The Universe is damn slinky!

[ZenRaiden]

Noether's theorem is used in theoretical physics and the calculus of variations. It reveals the fundamental relation between the symmetries of a physical system and the conservation laws. It also made modern theoretical physicists much more focused on symmetries of physical systems. A generalization of the formulations on constants of motion in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (developed in 1788 and 1833, respectively), it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g., systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law.

We are one end of the slinky.
That is why the Universe is sometimes expanding, but its not really expanding.
Slinky never changes it only changes length, but its complete energy is always constant.

Hence why black holes are rupturing symmetry.
Because if you drop into a black hole there is another universe, the same as ours, but have shit like negative absolute zero there, or tachyons etc.

Its like ying and yang maaaaan!

 

[birdsnestfern]

I'm having visuals of the layers of bread in a loaf, (dimensions) expanding and contracting, sometimes touching and sometimes apart, and time travel. Is it breathing? Or is it more like a snail spiraling, which would be like a slinky, but with a smaller end and a larger end. Time, tick tock, tick tock, is eternal and spring like too. Or is time like the mechanism that makes it contract? And space the mechanism that expands it?

Waves do keep expanding until they run out of energy, maybe then they return in transformed states we don't always see.

 

[ZenRaiden]

No I was not making it clear.
The slinky is whole universe, but the whole universe is not visible to us.
What we call universe now, and think is universe is only one end of the slinky.
We actually don't know whether universe is getting smaller or bigger, much like if I were on the end of slinky and it were contracting I could still perceive the slinky elongating.
Its besides the point though.

If you look at say a cylinder, its center, is symmetry.
So slinky is symmetrical.
The thing is slinky has to be imagined in motion.
So as its moving its unfolding and folding.

The main point we are one end of slinky.
You have to think of the universe we are as a disc.
Much like a galaxy is flat.
So clearly what we want to see is not visible to us.
But if you imagine the universe as a disc falling through time at all times in every point of the universe.
It makes sense.
Damn I don't think I am making it understandable em I? LOL

 

[Black Rose]

I did a math paper once but it was an accident and I did not fully understand what I did.
But looking at all the wiki stuff you posted, I assume it would take a working memory of 140 to understand fully(shut up and calculate) and 160 to come up with. Mine is just 85.
I would say that understanding stuff is hard with a broken brain calculator like mine. I would also say that much of this is intuitive because I have high abstract conceptualization. It is not just calculation.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I did a math

The math is irrelevant to be honest. Math is not physics understanding.
For instance the concept of symmetry is made up concept, the math just follows it up and makes it clear how to get the right numbers.

The relationship between things is the physics part.
Ergo I was thinking how we don't really understand stuff, before we figure it out.
So none of what I am talking about requires any math.
Gravity can be understood without math.
Acceleration can be understood without math.
Math tells us how to put the things in relation to get good results.
But if say I ask you what is gravity. You know what it is without knowing the equations.
We decided that there is a thing called g and its called gravity, and then we just figured out its relative value on Earth.
Its not that we don't need the math.
But no amount of math will give you a clue.
Its the same with time.
We don't actually know what is time.
Does not mean we cannot understand when talking about time what we mean.
We don't need clock to know there is a thing called time.
We know and always known its there, because we perceive it all the damn time.

This cosmic stuff is harder, because its based in math, we would not be able to talk about it without some math, but the math is proof and a kind of explanation.

However our minds don't think in equations the way they are written.
I can tell you that pi times r2 is the surface of a circle, but unless you know what curve and surface and circle are you never understand the equation.

So for instance you can have a child like a 3 year old, and give him any given random 3d shape. Ask him where is the symmetry. The kid would be always able to tell you which axis running through the random geometrical shape is symmetrical. Its hardwired in us to see symmetry. Its natural quality of perception. Much same way in all things there is some sort of symmetry.
Physics is not math, but you need math to do physics if you catching my drift.

