This is from my blog at
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

This is describing a baryon

baryon density = previous instance of baryon density + (the change in magnetism(W+/-) + the change in electric field(Z boson) + the change in temp(photon))

where:
previous instance of baryon density = (intensity of magnetism + intensity of electric field + intensity of temp)/(1/2b*c*Sin(A))

where:
a, b, c are the lengths of the gluons of the baryon.
A, B, C are the angles of the gluons at the quarks.

There is more at the blog.

Aaron

Karl: Your dark matter is tied up in the energy, M=E/C^2 , of the gravity waves( debroglie waves).




Cincirob: Not really. The metric cosmologists use for the expanding universe has two parameters they use to make it match measurements. One is matter, the other is energy. It takes both.




Karl: Damn it cinci! Are you that dense? E=mC^2 .




AAF: That 'dense' is the most accurate description; thank you, Karl!

Where

Where: is the Baryon.
Where: D is the density of the Baryon.
Where: n is current
Where: p is previous
Where: a,b,c are the lengths of the Gluons of the Baryon.
Where: A,B,C are the angles between the Gluons at the Quarks.

Where: is the Magnetic field (W Boson) of the Baryon. The W Boson is related to the rotational speed of the Baryon. In the case of uud, the 2 u quarks spin in a cone shape around the d Quark. The center of the base of the cone to the d Quark is the rotational axis. The faster the spin the more intense the W Boson.

Where: The uu rotational plane is perpendicular to the Z Boson field . The down quark lies on the rotational axis and is the direction of charge.

Where: Temperature field (Photon) emitted from and read by Leptons (Electrons) of the Baryon.
using Planck's spectral black body equations
Frequency

Wavelength


Let's start here.
The next post will describe the working equations in motion.
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com
Aaron Guerami

This is totally wrong.
There are even units mistakes and there is no way to check that experimentally.
Booze-up physics!

The above equations are unit independent.

Anonymous said: "This is totally wrong. There are even units mistakes and there is no way to check that experimentally. Booze-up physics!"

Jose says: Anonymous, you are the one who insists that "Physics is Math." How can it be that here is some "math," and this is not good enough for you, either. You are just too hard to please. Your shirt is stuffed with artichoke hearts. There is always a way to check anything "experimentally." You just have no capability to see how to do it. Booze up yourself. Find a redneck chick. Do it her way.

There are two phases. These two phases are not 0 and 1. A digital system is about existence. On/off.

They are two phases of state. The phases of state are; Read/write and Calculate.

The phase of Read/Write occurs at the bounds of a Dark Energy Ruleset. This is the read/write state.



The Calculate phase occurs during the motion through the Dark Energy Ruleset.



Aaron

So, Anonymous, you are the expert on math symbols; translate Aaron's thoughts above into English, so we can all understand the error that we know you will ridicule.

I see trig at the base of all interactions.

Baryons define themselves as their intensity over the area of a triangle. Baryons express their fields as Sine and Cosine waves, and are effected by the tangent of other W boson.

Interesting.

Aaron

Here is a picture I drew to visually explain this.



Here is a photo of Eta Carina.



Big explosion. Cool pic.
This shape cannot be described by gravity. It can only be describe by density.

Aaron

Or electric plasma

Jose;

As you can see from the above equations, the Z Boson(electricity) is only one part of the expression of the Baryon. Electricity occurs within the density model. It is not the only factor in describing a Baryon.

Aaron

Aaron, the same beautiful "explosion" shape is damnear identically reproduced in laboratory plasma chambers. (complete with the fan shape in the middle) The interactions of plasma are uncannily scalable from the lab to galactic proportions.

Jose,

What we are seeing is the destruction of QCD. Basic gluon to gluon communication breaks down when baryons are hit by intense magnetism, electricity, and or temperature.

In my model electricity occurs when the Z boson has ejected its electron. Then the Z boson becomes intensified and extends and expands around the next baryon. This Z boson to Z boson direct connection is plasma.

