KHTK Postulates

einsteintagore1

When Einstein Met Tagore

March 6, 2014: This essay is superseded by KHTK Postulates for Metaphysics – Part 1 and KHTK Postulates for Physics.

.

KHTK Postulate #0: There are no absolute certainties.

DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress.

Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but I believe that there is possibly a wider context in which the speed of light may simply be a special case.

There is no progress possible for a person who believes his certainties to be absolute.

.

KHTK Postulate #1: All motion is relative.

With nothing else to compare to one cannot tell if one is at rest or if one is moving at the speed of light. When there are two objects in relative motion there is still no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is moving.

There is no frame of reference that may be considered absolute. Einstein makes “speed of light” as the absolute frame of reference, from which he then derives rest of his theory. I believe that this frame of reference needs to be examined more closely.

.

KHTK Postulate #2: Awareness arises with motion.

All awareness must consist of motion. For example, all objects perceived consist of motion at atomic level. Similarly, there is no inherent awareness, or consciousness, that does not consist of motion within itself.

Awareness is an interesting subject yet to be fully investigated.

.

KHTK Postulate #3: Physical motion is composed of physical space and time.

Motion consists of changing states that must occur relative to each other. This postulates separation, which is the characteristic of space. Space consists of dimensions, such as, length, width and depth. Relative occurrence is the characteristic of time.

The radical idea here is that space and time are components of motion. This is different from the traditional idea that motion takes place in space and time, which is how it appears.

.

KHTK Postulate #4: Awareness is composed of mental space and time.

Awareness consists of relative assessment of perceptions. Mental space provides dimensions, such as, good – evil, survival – non-survival, constructive – destructive, etc., in the form of scales. Mental time provides sequencial associations and consistency.

.

KHTK Postulate #5: Physical Space consists of distances and directions.

A point may be referenced from another point by means of a distance and a direction. In a three-dimensional frame of reference the distance may have component dimensions of length, width and height. Relationship among these dimensions represents the direction.

Distance and direction form the space component of motion.

.

KHTK Postulate #6: Mental Space consists of evaluations and tones.

A datum may be compared to another datum resulting in an evaluation and a tone or feeling. Evaluations are based on gradient scales, such as, good – evil, survival – non-survival, constructive – destructive, etc. Tone is set by the relationship of the positions on these scales.

Evaluation and tone form the mental space component of awareness.

.

KHTK Postulate #7: Physical time consists of repetitive occurrence.

A moving object disappears at one location and appears at another location repetitively. Repetitive appearance and disappearance form the time component of motion.

.

KHTK Postulate #8: Mental time consists of controllable sequences.

Mental time consists of sequences that may be accessed at a slow or faster pace, and which, to some degree, may be controlled. Access to such sequences form the mental time component of awareness.

.

KHTK Postulate #9: Motion may be represented by a wave.

When we use wave to represent motion, the wave-length shall represent the space aspect of motion, and the period shall represent the time aspect of motion.

In addition, the frequency shall represent the inertial aspect of motion. The larger is the frequency, the greater shall be the inertia (resistance to change from the status quo) contained in that motion.

.

KHTK Postulate #10: The frequency of a wave is a measure of its inertia.

Per E = hʋ, the momentum of a photon is proportional to its frequency. Taking it one step further it may be said that the frequency of a wave is a measure of its inertia. As the frequency of wave increases, the inertia of the wave increases. This increased inertia first appears in the discreteness of wave packets or photons.

The higher is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, the straighter will be its path through a gravity field. A massive celestial body may bend the electromagnetic radiation variously by its frequency components. This may be easy to verify. [Note 1/13/16 – This may just be the opposite. The higher inertia will bend the radiation more.]

.

KHTK Postulate #11: The location of an object in this universe is only as certain as its inertia.

The stars and planets in this universe are massive and can be located with precision. However, the electrons in an atom have very little mass or inertia. They can be located in highly probabilistic terms only. Thus, it appears that the higher is the inertia of an object, the greater is the certainty with which it may be located as a discrete entity.

Inertia is resistance to motion. Increasing inertia may collapse an electromagnetic wave upon itself making it appear like a discrete particle with a form. It may also be looked upon as condensation of motion or space-time.

.

NOTE: This is a developing post. It shall be continually added to.

.

[For further details, please see: KHTK Index]

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 12:08 AM

    I am considering the following axiom:

    KHTK Axiom #7: The frequency of a wave is a measure of its inertia.

    .

    • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 12:10 AM

      As the frequency of wave increases, the inertia of the wave increases. This increased inertia first appears in the discreteness of wave packets or photons.

      .

