Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
OIC. The relationship of trees with fungi is an excellent example of mutualistic co-evolution; two species cooperating for mutual benefit. The natural world is full of such examples, not usually considered to be examples of intelligence.
That doesn't mean the universe is 'wired together' in any meaningful way.Even the mainstream acknowledges the existence of magnetism in space, which is *caused* by the movement of charged particles.
I didn't mention it, but thanks - I'll pass.You can whine about the scientific aspect of panentheism...
OIC. The relationship of trees with fungi is an excellent example of mutualistic co-evolution; two species cooperating for mutual benefit. The natural world is full of such examples, not usually considered to be examples of intelligence.
That doesn't mean the universe is 'wired together' in any meaningful way.
Sure - almost all life communicates in some way or other. For example, bacteria use 'quorum sensing'. If you think that communication requires intelligence, you have a uselessly wide definition of intelligence.So they "communicate" without intelligence?
Cite them and I'll take a look. No promises - what I've heard isn't promising.Would you even study EU/PC materials by Birkeland, Alfven and Peratt if I cited them for you?
I am an Evolutionary Theist........
I am of the belief that a being with "Godlike" technological capability
began, far far far far far more than 13.72 billion years ago, in
fundamental or nearly fundamental energy that to at least some
degree corresponds with "Energy from Quantum Vacuum."
This Intelligence learned and learned, and experimented..... .and
designed Big Bang type events, nearly an infinite number of them,
and eventually, around 13.72 billion year or so ago began our.......
Big Bang event that led to the evolution plus creation of
all the life forms that we see here on earth.
Sure - almost all life communicates in some way or other. For example, bacteria use 'quorum sensing'. If you think that communication requires intelligence, you have a uselessly wide definition of intelligence.
Cite them and I'll take a look. No promises - what I've heard isn't promising.
New-Age waffle. Every organism is equally evolved. Intelligence and awareness are words devised to describe various forms of behaviour in various contexts, and their precise meaning depends on their usage and context. It makes no sense to reify them.It's a sliding scale to be sure, but that's about what I'd expect if awareness and intelligence were an intrinsic part of "nature". The more "evolved" the physical form, the more "intelligence" it can "direct/hold". Let refined living organisms might only be capable of a relatively "primitive" type of intelligence, even if they have the same "awareness" as every other living thing.
I'm familiar with the basic physics. You said you'd provide citations for me to look at.I'd suggest you start with a solar model and work your way out. Mostly positively charged "cosmic rays" meet up with the outbound cathode rays somewhere around the heliosphere. Cosmic rays have so much kinetic energy they bombard our planet too.
Birkeland imagined that the sun was internally powered by a "transmutation of elements", or what we'd call "fusion" today.
The first circuit we need to talk about is the one between the sun and "space".
The only existing intelligence I am aware of, is the one that manifests through a physical brain, which took some 4 billion years to evolve.
"The prevalent and prevailing consensus points to four fundamental forces —
electromagnetism, gravitation, as well as strong and weak nuclear forces — but I
aver that there is only one force: energetic matter. The energetic matter
creates wave formations are expressed exclusively by the two principle behaviors
(forces) of pushing and pulling." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)
"Pulling and gravitation, which resemble basic feminine traits, are the dominant properties of the magnetic loop. Consequently, magnetic loops have a capacity for storing energy and act to maintain the structural integrity of the entire wave formation. The electronic/energetic loop consists of expanding properties that disperse energetic matter that “disappears” into space. This is synonymous with masculine characteristics." (Dr. Chaim Tejman)
Pseudoscience and mysticism.We are naturally biased toward that type of intelligence and we have terrible difficulty imagine what an intelligence would be like that was composed only of fundamental or nearly fundamental energy.
The Fundamental Force
Wave Theory and Gender: Why Sex
New-Age waffle.
Every organism is equally evolved.
Intelligence and awareness are words devised to describe various forms of behaviour in various contexts, and their precise meaning depends on their usage and context. It makes no sense to reify them.
I'm familiar with the basic physics. You said you'd provide citations for me to look at.
We are naturally biased toward that type of intelligence and we have terrible difficulty imagine what an intelligence would be like that was composed only of fundamental or nearly fundamental energy.
