Rudiment of Effectuationist GUT
Peter Kinane
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law need not feature.
Einstein's concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time", "constant (c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce334
fd5a1b39e1f/8c3c0d5c81c19c19?tvc=1&q=peter+kinane&hl=en#8c3c0d5c81c19c19
Gravity: ....
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
"Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8t2an$9ik$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Philosophy: Effectuationism.
>
> Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment
> and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
> indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
>
> Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
>
Instead: Any effect- -event happens through relationship 'of forces' and,
inferentially is- -am multi-faceted, thereby implying that any one of the
forces can be the expressing FoR- -observer. Given effectuation of FoR,
bodies - relationships of forces - will be seen to retain their form or
continue on their paths unless novelly acted upon above a threshold degree.
>
> Einstein's concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time", "constant (c)"
> and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
>
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce334
> fd5a1b39e1f/8c3c0d5c81c19c19?tvc=1&q=peter+kinane&hl=en#8c3c0d5c81c19c19
>
>
> Gravity: ....
>
>
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
>
> Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment
> and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
> indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
>
> Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
>
> Newton's 1st law need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through tension of relationship of forces, indefinite and
dynamic, somewhat recurring and with inferentially multi-faceted frames of
reference or preference emerging. Any such a frame of preference would see
likely potential evolution of it- -oneself and of the various others - the
various other relationships of forces - such as, given one's emergence,
one's likely 'continued existence', and in approximate current form -
relationship of forces - unless changing through novel impaction beyond a
threshold of tolerance.
>
> Einstein's concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time", "constant (c)"
> and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
>
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce334
> fd5a1b39e1f/8c3c0d5c81c19c19?tvc=1&q=peter+kinane&hl=en#8c3c0d5c81c19c19
>
>
> Gravity: ....
>
>
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Uncle Al
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8t2an$9ik$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > Philosophy: Effectuationism.
> >
> > Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
> experiment
> > and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
> > indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
> >
> > Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
> >
> > Newton's 1st law need not feature.
>
> Instead: Effect, through tension of relationship of forces, indefinite and
> dynamic, somewhat recurring and with inferentially multi-faceted frames of
> reference or preference emerging.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Jim Black
> Peter Kinane wrote:
> >
> > "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote in message
> > news:d8t2an$9ik$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > > Philosophy: Effectuationism.
> > >
> > > Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
> > experiment
> > > and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
> > > indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
> > >
> > > Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
> > >
> > > Newton's 1st law need not feature.
> >
> > Instead: Effect, through tension of relationship of forces, indefinite and
> > dynamic, somewhat recurring and with inferentially multi-faceted frames of
> > reference or preference emerging.
> [snip crap]
>
> Idiot.
Very likely not. Peter Kinane is a troll who strings together random
words, tacks on a period, and laughs his ass off when he gets people to
argue with him. While it is conceivable that there is some idiot out
there who actually believes that sentences without predicates have
meanings, it is also conceivable that these half-statements are being
written by a computer.
Peter Kinane
>
> Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment
> and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
> indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
>
> Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
>
Instead: Through tensions of relationship of indefinite and dynamic forces
competing to be form of preference, form crystallises. Any such form would
have 'seen' and 'chosen' the likely potential evolution of it- -oneself,
such as, given one's emergence, one's likely 'continued existence', and in
approximate current form - relationship of forces - unless changing through
relationship with a novel force, and beyond a threshold of tolerance - the
chosen form being in preference to the potential of the various other
relationships of forces. The effecting form - being a force in relationship
with other forces, thereby tension- -being effecting- -continuing -
effectively observes forces in relationship with each other, alert for, or
expressing tensions of options in one's own evolution.
>
> Einstein's concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time", "constant (c)"
> and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
>
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ce334
> fd5a1b39e1f/8c3c0d5c81c19c19?tvc=1&q=peter+kinane&hl=en#8c3c0d5c81c19c19
>
>
> Gravity: ....
>
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Through tensions of relationship of indefinite and dynamic forces
competing to be form of preference, form crystallises. Any such form would
have 'seen' and 'chosen' the likely potential evolution of it- -oneself,
such as, given one's emergence, one's likely 'continued existence', and in
approximate current form - relationship of forces - unless changing through
relationship with a novel force, and beyond a threshold of tolerance - the
chosen form being in preference to the potential of the various other
relationships of forces. The effecting form - being a force in relationship
with other forces, thereby tension- -being effecting- -continuing -
effectively observes forces in relationship with each other, alert for, or
expressing tensions of options in one's own evolution. Which option
crystallises influences subsequent effectuation; different forces, different
effects.
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". My system does not feature reference frame jumping, nor, of course,
Relativity, so the quoted principle does not feature, nor the related
Einsteinian principle that the speed of light is the same regardless of the
speed of the frame (or observer) measuring it.
The Michelson and Morley Experiment apparently premises "flowing Aether"
rather than "Aether". If so, I do not see that it should do so, and
consequently the experiment should, as it did, yield a null result.
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Through tensions of relationship of indefinite and dynamic forces
competing to be form of preference, form crystallises. Any such form would
have 'seen' and 'chosen' the likely potential evolution of it- -oneself,
such as, given one's emergence, one's likely 'continued existence', and in
approximate current form - relationship of forces - unless changing through
relationship with a novel force, and beyond a threshold of tolerance - the
chosen form being in preference to the potential of the various other
relationships of forces. The effecting form - being a force in relationship
with other forces, thereby tension- -being effecting- -continuing -
effectively observes forces in relationship with each other, alert for, or
expressing tensions of options in one's own evolution. Which option
crystallises influences subsequent effectuation; different forces, different
effects.