With that thought you probably would get similar results if not the same results from a plasma chamber. You are causing the destruction of the harmonic vibrations that normally occur in a baryon.

You should get the same result if a baryon was hit with temperatures (excited photons) that exceed the baryon's bounds. Or if the W boson (magnetism) was intensified beyond the baryon's bounds.

The way the smash labs do this is to use magnets to push the baryon into a density collision.

You should get the same result from intense density changes, intense temperature, intense magnetism, or intense electrical fields. QCD occurs within the baryon, so there is no way to manipulate the intensity of the direct gluon to gluon communication.

Aaron

Great pic,

I would rather eat the strawberry.

Plasmon, a picture is worth a thousand words. Those words are usually 'Cool, Wow, poor strawberry, What,...

Please tell us what is happening to that poor strawberry? Any why someone would take a picture at such a high shutter speed. It looks like someone shot the poor strawberry. But now I am just making things up.

Aaron

Jose,

I thought about your suggestion that plasma would cause this shape. I have not ever seen a picture of a plasma ball or discharge that formed that kind of shape. That does not mean a pic does not exist. Just I have never seen anything like it.

Aaron

Jose,

Hmmm, Coil Magnetic fields. There is a formula that describes the gauge of wire, the turns, and the diameter of the coil needed to exert n lbs pressure on a core.

There was this man named Heber Harper, Yep. I know because I use to help take care of he and his wife Thelma. Both of them had severe dementia. They were nicest people. Just nuts. And in a strange bit of normal, he looks at me and said.

"Before WWII, I was a motor winder on a Navy Frigate. There is a formula that describes the gauge of wire, the turns, and the diameter of the coil needed to exert n lbs pressure on a core." That was it. No name of the formula. He left me hanging.

Next thought,
I was looking at those nebula that form those shapes. I think these are the result of a quickly spinning object having a thermo-nuclear explosion in space. It follows the same pattern as Planck's Spectral Black Body equation. The 8pi version. They also follow the pattern of a magnetosphere in space.

All three of the above are effects, results of an event. What that page is describing is a cause. That would mean that the shape of the object had to be a cylinder before it became a hourglass. That some external coil electrical event causes pressure(pinching) on the cylinder shape. That caused the changes in the shape.

I think it is much more likely to be the result of a Thermo-nuclear event by a spinning metallic object. The spinning object heated to a point where the strong nuclear force broke down. The spinning object already had a strong magnetosphere, creating the space in the dark matter required for the coming hot, radioactive dust. Once the hot dust filled the space it slows it's expansion, but it continues expanding.

Aaron

Jose,

Are they suggesting that a star was struct by lightning from the galaxy and that caused the plasma of the star to explode into this shape? That is interesting.

But, it is an effect. Baryons must be present for an electric event to occur. The event would change the baryonic density of the object causing the effect. This would mean that the electric component is only one part of the baryonic density system.

This thunderbolt theory shows that an electric event can cause the temperature of baryons to increase rapidly at and over the entire surface. This would cause a rapid increase in temperature at the core of the star and would cause a thermo-nuclear blast. Which is a break down of the strong nuclear force because of temperature.

Baryons would be breaking apart. This would cause a stoppage of spinning material causing a collapse of the magnetic field. The collapse of the magnetic field would cause dark matter to loose pressure and fill towards the star. This would cause the wispy gases and lobe shape.

Non-baryonic vibrations like neutrinos and high energy photons would escape through the asymptotes.

I can see how an electric event could cause that shape. Now I have to worry about galactic lightning. Great. There is enough lightning in Florida.

What I don't understand is how the electric discharge started? Is there something nearby that would cause the discharge? Would we still see other effects of the discharge? Like a path of burnt hydrogen.

Aaron

Nope. Think of two gigantic power cables carrying an enormous amperage of current, shorting out. The short circuit causes the fusion that creates the matter there. Plasma filaments are the cables. You guys need to spend some time studying the evidence, instead of criticizing with what you think you know.

