the future than well...regardless the simple answer to your question is that if a system does become more chaotic than it will be more difficult to predict. This being said let us examine how you phrased your question keeping in mind that I am not attempting a conflict based on semantics. You wrote "In chaos theory, as time passes from t=0, does a system become more chaotic, thus more difficult to predict?" Breaking this down we have to begin with In chaos theory, as time passes from t=0, does a system become more chaotic, thus more difficult to predict? If you are suggesting that chaos theory causes systems to become more chaotic then already a problem becomes evident. Many systems as time "passes from t=0" become less chaotic. The pathway towards user friendly computers is an example of how systems can go from greater to lesser chaos. Easier to operate, understand. Computers that were unreliable and often unpredictable evetually evolved to the point where a person can use a computer now without ever learning a computer language or even an instruction book. The essence of chaos theory constitutes the concept that greater amounts of variables generates a system that is not random but rather chaotic. So, my question to anyone reading this, should you choose to attempt to answer is: How is chaos differentiated from randomness?

I think the book is called the Evolution of Consciousness. I am hoping someone who has read this book or has come across similar knowledge that this book seems to indicate, can help me to either affirm or deny the rumors that have or have not been told as a result of such a large part of our brain being inactive. A movie just came out that centered on the possibility that if a person could have access to the full brain than that person might develop amazing abilities. From what I have read the opposite seems to be true. An infant has access to just about the full brain and as the baby matures parts of the brain are shut down to allow for learning. The best example I seem to remember is that of learning a language. An infant will begin its life making sounds like gurgling that span the types of sounds from all languages. At this point a portion of the baby's neural pathways begin to shutdown in the areas that would allow for the sounds not utilized by the child's native language to become inactive.The name of this phenomenon if I have it right is "hedging". From what I have come to understand but could be mistaken concerning, if the brain did not go through this hedging process, it would be like a city of streets with traffic lights that were all green all the time.

Perhaps the best place to examine for the best evidence of evolution is the same place that inspired darwin. The Galapagos islands ended up in a location far enough from any other land mass that land animals were isolated. darwin noticed the existence of ANIMALS THat were unlike that existed elsewhere because of the specialization of features these animals had which were essential for survival on one of the most remote places in all the world. I have heard that a developing human fetus goes through transformations that is inclusive of less complex forms of life. I seem to remember being told that at some point a developing fetus has gills for a short period. does this sound familiar to anyone else?

With a sigh of relief and a feeling of gratitude, Moderator. Swansot, I am exhilarated to learnt how this forum gives much more room for a person to at least indicate that they have a chance to an express what might be a considered a radical idea. You are the Moderator and in being so, you perhaps know the answer to the following question: let me propose a "thought experiment" that involves a hypothetical situation (very hypothetical considering the person I will be using in this imaginary scenario is no longer living) what if Albert Einstein (I am NOT comparing myself to him should anyone thing I have an inflated ego) what if Albert Einstein were to write his theory of relativity in this forum first before anywhere else. Would his theory become "belong" to this forum? Also, I would very much like to know what it is you are indicating by the "six degrees of freedom"? I am intrigued because when the word "freedom" is brought into play play my mind moves in the direction of thoughts that include such things as "free will versus determinism". I am guessing these freedoms are not related to human activity....although maybe they are...please help me to get at least a glimpse of an understanding as to what it is you are referring concerning these "six degrees" As always, with any question I ask when it comes to just about anything to anyone, I always am aware that there is "google" and "Bing", it's not that I am to lazy to do this, and sometimes I consider perhaps I am asking questions for which the answers might be obvious to most; my relative ignorance is not sot something I am ashamed or proud of.... but people, especially for example the person in this forum known as Mordred(thank you Mordred ) have given me spectacular written information and links to more information that goes far beyond the what I myself would know how to discover utilizing any search engine I am aware of. I was about to hit "post" but before I did I read it over and realized something. Before you wrote about the six degrees of freeedom, you stated that there are more than three independent actions. So are the six degrees of freedom considered one of these "independent actions" (WARNING the following is a possible indication of massive ignorance indication) Mitch Bass says, almost timidly...I umm kind of don't know what you mean by an "independent action", Mordred, you wrote that you hope I will use the articles you posted,,,I can say without a doubt I will and have and will continue to doing...I especially appreciate the fact that you have given me a link to a full length text book on particle physics. I do appreciate it, that being said, I know you had the best of intentions about guiding me to the book, if you look at the author, however, you will then know that I was the one who wrote it (if attempts at humor are not accepted in this forum...please let me know). seriously, though, this text book, I am guessing , it is fairly up to date and I look forwards to absorbing the massive amount of knowledge such a text book is most likely to explain. At the speed it takes me to absorb scientific information such as most likely will be presented, I regret to say that, as far as responding in this post about what it says, it could take me at least ten to fifteen maybe even up to twenty minutes to read react and respond to this t book (again, if attempts at humor are not allowed....especially ones such as these which might not even be thought of as anything resembling humor...hmm....can someone tell me in which part of this forum I could start, in a serious way, a post that I will call MORE THAN A SENSE...at first refer to how people speaking if having "a sense of humor" and then ask: is it possible to have more than a sense of humor but rather an understanding....

