life and the law of inertia

11.X.MCDXXX

Does life violate Newton's first law of motion (Galileo's law of inertia) or does it merely channel / divide and redirect ancient forces from the beginning of the world.

Although the discussion turns out to be vacuous and circular, there are arguments in favor of both cases - until further more level-headed inquiry.

the wikipedia version of the law will do for now
* An object that is not moving will not move until a net force acts upon it.
* An object that is moving will not change its velocity until a net force acts upon it.

Yet living organisms, for example ourselves, being autonomous, move and change their own velocities not due to external net forces but all by themselves.

the law does not account for the force that moves a living being. it moves itself by its own volition.

The immediate cause of the movement is the actuation of muscle states by nerve signals. Preceding the onset of this process, however, What triggers this actuation?

In our case it is easy to say, thought. In the case of unicellular and other protista, some will cite changes in chemical concentration affecting sequences of stimulus-response mechanisms.

thought. it is here the force concept breaks down or seems to, because the signals originate as response to other sensory signals, none of them explaining the voluntary work done to lift a quadruped or biped up from the ground, and the forces that move their limbs.



But thought is not accountable as a net external force on the human body.

Nowhere in the law of inertia (newton's first law) does it say that a human or a living thing will accelerate itself (ie, change its own velocity).

According to this tiny piece of physics, we should not move at all, unless physically pushed - from the outside. But typically we push ourselves. We spend some energy to exert a force that was not there. We move where no motion would have been predicted by pure physics.

it's likely i'm missing a glaringly obvious detail. So it's better to start with such a criticism. This could be in the words "we spend some energy to exert a force"; so in the long view, one could say energy turned into a force that moved that individual.

this makes us energy transformers. we collect energy, then use it to exert forces that move us as well as other things.

in this sense we are much like, and are literally automobiles.

for energy is stored and converted into force (with much release of hea) to achieve motion - at will.

this sequence of forces can be traced - along the question "but what moved us" - all the way back to the first cell of life. but still, what moved it? still one can trace this back to all the forces that led to the chemical agglomeration of the first proteins and organelles.

so forces dating back billions of years led to life which stores energy and then take it and convert it into force at will whenever it moves itself or something else.

This can only be as useful as the dependence of the 2nd law of motion on it.

... Read more

fields or the society of matter

11.X.MCDXXX

Fields are not the only way to describe systems at the level of the fundamental interactions.

Fields for as long as i remember offer the most straightforward , the only way to describe the fundamental forces of nature.

On the other hand as an earlier post pointed out in a conjecture about social fields, some of the same ideas could be applied to the study of human interactions in social settings (unverified). e.g., each person emits certain types of fields, and the interactions among those fields define the kind of social behavior of people.

this could be studied using wave functions on the macro level for an entirely new set of "gauge" charges, reflecting typical social factors - eg psychological, cultural economic and political - that define social behavior, and also factors atypical for social sciences, like spirituality.

when studying particle systems, could there be similar high level descriptions?

as an example, one of the most popular abstractions of the past century is group theory based entirely on transformations. It is a classification of things by the types of transformations they can undergo (they admit).

These proved to be the primitives from which the different states can be constructed to describe the properties of different particles - mass; quantum numbers like the spin which reflects its magnetic field strength and direction (moment); angular momenta and flavors like the e- charge. thus in large part, the field mechanical formalism is a group theoretic one.

So what other higher level concepts - if any - can be identified and applied to the study of systems of particles interacting in the fundamental fields, other than the field formalisms?

one of the encouraging indications about this line of thought is that it is currently laughable - too laughable to bring up in sci'fic company.

This graph shows a few of the groups describing particle families based on fundamental interaction (force) fields in which they figure as gauge particle, or field generator / interactors (eg, the standard model aiming to include all particles, involves the cross product of three groups - for three fundamental interactions - note there is none for gravity, as no particle for it is yet known :)), in relation to other mathematical objects, including finite automata (computers).

