Cross-Scientific Pattern Rekognition

[MikeF]

Well it succeeded well without with Newtons gravity, who was accused for using an "occult agency" which isn´t scientifically explained by what dynamic means it should work. And it never will be either.

In this sense, Newtons gravity is nothing but "an imaginative fiction".

*sigh*

'Gravity' is that label we give to a real phenomenon that has been experienced as long as there have been creatures to experience it.

Again, you insist on staying firmly rooted in the 18th century. We are well past Newton at this stage of our understanding.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

but in reality we are still monkeys looking at the stars.

I could not agree more with the sentiment above.

No, you’ve misunderstood. I realise this was probably unintentional.

The history of scientific discovery is characterised in part by occasional, revolutionary paradigm shifts in which old ideas are shown to be erroneous; a commonly cited example is the rejection of the Ptolemaic astronomical model in favour of the heliocentric Copernican model - something which certainly did not happen “in an instant”. Our experience of the motion of the stars may remain unchanged, but our understanding of the cosmos has undergone a complete alteration; old ideas, shown to be ontologically unsound, are discarded in favour of the new.

Your mistake is in assuming that this process is somehow at an end, that we understand everything much better now, and that we are no longer vulnerable to the possibility that our current perspectives may be shown to be similarly illusory.

Everything we think we know now will, if history is any sort of guide, one day be shown to be at some profound level, illusory. That does not mean that all the wisdom, knowledge and insight of our culture is of no value; Newton’s laws of motion still work, his theory of gravity was used to plan Apollo missions. But we have known for some time that the notion we live in a deterministic, mechanical universe where forces act on objects locally through contact, is ontologically untenable at the fundamental level.

What we see is all symbol and metaphor; how we interpret these is a function of our subjective position in time and space. Accumulated knowledge and observed regularities allow as to manipulate the material environment, but this does not at all imply that our scientific theories tell us definite, objective facts about the nature of the world, or our experience of it.

Consciously and unconsciously, we are decoding a blizzard of bewildering information, constructing convenient narratives to navigate the world, exactly as our ancestors did. We may see ourselves as enlightened super beings, standing astride the frontiers of knowledge, the universe and all her secrets laid bare by the white heat of our technological mastery;

To my mind, what constitutes illusory is mankind's need to assign answers to that which is clearly unknown.

I see your use of the word 'illusory' as a continuation of your mischaracterization of what is occurring. What we experience in the macroscopic world has not changed over the millennia. Reality has not changed, it is not an illusion. All that has changed is our growing collective understanding of this unchanging (in behavior) reality. In all that growing understanding, nothing is lending any credence to magical mystical realms beyond the everyday experience of reality. It is that hope for something more that is the illusion.

I do not disagree that many in each generation express hubris as to mankind's accomplishments and see their generation as some sort of pinnacle. I share your criticism of those in each generation that see themselves as enlightened super beings, but by the same token, it does not mean we cannot appreciate the progress that has been made.

Many of our cultural myths feed this notion that the whole of the Cosmos is all about us. Perhaps we should look to fixing those myths if you want to get a handle on the hubris of mankind.

 

[Native]

Are you implying a universal consciousness? If so, there is no data to support such a conjecture. There is nothing to point to such a conclusion.

If you accept the human brainwaves and brain signals to work bio-electromagnetically, you have the entire electromagnetic Cosmic Web to communicate with - which is a pretty big conscious partner.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Well it succeeded well without with Newtons gravity, who was accused for using an "occult agency" which isn´t scientifically explained by what dynamic means it should work. And it never will be either.

In this sense, Newtons gravity is nothing but "an imaginative fiction".

*sigh*
'Gravity' is that label we give to a real phenomenon that has been experienced as long as there have been creatures to experience it.
Again, you insist on staying firmly rooted in the 18th century. We are well past Newton at this stage of our understanding.

I insist to reckon only on what can be scientifically described and explained, to which department the consensus term, "gravity", doesn't´ belong. And you can´t state "to have passed Newtons stage" as his gravy-ideas still is inserted in all cosmological ideas.

