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.

 

Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by retirednature
 


I think I've already figured out the cognitive aspect. *Drum roll*

It's evolution in its truest form.

In short, we all strive for newer and better information, and as long as any new information we come across does not challenge the information we have already accepted, then we will adopt it, protect it, and try to reproduce it (in that order).

How do we reproduce our information? By communicating it through speech and mating. Further, we will fight to reproduce the information if we feel strongly enough about it.

What happens if the information is challenged? We try to protect it by forming mental disorders, by fighting, by fleeing, by becoming reclusive, by ignoring, by mentally blocking it, etc.

Our very minds strive to become what they are meant to become. We cannot fight it, it is who we are. Once we reproduce what we think is good information - we experience happy and all the "good" emotions up to conceit. If we cannot reproduce the information we experience "sad" - regret.

Why did OP make this thread? He thinks he has good information and he is trying to reproduce it.
Why did you check this thread? You are seeking newer and better information or you are seeking confirmation affirmation (recreate good).

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 8/9/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

"while it is true that sound frequency and electromagnetic frequency do not share many properties (a common mistake on these boards),"

What do you mean they do not share many properties?

My personally beliefs (or thoughts, ideas, nothing serious, just hunches from thinking about reality) is that (in a fractal sort of way) concepts are replicated throughout reality, patterns, literal physical analogies. The hardest part is the top -down or bottom- up problem. Is the most fundamental nature of reality the tiny? The separate infinitesimal bits of quanta? Or is the most fundamental quality and aspect of nature an all encompassing whole, or oneness, which underwent some change to create the actuality or at least perspective based illusion of near infinite infinitesimal quanta? And are those ideas even opposing, can they exist together, or is it something else all together?

So about concepts being replicated. I think music/sound is (though great in many ways) a 'crude' mapping or outline of a more fundamental formal mathematical and harmonic construct of the balanced principals that are involved in the maintenance and existence of the universe. You mentioned in earlier threads you believed the fundamental existence of quantum particles begin as standing wave patterns that momentarily interact to create 'stable things'. Music would be a fleeting example of this type of energy exchange to suspend a 'thingness' in reality, in this case the harmonic interaction of a chord, or the interaction of many through time as a melody. The thing with the universe if it is a bound system, energy cannot be created or destroyed, the music doesnt stop, and this activity of the vibrations not being able to stop, makes the music, perspectively, 'things'.

Still the hardest part is describing the scope of the universe, is it a huge connected (connected meaning not one 'point' that is not connected to the point next to it,etc. like how a bed sheet is connect to itself at points, and would quantum particles be threads that vibrated up and down creating areas of interaction, that according to a frame rate of time and frequency of vibration relative to the frequency of all other vibrations would create 'harmonic', or constructive interference which maybe would appear as stability, why other kinds may be dissonance or entropy?

Or do you think the universe is more 'advanced' then being something like a sheet? What do we have to compare it to, though it has to be comparable to something, for it is exactly something... Is it so archaic that we cant imagine it, so advanced that we cant imagine it, so bizarre, so intricate and vast, so far from our level and scale? Why does the truth escape our imagination? I guess its simple really, most mechanical and technical feats of human engineering escape my imagination. I am in no way comparing the universe or claiming Id. Just that smart people can tinker with a human invention and figure out what it is and how it works and how it was created, and I know we have been trying, but I am just very eager and impatient, and it bothers me that I dont know.
edit on 9-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


i am glad you posted both of those threads. i had not read them. it is clear that you have a well formed conceptual basis of reality, particularly from the subjective point of view.

what you have said reminds me of the central idea of the book, "The Electric Meme". Meme was a word in use before its meaning got diluted by the internets. Essentially, the idea is that cognitive development follows in the same pattern as physical evolution.... and that our continued physical development is now under the control of this secondary evolution. This equates the concept of gene to meme. The survival of ideas. yes. good stuff.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



"while it is true that sound frequency and electromagnetic frequency do not share many properties (a common mistake on these boards)," What do you mean they do not share many properties?


rule #1: you cannot hear a 100 Hz electromagnetic wave... even though 100 Hz is well within human hearing range. similarly, a 100 Hz sound wave will not interrupt the propagation of a radio signal which is riding on a 100 Hz center frequency.

now, having said that, there are lots of completely valid examples of the induction or transduction of one type into the other type. because of this, it can be a tricky road to navigate and most people have difficulty accepting rule #1.


