Tuesday, 13 September 2016

Atheism is not about 'atheism' at all.

I've been hearing a lot of noise lately about how infighting and splinter-movement differences are 'splitting' the 'atheist community' apart. If we stick to 'traditional' status-quo definitions and categorisations, this seems almost inexplicable, yet quite distressing, but if we really look at it without all that, the observed 'differing opinion' (and attitude) makes perfect sense.

What is 'atheism'? It is but a theist-leader (thus follower) term that describes a group of people who don't adhere to their (or any similar) belief system... 'those (dangerous!) people outside our bubble', in other words.

Remove that 'faux' wrapper, and what have you? A lot of different people doing and thinking different things in very different ways. It's only normal that they have differences between themselves, and it seems almost inane to try to group them under... a dictate's self-serving purposely-ignorant hate-generating label for 'dissenters', and it's even more inane when 'atheists' try to do this themselves (and complain when it doesn't work).

But it is important to put up a facade of an 'atheist community': for many (if not most) indoctrinatees, the thought of not living in a 'protective' community inspires fear, and that 'there is another community' facade is almost required to make them think twice (or once!) about considering other options than that already chosen for them. It is also important to stand and be counted as an 'atheist': although an 'appeal to popularity' is a logical fallacy, for many indoctrinees, it is the strongest argument one can make.

So, although we should accept the 'atheist' label from theists, anyone without religion should really be naming themselves and each other for what they are (and the result will be myriad), not by someone else's 'what they aren't' description.

Friday, 1 April 2016

The Accellerating Universe?

I'm not making any declarations or anything, just consider this as a bit of a 'hiccup' in fitting an accelerating universe into my still-solidifying understanding-model of said universe.

What gives me pause is the relation between 'explosion mechanics' and gravity.

Even in a high-gravity environment such as ours, at the 'epiforce' of an explosion, where the outward expansion of whatever combustible has either just reached its 'maximum combustion' (where the most fissile material is 'lit' at one point in time) or overcome whatever contained it, it will project any contained or proximate material at the highest speed, but from there after, the energy will drop and projectiles will be ejected at a slower speed, and so on and so on until the explosive engine's combustible is exhausted. Those 'epiforce' projectiles will, of course, travel the farthest from the explosion epicentre.

Now take the same model and transpose it into a 'no-gravity' environment.

Again, the 'epiforce' projectiles will attain the highest velocities, and those projected after, slower ones (et cetera et cetera)... but this time, there is nothing to slow those projectiles down (well, there is, but I'll get to that in a second). So the 'outermost' projectiles will be travelling at a much faster velocity than the later 'inner' ones, and this relative 'difference', as the velocity of all projectiles is constant (without considering other later factors), will grow over time. Already we have a model where, from the perspective of the innermost projectiles (pretend that they are standing still), the outer projectiles are accelerating.

That's fine enough on its own as a 'small' model, but the universe is hardly that, and there's the enormous gravitational forces that it contains to factor in.

It would be the slower 'projectiles' closer to the 'big bang' explosion epicentre that would be the first to succumb to mutual gravitational attraction and form stars (then planets). There's also the density of the ejected matter to consider at each point in the explosion (but I don't have either the math nor engineering/mechanics knowledge for that), but I would think that, even if the 'rate of explosion' was constant (which it is most likely not), the faster-velocity material on the outer rim would also be more disperse (over a wider circumference), thus slower (and less likely) to accumulate into larger masses.

So, one way or another, toward the epicentre of the (former) explosion, we would have a 'core' that would be increasingly denser and have a higher gravitational mass, and, logically, a centre of gravity as a whole.

Now factor this onto those outward-travelling 'projectiles'. The universe's gravitational pull on these, I would assume, would follow the gravitational constant (yet one increasingly polarised on the projectiles as they travel further away); the math here, again, is complicated (for me), as one would have to factor in velocity, the gravitational force relative to it, and its gradual diminishing over time (as the projectile grows more distant). Yet, all the same, in all cases, we would have a model where the projectiles towards the explosion epicentre would slow each other down much more quickly than those towards the outer rim. So, here, the centre of the universe is slowing at a much faster rate than the outer rim, which may give the illusion that the universe's expansion is accelerating when, in fact, it isn't.

