Popcorn Sutton

Ok, now that the new episode of through the wormhole is done i will provide evidence based on what I have come to know through my experience with science (although it is getting late so I might be interrupted by bed time). Black holes are super solid objects was my first point. We believe that black holes are "created" by dying stars. Stars are repulsive in the sense that they produce a lot of heat and light that escapes their gravitational force. That is because of the compression of elements occurring closer to the center of the star. Compression has been known to cause elements like iron to exist. If black holes come from stars, we can't see them because they are at the center of the compression, and therefor they are extremely solid. When they are released from their surroundings, they repel the space surrounding them, causing an extremely strong gravitational field due to the energy of fusing what we have come to know as space, probably causing a massive amount of neutrino like particles to "suck" the surroundings toward it, causing friction, also causing a wormhole at the poles. M theory is wrong in its current form is my next assertion. Im not aware of its actual current form, but what I am aware of is that there is no known observable membrane that surrounds our galaxy, the only thing I can think of that would be similar to a membrane is a flat surface, which has been discovered in most cases not to be flat, but spherical, spheres are efficient. I say that all dimensions can be reduced in truth to zero dimensions because of the two slit experiment. When the light is observed, it does not interfere with itself. This shows the power of the mind. It solidifies physical substances at a point of reference, which is zero dimensional. Take all these zero dimensional points, and assume they are all the same thing, and also assume that they are entangled, and you can sufficiently explain expansion by saying that they are all the same point meaning that they are all affected. The last point ties into my next point about string theory. I say that they are both repulsive forces, but one is parametric. The earth has volcanoes, we observe buoyancy, we observe pressure fluctuations, therefor I must conclude that the earths true gravitational center is actually repulsive and probably very solid, however, the other repulsive force which is not parametric is causing us to stick to the planet. Super symmetry of solid objects is just two solid objects spinning at the same rate hitting each other at the same speed, which hasnt been observed because its probably one of the rarest events in our universe.

I will either provide as many citations as possible when I can, or I would appreciate having the thread moved to the appropriate place (even if it is the trash can).

Black Holes are not holes, they are neither portals to other universes, it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects. M theory is wrong in its current form, it assumes 11 dimensions which is counter intuitive, anything more than 0 dimensions is also counter intuitive. There are points in space that collide, thats what I know. They exist in nothing more than 0 dimensions. String theory is plausible, as long as it doesnt assume more than 1 dimension that consists of 2 zero dimensional points, both being repulsive, one being parametric. Super symmetry of black holes probably produces most matter in the universe. The universe was probably not a single entity at one point, the universe (as we have come to know it to this point) probably only consists of our own galaxy. Question, why is everything so flat? Possibility, super symmetry of super solid objects, which have become known as black holes. The way to mine an energy that will allow us to travel through the known universe is by reaching as far into the center of a star and pulling out the materialwe can, that compressed element will give us a gravitational force that is so repulsive that it might, if focused, provide us with warp drive capacity. It may be able to be produced in a lab if we are able to produce a vacuum fast enough to suck out all the heat being produced by the compressed material and cool it so we can do so safely. Parallel universes are wrong to an extent, all moments in time probably exist simultaneously, they just exist at greater distances from our known reality. Time travel is possible if we were to be able to travel these distances. Folding space is not achievable. Compressing it is, however. (Although I do believe that space itself is a category error) Space consists of many different compressed elements, most of which are not visible or able to be felt. Our senses probably cannot detect most of the elements in our universe. Elements all consist of one energy at its core, and that is the repulsive force. All elements are parametric. A true vacuum would be the greatest achievement of mankind. A true vacuum would probably solidify time which would be the force that creates all matter. Time is a category error. There is only the mind. There is no such thing as a subatomic particles, when you smash two particles together, they break into n/2 particles. Quantum entanglement is fast, but its probably not instant.

I agree that all things can be reduced to two dimensions (at least for computational reasons), and even furthermore that they can be reduced to one dimension (length), and furthermore, that they can be reduced to two different states of zero dimensionality (one repulsive, and the other being parametric). It's all, imo, about where the interest is and where it will be. That, imo, is the unified field approach. Quantum mechanics seems to support this hypothesis, as well as computational neuroscience, genetics, psychology, and every other field (to my knowledge).

Ive been involved in research in natural language programming, I'd love to work with someone who is interested in working on this "iProgrammer" because I think it will be very useful.

Ive stopped eating pork to the best of my knowledge, ive started using antiseptic soap products, ive finished my prescription of antibiotics and everything seems to have cleared up pretty well. I dont know what you mean when you refer to "AB" resistant though CharonY.

