Marko Rodin - Smart Lazer Technology

We normally think of stars as hot - but scientists using ESO's Very large telescope say they've found a pair of cool brown dwarfs, one of which is no hotter than a sauna or a cup of tea.

Indeed, says the team, it may be so cool that it actually has water-based clouds.

In fact, brown dwarfs are essentially failed stars, in that they lack enough mass for gravity to trigger nuclear reactions.

With April approaching, my thoughts turn more and more to the release of the WISE data, which should tell us a great deal about brown dwarfs and other relatively cool objects in our stellar neighborhood. The Wide-Field Infrared Explorer mission hasn’t gained the media attention of a Kepler or a CoRoT because it’s not specifically a planet-hunter and isn’t in the business of turning up small, rocky worlds. But if you’ve been following our discussions here, you know how important a mission this is. We’ll get a bit more than half the data WISE has generated in April, and the rest of the dataset in 2012, by which time we may be able to identify, or else lay to rest the idea of, a gas giant (‘Tyche’) at 15000 AU, or a brown dwarf closer than Alpha Centauri...............

Cool brown dwarf could have water-based clouds


[link to www.tgdaily.com]


Brown Dwarfs and Planets: A Blurry Boundary


[link to www.centauri-dreams.org]

And as the universe becomes more electrical, the brain becomes, well, less so. This will be an extension/potential barrier to the neuromodeling used to create AI.

[link to www.scientificamerican.com]

i know , to form organic ai that replicates the function of our environment one needs to be aware of our environments structure

non organic ai by default can not

correct. it can only model and bridge, which it does.

we have done this ourselves already - creating "ai" in our own machines based on neurocognistic modeling.

advanced sentiences are aware of us. thats why they remain elusive and can only be inferred when they "act" such as the higgs at 124-126 GeV. Those anomolies aren't natural phenomenon - they reflect sentience outside of our perception.

hard to comprehend especially when trying to taste it all - but the pattern that drives everything (increasing orders of magnitude) also reflects increasing complexity at each level, and predictably, increasing sentience as we move forward through orders.

motivated

yes. and intelligent. understanding all the physics equations faster than planck's constant.

perhaps most impressive - the anomolies are an adjusting the physics equations faster than planck's constant.

Getting something from nothing is one of the great developments in physics in the past century, from understanding how to create a universe from nothing, to our current understanding of how one might endow another form of nothing – namely empty space – with energy. But perhaps there is no better example relevant to our direct experience of how to get something from nothing than the phenomenon called "spontaneous symmetry breaking" that the Higgs boson represents.

If our ideas about the Higgs turn out to be true, then everything we see is a kind of window dressing based on an underlying fabric of reality in which we shouldn't exist. The particles from which we're made are massive and bind together to form protons, neutrons, nuclei, and ultimately atoms. But without the Higgs, these particles would actually be massless, like photons, which are required to move restlessly at the speed of light and cannot be confined, except perhaps in a black hole.

We have all experienced how the heaviness of an object depends on where it is located. In water, for example, with buoyant forces present, objects that are heavy on the land seem lighter. Similarly, if you try and push something through a very thick fluid it may appear heavier (giving you more resistance to the force of your pushing) than it would if you were pushing it through the air.

The Standard Model of particle physics implies that there is an otherwise invisible background "Higgs field" that permeates all of space. This field interacts with other particles with varying degrees of strength. As particles move through space, they interact with the background Higgs field, and those that interact more strongly will experience more resistance to their motion, and will act heavier. Some particles, like the photon, do not interact with the field at all, and remain massless.

In this way, the mass of everything we see is determined by the existence of this field, and if it didn't exist, essentially all particles would be massless. According to this picture, mass is an "accident" of our circumstances because we exist in a universe in which such a background field happens to have arisen.

But why a Higgs "particle"? Well, relativity tells us that no signal can travel faster than light. Incorporating this into quantum mechanics tells us that forces we think of as being due to fields like the electric field are actually transmitted between objects by the exchange of particles, and that these particles travel on average at the speed of light or slower.

