i agree - you need to write about it. how the hell was
the administration able to 'control' your teaching methods
and content?

i could get around THAT... just teach what you want
what are they gonna do? audit your course?

Abra has been caught teaching unconventionally offering
over-advanced concepts to his students WITH CALCULATORS



Make him sit on the curriculum committee - it'll teach
him a lesson....give him a couple of 8AM remedial classes
too...

I actually did my own thing anyway.

But it was more than just the individual courses, I wanted to rearrange the entire order of the courses in the overall program.

And on an even larger picture I wanted to coordinate the math courses with the physics courses so I could teach the math required for the physics simultaneously!

In fact, if I had my own way I would have integrated the math and physics together.

Yeah, I know, now I'm talking about a speciality school.

Well, hey, why not. Aren't students special? Don't they deserve to go to speciality schools?

When I go to heaven um gonna build a speciality school.

But the problem is that no one in heaven will want to study. They'll all be out eating ice cream in the playground.

Only when another runs away with their own mis-understanding(s) of who and what I am without ever truly reading that which I have said.

One who is merely awaiting their turn to speak(write) is not actively listening(reading)...



As are we all...

Rejecting what James??? Show me, please.




This would be presupposing what?



special... 1905 General... 1915



This would be fine example of why this author feels he has to defend himself...

Show me exactly what I said.




What comments??? Copy and paste my words. I will not defend a position that you have attributed to me.




Jb inserts the following...




I just have to smile at this. Here, allow me to hold up a mirror for you.



Oh my.... this is too much for me to handle without laughing out loud... literally...

No further response needed...check out my avatar!


But then this by James again...




I did??? Show me.



Your babysitting your own extrapolations of what you think my intent is/was.



Billy...

Yes, this and nearly all threads in this forum tend to wander. It did not bother me though, because of my fondness for all that has been spoken of..



I appreciate your seemingly expressed good intent. Truly.

Maybe later, I will answer your questions... what do you think?

'creative' 'soul .... you should have picked another name ... it doesn't fit a man who is too wrapped up in details to be 'intuitive' and 'creative' ...

I'm sorry that you feel defensive. It was never my intention to make you feel that way.

Clearly you have created an imaginary adversarial relationship between us in your mind.

Just know that I did not intend for that to happen and if I had contributed to it in any way, I sincerely apologize.

I'm not out to get you Michael.

Evidently we've had some major misunderstandings. Let's just leave it at that and drop the whole thing.

I apologize if I've come across as being offensive. That wasn't my intent.

At one time i aspired to model a series of practical
technical schools which integrated math, science, and
engineering into a research facility with the students
performing lab work on active researh projects such as
alternative energy technologies, biomedical r&d, novel
mechanical, computing, optical or electronic systems.

The education could be tailored to cover the basics
while attacking current r&d problems. Now that would
be fun and educational. I envision an 8-12 year progam
starting combining high school with college and grad
school. Get em while they're young. Augment faculty with
some grad student and post-graduate assistants.

But if I was gonna do that I should've started 25 years
ago. Send a white paper to NSF....

Creative remarks....



On the contrary, I did not reject the theory at all, so your mirror analogy is flawed. I freely admit that I don't understand all the details.



Nice drawing. I see that you are a skilled artist.

You have openly described yourself as analytical and it is crystal clear to me that you are very mental in your thinking. (Just because you describe yourself as "Creativesoul" does not make it your only quality.)

Perhaps it is your goal to be more creative and intuitive and you are using the "pretending technique" to create that as your reality. I hope that works for you.

Anyway I am glad you find my point of view amusing. I am simply being honest.

I still would like to know what the whole point of your argument is about and what you are getting at specifically. I don't have a clue.

I think the discussion was extremely interesting and I somewhat understand most of the posts, but your posts mosly leave me with this feeling:

Huh? What is he talking about? What is he trying to say? What is his point? (I just don't have a clue on what you are getting at over all.)

Oh well. It is as it has always been. You remain a mystery to me.

JB

Michael,

I decided to go back and comment on just a couple things you said earlier in the thread. My purpose is not to argue or try to prove anything, but to simply try to clarify where I'm coming from and specifically why I felt that you don't understand the theory. I suppose since you feel that I've accused you of this (which I have) I should clarify why I feel this way. It's not meant as an insult nor an argument, I'm just trying to clarify my position.



Here you are making a claim that Einstein's description is not accurate. And then you go on to say that we cannot use a one-dimensional vision to recreate a multi-dimensional actuality.