I guess I'll start by defining exactly what I mean with every term that I used. I've researched and contributed a lot of thought into ideas of artificial intelligence and computational neuroscience so I'll have to explain clearly and I'll try to make citations for you. First I'll show you what I mean by "parameter". A parameter can be minimal, or it can be maximal. What our brains[minds] do naturally is maximize parameters, or, in other words, they take input, and they tend to maximize it in the following way. Imagine this, there are two monkeys and one gorilla, they are tribe-like in the sense that they are sitting around a fire and beating on drums and dancing. In the background there are 5 birds chirping on a branch to the beat. Ok, if your brain has maximized this information, it will not take only the words at face value, it will have made a mental imagery of the described occurrence, and hence, the words that I have wrote are not maximal. This is because of the process of accumulating knowledge, or conceptualizing. The brain will take sensory information, and conflate it to tiny packets of promptable information that is associated with specifiable knowledge contained within the input. Decision theory makes use of this process in a "hierarchical" fashion. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDecision_theory&ei=lTS2UZWHAc3yyAHIhICgDg&usg=AFQjCNEZyEtQrLoW4EjIhHE1qMKXhFnCQw&sig2=Y9GN0BDHyeEI8KBOw1788A&bvm=bv.47534661,d.aWc The maximal parameter is EVERYTHING that you have thought about in relation to the original occurrence whereas the minimal parameter is something that a newborn would recognize from the input such as the sound "g". In a program designed to play chess, it is designed for a particular outcome, or it is "goal-oriented" in the sense that it wants checkmate. So, in relation to my example, lets say that given your initial move[input], there are approximately 200k set parameters that the game can play out, and out of those 200k different alternatives, 10k of them are most desirable for checkmate given one single move in response to the initial stimulus. So, the computer will take that move, and by doing so, it will reduce the likelihood of failure by a factor of 10. Originally, there were (approximately) 200k maximal parameters that the computer was designed to compute in response to one initial input, the one you made. These are all linear, but by making it goal oriented, it has the appearance of being hierarchical, and it becomes much more efficient by making it hierarchical because then it doesn't compute irrelevant information. The point is that the program does not compute one occurrence at a time and make one single prediction, and neither does our brain (as split mentioned). It takes into account EVERY KNOWN PARAMETER that is MAXIMAL and RELEVANT to any specifiable occurrence, and if it has a goal, then it will deliberately, and very efficiently, take the steps necessary to achieve the desired outcome, at least to the extent that the outcome is within the knowledge and probable given a set of alternatives to achieve it, the outcome being the set parameter (in this case, checkmate). See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguistics

Adding to what split said, computers that are designed to play chess have every parameter maximized for any specific occurrence, which is not impossible for humans imo, but highly improbable that someone would want to go about memorizing every possibility. It would probably make the game extremely slow, unless that was all the person knew.

Ringer, there is a technique used to observe the calcium in brain cells, by doing that you can see that at times, multiple cells fire almost explosively, and they do so simultaneously. That is physical evidence for neurocalcified entanglement, which is quantum. You can also observe the brain making computations using the same technique. Knowledge is in there somewhere, and the brain has to calculate it somehow. That is technically synonomous to computation. Patterns of neurological activity are patterns, and patterns are computable.

I believe that for what we can observe, we need only the repulsive force. Depending on the size of the repulsive proximity, it should provide the force necessary for all things observable to exist. I agree that there is no evidence for a creator, but if there is any shred of evidence to support it, then it comes from the life sciences. As I have said before though, the line between alive and dead is not clear scientifically. I saw a guy give life to a bubble of oil by using soap, it may take years for it to develop knowledge, and it will have no recollection of its creator, and it doesn't necessarily need an embodied creator, but the question is still there, unfortunately I'm not convinced that it has any merit in science. It's faith for the most part. But like I said, if it had any scientific basis, it most likely comes from computer science. I also doubt that the military has the artificial intelligence that I envision.

Here's the simple form of the argument. Programmer creates program. Program becomes sentient. Programmer dies. The creator is dead. But then again, the term life is in and of itself arguable. The line between living and dead is not clearly distinguished. You can actually use the same argument to logically prove the existence of leprechauns.

That works.

It's oligarchy at its core, and I believe it always truly has been. To deny oligarchy is like denying cause and effect Hitler was out of control, I don't think many of us will oppose that. It became a matter of how long until it was under control that concerns humanity

....... at the beginning Minus the last reducible unit

After prolonged thought about the slippery slope fallacy, I've decided that it is wrong to not appeal to it. Its a double edged blade. If a new hitler comes along and says, its wrong not to kill all life, and therefor your wrong for not agreeing because it's a slippery slope, they should be able to silence him for good purposes. Survival, replication, or better yet, solidification of the mind.

So firstly, you prove my point "whether like it or not", I like it btw. Secondly, you actually can't get the exact volume of the arc under a curve by doing a summation of infinite boxes that are infinitely thin, you'll lose focus or get old and die first I guarantee it. For all intensive purposes, round the number, we've been doing it for this many years, why stop now? But, does the actual function of rounding a number have a physical correlate? If it does, then .3r is equal to 1/3, and .9r is equal to 1.

Technically, we could use a vaccuum force to maintain a specific height if we also had a resistance to the force that didn't cancel it out. It doesn't necessarily have to be a superconductor.

Sam, I believe that if it is not progress, then it is not worth money. Appealing to eternity will never prove the existence of anything. Take .9r, and keep subtracting 1 9 from the end of it, that number is equal to 1 in the moment now.

I doubt it, plus you used the word infinity, which is a fallacy in my book. It appeals to something that is unobservable.

Or it could be an expression of zero dimensionality, which I think is even more plausible. But science seems to be making a consensus on two dimensionality (hawking and the plumber)

No I don't live, I am both alive and dead simultaneously. Imo, I exist at all moments simultaneously, and as split once said to me, movement is an expression of one dimensionality, I accept his statement.

To me Sam, 3 dimensional is meaningless. To even suggest anything more than 2 dimensions.... I won't project my thoughts. Basically, slice here, slice there, (slice here), maybe make another slice or two. In any case, they are all 2 dimensional. The point of interest just happens to intersect all slices specifically at it's location.

I gave you a rep point because you supplied the link. I didn't think I was posting nonsense though. After reading the link, I have to conclude that there must be an alternative.

There may be gaps in my understanding, I never claimed to be 100% right, just that I want a flying car. My logic is this. Liquid nitrogen is cold, but it boils around the ceramic. Ceramic is hard, but I don't know much more about the properties of ceramic. I'll look into it though. I really want a flying car. Nitrogen boiling is probably a lot like water boiling, it creates nitrogen steam. Maybe that is part of the force that is holding the magnet up in a levitated position. How do we get something like water to boil at room temperature though? Is there any solution to that?