'Genius' Forums

[IJesusChrist]

c really has little to do with light, it's just the maximum observable speed. You can sure as hell go faster, reltive to anything, as we are al well aware; A photon turns on his flash light.

[Animus]

You are completely missing the point Pincho, and maybe debating a phantom of your own mind, but certainly nothing that I've said.

Sorry but I have to stick with nature, and physics, I don't really understand human dividing lines, and when you use them you are risking talking about an imaginary subject. I am trying to help you to avoid talking about an imaginary subject. But I am a visual genius if that helps, and some people are mathematical genius, but why divide the line?

Because the notion of a general intelligence as defined by Spearman is a figment of human thought itself. It is blatantly obvious that there are different psychometrics, there is spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, deductive and inductive reasoning and so forth, there isn't one general intelligence as far as anyone has ever been able to demonstrate, but there are different faculties of cognition which are to greater or lesser extends profitable for doing their job. This is the reason someone like Kim Peek can have such a superior memory and mathematical skills, but can't tie his own shoes or dress himself.

This is not a denial of neurophysiology, its right in-line with neurophysiology, there is no central locus of intelligence or neurochemical factor that strictly correlates with Spearman's G. Spearman's G is distributed throughout the cortex and constitutes different functions.

[Pincho Paxton]

c really has little to do with light, it's just the maximum observable speed. You can sure as hell go faster, reltive to anything, as we are al well aware; A photon turns on his flash light.

No C is for constant, and it is used for many things not just speed, but gravity uses it as well, but I never said it was to do with light, I identified it as the size of Aether, which is my own theory.

[Pincho Paxton]

You are completely missing the point Pincho, and maybe debating a phantom of your own mind, but certainly nothing that I've said.

Sorry but I have to stick with nature, and physics, I don't really understand human dividing lines, and when you use them you are risking talking about an imaginary subject. I am trying to help you to avoid talking about an imaginary subject. But I am a visual genius if that helps, and some people are mathematical genius, but why divide the line?

Because the notion of a general intelligence as defined by Spearman is a figment of human thought itself. It is blatantly obvious that there are different psychometrics, there is spatial reasoning, pattern recognition, deductive and inductive reasoning and so forth, there isn't one general intelligence as far as anyone has ever been able to demonstrate, but there are different faculties of cognition which are to greater or lesser extends profitable for doing their job. This is the reason someone like Kim Peek can have such a superior memory and mathematical skills, but can't tie his own shoes or dress himself.

This is not a denial of neurophysiology, its right in-line with neurophysiology, there is no central locus of intelligence or neurochemical factor that strictly correlates with Spearman's G. Spearman's G is distributed throughout the cortex and constitutes different functions.

Yes, but again you are straying from the physical factors involved, which is what is going to put you into the software development of the mind. Now when you want to discuss the software of the brain you have a problem as it is very random, even twins have different software, so how do you plan to discuss the differences in genius software?

For example I originally started life as a mathematical genius, but got so far ahead in class that I was allowed to read comics during maths lessons. Reading comics during maths somehow created my ability to look at objects, and imagine the physics that are working them. I could watch Jurassic Park, and know that the T-Rex was not walking how it should even though dinosaurs do not exist anymore. Yet nobody else can see it. I became a visual genius, and ignored maths completely because I had replaced it with a new ability. So my maths went downhill, and my artwork was now on all of the walls in the school. It's random, and a genius can use the parts of the brain that they prefer to use, and then build that into their best ability.

