Teotihuacan

Seems like you've been having an interesting exercise in algebra, assigning constants. As you've demonstrated, measurement is an arbitrary unit, related in terms of the measurer... which, of course, is an attempt to make it meaningful in the user's context. Be that ease in manipulation or intepretation of that data and its corelates. Fahrenheit, with all the imprecision of the 17th Century, obviously devised his scale based on the human body (as were nearly all measurements in his time). The Zero, or null point he chose, was the freezing point of blood. Mid point, and "normal" temperature for human blood at 100. And the boiling point of blood at 200. From there, all measurable temperatures could be related to intuitive human parameters, as if our life blood were a "unit constant". The "width" of his degree, so to speak, was arbitrarily set at 1/200 of that, in what seemed a natural division, above or below "normal", expressed as a power of 10 (10E2) Celsius, in a effort to simplify quanta calculation across all measurement, used the physical properties of water as his basis. Freezing at Zero, Boiling at 100, when measured at an atmospheric pressure equal to the Earth's "normal" at sea level. Essentially, he was using the Ecosphere of this planet as a "unit constant". Kelvin used the same "width" of degree as determined by Celsius, but attempted to use a more universal constant on a positive integer, linear scale, with Absolute Zero determination. His notation is an attempt to use the cosmological background as a "unit constant". However, such imprecise or mottled data, often yields an irrational number, when being related to the earthly Celsius scale. The type of measurement scales you are talking about may well be helpful in manipulating datum that relates to other cosmological effects. But, I wonder why you relate it to the older, more archaic, Fahrenheit system? The degree of precision is one point. The Celsius degree is too blunt to express the nuances of state change, given that STP does not occur in the natural world. Planning a trip, forcast precipitation at an ambient 0 C, could be ice, snow, freezing rain or rain. That same range of temperature: 31,32,33 F would give a more precise formulation of effect for the individual's prognostications. So, yes calibration can make a big difference for interpretation... and isn't that what theory is all about?

No, I had no endorsement of Mr. Haselhurst's theory, nor to my knowledge has it been accredited or veryified, I just thought it interesting in parallel. Obviously, something he'd thought of in the Past, which we were just finding Now. Or discussion of it. What I was saying in regards; was that when I read what you had said, my relpy was expanded from something I had written in the past. That became "new" to you. Just as what you had written was "new" to me, when I read it. Even if you had written it long before I ever thought of it. I think there is a problem with the same time space, called the Strong Force. But you do raise an interesting point, about the intranuclear passage of time. What is it like at the subatomic level, where particles can achieve very high speeds? Whether or not there is a zero point in time, tied up to the fastest natively observable, is still quite debateable. Some particles, however small, may already be going faster than c. That was part of the Genisis probe research. Now, maybe another 3 -7 yrs. or more. Fascinating theory, though... some sort of photonic lock on time. Kindov beats mine; like an internalized quantum of moment, related to the binding capacity of Fe+ ions in our blood, and therefore the amount of O2 we have available at the cellular level for expendable energy. I may need to revise my thinking that Time is merely a man made contrivance to get "work" done for nothing, and as far away from universal understanding as we might get. But I must apologise, it does appear a little at odds, now that you mention it. I'm afraid I was asking about many dimensions in time, and you were answering with many dimensions of time. Or, vice versa?

Actually, cheating is often a good way to learn. The trying to "get away with something" often increases motivation, and sharpens focus on the task of having the right answers. Sumarizing salient points, organizes the "new" data in our mind set. The repetitive copying on small pieces of paper etc., actually re-enforces the learning. Being prepared, relieves nervous tension and improves self confidence. Observation: I had a friend once who did just as well on a test, even though she brought the wrong set of crib notes. Much better than she would've done without the "cheating" activity.

What about the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth every 28 days, in essentially the same plane (ecliptic). That is a Difference of 24*60/28 = 51 min. 26 sec. each day. Another way to verify this is to go to the seashore for a week, and dip your toes into the ocean at the same place & time each day. You will walk farther or shorter each day, but the increment of change will always be the same. The differential between the periods of rotation.