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". My system, Effectuationism, does not feature reference frame
jumping. So, of course, that Relativism principle does not feature, nor the
related Einsteinian principle that the speed of light is the same regardless
of the speed of the frame (or observer) measuring it, nor, of course, the
concept "space-time". (Incoherent philosophy begets incoherent physics
models).
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy above: "Effect, through, and
indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Through tensions of relationship of indefinite and dynamic forces
competing to be form of preference, form crystallises. Any such form would
have 'seen' and 'chosen' the likely potential evolution of it- -oneself,
such as, given one's emergence, one's likely 'continued existence', and in
approximate current form - relationship of forces - unless changing through
relationship with a novel force, and beyond a threshold of tolerance - the
chosen form being in preference to the potential of the various other
relationships of forces. The effecting form - being a force in relationship
with other forces, thereby tension- -being effecting- -continuing -
effectively observes forces in relationship with each other, alert for, or
expressing tensions of options in one's own evolution. Which option
crystallises influences subsequent effectuation; different forces, different
effects.
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both an ass and
a monkey, Effectuationism, does not feature reference frame jumping about -
an option of FoR prevails. So, of course, the Relativism principle above
does not feature, nor the related Einsteinian principle that the speed of
light is the same regardless of the speed of the frame (or observer)
measuring it, nor, of course, the concept "space-time". (Incoherent
philosophy begets incoherent physics models).
Instead:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499:
"Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is an
event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard rate of
event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension."
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required, see
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/55.html?1106169058
"If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or extrapolates,
to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket then the measuring
process aboard same will be different (co-ordinates and gamma factors) and
the data will have to be transformed when transferred back to - received
by - the base FoR. Also, the duration of the transference process should
also be computed.
[]
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of reference,
etc., at the philosophy level."
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy system above: "Effect, through,
and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of forces,
indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially multi-faceted.
Change forces, change effect.
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both an ass and
a monkey, Effectuationism, does not feature reference frame jumping about,
rather an option of FoR prevails. So, of course, the Relativism principle
[]
Peter Kinane
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationist Physics Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FOR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FOR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FOR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
co-ordinates based on the established axes. The rockets can look outwards as
well as inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes
on the co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at the Equator can be
standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
"Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
(A related thread:
news:d99rrp$4s3$1...@reader01.news.esat.net... )
>
>
> The Michelson and Morley Experiment apparently premises "flowing Aether"
> rather than "Aether". If so, I do not see that it should do so, and
> consequently the experiment should, as it did, yield a null result.
>
>
> Gravity: ....
>
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
Edit:
>
> So, application of the above:
> Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FOR-r) in relationship with
> the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FOR-r in relation to
> the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FOR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at
some
> remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
[determinable]
> co-ordinates based on the established axes. [ So, too, there can be other
loops of rockets as required.] The rockets can look outwards as
> well as inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as
routes
> on the co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at the Equator can be
> standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to
move.
>
> [Conventional concepts of] "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Peter Kinane
Have I been clear? Everyone understand how co-ordinates of the rockets at
some remove from FOR-r are determined? Put up your right hand and then post
your answer. I'll try to think of a prize for the first three satisfactory
answers.
Peter Kinane
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationist Physics Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FOR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FOR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FOR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, there can
be other
loops of rockets as required. The rockets can look outwards as
well as inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes
on the co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at the Equator can be
standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
Conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Have I been clear? Everyone understand how co-ordinates of the rockets at
some remove from FOR-r are determined? Put up your right hand and then post
your answer. I'll try to think of a prize for the first three satisfactory
answers.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
> co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, there can be other
> well as inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as
routes
> on the co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at the Equator can be
> standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to
move.
>
>
> (A related thread:
> news:d99rrp$4s3$1...@reader01.news.esat.net... )
Well, let's see about this as a further development:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (For-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now let the Earth move such that it is seen to revolve, with different
features coming and going. Any such feature inferentially would have a path
in the co-ordinates. For example, let it commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It
is directly (in front, or) at one's centre, but out a bit. Presumably there
is not a problem in determining and retaining the distance of the Earth from
FoR-r). The z value is continuous, but the body moves in the other two
co-ordinates, let's say, coming from East to West; from +x to -x.
Simultaneous to its movement into -x co-ordinates it moves into +y
co-ordinates. Progressing to its maximum in _x and medium in +y and on to
x_0 and to maximum in +y, then on to maximum in +x as it decreases to its
medium in +y, and then on to x_0 and y_0 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have eyes
(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the x and y co-ordinates as inferred and
in the context of z_1. The various x and y co-ordinates can be determined if
the z+1 value is sufficiently high to allow a ray of light from FoR-r over
and back to ra and another ray from FoR-r over and back to rb (rocket b).
This will allow measurement of their positions along the route, but it also
implies, if all rockets have synchronised clocks, that ra can measure the
position of rb and rc, and similarly rb can get the position of rc and rd
... It would also be possible to check the positions by again FoR-r sending
out rays of light to rockets which are in the other direction. This would
allow some verification or averaging of the information.
Other loops of rockets can be positioned by similar procedures.
This system could also incorporate other bodies.
Peter Kinane
Looks like there won't be any need for prizes.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy system above: "Effect, through,
and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of forces,
indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially multi-faceted.