The incident does have characteristics of a star struck by lightening, and the same structure can be produces in the lab, in miniature.

This stuff doesn't take a lot of math to understand, in spite of Anonymous's ad hominem hot air.

These phenomenon are scalable from the lab to the universe. Anonymous to the contrary.

Jose;

These phenomenon are scalable from the lab to the universe. Anonymous to the contrary.

-------------
Aaron;

I think the word 'Scalable' should be 'Reducible' from the universe to the lab. Scalable means from one system to another. Where as reducible means to reduce the variables to produce an experimental system.



This equation is scalable. Where as Gravity is not scalable.

When you remove important concepts like volume from the equation to get mass, impossibilities and paradoxes get generated. The entire axiom of motion is based on an unresolved concept like attraction. We still have the helium balloon.

The system becomes simple when all the variables are included. When we evaluate density+(change in temp+change in magnetism+ the change in electricity, and compare that density to the surrounding densities, then we get the shape of the baryon, direction, velocity, current temperature field, current magnetic field and current electric field.

It is not attraction that causes motion. It is the changes in the baryon's fields compared to surrounding densities. This allows helium to rise under normal room temperature and fall when it is cold, surrounded by normal room variables.

Aaron

by David de Hilster /

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/events/FriendlyLetter.pdf

This is a wonderful paper. It is nice to see scientists becoming open to reevaluating failed axioms. It is also nice to see a scientist destroy things like neutrinos. He gives great advice on how to present new ideas and have those ideas actually read.

Easy read. Large type.

Aaron

I concur.

Aaron,

My sincere sympathies towards your honest attempts regarding natural philosophy aside but seems to me that you are one more victim of the same fine trap Well, sadly but there is NO:

Quarks, gluons, dark this and that, nuclear forces and related bosons or neutrinos, SR/GR/QM/QFT, curved n-D spaces, kinematical red shifts, strings, branes and please take into your consideration that whole bunch of accelerators data are only electro-machine INTERPRETATIONS.

Add to the above list whatever you want by your choice, presented scientific picture of the world is pure quasi-Ptolemaic system and has nothing to do with REALITY. As for thought: what do you think how e.g. galaxies, quasars are REALLY big, far or old? Could it be, surprisingly enough, that all what we see is veeery small because we are sitting inside of, say, a bubble which is kind of an electrogravitomagnetic lens!?

What we ONLY have that is direct experience of light, EM, inertia and gravitation and that of Observer (our inner Selves, the Subject) as well. How those phenomena are really interrelated on each and every cosmic scale, that is THE QUESTION. My hint would be: vibrations and resonances (of matter-space).

However, somewhere along your discussions, Ive noticed your idea that existing chemistry models are more reliable than that of atomic level. I would like to agree on this and like to add that it is because those models are closer to their real origins of ancient alchemy.


God bless

What is reality? Consider if you will, what a model of this solar system would be if we were observing from Polaris...the Sun and Planets would be orbiting the Earth.

You Earthlings have to consider perspective!

Rebis,

First, thanks for reading my work. My question to you is this.
If the universe is as you described.
'there is NO:

Quarks, gluons, dark this and that, nuclear forces and related bosons or neutrinos, SR/GR/QM/QFT, curved n-D spaces, kinematical red shifts, strings, branes and please take into your consideration that whole bunch of accelerators data are only electro-machine INTERPRETATIONS.'

Then what remains to describe the interactions of the universe. You have basically dismissed all possible systems.

Nothing that you stated can definitively change my mind. If you described how interactions work without much of the above, then I could evaluate your statement.

I have written that Neutrinos are made up to fit solutions[1] [2]. I postulate that they are pieces of Gluons shattered in the collision. They are not necessary. SR,GR are systems that are well understood to not work. E does not = mass * C^2. Because of the dimensionless mass [3].