Which, BTW, is the cause nobody can find a Theory of Everything because the damn unexplained gravity is in the way in all attempts to find such one.

 

[cladking]

Science in biological conscious studies answer. I compared a human to an ape that commonly shares a lot of humans bio terms.

It's consciousness devoid of knowing what I know what I do or how I behave. My conscious human is exact not universal just with myself as evidence.

Self survival the humans motivation always.

I disagree. Yes, your point is well taken but I believe you are missing the nature of consciousness. Life is consciousness and all other consciousnesses than humans experience only what they know. At birth an ape only knows its mother and this knowledge is more a function of nature and the baby's amygdala than it is "knowledge" in terms of what we think. The ape will learn from its mother and experience and as it gets older it gets more sources of information. But it doesn't understand abstractions and taxonomies which human babies start learning very early. It requires a different kind of thinking at which humans are adept at three years of age but do an ape no good. As humans we are programmed by an analog language so we are very different than other consciousness. We see only what we believe. We remember vast amounts of knowledge using things like taxonomies as mnemonics. But then we begin mistaking the taxonomies for reality.

Consciousness has an attribute of protecting the individual from harm. It is wired into our system to withdraw from pain and feel a kind of pain from merely being isolated from others for any reason. Nature wants all of its creatures to thrive and multiply. This is just one more place where the Bible is telling us the results of ancient science. Now days people are killing themselves by many means because they are isolated or hopeless. We allow behavior in some that cause pain to many and then tolerate huge suicides rates and crashing longevity. This is because we each know everything and mostly it's junk science and what we are told to believe.

 

[cladking]

Well it succeeded well without with Newtons gravity, who was accused for using an "occult agency" which isn´t scientifically explained by what dynamic means it should work. And it never will be either.

In this sense, Newtons gravity is nothing but "an imaginative fiction".

As usual I agree.

But from my perspective Newton's "nonsense" has proven exceedingly useful. It has "worked" for centuries.

We probably do need to find an alternative today but a pyramid of giants standing on giants might all come crashing down. Everywhere you look in science now days there is far too much evidence and too little experiment. The true heroes of the day will be the ones that can devise relevant experiment in cosmology. Based on this a new Newton will arise (we should hope).

 

[cladking]

Which, BTW, is the cause nobody can find a Theory of Everything because the damn unexplained gravity is in the way in all attempts to find such one.

I believe there is something very fundamental that we need to know. It could be almost anything from the nature of "space time" to the meaning of "randomness".

 

[Native]

The ape will learn from its mother and experience and as it gets older it gets more sources of information. But it doesn't understand abstractions and taxonomies which human babies start learning very early. It requires a different kind of thinking at which humans are adept at three years of age but do an ape no good. As humans we are programmed by an analog language so we are very different than other consciousness. We see only what we believe. We remember vast amounts of knowledge using things like taxonomies as mnemonics. But then we begin mistaking the taxonomies for reality.

Don´t underestimate our cousins skills

Speaking of this OP pattern recognition importance

I bet we humans once had similar natural recognition skills but other artificial inputs have taken over.

 

[Native]

I believe there is something very fundamental that we need to know. It could be almost anything from the nature of "space time" to the meaning of "randomness".

IMHO modern cosmology need to dig deep in the ancient numerous cultural Myths of Creation, which have the electromagnetic LIGHT to be the creative and governing power everywhere.

It honestly seem to me that modern cosmology has speculated itself to death and inserted all kinds of dark this and that agencies because they´ve forgotten that nature and life on the Earth simply mirrors nature everywhere else in cosmos.

 

[cladking]

It honestly seem to me that modern cosmology has speculated itself to death and inserted all kinds of dark this and that agencies because they´ve forgotten that nature and life on the Earth simply mirrors nature everywhere else in cosmos.

Indeed!

IMHO modern cosmology need to dig deep in the ancient numerous cultural Myths of Creation, which have the electromagnetic LIGHT to be the creative and governing power everywhere.

I'm not surte how advanced ancient science was in cosmology and physics. I'm sure they were familiar with mechanics but other than this it is tough to know. Of course, they were ahead of us in many fields but physics would have been tough. There are some who believe they had help from outside but without better evidence I'll reserve judgement.

