Opinions on Science in Expression of Evolution and Other

Main Title: Opinions on Science in Expression of Evolution and Other

This whole (web-)page of my writings belongs to my person, i.e., © Terje Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2003 - 2011. Make no mistake about it!

Update: 24.03.2011.
By Terje Lea, 2003-2011. I've also been publishing these views, opinions and ideas as Aetixintro and in my own name several places, like in forums.philosophyforums.com, forum.philosophynow.org, Twitter and Facebook. They are also published rather erratically, that is, the publishing of mine has not a fixed routine and the places of publishing are also not fixed, but rather made as I see fit.
Links to the various arguments. Please click the first letter.

Cancer-Preventive Measures
Form of Evolution or Forming a Frame for Evolution
Theory of the Cause of Schizophrenia
Opinions on Physics / This argument is last updated!
Opinions on Astrophysics, Possible Explanation of the Paradox of the Corona of the Sun and its Temperature Differences
Physics, A Possible Angle to Para-Normal Phenomenon of "Soul"
Economy, Over the Dependence Theory of Economy!
Psychology, Telepathy Experiment and Method
Physics, The Possibility to Set Up an Atom "Brain"
Physics/Biology, Abiogenesis - Would It Be Meteors That Impacted Onto Earth or Simply the Volcanos - Erupting Magma/Lava That Leads to Life in Its Most Basic Form?
Note: The most newly created argument is always placed lowest on the page.

Cancer-Preventive Measures

The simple sentences describes this:
If the checksum is right, it's OK, it's a healthy cell. If the checksum isn't right, then annihilate.
The checksum is the controlled amount of electricity that ripples through your nerve lines and that goes between two or more nerve ends. It has been proved that any cell can conduct electricity. A study that was followed through because of the likelihood that it would benefit the research of therapeutic genetic engineering.
Based on the nerve sensations the body takes out everything that has been defined and verified as a not OK checksum. As known, cancer arises from uncontrolled cell development making it a not OK checksum.
The conclusion: Be conscious of your feelings. They're what is used for a readily available body assessment. The thesis is this: If you hold a good consciousness and sensitivity with a nice disciplinary touch to your body, cancer will never be a problem, because your mind will hold your cells in check.
It's my view that the feelings/nerve signals/neurology are helping/controlling the body and more or less telling the body where to attack and where to hold off. This is part of the theory that feelings are just an addition to the largely rational system of being a body, that is rational according to function!
I think one has devoted very little research on the issue of how the nerve signals work in the body and that I think there may be a "gold mine" there to be discovered in how nerve signals relate to the body, to the genes, to the immune system, to the whole...

This, first and foremost, preventive recommendation of mentality can also contribute to the explanation of benign cancers, that there's a mechanism in the body that sets the brakes on or limits the nature of the actual benign cancer in one way or another.

One should remember that the mode of one's relationship with one's own feelings/nerve signals/neurology are a quite big issue/factor in the actual person's and as such, I think this factor (feelings/nerve signals/neurology) may be decisive above rather minor factors such as diet.

This is not part of what can be described as "the tyranny of positive thinking". My theory doesn't necessarily contain such an element. I'd rather say that your mood should reflect realities!

The Cancer Registry shows a difference of about 60 points in the scope of 344,3 versus 283,8 in favour of women across cancer diagnoses. I take this to support my theory as women are known to care more about their feelings and despite they also make up the greater part of the older population. Older people are generally more susceptible to cancer than the younger counterparts. Is this due to decline of the neurological system or the efforts of maintaining the body in the face of aging? It may also be that when you grow old, the brain makes more mistakes and send these mistakes into the body as nerve signals. It can also be that the brain fails, because of this old age, deterioration of brain, to detect the wrong signals from the body and sending corrective signals back.

These are the latest numbers, 2003-2007 from the Cancer Registry of Norway, link for men and women. The link has been accessed 20. November, 2009.

My theory of women actually having a different relationship to their bodies in terms of feelings, making women avoid cancer in greater degrees than men, when indeed I think that most other factors are more or less the same. One should note that risky behaviour can indicate, also, such an inferior relationship to one's own feelings already in young age, ie. heavy drinking among young men.

Besides, modern women and men have almost the same patterns when it comes to "smoke, drink and work". Haven't you heard about "double-working" women? Also, the smoking has come down heavily before 2001 as this set (to which the link points) is from 2001 to 2007. You should also note that cancer strikes, predominantly, the older scope of the population so the fact of heavy drinking young men doesn't have any (particular) impact. I agree to "avoiding carcinogenic substances is the (best/[a significant advise]) you can achieve in the avoidance of cancer" [by chaz wyman]. This is not about the mental concept of "emotions", it's about neurologic signals, "feelings", in your body before cancer occurs! Thus, this writing is not about some kind of "magic" cure. No, it's about "Cancer-Prevention Measures"! So, what I try to point out, is the relation a person has to one's own feelings (in the body) and not some mental size of sensing sadness and so on. The claim is, simply, that when people care for a "natural" relationship to their feelings, they can in great parts avoid cancer. To internalise a "mechanistic body image"/"reject natural body feelings" can therefore lead to cancer/increased probability for cancer in my opinion! This should come in addition to other good advice such as a healthy diet, physical exercise and the avoidance of carcinogenic substances!