I realize the Giant Smash Labs are whores for money. They are looking for God. Must be funded by the Vatican. But the results they have produced are interesting. If you throw a watch against the wall. You will get the general picture of the gears and such. If you fire a watch through an air cannon at a wall, then you will get pieces of pieces of gears. It becomes much more difficult to describe the interactions of the watch.

The basic model I have of the baryon is inline with Bohr's Atomic Model.


[1]http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/2009/06/non-existance-of-neutrinos.html
[2]http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/events/FriendlyLetter.pdf
[3]http://www.wbabin.net/science/guerami.pdf

a

Aaron: Then what remains to describe the interactions of the universe. You have basically dismissed all possible systems.
*****

Quite right - ALL of them, and that would be a very good starting point. Also, I have already talked too much.


God bless

The Ampère Revolution

Quoted fromhttp://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3415weber.html:

"Ampère's revolution in science was completed by 1825 and published in 1826 as his Memoire sur la théorie mathématique des phénomenes électrodynamiques uniquement déduite de l'expérience[2] (Memoir on the Mathematical Theory of Electrodynamic Phenomena Uniquely Deduced from Experiment). Ampère showed therein that the restatement of Kepler's discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, as associated with the name of Newton, could not possibly apply as a universal law, once the newly discovered phenomena of galvanic currents (persisting direct current, as opposed to the static discharge investigated by Franklin) were taken into account. Specifically, Ampère showed that the attempt to reduce the laws of nature to an interaction of self-evident particles obeying an inverse square law of attraction could not hold in respect to electrical currents. In that case, taking the infinitesimal element of current as the presumed self-evident existent, it turns out that the laws of interaction must be modified to take into consideration the angular direction of the current flow. Thus, the simple inverse square law gives way to a term embodying the sine and cosine of the angles which each member of a pair of infinitesimal current elements make with the line connecting their centers"

Maxwell did not understand the significance of the "the angular direction of the current flow" and it has dropped from consideration.

More stupidities:

"Maxwell did not understand the significance of the "the angular direction of the current flow" and it has dropped from consideration. "

The 4th Maxwell's equation reads:



In this equation, j is a vector.
A vector has a size and a direction.
Without the additional term (dD/dt), this is simply Ampère's law.
The additional term has been introduced by Maxwells so as to ensure charge conservation.

It was an essential contribution by Maxwell!
Yes, Jr, essential because charge can also stay at rest.
This happens for example when they accumulate in the plates of a condensator.

It seem Jr, that it is you who don't understand anything.
That's no surprise, since the fancy maths do not matter for you.
Only stories like quoted above make the news for you.

Quotes fromhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html:

Unfortunately, the Ampère Memoire is almost never read today; only a small portion of the 200-page work was ever translated into English, and even French speakers rarely, if ever, trouble to work through it. The reason is that James Clerk Maxwell, in the middle of the 19th century, made a new mathematical formulation of the laws of electricity, which he claimed was algebraically equivalent to that of Ampère and Ampères successor in the development of the electrical laws, Wilhelm Weber.

Maxwells formulation, however, eliminated consideration of the angular component of the force between current elements. It also removed the most fundamental of Ampères assumptionsthe unity of electricity and magnetismby introducing the concept of a magnetic field. There is no magnetic field in any of the writings of Ampère, nor of his successors in electrodynamics, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann. Magnetism, for them, is considered an epiphenomenon of electricity; it is the force of electrodynamic attraction or repulsion acting between circuits of electricity, called magnetic molecules (and which came to be known later as electrons).

(And which explains the auto-formation of Birkeland plasma currents.)

Of course, you, Anonymous are steeped in conventional stereotype rote regurgitation, and will respond with more tripe.

Aaron, multi-body motion July 2 2009, 5:39 PM

Bob;
"A one body system must be free from any outside influences otherwise, it is not a one body system.
The body can only be in 1 of 2 states:
State 1 is, the body is in motion.
State 2 is, the body is at rest.
If the body is in state 1, it will remain in that state.
If the body is in state 2, it will remain in that state.
Since there are no outside influences either state will remain unchanged.
A single body can not affect or effect its own state and therefor no equations apply."