...will continue later...



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



"while it is true that sound frequency and electromagnetic frequency do not share many properties (a common mistake on these boards)," What do you mean they do not share many properties?


rule #1: you cannot hear a 100 Hz electromagnetic wave... even though 100 Hz is well within human hearing range. similarly, a 100 Hz sound wave will not interrupt the propagation of a radio signal which is riding on a 100 Hz center frequency.

now, having said that, there are lots of completely valid examples of the induction or transduction of one type into the other type. because of this, it can be a tricky road to navigate and most people have difficulty accepting rule #1.


...will continue later...


Sound exists whether we can hear it or not, so our ears evolved to be able to detect the sound wave, but not the em wave. However we have instruments to measure and detect em waves just as out ear is an instrument along with our brains that can measure and detect sound, perhaps there are even animals that can detect EM with non eye detectors but detectors that more resemble the mechanics of an ear. The point of similarity I think that exists in my mind, is that a sound wave is a wave of energy, which arises from its source of mass being vibrated. This produces EM as well, for EM radiation arises when a mass (atom containing electron or electron) is vibrated or accelerated. Just as the air is the medium which receives the energy from the vibration, The em field is the medium which receives the vibration. Its just that the nature of the EM field, and universal fields in general, are of a different order and principle then the gravitationally bound 'air field' of earth.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Kashai
 


Never heard of it. What is it and what conclusions have they drawn from it that you're referring to?

As far as the electron orbit of a nucleus goes, I haven't gotten to tying that all in together. Weight, hot, cold, and magnetism, I suspect, is all controlled by the weak nuclear force. I think the speed of an electron, alone, is not the root cause of change, though. That is to say, it plays its part but the nucleus' motion/change probably has more to do with states of matter.

Went to make coffee and had a thought: Weight and magnetism probably are controlled by the electrons motion. As an example, think of lightening. Lightening moves towards the ground because it is attracted to faster electron orbits? Whereas faster moving nuclei are attracted to faster moving nuclei (think heated objects rise to less dense areas). Hot, cold, magnetism, weight are probably the same force acting differently only because of the makeup of the nuclei. That force I would say is best described as convection.
edit on 8/9/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)


Electrons leave an impression upon space-time in their activity.

So as an example my preparation of this response affected space-time in a manner consistent with my actions. In that regard the past can be considered an aspect of the present in the context of information. The formula essentially describes that time is squared and was a gift given to me by a friend I helped many years ago. It was in response to a conversation we had related to how matter interacts with time as a dimension.

A thought experiment in the conversation was in relation to taking the idea of the story "flatland" and taking it to the next scale. So in the story there was a three dimensional being interacting with flatland. In our conversation we considered a four dimensional being trying to interact with us.

Its never been formally presented though I have the rights.

Another point to consider is that what we perceive as to time Is as limited as what a flatlander would perceive in the story of a three dimensional presence presenting itself in a 2 dimensional reality.

I would add that anything that has energy distorts space-time.

Any thoughts?

edit on 9-8-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


...yeah. pretty much.

given a crystal with appropriate structure, a sound wave and an em wave are indistinguishable. this sort of thing can happen even outside of regularized molecular structure. the critical factor in all cases is a condition of resonance (re: the OP) between the physical structure (system) and the energetic waveform incident upon it.

being that there doesnt appear to be any confusion about the mechanics of this phenomenon, i would like to amend my previous response to you, replacing "lots of completely valid examples", with "most of the critical functions of the universe are examples of". so there is no need to underplay the importance of the phenomenon of resonance (and consonance and dissonance) in describing the structure and behavior of the universe.... but you already knew all of that. (so why did you ask?)

you are far more humble than you ought to be in your estimation of your conceptual understanding. you should consider making a thread of your own with pictures and abstractions. i am certain that it would be fascinating.

and regarding your impatience... i think this is also an effect of your humility. c'mon. you've got some pet theorys now, dont you? you should just come out with it, as many others have already done in this thread. it's liberating.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 



Its never been formally presented though I have the rights.


sounds like you, too (along with Ima), need to just come out with it already! remember that pictures are often helpful.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
In "Flatland" we the two dimensional life forms could only see the expression of 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions.

We only see the expression of 4 dimensions in three dimensions the parallel could be accepted as exacting.

Now hypothetically speaking if a four dimensional life form existed we would only be able to see how that life form is expressed in three dimensions as well as what we can perceive of the fourth dimension. A perspective to consider is that the formula does present that time, is the fourth dimensions, though others could disagree.