In the simplest organisms the mechanisms are clear (tropisms, etc); no fields are required. In more complex organisms the full details may be obscure, but enough is known to see that they are elaborated versions of the simple mechanisms. In organisms with nervous systems, it's the same story at a higher level of abstraction.We see evidence of intelligence and awareness of environment in the simplest of living organisms. That's very congruent with a "field" theory of awareness.
Every population produces variations on which natural selection acts, and variations on which it doesn't (e.g. genetic drift). Some variations result in large phenotypic differences, some small. Some result in major selective advantages, some in minor. The scale of phenotypic change and the scale of selective advantage are not necessarily correlated; likewise for the timescales. Once you start trying to define which creatures are 'more evolved' than other creatures, you have to decide on your criteria, and you'll find you need to reconcile multiple independent - and often conflicting - measures. I suggest you don't go there. Also, your suggestion has an implicit teleology, as if evolution is a story of 'progress', but that's a privileged viewpoint; for example, does the loss of a feature (e.g. a tail) make a creature more evolved or less evolved than those that retain the feature? or more evolved or less evolved than those that never evolved that feature? and what about all the other features those creatures have?I'm not so sure about that. I'd agree that every organism has had an equal amount of time to evolve (more or less), but designs that worked well early on may not have needed to "evolve" a whole lot since then, even of some of their "children" continued to evolve dramatically over time.
I see; "a 'sliding scale' of some sort" - could you be more vague?I'm simply noting that it tends to be a 'sliding scale' of some sort to start with.
Good grief, no. An outline of the major principles and how they contribute to his ideas would be plenty.If you want to learn as much about EU/PC theory as Kristian Birkeland knew 100 years ago, I suggest that you start by reading his work.
If the gist of his work is an explanation for auroras, I've been familiar with his work for years. How on Earth do you construct your bizarre ideas of purposeful universal interconnectedness from the excitation of atoms in the magnetosphere by the solar wind? Seriously?Unfortunately (or fortunately), it's a couple of encyclopedia volumes worth of material to sift through. The good news is that it's free. The 'gist' of his work is summed up in that 2 minute video explain his working model...
Looks like some good experimental work on measuring the magnetic disturbances of the auroras and magnetic storms near the poles; pioneering work for the turn of the last century. Some 'exciting' rugged explorer interludes on the rigours of polar exploration; and some brief speculation about the mechanisms powering the sun. Illuminating at the time; useful background data today. So what?... if you want to see the math and the explanations of his rationale, you'd have to read his work for yourself.
His book can be downloaded from this link:
https://archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf
OK, I'll have a browse.Hannes Alfven is pretty much considered to be the father of EU/PC 'cosmology' theory, and the first to apply circuit theory to events in space. His book "Cosmic Plasma" describes the physical/mathematical/conceptual basis of EU/PC theory. Cosmic Plasma a collection of his published papers, presented in an organized fashion, along with some overview material.
The first few chapters can be read for free at the link below:
Cosmic Plasma
Likewise.You can also find a collection of many of his published papers on a variety of astronomy topics here:
Index of /Alfven
His first generation student, Anthony Peratt, works(ed) at Los Alamos and used computer software to simulate many of Alfven's ideas and he's written a whole book about it too.
Physics of the Plasma Universe | Anthony L. Peratt | Springer
That's the best mathematical presentation and description of this topic by the way IMO.
Here's a good (and free) intro to his work:
http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf
You might also want to ask them what they mean by 'fundamental energy'. I did, and couldn't get a coherent response.... if someone tells me that fundamental energy is "intelligent" - then I don't know what they are talking about. It's like talking about a type of wood that doesn't come from a tree. I don't know what that is.
In the simplest organisms the mechanisms are clear (tropisms, etc); no fields are required. In more complex organisms the full details may be obscure, but enough is known to see that they are elaborated versions of the simple mechanisms. In organisms with nervous systems, it's the same story at a higher level of abstraction.
Also, there is no mechanism, no suitable 'field'. When you suggest that some 'field' affects the behaviour of organisms, you're suggesting that something interacts with the protons, neutrons, and electrons they're made of; at the relevant scale (biochemistry), the only significant field is electromagnetism, and it simply isn't suitable - even assuming we could suspend the laws of thermodynamics, and account for whatever else is required to generate, maintain, focus, and guide such a field. It's magical thinking.