I am adding this paragraph after I have written the rest of what I have written in this post...I have copied it and actually would like to paste it in the speculations center, where is it by the way....in answering the question of Bignose....I went off topic in terms of the aim to do this....however....if possible....if the moderator would allow for it...I would like this one part of this entire post to not be cut out....many people who have already contributed to this post might have a the same question that Bignose has...After this post I am going to read every hyperlink I have not read that Mordred listed and then ask him the questions I already have about the science that relates to this post and the questions I might have with the links I have yet to read. I will ask Mordred this so far....from all the facts you have given you are, I am certainly guessing to be true, you are suggesting that although there is less empty space in the universe than previously thought, there is from all data, definitely a great amount of empty space? Any further comments about your links and your writings will come in this post as soon as I do the best I can to understand the information you written about and linked me to. Once again to moderator...please do not, at least as of yet, lock this post entirely....I am learning a great deal from people like Mordred concerning this subject and I have no desire to do anything but include the actual, proven physics around this subject. Before I finish the edit to this post, Mordred, when I attempt to follow http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf, I get a response that indicates "not found...try the front page...I did this and ended up at arXiv.org and I imagine within this table of contents, exists the paper you wanted me to read. Can you tell me, more specifically, which amongst the ones listed I should go to. This being said: to answer the question that Bignose expressed: Excellent question. You asked me why don't I post about my grand theory about the emptiness or lack thereof in space... show what predictions it makes and how closely those agree with what with what is known today." First: the question I am asking almost but not quite what your wrote...this being said...the difference is critical. I am not asking, as you put it...about the emptiness or lack thereof in space.......well...you know what...when I think about it...maybe you really are not off at all....I was asking is it possible that empty space does not exist anywhere in the universe. My "grand" theory about why I am nearly confident that there is no empty space....you are asking me to post in the speculation section and include in this what predictions it makes and how closely those agree what is known today.....you've asked me an excellent question and I am guessing at least one answer is to ask you and anybody reading this a question....what about the reality that my "grand" theory is not based on the ability for it to predict future occurences....my theory is based on activity I have seen in a set up situation in which I have observed every type of movement, .every type of activity, that I have been exposed to, been made aware of...i'm not make sure if this makes sense as a question...I apologize for that.... I guess what it comes down to is that although I have seen all known activity in this "working model" of which I speak, and this working model has no empty space... Well maybe I should just write about what that working model is. I could do that. Easily. The working model is something anyone could easily recreate in about four minutes. With...well...let me ask everyone I question and I hope for honest answers. Let me first say I am aware of the following as many of might be: One of the greatest questions in all of science, at least in physics is trying to be answered by combining (unifying) the fourth thought to exist forces that control all movement in the universe. STRONG FORCE, WEAK FORCE, ELECTROMAGNETISM, GRAVITY....I know there have mathematical success in doing just this...and in the end it is stated that in the beginning all these forces were most likely "born" from one....but here's the thing....as far as I know...and please anyone....correct me if I am wrong....no one....not anyone at all...has been really...I mean really been able to explain how any of these four forces work. Attempts have been made...there are some people who have long, drawn out theories as to exactly how say for example, GRAVITY, works....what it is and why it does why it does and has the effect on the universe it has. These theories sometimes for example include such concepts of how MASS bends, warps, causes "space" sometimes "space/time" in such a way that well...certain things do what they do...I have become studied every theory about all the four forces and it seems to me in the end....that the real validity of existence of these four forces is based on their ability to predict and explain activity, Ultimately though I have come across a theory for any of these four forces that made it clear to me exactly, exactly, what these four forces are and how they work. And so what you might be asking? What's the problem. The theories predict accurately and so....why question their existence. Good artists copy, great artists steal, Steve Jobs was quoted as saying although (I forget the original artist who he was quoting)....I would add to that...and the best artist create. Steve Jobs also said no one one really knows why when a pencil is let go it moves to the ground. Some would say...that Steve was an idiot. Obviously gravity is the answer. Some might to him if he was alive...is it possible that you don't believe in gravity....could you be that dumb....I've done a lot of research on how Steve thinks and I am guessing he would respond in the same way...I am not saying that gravity does not exist....but...if you can't explain exactly what it is and what it does and how it works is there another possibility for why when I drop a pencil it moves to the ground. To tell you the truth, there is very possibly a theory about gravity that I have read that explained what gravity is, how it works and why it does what it does....and although I was not confident that this theory was proof if gravity...perhaps I just wasn't able to comprehend certain aspects of the theory that actually did claim to do what it claims to do which is (and I apologize for the repetition) explain exactly what gravity is and how it works and why it does what it does. So...the "grand" theory I have is not about proving there is no empty space. My "grand" theory contains as a postulate that there is no "empty space" In my working model there is no "empty space" and my working model has one other postulate and three variables. My theory does not contain anything about any of the above four mentioned forces. Yet my theory is based on fact that my working displays, as I said, every type of motion...from the so call activity of the "virtual particles" that pop in and out of existence and working model displays activity that precisely resembles the moon moving around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun. So, ultimately, what I am saying to everyone reading this is: If I were to explain all activity in all the universe with two very simple postulates and three very simple variables.....would I be immediately considered a "crack pot". I ask this because in a forum similar to this...many years ago....wrote in my first post about how I can explain the universe with two postulates and there variables and....almost as soon as I was done writing....I got a message that said "You are banned permanently from this site. Reason: Crack pot. I am claiming that I have discovered a possible answer to one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest mysteries, in modern sciences.....what is the reason for all activity in the universe. One of Albert Einstein's noble prize winning papers was based on the activity he noticed when looking at the tea leaves in his cup of tea. What if by something you had noticed caused you to come up with the theory to explain all motion. A solution to the puzzles as to why all things move as they do. Do you know enough about this forum to know whether or not, if the theory was thought to be valid, your theory would be safe in the sense that it would not be "stolen", copied and claimed by another to be their creation instead of yours?