      • MarkNR  On January 2, 2014 at 12:53 AM

        This is modified by its intensity.?.?

        • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 5:57 AM

          No. Intensisty is something different. That is due to amplitude of the wave.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM

        “This increased inertia first appears in the discreteness of wave packets or photons.”

        I thought this was already worked out by Einstein and others with the photoelectric effect, et al. If the inertial aspect of this is fresh, you should do the Math and in the footnotes say I told you to!

        • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 9:22 PM

          We have wave-particle duality in Quantum mechanics as an either-or proposition.

          I believe in a transition phase from wave to particle, where both properties may be exhibited simultaneously.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 2, 2014 at 11:21 PM

          It’s either or because the quanta are discrete. It’s either or And it’s neither. What do we need to begin writing this in math?

        • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 11:53 PM

          Potential Energy (PE) and Kinetic Energy (KE) are not an either-or proposition.

          In a simple harmonic oscillator, KE + PE = constant. KE gradually converts to PE and then back to KE.

          I see wave and particle at quantum level to be like that. Wave converts to a particle and then back to a wave with certain constraints.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 3, 2014 at 12:06 AM

          We should remember to include space time in Our considerations. Space like a great wad of latex seems to be expanding on the one hand because of very active Kinetic Energy and on the other hand, its elasticity causes it to gather itself back together storing it’s space as Potential Energy. Gravity seems To be spacetime gathering itself back together. Time Dilation is wrapped up in this as well.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 3, 2014 at 1:11 AM

          “This difference between classical and atomic physics is understandable, of course, since for heavy bodies such as the planets moving around the sun the pressure of the sunlight which is reflected at their surface and which is necessary for them to be observed is negligible. However, for the smallest building units of matter, however, owing to their low mass, every observation has a decisive effect on their physical behavior.” ~Heisenberg.

        • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 9:27 PM

          I am doing on MSC on Quantum Mechanics right now. I started with the Black Body Radiation today. For the first time I realized how the Planck’s constant came about. Planck looked at it as an adjustable parameter, which made his equation fit with the experimental results.

        • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 9:33 PM

          I don’t think anybody has looked at a wave having inertia. Inertia has always been associated with mass. But, I believe, that inertia can be associated with wave through frequency.

          This may provide us with knowledge of how wave motion may transition into a particle, and how a light particle may transition into a heavier particle. This may provide us with a relationship among all fundamental particles.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 2, 2014 at 11:43 PM

          QM is in its infancy. We’ll walk it all backwards with our eyes and minds wide open and we’ll learn more about the basic nature of space time and It will be amazing.

    • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 12:16 AM

      The higher is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, the straighter will be its path through a gravity field. The mathematics for this observation needs to be worked out.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM

        Ah! Interesting! Is this not already well worked out?

        • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 9:36 PM

          Well, I am now going through the literature to see if it has already been worked out.

    • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 12:25 AM

      A massive celestial body may break down an elecromagnetic radiation by its frequency spectrum. This may be easy to verify.

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 2, 2014 at 7:46 PM

      This statement would seem to lend itself to mathematics. IF it does, and if it has not already been worked out, don’t you have your PhD here?

      • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 9:17 PM

        It seems so obvious to me that I am alomost sure that others must have thought of it too. But, yes, if I can only work out the proper math I can earn a PhD here. Ha ha!

  • vinaire  On January 2, 2014 at 11:55 PM

    Here is an excellent link to start examining the basics of Physics.

    HyperPhysics: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

    .

  • vinaire  On January 3, 2014 at 2:06 PM

    I am adding the following to the OP:

    KHTK Axiom #7: The frequency of a wave is a measure of its inertia.

    Per E = hʋ, the momentum of a photon is proportional to its frequency. Taking it one step further it may be said that the frequency of a wave is a measure of its inertia. As the frequency of wave increases, the inertia of the wave increases. This increased inertia first appears in the discreteness of wave packets or photons.

    The higher is the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, the straighter will be its path through a gravity field. A massive celestial body may bend the electromagnetic radiation variously by its frequency components. This may be easy to verify.

    • MarkNR  On January 3, 2014 at 9:51 PM

      I have not heard of a prism effect near celestial bodies. Is there some evidence of this. I was under the understanding that EM travels in a straight line through curved (or moving) space and only appears to be bending. Any prism effect would have been noticed around the sun in the early 1900s and surely around black holes recently. ????

      • vinaire  On January 3, 2014 at 10:25 PM

        I don’t know if anybody has been looking for it. The confirmation that light bends near a massive celestial body per Einstein’s prediction had to wait several years for a total solar eclipse. The bending is very small. One has to devise a special set up to look for this prism effect.