It is entirely possible they could deduce things that we can't understand through experiment yet.

Don´t underestimate our cousins skills

I don't believe in intelligence at all so I am literally the last person to doubt the ability of any consciousness to outperform humans.

I've seen birds act more "intelligently" than most humans.

 

[rational experiences]

I disagree. Yes, your point is well taken but I believe you are missing the nature of consciousness. Life is consciousness and all other consciousnesses than humans experience only what they know. At birth an ape only knows its mother and this knowledge is more a function of nature and the baby's amygdala than it is "knowledge" in terms of what we think. The ape will learn from its mother and experience and as it gets older it gets more sources of information. But it doesn't understand abstractions and taxonomies which human babies start learning very early. It requires a different kind of thinking at which humans are adept at three years of age but do an ape no good. As humans we are programmed by an analog language so we are very different than other consciousness. We see only what we believe. We remember vast amounts of knowledge using things like taxonomies as mnemonics. But then we begin mistaking the taxonomies for reality.

Consciousness has an attribute of protecting the individual from harm. It is wired into our system to withdraw from pain and feel a kind of pain from merely being isolated from others for any reason. Nature wants all of its creatures to thrive and multiply. This is just one more place where the Bible is telling us the results of ancient science. Now days people are killing themselves by many means because they are isolated or hopeless. We allow behavior in some that cause pain to many and then tolerate huge suicides rates and crashing longevity. This is because we each know everything and mostly it's junk science and what we are told to believe.

Belief science.

Status theist natural human only position a liar. First.

I used conscious for survival instincts only....I hadn't invented science .. it was caused known.

Reason I got brain burnt so my bio thought processes changed by an evil cause.

No longer conscious innate as survival.

Says. God the earth was rock stone in space. Zero. No dusts. Once. Thought position only. Not reality. A man theorising earth.

Exact stone in place of a zero. With it.
Earth.

Was brain mind irradiated when gods earth immaculate burnt gases fell.

Burnt twice. Natural burn stays voiding.

Says Rock in space themed was his God the suns asteroid. Yet mind said earth in zero. Asteroid was in zero naturally not earth.

Asteroid themed equalled direct science lying.

By now anyone who would like to claim the ancient church religious founding an idiot. Proves they are themselves. They outlawed science.

Not only did they know the old testaments wrong. Why an Egyptian mind functioned to science.... To the Muslim terms thinking sex was given to men after death. Loss of man's original sexual position only was from his body and mind owning.

They didn't begin from Adam they began anew. To detail why science is proven wrong.

As they knew earth pressures were dust exact ground position. Inside heavens.

Lying hypocrite scientist theist put his thesis back in time pretending when dust never existed. By applied pressure just to machine. Pyramid thesis. Too bad about life in nature is his exact thoughts.

Trained to brother who gained by mind design civilisation out of god earths facure. Gods cities I've seen since by my brain changed. Etched burnt from origin of man's science. Into many mountains face.

As new layer where buildings had come from on ground.... in the earth seam pressures were burnt out. The exact wisdom.

So designer man's mind perverted was for his design themes. Yet he was natural man the whole time.

So pyramid blew up into man's conjured nuclear reaction. From within. Casement blew off.

Why his man penis image as his mind extension beyond is caused machine transmitters. Made him falsify gods man's life support. Penis seen in cloud.

Man's mind hence affected by penis loss of DNA but also body image of man...twice affected mind.

As no man is nuclear nor is he a cloud.

And certainly his destroyed sperm biology as a father didn't conceive aliens. Like some men believe.

By interfering visionary feed back.

Men of science said science does not exist.

As melt to manifest evil did not own life water or biology as humans did. Exact. Existing.

So you use a dead thing to force changed minds already owned the machine upon nature. Was exactly taught. Exactly known.

You already sacrificed waters life to hold a machine. How many times do you keep converting until holy water no longer exists?

As you say DNA advice to dead bodies also.