[Animus]

Well, if you want to discuss neurophysiology I'm sure I can hold my own. Its not random. There is just a lot of diversity. I already discussed the differences on the level of phenomenality and behavior. To discuss the issues in concrete neurophysiological terms will require more information than is currently available. But we can speak generally, in terms of neurophysiology and state that not all brain regions develop uniformly, various genetic factors can influence the development of particular regions serving particular function. Gross abnormalities like that of agenesis of the corpus callosum also affect a broad set of brain functions but frequently leave others intact. Thus it is entirely possible for a person to be "Genius" or simply superior in respect to one brain function and be "idiot" or inferior in respect to another, as in the example given, Kim Peek (The real 'Rain Man').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenesis_o ... s_callosum

[Animus]

For example I originally started life as a mathematical genius, but got so far ahead in class that I was allowed to read comics during maths lessons. Reading comics during maths somehow created my ability to look at objects, and imagine the physics that are working them. I could watch Jurassic Park, and know that the T-Rex was not walking how it should even though dinosaurs do not exist anymore. Yet nobody else can see it. I became a visual genius, and ignored maths completely because I had replaced it with a new ability. So my maths went downhill, and my artwork was now on all of the walls in the school. It's random, and a genius can use the parts of the brain that they prefer to use, and then build that into their best ability.

Its not random and what you are talking about is neurodegeneration caused by learned non use. That is, because you neglected to use the neural pathways designated to the processing of mathematics they deteriorated or were reassigned to serve different tasks. Nerve cells require frequent activation for the efflux of neural growth factor which keeps them alive and functioning. If you neglect a certain aspect of cognition be prepared to lose it and/or have to rebuild it. You could have developed your visual "genius" along-side your mathematical "genius" but instead you neglected one and suffered a decline in its function.

[Pincho Paxton]

The train tracks all lead to a single station. I could be a maths genius, and a visual genius, but they would both end up in the same station. I would not be able to board both trains of thought at the same time. Therefore I would have to use both half as often, and therefore halve their abilities.

[Animus]

The train tracks all lead to a single station. I could be a maths genius, and a visual genius, but they would both end up in the same station. I would not be able to board both trains of thought at the same time. Therefore I would have to use both half as often, and therefore halve their abilities.

Not exactly, you don't need to even be aware of the thought processes for them to be active and multiple processes are active simultaneously regardless of your conscious attention. By the way, there is no train station or central locus of anything in the brain.

[IJesusChrist]

C in E=mc2 is a constant the represents the speed of light. I have little formal education on relativity other than the effects of acceleration.

However, 186,000 mi/s is only the maximum observable speed. You can travel distances far greater than 186,000 miles in a second... relatively speaking of course.

And I wasn't disputing or argueing with you, I was just making a statement. Yes maybe it does have to do with an aether, my belief is that for some reason, it is just not possible to observe any any speed greater than that. It may have to do with some type of ratio.

[Pincho Paxton]

C in E=mc2 is a constant the represents the speed of light. I have little formal education on relativity other than the effects of acceleration.

However, 186,000 mi/s is only the maximum observable speed. You can travel distances far greater than 186,000 miles in a second... relatively speaking of course.

And I wasn't disputing or argueing with you, I was just making a statement. Yes maybe it does have to do with an aether, my belief is that for some reason, it is just not possible to observe any any speed greater than that. It may have to do with some type of ratio.

My theory states that the speed restriction is due to speed compression. when something moves forwards it shrinks, compresses. Light is a wave, and a compressed wave has compressed peaks. The Aether is bubbles, and the compressed bubbles are the compressed peaks. But bubbles can collapse, they can squash, and when a bubble is completely flat it has nowhere left to go. The speed of light is the speed at which the bubbles are almost flat, at least highly compressed. But as you can gather, this theory means that C is not a speed, but actually a restriction due to the size of the bubbles. In other parts of the universe the bubbles are bigger, and therefore C will change, and gravity will change. So far this has been called Dark Matter, however it is actually the Aether. Aether has also been mistakenly called time. Aether has also been called Quantum Physics, which is actually just physics once you include the Aether. Aether is mistaken for many things, but at one time it was actually used in science. The theory of Relativity used to be called 'The Aether And The Theory Of Relativity'. This was the correct way to term relativity, and Einstein used that term.