No, I hadn't seen that in my comment, but appeared very confluent as soon as you pointed it out (as per your example). The arbitrary designation of a "constant" as a relational construct. Yet in this sense, photons or electromagnetic waves may all travel at or near 300,000 km/sec, and be the fastest observable phenomenon to us, as such a constant. But, similar to Mach as a "constant" speed of sound on the order of 330 m/sec +/- medium density, it is really only a threshold. Sound does not travel any faster, even if the engine making it is. I think in some ways we are all like the Blind Men who saw the Elephant. each with his own experience of a different aspect. We can begin to form a bigger picture by sharing our perspectives, or declare a stalemate by arguing over things we "know". btw. Most of my reply to you was taken from some scribbling on a napkin, over three weeks ago. It is entirely serendipitous that it fits with your concepts. But again, many similar ideas seem to bubble to the surface in many minds, almost simulataneously. Looking at your theory of Time Space and Movement, I'm wondering if you've seen Geoff Haselhurst's web page at http://www.spaceandmotion.com ? In it, he relys heavily on a Wave Structure of Matter theory, first postulated by a physicist, Dr Milo Wolff. He states that essentially that: Space (has substance), existing as a Wave-Medium. Matter (exists) as a Spherical Standing Wave. Forces are caused by a change in velocity of the spherical In-Waves. Also, the intriguing quote, "Time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it." attributed to (Aristotle) and possibly an affirmation of your premii about movement and moment. Perhaps a little redundant in his repetition, and waxing philosophical, but an interesting concept that seems to parallel yours in some ways. Worth a Look. I always get a little exited about these seeming coincidences. To me it means I might be on the larger track, if others are thinking similarly. Not neccessarily that Truth is constant, but that it gives us a basis for alignment and comparison.

undefinedundefinedundefinedRedundancy did apparently save Genisis in the end. The thickness of the collector plates allowed some of captured particles to be retained within known parameters, that data then being capable of being reliably extrapolated to its original positions and/or patterns. Since these were sub atomic particles (ie. gamma rays), there was a redundancy factor of at least 10^6 in the design. However, the difficulty in measurement and extrapolation is comparable to the amount of science retrieved from Columbia after it stopped flying, as to the science gained from previous successes. And, as pointed out, this robot crashed on Earth - we can determine what happened, as opposed to merely loosing a signal. Another thing we seem to be loosing sight of, is that this was the first payload from outer space since the Moon exploration, over thirty years ago. And, it was launched before airbags proved successful in planetary landings. The actual experiment itself was conducted in a neutral gravity zone and great pains (elaborate parachute snag) were taken to try to prevent an effect of gravitational inertia displacing those infinitesimal grains of dust or residual effects of the "wind". One thing the results of this salvageable experiment may lead to is a better understanding of the dilema we have been discussing on many of these threads. Not just particle vs wave (ie. dust in the wind), or a "point in time" interface with the surface of the sun at 10^8 miles, but also missing clues to the origins of both gravity and the expansive force perhaps being modulated by high velocity sub-atomic particles with varying concentration patterns. Undoubtedly, some of this will be obscured by contamination and extreme G-forces. But the particles collected could be quantified and, possibly, with enough cross section intact, their apparent paths or patterns traced. The view, however, maybe like the uncorrected Hubble. Not very spectacular. But, again pointed out earlier, the knowledge gained and unanswered questions provide valuable focus on the next mission to collect solar dust or study gamma rays.

An interesting theory on the Expansion of Space/Time. And particularly in your handling of variables, being considered as absolutes, for purposes of "simplified" conceptual framework. Makes me wonder if indeed C= constant, or an arbitrary bench mark with which to make comparisons... as the increasingly convoluted logic of its annomalies also suggests, reminiscent of a Flat Earth Society. The central problem of unified string theory, or whatever it is called now, being no explanation for this seemingly odd expansive force having not found a balance with gravity. That, and still looking for some strange and exotic "dark matter" to explain 2/3 of the undetected mass that this theory predicts. Possibly one of our problems is in a unidimensional concept of Time. One of your discussions suggests two dimensions: Could this be a path (single ray) upon a plane of time, that intersects with the local time line, or a second dimension within the same "set"? One can imagine how the birth of Geometry greatly facilitated land ownership in Egypt, because before that, everything was measured by line of sight and direct perspective (or appeal to the Pharoh). Perhaps a similar set of theorms could be developed as "Chronometry". I would like to suggest that a Super Symmetry may hold here as well. There being three dimensions of space, 3 dimensions of Time could be a starting point. We already do have 3 intuitive parts to time - past, present and future. And it is not that difficult to envision them as each, seperate dimensions. Further, with an expanded time frame, each dimension may contain a finite or measurable amount of mass. Thus discovering those missing 2/3 of dark materia, as simply manifestations in other dimensions of time. And, if extra dimensions remain "curled up", this could also explain those unused portions, or the nature of past & future as if it were all contained in one moment. Something that intrigued me in the general discussion about "Theory of Everything", was that gravity is the only force to act interdimensionally. Part of the explanation of why it is a "weak" force being that it bleeds off into other dimensions, affecting the whole rather than the parts. So, I began to consider a gravitron's effect on time, as the interdimensional container of past/present/future matter(s). How, precisely, does gravity affect the actuality of an event in time? You seem to be approaching the same azimuth from the opposite direction, by proposing that gravity is a form of time distortion, with only the appearance of an attractive "force". Whatever that effect may be, if it could be noted, then a new understanding may emerge. p.s. Hope I haven't thown this thread too far off kilter.