Friday, 1 January 2016

'Faster than light?' and time dilation, yet again.

Unless I am continually (this has been an issue with me since a while) ignorant and have misunderstood something about special relativity, I have a big problem with the 'nothing can travel faster than the speed of light' claim. It creates problems where none should be.

First off, one thing 'limiting' a particle (or bigger object)'s velocity is the 'enormous mass it accumulates through acceleration': this 'barrier' idea is almost Newtonian, as it is taking an object's accelleration energy and making it its mass, but in reality, this 'added mass' (energy) shouldn't affect that object in the least until it encounters (or is compared to) another. Although every particle relative to another is almost always moving, a particle relative to itself might as well be dead still. As long as it encounters no other particle or particle field, its 'velocity' should not affect its function in the least, either, and this has been partly demonstrated: electron orbits (energy levels, or anything else) don't change because of velocity. The collision of two particles travelling at even multiple super-light speeds in an almost parallel path in the same directions would be like... almost nil, french parking causes more 'damage' every day.

And this 'time distortion at high velocity' hypothesis is a direct result of the above. Sure, 'higher mass = higher gravity', but not if a particle's velocity (calculated from its point of origin as a frame of reference) doesn't even enter the picture.

It is absolutely certain that time slows as gravity increases, and this fits neatly into my hypothesis that we are, in fact, 'stuck' on 'one side of nothing', and that time and gravity are, in fact, inseparable: gravity is matter trying to get back to its 'zero' state (or, in other words, trying to annihilate itself), and time is just how 'fast' that matter is going to maintain its stable state, and that, too, is relative to its point of origin. Two particles of exactly the same mass have exactly the same 'time' behaviour when away from any other masses' gravitational field.

Sunday, 14 June 2015

The Big Bang... from explosive energy distribution to particle formation. Thoughts.

Every explosion has an overall energy release, and that release can be graphed in both the energy level of individual particle reactions vs. the volume of said particles. I suppose the energy release would be amplified by density, that is to say it would be higher towards the more 'compact' centre of the explosion (particle reactions against similar particle reactions).

I think the big bang was the same way. Most of the energy release into our universe was around the same level, but lessened towards the outer reaches of the 'explosion', meaning that the energy/quantity release (on the above chart model) would (also) look something like... one half of a bell curve.

I'm persuaded that this energy release resulted in an immediate particle formation, something almost exactly like a fermion-pair generation what we are able to observe today, but its epicentre was at much higher 'quark' energy levels. So, if a majority of individual energy releases were around the same level, their volume would drop off to either side of this 'energy centre'. I imagine that energies higher than this 'explosion level' would be much 'rarer', yet lower-energy releases much more 'common' and decreasing in strength with distance from the centre of the explosion... the graph would look more like a ladder leaned against an olympic ski jump ramp, wouldn't it? I don't see how it could have been any other way, as, if the energy release were all at the same uniform level, the fermion pairs would simply annihilate each other perfectly.

So, continuing this thought in this vein, what we would want to concentrate on is the highest volume of energy release: on one side, a sharp drop-off in higher-energy releases, and to the other, a more gradual decline (resembling one half of a bell curve). Now, imagine the very tip of this volume/energy curve. The energy release, even though it was simultaneous, would be in many different energy levels that are more and more mixed away from the explosion centre.

When we observe an isolated fermion pair formation, the particles annihilate each other almost immediately after their formation (as they are perfectly matched and the closest thing to each other)... but what would happen if there were (insert unimaginable amount) of simultaneous different-energy level fermion-pair formation around a single point? It is totally imaginable that the product of different fermion-pair formations could be closer to each other than their own 'genesis twin'. These 'closer' fermions, if opposing in charge, would try to annihilate each other instead of their respective twins.

