# Ask Me Anything

Author: DynamicSquid ,

## Posts

Total: 33
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,676
3
2
4
3
2
4
--> @DynamicSquid
Feynmans question to self, was, why does the mass of the electron repeat itself at approximately at 206.7572826?

Pi { 3.133 approximation } * 66 = 206.778 and  is approximate to  mass of the muon-electron

Pi = 3.141 - 3.133 = 0.008 differrence

Why 66?

66 lines-of-relationships between 12 vertexes of the 5-fold icosahedron and the 12 vertexes of Vector-Equlibrium

Pi^3{ XYZ } = 31.00 62 7 66..............

Pi^4{ XYZ-t } - 31{ XYZ } = 66.4 0909 10 34 00 24
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pi^3{ 3D }

Pi^4{ 3D + t } this one is suspect as we consider the 4th-D as inherently time only value { more on that at bottom of page }

Pi^4 { 4D } - 4 = ‭24.35 22 7 27.....
..this latter above is my process of renormalizing 4D{ as spatial only }  as a time value only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it a valid process to consider time in the above Pi^4{ 3D + t } instead of considering it as a hyper-dimension?

Considering the 4th-Dimension as Micho Kaku does, as the internal diagonal of XYZ cube, then that is INward.

My numerical torus creates reality as sine-wave via INward inversions from peak of positive curvature and negative curvature of my 4 line/level numerical based torus.

Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @ebuc
That's just a coincidence. Let me explain.

Why are firetrucks red?

Because they have eight wheels and four people on them, and four plus eight makes twelve, and there are twelve inches in a foot, and one foot is a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was also a ship, and the ship sailed the seas, and there were fish in the seas, and fish have fins, and the Finns fought the Russians, and the Russians are red, and fire trucks are always “Russian" around.

- Monty Python
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,676
3
2
4
3
2
4
--> @DynamicSquid
So you have no idea why the electrons mass repeats as the muon electron and thee tau electrons specific mass.

That's fine, just asking.  We never know, what others might know, to aid us on our journey, unless we ask

Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
3
3
5
--> @DynamicSquid
Two questions since you asked...

What is your passion?

I noticed you are an Atheist, without claiming there is no evidence for God....including all you have thought of, what is it that has persuaded you to accept such an ideology? say...as opposed to agnosticism or a neutral position?
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,676
3
2
4
3
2
4
--> @DynamicSquid
Pi^4 { 4D } - 4 = ‭24.35 22 7 27.......this is above is my original process of renormalizing 4D{ as spatial only }  as a time value only.

Oops, a caught a misprint.  The above should read Pi^4 { 4D } / 4 = 24.35 22 7 27

/ = division

Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
5
7
11
--> @DynamicSquid
You do a lot of space debates.  You probably want more funding for NASA.  How much more money would you give them?
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
3
8
11
--> @DynamicSquid
ARE YOU A NASA AGENT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @ebuc @EtrnlVw @PressF4Respect
Ebuc

Yeah I have no clue.

Eternal

1. Programming
2. My parents were atheists, so I kinda just grew into it. I'm not really into religious topics, however I think that my current understanding of science and way of thinking prevents me from believing in any form of religion

Alec

Nice of you to notice! However I don't know an exact value for their budget increase. A couple more billion should be fine, probably a little more than 30 billion. I still need to do more research on how they spend their budget exactly.

PressF4

no
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
2
3
8
What do you think about transhumanism

Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
3
3
5
--> @DynamicSquid
1. Programming
Interesting, what about programming do you think attracts you so much?
2. My parents were atheists, so I kinda just grew into it. I'm not really into religious topics, however I think that my current understanding of science and way of thinking prevents me from believing in any form of religion
So, are you saying that science and religion/spirituality cannot be compatible? I for example, agree with science AND spirituality on most things (most things because neither are perfect). I think they can be in harmony with one another because they both study two different natures of our experience.
Now when you say your way of thinking prevents you from religious propositions that worries me lol, because you don't want conditioned thinking to get in the way of potential possibilities. Did you know you don't have to accept any form of religion to accept there is a Creator? religion studies the nature of God but God exists independent of any religions, they are just there to relay knowledge and information.

Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
3
4
7
--> @DynamicSquid
Why?
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @EtrnlVw @Mopac @Singularity
Singularity

Like brain implants and all that?

Eternal

1. I like the freedom of it, you can do whatever you want. It's also cool to see a bunch of lines on a computer create something. I'm also trying out game design with Unreal, and so far I love it!

2. To me, I don't think they can be compatible. I think Science can prove everything, and it can disprove religion/creator. Now obviously science can't definitely prove everything yet, but I think it can and will in the future for sure. I also think being raised an atheist helped to cement my beliefs.

Mopac

Yes.
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
5
7
11
--> @DynamicSquid
A couple more billion should be fine, probably a little more than 30 billion. I still need to do more research on how they spend their budget exactly.

They currently get \$19 billion per year.  I think they should get more funding, but it shouldn't exceed \$200 billion per year.
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @Alec
\$200 billion's too much. Way way too much. That's like a third of the military's budget! Instead of increasing NASA's budget a ton, we should focus on collaborating with private companies, and working with them. It's already happening, and has expanded the space sector a ton.

Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
5
7
11
--> @DynamicSquid
That's what I would want to spend in 2033.  Now, I'd keep it at around \$85 billion.

Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @Alec
Wow, you really want to see a lot of progress being done?

If we spend this much money on space, what sectors are we going to be reducing?
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
5
7
11
--> @DynamicSquid
It's complicated, but here's my spending plan:

Turns out NASA was getting less than what I thought.
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
3
3
5
--> @DynamicSquid

1. I like the freedom of it, you can do whatever you want. It's also cool to see a bunch of lines on a computer create something. I'm also trying out game design with Unreal, and so far I love it!

Sweet.

2. To me, I don't think they can be compatible.

Why? I just said they work with two different natures lol?

I think Science can prove everything, and it can disprove religion/creator.

Science is a neutral study, it has no say whether or not God exists and that's not its purpose. As a matter of fact due to the very nature of God the scientific method can't reach that information. Science studies how things work in our natural universe that's it, if God exists science is still doing that same thing no more no less. It's just a method to examine what we observe in the natural world, you're putting too much emphasis where it don't belong, science contains no information on its own other than what we feed it.

Now obviously science can't definitely prove everything yet, but I think it can and will in the future for sure.

Why are you waiting for science to prove something for you? doesn't that seem like a pipe dream when we have a study like spirituality that's been here all along that is capable and compatible with the nature of the Creator? Basically you are waiting around for it to do something it can never accomplish, even more it is a neutral study meaning the evidence can be interpreted as compatible to Theism as well.

I also think being raised an atheist helped to cement my beliefs.

Don't atheists condemn believers for that very thing? I wouldn't say that's a good thing because again we are back to conditioned thinking.

Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @EtrnlVw
Well, what exactly do you define as a God or Creator?
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
3
3
5
--> @DynamicSquid
Well, what exactly do you define as a God or Creator?

God IS a Creator...The term Creator says a lot but God can be considered "the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality (Ultimate Observer) in the universe. God is the immaterial, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists....the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. As a metaphysical concept God is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe."

To make things more simplistic or easier to conceptualize, imagine your own conscious being but on a massive scale. Imagine if you had no bodily form but your awareness still existed, almost like as if you were just a mind or a pure conscious entity. Imagine that awareness to be comparable to energy as we know it in the universe. How it is omnipresent, without being created or destroyed....eternally existing.
Now imagine that everything that exists...exists within this formless mind or consciousness and that the Creator manipulates energy to create form that it may have endless experiences through all different channels of conscious activity.

Let me know if you can get your head around that or if it makes any sense to you, if not I can elaborate more on it.

Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @EtrnlVw
I think I know what you're saying, but that's where I disagree. I think Science doesn't support that belief of consciousness. No being can be like that.
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
3
3
5
--> @DynamicSquid
I think I know what you're saying, but that's where I disagree. I think Science doesn't support that belief of consciousness.

Consciousness is an open question in science so anything they put forth is basically conjecture. Their conception of awareness will always be incomplete because they look at it azz backwards. Inanimate material does not create consciousness, consciousness exists as it is just like energy and it is this foundation of intelligence that creates form through energy, not the other way around.

If you were to add awareness to energy you wouldn't be that far off from what you currently believe, only you would have a model that makes more sense. Have you ever asked yourself why energy exists at all? what is it? why is it there? how does it produce form and intelligence?
Don't you think it is strange that any inanimate force could produce processes and sentient  beings? I mean you think this is possible so why is it so hard to consider that consciousness exists like energy exists?

No being can be like that.

Awareness is exactly like that and that is the nature of God, omnipresent. Omnipresent means there is nowhere something exists where God is not aware or present….Consciousness does not need a vehicle to exist, it needs form to have experiences though outside of itself.
I understand it's not what you're used to accepting but awareness is the foundation behind all things...energy exists because conscious activity exists, conscious activity generates energy and so they co-exist. This is why energy operates as an intelligent force within the universe, why it produces what it does.

Debates: 0
Posts: 2,625
3
3
5
3
3
5
--> @DynamicSquid
Science doesn't support that belief

Science doesn't answer questions about God remember? this would be outside the realm of what science can reach. So when we are discussing the Creator and the nature of God we are leaving science out of the discussion.
If you want to learn anything new in regards to God, the soul or how creation is put together we move over to spirituality and the knowledge that correlates with the nature of God.
So it's not that science doesn't support it, it simply doesn't know it.
Debates: 29
Posts: 182
1
3
11
1
3
11
--> @EtrnlVw
So to answer your question about consciousness/awareness, I think that consciousness can only be derived from having a brain, and a brain can only be in a species, like us. So I don't think energy fields could have a consciousness. Also, energy fields in general can be simplified to atomic particles, and sometimes even smaller. Energy in a sense is measurable, and observable (well, not now, but in the future possibly). It's like air. We can't see it, but we can measure it, observe it in some ways, and therefore know what it is.

And the thing about God. I think what you mean is that God isn't intelligent life (like us), but rather just energy with a consciousness. However, like I said before, energy is measurable, and observable. This means that we can track individual "energy units." This I believe contradicts the theory of God.