 

[Black Rose]

Physics is not math, but you need math to do physics if you catching my drift.

physics is bubbles (fizziness)

math tells you a relation of where things are in time/space.

i took physics class in 7th grade, it was just about how to get things to be places.

so the idea that things get set in motion and that we can predict what happens is math in a special way because stuff (matter) is just a part of how we know if things will be places.

like if x is a distance and y is a speed then z will tell you when the distance will be crossed by a set interval.

but when things get complicated then we have new physics, electricity and gravity and all such forces act in a way that math tells us where things be.

my math paper uses several symbols I did not know were for things already done yet they make sense the way I put them together.

i cannot do all the calculations but I can look at the references and intuit a response.

if I had knowledge of how to code on the computer I could graph my results.

so like if math will help us know what physics will do my paper helps us know the limits of intelligence. I just need to show it to someone who will understand it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The math gives us clues, sure.
Not saying the math ain't important.
There this subtle nuance people miss.
The math comes after the idea.
Like lever and equations to explain the ratio of one side to other is math.
The idea of lever is understood even by mice or ravens.
The math part of getting to the nuts and bolts of exact equation where we can throw a ball and calculate the trajectory is one thing, but understandings that help us say understand certain things is mostly just thinking about relations of cause and effect.

 

[scorpiomover]

I did a math paper once but it was an accident and I did not fully understand what I did.
But looking at all the wiki stuff you posted, I assume it would take a working memory of 140 to understand fully(shut up and calculate) and 160 to come up with.

Maths is just a matter of effort and perseverance, going over your calculations again and again, from every angle, and repeatedly, till you are sure.

E.G. Kepler wrote in his introduction of the laws of the movement of the planets, that if the reader finds him somewhat pedantic, to bear in mind that Kepler went over his numbers 70 times!

Whether you have an IQ of 6, or 6,000, in maths, the only thing that matters is the proof. If a person with an IQ of 6 has a solid proof, then it's true. If a person with an IQ of 160 comes up with a flawed proof, it's thrown out (which happened to Andrew Wiles with his 1st proof of Fermat's Last Theorem).

Mine is just 85.

Then it would simply take you LONGER to figure this stuff out.

But, considering that it took mathematicians 300 years to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, and 2,000 years to discover that space is curved (in this universe), the time it would take you, is probably nowhere near as long as many mathematicians have spent on a single problem.

 

[Black Rose]

The math comes after the idea.

2009

Then it would simply take you LONGER to figure this stuff out.

a proof is a symmetrical relation to what is being proven.

so like in angle we see that it comes full circle or is not symmetrical

they did not tell me this in 10th grade so I did not understand the math worksheet

as I look at all the people who had to come up with what they did it is more than calculation as I said about (Feynman)

I do keep all my work and go over it all the time - I would just need new ideas

I forget all the time what I am doing so that is why I keep looking and combining

it is required I don't give up but the ADHD and unseen siezers drain me.

I recognize things creatively, I have a very a-symmetrical process going on in my mind

mbti memes that crack me up

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SuBxc0iNRVw

www.intpforum.com

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think you are smart enough, and diligent enough to work through any problem.
The issue is that your mind is different.
So the way you work ought to also be different.
Also I would argue maybe you need someone who could help you.
I mean in real time. Not here, but in real life.
Because all of the people you have in the pic none of them made discoveries or changes in science alone.
They were exceptional minds, but all of their achievements came from cooperation with other scientist.
Its a shame many scientist don't talk about this.
Plus you are not in university setting.
Every scientific mind requires feedback.
Or else you might be cramming a lot of work into your mind.
I think you first need someone who respects you and someone who is as enthusiastic about this topic as you are.

 

[Black Rose]

I think you are smart enough, and diligent enough to work through any problem.
The issue is that your mind is different.
So the way you work ought to also be different.
Also I would argue maybe you need someone who could help you.
I mean in real time. Not here, but in real life.

I am working on it, getting into a position to have help.

Because all of the people you have in the pic none of them made discoveries or changes in science alone.
They were exceptional minds, but all of their achievements came from cooperation with other scientist.
Its a shame many scientist don't talk about this.
Plus you are not in university setting.

Cybernetics is my favorite subject.
It includes all the areas I have interests in.

There is a lot I learned just by looking at pictures without words.

Every scientific mind requires feedback.
Or else you might be cramming a lot of work into your mind.
I think you first need someone who respects you and someone who is as enthusiastic about this topic as you are.

