Questioning Consciousness

[coffin_dodger]

Jakell said:

In order to put this aside it is necessary to find an alternative explanation for the red shift of galaxies

Halton Arp has been supplying a more credible alternative explanation for red shift (the supposed speed at which quasars, the theorized 'leading edge' of the expanding Universe, are receding from us) for the last 40 years. I find his explanation far more convincing than accepted wisdom.

[Iamwhomiam]

Being unfamiliar with Halton Arp, I searched for more about him. He died 28 December, 2013.

Here's his obituary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/10598040/Halton-Arp-obituary.html

And here's a video of him explain his red shift theory

[jakell]

Here though, 'anti' is appropriate, it is 'against' matter in the sense that one automatically annihilates the other, they don't counterbalance though, or rather they didn't, and this is one of the mysteries about the early stages of our Universe; that there was slightly more matter than anti-matter meaning that, once the bulk of these two had cancelled each other out, there was still some matter left over, which is what we see today,

It's appropriate if one subscribes to the Big Bang and subsequent theory, which I most definitely do not.

I'd need a better theory in order to disregard that one.

Putting aside any baggage attached to it (which may be what you are thinking of), all that BB theory boils down to is an extrapolation of the movements of galaxies away from each other. Most of the other stuff rests upon that.
In order to put this aside it is necessary to find an alternative explanation for the red shift of galaxies.

ETA: Really though, the behaviour of matter and anti-matter is quite independent of the origin of the Universe (that was an aside), it can be observed in the present day.

Halton Arp has been supplying a more credible alternative explanation for red shift (the supposed speed at which quasars, the theorized 'leading edge' of the expanding Universe, are receding from us) for the last 40 years. I find his explanation far more convincing than accepted wisdom.

Well, it's certainly an alternative explanation (sort of), but why do you think it is more convincing or credible?

Looking for reasons to disregard the conventional red shift explanations, especially as they fit in with several other area of physics.

[DrEvil]

But isn't there way more dark matter than matter?

Yikes - I genuinely have no idea if this will make any sense to anyone but myself.

Current (and historical) scientific theory, process and terminology muddy the waters so rigorously, it's difficult not to conclude deliberate - probably even malign - intent. The prevailing mindset at the cutting edge of 'understanding' is itself so far down a rabbithole of theorized complexities, that the very notion of a simple concept has become almost impossible to conceive. One can but begrudgingly admire the irony of it.

I sincerely doubt that all theoretical physicists have malign intents, and I can't think of a single reason why things should be simple from a human perspective. Ascribing human concepts of "simple" and "complex" to the universe is a mistake in my opinion. I doubt the universe cares whether we understand it or not.

I have to use some scientificish terms to describe my understanding, but by using these words I may confuse the issue. Apologies in advance.

There are 3 fundamental properties, states or 'elements' to our existence: These three properties are evident everywhere, within everything, including consciousness. They are, broadly - and for want of better terminology:

one state -
or, an equal and opposing state -
or, in-between.

From the point of view of Universality/Cosmology, matter (i.e. visible reality (and one of the opposing sides of the three states) is counterbalanced perfectly by inverse-matter* (the other opposing side of the three states) with the two; matter and un-matter, in constant simultaneous communication with one another through the 'central' third state - what I call 3state. These are the three states of being. (Burnt Hill: There is a lot more inverse-matter simply because it physically weighs massively less than matter. And I mean massively)

e.g. matter -> 3state -> un-matter -> 3state -> matter -> 3state -> un-matter -> 3state -> etc. ad infintum (always passing through 3state from one state to another)

Everything is subject to 3state. It is the point of absolute equilibrium that everything must pass through, from one moment to the next, in order to retain the stability of reality that Nature demands. 3state is so dominant in our Universe / Existance / Reality that consciousness itself is a poster-girl for 3state. It became obvious to me that consciousness is 3state through the following extrapolation:

past -> present -> future

the present is the bridge between past and future and is where our consciousness resides. Within 3state.

