[rocket art]

Hi, I'm new here and I would like to share my new philosophical view that I initially call as "Rocket's Theory". Hopefully people here will be accomodating to new ideas.

I perceive that to define our existing Present universe (E=mc^2), there is the need to incorporate 3 more dimensional 'realities.' But these must be perceived from the observer's viewpoint within the Singularity, where past, present and future gets blurred. We will follow 4 perceived realities that interlink one with another, and to perceive these other three parts are necessary to define one part (our Present existing physical universe).

The first is what I would term as Ideal Past, wherein it incorporated our classics, myths, legends, glories that we put into our memory. This reality is implosive, centripetal, that’s why I will have it in squareroot. The pattern of Ideal Past will be:

E=mass times square root of c^2

The Ideal Past will constitute the rest mass of the Present E=mc^2 which is expansive, centrifugal by nature. The patterns of the Ideal Past is necessary to create our Present. Our Present is the E=mc^2, where:

E = mass times c(rest mass) times c(observer-relative)

Then the third reality, in which we are about to enter, will be the Ideal Future, which, like the Ideal Past, is implosive, centripetal in nature. Here I will assign a third powerful unit, c alpha=Awareness and the observer now becomes aware. The “c” in E=mc^2 relative to the observer is now differentiated. There is an observer who is “unaware”, and an observer who is “aware”. Such makes a big difference and should be considered. The Awareness is acquired after the knowledge from the Ideal Past is revealed, extracted from Present, then transported as quantified knowledge for the Ideal Future. Being implosive, centripetal, the pattern of Ideal Future will be:

E = mass times cuberoot of c(rest mass) times c alpha(Awareness) times c (observer-relative-Aware).

Then, we will proceed to what I term as the Parallel Present, which is the parallel dimension to our Present, and it is also centrifugal, expansive in nature. The equation for Parallel Present will also be E=mc^2, but this time incorporating with it the powerful 3rd force of Awareness and the Ideal Future becoming its rest mass (cuberoot of c^3), and eventually integrated as new data for the Parallel Present:

E=mass times c(rest mass from Ideal Future cuberoot c^3) times c alpha(observer-relative-Aware)

The Parallel Present, similarly as the Present, both being centrifugal, expansive dimensions, are like catalysts for the expansion of our Universe.


The new c alpha(Awareness) is powerful enough to transform the Future we are about to enter, into an Ideal one. And when such time comes, the Aware Ones (as we choose to be 'Aware') would be highly able to propel such energy into technologies as interstellar and interdimensional, or time travel, free energy, ESP with our highly Evolved Consciousness by then.

The 'blueprint' for Ideal Future would by then be E=mc^3. This profound addition c alpha=Awareness would most likely manifest physically with one's evolution like additional strand DNA, extra sensory perception, highly advanced technology, etc. This is the era of Ideal Future, in which we are about to enter for our actual Future when we choose to.

Actually, it first started as my painting, until eventually I prodded myself to translate it tangibly through this. You may see my visual presentation of the theory at my 360.yahoo homepage when clicking my username.

This is also consistent with my 'rocket's philosophy' that 'Consciousness is the source of gravity', in which I also posted in another forum 3 years ago (I conceptualized last 2000 in a chatroom). This is also posted in my homepage blog.

Also I did not contradict Einstein's formula, but rather enhanced it.

[rocket art]

When I said c (rest mass) what I meant was the lightspeed from rest mass. Hope to hear from individuals here regarding my Theory. I purposely put it on the philosophy section because it's a new idea that I eventually conceptualized, and so I present it for open minded discussions.

[rocket art]

We must choose for a better future. Either the probability of humanity manipulated into a future as microchipped slaves to Supercapitalism and totalitarianism by secret fascists, the few who knew the 'secret knowledge' and had succeeded at keeping the rest 'unaware', or we chose to 'envision' and create an Ideal Future where we will be Free, highly evolved, highly advanced because we choose to be 'Aware'.

The latter is the Parallel option.

[rocket art]

The views I have been presenting in this thread and on other threads is consistent with what I term as my 'rocket philosophies'* because such are yet found in conventional science books, and to keep my views from stagnating with mainstream scientific views. Although eventually time will finally come when it will lead them to such positions as they probe deeper:

* "Consciousness is the source of gravity" -rocket. The insistence on the fictitious graviton will just render the science community stagnant. It is in this position that enabled my theory in peeking through the Singularity as Conscious Energy.

* "Since matter cannot exceed lightspeed, it duplicates instead when subjected beyond it" -rocket. That should be the basis of the Everette-Wheeler-Graham Theory, MWI.

* My "Rocket Theory" is more sensible than the solipsism of Omega Point Theory (which sounded more like another new religion that worships the self), for I am not referring to the "I" but to Consciousness. It will be sensible even when the era finally occurs as Earth Humanity advances and discovers sentient life forms beyond our planet.