Actually, alcohol is classed as a depressant drug. That is, it slows down bodily functions. It does this by means of being an invasive chemical. The OH- radical that it carries, destroys living tissue on contact (why it is a good disinfectant). Also, as a potent solvent, it affects all the subtler effects of more complex neurochemicals and even combines or alters other drugs in the system (synergistic effect). It even disolves water, fats & oils, which is why it is a physical "drying agent" and how it passes through organic membranes so easily. And, looking at its physical properties, you can see that within a warm blooded body, at any given time, most of it is disolved in a gaseous state. Precisely why it affects the brain from the top down on a global basis (where the greatest concentrations coalesce). It is estimated that a "good" drunk, whatever that is, kills about 10,000 brain cells. Fortunately, most of our vital functions are controlled in the lower, more primitive parts. On a plus side, since alcohol is water soluble, it is quickly metabolized and byproducts "flushed out" within 72 hrs. of ingestion. All the above are acute effects. On long term, possible neural toxin effects, you mention Korsakoffs but not Werneke's, and there are other forms of alcohol induced dementia and post acute withdrawal symptoms that may mimic other psychoses. However, this entire thread is missing one crucial bit of information... The so-called "blackout" phenomenon has long been (1950) an early warning sign of alcoholism. Other social drinkers don't report it with any frequency, regardless of how much they drink. And, alcoholics have them essentially all the time, even with very little amounts of alcohol. Acute memory loss after drinking is a sign of alcoholism. The theory is in part what you describe - faulty storage of long term memory. But the mechanism is not alcohol per se, but a store of a pseudo neurochemical that is produced by an anomalie in the alcoholic's metabolism which allows a breakdown product (acetaldehyde) to combine with free floating dopamine. This substance in turn, soluble in alcohol, which when re-introduced to the body floods the neural receptors (similar to cocaine). The immediate craving and, quickly, loss of memory retention are both effects of the same process. The effect of this anomolus chemical can actually overcome the depressant effects of alcohol, in higher concentrations, and thus the apparent "stimulant" effect when others would have passed out. As well, this research (1985) has lead to a genetic pre-determinate of alcoholism in the Dopamine2 Receptor gene. Formerly, it has been known that 85% of all alcoholics have at least one alcoholic parent, and that alcoholism is 50/50 dominant in determining genetic predisposition as per Mendelev. You talk about or the environmental associations or cues we make with the substance of our learning... seeking experience in many contexts (ie. practice) to re-enforce or broaden our "memory" or range of application of that learning - to our knowledge. And, there is a theory called State Induced Learning, which posits that amount of recall is dependant upon the similar internal state. This has been noted with chronic marijuana users. However, smoking a dube before Exams, was of no help either. Because there are so many variables. Lastly, on general terms. Alcoholism only occurs in about 10% of the population. That is why it is not considered an addictive drug. Yet people insist upon extrapolating their individual drinking experience to all persons, as if it were universal. Would we do the same for someone with an allergy to peanut oil? Consider the most common reasons for sudden memory loss... Shock or Trauma. Essential repression as a defensive mechanism. Because of its toxic nature, alcohol can cause shock to the body. And, because of how it affects the senses and/or our loss of inhibition or judgement, alcohol makes people more vulnerable to trauma. However, given a causative effect the "memory" can be adduced and, since the whole memory itself was repressed it can emerge sometime later, when that mechanism is weakened and/or the unconcious memory itself becomes intensified in relation to current experience or "triggers". No such historical process (ie. psychic cause/effect) is apparent in alcoholic blackouts. But, there remains the desire to see one's self within a "normal" context and to interpret such experience that way by minimizing its significance. After all, 90% of the population aren't alcoholic. I don't want to be one! The fact remains: memory blackouts under the influence of alcohol is an early sign of the disease and should seek professional help to verify, rather than being shrugged off as some kind of "normal". If it were blood in our urine, we would seek help immediately. This symptom is just as reliable! "Have you ever had a complete loss of memory, as a result of drinking?" - John Hopkins University, 20 Questions (1960), were 3 or more is positive diagnosis. Thanks again. It deserves another look.

undefinedundefinedundefinedFunny, in a second year Stats course, we were taught that the Sumation of e^x = the function of u^n. The "proof", was of course, empirical. And, I think, every student concurred!