3state drives time forward, as each opposing side of the binary (e.g. matter and inverse-matter, past and future, etc) pass through 3state to balance the opposing state. I believe that our consciousness, due to the fact that it exists, here, - in our Solar system, may directly affect our localised time. After all, our Sun is just as subject to 3state as everything else. Consciousness is a 'specialist' part of 3state unexperienced by inert matter - so wherever there is consciousness, there will be difference. That's not to deny that 3state itself may have different localised characteristics throughout what we term the Universe.

Pretty sure there's no such thing as "balance" between matter and anti-matter. There's way more of the regular stuff than the anti-stuff, and they both have the same mass. I prefer the term anti-matter myself. If you shake hands with your anti-matter counterpart you will both explode and wipe out the planet. One single atom of matter colliding with an atom of anti-matter is powerful enough to be seen with the naked eye.

You also fail to take into account dark matter and dark energy which together make up the vast majority of our universe. It's something like 95%, and we have little to no idea what it really is.

Incidentally, 3state has led me to conclude that our reality is composed of - you guessed it - 3 things:

Light - all matter and inverse-matter is a combination of what we call light, conditioned into existance by interaction with seen and unseen (what we call) electrical fields (which 'tune' the light to form the elements we can observe i.e. carbon (which, again incidentally, is the central and pivotal element of our Universe, with all other elements being 'uptuned' or 'downtuned' by the Unified Field, from the carbon 'blueprint') - all of which receives instruction from the fundamental point between - the bridge - 3state.

This is wrong - matter is not made of light. Light is photons, matter is electrons, protons and neutrons (plus a whole host of force carriers mediating interactions).

Not sure why you think carbon is the "central and pivotal element of our universe". The most common element is hydrogen, followed by helium and oxygen. Carbon is number six, good for making talking meat-sacks and burning for fuel, but there's nothing "special" about it.

There is more - so much more - but I don't wish to be mentally institutionalized by my fellow RI'ers at this moment in time. Oops, too late. I am fully aware that there are billions of realities (consciousnesses) present on this planet - all I can do is present my own. Agreement or concurrence is not obligatory, nor of importance.

* I dislike the term anti-matter, it has negative connotations because of the word anti. It is not 'anti' - against - it is opposite.

Edit: abuot Halton Arp.
The evidence to support the theory of redshift quantization is very weak. Most cosmologists agree that what appears to be redshift quantization is really just other stuff appearing to be quantization.

[slimmouse]

.

I doubt the universe cares whether we understand it or not.

You know what Doc, thats a truly priceless quote, right there.

But just imagine if it did

[jakell]

The trouble with Arp's theory of redshift interpretation is that it doesn't supplant the standard one. If anything it could be used in addition to it, not instead of it, at best it is an attempt to explain anomalous redshifts which is what he seems to centre a lot his work around.

So, we still have the galaxies moving away from each other, indicating that at one time there must have been that soup of elementary particles and hence the existence of matter and anti-matter (which is where we came in until I carelessly mentioned the early Universe)

Regarding this:

...I sincerely doubt that all theoretical physicists have malign intents, and I can't think of a single reason why things should be simple from a human perspective. Ascribing human concepts of "simple" and "complex" to the universe is a mistake in my opinion. I doubt the universe cares whether we understand it or not....

This is usually the sort of answer I give to those who seem to expect a simple satisfying narrative to be provided by science and are dismayed when one doesn't appear, a disappointment that leads some to religion or similar.

There is an exception to this in that, when considering hypotheses, Occam usually informs my choices, and I'm therefore biased towards the simpler explanations, and this would be the reason (in this example) why I would choose the standard explanation of redshift.
Some mistake this as believing Occam to be predictive, but that's not the case, it's just that Occam gives you a practical starting point, the eventual solution could still turn out to be complex and unexpected.

[Sounder]

Billions of stars have been radiating stuff for billions of years. Now, this could be an example of simple minded thinking or it could be an example of Occamian art.

But it could be that red-shift measures relative distance, (except in the instance of Quasars), but less so if at all, speed of expansion. That is, it may be that when photons are making their way towards earth, they run into a whole lot of photons and other particles along the way. This has the effect of gradually lowering the frequency of the photons producing what we call a red-shift.

But don't take my word for it, after all 97% of scientists will tell you with some vehemence that they already know how the red-shift works.

