String Theory and Space and Time
Michael Helland
<quote>
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
another name is called duration:
relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external
(whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour,
a day, a month, a year.
II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
external, remains always similar and immovable.
Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and
which is commonly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of
a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its
position in respect of the earth.
</quote>
We all know that Einstein had something to say on this topic.
He writes in Relativity Chapter 9:
<quote>
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this
assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of
relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears."
</quote>
The reason for the assumption could be Newton's description of
absolute time being mathematical rather than relative time.
In Chapter 8, Einstein gives his working definition for time:
<quote>
Under these conditions we understand by the 'time' of an event the
reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is
in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event
</quote>
Einstein is defining time in terms of the moving hands of a clock,
which is nearly identical to how Newton defined relative time:
<quote>
Relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external
(whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour,
a day, a month, a year.
</quote>
While I often hear some claim "Einstein has shown that time is
relative", really, all that he has shown is that our present
mathematics represent relative time, contrary to Newton's definition.
In fact, Einstein had made this point to Heisenberg, I think
demonstrating how easily this subtle point is missed:
<quote>
"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but
observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"
"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in
some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is
impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time
cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving
reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the
determination of time."
"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but
it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more
diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep
in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite
wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In
reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides
what we can observe."
</quote>
(In 'Physics and Beyond - Encounters and Conversations', Harper
Torchbooks, 1972, p. 63.)
To summarize all that: in the eyes of both Newton and Einstein, while
absolute space and time are "somewhere out there"; it is relative
space and time that we measure..
Emphasis: RELATIVE SPACE AND TIME ARE MEASURED.
Now.
String theory.
There are visible dimensions of space and time, and there are hidden
dimensions.
These hidden dimensions, I take it, cannot be measured.
Are they still relative?
In finding an answer, I think I have the idea for a new hypothesis
that is an alternative to string theory with one important twist:
while string theory is a contemporary descendant of Newton's physics;
my potential hypothesis is not a descendant of Newton.
It is a descendant of Leibniz.
<quote>
Until the discovery of subatomic particles and the quantum mechanics
governing them, many of Leibniz's speculative ideas about aspects of
nature not reducible to statics and dynamics made little sense. For
instance, he anticipated Albert Einstein by arguing, against Newton,
that space, time and motion are relative, not absolute. Leibniz's rule
in interacting theories plays a role in supersymmetry and in the
lattices of quantum mechanics. His principle of sufficient reason has
been invoked in recent cosmology, and his identity of indiscernibles
in quantum mechanics, a field some even credit him with having
anticipated in some sense. Those who advocate digital philosophy, a
recent direction in cosmology, claim Leibniz as a precursor.
</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz
Here is a description of the seed which I expect to grow into a
hypothesis:
Bill Hobba
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f6a1761-c454-4892...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Whatever gave you that idea? EM fields are hidden but can be measured.
>
> Are they still relative?
>
Dimensions are not relative.
>
>
> In finding an answer, I think I have the idea for a new hypothesis
> that is an alternative to string theory with one important twist:
>
> while string theory is a contemporary descendant of Newton's physics;
Nope - it is a quantum theory
Bill
Michael Helland
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
As long as EM fields are hidden in the same sense that the extra
dimensions of string theory are hidden.
Can the extra dimensions dimensions of string theory be measured?
I guess that's the issue.
> > Are they still relative?
>
> Dimensions are not relative.
>
>
> > In finding an answer, I think I have the idea for a new hypothesis
> > that is an alternative to string theory with one important twist:
>
> > while string theory is a contemporary descendant of Newton's physics;
>
> Nope - it is a quantum theory
Which is itself a descendant of Newton's physics.
Michael Helland
PS, light is an EM field, is it not?
EM fields are visible.
When an EM field is not visible to the naked eye, it is detectable by
some other means.
The "hidden" that applies to string theory's extra dimensions has a
different meaning, AFAIK.
Michael Helland
According to the Wikipedia, whether you look at the extra dimensions
as compactified, or as other branes, they are not measurable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Extra_dimensions
<quote>
Compact dimensions
Two different ways have been proposed to resolve this apparent
contradiction. The first is to compactifythe extra dimensions; i.e.,
the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small asto be undetectable in our
phenomenal experience. In order to retain thesupersymmetric properties
of string theory, these spaces must be veryspecial. The 6-dimensional
model's resolution is achieved with Calabi-Yau spaces. In 7
dimensions, they are termed G2 manifolds. These extra dimensions are
compactified by causing them to loop back upon themselves.