Change forces, change effect.
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both an ass and
a monkey, Effectuationism, does not feature reference frame jumping about,
rather an option of FoR prevails. So, of course, the "Principle of
Relativity" above does not feature, nor the related Einsteinian principle
that the speed of light is the same regardless of the speed of the frame (or
observer) measuring it, nor, of course, the concept "space-time".
(Incoherent philosophy begets incoherent physics models).
Instead:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499:
"Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is an
event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard rate of
event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension."
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required, see
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/55.html?1106169058
"If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or extrapolates,
to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket then the measuring
process aboard same will be different (co-ordinates and gamma factors) and
the data will have to be transformed when transferred back to - received
by - the base FoR. Also, the duration of the transference process should
also be computed.
[]
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of reference,
etc., at the philosophy level."
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationist Physics Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FOR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FOR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FOR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, other
loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can look outwards as well as
inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes on the
co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at the Equator can be standard
event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
revolve, with different features coming and going. Any such feature
inferentially would have a path in the co-ordinates. For example, let it
commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or) at one's
centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining and
retaining the distance of the Earth from FoR-r). The z value is continuous,
but the body moves in the other two co-ordinates, let's say, coming from
East to West; from +x to -x. Simultaneous to its movement into -x
co-ordinates it moves into +y co-ordinates, then progressing to its maximum
in _x and medium in +y and on to x_0 and to maximum in +y, then on to
maximum in +x as it decreases to its medium in +y, and then on to x_0 and
y_0 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have eyes
(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the x and y co-ordinates as inferred and
in the context of z_1. The various x and y co-ordinates of the rockets can
be determined if the z+1 value is sufficiently high to allow a ray of light
from FoR-r over and back to rocket-a (ra) and another ray from FoR-r over
and back to rb (rocket-b). This will allow measurement of their positions
along the route, which will be in the z_0 co-ordinate, but it also implies,
if all rockets have synchronised clocks, that ra can measure the position of
rb and rc, and similarly rb can get the position of rc and rd ... It would
also be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r sending out rays of
light to rockets which are in the other direction. This would allow some
verification or averaging of the information.
Other loops of rockets can be positioned by similar procedures.
This system could also incorporate other bodies.
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system could
be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
The Michelson and Morley Experiment apparently premises "flowing Aether"
rather than "Aether". If so, I do not see that it should do so, and
consequently the experiment should, as it did, yield a null result.
Gravity: ....
A related discussion:
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/f7ea03e73a60e158
/baa928841b460928?q=Re:+Physics+Challenged&rnum=1&hl=en#baa928841b460928
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy system above: "Effect, through,
and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
[]
co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at 'the equator' can be
verification or averaging of the information. Indeed, the requirement
above that the rockets should be able to see more than one rocket at either
side is probably surplus to requirements. (Other variations, based on the
principle would also be possible).
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter coheres with the philosophy system above: "Effect, through,
and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
[]
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Physics Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, other
loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can look outwards as well as
inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes on the
co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at 'the equator' can be
standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
revolve, with different features coming and going. Any such feature
inferentially would have a path in the co-ordinates. For example, let it
commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or) at one's
centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining (and
retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets). The
z value is continuous, but the body moves in the other two co-ordinates,
let's say, coming from East to West; from +x to -x. Simultaneous to its
movement into -x co-ordinates it moves into +y co-ordinates, then
progressing to its maximum in _x and medium in +y and on to x_0 and to
maximum in +y, then on to maximum in +x as it decreases to its medium in +y,
and then on to x_0 and y_0 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have eyes
(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the x and y co-ordinates as inferred and
in the context of z_1. The various x and y co-ordinates of the rockets,
which will be in the z_0 co-ordinate, can be determined if the z+1 value is
sufficiently high to allow a ray of light
from FoR-r over and back to rocket-a (ra) and another ray from FoR-r over
and back to rb (rocket-b), and if, likewise, ra can measure the position of
rb and rc, and similarly rb can get the position of rc and rd ... or some
refinement of same. It would
also be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r sending out rays of
light to rockets which are in the other direction. This would allow some
verification or averaging of the information. Indeed, the requirement
above that the rockets should be able to see more than one rocket at either
side is probably surplus to requirements. (Other variations, based on these
Effectuationism
principles would also be possible).
Rockets in other loops can be positioned by similar procedures and related
to those already positioned.
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
[]
Gravity: Much as in my "Expansion Pressure Gravity", acceleration,
association of complimentary forms and spinning.
tadchem
Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney: Simple. When
I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself.
from "The Ruling Class", 1972, with Peter O'Toole as Jack Gurney, 14th
Earl of Gurney, and Coral Browne as Lady Claire Gurney.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Peter Kinane
"tadchem" <thomas....@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1119893926....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Do you wish to imply that I was not talking to you?
tadchem
Peter Kinane wrote:
<snip repost>
> Do you wish to imply that I was not talking to you?
Whatever I may have been trying to imply is irrelevant.
What is important is whatever you may have inferred.
The very act of responding to your own posts more than anyone else
suggests a masturbatory self-involvement that puts you in the company
of such nitwits as 'gb6724' and that jerkoff from cyberdude.com who
keeps posting over a dozen OT and disjointed new threads each day (to
which noone but himself responds) and changing his nick. [Unfortunately
I am using Google groups, so I can't see his addy.]
