An "electromagnetic field" is called that because if you are stationary with respect to it you would call it an electric field, but if you moved through it or it moved through you, you would call it a magnetic field. This is regular physics.
Where I come in is that it's very simple to understand this by thinking of an electric field as a "twist field". Hold your arms out like you're an aeroplane and walk forwards:
It will make you turn. And if you didn't know about the relative motion you'd think you were in a "turn field", and you'd call it a magnetic field. Then if you move through that so there's no real relative motion any more, you're in a twist field. That's why you experience an electric field when you move through a magnetic field and vice versa.
So only in the interaction does the electric field becomes magnetic. Would that then still not imply a change of expression for the EM entity that can be considered as each expression being the other's inside-out version. When you say no: how do you know when all information remains otherwise absolutely the same?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
An "electromagnetic field" is called that because if you are stationary with respect to it you would call it an electric field, but if you moved through it or it moved through you, you would call it a magnetic field. This is regular physics.
Farside;
It’s called an E/M field due to the fact that it produces electrical influence with its linear velocity and a magnetic influence with its angular momentum.
This is “regular physics”; yours is NOT. This is how misconceptions get passed on to others. When referring to such physics fundamentals you should reference a real physics text book and leave personal opinions out of it. That is also why the angular momentum of particles produce what is called their “magnetic moments”.
But what about the mind? Does it exist? If yes, does it also consume energy?
Once more you ask an excellent question Dipayankar. My own thoughts are that the mind is like the software that runs the computer. the computer itself ( the hardware ) is the brain. Both indeed are necessary to have a functional unit. The software gets programed through physical inputs. This also includes how your parents and society has affected your programing.
An internet research yielded this:
Brain vs. Mind Introduction Mind results from the organized connections of neurons within the brain, connected both to the environment and to mechanisms for changing the environment (muscles). So is it true to say the mind is nothing but the brain? Scientists who want to find better ways to explain the connection between the brain and mind often take the view that all that´s necessary to understand the mind is in the brain, because that keeps them looking for materially-based explanations, which is how cognitive science progresses. However, at present no one can say for sure how a single "thought" happens, and probably many aspects of cognition will never be explained through a scientific approach alone. Explanations of our thoughts are a subset of our thoughts, not the other way around. Theories should be tools to help us understand and better ourselves, not weapons for those who want to degrade our appreciation of ourselves and other human beings by reducing us to organic machines.
Thanks for the question. What are your thoughts on the subject? Other members are of course invited to this discussion.
However, at present no one can say for sure how a single "thought" happens, and probably many aspects of cognition will never be explained through a scientific approach alone.
Thanks for the question. What are your thoughts on the subject? Other members are of course invited to this discussion.
Pat, my intuition, is, there is no "single" thought, or at least, that whatever minimal "single thought" definition that we use, has and associated set of complex processes and never less than four interfering points/vertexes/nodes/interferii, whether as EM-Radiation fields or molecular wholes, or both and, in all cases, the quasi-physical essence of gravitatiional *spacetime* is involved.
I dunno but here is additional fodder of and for-da-mind;
Life( metaphysical beyond ) is,
.....as above and beyond.............
the Souls journey( quasi-physical gravitational *spacetime* ),
..... ergo ultra-micro-intermediating............
….so below and “as”-.............
via, or viva, the Spirit( energy ) that rocks( as fermionic matter )
and rolls( as bosonic forces ).
And so IT( universe ) IS, 'goEing' and 'goEing' and 'goEing',
eternally dancing,
the frequency of distance as size, between steps, that, as points of interference aka interferii( like radii and rastfarii )
are surrounded by angles, not angels( unless you prefer ), and relationship from which,
none shall ever pass, yet merely transform and transit, between,
the existent voids of the macro-micro-infinite nothingness,
contrasted to time ergo Moment-um-MM-MM-MM, and its complementary other i.e.
non-occupied space voids, then against, occupied space Boyd's 8^D,
"Hey Dave, its Boyd, let me in the house", "Boyd's not here, go away"
and so Boyd passed on, coming around later, within the context of another Xy Mama M-o—m---ent.
Rybo, the rybot, form planet Rybon spreading Rybonics seeds
The mind, being of the brain, is of many little minds, minding their own area of focus; some are even simpleton minds or just above reflexes. The conscious mind is a higher, more global, part of the brain, but is the last to know of the brain's smaller minds analyzing their own domains. Then it gets fed back into the brain sometimes for a more creative result.