[IJesusChrist]

Uhm... "bubbles" bubbles of what? Why can't the bubbles be completely compressed to two dimensions?

You do know that when you hit 'C' (recorded by an observer of course) that the universe is planar, with the you being perpendicular to the plane right? i.e. all that is in front of you and behind you are not adjacent to you (in the plane)?

So... I mean your theory is close... Maybe.

[Pincho Paxton]

Uhm... "bubbles" bubbles of what? Why can't the bubbles be completely compressed to two dimensions?

You do know that when you hit 'C' (recorded by an observer of course) that the universe is planar, with the you being perpendicular to the plane right? i.e. all that is in front of you and behind you are not adjacent to you (in the plane)?

So... I mean your theory is close... Maybe.

Aether compressed to 2 dimensions has overlapping width, which would mean that it's left, and right side are overlapping a map position. In other words one identity sharing the same space with itself is a paradox. This is the zero paradox, and is a paradox that creates an explosion if you can force it to happen. You end up with a new substance, maybe a new Photon, and Electron. Science is yet to realise that it created the Quarks inside the Atom, they were not there originally, they were a similar paradox, parts of the atom forced to share space with itself. On top of this, the Aether is the origin of everything, it is the bubble of lego that creates everything. It creates them by paradox.

[Gurrb]

the definition of 'exists' is to be wondered, as many things depend on it. if time exists in the mind, does it actually exist? for all we know, all things exist in our mind. there is no true way to conclude otherwise.

i do believe the idea of the past, present, and future is flawed. if you think about it, we can never truly be in the present. our bodies (existent space) are always in the 'future', to a degree of course. this statement relies on the idea that all things can be infinitely divided. our minds are always thinking of the future, unless reflecting, to perform actions.

can time ever truly exist if the present can never truly exist? same for existence. if we exist in the present and the present can never truly exist, can we? this is a very open-ended question meant to put forth a point of mine.

Time doesn't exist in my mind, the same that Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist in my mind.

completely misinterpreted my point. it exists as a thought, just as sherlock holmes exists as a thought. my question being the idea of existence being a touchy definition in this regard. if something is thought of, does it essentially exist?

[Jamesh]

From earlier in this thread

Time is simply the measurement of rate of change. How such measurements are made depends on the nature of the physical environment and how consciousness experiences it. It's not really a mystery.


I think the true nature of time has been adequately expressed. Time is an artefact of conscious representation. Time represents the rate of change and is experienced differently by different observers. To speak of an objective reality in this way can refer to the experience of an objective time, the rate of change as experienced by the observer, but this is the definition of a subjective view. Which is why it has been said that time is subjective.

I find peoples view of time as being "the measurement of rate of change" as missing the point. That is simply the most obvious way to view time. Trouble is it completely ignores the reality of what is being measured. Behind the "measurement", behind the "rate of change", is the underlying time that allows for such measurements in the first place. Even the word "rate" in the "rate of change" phrase is inferring this. It is only when it is viewed as an outcome, as an effect, rather than being the actual pre-existing cause it is, that it becomes measurable. You cannot treat time simply as an effect without also seeing it as a cause (what other effect is also not a cause?), and it makes the most sense to view it as the initiating cause.

Time is the self-causing power source behind change, behind the concept of causality. In being the power source it is also the true content. The form or appearance of things are simply different configurations of time of an infinity of ages - time creates relativity because it is an accumulative power creating entity. All the time or universal power that has ever existed still exists, but it will continue to grow upon itself forever more.

Time (newest time) + Content (past time) + Form (finiteness of observation) = Change.

Or to associate this with E=Mc2 and space-time.

E=Mc2 is a symbolic numerical representation of the power of time using spatial territory as the yardstick.

Energy becomes the power of the time represented as an area of space.