It is reproduced from this earlier post. Made using Graphviz/2.22 :)

... Read more

pantheons as knowedge classifiers

29.Ix.mcdxxx

mythological pantheons embody a classification of all things & of knowledge in the world. eg, asclepius is the father of hygeia and panacea; asopus personifying a river is son to oceanus and another larger river personification Tethys.

the cases where allegory agrees with the natural order are many. eg, when we consider that rivers are a consequence of the rains collected from oceans, or flow from larger rivers.

but it gets more interesting when the we consider the function of a pantheon as an organizing principle for the branches of knowledge and even the content of each branch, serving as both cosmogony and cosmology.

while on the subject of pantheons and cosmogonies it is worth recalling the conspicuous contrast between the personified origin in classical mythologies and that in the abrahamic religion.

for instance in greek mythology (which draws on the more ancient ones) it all starts with chaos! who then begets a dark progeny: nyx, erebus, tartarus, and dark gaia herself.
even the Sky, the heaven, Uranus is attributed to the grace of Gaia.

In the abrahamic system the plain vanilla and more esoteric origin organizations are much more "enlightening".

In the plain vanilla lowest common denominator description, it all starts with God who is every positive thing (as well as dark) and is essentially described as Light, High, Creator, Orderer, Governer. It is no dark chaos here or a horrific vacuum (horror vacui). It is a Light Good Intelligent Fair Beautiful Imaginative principle, etc.

In the more esoteric organizations of the hierarchy of existence we find that from that Godhead emanates the Intellect (`aql) , the Pen (qalam, indispensable for a Designer or an Imaginer), the Tablet (again recalling a Designer, a record Keeper) the Soul , and so on.

In addition, the multitude of personifications are elegantly simplified and integrated as only facets of a Single Person.

The contrast is clear that while one set of cosmogonies is founded in darkness and confusion and unknown, the abrahamic system envisages an origin in light reason and order.

(common origin of all such systems is undoubted here and the darkness in the classical "heathen" systems is attributable to corruption of an initial description, better preserved in the abrahamic system.)


It is also worth noting that all human grappling with organizing the world into a rational order, originates with a belief in God, which seems to motivate the very human conception of "reason" as represented by those cosmogonies. This puts atheism in a funny and unstable position - for if all reason stemmed from the idea of God, then the negation of God is unreasonable.

and where does atheism live? it lives in exactly the same places that assume possession and control of most of the world's wealth and most of the world's institutions of power (political martial academic and media institutions) and which comprises about 1% to 5% of the world's population.

It is fair to say that the powers that be in humanity today have long imposed on us an age of Unreason.

... Read more

dephase for negative mass?

29.Ix.MCDXXX

dephasing could lead to (not negative mass so much as) a reversal of the sign of the mass / energy scalar (of a system? "of a system" is greatly desired, ie described formally in a coord system)

dephasing could mean producing two opposite states possibly by disentangling an intermediate state
between two opposites - an invisible or imperceivable balance/equilibrium state - into the component states by separating the time-dependent streams/sequences of component states.

opposing states could be embodied in dipolar patterns in nature (physical and cognitive) - the dichotomy pattern

artifacts like dichotomies and particularly this scalar sign reversal which has no meaning in physics aren't so nonsensical when the world is indistinguihsable from a mathematical description or image (a symbological or cognitive construct). in other words, negative mass is not impossible if the world is contingent on a logical formalism like our mathematics.

The de-phasing is only one kind of any possible transformations of a system that we can find that lead to a reversal of the energy scalar sign.

... Read more

DNH clause

29.Ix.mcdxxx

A Do No Harm clause is desirable for new technologies that stipulates that at the first sign of
harmful side effects the technology should be immediately discontinued until modified to a harmless
design to the best abilities of the time.
Once an accepted trade practice it can be legislated and stipulated in legal codes. ... Read more

pneumatics tips dept

27.ramadan.mcdxxx

Never discuss physics problems in the bathroom.

if there is any book in the world that can be called diabolical, it's the bible.

integrate don't differentiate.

the world can be manipulated by manipulating symbols.

keep all texts out of bathrooms, especially comics.