I was driving down the interstate when a smaller mind told me that I was hungry. Another mind told me that there were no exits or rest stops with food for quite a while. The hungry mind kept telling me it was hungry, as it had to, for, if not, I would feel full. Another mind said to forget the trip and go live in some small scenic town forever. I said no. Another mind said to speed way above the limit. I said OK.
I kept on talking to myself and it was good company, but sometimes my higher self had to tell my lower self that it was acting crazy.
ME, MY SELF, and I agree with you Austin. ME representing the physical ( Mass/Energy ). SELF representing the soul or spirit ( Individual self reconciling with higher self ) and I the mental portion I AM ( I think therefore I am )
A Triune brain: Reptilian, Mammilian, Human.
I said to myself, self I said.
Where did my idea come from?
Best,
Pat
P.S. Id, Ego, Superego......Parent, Adult, Child. ( TRINITY ) The dynamics which run the universe.
That was a very good analogy Prof. However like in a computer Hardware and Software come as seperate entities, I guess mind is derived from the brain itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
Once more you ask an excellent question Dipayankar. My own thoughts are that the mind is like the software that runs the computer. the computer itself ( the hardware ) is the brain. Both indeed are necessary to have a functional unit. The software gets programed through physical inputs. This also includes how your parents and society has affected your programing.
An internet research yielded this:
Brain vs. Mind Introduction Mind results from the organized connections of neurons within the brain, connected both to the environment and to mechanisms for changing the environment (muscles). So is it true to say the mind is nothing but the brain? Scientists who want to find better ways to explain the connection between the brain and mind often take the view that all that´s necessary to understand the mind is in the brain, because that keeps them looking for materially-based explanations, which is how cognitive science progresses. However, at present no one can say for sure how a single "thought" happens, and probably many aspects of cognition will never be explained through a scientific approach alone. Explanations of our thoughts are a subset of our thoughts, not the other way around. Theories should be tools to help us understand and better ourselves, not weapons for those who want to degrade our appreciation of ourselves and other human beings by reducing us to organic machines.
Thanks for the question. What are your thoughts on the subject? Other members are of course invited to this discussion.
The conscious mind is a higher, more global, part of the brain, but is the last to know of the brain's smaller minds analyzing their own domains. Then it gets fed back into the brain sometimes for a more creative result.
I kept on talking to myself and it was good company, but sometimes my higher self had to tell my lower self that it was acting crazy.
Good thoughts Austin.
If there is a niche/void to be filled, Mother Nature will attempt to fill it, because, she abhors a vacuum.
When consciousness rests, dreams rush in, to the fill conscious void.
Naught is lost in Mother Nature.
Gravitational 'spacetime' has angular propensity towards self, ergo, perhaps self-referencing viewpoints are gravitational points-of-view.
We may come to realize, that, self-referencing is fundamental aspect of gravity turning all physics back into their selves.
One possible dynamic of a torus, is that, it in-volves, --towards the center hole-- then evolves( out ) --away from center hole-- only to in-volve into itself again.
In Rybonics link as follows, we see no less than 8, 5-fold, overlapping, gravitational interference patterns, always turning all other 5-fold and 4-fold patterns, back into themselves i.e. naught is ever lost outward into the macro-micro-infinite void of a true nothingness vacuum.
Universe and our thoughts exist within a closed system, or scenario, if you prefer.
So only in the interaction does the electric field becomes magnetic. Would that then still not imply a change of expression for the EM entity that can be considered as each expression being the other's inside-out version. When you say no: how do you know when all information remains otherwise absolutely the same?
There's just no sense of "inside out" here. The regular physics is that an electric field IS a magnetic field if you're moving through it. It's the same thing. It just depends on how you observe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing
Farside; It’s called an E/M field due to the fact that it produces electrical influence with its linear velocity and a magnetic influence with its angular momentum. This is “regular physics”; yours is NOT.
Whoa, hold it right there. Let me reiterate: if you move through an electric field you would call it a magnetic field. If you move through a magnetic field you would call it an electric field. Now that's regular physics. If you're disputing it, it's time you went back to school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing
This is how misconceptions get passed on to others. When referring to such physics fundamentals you should reference a real physics text book and leave personal opinions out of it. That is also why the angular momentum of particles produce what is called their “magnetic moments”.
This the ToE forum, not the physics textbook forum. And I made it perfectly clear that the "twist field" and "turn field" were my interpretations.
but here is additional fodder of and for-da-mind;
Linear Mode