So take this model, and apply it to a 'varied-energy' explosion... what if the two closest fermions weren't matched? They would still try desperately to annihilate each other, but since they aren't matched... I'm not so sure of the exact dynamics of this, but what seems most to make sense is that two opposing fermions within a certain energy bracket will partially annihilate each other, yet if it tries to annihilate another fermion outside a given bracket, it won't succeed, and be 'bound' to it in an eternal struggle (until later events disturb it).

Now, let's just concentrate on the dominant energy level release, and the one just down form its 'annihilable bracket'. What would happen just after the energy release (massive fermion pair formation) is that a given number of those fermions would annihilate each other, but another part would 'cross-bind' in the way described in the previous paragraph.

Now, we get into the dynamics of 'why matter?', because these leftover 'mismatched' fermion pairs would equal each other and be divided in respective charge - a negative higher-energy bound to a positive lower-energy, and this would have an opposite twin - thus these could annihilate each other, too, but that's not what happened.

Sunday, 24 May 2015

The Why of Laughter.

I was listening to a podcast earlier ("Very Bad Wizards" - always a pleasure, excellent work guys, thanks ; ) about humour in general... the types of humour, what's funny or not, when things are funny. It was an enlightening and fun experience, so if you want to listen for yourself, you can find it here.

But this is something that I'd been thinking about since decades. Black humour, nonsensical humour, slapstick humour, what do all these have in common?

I do know that when the brain is tracking 'movement', depending on the 'anticipation level', our subconscious will be trying to 'predict' what will happen next. I think this is the 'link' between humour types: most all types of humour 'break' from the pattern that we'd normally expect.

Whether it is humour or not would (I guess) depend on the circumstances, but I think it comes down to our relation with the source of the humour: in most cases I can think of, it is a relaxed state of trust. It could be another person, a television... and add to this the idea (IMHO) that our decision-making consciousness is almost a persona in itself (that can be trusted/mistrusted by our subconscious). So, from a position of trust, our senses get a description or circumstance that breaks from 'the predicted', yet, if the result is inoffensive in nature, we may even see sense in it. A sort of "I wasn't expecting that, but it fits." The "ha ha ha (how wrong I was to think that way)" may be just... sociological conditioning, an expression of a... "you got me"?

Going on to the part about "humour we don't find humorous at all", we may simply just be switching off the 'prediction/anticipation' brain function because we simply aren't interested in knowing what happens next, and that would also cancel any further reaction.

Just my two cents on a (still) mysterious subject.

Thursday, 21 May 2015

Beyond the Village... again?

Correction: Before Critical Thinking, 'Value Judgements'

I'd like to revise my earlier position on critical thinking: thought is a two-level process, and critical thinking is an 'activated' second level above the base 'weighing and comparing options' function that governs most of our decision making. I had made it sound earlier as though critical thinking was our entire thought process.

I like to call this emotion-led 'weighing and comparing options' process 'value judgements'. As I noted earlier, every memory we store is associated with an emotional response neurone; this is how we determine the 'value' of that memory (otherwise any object or experience, a loved one or apple, would have the same 'weight' in our minds). When confronted with a situation, the mind a) recalls similar situations (and attributing elements) then b) 'weighs' each memory recalled by the strength/resonance of their respective signal against each other; the most 'positive match' and 'appropriate' response will win out, which will lead the brain to send the signals/chemical responses needed for the decided course of action.

This is not critical thinking; it is a 'comparative memory' process. It includes even 'new' situations, as data from sensory input becomes a comparable memory as soon as it is stored, even temporarily.

Critical Thinking from an Evolutionary Point of View

I keep referring to the hunter-gatherer period in which we spent most of our evolution. Much of our time then was spent foraging and hunting, and our clan camps a place to keep and protect our young in larger groups (against nature); without the latter, there would be no point in even having a village. So, most of our time was spent outside of its protection, one-on-one with nature (and at war with other clans).