[CraigD]

While I suspect that rocket art’s intentions in this thread to be the development of a useful body of philosophical work combining elements of modern physics, the many worlds interpretation, and the common humanities concept of consciousness, I’m taken aback by the manner in which he appears to just remove various text from their contexts and combine them into his posts. I can only make sense of these posts by interpreting it using many ad-hock, best-guess assumptions of my own, an approach likely to result in miscommunication.

I could criticize the assertions of specific quotations, eg:

The equation describes the relationship between observed mass and energy (potential mechanical work). It does not completely describe the “existing universe” at any point in subjective time.

but don’t think this would be useful. Instead, I’ll join several other members in suggesting that rocket art pursue studies to gain a better understanding of Math and Science, and comment on a few main scientific and philosophical threads I perceive as leading him into what I believe are dead ends to scientific, philosophical, and artistic progress.

• Awareness
  IMHO, used outside of practical context (eg: “Alice is unconscious. She has no awareness of her surroundings, so cannot respond to instructions”), the term awareness is rarely defined sufficiently for us to be confident that it describes an objectively real thing. Although archaic science hypothesized a model of reality in which visible, “gross matter” is animated by “subtle matter”, of which “awareness” may be considered one of many attributes, increased understanding of physical reality has, I believe, led to the most reasonable conclusion that such models are incorrect. Awareness is not a fundamental quality of reality, but a convenient description of the behavior of interacting systems such as biological organisms and, potentially, “artificially intelligent” algorithmic processes.
  
  Although both the Copenhagen and the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics commonly lead people to conclude that the act of observation is of fundamental significance to reality, I believe that progress in physics is leading to a growing rejection of this conclusion in favor of the view that observation is itself the result of the interaction of particles, and that the act observation is not a physically significant event, but related to the amount of information available to the specific ensemble of particles termed “the observer”.
  

• "Since matter cannot exceed lightspeed, it duplicates instead when subjected beyond it"

  I believe this statement indicates an inappropriate application of real-world intuition to the realm of fermions traveling near the speed of light. In the real world, we often encounter situation in which objects are briefly subjected to “forbidden condition” and undergo dramatic transformations, such as compressed objects breaking, objects exceeding the speed of sound, and light of a particular frequency being emitted by atoms of material of a higher refractive index than their surrounding when charged passes throught it (Cherenkov radiation). There is not to my knowledge any testable theoretical prediction that any particle can exceed the speed of light in vacuum (c), even one in which the particle is duplicated in a parallel world.
  
• Stagnation of scientific thought
  Though not directly stated, I’m of the impression that rocket art considers the scientific community to be intellectually stagnant. While there are certainly science professionals, academics, and enthusiasts who fit this description, I don’t think it accurately describes the whole scientific community.
  
  The scientific literature is vast, and requires significant study to read. Speculation beyond that which can currently be experimentally falsified, and thus outside of the strict boundaries of scientific literature, is larger still. Until one is well acquainted with this literature – either through direct study, or through discussion, in-person or via forums such as hypography, I think conclusions about the state of scientific thought are premature.

[rocket art]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Awareness is not a fundamental quality of reality, but a convenient description of the behavior of interacting systems such as biological organisms and, potentially, “artificially intelligent” algorithmic processes.

Consciousness is the fundamental quality in our sentient perspective of reality. Even an inanimate stone may be 'conscious' by itself by behaving just as it is, a hard, heavy object. A photon is 'conscious' to behave both as particle and wave. It is Awareness that's the apex that our comprehension must strive forward to. a state of Awareness is to achieve knowledge beyond the existing 'quality of reality.' It is in the pursuit of Awareness that would enable us to evolve beyond our present state, i.e. Evolution of Consciousness. Hence such powerful aspect I assigned with the highest unit one could achive in this physical dimension, a new unit c alpha =Awareness.

Originally Posted by CraigD

I believe that progress in physics is leading to a growing rejection of this conclusion in favor of the view that observation is itself the result of the interaction of particles, and that the act observation is not a physically significant event, but related to the amount of information available to the specific ensemble of particles termed “the observer”.

Beyond the phenomenon of observation, the role of 'consequences' should have been considered. Such 'consequences' are what you referred to as " related to the amount of information available to the specific ensemble of particles", but not the intangible Consciousness of the 'observer' himself/herself. The most one could tangibly offer for an experiment demanding 'objectivity' to the endeavor even to the observer, is the observer's intent of keeping it objective, which in itself is a bias to objectivity.

Originally Posted by CraigD

I believe this statement indicates an inappropriate application of real-world intuition to the realm of fermions traveling near the speed of light.