Monday I talk to a professional therapist.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I am working on it, getting into a position to have help.

Cybernetics is my favorite subject.
It includes all the areas I have interests in.

There is a lot I learned just by looking at pictures without words.

I thought you are a brain guy, but cybernetics is cool too.

Monday I talk to a professional therapist.

That is awesome to hear.
I hope it all works well.

 

[scorpiomover]

Then it would simply take you LONGER to figure this stuff out.

a proof is a symmetrical relation to what is being proven.

so like in angle we see that it comes full circle or is not symmetrical

they did not tell me this in 10th grade so I did not understand the math worksheet

Then you had teachers who didn't teach you correctly.

as I look at all the people who had to come up with what they did it is more than calculation as I said about (Feynman)

I do keep all my work and go over it all the time - I would just need new ideas

I forget all the time what I am doing so that is why I keep looking and combining

This is how mathematicians do maths all the time, keeping going over their work all the time, and keep looking at it and other ideas and combining them.

I gather that most people are taught in school to assume that what their teachers tell them is correct and perfect teaching, and that if there is a failure in the student, it's the fault of the student and not the teacher.

However, where mathematicians differ from most people, is that once they get to university level, they are required to learn the proofs of everything they have been taught, and are required to demonstrate those proofs themselves, as if they had figured it out themselves, and so are not allowed to assume that their teachers are correct.

it is required I don't give up but the ADHD and unseen siezers drain me.

I recognize things creatively, I have a very a-symmetrical process going on in my mind

You would love hanging out with maths lecturers then. A woman in my class in university told me that her dad was a maths lecturer. He used to get stoned with his colleagues and discuss maths ideas.

Mathematicians also seem to LOVE fractals and things like that.

One theorem I came across, is the Banach-Tarski theorem, that proves that if you can take a single ball apart into infinitesimally small parts, you could put it back together in such a way that it would make 2 balls that are identical to the original.

Crazy, right? But it's been proved mathematically! Logic can be funny like that.

So I think you'd feel at home with mathematicians who are happy to discuss theorems like that.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I gather that most people are taught in school to assume that what their teachers tell them is correct and perfect teaching, and that if there is a failure in the student, it's the fault of the student and not the teacher.

I never trusted teachers, because what they often say is obviously nonsense.
My experience is to memorize and very little explanations are given.
My preference is to know exactly how everything works.
I was currently working out the formula for surface of a circle.
I am trying to workout pi in a way that does not require the standard proofs.
I still believe the formula does not make sense to me.
I am not mathematical guy though, but the only way I can say I truly understand something is if my mind says "this makes sense".
Its interesting to me that the pythagorean theory says that if we have a triangle with R sides the hypotenuse is 1.41 and adding 3 gets us pi if we divide the hpotenuse with 10. Which is precisely if r is 1.

 

[Black Rose]

Then you had teachers who didn't teach you correctly.

I lived in a trailer park, not many teachers expected much of me.

I gather that most people are taught in school to assume that what their teachers tell them is correct and perfect teaching, and that if there is a failure in the student, it's the fault of the student and not the teacher.

I did not go to school until 3rd grade. I was held back a year for doing poorly on a test. In 5th grade, I was in the bottom 1% in spelling nationwide.

In the trailer park at age 12, I played lots of Nintendo games and I made movies on Lego movie studios stop motion animation. The social worker said I should be in a contest. I went to a science magnet middle school. I was in the science fair 3 times.

What happened in high school was they gave me lots of English school assignments. And anything I could not do they did not make me do anything even further than that. At university, I was supposed to do a book report on politics but did not know what to do so quit and went to the group home for 2 years. Then I was a custodian for 2 years then I had a house and been doing random stuff on the computer for 10 years.

He used to get stoned

I cannot do that with the medications I am on.

So I think you'd feel at home with mathematicians who are happy to discuss theorems like that.

At the birthday party yesterday I gave my math paper to a guy who is 170 IQ. He is really smart and I've known him since 2016. - But I can't go to a university because it costs money and I only have 19 on the ACT.

From what I gather it makes sense that people who work in certain fields do not need a high IQ but in the economic sense, you need money to get places.