Every population produces variations on which natural selection acts, and variations on which it doesn't (e.g. genetic drift). Some variations result in large phenotypic differences, some small. Some result in major selective advantages, some in minor. The scale of phenotypic change and the scale of selective advantage are not necessarily correlated; likewise for the timescales. Once you start trying to define which creatures are 'more evolved' than other creatures, you have to decide on your criteria, and you'll find you need to reconcile multiple independent - and often conflicting - measures. I suggest you don't go there. Also, your suggestion has an implicit teleology, as if evolution is a story of 'progress', but that's a privileged viewpoint; for example, does the loss of a feature (e.g. a tail) make a creature more evolved or less evolved than those that retain the feature? or more evolved or less evolved than those that never evolved that feature? and what about all the other features those creatures have?
I see; "a 'sliding scale' of some sort" - could you be more vague?
Good grief, no. An outline of the major principles and how they contribute to his ideas would be plenty.
If the gist of his work is an explanation for auroras, I've been familiar with his work for years.
How on Earth do you construct your bizarre ideas of purposeful universal interconnectedness from the excitation of atoms in the magnetosphere by the solar wind? Seriously?
Looks like some good experimental work on measuring the magnetic disturbances of the auroras and magnetic storms near the poles; pioneering work for the turn of the last century. Some 'exciting' rugged explorer interludes on the rigours of polar exploration; and some brief speculation about the mechanisms powering the sun. Illuminating at the time; useful background data today. So what?
Modern studies of the sun and the magnetic fields of the Earth, and their interactions, have progressed considerably in the last 115 years, not least because we have satellites studying them, and some major breakthroughs in fundamental physics that opened whole new vistas unavailable to Birkeland.
Yes, to the extent that it's involved in neural membrane depolarization (the movement of charged ions through the cell membrane). But this more like EM involvement in holding matter together than it is like EM radiation.At *least* the EM field is involved in intelligence, even if nothing more elaborate is required to explain it.
If you read the linked article, you'll see that 'magical thinking' has a specific meaning separate from 'magic' per se.Even the proposal for a "field of soul" (ORCH-OR?) would be no more "magical" than proposing a hypothetical graviton, or an inflaton field, or any undefined "space" that does magic tricks for breakfast. Your definition of 'magical' is a bit, um "one sided" shall we say? Where do we cross the line from "hypothetical" to 'magical' in the realm in physics?
Whatever - I was just pointing out that your suggestion of differential evolution was neither well-defined nor coherent.I think we're splitting hairs on this topic somewhere and feels like a distraction. Suffice to say a "classic" design may not need much "evolution" to continue to exist over time.
So unless you define what you mean by it in some context, you're saying nothing useful with it.Maybe.You have to admit it's a bit like trying to nail jello to wall when defining a scale of inter-species "intelligence". It's not my fault the whole field is a little vague.
Which NYT article?That NYT article was as good an introduction as any. It was short and concise.
There wasn't much in the book link you gave, and what there was was speculative.Are you familiar with his solar theories too? Birkeland didn't just write about aurora.
So you keep asserting, without providing evidence. If we don't fully realize that they're literally 'wired together', we don't really know they're wired together.Well, you begin by noting that solar system and larger universe are literally "wired together" electrically in ways that we never imagined, and still don't fully "realize".
This is not news; the movement of charged particles in the vicinity of the sun is well documented - not least by the SOHO, Solar Max, & WIND satellites, and others.So his work demonstrates that suns act as cathodes with respect to 'space', which by the way bombards the sun with high speed protons called 'cosmic rays'.
So if Birkeland is the best choice for EU/PC theory - why mention Alfven?If you're going to understand anything about EU/PC theory, his works would be your best choice. The mainstream is still playing catch up in solar physics, and they're definitely ignorant of Alfven's work on cosmology theory in my experience.
OK, I've heard about these very temporary magnetic connections that guide the solar wind - they come and go over periods of minutes. Where does he mention these magnetic ropes in the book?... they all verified his models, starting with the "magnetic ropes" that connect the sun to the various planets.
Perhaps because it's not easy to get the sun into the lab... what are you on about?In terms of what the mainstream can do in a lab, they still haven't been able to create a full sphere sustained "corona" around the sun...
Yawn... I get that you think Birkeland was ahead of his time - but none of this looks relevant to your fantasy of a cosmic brain; the solar wind takes 2-4 days just to reach Earth (8 light minutes away) and isn't significant beyond the Heliopoause.You'd think we'd have learned a lot about the sun in 100 years, but in terms of theory, not so much. We've learned a few practical things about it, all of which Birkeland already predicted with his cathode solar model, right down to the positive nature of 'space' (cosmic rays).
