It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Devil's Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave

page: 12
212
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Further obfuscation and confusion. Well done.

There is no point trying to quote reams of irrelevant or dubious material to prove that 1.25^3 ≠ 2, or that phase values are limited to a range from zero to 360º and cannot reach infinity. These are basic facts that no amount of quotation or fabrication can alter. You are trying to prove that black is white.

You can keep spouting this rubbish till the cows come home. A few gullible souls will believe you. Sensible folk will just ignore you, and those who actually have some knowledge of physics, music and the other things you're talking about will laugh at you.

And by the way, you are ruining and derailing your own thread with this balderdash. There was a stimulating conversation going on here until you killed it with an overdose of blether.
edit on 11/2/12 by Astyanax because: of blether.




posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Incommensurability is a fancy math term for the irrational number.

No, incommensurability is the fundamental property of irrational numbers. Is English your first language?


Before zero was invented.

That has nothing to do with the cube root of 2.

Your quotes have nothing at all to do with the fact that 1.25^3 does not equal 2.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by xizd1
 


What am I missing here? Is it not true that 0A = 0F = Silence? Can silence amplify complementary frequencies?


The answer is de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony -- when time slows down due to relativity it's when energy as frequency speeds up. De Broglie then figured out that when time expands as infinite phase amplitude then frequency as the consciousness pilot wave goes to zero.

So consciousness is a superliminal, faster than light, pilot wave guiding spacetime and energy-matter.

Luis de Brogle and his Law of Phase Harmony -- it addresses this deep paradox in Einstein's relativity about the quantum time-frequency uncertainty principle.




Where is zero amplitude frequency in this?


edit on 10-2-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: pointless

edit on 10-2-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)


It's a contradiction discovered by de Broglie yet remaining unresolved because classical physics can not unify with quantum:


But the same particle should, according to de Broglie, be associable to an inner frequency which, for a moving particle, transformed time-like in the same manner as the atomic clocks with period atom and frequency atom do in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. We quote Arthur Miller from his 1981 study on Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity ([6], p. 211). In this quote, the rest frame is named k and the moving frame K. In 1907 Einstein [.] defined a clock as any periodic process -for example, an atomic oscillator emitting a frequency 0 as measured in k. [.]..an observer in K measures the frequency: (12) [.]the clock at k’s origin registers a time observed from K of: atom = 0. (13) Einstein attributed a clock-like frequency to every atom. De Broglie generalized Einstein’s view by postulating that every isolated particle with a rest-energy possessed a clock-like frequency. Thus, de Broglie gave every particle two, and not just one, frequencies, their inertial-energy frequency i and their inner-clock frequency c. The inner-clock frequency, of atoms and photons, was postulated by Einstein, the inertial-energy frequency was postulated by de Broglie. These frequencies were identical
in a rest-system but fundamentally diverged in a moving frame according
to
...
This constituted an apparent contradiction for de Broglie, but he could
solve it by a theorem which he called ”Harmony of the Phases”. He
assumed the inertial energy of the moving particle to behave as a wavelike
phenomenon and postulated the phase of this wave-like phenomenon
to be at all times equal to the phase of the inner clock-like phenomenon...The inertial
wave associated with a moving particle not only had a frequency but
also a wave-length analogous to the fact that any inertial energy Ei of
a moving particle had a momentum pi associated to it....The relativistic expressions for the inertial phase of a moving particle
allowed de Broglie to postulate a wave-length associated to the
magnitude of the electrons inertial momentum pi...The Harmony of the Phases resulted in a super-luminous wave-velocity
vwave connected to the particle-velocity...but this was not in contradiction with the postulates of Einstein’s Special
Theory of Relativity because the wave couldn’t carry energy and the
group-velocity of the wave, vgroup, equalled the velocity of the associated
particle, vparticle. So the group velocity was connected to the moving
inertial energy.


So the superliminal pilot wave is phase as momentum but not classical energy as amplitude.

So the phase as quantum infinite potential is then converted back to classical amplitude.


However, in the battle into which the interpretation-problem of quantum physics transformed, the idea of an inner, clock-like frequency associable to an electron as a particle disappeared from the scene. All attention got focussed on the nature of the matter waves connected to the inertial energy ([7], p. 27). Then in the final interpretation of the Copenhagen School, the moving electron completely evaporated in the wave and the inertial wave transformed into an abstract probability-wave disconnected from physical reality [8].






edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

The unjustifiable claim is that consciousness is a wave that travels faster than light. Your quote has no relevance to that.

Incidentally, smart move picking quotes from offline sources in foreign journals that may not even exist. This one does; I checked. It's just the abstract of the paper. Have you actually read the paper?

You may be in for a shock if you do. Evanescent waves are near-field waves (do you know what that means?
) and do not propagate. In other words, they go nowhere. You have just made a colossal physics boo-boo. Not your first, of course; this thread is absolutely lousy with them.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 



Math professor Luigi Borzacchini gives us the real answer... that the geometrical continuum can not be proved coincident with the numerical one.