        Here is the story of how Einstein theory of relativity was confirmed:

        https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/eclipse-of-1919.pdf

        .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 4, 2014 at 12:21 AM

        My thoughts as well MNR.

  • vinaire  On January 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM

    I have also added the following:

    KHTK Axiom #8: The location of an object in this universe is only as certain as its inertia.

    The stars and planets in this universe are massive and can be located with precision. However, the electrons in an atom have very little mass or inertia. They can be located in highly probabilistic terms only. Thus, it appears that the higher is the inertia of an object, the greater is the certainty with which it may be located as a discrete entity.

    Inertia is resistance to motion. Increasing inertia may collapse an electromagnetic wave upon itself making it appear like a discrete particle with a form. It may also be looked upon as condensation of motion or space-time.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 3, 2014 at 10:53 PM

    Here is how Quantum Mechanics started:

    Thermal Radiation
    1859 – Kirchhoff – For a given λ, the ratio of the emissive power E to the absorptivity A is the same for all bodies.
    > Under equilibrium conditions, the energy emitted was equal to the energy absorbed for each λ.
    > For a black body [A = 1], E (λ, T) is a universal function.

    Black Body
    A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

    Black Body Radiation
    “Radiation emitted by black body when heated…
    > Radiation emerging from a small hole (cavity) in an enclosure heated to a temperature T.
    > Second law of thermodynamics requires that the radiation in the cavity be isotropic.”

    Wien’s approximation
    (1896) (also sometimes called Wien’s law or the Wien distribution law) is a law of physics used to describe the spectrum of thermal radiation (frequently called the blackbody function). The equation is not in accord with the general notions of classical physics, but it does accurately describe the short wavelength (high frequency) spectrum of thermal emission from objects. However, it fails to accurately fit the experimental data for long wavelengths (low frequency) emission.

    Rayleigh–Jeans law
    (1900) This law attempts to describe the spectral radiance (energy density) of electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths from a black body at a given temperature through classical arguments. The Rayleigh–Jeans law agrees with experimental results at low frequencies, but strongly disagrees at high frequencies. It uses the classical law of Equipartition of Energy, and predicts total energy density to be infinite.

    Planck’s Law
    (1900) Planck found his formula by ingeniously interpolating between the high frequency Wien Formula and the low frequency Raleigh-Jean formula. The Planck’s constant (h) is an adjustable parameter like Wien’s parameter, h = 6.63 x 10^-27 erg sec.

    .

    Thermal radiation is proportional to the product of “# modes per unit frequency per unit volume” and “probability of occuping modes.” Classical mechanics assumes equal probability “kT” for all modes. Quantum Mechanics assumes quantized modes, which require “hʋ” energy to excite upper modes less probable.”
    .

  • vinaire  On January 4, 2014 at 12:44 AM

    My intuition is,

    (1) I am looking at Motion as the fundamental entity and not space and time.
    (2) Space and time are aspects of motion.
    (3) If motion is represented by a wave then space would be represented by the wavelength, and time by the period.
    (4) In short, I am looking at space and time as part of motion, and not the motion taking place in space and time.
    (5) Frequency acts as inertia (resistance to motion) where wave is concerned.
    (6) As frequency increases, the resistance to motion increases until the wave starts to collapse on itself.
    (7) Then the wave starts to exhibit particle properties. The inertia then starts to appear as mass. It is energy condensing into mass through the mechanism of inertia due to increasing frequency.
    (8) The particle then starts moving at a frequency that is small but of “second degree”.
    (9) As this frequency increases, a “second level” inertia increases, which then collapses as another shell of mass around the previous shell.
    (10) And so the particle builds up.

    It is all just a conjecture. I have to see if math can support it.

  • vinaire  On January 4, 2014 at 1:07 AM

    I believe that each iteration of wave collapse as above shall decrease the maximum velocity of the “next generation wave.” If light has a finite velocity, then it must be a wave that is several generations old. I can’t imagine what the original wave must have been like.

    Subsequent generations may be those of photon and fundamental particles, until they build up to atoms and molecules,

  • vinaire  On January 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM

    On KHTK Axiom #0:

    It is a waste of time to refute a certainty. Instead one should come up with a better certainty as Einstein did with all due respects to Newton. The Pythagorean Theorem is a certainty only in the relatively narrow context of Euclidean Geometry.

    The speed of light being a constant is a useful certainty. But I believe that there is a wider context in which the speed of light would simply be a special case.

    I do not mean to imply at all that there are “absolute certainties”. My postulate is:

    “There are no absolute certainties.”

    I believe that one can always come up with a better certainty. That is how science makes progress. There would be no progress for the person who believes in absolute certainties.