"Studlot" in response to your last post in which included quote from one of my posts,,,indicative that what you were writing was directed to me,,,,to what you wrote , I write the following: "Studlot" you wrote in your last post "'is' is the word of nightmares." For you this is perhaps true....not for me. You and I have different thoughts as your next sentence reveals: We can then compare this model with observations and amend it if necessary, without struggling with answering the philosophical question 'what is (empty) space?', thereby retaining our sanity. When I read this, these words which you wrote it is clear to me that you think the human intellect is not able to define certain aspects of objective reality. You make it out as if me trying to understand objective reality is a "philosophical" pursuit. This would only be the case if no human mind had the potential to explain objective reality. It is as if you are pessimistic in terms of the power the at least your mind, if not all minds, of being able to penetrate the illusion of what seems to be but is not and bring into existence a knowledge of reality....reality is what is...illusion is what appears to be but is not...because of my physical (not philosophical) observations, I am optimistic in thinking that it will be soon that my question will be answered...what you wrote about the essence of my question is very wrong....I am not asking about what IS empty space....I am asking is it possible that the universe IS utterly void of voids...is it possible that whatever or however anyone thinks of empty space....regardless... is it possible that "empty space" is something that this universe does not contain.... "Mordred"...in response to what you wrote in your last post...I greatly appreciate the amount of energy and measure of words and thought that must have gone into what you wrote to try to deliver me from a state of being uncertain as to the existence of empty space. You wrote that there IS empty space and then you listed the reasons why you felt so certain that empty space exists. I have read and absorbed the evidence you have presented that gives you full confidence in terms of being able to say with near certainty there IS empty space. Unfortunately, I am finding that your evidence has flaws in terms of being able to nearly certainly prove that empty space exists. I will explain my lack of confidence about what you have written being able to support the notion that there is empty space as soon as I figure out the words to express why it is that I think your supportive evidence is seriously flawed. I will use at least as much thought and energy as you did to help me understand your thinking and if your mind is open to considering that there are some potential problems with using what you have written as proof for empty space...then...you will perhaps, for better or for worse,,,,a gift or a curse...have again the same lack of certainty about knowing not only about whether empty space does or does not exist....but perhaps you will find yourself less confident about a number of other concepts...if the moderator would like,,,if I am going too far into uncharted territory...please let me instead of locking this post...the one known as "Mordred" and the person known as "Mitch Bass" have been recently communicating in the form of "messaging" through the use of the tools this forum provides if two people decide to communicate one to one. So, instead of locking down the post...warn me like a bouncer would warn a person at a bar that is no longer sticking to the program...whoever the moderator is for this forum, please know if you tell me that its starting to sound like I am writing things that go too much against common thought in terms of what the scientific community conceives of as reality, I would have no problem with taking my communication with Mordred outside of this post and only to be continued through our one to one personal correspondence. "Strange" what you wrote in terms of your certainty about there being empty space but it seems to me that your certainty is supported by the grand assumptions you wrote about it concerning which I will point out when I have about twenty minutes to explain the very specific reasons I am certain has misguided you into not knowing that your assumptions are assumptions....I accept that you are a critical thinker and your not one to make assumptions and have no knowledge that you are stating as fact what fits your theory and not the other way around...