....
[edit] Brane-world scenario
Another possibility is that we are "stuck" in a 3+1 dimensional(i.e.
three spatial dimensions plus the time dimension) subspace of thefull
universe. This subspace is supposed to be a D-brane, hence this is
known as a braneworldtheory. Many people believe that some combination
of the two ideas --compactification and branes -- will ultimately yield
the most realistictheory.[citation needed]
</quote>
So, the space and time in these "hidden" dimensions are not
measurable.
But our relative space and time defined as being measurable.
So is the space and time of the extra dimensions a new type of
relative space and time? Do we need to change the definitions?
Or is it absolute space and time?
Thomas Heger
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5f6a1761-c454-4892...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> In the Principia Newton defined time and space for physics:
>
> <quote>
> I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
> nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
> another name is called duration:
>
> relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external
> (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
> motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour,
> a day, a month, a year.
>
> II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
> external, remains always similar and immovable.
>
My idea is to treat space as observation of spacetime and lenght as
observable. It is in fact the case, that lenght is observable and spacetime
is not. This make spacetime imaginary and allow us use to qm to get our
measurement of length. Since the em-field is somehow imaginary too, you
might think about the em-field as rotations in spacetime in space direction.
Matter in this picture are rotations in time direction. And space in this
picture is a hyperplane, where matter stays stable. This plane is pacing
with c along the time axis.
Thomas Heger
G. L. Bradford
cosmological constant '0'.
GLB
Thomas Heger
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:XN2dndTYY7cAe1ra...@insightbb.com...
> Nothing [paces] -- or keeps pace with -- universal constant 'c' except
> cosmological constant '0'.
>
> GLB
words for that.
Its a picture of something imaginary, so its somehow wrong. Space is
assumned as orthogonal to time and hence 'move' with the time axis. Time is
assumned to 'pace' with c. So ds^2=c^2dt^2- dx^2-dy^2-dz^2, what is
four-dimensional and complex and c is the factor to convert time into length
or vice versa.
TH
Michael Helland
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:5f6a1761-c454-4892...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> In the Principia Newton defined time and space for physics:
>
> > <quote>
> > I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
> > nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
> > another name is called duration:
>
> > relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external
> > (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
> > motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour,
> > a day, a month, a year.
>
> > II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
> > external, remains always similar and immovable.
>
> Newton is somehow wrong. GR gives the correct picture of dynamic spacetime.
Yes. That's you would have read had you kept reading.
The point is Newton and Einstein both agree that relative space and
time are measurements.
Since the extra dimensions of string theory cannot be measured, are
they dimensions of a new type of relative space and time?
Or are they dimensions of absolute space and time?
Uncle Al
>
> In the Principia Newton defined time and space for physics:
Newton, Isaac. 1687, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"
Newton was wrong. Electromagnetism wasn't adequately modeled until
the 1860s. There wasn't any EM in 1687.
> <quote>
> I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
> nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
> another name is called duration:
[snip absolutist crap]
Piffle. Pigeon puke. Empirical faery dust.
> We all know that Einstein had something to say on this topic.
[snip more wasted bytes]
Einstein - not being stupid - went with Maxwell. 140 years of
observation and thought can go places. Toss meat to your
mathematicians and they'll toss back tools.
> To summarize all that: in the eyes of both Newton and Einstein, while
> absolute space and time are "somewhere out there"; it is relative
> space and time that we measure..
>
> Emphasis: RELATIVE SPACE AND TIME ARE MEASURED.
(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith
If you have faith you can only be denied. Test of faith!
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence.
> String theory.
[snip more maunder]
When the math works and the physics does not you have at least one
sour founding postulate. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory
is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with
experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
> There are visible dimensions of space and time, and there are hidden
> dimensions.
Keebler Elves hump the Easter Bunny - and he LIKES it. He trades
felching privileges for eggs.
> Here is a description of the seed which I expect to grow into a
> hypothesis:
[snip URL]
We will spare readers your public embarassment.
Metric gravitation (GR) postulates isotropic vacuum and the
Equivalence Principle. Peturbational string theory unites the effects
of a massive body and an accelerated coordiante frame through BRST
invariance, arriving at the same starting line (with 10^1000
acceptable vacua and not a single testable prediction). Affine and
teleparallel gravitations make neither assumption. They wholly
contain GR as a restricted subset, then make additional *testable*
predictions,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism
"There is a particular choice of the action which makes it exactly
equivalent to general relativity, but there are also other choices of
the action which aren't equivalent to GR. In some of these theories,
there is no equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses."