    A certainty being relative does not imply that the results from it cannot be useful. Newton’s mechanics is still very useful in our daily life.

    • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM

      Understanding the contexts of relativity, what relativity means, etc. Week be necessary.

  • vinaire  On January 5, 2014 at 12:18 AM

    Physics models reality. Physics is not reality. And that is why the certainty it provides is relative only and not absolute.

    Right now I am making a thorough study of the mechanics involved in the propagation of sound, so that I can see what the mathematics predicts about the propagation of EMR, and what has been determined. Einstein had first denied the reality of ether, but later he did start to talk about ether but of a different kind. An interesting thing to consider would be space-time as a medium.

    It can be said that the conservation of energy and conservation of mass are really the same law. Should the conservation of inertia (resistance to motion) be added to this mix? My intuition is that “inertia” is present even before the mass is detected. Inertia is responsible for creating the discreteness of a photon. A photon may be massless, but it is not “inertialess.” Energy seems to convert into mass through inertia (resistance to motion). What really happens when more energy pumped into the radiation cannot accelerate the speed beyond c? What is the mechanism by which energy converts into mass?

    • vinaire  On January 5, 2014 at 12:22 AM

      Could space-time be “electromagnetic radiation” of frequency zero? Does this act as the fabric, the disturbance of which creates the actual EMR?.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        Could space-time be “electromagnetic radiation” of frequency zero? Does this act as the fabric, the disturbance of which creates the actual EMR?.

        That statement does not suck.

        • vinaire  On January 5, 2014 at 11:00 PM

          What I was looking at here was something like the surface of the pond. Could that be considered a “traveling wave of frequency zero”?

        • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 11:12 PM

          Yes, I understood you that’s why I said it didn’t suck. You are really letting your mind loose like mine which is good. But mine unlike yours is undisciplined toward study which is bad. I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed with work and trying to study in my spare time, especially with these newer for me concepts of the great ones is hard. Nevertheless, we should continue. I like thinking that we will really put these concepts to the test and see whether they will be supported with a mathematical interpretation which could totally make them useful and not just on a personal basis but ok to disseminate as well.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 11:13 PM

          “traveling wave of frequency zero”?

          I don’t know if calling this another dimension is correct. Or whether this is like an entry point to another dimension and a greater understanding of spacetime but it seems a ripe idea.

        • vinaire  On January 5, 2014 at 11:15 PM

          Space-time seems to be of electromagnetic nature but with a frequency of zero. I really need to understand this “electromagnetic nature.”

        • vinaire  On January 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM

          Electricity and magnetism seems to be complementary of each other just like the hills and valley of a transverse wave are. They are generated when some neutral condition is disturbed . The neutral condition exists when the frequency is zero. I think that this may be modeled mathematically.

    • MarkNR  On January 5, 2014 at 1:02 AM

      Push light (EMR) and you get physical force.
      Next.
      3 forms of physical existence.
      1. Solid mass. Indivisible sub atomic particles.
      2. Inertial energy. This would include motion of objects, motion of particles in the form of heat, and relative motion of gas particles and such. Also including light or other subatomic motion, vibration etc.
      3. Energy which exists on its own as itself. Massless force which can have an effect on mass.
      This is not a statement but more of a query.
      Mark

    • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 12:43 PM

      Vinaire: An interesting thing to consider would be space-time as a medium.

      Chris: I consider space-time, the earliest form thereof, to be the superset of matter and energy. Matter and energy seem to be the condensate of space time. The “medium” of space-time is there, seemingly empty, but not. It makes sense that there is substance to space time but of something not yet identified.

    • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 12:46 PM

      Vinaire: What really happens when more energy pumped into the radiation cannot accelerate the speed beyond c? What is the mechanism by which energy converts into mass?

      Chris: This is an astute question.

      • MarkNR  On January 5, 2014 at 1:21 PM

        If energy is primarily the motion of sub atomic particles such as bosons, photons etc. then maybe you just squish them back together. A black hole might be able to do that.
        Just a thought.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 4:35 PM

          What is occurring to space-time in the black hole is the primordial stuff of the universe. I assume there are undiscovered dimensions and apologize for getting tautological, but until I actually study as you are, I am at the end of my programming.