Aaron: "I humbly disagree with your assessment of my model of baryonic motion."

Whoa Aaron, back up a little. I did not make an assessment of your model of baryonic motion, I gave you a description of my one body system so that you could restate your disagreement with my statement/question which was, "My opinion is based on the fact that gravitational bodies attract, do you disagree?" If you recall, I showed you that the disagreement as you stated it did not negate my opinion. All you are doing now is creating a different argument.

You gave equations and stated, "These equations are not just for one body systems." I showed you that a one body system did not need equations.

Aaron: "This system requires outside influences."

Your system, not mine!

Aaron: "It requires other baryons to express their (E,M,T) fields so it can compute its own density in relation to the surrounding baryons. So by the process of Read/Write, demands outside influences."

Yours is not a one body system, you are describing a field.

Aaron: "This is an analog system. So it has 2 states.
State 1 is, the read/write phase.
State 2 is, the calculation phase."

Your analog system can not read/write before it calculates, it should be read/calculate/write and moreover, you are assigning intelligence to your baryons.

You said you disagreed with my statement but so far you have not countered it.

==================

You are right, I need to answer your original question.
I disagree that there is an attractive force that acts as gravity is defined.

The basis of this disagreement is mass in any form. I wrote this in detail in 'Disproof of Gravity'. Mass is a zero dimensional system (not natural). Whereas density is a 4 dimensional system (possibly natural).

After much thinking, I agree with you that it is possible that my equation is a 3 state system. Read/calculate/write. Read would occur when the boson enters the Dark Energy Ruleset. Calculate occurs during the transit of the Dark Energy Ruleset. Write occurs when the boson exits the Dark Energy Ruleset. This understanding would allow for pre-loading of electron data.

I think I am getting ahead of our examination.

In the future I would like it if we would discuss the appearance of intelligence, and how I think that is just efficiency.

And Yes, I know that this is my system that we are taking the hammer to. I need to do this to see if it stands up to scrutiny. Every serious conversation
has helped me strengthen the concepts.
Many Thanks
a

==============================
Bob;

Aaron: "Bob, You are right, I need to answer your original question.
I disagree that there is an attractive force that acts as gravity is defined."

Disagreement noted.

I disagree with "point mass" gravity. The concept of "point mass" is based on Newton's work. My position is that:
1. Newton was wrong when he calculated the gravitational effects "within" a body.
2. Newton's work was misinterpreted.
or
3. Newton's work was misunderstood.
I fully agree with Newton's work in a gravitational field "outside of the body". I fully accept that gravitational bodies attract, which is the basis for my initial disagreement.

I reject you model of the baryon for two reasons,
1. The baryon is described as having intelligence.
2. Your density proposal requires gravity as the source of buoyancy.

I have no desire to "trash" your model for the same reason I have no desire to trash the Bible to a preacher, I would be wasting my time, cui bono.

I do however, encourage you to pursue your model and continue publishing as long as you have the courage of your convictions. Your work has as much chance of being accepted by the scientific community as did Einstein's.

==================
Bob;

Aaron: "In the future I would like it if we would discuss the appearance of intelligence, and how I think that is just efficiency."

Then you must find a different way to describe the model, read/compute/write requires intelligence.

==================
Aaron;


That is tough, but I will give it a try.

1)Rule based systems are not signs of intelligence. Any more that a complex systems like DFT shows signs of intelligence.

The problem I see is that there is intelligence in the universe:Octopus, Squid, Cuttlefish, birds, some minor primates, ants, bees... This needs to be accounted for even in the layer of the small. Even lichen makes a decision on where to accumulate. This does not mean consciousness. Personally I would say my parrots are much more intelligent than most investment bankers.

