Towards Realizing the TPU

[TheNOP]

By the way, for those not conversant with the principle. When knowledge gets in the way of research, it is called "noise".

For example, something "cannot be done" because of x principle or y theory. This is an example of the principle of noise.

To remove noise, you demonstrate visually that something has already been done, which forces the viewer to examine how something HAS to be possible, disregarding previous "can and can't do's", forcing them to find a way to do what they previously thought impossible. You use their own senses against them, so to speak.

i understand what you mean by "noise", but that "noise" is what you make, your understanding, of what has been teached to you.
the "noise" is only yourself closing your mind to other possibilities. those other possibilities can also be already included in current knowledge.

often, when i read posts like this one, i am under the impression that the autor meant that physic's knowledge is bullsh**.
if it is, then any knowledge is.

physic's laws are not nature's laws, they are interpretation of nature's laws.
and, most of the time, those mathematical laws are incomplet.
once you really understand that, you can say you have an open mind.

Tesla had a diplomas in EE and physic.
did that stopped him from discovering things ?
even if it cost us, we own him our current living comfort.

Eddison had almost no scholarity and we know what he tryed to do to Tesla with his DC against AC fight.
how many things did Eddison invented that were not rumored stolen later ?

[pauldude000]

Quote from TheNOP:

"Tesla had a diplomas in EE and physic.
did that stopped him from discovering things ?
even if it cost us, we own him our current living comfort.

Eddison had almost no scholarity and we know what he tryed to do to Tesla with his DC against AC fight.
how many things did Eddison invented that were not rumored stolen later ?"

Actually NOP, this is a classic case of noise reduction.

Tesla was an EE (Electrical Engineer), and did indeed have a classical education.

Edison was indeed an undereducated a rip-off artist.

However, what you seemingly missed was that of the two, Edison followed the classical knowledge base of the time.

Nikola Tesla was NOTED for having his own understanding which went against the teachings and understandings of the time. If you examine any of the real thinkers, you will notice that they all demonstrated noise reduction, in that they spoke of new things, which went against the knowledge base of their times.

Knowledge is now, and has always been fluid in nature, changing and molding with new evidences of the nature of reality.

Now, as for solidity of knowledge, even the most basic things in physics have but a rudimentary explanation, when you examine them. Too many under defined explanations combined with over exaggerated claims of understanding. However, this is nothing new.

At one time, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe. These were the staunchly held beliefs of the vast majority of scientists of the day. We now know them to be undeniably false.

How many flat earth notions are still held today is the question: Man will never find out without noise reduction.

Paul Andrulis



 

[TheNOP]

Actually NOP, this is a classic case of noise reduction.

Tesla was an EE (Electrical Engineer), and did indeed have a classical education.

Edison was indeed an undereducated a rip-off artist.

However, what you seemingly missed was that of the two, Edison followed the classical knowledge base of the time.

Nikola Tesla was NOTED for having his own understanding which went against the teachings and understandings of the time. If you examine any of the real thinkers, you will notice that they all demonstrated noise reduction, in that they spoke of new things, which went against the knowledge base of their times.

Knowledge is now, and has always been fluid in nature, changing and molding with new evidences of the nature of reality.

Now, as for solidity of knowledge, even the most basic things in physics have but a rudimentary explanation, when you examine them. Too many under defined explanations combined with over exaggerated claims of understanding. However, this is nothing new.

At one time, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe. These were the staunchly held beliefs of the vast majority of scientists of the day. We now know them to be undeniably false.

How many flat earth notions are still held today is the question: Man will never find out without noise reduction.

Paul Andrulis

we are basicaly saying the same things.
the "noise" is a personnal thing.

where i do not agree is that knowledge base is an handicap, for me it is not.

"flat earth notions" is a bad example.
it was a beleive, it was not based on any prouvable fact.
physic laws might be beleives too.
but at least they are base on observed phenomenas and you can't deny them.


Ex:
there are 2 ways you can achive something.
let say your goal is to make a simple RC circuit that oscillate at 100kHz.

-you can use trials and errors untill you get the result you want.
then, if you are clever enough, you will find the formulas all EEs already know.

-if you know how this work or search on how this work, you simply calculate your componants values and get there fast.

maybe you think you might find something new with the first way of doing things.
unfortunatly, if you don't know what you are doing, there are big chances you won't even notice it.

[pauldude000]

@TheNOP

I think you misunderstand. I rely upon my knowledge base in physics as well.

Knowledge per say is good to have. What is bad is when your knowledge LIMITS your ability to think outside the current understanding.

Let me give a simple explanation:

Consider the lowly electron, for instance. It is a charged particle which orbits an atom, which itself has spin. How do I know any of these things? The answer is my knowledge base. I have never personally examined an electron. My understanding of it and its properties and effects generally come at best second hand, through someone else's work.

The question is: are they right?

Considering that no human has ever seen an electron, weighed or measured an individual electron, how can I or anyone else for that matter make a bald claim without real proof that an electron is even a true particle? Or that it spins? Some things are very evident, and proveable, such as that it has charge.

What is charge? The term loses some meaning at this level, as in the macroscopic level charge denotes presence or lack of charged particles, but what is that very effect which we call charge???

Many basic terms actually LOSE meaning upon close examination, such as force, energy, particle, mass, etc., etc., etc... It seems the more basic the term, the less meaning it actually has.

It is amazing how many terms are actually self-referencing in some manner for their own definition.

These areas are scientific blind spots where a wealth of knowledge is to be gained, but upon which all of science rests.

However, the absolute accuracy does not negate higher observable effects. For instance, in the 1700's electricity was still though scientifically to be a fluid. This did not prevent scientists of the time from observing effects, and creating formula based upon the observable effects, which we still use today.

For analogy, science is comparable to Swiss cheese. Swiss cheese is still delicious and edible, and truly is good cheese, even if it is full of holes. However, if you desired an smooth unbroken slice, you must fill in the holes. Simply telling yourself there are no holes does no good.

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

@Loner

I am tentatively starting to think that the "static" field is an inherent property of the packet which we call an electron. I think its motion through space creates magnetism, and its spin produces gravity.

Namely the static electric field is inherent with the displacement of space by the packet, with space pressing back. A local distortion of the material of space. (Call it space-time or aether, makes no difference to me.)

The greater the local distortion (due to more packets), the stronger the combined effect. In essence, space does not like distortion.

This may sound weird, but I think harmonics somehow plays a part in all this as well. Something smacks altogether too much of wave theory at work here. It could well account for everything from planetary orbits, to electron orbits.

Different effects could theoretically be accounted for by spin and orbit direction. Spin itself could well account for charge. Think about it!

Two packets with right hand spin HAVE to repel each other, while two packets, one right handed and one left handed with can exist touching, and might well link like two gears.

Paul Andrulis