        • MarkNR  On January 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM

          As you know, my writings on the origin and operation of MEST is basically Hubbardian, modified by my own experience. When I read Ken Ogger’s story of creation, I recognized several things that I had already seen and more that I had an idea about but hadn’t nailed down. There are many other things that he wrote that I do not agree or disagree with. I’ll not comment on them.
          You may think that my only work is a review of the past of which I have written extensively. This would not be accurate. Routine-3 and it’s variants can yield enormous benefits but done alone for long periods has pitfalls and will eventually lead to a crash which is not sudden or unexpected. Beings have been working with MEST and building opinions and mental machinery for a very long time. It is almost impossible to break free of and be cause over ones own actions by looking at pictures and machinery. You may release yourself from a simple justification you once made, but the overall justification of using mental machinery to simply do your work and thinking for you is a different matter which requires different techniques.
          Ken’s techniques were basically 1952-1955 Hubbard positive processing. Exercise basic spiritual abilities such as havingness, creative thought, sticking your postulates etc. Also reviewing basic concepts until an understanding is reached. More often than not this produced a release from previous decisions but not a total understanding and total conversion from mechanical thought to useful knowledge.
          These techniques also have great value as well, along with other Hubbard works, but, alone will eventually will lead to frustrations and failure as has been exhibited in the existing OT levels.
          While doing this area of work, when specific whole track incidents pop up, one looks it over until charge is released and one is not negatively effected by it at the present time. THIS DOES NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR THE AREA OF INCONSISTENCY AND AT BEST PRODUCES A LITTLE GAIN. THE INTENTION IS TO TAKE CHARGE OFF THAT INCIDENT SO THAT IT NO LONGER DISTRACTS AND BLOCKS GAIN FROM THE PROCESS AT HAND.
          THIS IS AN ERROR.
          There was a reason for this. The much discussed OT-3, Body Thetan problem. This IS a problem for many and can completely prevent further significant gain and understanding. As one becomes more aware of himself as a spiritual being he also becomes more aware of other individuals whose attention is directed at or near himself. The distinction between yourself and others can become blurred and the distinction between yous and others memories and intentions can be confused. This is an actual problem.
          The solution was “No more pictures after clear.” Don’t look at the whole track directly, but through a via. This had some limited workability. Increase ones strength and clarity as a being and the difficulties fall away. Audit away any beings whose attention is on you and as-is the comm lines between you and them. Resolve any fixed attention you have on imaginary or postulated or created comm lines with others pictures. This can make one feel great compared to an average human,,,,, for awhile.
          But how does physics play into this?
          continued…….
          Mark

        • MarkNR  On January 14, 2014 at 3:59 AM

          Chris: “What is occurring to space-time in the black hole is the primordial stuff of the universe.”

          Mark: “Black hole was not the central point of my thought. That particles of energy (if they exist) if condensed, may align and congeal back into recognizable mass, Letting my mind wander.
          Mark

  • vinaire  On January 5, 2014 at 12:28 AM

    There is no frame of reference that may be considered absolute. Einstein makes “speed of light” as the absolute frame of reference, from which he then derives rest of his theory. I want to examine this frame of reference more closely.

    • MarkNR  On January 5, 2014 at 1:28 AM

      That speed and energy are relative are simply explained by Ohm’s laws which point out that energy flows between two points or terminals of different electrical potential. Compared to a third terminal,C, A has a potential of 100V. Terminal B has a potential of 50V. A relative difference of 50V.
      Object A is traveling at .4C. B is traveling at .6C. Relative to A, B is traveling at .2 light speed. Since the physical univ. has no stable rest point, all laws of physics will apply to their relative difference.
      “The universe is a boundless sphere whose center is everywhere.” Can you tell me whose quote this is?
      It was made this way so that the universe would work the same no matter where you were at or how fast your current environment was traveling compared to some other environment. It would suck if the police radar had a different reading depending on which direction you pointed it, relative to earths motion around Andromeda. If your calculator worked better when facing north etc. etc.
      Time had to skew in order for this to work out evenly all around. Light speed was decided relative to any stable point was decided to be the stable datum.
      It is a workable system.
      Mark

      • MarkNR  On January 5, 2014 at 1:33 AM

        Sorry, I used “was decided” twice in the same sentence. I didn’t proof read before sending.
        Mark

  • Chris Thompson  On January 5, 2014 at 10:34 PM

    Motion as we experience it seems to be our abstraction of processes that come into and out of existence. Motion seems to be our abstraction of what happens when appearance occurs in a different location than before. Motion seems to be a continually occurring process of spacetime.

    • vinaire  On January 5, 2014 at 10:46 PM

      Please see KHTK Axioms 3, 4, and 5 and comment on them. Thanks.

  • vinaire  On January 9, 2014 at 1:45 PM

    I have split KHTK Axiom 3 as follows:

    KHTK Axiom #3A: Physical motion is composed of physical space and time.

    Motion consists of changing states that must occur relative to each other. Any two relative states postulate a separation of the two states. Separation is the primary characteristic of space. Relative occurrence is the primary characteristic of time.