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a9
"Term 5 obtains a parity-violating term that drops out for pure
gravitation. Free field equations with the preceding Lagrangian will
be identical to those for ordinary General Relativity. One of the
Lagrangian-derived equations will be [torsion = 0]. Einstein-Cartan
and General Relativity are identical in the absence of matter - even
with addition of a parity-violating term to the Lagrangian.
Einstein-Cartan theory is overall only defined with 4 and maybe 6.
Term 5 acts when gravitation is combined with matter - a mass sector
parity divergence empirically falsifying General Relativity."
There is only one empirical reality. Theory must predict it without
falsification. The EP is true or it can be violated by the book in at
least two different, unremarkable experiments,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
parity calorimetry experiment
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.pdf
parity Eotvos experiment
Somebody should look. Your absurdist drool
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/natures.gif
"step 1. develop a computer model of a world"
is beneath contempt. It is not even not even wrong. "South Park"'s
Underpants Gnomes had a better model than you do (30th episode
originally broadcast 16 December 1998),
Phase One: Collect underpants.
Phase Three: Profit.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Michael Helland
> Michael Helland wrote:
<snip>
> > [in string theory] There are visible dimensions of space and time, and there are hidden
> > dimensions.
>
> Keebler Elves hump the Easter Bunny - and he LIKES it.
Thanks for the response.
But I was in the mood for something objective.
Michael Helland
> http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/natures.gif
>
> is beneath contempt. It is not even not even wrong.
Maybe in the context of everything you think is right.
But to me, what you think is right is not even wrong.
That's called subjectivity.
Sometimes its better for people to stay within their subjective
confines.
The alternative is much more intellectually demanding.
theman
> On Feb 29, 12:59 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
This is utter trash, everyone on this forum should know that all Mike
dose is foist his garbage on everyone and see who buys it. Then adds
the buzz words to his list, everyone should ignore all his posts no
matter how hard it is. You can try reasoning with him but reasoning
with a fool with no reason is futile.
To put this in context Mike here has been pushing this turd of an idea
for years and it has never developed beyond this, I know for a fact he
has been trying to polish and sell this turd in some form for over 4
years. So do yourselves a favor and don't waste your time buying this
con-artist's polished turd.
Thanks, hope this helps all those who have never run into Mike before.
Michael Helland
> On Feb 29, 4:58 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 29, 12:59 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> <snip> worthless trash that nobody needs to bother with
>
> This is utter trash, everyone on this forum should know that all Mike
> dose is foist his garbage on everyone and see who buys it.
All I've done is ask a question.
Assuming,
a. relative space and time is defined by measurement
b. the time in the extra dimensions of string theory is not measurable
Then obviously either the definition relative space and time should
change, or the space and time within those dimensions is not relative.
It could be that premise b is not true either. I know some string
theorists think those dimensions can be measured, but that isn't the
mainstream opinion.
The point is simply responding with "string theory is all crap" is
about as uncritical, reactionary, and subjective as responses come
around here.
theman
> On Feb 29, 3:00 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 4:58 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 29, 12:59 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip> worthless trash that nobody needs to bother with
>
> > This is utter trash, everyone on this forum should know that all Mike
> > dose is foist his garbage on everyone and see who buys it.
>
> All I've done is ask a question.
>
mike your don't even know enough to ask a reasonable question, your a
peddler of trash, and my response was directed at your idea not at
string theory my own opinions on the matter not being relevant.
Cheers
Michael Helland
It's a simple question and I know enough to ask it.
Is the conjectural space and time in another braneworld relative or
not?
It's not a bad question. There are just no good answers.
Eric Gisse
Its' a STUPID question asked by someone who doesn't understand the
words he uses.
Michael Helland
> On Feb 29, 3:02 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's a simple question and I know enough to ask it.
>
> > Is the conjectural space and time in another braneworld relative or
> > not?
>
> > It's not a bad question. There are just no good answers.
>
> Its' a STUPID question asked by someone who doesn't understand the
> words he uses.
Thanks for your subjective reaction.
String theory alleges a multiverse, of which our universe is one of
many.
Is the space and time of universes different from our own "relative"?
Relative to what frame of reference?