The latter situation was where critical thinking was most important and most-used: it was a survival tool more than a key to inventiveness. It allowed us, instead of following the same patterns again and again (like 'dumb' animals), to create that 'other option' that would allow us to break our predictability and 'trick' our opponent (that is stuck in their 'known behaviour' thought-process, unable to read our minds)... and this is the main reason we survived as a species through the ages, the ability to break a predictable pattern.

This tool is practically useless in a village (clan camp) environment. Only the results of it could be brought back there in the form of stories that could be remembered and later imitated by other clan members. People then did not share or pass on information for the simple ideal of posterity, but in the aim of survival, and the techniques passed to others were probably dictated by the evolving environment and survival needs therein; it is possible that many techniques faded to oblivion when no longer required by nature or war, which meant that human life was an e'er-evolving, often repeating, state of constant adaptation. 

Agriculture to the Cities

This basic evolution still more or less holds true, but our invention of agriculture changed everything. Critical thinking was reserved for that (and even then, it evolved very little; choosing the best grains from each crop is not a process of invention) and the defence of a growing village (and methods of attacking others). Once needed for everyone who affronted nature, critical thinking was practiced by a very few, and these either became the village/city leaders or were allied with them, and the 'common villagers' were left to imitate and 'value judgement' reason within the educative limits defined by the leadership.

Even this holds true today. The only change was, probably after centuries of this follower-imitating-leadership behaviour, an idle group of ambitious yet idle observers discovered that a human could be dependant on leadership for even value judgements; like critical thinking, these also were survival tools for an individual against nature, but in a protective village environment, even these became optional. In short, the former 'protect and educate' village environment that, in hunter-gatherer times, was only applicable in early life (before an adult was obliged leave and fend for itself against nature), became a lifelong process for those who gave up, or were prevented from, making value judgements for themselves. All religions and totalitarianist regimes have their root in this.

The Enlightenment through Today

The invention of writing, and widespread literacy, changed everything yet again. No longer was authority and education the responsibility of a select few (who could only pass it on orally), but people could share information amongst themselves, and judge it for themselves; still, the prevalent authoritarian system, and societal pressure, prevented people from doing this, although these roadblocks to personal, individual enlightenment has eroded slowly over the years. The few critical thinkers practicing science and critical thought in general could record its experimentations for posterity (and validation by anyone able to think for themselves from later generations)... this too was a game-changer, which is why so many libraries went up in totalitarian/religion-lit flames throughout history.

The invention of the internet, though, changes everything yet yet again. We are in the age of information, but this time, an information that can only with difficulty be banned or burned. For the first time in human history, absolutely everyone has not only access to this information, but the invitation to assess and test it for themselves: doing so requires not only the will to make value judgements for oneself, but also critical thinking. With access to this information, a growing human will develop these abilities naturally; this explains the recent surge of activity in those seeking to make young humans disbelieve, and even fear, the possibility of thinking for oneself. 

We are at a crossroads of two extremities today: Either fundamentalist 'uni(non)thought' wins out and the distribution of information is controlled or banned, or, for the first time in human history, humans will be using their 'outside the village' abilities, once again as individuals, to judge their own actions, and each others', for themselves, within the village confines.

If the latter were to happen, we will be becoming a real, less leadership-'thought'-dependant, post-modern society. As we once did against nature, once again we will decide rationally (not through peer-pressure imitation), but this time as both individuals and a group, what's best for ourselves.

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Super-Gamma EMW to Fermion process (or vice versa)

(Interlude music)
I think I've got how the most basic fermions combine initially, but I'm still fighting with my brain over the the 'load balancing' part once they're combined... the two same-charge fermions somehow transfer their differences between themselves... and the combinations would be of opposing charge (thus would annihilate themselves anyway). There's something utterly mathematically simplistic about this, but it is just beyond me...