[opportunity (OP)]

Think about it, a universal theory of spacetime, everything joined.....who are we, what is consciousness there, should it be included?

[opportunity (OP)]

Can the idea of consciousness be at least linked with the idea of "time" in a universal theory of spacetime, or is that against presupposed rules of theory?

[opportunity (OP)]

Great philosophers have used the idea of time to explain consciousness, philosophers such as Heidegger and Sartre (links provided for any replies) for instance.

[opportunity (OP)]

Ok, I replied. Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Time

From Heidegger though, the idea of consciousness and time encouraged debate from Sartre. The issue in philosophy is the cause and effect of subject and object and the determination of what is "being" or "being of itself", and of course "being for itself".

Could physics lend weight to the idea of spacetime being responsible for the idea of consciousness?

[opportunity (OP)]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness with time, and I'm thinking I should pitch it primarily to philosophers....in the absence of scientific interest of course. I think I should go for a philosophical discussion on this topic in the absence of movement of words. Apologies if that offends.

[opportunity (OP)]

I have to admit, consciousness needs its field of realisation, bottom to top. Science is the ideal platform. Is there any way to put words to that?

[guest46746]

I have to admit, consciousness needs its field of realisation, bottom to top. Science is the ideal platform. Is there any way to put words to that?

The only thing that is as transitory as consciousness is time. In quantum, the only thing that comes close to be able to measure time as transitory as it's nature are virtual particles. lol

[opportunity (OP)]

Spoken like a true physicist 

There are patterns though in nature suggesting time moves along the Fibonacci sequence, suggesting time, and maybe even consciousness, has that algorithm embedded into its workings. Who knows? As much as we look at the growth patterns of flowers and aquatic shells, many try to assign the Fibonacci sequence to the perfection of the human form..... and thus maybe consciousness?

[Colin2B]

I'm working on a theory of consciousness with time, and I'm thinking I should pitch it primarily to philosophers....in the absence of scientific interest of course.

You could try posting the key ideas and supporting arguments here and see what response you get. Our experience is that very few people follow external links and it’s better to put material in a post.

We had a look at the website you quote and it describes itself as a limited company - research and exploration consultancy. That would make it commercial and against the Acceptable Usage Policy, so we would be grateful if you would remove all references. Thanks.

[opportunity (OP)]

Gee, Ok.

Can't argue with a moderator.

How do I remove all my references etc, despite the fact I am not actually selling anything. I'm not selling a product per-se. I am not even asking people to read my work, I merely suggest it exists if they question my posts further, for further explanation.

Fine line I guess.

Please advise further.


If I was a selling a book using my company, would that be worse?


Colin, seriously, I am operating research. To purchase research items which can be "very" expensive one needs a company/business to generate formal purchase orders, as you may know with whatever research body you may have once been employed by. Should I create a tamer website, a dolly?

[opportunity (OP)]

Colin, I do not see myself selling anything here, nor do I see anyone else, nor do I see my presence here inspiring people to sell their work. What's really the problem?

[opportunity (OP)]

Its a paradox it seems.

You request new ideas in this section of the forum, yet you don't want crap unless you want a shooting gallery for yourself.....it seems you want ideas on the edge perhaps it seems not of standard physics research yet not a part of any serious independent endeavors. Really?

How do you expect to achieve "good" new ideas without those willing to endeavor a decent investment in new research that requires the umbrella of a company to execute purchase orders for serious and deliberate new research|?

[Colin2B]

How do you expect to achieve "good" new ideas without those willing to endeavor a decent investment in new research that requires the umbrella of a company to execute purchase orders for serious and deliberate new research|?

Having a limited company is not a problem, advertising/linking it here is.
If you post outlines of your ideas for discussion you can always enter into private discussions with anyone showing interest in your ideas. the whole idea of this forum is discussion rather than just referring out.

[opportunity (OP)]

Exactly.

Which is why I said to Paradigmer that I would send him a private link regarding my next paper (in another post).