    .

    KHTK Axiom #3B: Awareness is composed of mental space and time.

    Awareness consists of relative assessment of perceptions. Mental space provides gradient scales for assessment, such as, good – evil, survival – non-survival, constructive – destructive, etc. Mental time provides a sense of sequence and consistency.
    .

    • MarkNR  On January 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM

      You’re back. Have been anxiously awaiting your posts.
      Time is necessary for cause and effect. It began as an effort to continue. The ‘agreed rate of change’ came later.

      • vinaire  On January 9, 2014 at 5:21 PM

        I am currently devoting my time to MSC of the subject of Physics.

        I see Cause-Effect as sequential associations, and that is covered by this axiom.

    • Chris Thompson  On January 9, 2014 at 11:50 PM

      Vinaire: Motion consists of changing states that must occur relative to each other. Any two relative states postulate a separation of the two states. Separation is the primary characteristic of space. Relative occurrence is the primary characteristic of time.

      Chris: I like this very much. But I am not so sure separation is primary. It seems secondary after unity. What is and when is unity? I am just trying to follow the Big Bang backward so the answer to this must be very early. When I look at this, I seem to become aware of so very many processes occurring that I become confused. I am fairly sure that we are seeing a very small occurrence of the whole activity.

      • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 5:51 AM

        I have revised the above as follows:

        “Motion consists of changing states that must occur relative to each other. This postulates separation, which is the characteristic of space. Space consists of dimensions, such as, length, width and depth. Relative occurrence is the characteristic of time.”

        The radical idea here is that space and time are components of motion. This is different from the traditional idea that motion takes place in space and time.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM

          Agreed. AND it not only changes our idea of motion but of the most basic qualities of space-time.

      • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 8:40 AM

        Bing Bang is just one of the points in a sequence. What was before Big Bang?

        .

        • MarkNR  On January 10, 2014 at 8:53 AM

          Big crunch.

        • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 8:56 AM

          And before that was another Big Bang.

          So we have a cycle here.

          .

        • MarkNR  On January 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM

          Sometimes a near big crunch. A big ‘whip’, similar to comets falling near the sun after a long slow journey in the far reaches. Then, because of it’s angular momentum, missing the sun and whipping back out. The question is what is the considered rotation of the universe, relative to itself.
          An idea I have heard nowhere else.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On January 11, 2014 at 3:11 PM

          Me neither. Good one.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 10, 2014 at 11:37 AM

          I’m not sure why that the Big Bang beginning from nothing is popular unless to provide confirmation bias for religious poppycock.

          Obviously, there is something before the Big Bang. I like to picture the surface of the sun as it boils and then suddenly because of shifts in its stability erupt violently with solar flares. This provides inspiration for me to continue to keep my mind open to the possibility that spacetime erupts from a more basic field of opportunity.

          You know, just because we cannot see around the edge of the earth doesn’t prove that edge doesn’t smoothly curve away and out of sight.

        • MarkNR  On January 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM

          By the way, there are large solar eruptions occurring now. A ten year event in magnitude.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On January 11, 2014 at 3:10 PM

          Hi Mark, thanks! I noticed that on my Nasa space weather subscription.

      • MarkNR  On January 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM

        Separation of particles, objects, is a variant and harmonic of separation of self.

        This was considered an accomplishment and a ‘win’ at the time and has been used as a basis for existence ever since. It is so deeply ingrained that it is hard to even imagine existence without it. It has become a fixed opinion. It masks the actual nature of Theta, life, which is unity, oneness, perfection.

        Later, since this actuality could not be completely hidden from all, near unity was touted as a temporary bliss, pleasure to be experienced for a finite time, then recalled and savored as valuable and rare.

        This is a classic and important example of a bit of truth being used to spread and ingrain false data.

        This data is vital to achieve the original and intended results of OT-8, a state that Ron never fully achieved.
        8 is intended to release and make one cause over comm lines with fixed locations, past and present. Also fixed identities, past and present. This cannot be accomplished without a precise understanding of the nature of location and identity.

        The first step is to ‘release’ from all current enturbulation and attention on present time and assumed responsibilities. (The reason why all previous levels are pre-OT) Then “Find out who you really are. Find out who you are not. Find out where you are. Find out where you are not. Find out when you are and when you are not.” MNR

        Mocking up Who, Where, and When you COULD be is a positive exercise which will improve and verify one’s ability and choice of beingness. It should be done several times between other work with additional cognitions each time. At this point one is ‘released’ from many fixed identities and locations and has a greater understanding of self, BUT IS NOT FINISHED.