 

[nPeace]

I'm saying consensus is irrelevant. Indeed, the closer to 100% that we get the more likely we are to be wrong. If 60% of experts believe one thing and 40% something else then go with the majority. When they all agree, then look for a problem because either the question is too simple or it is affected by their premises.



Of course we do for those categories of things we know. But few important questions and no questions depending on the nature of consciousness can be answered today. You're better off asking a shaman whether to marry Nicole or Violet.



NO. I have to disagree. The perspective is expanding but is still highly limited and mostly unidirectional. Most science is still highly reductive.



I believe we will always be wrong about everything but we'll always get closer and closer to the truth.

You'll know we are right about something when someone can accurately predict the shape of a cloud in twenty minutes. Or predict which sparrow will fall from the sky next.



We understand some thing reasonably well but only because we don't need to understand everything about any process or event to make it work for us. Animals use tools and ancient people used counterweights with out much knowledge of gravity. What do you need to know except weight and distance from the fulcrum?



Corroboration is irrelevant. This isn't to say there is no reason for peer review merely that Peer review is not part of the scientific method and the fact that peers agree is irrelevant to the accuracy of anything. If someone designs a poor experiment anyone can point out its flaws and even a child might see the king has no clothes. I have no problem with peers, the problem is Peers. The problem is believers think that Peers know everything and when there is consensus there is Truth. This wasn't even true back before science was bought and paid for as it is today.


We are mostly saying the same thing but from different perspectives. I am sympathetic to almost everything you say but my perspective is somewhat different. This is caused largely by experience (I believe) and by the fact I am now more a metaphysician than a scientist and I have two distinct metaphysics; modern and ancient science.

I think I understand what you are saying, and I agree to some extent provided my understanding is correct, but I would sum it up by saying that we may think we are right, and on the right path, when in fact we can be following a path that leads to a point of being dead wrong.. all the time we are building on that "progress".
Some things we can be sure of.

Spoiler

Others, may simply be what we assume we are sure of... but are not.

 

[nPeace]

No, you’ve misunderstood. I realise this was probably unintentional.

The history of scientific discovery is characterised in part by occasional, revolutionary paradigm shifts in which old ideas are shown to be erroneous; a commonly cited example is the rejection of the Ptolemaic astronomical model in favour of the heliocentric Copernican model - something which certainly did not happen “in an instant”. Our experience of the motion of the stars may remain unchanged, but our understanding of the cosmos has undergone a complete alteration; old ideas, shown to be ontologically unsound, are discarded in favour of the new.

Your mistake is in assuming that this process is somehow at an end, that we understand everything much better now, and that we are no longer vulnerable to the possibility that our current perspectives may be shown to be similarly illusory.

Everything we think we know now will, if history is any sort of guide, one day be shown to be at some profound level, illusory. That does not mean that all the wisdom, knowledge and insight of our culture is of no value; Newton’s laws of motion still work, his theory of gravity was used to plan Apollo missions. But we have known for some time that the notion we live in a deterministic, mechanical universe where forces act on objects locally through contact, is ontologically untenable at the fundamental level.

What we see is all symbol and metaphor; how we interpret these is a function of our subjective position in time and space. Accumulated knowledge and observed regularities allow as to manipulate the material environment, but this does not at all imply that our scientific theories tell us definite, objective facts about the nature of the world, or our experience of it.

Consciously and unconsciously, we are decoding a blizzard of bewildering information, constructing convenient narratives to navigate the world, exactly as our ancestors did. We may see ourselves as enlightened super beings, standing astride the frontiers of knowledge, the universe and all her secrets laid bare by the white heat of our technological mastery; but in reality we are still monkeys looking at the stars.

Beautifully summarized.

 

[Native]

That does not mean that all the wisdom, knowledge and insight of our culture is of no value; Newton’s laws of motion still work, . . .

By a closer logical investigation, this doesn´t hold waters.

1) We have a Solar System.
2) We have Newtons terrestrial made "celestial laws of motion" to count on.
3) Newtons laws didn´t work in the Milky Way galaxy, around which center our Solar System orbits.
4) Subsequently, we then have TWO different orbital motions in the same closed Milky Way system and Newtons contradicted terrestrial made law of planetary orbital motion.
5) All logics then tell that Newtons law cannot be universally correct.