The last thing a person in forum said to me about the formula was that it was "very esoteric".

Friend I have many secrets.

Any thoughts?
edit on 9-8-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


well then. lets have it! i demand a thread be started. esoteric formulas are a personal favorite.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Double post please remove
edit on 9-8-2013 by Kashai because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Kashai
 


well then. lets have it! i demand a thread be started. esoteric formulas are a personal favorite.


The really great gifts is the one that keeps on giving young man.


There is no real reason to begin another thread as in potential this one is good enough.

Any thoughts?
edit on 9-8-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
You see if 4D life forms existed they could express themselves in 3D as we understand it. But then how would you explain what was left of there in physicality with regard to it actually being 4D?

Implied is in relation of some kind of resonance in 4D and potentially beyond that.

Any thoughts?










edit on 9-8-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


well. in the simplest sense, we already exist and operate in 4D. not simply because einstein or minkowski say so, but rather, because we have three full degrees of freedom within our current frame of motion. and statistically, the final degree of freedom is not free because it must necessarily occupy the final degree. or in other words, it is not a "free" degree.

thus, a four dimensional frame must have one degree of motion which is .....ummmm..... not free? stationary? am i close?



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


You are suggesting in a way that we should spend some of our time relating to ourselves in the context of moments?

10X10 to the power of 28 meters from here, based upon multiverse theory there exist an object equivalent to our "universe" that is parallel in every regard to ours.

So you are suggesting we are ultimately still?

Any thoughts?

edit on 9-8-2013 by Kashai because: Modfied content



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Wiki says "the electric meme" was sort of an offspring of Dawkins' brainchild "the selfish gene"; and to that, I feel a bit nauseated to learn that my understanding bares any resemblances to the likes of Dawkins... I detest him and his ilk.

Worse yet, I guess I will have to actually have a look at what he has been cackling about all these years... (not the atheism bit, but the "selfish gene".)

But I'm glad you were glad.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   





Published on Nov 4, 2011
Leonard Susskind of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics discusses the indestructability of information and the nature of black holes in a lecture entitled The World As Hologram.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
i'm not quite sure what you are saying with these threads, op..

chaos theory is number theory, it isn't physics..

there is quantum chaos theory which which studies how chaotic classical dynamical systems can be described in terms of quantum theory.. i.e. "What is the relationship between quantum mechanics and classical chaos?"..

is this the area you are exploring?

very informative threads nonetheless, keep it up!



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


When someone says space-time, I think of Einstein's fabric idea, of which, I disagree with. I don't think photons are riding on a bent fabric - I think photons are forced around super-strong gravity "fields" in a similar manner to how magnets push each other apart.

(by "field" I mean that there is something there. It's not a magical "field" thing with magical properties.)

Field, in my eyes, is just a measurement of an energy's orbit - it is nothing more. I think using field in its common vernacular is like saying we bumped into one another because our fields (our bodies in motion) came into contact with one another. Maybe it's better to say field is the convectional path of energy whereby the path is but a variable and has no real control - we can move paths(fields), but we can't change the controlling mechanism without changing the archetypal essence of the body of energy.

With that said, I don't believe time or "dimensional plans" even exists beyond being a measurement. Now, there may be other dimensions as thought of by the definition of "creature from another dimension", but the "dimensional plans" definition, whereby time is a forth dimension - I don't believe.

As for the super-condensed thing, I couldn't draw much contextual information from what you replied with. I think that what you're saying is they changed the effect of "time" (reactionary speed of change to new information) by changing the speed of the particles motion. If this is what you're telling me, then I think that that is nothing out of the ordinary, if you accept that reactionary speed to new information: is time. To super-condense something you are effectively controlling its particles velocity, and its nearby particles, velocity. That speed change should in-effect change the "time" (reactionary speed) of said particles.

Did that answer your question?



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   


Field, in my eyes, is just a measurement of an energy's orbit - it is nothing more. I think using field in its common vernacular is like saying we bumped into one another because our fields (our bodies in motion) came into contact with one another. Maybe it's better to say field is the convectional path of energy whereby the path is but a variable and has no real control - we can move paths(fields), but we can't change the controlling mechanism without changing the archetypal essence of the body of energy


That sounds like a random event , we cannot actually generate random events.



edit on 10-8-2013 by Kashai because: added content



new topics




 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join