Another thing I notice is that it is impossible for gravity to describe decision making. Yet it is the fundamental process to organics. Do I eat or do I die? Should I stay or should I go now? Yet, I am excited that this system can delve into organics.

Decision making has to be a fundamental process of the baryonic layer, in order for their to be advanced behavior in complex system that describe flocking, eating, sex, communication... There must be a decision layer. And it cannot just magically show up at layers above the fundamental layer without having its basis in the fundamental layer.

The step from decision making to Neural Networks is difficult, but exists. Even Neural Networks use only basic electric, magnetic and temperature rules. Certain organic show usage of compasses. Neural networks require electricity to pass on information. And organics see temperature.

As for inorganic computing. We develop rules for decision making. We may agree that this is not intelligence or consciousness. But it is decision making.

Yes, It is a requirement for baryons to evaluate themselves with their surrounding environment. This is an efficiency.

2) As for the requirement of attraction. I see no supporting evidence that there is a fundamental force that attracts. I see no layer of information that would be communicated in this force.

For example, a bunch of drunk primates are shooting guns at the moon on a cliff next to the Pacific ocean. A bullet falls to the earth, after it reaches its peak, because it is more dense than the surrounding air. When it hits the ocean it continues its decent, at a slower rate, until it hits the ocean floor. Does it stop there. No. It will continue its decent, albeit much slower, into the sand. It will continue its decent until it equalizes with surrounding baryons of the same density.

Bob, I am glad you don't want to '"trash" your model for the same reason I have no desire to trash the Bible to a preacher'. I do appreciate the point/counterpoint debate. Very few people can do this. Hold another model in their mind and find holes in it.

Thanks
a

"... The reason is that James Clerk Maxwell, in the middle of the 19th century, made a new mathematical formulation of the laws of electricity, which he claimed was algebraically equivalent to that of Ampère and Ampères successor in the development of the electrical laws, Wilhelm Weber. ..."

How convenient it is for JR to avaoid the fancy maths!!!
He can claim the "Maxwell claimed" and suggest Maxwell made mistakes or Maxwell was dishonest without taking ever the burden of the proof as this would be mathematics.

JR will never tell you if Maxwell's formulation is equivalent or not.
This is an implicit insult to intelligence.

As predicted: "Of course, you, Anonymous (cinci) are steeped in conventional stereotype rote regurgitation, and will respond with more tripe.

You are the insult.

JR will never tell you if Maxwell's formulation is equivalent or not. (to Ampère's formulation)
In addition, we can be sure that he can even not expose the two formulations and compare them.
Instead of trying, he will resort to vulgarity.

Moved from Gravity thread July 6 2009, 7:45 PM

Aaron: "In the future I would like it if we would discuss the appearance of intelligence, and how I think that is just efficiency."

bob s: "Then you must find a different way to describe the model, read/compute/write requires intelligence."


Aaron; "That is tough, but I will give it a try.
1)Rule based systems are not signs of intelligence."

If the rules require the system to:
read: to assimilate information
compute: to make a decision based on that information
write: to transfer that information to a different system
Then it is, most assuredly, intelligent.

Aaron: "Any more that a complex systems like DFT shows signs of intelligence."

DTF? Dont assume a reader knows what an acronym stands for.

Aaron: "The problem I see is that there is intelligence in the universe:Octopus, Squid, Cuttlefish, birds, some minor primates, ants, bees... This needs to be accounted for even in the layer of the small. Even lichen makes a decision on where to accumulate. This does not mean consciousness. Personally I would say my parrots are much more intelligent than most investment bankers."

Then you do expect your baryon to have intelligence.

Aaron: "Another thing I notice is that it is impossible for gravity to describe decision making."

Your expectations of gravity are unrealistic. Gravity provides information upon which an "intelligence" can make a decision. Do you think the Earth decided to orbit the Sun? Whatever force caused the Earth to obtain and maintain its orbit it is a result of action/reaction and not a decision.

Aaron: "Yet it is the fundamental process to organics."