Newton’s laws of motion still work, his theory of gravity was used to plan Apollo missions.

Rocket launchings to other planets isn´t depending on Newtons law of gravity. What is needed to know is the simple weight of the spacecraft and the needed rocket thrust to pass through the weight of the atmosphere and to calculate the geometric route to the planet in question.
If using the so called "slingshot method" by passing close behind some planets, this works simply just like when migrating birds are flying in a v-shape formation, thus gaining energy.

When calculating the very SIZE and ORBITAL velocity of the passing planet, the spacecraft is gaining an extra planetary proportional energy to its further journey.

"Newtons gravity" has nothing to do with this launching at all. It´s all simple spacial aerodynamics and knowledge of draft resistance and "planetary lee side effects" in the not empty space.

Consciously and unconsciously, we are decoding a blizzard of bewildering information, constructing convenient narratives to navigate the world, exactly as our ancestors did.

Here you are ascribing present "bewildering conditions" to our ancestors who gathered all necessary knowledge by living in close contact to nature et all - and had a 100 % open intuitive mind to get immediate knowledge of everything, even of cosmic realms in their shamanistic out-of-body journeys in space.

I don´t think our ancestors were especially bewildered at all. The present modern bewildering is proportional with the historic human separation from nature, which have left humans in general to speculate, mostly of what it all is about in this modern time with all kinds of chaotic conditions and events.

Underestimating and downgrading the physical and spiritual knowledge of our ancestors, is in itself a huge modern bewildered misconception!

 

[cladking]

...we may think we are right, and on the right path, when in fact we can be following a path that leads to a point of being dead wrong.. all the time we are building on that "progress".

We can be on a path that leads to dead wrong but it's more likely we are on a path that is a dead end.

It is my belief that any logical system to study reality will necessarily lead to progress and understanding because reality itself is logical. The use of experiment to study reality is logical because reality exerts itself in experiment. But any shaman can read the evidence in tea leaves. Everybody sees the evidence they expect and they expect their beliefs to always manifest and they are especially likely to notice when their beliefs show up in observation and evidence.

Any path you're on creates a perspective from which some truth is easily seem and other truth is invisible. On a bad path some of the things you think you see aren't even real.

 

[cladking]

Any path you're on creates a perspective from which some truth is easily seem and other truth is invisible. On a bad path some of the things you think you see aren't even real.

This is what separates human consciousness from all other. There are no wrong paths if you're a bee or a rabbit. Your world is highly limited because you have no giants' shoulders to climb on but WYSIWYG. What other consciousness sees is reality itself and they have a very efficient brain programmed by reality itself to analyze and interpret it. Our brain since the tower of babel is programmed by language, not reality.

 

[cladking]

No, you’ve misunderstood. I realise this was probably unintentional.

The history of scientific discovery is characterised in part by occasional, revolutionary paradigm shifts in which old ideas are shown to be erroneous; a commonly cited example is the rejection of the Ptolemaic astronomical model in favour of the heliocentric Copernican model - something which certainly did not happen “in an instant”. Our experience of the motion of the stars may remain unchanged, but our understanding of the cosmos has undergone a complete alteration; old ideas, shown to be ontologically unsound, are discarded in favour of the new.

Your mistake is in assuming that this process is somehow at an end, that we understand everything much better now, and that we are no longer vulnerable to the possibility that our current perspectives may be shown to be similarly illusory.

Everything we think we know now will, if history is any sort of guide, one day be shown to be at some profound level, illusory. That does not mean that all the wisdom, knowledge and insight of our culture is of no value; Newton’s laws of motion still work, his theory of gravity was used to plan Apollo missions. But we have known for some time that the notion we live in a deterministic, mechanical universe where forces act on objects locally through contact, is ontologically untenable at the fundamental level.

What we see is all symbol and metaphor; how we interpret these is a function of our subjective position in time and space. Accumulated knowledge and observed regularities allow as to manipulate the material environment, but this does not at all imply that our scientific theories tell us definite, objective facts about the nature of the world, or our experience of it.