        Once a stable release point is reached, you are now ready to go back and examine the decisions, postulates you made and wins and losses you had during during the formation of fixed thinking in this area. Before this observation, you must gain an exact understanding of the nature of individual and shared past. Your early incidents are not just similar or identical to those of others, they are in actuality the SAME INCIDENTS. This, in itself is a major milestone which must ‘click’ in a major way. But don’t stop yet.

        Now, armed with these new understandings and revelations, go forward now that you can recognize false considerations, intentions, and data that were given to you which relate and align with fixed considerations you made earlier. Search for and find the inconsistencies which appeared to align with and conflict with earlier postulates. Compare these early and later incidents until a thorough resolution is achieved.

        Now come up to present time by going out among people and:
        Find someone you could communicate with, find someone you could not communicate with. (Not someone you cannot comm. with, but someone you CAN not comm. with. An important difference.) Communicate with them. This is usually done directly at first, but is later done at a distance as long as you KNOW you communicated with them. Find someone you could agree with. Find someone you would be comfortable not agreeing with. Agree with them. don’t agree with them. Not disagree. (Directly, then at a distance.) Find someone you could be. Find someone you can ‘not be’. Be them, Not be them. Do this until you ‘KNOW’ you can understand and be anyone.

        You are now free from yourself and others.

        This level may be done several times with additional inconsistencies being allowed to resolve each time. A proper CS for others has not been created. Issues which come up would have to be resolved. Confusions must be ‘allowed’ to resolve without effort, but in a methodical manner.

        The ability to have or not have yours and others past and to create or discard yours or others pictures is a prerequisite. This is the only danger in this precess. Otherwise, if one is not prepared, only partial gains will be reached.

        Mark

        • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 4:52 PM

          Mark, you said,

          The first step is to ‘release’ from all current enturbulation and attention on present time and assumed responsibilities. (The reason why all previous levels are pre-OT) Then “Find out who you really are. Find out who you are not. Find out where you are. Find out where you are not. Find out when you are and when you are not.” MNR

          Does that mean that you are attached to the identity “MNR”because you want it to have credit?

          .

        • MarkNR  On January 12, 2014 at 11:56 AM

          Assume and discard any identity easily. A natural yet hidden ability lying dormant, suppressed.

        • vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 6:25 PM

          What is the difference between self and identity? Can self be discarded?

        • MarkNR  On January 14, 2014 at 2:49 AM

          It is still me assuming the identity. The trick is doing it, being it, knowingly, by choice. My identity is not just an accumulation of experiences. That is operating reactively. As one becomes more himself, he discovers the peculiar ability to think thoughts, create ideas, have purposes that have never existed before. He can create.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 5:38 AM

          To me “I create” seems to be an illusion. One perceives but truly perceiving what is there is the challenge.

          .

        • MarkNR  On January 14, 2014 at 5:59 AM

          Perceiving accurately what is there without filters, fixed opinions etc., in present time is a very worthwhile goal. Defining CREATE is a bit more nebulous.

        • Chris Thompson  On January 14, 2014 at 9:15 AM

          MNR: Defining CREATE is a bit more nebulous.

          CT: And demands ruthless honesty.

        • vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM

          If defining CREATE is nebulous then it is an inconsistency. One needs to look more closely at what is really being talked about under the heading of CREATE and if it can actually be observed.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On January 14, 2014 at 8:19 AM

          This is one way of looking at it. There are others. Just as there are other interpretations of the dual slit experiment. The idea that “It is still me assuming the identity. . . ” can be challenged. There are more interpretations than this.

        • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM

          The very idea of “self” can act as a fixed idea, and it is so with most people.

  • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 6:12 AM

    I have split KHTK Axiom 4 as follows:

    KHTK Axiom #4A: Physical Space consists of distances and directions.

    A point may be referenced from another point by means of a distance and a direction. In a three-dimensional frame of reference the distance may have component dimensions of length, width and height. Relationship among these dimensions represents the direction.

    Distance and direction form the space component of motion.

    .

    KHTK Axiom #4B: Mental Space consists of evaluations and tones.

    A datum may be compared to another datum resulting in an evaluation and a tone or feeling. Evaluations are based on gradient scales, such as, good – evil, survival – non-survival, constructive – destructive, etc. Tone is set by the relationship of the positions on these scales.

    Evaluation and tone form the mental space component of awareness.

    .

    • MarkNR  On January 12, 2014 at 12:13 PM

      Physical space consists of separation FROM self. Mental space consists of separation OF self.

      o

      • vinaire  On January 12, 2014 at 5:40 PM

        How do you define self in this context?

        • MarkNR  On January 14, 2014 at 2:55 AM

          Vin: “How do you define self in this context?”