Why particles transmit forces is like thinking of playing catch. If I throw a ball to you and you catch it, then you will be pushed backwards by the force of my ball, and I will be pushed backward by the act of throwing the ball. Thus we act as though we are repelling each other.

So, if there is a Higgs field, it turns out that there has to be a new particle associated with this field, and this is the Higgs particle.

This seems like a remarkable and fanciful framework, rather like concocting angels on the head of a pin. What would drive scientists to imagine such a scenario? One of the greatest theoretical successes of the last half of the 20th century has been the unification of two of the known forces in nature: electromagnetism and the weak force (responsible for the reactions that power the sun).

According to this theory, electromagnetic forces arise by the exchange of massless photons, and are long-range, whereas the short-range weak force results from the exchange of massive particles, called W and Z particles – discovered experimentally in the 1980s after they were predicted to exist in the 1960s.

In order for this theoretical unification to make mathematical sense, all three different kinds of particle would have to be massless in the underlying theory, and therefore the forces they mediated would be almost identical. However, only if the W and Z particles obtain a mass by interacting with a background field – the Higgs field – will the underlying unified theory be mathematically consistent, while at the same time implying that the two forces will appear different at the scales we measure them today.

If the Higgs particle is discovered at Cern, with a mass of 125GeV as present rumours suggest, it will be the crowning jewel of our theoretical understanding, not only of the electroweak unified theory, but also of our understanding of our own origins, and the origin of almost all mass we measure in the universe.

All is not that rosy, however. The Standard Model gives no explanation of why the masses of the Higgs, the W and Z have the scales that they do. Indeed, other arguments suggest that one needs new physics to ensure that this scale of masses is not driven up to much higher energies due to quantum mechanical effects. One of the most exciting ways in which this behaviour might be kept in check involves a new possible symmetry in nature, called supersymmetry.

If supersymmetry is manifested in the real world, the number of elementary particles would double, and it turns out that because of this one would need not one Higgs particle but two particles to do the job of giving masses to the other particles in nature. Thus, many elementary particle physicists expect to find not one Higgs particle at Cern, but two.

Since supersymmetry is an essential ingredient that is built into the more speculative string theory models that attempt to unify gravity and quantum mechanics, there is even more reason for some theorists to hope that either two Higgs particles, or new particles – the super-partners of the particles making up ordinary matter – might be discovered at the LHC.

If a single Higgs and nothing else is discovered at the LHC it will therefore be a mixed blessing. Indeed, perhaps the worst empirical possibility we theorists can imagine. We will have discovered the origin of mass, as advertised, but there will be no new experimental guidance on how to take the next step, or where to search for empirical answers to the outstanding puzzles in particle physics, from the origin of the electroweak scale, or ultimately to a possible unification of all four known forces in the cosmos.

well think about it
something must be constantly "adjusting" all things in all places instantly always

example : if gravity field or any other field took 8 mins to adjust at c from earth to the sun our orbit was long gone before we wrote history, whatever the "adjuster" is, it is instant over distance , whatever the distance

Yeah, it's almost like its the elemental reducer whereas most others have an affinity to neutrality or polarity, Florine has an inclination to bind. The only element more corrosive is chlorine, which is significantly more complex.

walk through higgs:

so , re supersymmetry

looking at the spiritual/auric healing traditions
described by those who see auras
and their composite layers
etheric double/templates are evident on the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th layer of the light body
the bodies in between being more fluid

the spiritual healing traditions would describe the etheric template or double layer as the structured energy field which allows the other bodies to remain linked and allows information to be passed between these layers
the 2nd , 4th and 6th layers being described as fluid - with no definitive structure
ie are created by the transfer of information between structured layers - in a most individual fashion , depending on how we interpret/receive that information for ourselves and what we create as a result

the structured layers are the templates for organisation of matter to be 'condensed' on to - at the first layer - it created matrix fo the gross physical body to be laid down
( cf the tadpole eyes aligning electrically before condensing physically)
and for the psychic and noetic bodies to be structured and their corresponding layers

is this supersymmetry in motion ?
or am i grasping at the potential


any thoughts ?