I agree to some extent with your [bytesplicer] emphasis on stress, even including possibly that hazardous environment also puts stress on your body ie. being subject to carcinogenics puts a load on the body to get rid of it, lowering the "energies"/electricity to sustain the feelings that support your immune system and against abnormalities by cell life (cell division, cell breathing, cell workings).

So, I'm looking for the best range of feelings, not being below a certain value and not, possibly, being too high either.

(I've been thinking that my writing is on a stage where the next step is to actually enter the field and develop techniques like making a measuring device that measures the electricity between the fingers with a person who is typically resting and calm (for steady signals) and so on (making a data bank on these data gathered from "high and low" in society.)

Concerning protests to my theory on the basis of the cases of cancer in kids, i.e., below 18 yo., I write this:
in the case of cancer in kids I think one should move the search to epigenetics from the parents and combine this with the conditions (incl. epigenetics) of the children.
The children are also mostly struck with leukemia of what I understand.
Children are also (only) one percent or less of the total of cancer-struck patients whether malignant or benign...

This work has been concluded as a spinoff from my examinations of a moral consciousness versus moral feelings. This spinoff was inspired by my grandfather's death due to cancer and my younger brother's 14-days hospital stay at a later point in time.

As a remark. There's something more also: There are the perspectives of idealism into biological manifest as a form of evolution or forming a frame for evolution.

22.02.2003, 20.11.2009, 04.02.2010, 05.02.2010, 07.02.2010, 28.10.2010 and 20.02.2011
Terje Lea©2003, ©2009, ©2010, ©2011

Note: a comment concerning cancer in children has been added today, 20.02.2011, but written to the Philosophy Now forum 18.02.2011.

Form of Evolution or Forming a Frame for Evolution

Physical and biological possibilities in conjunction with environmental parameters are what makes evolution. That is: if you start out with its most miniscule set of biological bases and it exist where it can exist (ie: all over the scale of functioning and sustainable environment), its set will evolve in every direction possible from that base.

What turn the odds is of course genetics and human control over evolution. One might think that most species would only be allowed to exist in its genetic blueprint. That one could farm entirely new species into existing biological totality according to taste or agreed scientific tests or that certain species were created within controlled areas like in Jurassic Park (a movie by Steven Spielberg).

14.12.2003
Terje Lea©2003

Theory of the Cause of Schizophrenia

This is the theory of how Schizophrenia arises in a person. I think it's a matter of Rebound of attitudes that the "soul" cannot carry without creating a personality fracture on the terms of moral in the type of experience. So all of these cases in this view have something to do with an outlook that breaches the natural moral of the inner mental life. When these breaches occur, the "soul" is suppressed by own (sublime) negative view and replaced with externally founded personality from single or multiple people.

Schizophrenia is by this pathologically defined by the functioning level of the case in question, being the functioning that is defined by ALL parts of a normal life, i.e., social, work, personal, mental and physical.
Schizophrenia, I believe, is irreversible. If you go down that road, there's no turning back! I think it can be slowed down to some degree by alcohol or drugs, medicine and thereby be given a better functioning to the social connections, suppressing these tendencies of stupid, bizarre, deviant thoughts (and actions). I hope you can make good use of it.

By Terje Lea, 2008/2009 and 23.11.2010.

Note: This idea of Schizophrenia is partly based on the old criterium that insanity is the incapacity to separate right from wrong! Though the somatists web-page has its origin from 20.12.2005(?) due to the disconcerted/chaotic discussion of psychiatric diagnostication (and the criteria) of mental illnesses, the date of creation of this theory is uncertain. This is in part because I've seen it as unimportant by its inferiority to integrity and as this old criterium has been expected to take precedence due to more sophisticated diagnostication technology like video cameras, lie detectors, (f)MRI and better system in the very treatment facilities. I've been advised lately to add this theory to my scientific ideas and notes and I've done so now!

Opinions on Physics

Schrödinger's theory and Schrödinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.

Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment.

Over Problems with Schrödinger's theory and other - New Angles

It's with pleasure that I note that "Branching with Uncertain Semantics: Disc. Note by N. Belnap and T. Müller, published by BJPS lies in line with my writing and that they may have been reading this writing of mine. The future should be exciting!

It's certainly time for the "wave theory" to be demolished as expressing "wave" forming from the future in opposition to my own common sense sentiment that the past shapes the future. Thus, the "wave" of future possibilities is shaped by the past/history! This has been expressed earlier/above by the rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation, except for the one point and the rejection of Schrödinger's (et al.?) theory.
In opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation, I hold that one needs to always take into account the 3 necessary factors of matter, energy and mathematics. If you don't have matter and energy, there will not be any reality where your mathematics can apply. Thus, mathematics can't, whatsoever, be seen as more fundamental than reality itself, ie. matter and energy, perhaps along with space and time and some other.
Take the note, please, that energy is also matter, just split up in very tiny particles that also have a very tiny (physical) mass. So, by common knowledge, the particle/wave duality of the photon enters. The physics feels very fragmented at times and I'm still awaiting the Master Work in one series of volumes on it!