My Rocket Theory is not referring to particles traveling near the speed of light, but to the state of Conscious Energy beyond the speed of light. It has exceeded beyond the limits of physicialities and towards the Higher Realm of state of Energy. Relying with the realm of fermions only may be inappropriate.

Originally Posted by CraigD

There is not to my knowledge any testable theoretical prediction that any particle can exceed the speed of light in vacuum (c), even one in which the particle is duplicated in a parallel world.

Then, just as Science had done over and again, the tools may need uplifiting. The reliance that I could attest will be my consistency in dealing with my theory. In fact, I had not contradicted Einstein's E=mc^2, but rather enhanced it.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Stagnation of scientific thought
Though not directly stated, I’m of the impression that rocket art considers the scientific community to be intellectually stagnant.

I'm not referring to the scientific community being intellectually stagnant, but rather to the tools, formulas, reliant only to existing paradigms that my Rocket Theory prefers to soar beyond the limits it imposes. It is not the carpenter, but rather the the carpentry tools. But the Conscious carpenter need not rely on the paradigm that only his tangible tools matter to such endeavor, and needs to be reminded that the main endeavor of such construction is the interpretation of a plan made tangible by blueprints from the otherwise intangible realms that a Conscious designer had plucked from and interpreted into a tangible aesthetic design for the building.

The equation describes the relationship between observed mass and energy (potential mechanical work). It does not completely describe the “existing universe” at any point in subjective time.

Yes, I did agree that it does not completely define, which is why I said 'to define', and I even propose a new formula for incorporating Awareness to the Parallel Present from the 'existing Present, because the equation E=mc^2 does not 'completely describe.'

[rocket art]

I'm posting the image painting of my "Rocket Theory". It started as my painting from a series of poems and small paintings inside a box I entitled "Contents in a Box of Patterns", until I decided to translate it as equation based on Einstein's E=mc^2. Generally the Essence of my view is incorporated here, however I would want to discuss more detailed aspects because I believe the implications of my hypothesis can actually be made practical and tangible, and could enter into areas we have yet to dwell, such as ESP, highly advanced technologies, etc . I wanted to discuss (based on E=mc^2) with members of scienceforums.com like the consequences to mass, the variability of c other than the constant unit based in a vacuum, the role of gravity, etc...

[InfiniteNow]

That's nice. Did your parents hang it on the refridgerator?

[rocket art]

It's a small acrylic painting, about 6" x 6" tied inside a box of other equally small paintings (my visual arts training was informal, I just attended a painting workshop that lasted a few day sessions and maybe that's why you commented at my small work that way, but at least a 20 x22" landscape oil painting I had was printed on a calendar, and another included in an annual art book). An inventor friend of mine understood it and was able to complete his formula with it (I shared it to him years before I attempted to put the proposed equations).

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by rocket art

It's a small acrylic painting, about 6" x 6" tied inside a box of other equally small paintings

I like the small painting. Even reproduced as a small jpeg, I get a sense of swirly depth from it. I’d like to see the whole work it’s a part of, rocket art .

I assume the text isn’t part of the physical piece, but added to the digitized image. You might consider adding it by printing on transparent stock (eg: 3M CG6000). Equations look more beautiful, to me, using traditional nomenclature, eg:. Any latex renderer – hypography’s (see How to: use LaTeX for equations), or one of my favorites, the “practice box” of mimetextutorial.html – can do it, though hand lettering is prettiest and most nuanced.

That said, I still can’t make any sense out of “Rocket Theory” – that is, I can’t make use of any of its equations, other than , to make an experimental prediction or a useful calculation. or makes no sense – the units aren’t even correct. The phrase “parallel dimension” (while commonly used as a synonym of the more precise, but still inprecise “parallel world”), is a mathematical absurdity – by definition, dimensions are orthogonal, not parallel. The terms “centrifugal” and “centripetal” imply circular motion, so are meaningless in a space-time of less than 2 spatial dimensions – I can’t see how the adjectives can be meaningfully applied to a single dimension, as in “… the parallel dimension to our Present, and it is also centrifugal …”.

Simply writing , then multiplying it by mass or another fundamental physical quantity in some equation, isn’t, in a way any physics user in my experience could recognize, meaningful. It’s not, in any sensible mathematical formalism, the same thing as saying “Alice is aware of a mass” or “Bob is aware of the speed of light”. You can’t use it, as far as I’ve seen, to make a single physical prediction.

This is only a partial list of the language I’m unable to make sense of in your posts.

You say

Originally Posted by rocket art

Also I did not contradict Einstein's formula, but rather enhanced it.

but to enhance a theory such as Einstein's, which predicts and describes physical reality, the added formalism must also predict and describe physical reality. I’ve seen no evidence that “Rocket Theory” does so.