Mass is the sum of past time or relative time within a finite spatial area. The greater the amount of past time in any spatial area, the greater the force of gravity will be to give an object its mass. Mass is a measurement of the power of gravity. Gravity is the "compression" caused by the higher rate of spatial expansion that occurs with more recent time. That it is a force that pulls inward is an illusion - it is simply that the older something is the less it will appear to expand relative to an observing entity who can only observe from the point of view of the present (and who cannot see the expansion of the present). This mass, this past time is capable of division by the intrusion of newer time due to the folding or spiralling of space. Space folds or spirals due to some kind of intrinsic disparity of power that results from time expanding on itself (I could perhaps find the reason if I had a deep knowledge of physics and maths, but I don't).

The Speed of Light Squared represents the rate of times 3-dimensional expansion in the 2-dimensional context required for the formula. C is a 1 dimensional "unit" of space - a line indicating the spatial distance in metres of space that light travels in 1 second. Squaring makes it a two dimensional unit of space. This value equals the new spatial area that is created in each set unit of measured time. Space is the 2-dimensional appearance or effect of time (it only appears to hold 3-dimensionality as a result of the 3-dimensionality of objects within it).

[Animus]

the definition of 'exists' is to be wondered, as many things depend on it. if time exists in the mind, does it actually exist? for all we know, all things exist in our mind. there is no true way to conclude otherwise.

i do believe the idea of the past, present, and future is flawed. if you think about it, we can never truly be in the present. our bodies (existent space) are always in the 'future', to a degree of course. this statement relies on the idea that all things can be infinitely divided. our minds are always thinking of the future, unless reflecting, to perform actions.

can time ever truly exist if the present can never truly exist? same for existence. if we exist in the present and the present can never truly exist, can we? this is a very open-ended question meant to put forth a point of mine.

Time doesn't exist in my mind, the same that Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist in my mind.

completely misinterpreted my point. it exists as a thought, just as sherlock holmes exists as a thought. my question being the idea of existence being a touchy definition in this regard. if something is thought of, does it essentially exist?

People get an impression of something and their mind begins figuring out how to represent it. In that sense, whatever happens within the mind represents something impressed upon it, but not necessarily exactly what is ultimately real. The mental representation occurs within reality and is therefor real as well, but only as a subjective mental representation of something else. Therefor, you can say that my perceiving an pink unicorn is real, but not necessarily that pink unicorns are real.

[Pincho Paxton]

I find peoples view of time as being "the measurement of rate of change" as missing the point. That is simply the most obvious way to view time. Trouble is it completely ignores the reality of what is being measured. Behind the "measurement", behind the "rate of change", is the underlying time that allows for such measurements in the first place. Even the word "rate" in the "rate of change" phrase is inferring this. It is only when it is viewed as an outcome, as an effect, rather than being the actual pre-existing cause it is, that it becomes measurable. You cannot treat time simply as an effect without also seeing it as a cause (what other effect is also not a cause?), and it makes the most sense to view it as the initiating cause.

Time is the self-causing power source behind change, behind the concept of causality. In being the power source it is also the true content. The form or appearance of things are simply different configurations of time of an infinity of ages - time creates relativity because it is an accumulative power creating entity. All the time or universal power that has ever existed still exists, but it will continue to grow upon itself forever more.

Time (newest time) + Content (past time) + Form (finiteness of observation) = Change.

Or to associate this with E=Mc2 and space-time.

E=Mc2 is a symbolic numerical representation of the power of time using spatial territory as the yardstick.

Energy becomes the power of the time represented as an area of space.

Mass is the sum of past time or relative time within a finite spatial area. The greater the amount of past time in any spatial area, the greater the force of gravity will be to give an object its mass. Mass is a measurement of the power of gravity. Gravity is the "compression" caused by the higher rate of spatial expansion that occurs with more recent time. That it is a force that pulls inward is an illusion - it is simply that the older something is the less it will appear to expand relative to an observing entity who can only observe from the point of view of the present (and who cannot see the expansion of the present). This mass, this past time is capable of division by the intrusion of newer time due to the folding or spiralling of space. Space folds or spirals due to some kind of intrinsic disparity of power that results from time expanding on itself (I could perhaps find the reason if I had a deep knowledge of physics and maths, but I don't).

