Signy M wave form theory by SignyM

Sounds like a similar concept to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:17 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Interesting Sig...

A few comments....

First of all, I would like to give my apologies to anyone that is minus a 120 IQ score or high as a kite and either remembered you had to walk your dogs just now or were distracted by American Idol while reading this post.

You missed out on a great debate topic......

Anyways Sig,

Quote:
This describes why the trend is toward larger economic units, tighter organizations, and greater power (in the physical sense)use. (There may be "step function" - a size threshold- which my eqn prolly doesn't describe... the whole "quantitative change equals qualitative change" issue. OTOH, the process may be simply strongly logarithmic and only appear to have a step function.)

Isn't that interesting how any structure always comes to that, whether it was designed to be that way from the beginning like Chinese communism or it simply devolved over centuries into the end of America as we witness today?

I'm so jaded at this point that I'm even pretty sure that our "Founding Fathers" were the original Maddofs.

If Brave New World learned anything from 1984 it was that Honey attracts more Flies than Vinegar.

Make us think it's what we want. Can you think of a more humane way to enslave what will one day be 6.5 billion people in this increasingly shrinking rock we live on?

IT'S A SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL....
IT'S A SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL....
IT'S A SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL....
IT'S A SMALL, SMALL WORLD.......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You touched on another important point, 6ix. If you had a "perfectly" functioning society/ economy... one in which the maximum free energy was plowed back into generating more efficient technology and greater organization (more free energy) w/o undercutting in any way the ability of that society to reproduce itself (eg through individual survival and infrastructural reinvestment - in which I include good health care and education as a "reinvestment" in the HUMAN infrastructure) what would the constraints on that society be???

Very similar question to the whole study of red deer in Scotland by Clutton-Brock: Male red deer with bigger antlers mate more successfully and more often, leading to an inbuilt trend towards lager and larger male deer with bigger and bigger antlers. So, why don't we have male red deer the size of elephants??? Simple- it turns out that growing to a certain size is very energy-intensive. In one particularly hard winter which occurred duirng the study, ALL male deer died from starvation except for one: the smallest. Nature's big "reset" button in the form of catastrophe.

So there are "energy" constraints on the growth of any society. In addition, tightly integrated and highly "efficient" societies (eg just-in- time manufacturing) are vulnerable to the slightest disruption in supplies or flagging of motivation. So societies which are organized in smaller units will survive catastrophe. You can see this even in the phenomenon of mass extinction: the unicellular organisms survive better than large, complex oragnisms.

Three random ideas which also popped into my head about this:

1) It would be interesting to see if the equation... with properly defined terms and appropriate values... could not only be descriptive but also predictive.

2) If the equation is correct (describing the flow of energy through a biological system) then it should work not only for human societies but also for individual organisms and for ecologies. (Human society IMHO is just a human ecology.)

3) I believe that the analogy of social energy, force, power, work and entropy to the physics of energy, force, power, work and entropy is more than accidental. Its not that these concepts describe some universal truth about energy and so forth, but in fact the realtionship is the other way around: Our view of energy, work, power, entropy etc. is derived from our view of SOCIETY. In other words, our view of physics is highly anthropormorphised. So to us energy is motion (E=mC^2). So we wind up with idiocies like

energy= motion
energy cannot be created or destroyed
the energy released by dropping an object is due to it "potential" energy (a bogus concept if I ever heard one!)

Anyway, my brain is fizzing but I have to get to "work".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:13 AM

Quote:
energy= motion
energy cannot be created or destroyed
the energy released by dropping an object is due to it "potential" energy (a bogus concept if I ever heard one!)

Could you elaborate further, or suggest an alternative theory or point of view?

If energy can be created or destroyed, where would spontaneously generated energy come from? How is energy "destroyed?"

What is energy if it is not motion?

I've always seen potential energy as more of a predictive quality of an object than anything else. The energy released by a falling object is not DUE to it's potential energy, but rather, the potential energy is a measure of the energy the object COULD have under a particular condition (such as falling from a certain height).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:21 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Waiting for that reset here.............

Since I've known about politics.........

Since Clinton was president.............

.........

......

...

.

Where's the f'ing reset button?

I haven't seen one of those since the last Atari 5200 controller I had broke!

Now ya'all touch screen and Windows Vista and shit...

You tell me where the reset button is.

Seriously though, can anybody deny that those equations and theories you speak of couldn't have been created by a force larger than us?