Well this makes absolutely no sense Michael. There is nothing one-dimensional about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Clearly you fail to understand it. You've seen a one-dimensional analogy in a book that was trying to simplify the ideas for the reader and you've somehow taken that to be a precise representation of GR. It is not. Therefore you misunderstand the theory. In fact its extremely unlikely that you're truly going to understand the theory of GR in great detail just by reading a couple of books that are designed for laymen.

I'm just stating that facts. It's not meant as an insult to you in any way. You clearly don't understand the theory, and you only have a very limited peek at what it might be about.



You talk about laughing at what people say, well I could see your quote above becoming a standard cartoon in physics books. It's quite hilarious truly Michael. Here you are saying that just because you don't have a better theory that doesn't make the generally accepted theory true.

Think about that for a moment. This is rolling-on-the-floor material.

Of course this isn't what makes theories true! Why should the truth of a theory depend on whether or not YOU can come up with a better one? That's hilarious.

Although I fully understand where you are coming from Michael. Truly I do. You're taking the purely philosophy approach that everything can be understood or figured out via pure thought. I think this was Rene Descartes' main belief.

This line of thinking can't be true. And the reason is simple. We can indeed imagine universes that aren't like ours. Therefore pure thought can never be used alone to figure out this universe. This universe is unique because it is what it is, not because this is the only way that things can possibly be.

This is the flaw in Descartes' philosophy that the physical universe can be figured out via pure thought alone. That ideology is no longer accepted. It is believed now that our physical universe is merely one of many possibilities and therefore our universe is dependent upon specific conditions within it.

It is dependent on conditions that are totally arbitrary and therefore cannot be deduced via pure thought alone. Some actual physical measurement or observations must be made before we can make meaningful statements about this particular universe. And that is what we build on.

If we had only pure thought to rely on, then we can imagine any universe we want. It doesn't need to be restricted by the physical properties of this universe.

You are a pure philosopher, you place your trust in pure thought and believe that you can use pure logic to deduce TRUTH. But it can't be that way. Because there is no such thing as absolute TRUTH just as there is no such thing as absolute SPACE or absolute TIME.

In terms of pure thought any thought you have is TRUE!

Now you might say, "Well I can have the thought that the moon is made of blue cheese" does that make it true? Maybe not in this universe. But that's the whole point. The only reason the moon isn't made of blue cheese in this universe is because of the constraints that this universe places on both the moon and blue cheese.

You'll never discover the true nature of this physical universe using pure thought alone. If you want to use pure thought alone you must go beyond this universe and recognize that all things are possible.

Welcome to the mind of God.

But does that contribute to the understanding of the laws of physics 'within' this particular universe.

No it doesn't.

It just shows that while we are confined to this physical universe so must be the manifestations of our thoughts.

But we already knew that right?

We can't figure out this universe using pure thought alone. We must dig-in and accept that observation and experience is absolutely necessary to discovering the 'true nature' of this physical universe because this physical universe has it's own set of constraints. It is those arbitrary constraints that give this universe its properties. And the fact that they are arbitrary is what removes them from the reach of pure thought alone. (i.e. you'd have to start with the correct guesses)

How do I know that the a priori properties of this universe are arbitrary? I don't really. But it makes the most sense to me. If they are not arbitrary then it can only be because our universe is the only possible way to construct a universe!

Do you believe that?

I don't.

If you want to know about how this universe works, you need to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty with observation and experiential measurements and evidence. That's what physicists do.

If you want to believe in pure thought, that's fine. That's the mind of God. Anything is possible, and it's all done via pure thought (smoke and mirrors). Thoughts manifest reality and this entire universe is but a thought.

Row row row your boat upon a thought we float.

Michael isn't a mystery to me. I believe I know precisely where he's coming from, but he thinks I don't.

He's is a pure philosopher. He believes that he can discover truth via pure thought alone.

I once had that idealology myself. But I have reached the ulimate concluion in that field.

It may be true of reality as a whole (God's mind), but it's not going to work when applied to the physics of this particular manifestation of a universe.

The conclusion when pure pure philosophy is taken to the limit is quite simple.

Anything is possible. Que Sara Sara.

That's the utlimate truth.

So in a sense, I've already followed pure philosophy to it's final conclusion. It leads to the mind of God and once there, there is no where else to go.

The answer is,....

With God, all things are possible.

Amen

I'm finished with pure philosophy. I've taken it to its ulimate conclusion and it leads to God. There's no where left to go after that.