... Read more

pneumato note on force

27.ramadan.mcdxxx

*
forces result from mass in motion, result from motion of mass - there is the "potential energy" but potential fields of motionless particles themselves result from the residual motions inside the particles. in any case in nature, there are no point charges that just sit there.
*
ie forces are very much like momenta. similar to momenta. first and second order differentiations of the position function of time; AND the mass.

*
a weak pneumato note:
o
relation to ritual as a consecration of matter and behavior of matter, motion.
+
this is perhaps inadvertently ("coincidentally")reflected accidentally in the phrase "going through the motions".


.

Remaining text. ... Read more

social fields

27.ramadan.MCDXXX

updated version of an earlier post with some additions.

*
we imagine a human society where each individual is a generator of at least one field, or is the gauge particle of a field
*
likewise we can imagine the individual comprised a bunch of gauge charges (flavors) each interacting / generating different fields - just like a particle could interact strongly, e-weakly and gravitationally

*
or rather that every individ is both a gauge particle generating a field, and endowed with different charges , "observables that interact with other particles field
* different ways to conjecture:
-- the individuals are each unique , unlike the particles families in the physical metaphor or source of the analog we're trying to construct. conversely,
-- not unlike individual particle instances of a given class of particles, the invidivual's are identical - eg, "a single soul", and a "single Self" - and thus conform in their various properties, particularly their gauge charge. this is even more attractive than the first conjecture

*
counterconjecture: not unlike physical particles, individs represent instances of different classes / families of particles (having nothing to do necessarilty with biological kinship)
*
each individual generates a field of influence in its neighborhood
*
others are either outside the field or inside, or the field could be infinite tapring off to infinitesimality in the case of people who do not know the individual and who might subissent a residual influence that is negligible not , felt.
*
those that are closer to the indvid who generates his field, have a larger charge wrt to the charge field generated by the individ than others.
*
this determines their proximity or distance to him in his field - which socially translates to the group of people interacting directly with the individ.

*
what kind of topological space would correspond to the set of individuals in a society?
o
how connected, compact, and separable is that topological space?
o
what kind as in how is it to be classified? t0, t1, t2, t2.5, t3, t3.5 , t4, t5, t6,
+
hausdorff, normal, regular, tychonoff, etc.
o
we note that the intersections of neighborhoods are not empty, as one clue to the type of topology of the social spc

*
we let state be the open/closed / clopen sets that constitute the (local) neighborhood of each individ in the social set or space
o
there may be a prblm w/ that def

*
we image that transformations are changes of state for a given subset S of the spc
o
if the change of state is generated from S (self-generated) ,
+
the xform is an automorphism?
+
equiv to action by the subset?
o
if the change is generated by another subset R , it is a xform R→S or is it?
o
it is not
o
we cannot change a subset R to subset S , we cannot transorm people into other people
o
the changes are from state(t1) to state(t2),
o
thus it seems the change is from a subset to a subset hence always an automorphism
o
on the other hand individs may move from one subset to another in the course of / due to a xformat ,thus
+
was the xform applied to single subset ending up affecting more than just that subst or
+
was the xformat applied to all the subsets that got affected?

*
thus there may be two prblms w/ xformats
o
in defining what is a state
o
in defining what is a transformation (of what, what changes what remains the same, from what to what,automorph or not)

*
motivation for social xforms:
o
ideally that would be to look at em in terms of groups, the study of which properties are useful to descriptions (and verifiable sims) of the system
o
but since a) i know neither what it means to organize xforms into groups , nor what the props o groups and their representations, their lie algs and their lie algebras' reps say about the system or the xformats; and b) i am in the effort to understand and know those things
o
this is what the construct of the social field analogy and identifying xformats their groups vis a vis the props / observables and the system.
o
wrk symmetry into that: those xforms that leaves certain props unchanged.


foregoing can thus also relate a bit to an earlier post, I am negative mass.
... Read more