Thank you I just now did. And I agree with this information as being valid evidence. It is valid because not only does it explain what was before unexplainable but it is based on actual observation. I started this post to see if anyone could prove to me as best as they can that there exists even a minute amount of empty space in all the universe. The article you had me read shows how there is most likely matter where there once was thought to be empty space. If someone can prove to me that there is even a little bit of empty space in all the universe than I would appreciate that so my observations which have also led me to a conclusion which explains activity at all levels, even in the so called, irrational, against common sense, impossibly strange activity that exists in the world of quantum mechanics then I could relax and no that my theory has no merit because one of the two postulates in my theory is that there is no empty space. This is about the third I mentioned my theory in this post and I apologize to any moderator who thinks I am trying to express a new theory in a part of a forum which does not allow for new theories but in now am I expressing a theory. I am only in this part of the forum trying to get from someone a rational reason to believe that there is even a minute amount of empty space in all the universe so that I would that I am wrong which I have never had a problem. If I am right, however, than...well...I would present my working model and my reason and the observations I have made to explain the unexplainable just as the article did. I have the working model and the diagrams and the "maps"just like the article you had me read. So please, before I claim to the world that there is no activity at any level that I cannot easily explain with to postulates and three variables, please someone, help me to understand why I should consider that the reality of empty space is nothing more than a myth. So far, I am getting more and more evidence to substantiate the idea that there is less empty space than once thought, as with the dark matter, I need to know only is there less empty space than once thought but if there is any empty space at all.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but....for example..a dam full of water that is not being released, a coiled spring that has yet to be sprung a battery that is not in use...are these not all examples, not of energy, but rather of "potential energy"? So, in other words, there might be a psychotic maniac with a gun who has the potential to kill someone but unless they do, they are not a killer. Having legs gives me the potential to move, to set myself in motion, but the potential for motion is not motion...

Yet, dark matter is matter that we cannot as of yet detect and only consider to maybe exist because to explain the astrophysical calculation deficiencies it would be useful if there was more matter in the universe than we have any ability to detect. Correct? Is there any other evidence to substantiate the potential reality of dark matter aside from it being a potential solution to a mystery that has, as of yet, not been solved?

Can you think of any energy that does not have the property of motion? Is there was matter that was not moving could it not be said that it has no energy?

"energy is a property"...hmmmm....so like..hmm...ok for example, a property of a diamond is that it is the hardest known material, people recognize a diamond as having the property of being the hardest known material because of experiments such as the "scratch test" in which a diamond is able to scratch any other known material...so when you say energy is a property and mass is a type of energy, what indicates that mass has the property of energy?

Unless I have totally misunderstood the idea of energy...which is very possible...energy IS matter in motion?

LOL. No, I was not complaining, I understand the fish not seeing the water is not a perfect metaphor. I am glad you just wrote what you wrote because it will perhaps help me to get to the essence of what , in this post I started, I am attempting. I understand we have many senses to observe and interact with our environment... this being said, with all our senses, with all or deductive reasoning....why does it make sense due to our senses to be so certain of empty space. Well...check out my what I will write next in this post ....it might help to make this more clear. Already scientists are considering "dark matter". If I am not mistaken the reason for this is that if there was as much empty space as was once the theory..,then there is a flaw in the way the universe is moving according to calculative conclusions. Dark Matter is called Dark Matter I am guessing because we have no means of detecting the existence of this substance. I am searching for people to explain to me why this "dark matter" is not detectable. Why could it not be that this same kind of "dark matter" fills every bit of the universe although undetectable?