Not reducer, oxidizer; more electronegative than oxygen so often substitutes for it metabolically. Hydrofluoric acid is the strongest, more so than hydrochloric, and eats through glass so gotta store it in polymer.

An oxidizing agent (also called an oxidant, oxidizer or oxidiser) can be defined as a substance that removes electrons from another reactant in a redox chemical reaction.

The dimensions of discrete natural units (quanta) are length, frequency, mass, charge, and spherical geometry. Dimension is the fundamental attribute of measurement, but is not itself measurable. Absolute dimension is a quality of reality seemingly arising from the ultimate Source of all existence. When quantity is associated with dimension, then the two together form a measurement.

Through the lack of coherent understanding of dimensions and units, it has become standard practice to view measurements as units. For example, the kilogram defines a unit of mass . It would be far more coherent if the kilogram defined a measurement of mass, with the definition of “unit” reserved for compound dimensions . It is not so much that the choice of words is important, but that the concepts of measurements and units are quite different from one another. Using the same word to define two different concepts, which often appear in the same sentence or paragraph, easily leads to confusion.

There are fewer dimensions at the quantum level than in the macro world. Like force, matter, and environment, dimensions increase in complexity as the orders of reality become more complex. Color, flavor, and texture are examples of complex dimensions as perceived at the level of human beings.

The physical world, at the quantum level, follows a very simple and easy to understand set of rules. However, the key to understanding the quantum level of existence lies in more precise and simple definitions of the terms “dimension,” “measurement,” and “unit.”

There are four commonly known, fundamental dimensions in the MKS system of measurement: mass, charge, length, and frequency. In our macro frame of reference, we prefer to speak of frequency in terms of its reciprocal of time. Also at the quantum level there is a fifth type of dimension, spherical geometry.

It is from the fundamental dimensions that units are constructed. The unit of area is equal to the length dimension squared. The unit of volume is equal to the length dimension cubed. Volume then has three dimensions of length.

Volume Quantum Measurement

However, there are also three dimensions in a unit of momentum (mass times length times frequency).

Momentum Quantum Measurements

So it is more accurate to call “3D” objects “volumetric” than three-dimensional. Technically, an object with three dimensions of length is three dimensional, but three-dimensions need not mean “three dimensions of length.

The MKS system of units is a physical system of units that expresses any given measurement using fundamental units of the metre, kilogram, and/or second (MKS).

Historically the MKS system of units succeeded the cgs system of units and laid the blueprint for the International System of Units, which now serves as the international standard.

there is no "negative" and "positive" in nature. The +ve and -ve is just a human invention.

Agreed, you need a "zero", where the charges are equal/the neutral point, which is really relative. On Earth we have ground, because of that we have the referential point the "zero".

But, the light bodies are in the 'superluminal', correct? So, they would exist outside of the material, whereas the supersymetry is a model based solely on the material, or luminal/subluminal realms. Actually, supersymentry is only concerned with subluminal realms, or realms that contain mass.

I believe the bold above is what I call the 'deformation' of light, or when 'light' has mass. Only after 'light' has mass would they need the theory of supersymetry.

not sure if we see them the same way or not really
as not sure what you mean by superluminal -duh - does this mean metaphysical?

for me , the light bodies are all material

they house - or allow communication with metaphysical reality
but are all themselves more rarefied forms of material reality -the gross material , the psychonoetic -all material -and so will all be susceptible to distortion- our distortion
and their communicating layers - material also
and all an expression of our present personality-warts and all

and as all material - and hence vibrating so slowly as to condense- in some form or another- will all express some measurable form of 'mass' as we define it

the present personality is itself a reflection of our inner self -or permanent personality -which , to me , is superluminal
and as it does not exist within a finite reality cannot be measured within one and can only be perceived by implication
ie by the effects of interaction


eeh gadz ! logorrhoea !

i think i nEed to eat

oh, feedback today is probably a reminder to me
but
in reply i don`t give a fuck
so if anything wants to proceed down that path
alter attitude to one i like

Balance between two extremes? Good morning, Aether :)