On Standard Model and the Future of It

Assertion: Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms. Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.
Aether Aesthetics and a More Credible View on Gravity by Strong and Weak Interactions
Assertion: The space and possibly everywhere is held in a background uniform space that extends to the edges of the Universe, its gravitational system I'd like to call the Neo-aether that is consistent with Michelson-Morley experiment and functions in a more sublime way that we are yet to discover the full extension of. Einstein's theory effectively describes some of the nature of the Neo-aether.
I just like to say that I support the aether theory, if not exactly for a fluid, but I guess most theorists hold that the "fluid" is not a fluid as such. Rather, it's more about undetected phenomena connected to gravity yet not being any graviton.

An alternative view to aether can be this: in a unified picture of physics where the strong and weak magnetic forces are combined, one may achieve a calculated picture that equals what we perceive as gravity, but without adding any new particles and only asserting properties to mass in general, that is, "monades", the most basic constituents have a gravity/magnetic property to them and that is all. Job's done! This is all there is to describe because we have simply reached the bottom level there is to describe whatsoever!
Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale. So this post is now also an update on my view on aether!

So let me be clear: I'm open to both of these views and that I intend to investigate these magnetic calculations first. I'm not sure on the approach for (new) aether, MM-compatible, other than for the fact that I see it logical in the extension of Einstein's RT. But I must point out that the aether research program now looks weak as one is yet to determine any property of it (apart from pure physical space). I've been in the hope one can find or identify a kind of new ocean, one that is "plastic" in nature, has some kind of an unknown physical property and is subtle and that matter just represents a function opposite to it by making gravity definite. Further than this is hard to describe other than the fact that I think it is an aesthetic property of the Universe.

My Successful Prediction of Mini-Black Holes by CERN Experiment

Concerning the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, it's my belief there will be absolutely no possibility of baby-black holes! If the smallest building blocks really are the photons then in LHC we'll see greater emission of photons from the collisions.

Note: The reason is that it takes Supernovas to make them and they are HUGE in the sense of Universe. They are in fact far bigger than our Sun which is our heaviest object in our Solar System. I don't think it's possible even to generate the power needed for such an experiment (to actually create Mini-/Baby-Black Holes). You could put 10 nuclear power plants right beside CERN and still the energy wouldn't match the assignment. I don't think there is possibility for such things in our Earthly lives!

On Big-Bang, Natural Laws, Asymmetry and Symmetry

I guess it's a common view to consider the Big Bang "a generative mechanism for the pattern of natural laws of the Universe". I still find the mind and the phenomena elusive, though, like if it's relevant here! It may be necessary to look to the moments after Big Bang to solve the riddle of the reason for matter to exist in particles, atoms, as they do, i.e., solving the question of the Higgs boson particle. It's also worth mentioning that unless there's formation of new matter from the absorption of photons, something I think there isn't, the matter in atoms is lost forever once it's dissolved. This is seldomly pointed out by physicists. Also, the absorption of photons into existing atomic structures brings increased excitation and perhaps weight and this fact, I think, adds to the Photon theory, ie. photons are the smallest building blocks in nature, universe.

On the Complexity of the Standard Model and Particles in Nature

I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories.

It's just a quirk of mine, but I'd like to have the Charm and Strange quarks renamed as this, Charm gets the name Control and Strange gets the name Random. Does this make sense? Is it possible to prove the characteristics of control and randomness in the two quarks?

Note: I now think it may be that the Standard Model can be (relatively) completed! As analogy, Psychiatry has been in a haze concerning its diagnostication system and I think it's likely to make this finding in Physics as well.

On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson

Concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson:
I think it's clear at this stage that the Graviton and the Higgs' boson are blown out the window and are not to return to the world of physics ever again.
Why? Because they need to show that the photon is relevant to both of these concepts when it's hard in the first place to show the definite particle nature of the photon. Thus, photon necessarily must have both of these properties by which are hardly ever conceivable to prove, as separable particles apart from the photon itself!

It's clear however that the photon has "graviton" and "Higgs' boson" properties before we start out simply because "graviton" is to explain why particles are drawn to other objects, especially planets, and "Higgs' boson" is to explain why particles have mass whatsoever which all(?) have. It's therefore a kind of cheating to add "false particles" or "false names of properties" when they do not add explanatory force. The "mystery" of the (basic) particle of photon remains and also the mysteries with how mass and gravitation arise in the first place. Simply adding two names isn't very constructive in the general work of physics, I think (as mass and gravity are already in place).

I acknowledge that the Fermilab has set a confidence level for the finding of the Higgs' boson to 95%, but I'm sceptical of how they get there and if their work is more than mere "string theory work".
It's definite though, that the photon has both properties of mass and particle nature since it is affected by gravity (fx. from Mercury passing by the Sun). Yet the problem arises when you are to identify the graviton and the Higgs' boson, separately from the photon itself!