The Speed of Light Squared represents the rate of times 3-dimensional expansion in the 2-dimensional context required for the formula. C is a 1 dimensional "unit" of space - a line indicating the spatial distance in metres of space that light travels in 1 second. Squaring makes it a two dimensional unit of space. This value equals the new spatial area that is created in each set unit of measured time. Space is the 2-dimensional appearance or effect of time (it only appears to hold 3-dimensionality as a result of the 3-dimensionality of objects within it).

Don't know where you got this idea, but for me it has a lot of errors in it. Maybe one day you will get proof that you are right, but on the other hand you have quite a few infinite energy sources in your example. I have a big problem with infinite energy sources.

[DHodges]

c really has little to do with light, it's just the maximum observable speed. You can sure as hell go faster,

No. No I can't.

[Gurrb]

For example I originally started life as a mathematical genius, but got so far ahead in class that I was allowed to read comics during maths lessons. Reading comics during maths somehow created my ability to look at objects, and imagine the physics that are working them. I could watch Jurassic Park, and know that the T-Rex was not walking how it should even though dinosaurs do not exist anymore. Yet nobody else can see it. I became a visual genius, and ignored maths completely because I had replaced it with a new ability. So my maths went downhill, and my artwork was now on all of the walls in the school. It's random, and a genius can use the parts of the brain that they prefer to use, and then build that into their best ability.[/quote]


your timeline doesn't add up if you're 46. i've put my intelligence on a leash in public because nobody likes to feel intellectually inferior. it's disappointing thought when someone condescends me and they think they're more intelligent because they achieve higher grades in school.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"

[Pincho Paxton]

For example I originally started life as a mathematical genius, but got so far ahead in class that I was allowed to read comics during maths lessons. Reading comics during maths somehow created my ability to look at objects, and imagine the physics that are working them. I could watch Jurassic Park, and know that the T-Rex was not walking how it should even though dinosaurs do not exist anymore. Yet nobody else can see it. I became a visual genius, and ignored maths completely because I had replaced it with a new ability. So my maths went downhill, and my artwork was now on all of the walls in the school. It's random, and a genius can use the parts of the brain that they prefer to use, and then build that into their best ability.

your timeline doesn't add up if you're 46. i've put my intelligence on a leash in public because nobody likes to feel intellectually inferior. it's disappointing thought when someone condescends me and they think they're more intelligent because they achieve higher grades in school.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"

What timeline doesn't add up? There is very little evidence of a timeline in my post.

[Gurrb]

you speak as though you were young when watching Jurassic Park (before your teens).

[Jamesh]

Pincho commented:

but on the other hand you have quite a few infinite energy sources in your example

Nope, I have only only one infinite energy source, however it is everything (content and power-wise that is. Form is irrelevant to the concept of infinity). As things change, and cannot be created from nothing, there is clearly at least one infinite energy source. As the universe has what appears to be an infinite size (though size may be simply a matter of relativity), in both range and depth, whatever that power source might be is infinite.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho commented:

but on the other hand you have quite a few infinite energy sources in your example

Nope, I have only only one infinite energy source, however it is everything (content and power-wise that is. Form is irrelevant to the concept of infinity). As things change, and cannot be created from nothing, there is clearly at least one infinite energy source. As the universe has what appears to be an infinite size (though size may be simply a matter of relativity), in both range and depth, whatever that power source might be is infinite.

Yeah, I read it again, you have avoided the infinite energy required for relativity. You do appear to have an idea that partly works. I don't think it is as complete as using the Aether however. I mean can you explain the two slit experiment anomaly using your method? Can you explain Dark Matter?