It's just silly to me that I'm willing to admit completely that the science folk are perfectly right in their beliefs about how it all went down in terms humans could understand, but I'm also perfectly willing to admit that there was something that put those forces into motion. It's even likely that the Great Motivator foresaw un-bottleable chaos that would result from his experiment from the beginning. Maybe he even takes pleasure in it like a careless kid who steps on ants and crushes individual life without a care.

I'm not suggesting a merger or absorbsion of Science and Religion at all because I do believe that they belong in differnt "worlds" since peopel would be foolishly attempting to prove God's existance with science and start work on Babel II. I'm just saying that we should all start admiting that both parties could be right simultaneously and that there is far too much energy wasted babbling about which "side" is right.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What is energy if it is not motion?

If I knew that I'd prolly have written the unified field theory by now. But let me pose you a question which Rue posed to me: You know how waves interfere constructively and destructively. If there is energy in wave motion, and you look at JUST THE POINT where two waves interfere prefectly destructively... where is the energy?

I suspect that we're mesmerized by "motion". Our basic dimensions all describe motion in one way or another (X,Y,Z,T). I suspect that we have it all wrong. That X,Y, and Z are all collapsible into one dimesion (polar coordinates). That perhaps the REAL dimensions are described otherwise: for example, the difference between forces which have positive feedback (gravity) and negative feedback (energy). Very blurry thoughts on the topic, but eventually I hope to summarize my thinking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:37 AM

Signy,

If business controlled finance, 1/2 our problems would be solved. That would be industrialism.

Capital controls finance. Persistent capital.

The interest paid on the debt each year to the guys on the ironically named liberty street could buy out all the power on wall street any day of the week. It's probably society's number one flaw.

BM

I think you mean Maslow's hierarchy of greed.

:)

I really don't have the time right now, I have to pick up a friend at the airport, but I think there's a point here too in the founding fathers and their similarity to bernie madoff. Particularly some.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:41 AM

Quote:
If I knew that I'd prolly have written the unified field theory by now. But let me pose you a question which Rue posed to me: You know how waves interfere constructively and destructively. If there is energy in wave motion, and you look at JUST THE POINT where two waves interfere prefectly destructively... where is the energy?

What I've heard is two possibilities. EITHER the energy of the waves is absorbed into the surrounding medium (like if two people push on a box from opposite directions with the same amount of force. The net energy in the system is zero, but there's still internal energy we don't see in the box unless it crumples), OR the energy of one wave is absorbed by the source of the other.

Also you have to keep in mind that destructive interference depends on the location of the potential receptors (this is particularly valuable when you're talking about light or audio waves). If you have two speakers in a room, and you have an audience, some people in that audience will experience constructive interference, while others will experience destructive interference, but between the two of them, over-all, you're going to have an average wave energy for both speakers that applies to the entire system (in this case, the room).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
EITHER the energy of the waves is absorbed into the surrounding medium...

Which is...? In a vaccum, wouldn't "the medium" have to be "the ether"?

Quote:
OR the energy of one wave is absorbed by the source of the other.

But once you go PAST the point of destructive interference... say, the beams cross at right angles.... voila!, the absorbed energy re-appears.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:59 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Anyone care to explain quantum foam?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:23 AM

In outer space, there's little enough stuff around that it creates a very high concentration gradient in anything that is "NOT" space, and while there's not enough stuff close enough together that it can carry sound-waves, space is actually not completely empty. There's low concentrations of ions, plasma, and hydrogen and helium pretty much everywhere.

Won't stop your blood boiling out your ears and you can't breathe it, but it's a medium.

I think though that it's the OTHER case, about the sources absorbing the energy that best fits the example of a vacuum, however.

Quote:
But once you go PAST the point of destructive interference... say, the beams cross at right angles.... voila!, the absorbed energy re-appears.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by crossing at right angles, but I get such a Ghostbuster vibe from it that I dig it. All right, you know waves are cyclical, and you don't have to have the perfect opposite of a wave to get destructive interference because two waves can be in phase or out of phase. That's one thing to keep in mind, a wave could be coming back because of that.

If a wave is unidirectional from a source, like say a person on the end of a string is making a wave, and the wave is met by an opposite wave, the wave goes away in the middle, but the two people on either end of the rope still feel the energy from the other wave. That energy hasn't gone away. The other wave is represented in the wave the first person is still producing, in that their wave is visibly affected by the other wave. The crests and troughs of the one wave, as the other wave moves through them, are reduced, until in the middle you see no wave, because both waves are perfectly out of phase. But the energy of both waves is still there, otherwise the energy couldn't be transmitted through the other wave and be affecting it.