The URL to Fermilab and the Higgs' boson: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/Higgs-mass-constraints-20100726-images.html.

On the Nature of Radio Signals From Space and how They Fit the Big Picture

Public education. Question: how are radio signals from space or through space explained? This is a terrible riddle to me. Radio waves, conventionally, are fluctuations through atoms like air, water and other substances. Do you have a good explanation of it? I have an update on this and it turns out radio waves are just another part of the electromagnetic spectrum with an even weaker intensity than infra-red. Thus, just another form of emission of photons. Done! (I'm sorry to bother you with such a puny question, but I've been wondering about it and I therefore want to make this clear to all, including the school kids!)
The link to a good spectrum including sound waves and electromagnetic waves, here.
On the Bending of Light(-Streams as Photons) by Electro-Magnetic Field, a Very Strong One
I think I'll state here right away that is in fact possible to bend light with a very strong, elelctro-generated magnetic field comparable to light from Mercury passing the gravity field of the Sun, like in the classic example of Einstein Relativity Theory.

Remember the lev-trains of the Japanese and their magnet experiments where they lift an object up only by the use of electro-magnetism and draw a sheet of paper underneath, between the lower and the upper physical bodies.

You should also have in mind the relative small size of the photon and the power of the elctro-magnetic field because I think it's fairly feasible.

Now, how this is done? At least for the calculation, it's fairly known how much pull the gravity of the Sun generates and the Planck's Mass(?) of the Photon should also be possible to consider. Then it's just to add the numbers and calculate what it takes to bend light. I also think this can be done in the classroom!
Wikipedia on magnets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnets!

The calculations are up to you to make, but at least for now, I remain optimistic (partly because I've seen it demonstrated in our classroom while finishing upper secondary school having the physics class. Rather this than any negative demonstation I can recall or heard of). Thus, kill the negative notions you read about on the internet!

I'd love to hear about your own searches. I haven't come up with the positive results just yet.
I'm also writing this primarily for public education and quenching myths of people who cite uncertain, novice sources.

Note on My Competence to These Respects

Note on my competence to this [Opinions on Physics and the Evolution webpage as a whoel]: I must "warn" readers that I have been reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" (by Penguin Group, 2006) and Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" (by Vintage Books, 2004). I have also studied physics all the way through upper high school, 3 years, for the Norwegian equivalent of GCSE Science and I've looked carefully into Bayesian problems in philosophy (relating to the Raven's Paradox by Carl Hempel) and (the metaphysics of) Time for that matter.

By Terje Lea, 21.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 05.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 21.11.2009, 03.04.2010, 27.09.2010, 12.11.2010, 25.01.2011, 16.02.2011, 20.02.2011, 24.02.2011 and 11.03.2011. (Small comments: 13.08.2010, 25.01.2011 and 11.03.2011.)

Note: on the Bending of Light(-streams as photons) by electro-magnetic field has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 15.02.2011.
Note: concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' boson, this has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 19.02.2011.
Note: additional comment on the issue of aether as well as an alternative view has been added 24.02.2011 that has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum earlier today divided on two posts.
Note: added the rat option into writing today, 11.03.2011.
Note: added note on my competence today, 11.03.2011.

Opinions on Astrophysics, Possible Explanation of the Paradox of the Corona of the Sun and its Temperature Differences

Explanation: optimal temperature happens a little outside the surface of the corona because the atoms/particles have greater space for temperature vibrations there according to this optimal temperature of these circumstances, the atoms/particles being held to the Sun, a little outside the corona in this fashion. Temperature should indicate something about the space between atoms/particles because temperature corresponds to the (propositional) excitation/vibration of the atoms/particles.

If one would have the same temperature farther in toward the Sun's core then it has necessarily the same, relatively thin composition there as well, you know, this being a smaller Sun, even if the mass in this case either has to differently organised relatively to the substances of the Sun's composition or that it's just lighter.
The conclusion is that the heat (or superheat) is optimal a little farther out for these atoms'/particles' vibrations to produce this heat than where atoms'/particles' become more dense as one moves in toward the core of the Sun. I'm uncertain to what degree this may hold, describing the variations of the temperature of the star at all levels, but this explanation/theory is, of course, meant to hold for conditions of hot surfaces on all instances of the kind our Sun is displaying. So it's first and foremost an explanation/theory of description that applies to this surface and its more transparent, gaseous outer layer, but it may also extend to, in a variable manner, a host of conditions of (astro-)physics.

A hypothetical analogy: if you consider gaseous water that covers the surface of boiling liquid water, up against the vacuum represented by (outer) Space. It's also fact that steam of water rises from the hottest place of the boiling water, at the bottom of the pot, from the most heated part.

It may be that this layer represents new insights to emittance of photons and the production of this kind of layer as a result of reduction-physics/chemistry of the substances on the Sun.