Any first impression you may have about the 'dated' nature of his work is actually dead wrong. Not only was Birkeland *more than* a century ahead of his time, it's taken nearly a full century to produce the equipment that can verify it, like SDO, ACE, etc.
Yes, to the extent that it's involved in neural membrane depolarization (the movement of charged ions through the cell membrane). But this more like EM involvement in holding matter together than it is like EM radiation.
Which NYT article?
There wasn't much in the book link you gave, and what there was was speculative.
So you keep asserting, without providing evidence. If we don't fully realize that they're literally 'wired together', we don't really know they're wired together.
[You should know that "literally 'wired together'" means there are actual wires between the solar system and the 'larger universe', and that literally makes no sense]
You may think I'm being pedantic, but I'm making the point that if you want to make a meaningful physical argument you need to be precise in your description, not vague and wooly.
This is not news; the movement of charged particles in the vicinity of the sun is well documented - not least by the SOHO, Solar Max, & WIND satellites, and others.
So if Birkeland is the best choice for EU/PC theory - why mention Alfven?
OK, I've heard about these very temporary magnetic connections that guide the solar wind - they come and go over periods of minutes. Where does he mention these magnetic ropes in the book?
Perhaps because it's not easy to get the sun into the lab... what are you on about?
Yawn... I get that you think Birkeland was ahead of his time - but none of this looks relevant to your fantasy of a cosmic brain; the solar wind takes 2-4 days just to reach Earth (8 light minutes away) and isn't significant beyond the Heliopoause.
The EM fields are epiphenomena of the membrane depolarizations that mediate neuronal signal propagation, in the same way as the sound of a car engine is an epiphenomenon of combustion and mechanical activity.The EM field patterns change as we "thing" and "feel", so awareness is definitely and EM field related process.
Thanks... oops! rather more misses (planets coalesce from positive particles emitted by the sun(!), space consists of ether, the sun is negatively charged) than hits (a guess at the transmutation of elements) - but pretty much as one might expect, given the knowledge of the time.
The 'filaments' are gravitationally denser intergalactic patches, not 'wires'. They are still harder vacuums than anything we can achieve on Earth or even within the solar system; and if there was any electromagnetic interaction we'd see it - it wouldn't be 'dark matter'.Even the mainstreams model is "wired together" in "dark matter filaments", with the galaxy clusters embedded in them.
Dark matter is called 'dark' because it doesn't have EM interactions, that's it distinguishing characteristicThe mainstream uses weird euphemisms to describe Birkeland currents. They call them "magnetic slinkies" and "dark matter filaments", but they're definitely there.
Lol! - a nonsense paper (the "Universal concept of the Magnetic Structure of matter" - really?) published in a fake journal (ResearchGate Impact Ranking)...
Thanks... oops! rather more misses (planets coalesce from positive particles emitted by the sun(!), space consists of ether, the sun is negatively charged) than hits (a guess at the transmutation of elements) - but pretty much as one might expect, given the knowledge of the time.
The EM fields are epiphenomena of the membrane depolarizations that mediate neuronal signal propagation, in the same way as the sound of a car engine is an epiphenomenon of combustion and mechanical activity.
Thanks... oops! rather more misses (planets coalesce from positive particles emitted by the sun(!), space consists of ether, the sun is negatively charged) than hits (a guess at the transmutation of elements) - but pretty much as one might expect, given the knowledge of the time.
The 'filaments' are gravitationally denser intergalactic patches, not 'wires'.
They are still harder vacuums than anything we can achieve on Earth or even within the solar system; and if there was any electromagnetic interaction we'd see it - it wouldn't be 'dark matter'.
Dark matter is called 'dark' because it doesn't have EM interactions, that's it distinguishing characteristic
Lol! - a nonsense paper (the "Universal concept of the Magnetic Structure of matter" - really?) published in a fake journal (ResearchGate Impact Ranking)...
OK, I've wasted enough time on this.
Even at the turn of the twentieth century, that like charges are not exactly known for "coalescing" wasn't news hot off of the presses.
It reads more like something written by Justatruthseeker.
Birkeland and his team knew more about solar physics 100 years ago than the mainstream understands to this day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?