In in the case of radiated waves, again, I think it depends on where the receptors are, and ultimately, the energy from both waves is positive, even if in places there's destructive interference.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:51 AM

>_> Never heard of it. Physics is more like a past-time of mine than a field of expertise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:52 AM

SignyM, I just completely hijacked your thread. Sorry. What you were writing about, it sounded even better than Maslow's hierarchy, because you could potentially use it to make numerical predictions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No problem. I find one set of questions as facinating as the other!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:29 PM

Signy M,

Thank you. This is nothing short of brilliant.

I had time to read this entire thread through once now. It's far more evolved than my formula of success, but I'll post it hear because you may be able to incorporate a couple of ideas, and I think that this may speak to what Bytemite was inferring about wave cancellation through destructive interference, also it adds a new variable:

S=NXT-nxt.

S=Success

N=number of people working towards your goal
X=level of expertise of same
T=total time investment of same

n=number of people working against your goal
x=level of expertise of same
t=total time investment of same

Put more simply, the total effort towards your goal minus the total effort against.

If you sit down at a poker table, the number against you is 7, you are 1, time investment is the same, say 100 hours

S=100X-700x, which meants X must equal 7x in order for success to exceed zero.

Okay, it's a simple formula, but it shows some overarching trends:

Expertise is very key to success. The relative number for and against are very important factors. Ideally, no one should be working against you, this is more important than the number of people working for you. Those working for you don't credit as much by their numbers as they do by their total collective time investment.

The negative here is interference.

BM,

I could describe and predict virtually every detail of the universe given the existance of uncertainty. Energy arises from uncertainty, but indirectly. This topic is very complex, and I'd like this thread to stay focused on Signy's original idea here, so maybe later on this.

I don't know what to say. This is a brilliant beginning to a much deeper understanding of collective behavior of quantities, whether they be waves, people, or cells within the brain underlying psychology.

I'm now going to avoid pointless issue threads and focus on this, I hope I can contribute some. I get everything you're saying here, I may need to make another read through. I think we should take every idea and cross reference it as to how it may apply.

As for causative agents, I think that's a different topic. I think I sort of know all the causative agents, but it's like mixing the construction of an automobile with the effect of electron affinity on combustion reactions (sure, it's relevant and related, understand this might change your entire design to fit a nitrogen-carbon combustion, but it's a different topic.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:32 AM

Signy's idea about definitions of power and energy and work/motivation could definitely be a useful model. As a scientist, I'd like to take her equations and figure out some measurements for her variables or appropriate units, though I also recognize that some equations are simply useful expressed without ever needing quantification, like Drake's Equation. Although, one thing that strikes me about Sigym's Energy equation that I'm not sure about is that Organization is a multiplier, which means, if I've interpretted her equation right, more organization increases the energy required for a particular project. Now, in the case of bureaucracy this is true, but I doubt this represents what Signy thinks, since whenever I start talking about no government she talks about how organization is necessary. I agree with that to a degree, though I prefer temporary organization, because I think it prevents bureaucracy. Anyway. Perhaps what might be best is to make organization a function that falls off with increasing levels of organization. I think also that the more time is spent on a project, the more diminishing return you have on that project, as people begin to become weary of it. I actually see a potential in this equation to come up with something very similar to mass times velocity squared, which results in the units for scientific Energy, only expressed in people, progress, and time.

Your success equation also makes some sense, in that it has some similarity to comparing opposing forces. The sense I get of your equation is the suggestion that success is the total force you have left over after other forces are considered.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The destructive energy thing:

Imagine two powerful lasers, perfectly tuned to the same wavelength and power, perfectly the same sized beam, and exactly 180deg apart in cycle. You aim them to face each other and start them at exactly the same time. According to theories of destructive interference, they should cancel out exactly, and you end up with - nothing.

Take the same two beams with the same constraints but aim them at right angles to each other. Where the beams cross you have nothing. But before and after that area, you have two powerful laser beams.

"... then it should work not only for human societies but also for individual organisms and for ecologies ..."

I'm not sure it works limitlessly for organisms.

All organisms need certain basic functions done.