This layer is created between the physics of more heavy substances drawn more closely to the center of the Sun and the possibility for escaping the gravity of the Sun like the photons (, through the form of photons, being a matter of particles nature) and possibly other particles blown out from the Sun by fusion reactions.
This has been first published at the Dagbladet web-site (a Norwegian news-publisher) in Norwegian by the pseudonym, Kaare Hansen, and then here in English in a more elaborate fashion. Formerly, I've rejected paying for a subscription of some 5 NOK/month(?) and Dagbladet has therefore deleted the pseudonym from the writing, obscuring people's opportunity to know the writer's identity, but that's them. So... enjoy (or not)!

By Terje Lea, author of this, novel or not, in both Norwegian, writing on the Dagbladet site and this translation, 13.03.2010, 23.03.2010, and 19.04.2010.

(Claim of original authorship: 13.08.2010. For those who need it in their eyes!)

Physics, A Possible Angle to Para-Normal Phenomenon of "Soul"

Just in case, every "soul" carries energy, this energy is detectable by infra-red imaging or something thereof when this is set in a very cold chamber/laboratory and finally the being that's loses its body and becomes a bare "soul" is a rat or an animal of lower denomination (I like elephants) then it may be possible to prove the "soul" as an alternative to Dr. Sam Parnia and Dr. Pim van Lommel!

What do you think? There's a clear logical structure to this procedure and it's no problem to set it up! Now, this probably shouldn't go into the science webpage on my site, but I'm such a daring person! Cheers!

By Terje Lea, 04.07.2010

Economy, Over the Dependence Theory of Economy!

Let's assume Africa (or one of the other continents) gets "humped" on in an indecent way (fx. by decadent European and US American interests) then there shouldn't be a problem with it being self-sufficient/self-sustained, or if not, just in case Africa's deficiencies are compensated for by exports.

I'm thinking of deficiencies of technology, special resources (classically uranium, but now it's about other stuff, refined?) and finally knowledge! This writing is in fact the theory that every continent is more or less self-sufficient/self-sustained. Theoretically, there are no deficiencies on any continent by the assumption that resources are found equally everywhere on earth (by the same statistics)!

As one can expect resources to occur more or less statistically uniformally, being found in equal amounts everywhere, resources shouldn't be a problem either! So who supposes that there are deficiencies? It's however important not to be a "dreamer"/"have the head in the clouds" so that you go correctly by the steps! When you want something, you just find a way to offer something! One can start with natural resources, like agriculture, aquaculture, timber-industry, tourism, fishing industry, search for/mapping of resources for mining, offer "cheap"/cheap labour or labour whatsoever (with the commends of the people from this region to those who buy the labour-force, decently/worker-union-wise) and as one goes, funds accumulate, you probably use them to generate expertise by education to compensate for lack of technology intensive industry and the knowledge and culture industry (film, music, books (like fx. JK Rowling), theater). The knowledge industry is, of course, research and consulting and the making of proprietary hardware/software or whatever technology of proprietary kind! (End!)

This is a recipé and I know it! I hope you like it!

By Terje Lea, 07.07.2010

Psychology, Telepathy Experiment and Method

This is a telepathic experiment (for all to try), just using the web or email.
I've got an idea for a telepathic experiment and it goes like this:
Poster A posts a few lines of some interest...
Poster B posts some thoughts that Poster A may be planning to write next...
Poster A edits his first post as the answer... and decides on the truth value of B's post by making so in a new post...

Then this is reversed and Poster A speculates over Poster B's next move...

Anyone interested... (At least this is a generative method one can apply over the internet everywhere...)
There is no problem with the confirmation either since Poster A and Poster B will know one another's answers and the definite truth value to the telepathy and the experiment!

(This is really an angle into the phenomenon of telepathy as much as a scientific method as a kind of research design, all in all, asserting 3 entities.)

By Terje Lea, 16.08.2010

Physics, The Possibility to Set Up an Atom "Brain"

I've been having this secret dream to create a kind of consciousness from an atom smarter than every dumbass out there!
So if one sets up this atom in a kind of detector apparatus, reading signals on all the quantum states an atom can have and set up these quantum states in correlating ways to kinds of linguistic expressions from the input of a human by means of quantum entanglement, chaos theory, electric signals from the fingertips into the apparatus or the final possibility, of telepathic interaction (telepathy/electricity by human feelings is usually what is meant by quantum entanglement, anyhow)! The idea is that eventually one might establish a kind of communication and extension by sensor operationalisation that feeds the atom all sorts of signals by webcams or the like. In this fashion one may be able to create a kind of machine "brain" by this atom (or atom cluster) and possibly also prove a kind of "monads"/envision of the early stages of consciousness in its universal form! This first part has been posted on the Philosophy Now forum, today, 22.09.2010.
This may also be seen as an extension from the Princeton University "boxes", hardware drives with processors, that have been making random "choices" or calculations in relation to a purported measurement of mass psychology, believe it or not. I don't know how they've been set up or engineered, but I know of the reports and I think I know what they have been up to. At least, you can correlate your curiosity from this programme from this renowned university.