Consciously and unconsciously, we are decoding a blizzard of bewildering information, constructing convenient narratives to navigate the world, exactly as our ancestors did. We may see ourselves as enlightened super beings, standing astride the frontiers of knowledge, the universe and all her secrets laid bare by the white heat of our technological mastery; but in reality we are still monkeys looking at the stars.

Yes!!! Precisely. I could never have said it better.

The very fact we are stuck on the unified field theory strongly suggests that there is a fundamental problem in our definitions, axioms, or methodology (paradigmatical problems).

The fact no one has ever devised an experiment to support "Evolution" is also telling.

I believe much of science will be overturned before we have all the solutions.

 

[Native]

SUB-OP: Heavy Black Holes.

History - From Black hole - Wikipedia
"Objects whose gravitational fields are too strong for light to escape were first considered in the 18th century by John Michell and Pierre-Simon Laplace.[8] In 1916, Karl Schwarzschild found the first modern solution of general relativity that would characterize a black hole. David Finkelstein, in 1958, first published the interpretation of "black hole" as a region of space from which nothing can escape. Black holes were long considered a mathematical curiosity; it was not until the 1960s that theoretical work showed they were a generic prediction of general relativity.

Definitions:
A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing – no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light – can escape from it.[2] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole.[3][4] The boundary of no escape is called the event horizon. Although it has a great effect on the fate and circumstances of an object crossing it, it has no locally detectable features according to general relativity.[5] In many ways, a black hole acts like an ideal black body, as it reflects no light.[6][7] Moreover, quantum field theory in curved spacetime predicts that event horizons emit Hawking radiation, with the same spectrum as a black body of a temperature inversely proportional to its mass. This temperature is of the order of billionths of a kelvin for stellar black holes, making it essentially impossible to observe directly", end of quotes.

The Milky Way Bulge is about 1000 lightyear thick.

Electromagnetic "Fermi Bubbles" are made on both planes of the MW disk, hence the central "hole" really is TWO openings on both galactic planes.
----------------------
My Comments and Conclusions
The very thickness of the Milky Way bulge, make it impossible and illogical to speak of a "2D flattish "heavy black hole" as thought and described by astrophysicists and cosmologists.

When TWO bubbles are made on both galactic planes, this logically speaks of a formation process going all the way through the Milky Way center, and then we´re speaking of an about 1000 lightyear deep/long 3D WHIRLING FUNNEL of transformation of gas and dust in the galactic center, from where strong gamma- and x-rays are beaming out on both planes and create the fermi Bubbles, as the result of this nuclear formation process.

Such a central WHIRLING EMPTY FUNNEL can logically not contain a force in itself as this WHIRLING FUNNEL is made by the surrounding motions, which logically, according the the central electromagnetically formation activity, naturally is set in motion by electromagnetic forces working on the atomic plasma stages.

Black holes and "gravity".
Newtons speculative ideas of "celestial object motions around central object gravity center", was directly contradicted on galactic scales by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve. This confirms my description above of the WHIRLING FUNNEL having NO force in itself as the orbiting objects doesn´t follow Newtons "squared distance orbital motions from a central force" as it was predicted from his terrestrial ideas.

Newtons loose fantasies.
As our Solar System is an orbiting part of the galactic rotation curve, Newton´s idea of orbital motion is false everywhere, and the very astrophysical and cosmological perceptions of "black holes" are hopelessly insufficient and directly wrong.

The Standard cosmology perception of "black holes" otherwhere derive from the gravity only approach, which doesn´t comprehend electromagnetic objects and pattern motions.

BTW: Einsteins ideas of a "bended space-time" gravity is also a far flung speculation which never can be explained by what dynamic means it should work. Just like with the case of Newtons occult agency "gravity".

When speaking of "pattern recognitions.
A very simple way of illustrating galactic motions is to compare the overall motion in a hurricane with the galactic motions and their central "eyes". The more scientific comparison is Electromagnetic Toroidal Motions which of course confirms the overall electromagnetic formational processes in galaxies.