You can have an organism like a bacteria that does it all, or you can have an organism with many more parts and division of labor, ie many cells organized into organs. The organism with more parts MUST work 'just in time' or it would be dead. So, if size and division of labor are so advantageous (generating more free energy, as it were) there should be no limits to complexity and size. But it appears there are size limits at least due to physical constraints like strength against gravity, ability to pump fluid to all parts etc.

I think it does go a long way to explaining the survival of complexity, though.

And now, alas, I have to go.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:11 PM

Kathy

I don't think a laser as a right angle would counteract, but a laser per se if aimed against itself would not cancel out through interference, because there is no limit on the number of waves you could fit across space, due to the nature of the definition of space.

Even if your first paragraph were true, it would not make the second one true

But if you did it with sound waves some analysis like this might work, and might apply to people

As for humans, I think it's safe to say that we can preclude any considerations of the basic needs of humans from an efficiency plan for the most part, since that's a minor detail.

The evolution of higher organisms does support the idea of cooperation, but the competition of ideas is what makes the brain work. You have several communities of cells within each lobe, organized around nodes, all following similar thought processes, and radically different ones for other lobes, and the resulting decision is almost a democratic process through mass hearsay. One majority rule takes over no one in the brain has any idea who originally had the idea, and thus the illusion of collective self is created, at perhaps the cost of individuality. But the differentiation is fairly extreme. I think that maintaining this balance is a tricky one in any organization, but the single power which dictates the order in which processes are to be done, etc. is doomed to fail. Our minds most certainly run on a random competition through an organized division of labor but equally certainly without any central processing unit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:34 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Unlike most Libertarians, I have for many years...

1 month away from the board. I return and the very first thing I read is Sig opening a philosophical thread with a qualifying statement claiming to be a libertarian.

(wags head and logs off fff.net for another month)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Did not claim to be Libertarian. Was simply making the point that MOST Libertarians think government is the unique power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:36 PM

Logically you did. I was pleasantly surprised, but accepted it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I don't think a laser as a right angle would counteract ..."

Light interference at any angle is a well-known phenomena - we wouldn't have diffraction-grating rainbows without it !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:03 PM

I don't believe so. I thought this was caused by birefringence, based on the varying speed of light through different mediums, but since I do have a close family member who is chief optical engineer for the world's leading optical firm, I can get a truly expert opinion on this one in short order. I'll just give her a call and get more than any of us ever wanted to know on the subject, which I would only do to make a point.

My own knowledge of optics is limited, but people tend to wield facts around on the internet. The only photon-photon interaction that I know of is dual wave pairing which occurs in all subatomic waveforms.

That said, there could be others, but I'll defer to an expert opinion because I have one on call.

At any rate, the underlying theory of wave interference applies, particularly to organization theory, and as this thread is really about org theory, we should focus on that, and not abstracts. I don't particularly care if I'm wrong about optics, but I'll know soon enough, but I do care about org theory. I thought interference was a valid concept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 31, 2009 12:28 PM

bump

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 31, 2009 12:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have been pondering this idea of SignyM's. It will probably take me years to provisionally conclude anything.

Here are some random thoughts:

It's not as if 'complex' organizations supercede simple ones, after all bacteria are still with us today !
Complex organizations are acutely sensitive to initial conditions. If, for example, critters had started out making skeletons out of titanium, size restrictions would not be as they are today - they would be larger.
Things don't scale up or down evenly - which is the benefit and curse of complex organizations. It may be that because of the uneven nature of scaling there is an unavoidable cost to larger and more complex entities that can never be overcome.

And that's as far as I've gotten.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 31, 2009 5:30 PM

Kathy

Two points:

1. The more complex evolutions never displace lower ones in terms of mass, the initial energies of space on the pre-subatomic particle level are going to vastly outnumber subatomic particles and so on ad infinitum. Ergo, the only issue of importance is that of scalar evolution, thus to say that any step up the scale is an automatic displacement of the lower level is implied IMHO within any discuss. In short, higher life forms are made of cells, they are not more evolved cells, they are a new form of evolution.

2. From a chemical perspective, this is not what I would predict. Titanium is rigid and unlikely to find its way into biological structural self bonding, but if it did, it would radically limit the size of the resultant organism in much the way the silicon structural basis of diatoms limits their size. Still, the prediction of silicon based life from the periodic table was made many times, but the only form present is incapable of any multicellular development due to the rigidity of the structure, yet is still logically within the bounds of organic chemistry under the nature of carbon based life forms.

Now I'm realizing that I've crossed threads, I'll just submit this food for thought anyway...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 11:16 AM