Colin, we've spoken enough in private about this, and I really don't think I need to be a forum pinyata on the issue.


Colin, I've tried posting work, deliberately as ideas. For efficiency I suggest a paper link. Gee, sorry. But I don't get a discussion after that. But, as the paradox, I prefer to avoid fatuous arguments that go nowhere. Some people don't have the time to post 6/7, 12/7, even 24/7. For some efficiency is a key of success. I hope you can see that.

[opportunity (OP)]

I have to edit my previous response.

I read Paradigmer's work, I knew what he was doing as soon as I linked in to his website. He didn't even say it was his work initially, he just carefully referred the idea. All right. I knew it was his site, could tell by the responses.


I wouldn't have been buzzed out if he was a company. I would be more interested in fact if he was demonstrating that he was conducting research as a company in his ideas. Wouldn't anyone\?

His situation is different to mine. He took the idea of the UVS and applied it to all the bells and whistles of scientific theory as a potential unified theory. I agreed with the process. I then suggested that it could be done more efficiently using the idea of "time" as the Fibonacci sequence. I then said "hit my website". I didn't give a link, I presumed that the "planet" icon was enough, like I wasn't big on promoting the idea here in this forum knowing how sensitive bold new ideas here are. He asked for a link so I provided it. I wasn't selling anything.


Did anyone else see that?

[opportunity (OP)]

I look at all the posts in this "new ideas" forum.

I'm thinking there are some who want a bottom line, people who are sincere in their posting and research, even if it costs money.

There could be others of course who see this as a shooting gallery, which is nuts.

The world grows exponentially with ideas when "proof" is provided. Why make that a shooting gallery? To get proof research and thus cost is required. Every paper I have posted elsewhere has been a refinement of costly research. I should ask myself why I need encourage debate in a forum that bears Cambridge as a link. Surely Cambridge is an entity that employs, issues finance, protects that, for research and employment purposes.

My papers, 1 to 7 so far, that's not pure imagination, that's years of costly lab research, filtering out crap.

I don't state that in the papers. Who would if one is riding a wave of a unified theory?

[opportunity (OP)]

My research currently is trying to explain phenomena I haven't found in contemporary science, so I am flying blind other than relying on the steps that have taken me there.

The research I am doing, and I have very strongly sought associated research work papers, doesn't exist in contemporary research cited works, nor can it be properly explained.


My 7th paper alludes to it......should I just print it here now or offer a link?

[opportunity (OP)]

I'm conducting research currently with microwave energy in the tradition of the Alcubierre drive concept, and its not just plasma field generation, it is mass being fired like a bullet. I'm putting a paper together, my 8th, to explain how its possible. Its not a hypothesis. I'm trying to put scientific words to something that has me repair each experiment with each bullet firing.. … something I need to further refine and explain clearly, a phenomena demonstrated in my lab, that can be replicated. Should I say how it works with trial and error conversation here or just suggest the theory is available on a website?

[opportunity (OP)]

I'll post this 8th nasty paper. Its nasty because nasty is making money, like advertising, according to the forum, despite its cost me so much money repairing each test....and I'm the financier. How should I introduce it here though in this forum? Like I should be afraid someone might think I'm "peddling" a financial gain? Seriously, no patent can cover this. Patents are for iphones and the like, if that. People will develop this their own way longer than the life of a patent, and still worry if its fit for commercial use. Why? Should I explain with longwinded correspondence or divert you to the theory? A website?

[guest46746]

I'm conducting research currently with microwave energy in the tradition of the Alcubierre drive concept,

Pardon my intrusion, my understanding of the Alcubierre drive, is a bubble vehicle that condenses S/T in front of it to create a permeable medium in which to travel near the speed of light. The condensed S/T collapses/warps around the bubble shielding it from contraction. As the bubble passes, it employs a feedback loop to expand condensed S/T and return it to it's original state. The feedback loop act as a propulsion mechanism, with expanding S/T propelling the bubble forward.

My question to you, are you using microwaves to simulate S/T?  lol