It's meaningless to try to apply pure philosophy to the physical questions associated with the manifestation of this particular universe.

That's why God created physicsts.

Michael has become trapped in the vortex between physics and phiolosphy. He's trying to use pure phiolosphy to explain physics. That's not going anwhere.

And his poor girlfriend is waiting for him to escape the vortex but it appears to be acting like a black hole.

Well he manage to free himself from it?

Can he travel faster than the speed of light via an astral projection to escape the no-man's-land that lies in the Twilight Zone of metaphysics?

Abra I think the last few posts would have been best served as PM's.


_____________
So back to QM


Light really is a conundrum for scientists today. NO ONE understands what light, or NRG, or matter REALLY is.

So in that respect we are all on the same page regardless of education.

Sure you can say, light is a vibration of the electromagnetic spectrum . . . but the very fact you have a thing that has NRG, no reset mass, that moves through space, but not time, is a wave and a particle at the same time (not just when we look at it, or don't but BOTH)

Uncertainty and superpositions just confuse the issue.

All serious physicists know that we are missing a key component. That is why we have spent so much money on big particle smashers.

Maybe fundamental approaches like that which is given through a formal education is really what is holding us up. Some believe this . . I don't think so . . I think we just do not have the mathematics to handle the problems right now, as does Edward Witten . . . who I think is our modern day Einstein but the complexity of the problems he is crunching put the complexity of relativity to SHAME. This may not be figured out in my lifetime, or maybe even my childrens . . if I end up having any . .

Personally I think M theory has alot going for it. I dont think you can explain Light, or singularities, or uncertainty, or teleportation without higher dimensions. I mean ultimately we know spacetime is stretching . . . so what is it stretching into? Even if M theory isn't the right theory, I think its barking up the right tree.

JMHO

It just IS.

It truly is Jess, but what is IT?

Everything and nothing.... all and none.

Is there ever a "nothing". I don't think so, I think what we see as nothing, is really a something.

I would love it, I have wanted someone to discuss this with for a long time. Most students I go to school with don't really discuss this much . .. they are mostly students taking physics for engineering, radiology or other sciences, but not just for physics.

If you would like shoot me an email . . I would have done the same, but noticed your restrictions would prohibit such contact from me.

regards

Jeremy.

But is what we 'see' an illusion, a dream, a creation of our doing?

Why is it that there can be no 'nothing'?

Why is it that what the eye and brain can't see, must not exist?

Why is it not possible for the Knowing to know?

Hmm good question I don't think anyone knows, Maybe, Maybe, Maybe . If a dream . . who is the dreamer? God? If a creation of our own doing am I god and everyone else is my creation? If so I need to wake the f up and purge some of this crap . . hahaha.

There could be . . we just have not found it yet. Every time we think we have found nothing . . bam something pops out at the next NRG level.

I know some folks believe that . . but its not true. The brain and eye cannot detect everything that exists currently, That is the role technology fills for us. . . . maybe the brain will develop to where it can. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

Hmm, this one is like a Buddhist Koan. Om mani padme hum . . . . . . .

I once wrote a small book called "The Eyes of Infinity" and my biggest question was the one Bushidobillyclub asked.

What is IT?



Its a paradox. It could be both something and nothing.

Depak Chopra called it "Potential" "Idea"

I like to call it "Intention"

Its not quite consciousness. It is the intention to exist perhaps.

It is potential energy.

"Why is it that what the eye and brain can't see, must not exist?"

Now you are talking about the senses (sight and perception)

Can you imagine NOTHING?
If you can, then please describe it..

If you DO describe it, then what is left?

Who is describing it?

YOU.

That is your answer!!

YOU ARE IT!!!

YOUR ARE THE ONE.

You are the ONE


The truth is Darkness, there is no light;
But don’t despair in dark of night.
You are the ONE to make it right;
Bring forth creation; embrace the sight.

The Love is ONE and Light is Life.
You are the ONE in peace or strife.
Bring forth the light, let your heart shine.
For all is love, and love divine.

Bring forth the light; it comes from thee.
The truth of darkness cannot be.
You are the ONE, there is no night.
You are the ONE, bring forth the Light.

To dream is life, and not -- to die;
Bring forth the light and live the lie!
For Light is Life, and Love, the breath,
Tis at this door choose life or death....


http://www.springfieldcolorado.com/poems/TheOne.html

Yep.... I am nothing.... and everything.

Here is a great example of something which defies common sense but is VERY real, and will lead us into the future technology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021185213.htm