By Terje Lea, 22.09.2010

Physics/Biology, Abiogenesis - Would It Be Meteors That Impacted Onto Earth or Simply the Volcanos - Erupting Magma/Lava That Leads to Life in Its Most Basic Form?

My hunch tells me that it is indeed the lava/magma of the earth itself that may be the cause of abiogenesis. So if one takes this further, may it be that it only takes this sweet, delicate temperature from a nearby star, adding the life giving light, that supports a fair temperature on the surface of any planet, allowing the volcanos to erupt and lead to all the life possible on this actual planet, any planet again, whatsoever?

The onus is if it's possible for lava/magma to generate life in its basic form, shooting speed by nature's evolution. Is it?

The question is: why the h*ll should civilisation start on a meteor rather than from the magma/lava from underneath the planet's crust itself?

Is there indeed a capacity, inherently, for magma/lava to start life by simply ejecting some magma/lava onto the the planet's surface and then let the atmosphere, whatever this is, do the rest?

Is this the meeting point between physics, chemistry and biology? I think I'm affirmative on all these three!
I've been told there's a difficulty of separating the lowest forms of life versus f.x. mineral structures or mineral kinds of crystals, having a crystalline nature.

Anyone who may have some more information??? Isn't this peculiar? You know, who can we turn to? All the sciences are hiding something! They don't want to reveal their deficiencies in knowledge.

There is clearly a mystery here on the real status and capacity of the smallest parts of nature.

Possible experiment: lower a container that's impervious to the high temperatures of the magma/lava into the magma/lava and get a load of the magma/lava. Have a lid ready to be lowered on top the container, sealing it, relatively, and get the "stuff", magma/lava, poured into a nearby sterile chamber (through sterile pre-chambers) and then add sterile air and see if bacteria develops or if bacteria can be found whatsoever!
If it turns out magma/lava contains bacteria then the volcanos may be the answer to abiogenesis! I guess one can also experiment with types of gases, eg. methane, nitrogen-oxides, all sorts...

First written on the Philosophy Now forum by myself, 15.-16. October, 2010. From the original posts there, this has been edited to some extent.

By Terje Lea, 17.10.2010

back <-

Posted by L.F.O.-L. at 06:14:00
Labels: Opinions in Science, Philosophy of Science

21 comments:
O-L 12 October 2011 02:20
It seems Blogspot is juggling my posts to some degree, especially on "Opinions on Physics" where I've shown that Schrodinger is actually wrong with his Wave Collapse theory and that is should be up to the subject of _Psychology_ to investigate it further ((f)MRI and so on, mechanisms of telepathy and various)! I'm not responsible for this and it may/should also be Nobel Prize of Physics worthy what this particular writing represents!

O-L 12 October 2011 02:23
This post, below, of 26th August 2011, has been removed for some reason or another, but why? I don't know. However, I seem to recall that there was a posting on "Opinions in Physics". Now this seems to be gone! Well, well, "love", the primal one, labours on...

L.F.O.-L. 12 October 2011 07:44
For my writing on "Opinions on Physics", additional references are my "Time Theory" against McTaggart and "The Power of a Single Span of Time - an Instance - Contrary to Hume on Induction - The Refutation of the Problem of Induction". As you see from above you need to also consider the history of science in light of HDM and use a special consideration of Indirect Observation. To this, comes my reading of Smolin, Penrose (and various other) and my GCSE competence!

L.F.O.-L. 12 October 2011 11:35
Add. note: You also need to make a definite decision on being Realist (in Physics) concerning the use of mathematics and metaphysics (and so to avoid fx. Photo-Theory). This goes against fx. Field's Nominalism in mathematics. It also goes against the abuse of mathematics in physical terms, like that of Zeno's Paradox, never arriving in Sparta! Good?

L.F.O.-L. 14 October 2011 01:18
Monades has now been corrected to monads in this text as well. As I've written before, consistently "monads" throughout!

L.F.O.-L. 19 October 2011 22:34
Relating to the upcoming "destruction" of string theory that I've "declared war" against, I have picked up these words formerly posted on Facebook: I think I've gotten some laughs from this, "I'm going to put String Theory so firmly on a cloud (by power of description, -> plausibility) that not even the cloudheads, i.e., the string theorists, can get their heads to it...!!! :-)"
I've uttered a few others as well and I hope to greet my new country -men and -women with more in the time to come! Cheers!