I am trying to workout pi in a way that does not require the standard proofs.
I still believe the formula does not make sense to me.

In high school, I knew pi had more than 20 thousand digits and was infinite but I wondered how you get that number because rulers only measure a tenth of a millimeter. I never figured it out.

My brother and my roommate have nicknames: my brother is Megamind, my roommate is Sheldon and I am Jimmy Neutron, when I fix something my roommate says "Was that a brain blast". They fix cars and do yard work and electronics and phones.

I always identified with Lisa from the Simpsons. She was good in school but Homer her dad was not that bright because of the crayon in his brain. Apparently, Homer solves the Higgs equation when it is removed and his IQ is raised to 105.

 

[Black Rose]

I think the real problem I have is the posterior cingulate of the corpus callosum. The anterior cingulate seems to work fine but the back callosum connects the two parietal lobes which are used to do number calculations. The frontal lobes are the programmers of the brain Jordan Peterson said but if the two parietal lobes are not talking to each other then it must take a longer way around the blocked circuit units.

I recently found this paper that confirms the theory of multiple intelligences in the subcortical regions of the brain:

Multiple Intelligences in Teaching and Education: Lessons Learned from Neuroscience

This brief paper summarizes a mixed method review of over 500 neuroscientific reports investigating the proposition that general intelligence (g or IQ) and multiple intelligences (MI) can be integrated based on common and unique neural systems. Extrapolated ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ZenRaiden]

Those Simpsons pics made me laugh.
Its good hearing you have relatable people.

Science is kind of blind in sense we never know what we find.
All that is important, is to recognize what is found.

I don't think we always need perfect science rigor to arrive at valuable knowledge.
Rigor is only important in sense that it allows for knowledge to be more reliable or more applicable.

What is true though as @scorpiomover said our brains are actually not naturally rigorous. They are prone to errors. Hence why rigor is just getting the details down and foundation down.
Trouble is often times that is the real hard work.
Ergo the idea behind rocket engine is easy.
Building a functional unit is near impossible for normal humans. Took advanced metallurgy and extra careful engineering tweaks to make those things be able to withstand the massive heat.
Rockets are actually one of the most simplest inventions humans ever made.
Yet rocket science is one of the hardest sciences out there, as making those rockets work is extremely complex task of interfiled coop.

Have you considered the idea of writing your ideas down and maybe writing a book?
It could even be a set up of a simple kids book, like facts about brain.
That could with luck get published and lead to money.
I see lots of these books, being printed these days, and they seem to be quite common. Many of them are written by people who know fraction of what you know.
Just an idea out there.
I don't think it would be easy finding publishers, finding respectable editors and finding the sponsors for printing.
But writing things down in book format might even help you organize your thoughts down and with luck make money. If not oh well at least you get to write something interesting for yourself.

 

[Black Rose]

Have you considered the idea of writing your ideas down and maybe writing a book?
It could even be a set up of a simple kids book, like facts about brain.
That could with luck get published and lead to money.

I found this when I used Google:

middle school books about the brain advanced

Then I started looking into other things:

I think I know less than other people about the brain.

What I really need to do is get a brain scan.

YouTube - EEG maths subcortical algorithms

Dr. Valdés-Sosa - EEG algorithms as applied to decoding of mental states (2018)



Subcortical EEG brain mapping:

Yes, electroencephalography (EEG) can detect subcortical activity.

Subcortical structures are a group of neural formations that are deep within the brain. They include the limbic structures, basal ganglia, pituitary gland, and diencephalon. These structures are involved in complex activities like hormone production, emotion, pleasure, and memory.

Subcortical signals are much weaker than cortical signals because subcortical structures are farther from the scalp and have a closed-field geometry. However, high-density EEG can reliably sense subcortical electrophysiological activity, including in the amygdala.

An EEG is a test that detects abnormalities in the electrical activity of your brain, or in your brain waves. During the procedure, electrodes with thin wires and small metal discs are pasted onto your scalp. These electrodes detect tiny electrical charges that result from the activity of your brain cells.

An EEG can indicate cortical, subcortical, or arousal disturbance. It can also detect epileptiform activity, which can inform diagnosis and management.