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Peter Kinane
Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of experiment
and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system above: "Effect,
through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of forces,
indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially multi-faceted.
Change forces, change effect.
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both an ass and
a monkey, Effectuationism, does not feature reference frame jumping about,
rather an option of FoR prevails. So, of course, the "Principle of
Relativity" above does not feature, nor the related Einsteinian principle
that the speed of light is the same regardless of the speed of the frame (or
observer) measuring it, nor, of course, the concept "space-time".
(Incoherent philosophy begets incoherent physics models).
Instead:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/59.html?1119968513:
"Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is an
event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard rate of
event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension."
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required.
[]
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of reference,
etc., at the philosophy level."
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Physics Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, other
loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can look outwards as well as
inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes on the
co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at 'the equator' can be
standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
revolve, with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system could
be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
This system could also incorporate other bodies.
"If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or extrapolates,
to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket and from this to
others, in quite different zones in the cosmos and at quite different
speeds, then the measuring processes aboard same will express these
conditions (gamma factors) and the data may require transformation for
subsequent journeys at different speeds, and of different materials, etc.,
according to trial and error. Also, the duration of the transmission process
should also be computed.
The Michelson and Morley Experiment apparently premises "flowing Aether"
rather than "Aether". If so, I do not see that it should do so, and
consequently the experiment should, as it did, yield a null result.
Gravity: Perhaps much as in my "Expansion Pressure Gravity" theory:
Acceleration,
association of complimentary forms and spinning.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
Isaac Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of forces,
indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially multi-faceted.
Change forces, change effect.
Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both the moving
train and the stationary platform, Effectuationism does not feature
reference frame jumping-about. Rather an option of frame of reference (FoR)
effects. So, of course, the "Principle of Relativity" above does not
feature - though it is somewhat supportive of the Effectuationist principle
of choosing one option - nor the related Einstein principle that the speed
of light is the same regardless of the speed of the frame (or observer)
measuring it, nor, of course, the concept "space-time".
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of reference,
etc., at the philosophy level. Incoherent philosophy begets incoherent
physics models.
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is an
event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard rate of
event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension.
Emphasis: I expect that people are unaccustomed to employing, perhaps even
thinking of, a clock as an SES.
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required.
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, other
loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can look outwards as well as
inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes on the
co-ordinate system. A revolution of the Earth at 'the equator' can be
standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
revolve, with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such
feature inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For example,
let it commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or) at one's
centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining (and
retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets). The
z value is continuous, but the body moves in the other two co-ordinates,
let's say, coming from East to West; from +x to -x. Simultaneous to its
movement into -x co-ordinates it moves into +y co-ordinates, then
progressing to its maximum in _x and medium in +y and on to x_0 and to
maximum in +y, then on to maximum in +x as it decreases to its medium in +y,
and then on to x_0 and y_0 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have
eyes(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the x and y co-ordinates as inferred
and in the context of z_1. The various x and y co-ordinates of the rockets,
which will be in the z_0 co-ordinate, can be determined if the z+1 value is
sufficiently high to allow a ray of light from FoR-r over and back to
rocket-a (ra) and another ray from FoR-r over and back to rb (rocket-b), and
if, likewise, ra can measure the position of rb and rc, and similarly rb can
get the position of rc and rd ... or some refinement of same. It would also
be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r sending out rays of light
to rockets which are in the other direction. This would allow some
verification or averaging of the information. Indeed, the requirement above
that the rockets should be able to see more than one rocket at either side
is probably surplus to requirements. (Other variations, based on these
principles would also be possible).
Rockets in other loops can be positioned by similar procedures and related
to those already positioned.
This system could then be technologically equipped to study other bodies.
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system could
be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or extrapolates,
to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket and from this to
others, in quite different zones in the cosmos and at quite different
speeds, then the measuring processes aboard same will express these
conditions (gamma factors) and the data may require transformation for
subsequent journeys at different speeds, and of different materials, etc.,
according to trial and error. Also, the duration of the transmission process
should also be computed.
Gravity: Perhaps, much as in my Expansion Pressure Gravity Theory, this is
largely a matter of acceleration, association of complimentary forms and
spinning.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
Light Warp and probably other gravitational phenomena:
Turbulence, in the fields around bodies, of 'the material' through which
light effects.
Peter Kinane
Peter Kinane
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces. *
co-ordinate system. A rotation of the Earth at 'the equator' can be
standard event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
rotate, with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such
feature inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For example,
let it commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or) at one's
centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining (and
retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets). The
z value is continuous, but the body moves in the other two co-ordinates,
let's say, coming from East to West; from +x to -x. Simultaneous to its
movement into -x co-ordinates it moves into +y co-ordinates, then
progressing to its maximum in -x and medium in +y and on to x_0 and to
Light Warp and probably other gravitational phenomena:
Turbulence, in the fields around bodies, of 'the material' through which
light effects.
* Classical Mechanics:
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level, e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
indefinite, dynamic and multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics features a
wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
regards QM as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of "independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more developed
fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do so
with good prospects of constructive discoveries.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
news:daekoj$m9h$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level, e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
regards QM as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/Bohr-v-Einstein.html
( news:d9v1s...@drn.newsguy.com... )
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of "independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more developed
fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do so
with good prospects of constructive discoveries?
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/58.html?1119200415
Peter Kinane
Bill Hobba
> Effectuationism and Classical Mechanics
> news:daekoj$m9h$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
> The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
> 1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
> system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism,
a
> demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
> continuous.
Sure - classical mechanics assumes inertial frames - but experiment
indicates to a good degree of accuracy they exist.
> 2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
> than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
> flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
> simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
Since the butterfly effect is based on classical mechanics you objection
would seem logically absurd.
> 3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
Classical mechanics does not assume a theory of gravity.
> 4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
It assumes Euclidian geometry and the existence of things called clocks
whose readings are universal.
> 5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
observer
> on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
> some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level,
e.g.
> a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
Its domain it exactly where QM effects can be ignored.
> 6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
> indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
> features a wave-particle duality concept.
>
> Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
> regards QM as weird.
It is your understanding that is weird.
Bill
Peter Kinane
news:2%dFe.62755$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made any
progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
philosophy in physics? Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
that is all that matters"?
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:dc3odi$3js$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > Effectuationism and Classical Mechanics
> > news:daekoj$m9h$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >
> > The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
> > 1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
> > system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in
Effectuationism,
> a
> > demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
> > continuous.
>
> Sure - classical mechanics assumes inertial frames - but experiment
> indicates to a good degree of accuracy they exist.
Given that I am comparing QM with CM, the same degree of closure in both
systems as "good" is what is at issue. (This would also require a rigorous
understanding of gravity).
>
> > 2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous,
rather
> > than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
> > flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns -
which
> > simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
>
> Since the butterfly effect is based on classical mechanics you objection
> would seem logically absurd.
I accept that the clarity of my point here leaves a bit to be desired.
However, as you seem to imply that CM recognises "the butterfly effect"
then, on progressing to QM, people should not be surprised to find there
that energy quantises.
>
> > 3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
>
> Classical mechanics does not assume a theory of gravity.
Good, then it is not a complete coherent system and so should be quite open
to seeing CM rather than QM as weird.
>
> > 4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
>
> It assumes Euclidian geometry and the existence of things called clocks
> whose readings are universal.
It features a lot of nonsense.
>
> > 5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
> observer
> > on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
> > some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level,
> e.g.
> > a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Its domain it exactly where QM effects can be ignored.
I am addressing the coherence of the two.
>
> > 6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
> > indefinite, dynamic and inferentially multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
> > features a wave-particle duality concept.
> >
> > Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
> > regards QM as weird.
>
> It is your understanding that is weird.
>
> Bill
>
> >
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
The post to which you replied was not intended for this thread. Also, I
opened a new thread on the heading, preferring to have any replies there. I
am replying there to you, and hope you do not find this too disagreeable.
Peter Kinane
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:2%dFe.62755$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made any
progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
philosophy in physics? Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
that is all that matters"?
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:dc3odi$3js$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > Effectuationism and Classical Mechanics
> > news:daekoj$m9h$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >
> > The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
> > 1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
> > system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in
Effectuationism, a
> > demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
> > continuous.
>
> Sure - classical mechanics assumes inertial frames - but experiment
> indicates to a good degree of accuracy they exist.
Given that I am [cohering] QM with CM, the same degree of closure in both
systems as "good" is what is at issue. (This would also require a rigorous
understanding of gravity).
>
> > 2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous,
rather
> > than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
> > flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns -
which
> > simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
>
> Since the butterfly effect is based on classical mechanics you objection
> would seem logically absurd.
I accept that the clarity of my point here leaves a bit to be desired.
However, as you seem to imply that CM recognises "the butterfly effect"
then, on progressing to QM, people should not be surprised to find there
that energy quantises.
>
> > 3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
>
> Classical mechanics does not assume a theory of gravity.
Good, then it is not a complete coherent system and so should be quite open
to seeing CM rather than QM as weird.
>
> > 4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
>
> It assumes Euclidian geometry and the existence of things called clocks
> whose readings are universal.
[I am cohering CM with QM - in effect cohering the macro world with the
micro world. So, I'm lumping Einstein's stuff into the macro world -
although given its quality perhaps it should be thought of as a world of its
own.]
>
> > 5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
observer
> > on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
> > some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level,
> > e.g. a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Its domain it exactly where QM effects can be ignored.
[I am addressing the issue of making the two cohere].
Bill Hobba
> A few edits:
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:2%dFe.62755$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
> you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made any
> progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
> philosophy in physics?
I never claimed there is not a scrap of philosophy in physics - my claim is
it is of a rather elementary and easily understood sort. For example one
can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over LET since they are equally in
accord with experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important. Thus on the grounds of
being more in accord with unifying principles from other areas it is to be
preferred.
> Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
> that is all that matters"?
Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
Bill
Peter Kinane
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:dc584p$hr4$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > A few edits:
> > Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience
of
> > you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have you made
any
> > progress in advancing from your notion that there is not a scrap of
> > philosophy in physics?
>
> I never claimed there is not a scrap of philosophy in physics - my claim
is
> it is of a rather elementary and easily understood sort.
Whether you claim or assert, you often protested against the mention of
philosophy in what you regard as a physics forum.
For example one
> can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over LET since they are equally in
> accord with experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
> which modern physics has shown is very important. Thus on the grounds of
> being more in accord with unifying principles from other areas it is to be
> preferred.
Since you focus on SR and LET, I would describe these - though I've given
little attention to the latter - not so much as "rather elementary and
easily understood" as "rather primal" - more primitve than primitive.
'So, we are almost in agreement on this?'
>
> > Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and
> > that is all that matters"?
>
> Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
"Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters" may
be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such stuff for
years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
Paul Stowe
>
>"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
>news:C8_Fe.64832$oJ.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote in message
>> news:dc584p$hr4$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > A few edits:
>
>>> Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of
>>> of you, may not get into a prolonged exchange. By the way, have
>>> any you made progress in advancing from your notion that there
>>> is not a scrap of philosophy in physics?
>>
>> I never claimed there is not a scrap of philosophy in physics -
>> my claim is it is of a rather elementary and easily understood
>> sort.
>
> Whether you claim or assert, you often protested against the
> mention of philosophy in what you regard as a physics forum.
Religious beliefs are always selective... The Hobbit picks &
chooses only those that suit him. That is the way of any 'meta'
perspective. However, most don't like to acknowledge that all
such perspectives are equally valid from the 'human' standpoint.
>> For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
>> ... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
>> experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
>> which modern physics has shown is very important.
But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
>> Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
>> from other areas it is to be preferred.
One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for the
objective viewpoint.
> Since you focus on SR and LET, I would describe these - though I've
> given little attention to the latter - not so much as "rather
> elementary and easily understood" as "rather primal" - more primitve
> than primitive.
>
> 'So, we are almost in agreement on this?'
>
>>> Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
>>> that matters"?
>>
>> Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
> "Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
> may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
> stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
Paul Stowe
Peter Kinane
"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:kuuie1lkf0rjqudo4...@4ax.com...
Yes, I like to include philosophy in the "symmetry" (or coherence, coherence
and coherence) too.
>
> >> Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
> >> from other areas it is to be preferred.
>
> One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
> both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for the
> objective viewpoint.
Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
>
> > Since you focus on SR and LET, I would describe these - though I've
> > given little attention to the latter - not so much as "rather
> > elementary and easily understood" as "rather primal" - more primitve
> > than primitive.
> >
> > 'So, we are almost in agreement on this?'
> >
> >>> Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
> >>> that matters"?
> >>
> >> Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
>
> What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
>
> > "Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
> > may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
> > stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
>
> I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
> principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
Re "a purely empirical basis": This concept would seem to bring focus upon
the "underpinning philosophy" of itself - "a purely empirical basis".
Relativity, like all value and all physics and all politics and all all,
expresses philosophy - unfortunately rather lame (primal) philosophy. That
is probably why muscle is still so important in many fields - the weapon of
choice. As more powerful weapons become more readily available, time may be
running out for this lame philosophy.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
You gotta get 'em between the ears.
Paul Stowe
>
>> - "Paul Stowe"
>>
>>> - "Peter Kinane"
>>>
>>>> - "Bill Hobba" (The Hobbit)
>>>>
>>>> For example one can not on scientific grinds ...
>>
>> Bwah ha, ha, ha, LOL
>>
>>>> ... prefer SR over LET since they are equally in accord with
>>>> experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
>>>> which modern physics has shown is very important.
>>
>> But, if they are indistinguishable, BOTH! must have said symmetry.
>> At issue is NOT symmetry, but the phiolosophy, specifically that
>> underpinning of said obvious observed symmetry.
>
> Yes, I like to include philosophy in the "symmetry" (or coherence,
> coherence and coherence) too.
Of course... The so-called 'beauty' of symmetry is pure unadulterated
philosophy. Worse, for many, it has taken on a religious perspective.
They worship it! Sadly, the Hobbit is one of those...
>>>> Thus on the grounds of being more in accord with unifying principles
>>>> from other areas it is to be preferred.
>>
>> One wonders how, given the FACT! that these both are indistinguishable,
>> both mathematically & observationally, this reasoning is sound for
>> the objective viewpoint.
>
> Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not
> be those of another, ...
Sure. Another equal philosophy is that there exist NO! such
'principles'. That every prinicple must have founding processes
and properties. To quit at claiming 'principle' is in fact
a shallow cop-out.
> ... so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
> rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
>>>>> Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
>>>>> that matters"?
>>>>
>>>> Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
>>
>> What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
We'll note that this shut the Hobbit down cold...
>>> "Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
>>> may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
>>> stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
>>
>> I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
>> principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
>
> Re "a purely empirical basis": This concept would seem to bring focus
> upon the "underpinning philosophy" of itself - "a purely empirical
> basis".
That was the purpose :)
> Relativity, like all value and all physics and all politics and all
> all, expresses philosophy - unfortunately rather lame (primal) philosophy.
I'd say a totally lame Kantian philosophy! The sad point is,
Bozos like the Hobbit won't acknowledge that it IS a metaphyical
philosophy! One of several equal alternatives.
> That is probably why muscle is still so important in many fields - the
> weapon of choice. As more powerful weapons become more readily available,
> time may be running out for this lame philosophy.
Lame is quite a good discription for Kantian positivism...
Paul Stowe
Peter Kinane
Indeed, though this did not occur to me at point of posting. So, and this
too is probably a waste of time, to Bill: Let's have at least one example of
a "unifying principle[] from [any area]".
>
> > ... so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
> > rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
>
> This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
> philosophy.
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
>
> >>>>> Or from your principle "relativity is empirical and that is all
> >>>>> that matters"?
> >>>>
> >>>> Since that is not my claim I do not need to justify it.
> >>
> >> What is SR based upon then, if NOT empirical principles?
>
> We'll note that this shut the Hobbit down cold...
It would probably be fair to say that a lot of people have made themselves
scarce - perhaps a spine problem.
>
> >>> "Relativity is experimentally supported, and that is all that matters"
> >>> may be nearer to your wording. Given that you've been posting such
> >>> stuff for years, perhaps you should take a close look at it.
> >>
> >> I would like to know the basis for modern Relativity if it is not
> >> principles deduced from a purely empirical basis.
> >
> > Re "a purely empirical basis": This concept would seem to bring focus
> > upon the "underpinning philosophy" of itself - "a purely empirical
> > basis".
>
> That was the purpose :)
Ok, and I guess its directed to Bill.
>
> > Relativity, like all value and all physics and all politics and all
> > all, expresses philosophy - unfortunately rather lame (primal)
philosophy.
>
> I'd say a totally lame Kantian philosophy! The sad point is,
> Bozos like the Hobbit won't acknowledge that it IS a metaphyical
> philosophy! One of several equal alternatives.
>
> > That is probably why muscle is still so important in many fields - the
> > weapon of choice. As more powerful weapons become more readily
available,
> > time may be running out for this lame philosophy.
>
> Lame is quite a good discription for Kantian positivism...
It is probably a good description of pretty well everything that, up to
recently, passed for philosophy - again, there seems to be a spine problem,
probably understandable after 2,400 years of ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Paul Stowe
:)..., Likely
> to Bill: Let's have at least one example of a "unifying principle[] from
> [any area]".
>
>>
>>> ... so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
>>> rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".
>>
>> This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
>> philosophy.
>
> I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the processes
are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
[Snip of rest]
Paul Stowe
Peter Kinane
Paul Stowe
>
>"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnf...@4ax.com...
>>> I'm not clear on what you're saying.
>>
>> I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
>> mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
>> Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
>> state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
>> don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
>> But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the rocesses
>> are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
>> learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
>
> Still rather vague.
Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
Paul Stow
Peter Kinane
For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuk...@4ax.com...
"This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Paul Stowe
>
> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:gbpne15amu1n0tlp7...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:40:22 +0100, "Peter Kinane" <pki...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2q7ne155lt01r0jnf...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>> I'm not clear on what you're saying.
>>>>
>>>> I am saying that every so-called principle can be boiled down to simple
>>>> mechanistic processes stemming from basic properties. Further, as
>>>> Maxwell said over 120 years ago, and is still true today, in our current
>>>> state of ignorance there are some answers that cannot be discerned. We
>>>> don't yet have suffice knowledge in which to even properly frame them.
>>>> But, the 'philosophy' is, everything has a physical cause and the rocesses
>>>> are all mechanistic. The extension of this philosophy is, given sufficent
>>>> learning of nature we will be able at some juncture to understand.
>>>
>>> Still rather vague.
>>
>> Give an example of what you're expecting? I'm not a mind reader.
>
>
> For starters, I'm not clear what you're referring to "above".
The common term is 'Scientific Realism'.
See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
For a good discussion of this.
The sub category is mechanical causalilty. This holds that all of
the natural universe processes & properties can be traced back to
causal mechanistic elements, even those involving quantum phenomena.
This is in opposition to logical (empirical) positivism, see:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/mach1.htm
Contrasts at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
>news:ir2ne19ks64o4khuk...@4ax.com...
> "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
> philosophy."
Hopefully this clarifies the statement.
Paul Stowe
Peter Kinane
You are not clear regarding what statement you are referring to "above", you
are snipping excessively, and you do make the point directly in reply to my
statement:
"Addressing Bill's point: The "unifying principles" of one system may not be
those of another, so one's gotta relate systems with each other for greater
rigour of value - or of "unifying principles".".
PS: "This is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy."
And of course Bill's stuff is a mess:
"For example one
can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over LET since they are equally in
accord with experiment - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry
which modern physics has shown is very important. Thus on the grounds of
being more in accord with unifying principles from other areas it is to be
preferred.".
Essentially he says that "one can not on scientific grinds prefer SR over
LET [] - the reason SR is preferred is its key is symmetry which modern
physics has shown is very important." He is treating "modern physics" as
distinct from "science".
In my opening I said to him
"Bill, I'll make some comments here, but, with the benefit of experience of
you, [I] may not get into a prolonged exchange.". Now I say to you that
perhaps it should be clear to me that you do not wish to be clear.
Peter Kinane
My mistake; you did not actually snip, and you are clearly saying that my
comment is a component of the above alternative causal mechanistic
philosophy.
As regards what you are claiming about my statement: This is complicated in
that my statement refers to "unifying principles" - a concept which may be
completely lacking in rigour. So, perhaps if I adjust my principle to the
following, we may be able to proceed:
"Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
"Rigour of value, through relationship of models".
You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative causal
mechanistic philosophy".
Peter Kinane
Correction: So, perhaps if I take just the principle, we may be able to
proceed:
> "Effect, through relationship 'of forces'".
> "Rigour of value, through relationship of models".
>
> You get to show why you think this is a component of the "alternative
causal
> mechanistic philosophy".
>
This may be of interest to you, if you are preparing a supportive argument
to your statement above:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Much as Post-modernism is set out as finding the Scientific Realism concepts
"knowledge, unobservables (and observables), empirical, truth" to be
problematical, so do I.
However, unlike the "fixing up" "underdetermination argument" on "The
Empiricist Challenge",
"we will [n]ever have any evidence that ["total sciences"] embodies
knowledge of unobservables", the authors of the essay seem to fall back on
the concepts "knowledge and observerables" and also include "evidence". I do
not feature these concepts, nor "truth", preferring the principle
"coherence, coherence and coherence according to whatever criteria one
fancies". So, it seems to me that Effectuationism is a quite distinct
model - as I already implied here:
news:dcg6tp$rs6$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
"[Lame] is probably a good description of pretty well everything that, up to
recently, passed for philosophy []".
Peter Kinane
I should have added, as it is appropriate to the context, that finding
short-comings of systems is one thing, going on and producing an alternative
system such as "Effectuationism" (both the philosophy model and the physics
navigation model, etc.) is quite another.
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'". (See
below).
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
(See below).
let it commence as x_0, y_-1 to +1 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or)
at one's
centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining (and
retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets). The
y and z values are continuous, but the body moves in the x co-ordinate,
let's say, coming from West to East; from -x to +x.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have
eyes(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the extended x positions as inferred
and in the context of y_-1 to +1 and z_1. The various x (and y) positions of
light effects. (See below).
Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics:
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level, e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
indefinite, dynamic and multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics features a
wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
(CM)
regards Quantum Mechanics (QM) as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of CM as weird, and that coherence of the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of "independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more developed
fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do so
with good prospects of constructive discoveries.
Speculation regarding Gravity:
If ether flows somewhat rotationally and bodies, such as Earth effectively
effect
through such ether, which are somewhat in its path and which it carries -
rotates and moves along - then around such bodies would be a buffering
phenomenon,
which (zone) both forces in on the body and keeps the flowing ether at
some distance from the body.
This buffering phenomenon could serve as the gravity force locally around
bodies. It would allow for the MMX null. It could also be an explanation of
light warping.
In the case of a body with a neighbour, such as the Earth and its Moon, the
effects of the relationship of the buffering effect around each could be
quite complex - perhaps including a weakening of the force inwards on each
when they meet and also some effect on the backside of each.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Peter Kinane
>
> Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
> rotate, with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such
> feature inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For example,
> let it commence as x_0, y_-1 to +1 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or)
> at one's
> centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining
(and
> retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets).
The
> y and z values are continuous, but the body moves in the x co-ordinate,
> let's say, coming from West to East; from -x to +x.
>
> Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have
> eyes(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the extended x positions as
inferred
> and in the context of y_-1 to +1 and z_1. The various x (and y) positions
of
It seems this was posted in a hazy moment, so I will post essentially a
restoration of the original model.
Peter Kinane
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'". (See
below).
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
(See below).
eyes (rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the extended x and y co-ordinates as
inferred
and in the context of z_1. The various x (and y) positions of the rockets,
which will be in the z_0 co-ordinate, can be determined if the z+1 value is
sufficiently high to allow a ray of light from FoR-r over and back to
rocket-a (ra) and another ray from FoR-r over and back to rb (rocket-b), and
if, likewise, ra can measure the position of rb and rc, and similarly rb can
get the position of rc and rd ... or some refinement of same. It would also
be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r sending out rays of light
to rockets which are in the other direction. This would allow some
verification or averaging of the information. Indeed, the requirement above
that the rockets should be able to see more than one rocket at either side
is probably surplus to requirements. (Other variations, based on these
principles would also be possible).
Rockets in other loops can be positioned by similar procedures and related
to those already positioned. For these the z co-ordinate would not be
constant.
This system could then be technologically equipped to study other bodies.
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system could
be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or extrapolates,
to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket and from this to
others, in quite different zones in the cosmos and at quite different
speeds, then the measuring processes aboard same will express these
conditions (gamma factors) and the data may require transformation for
subsequent journeys at different speeds, and of different materials, etc.,
according to trial and error. Also, the duration of the transmission process
should also be computed.
Gravity: Perhaps, much as in my Expansion Pressure Gravity Theory, this is
largely a matter of acceleration, association of complimentary forms and
spinning.
Light Warp and probably other gravitational phenomena:
Turbulence, in the fields around bodies, of 'the material' through which
light effects. (See below).
Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics:
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It seems to presume as rigorous its concepts of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level, e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
indefinite, dynamic and multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics features a
wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
(CM) regards Quantum Mechanics (QM) as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of CM as weird, and that coherence of the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about.
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of "independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the
uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human manipulation
(FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working on more developed
fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do so
with good prospects of constructive discoveries.
Speculation regarding Gravity:
If ether flows somewhat rotationally and bodies, such as Earth effectively
effect through such ether, which are somewhat in its path and which it
carries -
rotates and moves along - then around such bodies would be a buffering
phenomenon, which (zone) both forces in on the body and keeps the flowing
ether at
some distance from the body.
This buffering phenomenon could serve as the gravity force locally around
bodies. It would allow for the MMX null. It could also be an explanation of
light warping.
In the case of a body with a neighbour, such as the Earth and its Moon, the
effects of the relationship of the buffering effect around each could be
quite complex - perhaps including a weakening of the force inwards on each
when they meet and also some effect - pyramid-like bulge in the buffer
(weakening of the inward force) - on the backside of each.
Also, the ether would be a force on the Earth to rotate outwards and
likewise on the Moon. However, the Earth would be a force on the Moon to
rotate in the opposite direction. It seems the Moon's rotation is a (rather
even) balance of the two forces. Presumably, the degrees of such forces
would involve ether, mass and volume of the earth, distance of the body from
the Sun, details of the Moon and its distance from Earth.
How well other planets accord with this in their rotations and in their
revolutions and precesessions ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com