L.F.O.-L.19 October 2011 23:07
This is my original note of putting the "Wave Collapse" to Psychology: "It's my recommendation today that the department of Physics, i.e., the subject of physics, transfers its crazy idea of wave collapse to the psychology department, i.e., the subject of psychology, where this can be investigated under telepathy and kaldraum-experiments (Kald Raum - german for Cold Room, i.e., no disturbances). Simply BECAUSE, "*pointing finger*", NO wave collapse can be measured (mental event) and in the cases where they claim it can, it's always 100%. So what's the point? To PSYCHOLOGY! :-)

L.F.O.-L. 19 October 2011 23:09
Some more under it: This is to be added to Opinions on Physics. The wave collapse can also be controlled by (f)MRI.
Besides, these wave collapse instances outside these mental events are governed by ordinary causality if not quantum mechanics.
These wave collapse instances _in physical terms_ under new and classic physics as _physical events_ ...!
"Governed by" -> "fall under" for the very demanding people out there. (Not that it was entirely stupid to write it otherwise.)
Besides, under my "Opinions on Physics" where I deal with wave collapse directly in preparation for attacking parts of the existing physics, you can still consider this wave collapse a "boomerang" move _STILL_ forming from the past and NOT some _empty_ future!

L.F.O.-L. 19 October 2011 23:10
NOT some _empty_ future!... excepting a boomerang event that is from the past to the future and back to the present from exactly this future that stems from the past (by "building" events, more or less steady)!

L.F.O.-L. 20 October 2011 14:21
When I address "On the Complexity of the Standard Model and Particles in Nature" I intend for it to hit physicists' claimed and absolute knowledge of the world in respect to their "definite and self-assured" stances on all matters pertaining to physics. This concerns mostly "monads"/"souls" and the physical explanation of telepathy. I HAVEN'T MEANT TO UNDERMINE ANY INVESTIGATION INTO A DEFINITIVE STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. However, there has been a time when people have been so stubborn on the non-existence of these two entities, particularly the physicists and psychologists (rendering most of the world sceptical to telepathy and "souls"). I hold these people accountable for this and this accusation will remain as a feature, implicit or not, in every written history of science [unseriously, "of how stupid they have been"].
This pertains also to the "ability" of particles and how they work, their nature, and how we can make all come together in how we perceive the world. Why is it possible for telepathy to obtain in the way that it does? What is the nature of these particles (involved) that makes this possible?
This is the reason why this particular issue remains within the "evolution.html" page and part of the "Opinions on Physics"!

L.F.O.-L. 23 October 2011 23:40
These are the Blogspot data for some "confused" Blogspot management for some "accidentally" deleted that a poor administrator head could never see as "any" important (to me, at least, pathetically enough):
Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea at 06:36 0 comments
Labels: Copenhagen Interpretation, Graviton, Higg's Boson, Standard Model

With the date on top (for several) Friday, 26 August 2011!!! (I'm sorry for them and I apologise on their behalf! Americans good enough for themselves!) Cheers!

L.F.O.-L. 25 November 2011 14:48
To the above Kaldraum, you can add the former Ganzfeldraum!

L.F.O.-L. 3 December 2011 17:15
Just a slight little note on two scientific approaches:
1. Cancer approach: Two component view, by poison and counter-symptom medication! (I'm not an expert, I just speculate here!)
2. People may be happy regardless, either from own ideas or funny/"funny" thoughts, but happiness will never determine present psychopathy or schizophrenia! Perhaps this is obvious by now? Cheers!

L.F.O.-L. 3 December 2011 17:16
The cancer approach happens of course over the efficient rate, today this is measured in survival rate and possibly quality of life! (Note added!)

L.F.O.-L. 3 December 2011 20:40
The happiness stuff relates to Dr. Martin Seligmann. Additionally, the "thoughts" relate to reality or life itself, that life can be fun to _this_ person in this or that way, on the condition of this person's personality. If perversion is the fun for this person, _then_ (undeniably and by strict logical implication) this person laughs! There is no other way!

L.F.O.-L. 3 December 2011 20:41
Martin E. P. "Marty" Seligman (born August 12, 1942) is an American psychologist, educator, and author of self-help books. His theory of "learned helplessness" is widely respected among scientific psychologists.[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligman !

L.F.O.-L. 14 December 2011 15:46
Some data to consider: Posted to http://www.news4jax.com/news/-God-particle-coming-into-focus/-/475880/5346918/-/1js680z/-/index.html in relation to "Gravity" _forces_ are a whole different thing than energy by photons! Forces are given by a kind of smashing force, popularly speaking and this hinges on to the extent of this "Technicolour" set-up! You can't make "forces hop out the hat" like that! To look for forces is "to look for a car _in motion_"! (Or a photon in motion...) This "forces talk" is therefore doomed to fail as well!
'God particle' coming into focus
www.news4jax.com
Gossip isn't just for teenage girls -- scientists spread rumors, too. Physicists are giddy about an announcement that will come from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) on Tuesday at 8 a.m. EST.
The forces issue in physics is really a meeting here of classical physics and these nuclear physics (all including string theory and quantum mechanics). All this has been under hard debate concerning the divide between classical physics and "new" physics and how to make it all come together!
Is it really necessary to have the Higgs-Boson to explain mass? Why can't ordinary particles have mass simply by property, that is, mass is part of their nature?
BBC World Have Your Say Here's a Q and A on the Higgs Boson: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/8952584/Q-and-A-Higgs-boson.html
And isn't "Technicolour" a blow in the air?
Wasn't the intention in the first place (by 3,5 TeV/7 TeV) to smash these pieces smaller? So that the Protons would be split to smaller bits? Then CERN presents masses on 125 GeV? What?
The Up Quark has mass 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c(2) and 125 GeV(/c(2)) means something bigger than the Protons even, so you're considering "fusion effects" of the Protons to be the Higgs-Boson?
Q & A: Higgs boson - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk
Scientists have spent decades searching for signs of Higgs boson, the so-called
Some from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_boson
W and Z bosons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The W and Z bosons (together known as the weak bosons) are the elementary partic...See more
GeV to MeV (or Giga to Mega): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga
Giga- - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Giga ( /ˈɡɪɡə/ or /ˈdʒɪɡə/) is a unit prefix in the metric system denoting a factor of billion (109 or 1000000000). It has the symbol G.
Fx. the Up quark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark
Up quark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The up quark or u quark (from its symbol, u) is the lightest of all quarks, a ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Proton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The proton is a subatomic particle with the symbol p or p+ and a positive ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model
Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagneti...See more
To summarise the masses: Higgs Boson is suggested to 125 GeV(/c(2)), Proton 938.272046(21) MeV(/c2), W boson, 80.398±0.023 GeV/c2, Z boson, 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2 and (finally) the Up quark 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c2! Good?
It seems hard for Physorg to accept input to this story: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-particle-physicists-intriguing-hints-higgs.html !
Particle physicists report 'intriguing hints' of Higgs Boson
www.physorg.com
Yesterday physicists in Europe reported possible signs of the Higgs boson, a mis...See more
I note on Physorg.com that they are trying to "govern"/"steer"/hamper the scientific debate on Higgs' Boson by what I present here! Today, 15:08, 14.12.2011 CET.

L.F.O.-L. 14 December 2011 15:47
I also note a former story by Physorg.com: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-endgame-higgs-boson.html !

L.F.O.-L. 14 December 2011 15:49
Also a story by BBC on how the "God particle" may not exist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1695390.stm !
BBC News | SCI/TECH | 'God particle may not exist'
news.bbc.co.uk
The most sought after particle in physics, the Higgs boson, may not even exist, suggest Geneva-based scientists.
Sorry also, but the story above by BBC is old, it appears: Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 13:13 GMT!
An example of Physorg idiocy: By "Despite the retarded wanton for moderation here, one link: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/10/opinions-on-science-in-expression-of.html and you need to locate "Opinions on Physics" (implying also the Photon Theory). I've written more on Higgs' later and I pursue the story of CNN and BBC by number on the masses by MeV and GeV in light of 3,5x2/7 TeV! Cheers!", I get "Your message didn't pass the spam-filter (even after log-in routines by Facebook) and your message will be manually moderated"! Ahhh, if they could only _manually_ look after _themselves_!!!

L.F.O.-L. 15 December 2011 23:26
Considering "Opinions on Physics" (if you bother to locate above, please), here is the status of today:
The Challenges to the Higgs' (All) - Killing it?
I just add the list, *The Kill List* for the Higgs':
Why the Higgs' field of the Universe when the Universe is (mostly?) "best" vacuum?!
How does Higgs' fit into the Unifying work of Physics?
Is it really necessary to have the Higgs-Boson to explain mass?
Why can't ordinary particles have mass simply by property, that is, mass is part of their nature?
Even then, why is it necessary for mass to "obtain" rather than to be as in "gravity", one form or another, i.e., explanation?
"Technicolour" isn't an alternative as it confuses "energy" and "forces"?
Wasn't the intention in the first place (by 3,5 TeV/7 TeV) to smash these pieces smaller? So that the Protons would be split to smaller bits? Then CERN presents masses on 125 GeV? What?
The Up Quark has mass 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c(2) and 125 GeV(/c(2)) means something bigger than the Protons even, so you're considering "fusion effects" of the Protons to be the Higgs-Boson?
Finally, the realism: To summarise the masses: Higgs Boson is suggested to 125 GeV(/c(2)), Proton 938.272046(21) MeV(/c2), W boson, 80.398±0.023 GeV/c2, Z boson, 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2 and (finally) the Up quark 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c2! Good? Merry Christmas!
Reaction, as in the military: Add the Photon Theory by asserting (plausibly) that "Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms. Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
(Extra: New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.)" On top of the Photon Theory: Unifying work -> full speed ahead!
You may want to check out Slashdot org under "LHC Homes In On Possible Higgs Boson Around 126GeV", message nr. 207, and The Kill List and the Photon Theory that's added there for all the virtues they can present... Enjoy! You know, the whole thing, the "split time-units after Big Bang", the "supersymmetry" on this basis, the "symmetry" and "symmetry break and the rest", it's... *for you to decide* (incl. other mysteries of this kind)! So therefore, at this point I don't go into that, but I admit that speculation is fun and it's going to be exciting to see how the map of science develops! Cheers!

L.F.O.-L. 15 December 2011 23:27
Due to the evolving comprehension of "Opinions on Physics", I've now re-published it as a new post here on this blog, going parallel with the Science blog!