          Mark: Just little ol’ me. I can add many surreal phrases such as ‘the viewpoint from which I am looking outward’, but in the end, it all comes back to ‘Me”.

        • vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 5:40 AM

          As I wrote before:

          To me “I create” seems to be an illusion. One perceives but truly perceiving what is there is the challenge.

  • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM

    I have split KHTK Axiom 5 as follows:

    KHTK Axiom #5A: Physical time consists of repetitive occurrence.

    A moving object disappears at one location and appears at another location repetitively. Repetitive appearance and disappearance form the time component of motion.

    .

    KHTK Axiom #5B: Mental time consists of controllable sequences.

    Mental time consists of sequences that may be accessed at a slow or faster pace, and which, to some degree, may be controlled. Access to such sequences form the mental time component of awareness.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On January 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM

      Mental time consists of sequences that may be accessed at a slow or faster pace, and which, to some degree, may be controlled.

      Mind is a general term. I suspect there are more specific component parts. Some of these may be randomly accessible and some may be read only such as our DNA to suggest only one.

  • MarkNR  On January 10, 2014 at 9:50 AM

    “As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.” Wikipedia
    Are these ‘Axioms’ so obvious as to be accepted as true without investigation or contemplation?
    The digital ‘nature’ of motion seems more a theory.
    Mark

    • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 1:31 PM

      I have changed the word “axiom” to the word “postulate.”

      .

    • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 5:21 PM

      I don’t think that motion is digital, though TIME may make it appear so, like a strobe light does.

  • vinaire  On January 10, 2014 at 11:45 PM

    Can we look at thought as a wave, and idea as a particle?

    Is there a thought-idea duality similar to wave-particle duality?

  • Chris Thompson  On January 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM

    Zeroing in on what are one’s assumptions such as “I am me” seem key. One tool that I use is trying to acknowledge tautology when I see it. Possibly this should be written up as such as a tool of KHTK. I may not be able to do anything with the tautology when I notice it but try to tag it as such and allow it to be exposed for what it is. Tautology for me is a clue like paradox is a clue. Possibly tautology is a subset of paradox. Regardless, it is a clue that an inconsistency of thought exists. When one resorts to tautology in ones assumptions, recognize that nothing has been explained and nothing has been understood. I file it and try to remain mindful of its existence as such. At a point, it might unravel nicely. “I am me” has been for centuries a mantra of those who want to strip away what “one is not.” It seems a mistake to end off the process with “I am me.” It can be taken farther to another result.

    • vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 1:22 PM

      KHTK tries to stay away from labels as much as possible, and simply looks at inconsistencies more closely as defined in

      https://vinaire.me/2013/09/11/contemplation-2/

      The assertion ‘I am me’ defines neither ‘I’ nor ‘me’. It leaves understanding to some sort of vague subjectivity. One can then condition oneself to “know” what ‘i” or ‘me’ are, but he finds very soon that he cannot communicate that “knowledge” to anybody. Well, that is a sign of inconsistency.because it is not clear.

      As far as KHTK is concerned, the simple term ‘inconsistency’ would suffice. Just be honest with yourself in seeing things for what they are.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On January 14, 2014 at 9:01 AM

    An example is the double slit experiment. I have read about it and taken it at face value for a long time including its paradoxes. Noticing this, I am not accepting the assumptions of spooky effects at face value but continue to read and try to understand the difference between a fact and an assumption. Now I see “particle duality” as an assumption that may have a better explanation. Now I see “quantum erasure” as an extreme assumption used to explain a characteristic of the experiment. Imagine the great minds who have accepted and tried to work with the idea of “deciding backwards in time” the outcome of an experiment. Imagine throwing hard won classical physics because one has no correct explanation for the effects of this quantum experiment. Not criticizing the Great One, but for all his wonderful genius Einstein did a disservice by coining the term “spooky effects.” For me, this is an example of how insidious assumptions can be. This piece of the experiment in quantum mechanics is not importantly used by engineers to implement the laws of QM. It is simply an observation of an activity during the experiment that has lent itself to being wrongly interpreted. This wrong interpretation is not important to the use of QM in technology but rather is a fringe “mistake” that lends itself to reinforcing superstition. I do not have the correct explanation for “spooky effects.” Rather I am allowing myself to feel the emptiness of not knowing the answer. This in itself seems to be a key exercise in KHTK.

  • vinaire  On January 14, 2014 at 1:40 PM

    I don’t think Einstein ever accepted “spooky effect” or the probalities of Quantum Mechanics.

    Anyway, what you have written is very good, because any absolute certainty shall violate KHTK Postulate #0:

    KHTK Postulate #0: There are no absolute certainties.

    DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: