Photography by Nathan Coppedge

I now have a variety of relatively cheap photos available at Twenty20.com (a photography website). They're easy to order, but it requires Paypal. Here is my photography gallery:

https://www.twenty20.com/NathanCoppedge

It is active enough that I have one favorite already, even though I'm new.

Nine Months Until My Book The Dimensional Phenomenology Toolkit Will be Published.

This book is the 4th volume of the Dimensional Encyclopedia.

Take heart that I found almost none of the concepts in the hour+ crash course on phenomenology unfamiliar. Add a little originality and an intellectual voice, and the effect is not destined to be very bad. The book is currently on schedule.

To celebrate my love for phenomenology, I will abbreviate some of the concepts and insights I derived from the crash course in phenonomenology video (I think a lot of student phenomenologists if they were being honest would say they never learned anything more about phenomenology than what that guy taught in the course).

Here are the full notes I took to the video. Some of these are my own theses:


NOTES ON PHENOMENOLOGY

*Time, consciousness.

*We cannot know the unknown.

*Can we decide that knowledge isn’t a formalism? Isn’t that like deciding that it is not specific? Generality might easily be an emotion, and an emotion might be incoherent.

*Incoherent emotions --- idea.

*At what point does the dialectic escape the problem?

*Problem of Eden --- shame ~ self-consciousness

*Escaping causal and nomological explanations such as laws of nature.


*Jeff Yeshimi ---- neuroscientist (?) who does phenomenology, connecting the two.


*Hiedeggar: there is no subject, then later he found it.

*The question of what it is----metaphysics.

*Husserl argues for physicalism, then insists objects were constructed.

*Moods disclose the content of reality.

*Moods do not explain anything objectively: psychology.

*The need to avoid objectivity --- the case of frustration without a source.


*Concept of Seeming.


*When we try to interpret our mind, this creates uncertainty about the content.

*The content is otherwise less uncertain, but qualified with the unknown.

*Theme of contrast. Neither here nor there.

*Experience requires an object for reality, but not for experience. Experience becomes unreal when it has no object. Immaterial objects are necessary in the sense that they are personal.

*Husserl: form versus substance, prefers form for explaining experience (intensional objects).

*If we don’t determine experience, then our objects are located in a kind of space and time (relevance).

*Real --- physical

*Raal -- flux

*Ideal---formal structures

*Eidetic

*Epoche --- focusing on the intensional content.

*Reduction ---- Husserl procedure to show experience, Merleau-Ponty says its impossible.

*Determinately indeterminate.

*Gnomatic explosion

*Adumbrating further possible experiences --- corruscation.

Yet Another Link to My Academic Profile

Those that have not read any of my published articles may find that is worth checking out:

http://www.southernct.academia.edu/NathanCoppedge


And, "Talks" on objectivity and perpetual motion:

http://www.southernct.academia.edu/NathanCoppedge/Talks

Up to 140 Followers for the First Time on Twitter

Thanks to an Einstein-related post, I got two new followers in the last hour. Thank goodness

@nathancoppedge:

• TWEETS2,122
• FOLLOWING85
• FOLLOWERS140

Analyzing a Quote by Albert Einstein

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein

I have the feeling that this is a faded trope that felt like wisdom during his time. Technology and evolution, if they exist in replacement for religion, demand ever more complex dimensions and manifestations. Einstein was evidently not a believer in the genuine fourth or fifth dimensions, or saw fit to be an opportunist in regards to them.

That's about the nearest to harshness that I can get on the subject, since it is a thought of a genius and something of a truism.

I find myself, however, in completely the opposite model of behaviorism. Not that I believe that I somehow achieve relativity first, and embarrass myself when I become God. Einstein would predict that I say that in response, and in small ways I predicted it, too. What I mean is that where Einstein's great mission appeared to be to locate himself in space and time in every direction, my own mission always involves a linear progression. And maybe this is what Einstein is referring to by 'intelligent fools' (normally if one fails to interpret him properly, then that is the overbearing assumption), but intelligent fools are precisely those who make things bigger, more complex, and more violent according to Einstein. Whereas evolution seems close to doing just those same things.

Apparently, Einstein opposed linear progress (the progress of intelligent fools), or he would believe that violence was a good thing, which doesn't appear to be what he is saying. So Einstein must have had doubts about  evolution or higher-dimensional reality, or some combination. 

If evolution is the more generic choice for what not to believe in, then the answer may simply be that he did not feel dimensionally evolved. Which became a standard answer around that time, perhaps due to his influence.

If dimensionality is seen as the generic answer in the mode of intelligent fools, then evolution might seem relatively complex. But, unfortunately, this leaves no option for dimensional evolution. Conveniently, it paints Einstein as a hero for fitting the precise formula of the-thing-that-isn't-an-intelligent-fool: in other words, 'an evolution that might seem relatively complex'. I can see Einstein shivering at this argument. Psychologically, the role being played at this point is not omniscient god of the cosmos, but rather it has been reduced to the complexities of a math professor. At this point, the arrogance of Einstein's statement seems almost like a complex. Perhaps that's what he thought he needed to tell God.

More and more, it seems like Einstein was influenced by history after all, and had a body of beliefs which stood apart from his mathematics. If that is the case, then an important belated corollary is that Einstein may have had some false assumptions which in the purest philosophical sense still deserve to be questioned.

It is then understandable if students of mathematics and physics continue in an attitude of critical analysis, rather than just accepting older theories as if they are writ from God. Just because Einstein contradicts his critics does not mean that they cannot be right. Contradicting Einstein may take violence, but that is not to say that a new theory would not be brilliant.

Einstein took for granted that a new theory would mean a bigger bomb. But I think that is not the case. I think in the spirit of paradoxical violence we would find a theory that is not so insidious as the atom bomb. And, if a larger bomb is what new theories produce, then ironically, there can't be much wrong with intelligent fools who favor theory over manifestation.

Improved Author Rank

I'm in the top 100,000 authors again on Amazon.

Unless I sell books tomorrow, it will gone by tomorrow.

Today I sold two. But one was an e-book.

I was experiencing dry spells for several weeks.

At least I sold one Perpetual Motion Machine Designs & Theory in a bookstore (actually, it may have been a non-Amazon website). Three others were online.

Kindle edition of the PMM D&T has a bestseller rank for now:

• • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #184,790 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    • #95 in Books > Engineering & Transportation > Engineering > Reference > Patents & Inventions
    • 
      

Link to my author page here: Nathan Coppedge's Amazon Author Page. Normally you can find that link near the top on the left of the blog.

New Article: On Epiphanies, Part II.

--- On Categorical Epiphanies Academia.edu by Nathan Coppedge ---

Students at SCSU...

Watch out for packets of perpetual motion concepts printed on cardstock paper. I have been distributing them at bulletins, the Engleman cafeteria, and the table in Morrill hall. Although the janitors or other interested parties may have collected them at the end of the day, some may still be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and some remain on the bulletins in Engleman. They're about 4 X 4 in. and marked 'free' or 'free perpetual motion concepts'. Some may also be available with the physics department, with a particular gentleman who agreed to share them with students interested in physics. His is the first office to the left of the secretary's desk. But for those with less courage, it may be easier to just pick one of the ones I have left on bulletins. Feel free to pluck them off and keep them / frame them. It is my goal to develop a legacy as a hobby inventor.

Thanks.

Another Compliment from a Potential Critic

Thanks for the interesting topic.

I could not see any detail in the photos / video of 
your device.  

Can you provide us with a more detailed drawing or photo ?

I would very much like to replicate / see for my self the device.

---"Floor"

See the rest of this conversation about perpetual motion HERE.

Both Google+ and My Blog

are above 30,000 views now. Collectively it's about a 17th of a million views. More if I count my website, which has 105,000 views since August 2006.

Fame? Not yet. But I do have a lot of material online.

Recently I posted "clues" about perpetual motion machines at a science fair page at Education.com:

http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/perpetual-motion-machine/

Perhaps someday I'll get the fame I deserve. Right now, I'm only selling about a book a week, down from one every two or three days.

Forgive the greed, it is good material!

A Profound Proof Regarding Conscious Existence

In Defense of Consciousness Resolving Descartes' Illusion Problem:

If meaning is materials, then meaning is real. If materials are existence, then matter is real. It's a little unfair. We have to believe matter is real, because we have a choice between matter and meaning.

The Essential Questions of Free Will

1. Does materialism mean that things are determined?
2. Is it possible to resist resistance?
3. Are there things that are neither past nor future?
3. Do the past and future interact?

My answer is NYYY

A High Compliment from a Potential Critic....

Re: The Escher Machine, The Escher Machine...

« Reply #4 on: Today at 04:22:42 AM »

• Quote

This is going to take some thinking about. I'll get back to you later when I've had a chance to consider what you've written.

Proofs Defending the Escher Machine

My post dated today at OverUnity.com responds to a query that the Escher Machine may be like the Tracked Spindle-type designs:

Re: TinselKoala. Thank you for being so circumspect. Of course some sort of tracked spindle is the default thesis for this type of thing. 

You may find this irrelevant, but I have thought sometimes that my experiment was different because the background was derived from the Escher Machine concept and not the tracked spindle.

There are several differences, which I try to find meaningful:

(1) The Escher Machine is designed to have sideways momentum from the backboard (more steeply angled board), which could not occur in a spindle device the end of which could not push against a board during the process of its motion.

(2) The spindle device is virtually designed to lose altitude by virtue of the spindle design. The same is at least NOT AS TRUE of a spherical marble.

(3) Combining 1. and 2., we have a result which would predict less loss of altitude (due to 2.), and more potential energy (due to 1.). Thus, I think it is fairly impossible that it follows the same type of equation as the tracked spindle device.

If my conclusion is found to be true, then the issue remains open to debate, unless a mathematician can prove that the physics between the two devices are somehow the same. I think most such 'proofs' simply ignore my arguments.

I find the addiction to proofs is not necessarily vindicating of a valid position inherently. After all, rarely will mathematics ever tell you how a computer works. If a perpetual motion machine is more interesting, in some ways (some variable or exception) it may also be more complex than a computer in some specific way or ways.

Here is a thought experiment that I find helpful about the Escher Machine. See if you agree!

(A)

(1) Someone leaning against a wall that is angled to the left or right will be jilted sideways.

(2) A similar construction with a lever could cause its base to rise, by applying significant leverage.

(3) A lever applied about a screw could lift the shorter end of the lever inside the screw, theoretically (e.g. by aid of wheels or bearings).

(4) Since the longer end of the lever need not move to a lower position than the short end of the lever to create leverage, the actual base of the lever can move up without causing any downward motion at its level.

(5) Thus, a lever could lift its base while moving roughly horizontally, so long as leverage is applied that is stronger than the resistance.

(6) The horizontal motion may exceed the vertical gain at the base, although not the vertical loss at the top.

(7) Weight is somewhat equivalent to leverage in the sense that it can provide lift. For example, a human body displaced onto a lever can cause a gain in height by moving the lever a greater distance. But this effect is even more exaggerated when the person is counterweighted by something. In that case, it takes about equal leverage distance minus resistance. An exception.

Therefore (8) A sphere may be able to lift its own weight if the weight is displaced---that is, if motion-from-rest is occurring. Momentum must be provided by something. But in this case, unlike the spindle case, the backboard provides momentum. In the case of the spindle, it is due to vertical gravity, but in the case of the Escher Machine it is due to a re-directed nearly horizontal gravity, which may be called a mass-force.

Consider a second experiment:

(B) 

(1) A ball dropped along a downwards-sloping wall will shoot out when it reaches the floor, if the floor is smooth.

(2) The ball shoots out further under specific conditions, a combination of the maximized angle of the wall, and any reductions by friction.

(3) The mass of the ball serves a purpose similar to being dropped.

(4) Upwards-moving momentum is possible.

(5) In theory, momentum may be significant from such a sloped wall.

(6) It may be possible to direct momentum upwards, if there is more horizontal motion than vertical (as per prior).

(7) There is no principle which says that resistance must exceed force, as demonstrated by all kinds of unbalanced and electric things.

(8) So perhaps the principle of the Escher Machine is proven?

Considering these thought experiments, I think some people could change their minds, and it is not so much how much knowledge they have of physics, as how un-restrained they are in considering new hypotheses.

Thank you for reading. And please respond if your mind is not completely resolute. 


Original posting at: http://www.overunity.com/15563/the-escher-machine-the-escher-machine/msg443248/#msg443248

Continuing Pursuit of Longevity Secrets

The following, inspired by Ming the Clam (who lived to 507) are listed as 'efficiency factors' in the (eventually) forthcoming Dimensional Immortality Toolkit, scheduled to be released in 2028 or earlier.

 (1) Intelligence.
(2) Wisdom.
(3) Nutrition
(4) Ethical conduct
(5) Endurance
(6) Ecology
(7) Evolution

Thus, a conservative strategy might be to (1) Evolve, (2) Practice Ecology, (3) Have Endurance, (4) Conduct Oneself Ethically, (5) Find Nutrition, (6) Have Wisdom, and (7) Be Intelligent.

My earlier articles on the subject can be found at: http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Nathan_L_Coppedge