What?...gravity is the fundamental process to organics? That is ridiculous Aaron!

Aaron: "Do I eat or do I die? Should I stay or should I go now? Yet, I am excited that this system can delve into organics."

Your system does not "delve" into organics, you are pushing it there.

Aaron: "Decision making has to be a fundamental process of the baryonic layer, in order for their to be advanced behavior in complex system that describe flocking, eating, sex, communication... There must be a decision layer. And it cannot just magically show up at layers above the fundamental layer without having its basis in the fundamental layer."

Rocks do not make decisions, water does not make decisions, the atmosphere does not make decisions, lighting does not make decision, planets do not make decisions, solar systems and galaxies do not make decisions, gravity does not make decisions; organic matter on the other hand does make decisions, how and when it attained that ability I can not say, but nevertheless, it does.

Aaron: "The step from decision making to Neural Networks is difficult, but exists. Even Neural Networks use only basic electric, magnetic and temperature rules. Certain organic show usage of compasses. Neural networks require electricity to pass on information. And organics see temperature.

As for inorganic computing. We develop rules for decision making. We may agree that this is not intelligence or consciousness. But it is decision making."

We provide computers with the ability to make decisions based on input (artificial intelligence). Your baryons existed long before humans so it would be impossible for us to have "programed" those baryons with the ability to compute, theirs would be (natural intelligence)...programed by whom?

Aaron: "Yes, It is a requirement for baryons to evaluate themselves with their surrounding environment. This is an efficiency."

Yes, the baryons ability to make decisions would be efficient but it would be efficient intelligence.

Aaron: "2) As for the requirement of attraction. I see no supporting evidence that there is a fundamental force that attracts. I see no layer of information that would be communicated in this force."

Gravity affords me the information to know which way is down, gravity affords me the information to know which way is up, gravity affords me the information to know if I am accel/decelerating. If you dont see supporting evidence then try dropping a bowling ball on your foot, maybe you can feel the supporting evidence.

Aaron: "For example, a bunch of drunk primates are shooting guns at the moon on a cliff next to the Pacific ocean. A bullet falls to the earth, after it reaches its peak, because it is more dense than the surrounding air."

And, it is gravity, that determines which object is more, or less, dense.

Aaron: "I do appreciate the point/counterpoint debate. Very few people can do this. Hold another model in their mind and find holes in it."

To be honest Aaron, I did not hold your model in my mind very long.

At the beginning of this message you said the you wanted show the appearance of intelligence as efficiency yet, you only convinced me that intelligence was a requirement for your baryon...well, I dont buy it.

Bob,

I am glad that you even held my model in your mind for a minute. Most people cannot see the system for what it is, an information system. You have. Thanks.

We all agree that photons provide information to the observer about the emitting baryon. This is spectra, heat and pressure. What is the emitting baryon, How hot it is and how far it is away? This requires the receiving baryon to evaluate that information and make changes to itself. This is the basis of photography.

Because I am a decision making system made entirely of baryons, that requires that you also are a decision making system made entirely of baryons. Since you make intelligence through decisions, then I make intelligence through decisions. Intelligence is a far step from decisions. Intelligence is a collective of decisions and storage of previous decisions. All organic systems must make decisions.

Inorganic systems do not have storage systems thus cannot be called intelligent. Inorganic systems just respond to inputs. If the pressure on the right side is more than the density of the object, then the object moves left.

A model of physics must incorporate this problem, along with motion. One system must explain these together. Separate systems always error out. This continuity of information throughout the model is a must. If not then we don't exist.

My neural network just misfired. I will be down for some time.

a

I know where we are going wiht this. If another observer is involved in the process than the process changes. So there cannot be 2 observers of the same information. Thus there is no overall global interacter in the system. Everything is local.

thus an active interacting god is not a requirement for this systme. it is a set and forget system.

So all previous beliefs(religion) of how the system work are incorrect.

I hope this makes sense.

a