This is news? It wasn't even news to Euclid.

Sorry if the memo was late getting to you.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Originally posted by Patchman
how would this translate to guitar?


You'd want a fretless guitar or moveable frets.

There's some stuff online if you look.


edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)


No! I'm sorry but in that first video, the instrument sounds like it's out of tune.
Plus, adding additonal frets seems to be breaking the rules of music and only dampens the harmonic potential of the true sound.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

The Physics World article you cite clearly states that nothing moves faster than light in the experiment you quote. The apparent superluminality is simply a group-velocity phenomenon of a type well known to physics.

As for the PDF you say it is 'citing', that's actually some piece of tripe you wrote, not the original paper being reported on in the article.

So far, I have had occasion to call you misinformed and presumptuous, but I have had no reason to call you a teller of lies. I'm afraid you have crossed that barrier with the post to which I am here replying.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Bernard d'Espagnat states consciousness is logically inferred from quantum physics.

Bernard d'Espagnat is not Louis de Broglie.

You said:


De Broglie then figured out that when time expands as infinite phase amplitude then frequency as the consciousness pilot wave goes to zero.

So: another lie.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

The Physics World article you cite clearly states that nothing moves faster than light in the experiment you quote. The apparent superluminality is simply a group-velocity phenomenon of a type well known to physics.

As for the PDF you say it is 'citing', that's actually some piece of tripe you wrote, not the original paper being reported on in the article.

So far, I have had occasion to call you misinformed and presumptuous, but I have had no reason to call you a teller of lies. I'm afraid you have crossed that barrier with the post to which I am here replying.



Can you prove that I wrote the PDF you're referring to? That would be hilarious since I didn't write it.

haha.

But hey accusations without any evidence sure are funny.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Bernard d'Espagnat states consciousness is logically inferred from quantum physics.

Bernard d'Espagnat is not Louis de Broglie.

You said:


De Broglie then figured out that when time expands as infinite phase amplitude then frequency as the consciousness pilot wave goes to zero.

So: another lie.



Not according to David Bohm -- that's why the Pilot Wave is Bohmian-de Broglie physics -- as I posted.

Are you calling me a liar or playing the lyre?




edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

Again, nothing in the links you quote suggests that de Broglie thought consciousness was a wave, or that it travels faster than light. The links are to a highly speculative lecture by somebody called Fowler.

Still more horseapples. How long do you plan to keep this up?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

Again, nothing in the links you quote suggests that de Broglie thought consciousness was a wave, or that it travels faster than light. The links are to a highly speculative lecture by somebody called Fowler.

Still more horseapples. How long do you plan to keep this up?


Hey call Chunyi Lin of springforestqigong and get yourself a shen laser holographic healing transmission -- then you can flex your pineal gland and transmit light out of your third eye.

haha.

How long is eternity? haha.

How long is consciousness?


This point-to-point correspondence emphasizes the notion of point as fundamental in sense of order. Cameras now photograph things too big or too small, too fast or too slow to be seen by the naked eye. This has reinforced our belief that everything can ultimately be seen that way. Omni: Aren't the contradictions you have been talking about embedded in the very name quantum mechanics? Bohm: Yes. Physics is more like quantum organism than quantum mechanics. I think physicists have a tremendous reluctance to admit this. There is a long history of belief in quantum mechanics, and people have faith in it. And they don't like having this faith challenged.


Yeah science is a religion of mass ritual sacrifice


Omni: What do you think is the order of the holomovement? Bohm: It may lie outside of time as we ordinarily know it. If the universe began with the Big Bang and there are black holes, then we must eventually reach places where the notion of time and space breaks down. Anything could happen.

edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



In classical mechanics, movement or velocity is defined as the relation between the position now and the position a short time ago. What was a short time ago is gone, so you relate what is to what is not. This isn't a logical concept. In the implicate order you are relating different frames that are copresent in consciousness. You're relating what is to what is. A moment contains flow or movement. The moment may be long or short, as measured in time. In consciousness a moment is around a tenth of a second. Electronic moments are much shorter, but a moment of history might be a century. Omni: So a moment enfolds all the past? Bohm: Yes, but the recent past is enfolded more strongly. At any given moment we feel the presence of all the past and also the anticipated future. It's all present and active. I could use the example of the cylinder again. Let's say we enfold one droplet h times. Then we put another droplet in and enfold it N times. The relationship between the droplets remains the same no matter how thoroughly they are enfolded. So as you unfold, you will get back the original relationship. Imagine if we take four or five droplets--all highly enfolded--the relationship between them is still there in a very subtle way, even though it is not in space and not in time. But, of course, it can be transformed into space and time by turning the cylinder. The best metaphor might involve memory. We remember a great many events, which are all present together. Their succession is in that momentary memory: We don't have to run through them all to reproduce that time succession. We already have the succession. Omni: And a sense of movement--so you have replaced time with movement? Bohm: Yes, in the sense of movement of the symphony, rather than the movement of the orchestra on a bus, say, through physical space. Omni: What do you think that says about consciousness? Bohm: Much of our experience suggests that the implicate order is natural for understanding consciousness: When you are talking to somebody, your whole intention to speak enfolds a large number of words. You don't choose them one by one. There are any number of examples of the implicate order in our experience of consciousness.

edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Can you prove that I wrote the PDF you're referring to?