You can't touch that Jack.

[jakell]

That's an interesting possibility, but I'm pretty sure that it hasn't been demonstrated (here on Earth) that the frequency of electromagnetic radiation is affected in a consistent fashion by collisions with other photons or particles. The trouble with such speculations is that it makes all data questionable, ie not just a selection of it. No theories at all could be formed or disproved, the field would belong would belong to the rhetoricians.
It's not the frequency of the photons that is significant, but the movement (shift) of the fraunhofer lines. I think you are making too much of the analogy with sound waves.

I suppose there is the 'stretching' of space to take into account** ie that which resulted in the Cosmic Microwave Backround, but as a constant this could be taken into account (and therefore eliminated), and I don't know if this would be significant anyway, the time factor with the CMB is much larger.


ETA: ** Actually, this still wouldn't affect the redshift, just the frequency again. I got to squeeze in a mention of the CMB though, which may come up later.

[Wombaticus Rex]

But don't take my word for it, after all 97% of scientists will tell you with some vehemence that they already know how the red-shift works.

For the sake of data, I read this with four of them in my kitchen blathering about some fucking BBC show.

I interrupted them to ask them how confident they felt about explaining red-shift to me. Three of them said they were not, one of them admitted to having no idea what it even was. Explaining it did not jog his memory. Two geologists, two biologists, one of whom specializes in "computational genomics," which I couldn't explain to anyone beyond simple sarcasm, ie, "They use bad models on bad data."

Anyways, they're all watching the Halton Arp presentation on the TV now. The future is incredible, innit?

[Sounder]

My attempts at levity so often fall flat, oh well, back to the lab.

Maybe I should have said cosmologists, but then it would no longer be a joke.

[jakell]

But don't take my word for it, after all 97% of scientists will tell you with some vehemence that they already know how the red-shift works.

For the sake of data, I read this with four of them in my kitchen blathering about some fucking BBC show.

I interrupted them to ask them how confident they felt about explaining red-shift to me. Three of them said they were not, one of them admitted to having no idea what it even was. Explaining it did not jog his memory. Two geologists, two biologists, one of whom specializes in "computational genomics," which I couldn't explain to anyone beyond simple sarcasm, ie, "They use bad models on bad data."

Anyways, they're all watching the Halton Arp presentation on the TV now. The future is incredible, innit?

Hard or simple, the redshift interpretation is the simplest possible explanation, so as a level of difficulty there's a baseline. After that it gets much woolier.

[jakell]

My attempts at levity so often fall flat, oh well, back to the lab.

Maybe I should have said cosmologists, but then it would no longer be a joke.

Possibly inadvertently you stumbled across the style of refutation that Electric Universe enthusiasts do use.

[Sounder]

jakell wrote...

The trouble with such speculations is that it makes all data questionable, ie not just a selection of it. No theories at all could be formed or disproved, the field would belong would belong to the rhetoricians.

This deserves a response, but not now.

My thoughts on structures of reality were formed long before EU folk were on the scene, and it can be regarded as another poison-pill in my opinion.

[coffin_dodger]

Dr Evil:

You also fail to take into account dark matter and dark energy which together make up the vast majority of our universe. It's something like 95%, and we have little to no idea what it really is.

Pretty sure there's no such thing as "balance" between matter and anti-matter.

If you shake hands with your anti-matter counterpart you will both explode and wipe out the planet

Not sure why you think carbon is the "central and pivotal element of our universe". The most common element is hydrogen, followed by helium and oxygen. Carbon is number six, good for making talking meat-sacks and burning for fuel, but there's nothing "special" about it.

Most cosmologists agree that what appears to be redshift quantization is really just other stuff appearing to be quantization.

Thank you, good Dr, for illustrating so perfectly how the parroting by rote of scripture from any class of high priest is so unengaging.

edited to add: ^^ sorry, that comment is snidey and uncalled for. I wake up grumpy sometimes.

[backtoiam]

searcher08 to the front desk please. i want that video you posted here a while back. sitting in a restaurant, poking people with a mind, and it was produced by some people with "rose" in the name. that sharp shooting video. come forth with it and send it to me by pm