No, of course not. Perhaps I was wrong, though it sure reads like you. The point is that it is not the paper being referred to in the article, which means you have been caught out telling a falsehood.


Are you calling me a liar or playing the lyre?

The first.


That would be hilarious since I didn't write it.

Who's going to believe anything you say now?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Can you prove that I wrote the PDF you're referring to?

No, of course not. Perhaps I was wrong, though it sure reads like you. The point is that it is not the paper being referred to in the article, which means you have been caught out telling a falsehood.


I gave the link to the paper right after the link to the commentary on the paper and I stated the commentary was citing the link. That's clarification -- not a lie -- but maybe you missed my clarification. haha.



It's public record -- so there's no need for belief.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Can you prove that I wrote the PDF you're referring to?

No, of course not, though it sure reads like you. But that's not the point. The point is that it is not the original paper cited in the Physics World article, and you said it was. That was a lie.


Are you calling me a liar or playing the lyre?

Guess.



That would be hilarious since I didn't write it.

Who is going to believe anything you say now?



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Not according to David Bohm -- that's why the Pilot Wave is Bohmian-de Broglie physics.

It doesn't matter what some crank calls it. The fact is that de Broglie never said consciousness is a wave or that it travels faster than light. You're just digging yourself in deeper.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Can you prove that I wrote the PDF you're referring to?

No, of course not, though it sure reads like you. But that's not the point. The point is that it is not the original paper cited in the Physics World article, and you said it was. That was a lie.


Are you calling me a liar or playing the lyre?

Guess.



That would be hilarious since I didn't write it.

Who is going to believe anything you say now?



Let's just repeat what I wrote and we can see the truth in action:




Originally posted by Astyanax Phase and amplitude are different properties of a wave. There is no such thing as 'phase amplitude'. Phase is an angle, so it can never be infinite; its value always lies between zero and 360 degrees. IN THIS CASE THE TERM PHASE MANIPULATIONS REFERS DIRECTLY TO THE PERIOD OF THE SOUND WAVES BEING AS MUCH AS 180 DEGREES OUT OF PHASE WITH THE INITIAL PROPAGATION. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU START OUT WITH A BUNCH OF SOUND WAVES AND STRIP OFF PART OF THESE WAVES ALLOWING THEM TO RECOMBINE WITH THE STRIPPED OFF PORTION HAVING ITS AMPLITUDE EXACTLY OPPOSITE MOST OF THE ORIGINAL WAVES IN THE GROUP. from Sound now proven faster than light Citing Sound breaks the Light Barrier


O.K. so I give the citation to the commentary and I state the commentary cites the paper.



The point is that it is not the original paper cited in the Physics World article, and you said it was.


Nope -- sorry I didn't say that. But hey -- hope that clarifies things for you.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


Not according to David Bohm -- that's why the Pilot Wave is Bohmian-de Broglie physics.

It doesn't matter what some crank calls it. The fact is that de Broglie never said consciousness is a wave or that it travels faster than light. You're just digging yourself in deeper.


Right -- de Broglie didn't "say" that -- I wrote he "figured it out" -- that doesn't mean he realized he figured it out -- according to Bohm that's what he figured out.

I know it's a subtle difference but then logic is subtle.

Now you think Bohm is a crank -- that's fine -- it's your opinion. Thanks for sharing. haha.


Instead of talking about the cranks themselves, let’s instead talk about their theories since, in some cases, some prominent scientists who produced legitimate work also produced work that has been called “cranky” (e.g. David Bohm who is well-respected for a lot of his work but was derided when his work started to get a little mystical – Steven French, while grilling me in the oral defense of my PhD thesis, referred to this the “mad Bohm” stage).


So quantizing cranks mentions Bohm -- yep consciousness in physics is obviously a taboo subject
edit on 11-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 

This is what you wrote:


from

Sound now proven faster than light

Citing

Sound breaks the Light Barrier

So there is actually no paper involved at all. Just some crank babbling about an article he read on a web site.

I do not withdraw my accusation. You are trying to put words into Louis de Broglie's mouth that he never uttered – or, for that matter, wrote.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Oh, and besides – it doesn't really make a difference, except between you and your conscience, whether or not you are telling the truth. The point is that you're talking rubbish.
  • 5/4 is not the cube root of 2.

  • Phase can never be infinite in value.

  • There is no such thing as 'phase amplitude'.

  • A wave of zero frequency is not a wave. It is silence.

  • Group-velocity phenomena do not violate Special Relativity.

  • De Broglie never said consciousness was a wave or that it travelled faster than light.

Let's see you explain these inconvenient little facts away. You're haven't been doing too well so far.




top topics



 
212
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join