Eric Gisse
Why do you continue to babble about things you do not understand?
Find yourself a different hobby because physics is beyond your ability.
Michael Helland
Do you understand string theory?
No. You just pretend to be an authority on me because you don't like
me.
Getting over your petty personal issues with me would help you out
greatly.
> Find yourself a different hobby because physics is beyond your ability.
If different dimensions of space and time exist in a different brane,
are they relative (or as relative) as the space and time of our brane?
Just because you don't think about these things doesn't mean no one
else is allowed to.
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 29, 4:49 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 3:35 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 29, 3:02 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > It's a simple question and I know enough to ask it.
>
> > > > > Is the conjectural space and time in another braneworld relative or
> > > > > not?
>
> > > > > It's not a bad question. There are just no good answers.
>
> > > > Its' a STUPID question asked by someone who doesn't understand the
> > > > words he uses.
>
> > > Thanks for your subjective reaction.
>
> > > String theory alleges a multiverse, of which our universe is one of
> > > many.
>
> > > Is the space and time of universes different from our own "relative"?
>
> > > Relative to what frame of reference?
>
> > Why do you continue to babble about things you do not understand?
>
> Do you understand string theory?
No, and neither do you. On the other hand, I am very familiar with
what string theory has to explain - you are not.
>
> No. You just pretend to be an authority on me because you don't like
> me.
I don't like you because you keep posting inane shit to this newsgroup
when it is clear that you can't make any of it work and that you have
no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Getting over your petty personal issues with me would help you out
> greatly.
It isn't all about you.
>
> > Find yourself a different hobby because physics is beyond your ability.
>
> If different dimensions of space and time exist in a different brane,
> are they relative (or as relative) as the space and time of our brane?
>
> Just because you don't think about these things doesn't mean no one
> else is allowed to.
I didn't say you aren't allowed to, just that you have no idea what
you are talking about.
Michael Helland
> On Feb 29, 4:03 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 29, 4:49 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 3:35 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 29, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 29, 3:02 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > It's a simple question and I know enough to ask it.
>
> > > > > > Is the conjectural space and time in another braneworld relative or
> > > > > > not?
>
> > > > > > It's not a bad question. There are just no good answers.
>
> > > > > Its' a STUPID question asked by someone who doesn't understand the
> > > > > words he uses.
>
> > > > Thanks for your subjective reaction.
>
> > > > String theory alleges a multiverse, of which our universe is one of
> > > > many.
>
> > > > Is the space and time of universes different from our own "relative"?
>
> > > > Relative to what frame of reference?
>
> > > Why do you continue to babble about things you do not understand?
>
> > Do you understand string theory?
>
> No, and neither do you. On the other hand, I am very familiar with
> what string theory has to explain - you are not.
Oh. What, then, in your eyes does string theory have to explain?
> > No. You just pretend to be an authority on me because you don't like
> > me.
>
> I don't like you because you keep posting inane shit to this newsgroup
> when it is clear that you can't make any of it work and that you have
> no idea what you are talking about.
It is not clear.
You can say that over and over again, but that doesn't make it true.
> > Getting over your petty personal issues with me would help you out
> > greatly.
>
> It isn't all about you.
That's good to hear. It doesn't need to get personal.
> > > Find yourself a different hobby because physics is beyond your ability.
>
> > If different dimensions of space and time exist in a different brane,
> > are they relative (or as relative) as the space and time of our brane?
>
> > Just because you don't think about these things doesn't mean no one
> > else is allowed to.
>
> I didn't say you aren't allowed to, just that you have no idea what
> you are talking about.
I have a faint idea.
Hear me out.
We define time as what a clock measures.
*If* there is another dimension of time out there (as string theory
and brane theory say), and we don't have a clock to measure it with,
then our definition of time seems to be in need of some modifications.
Wouldn't you agree?
theman
Mike, nobody cares what you have to say, I have a pet rock that knows
more about science then you, the average pigeon knows more about
science then you. We have all heard your ideas, we all know what they
are, and that they are wrong you have been shown this year after year,
take your infectious ignorance somewhere else and stop wasting
everyones time.
Cheers
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 29, 5:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 4:03 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 4:49 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 29, 3:35 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 29, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 29, 3:02 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > It's a simple question and I know enough to ask it.
>
> > > > > > > Is the conjectural space and time in another braneworld relative or
> > > > > > > not?
>
> > > > > > > It's not a bad question. There are just no good answers.
>
> > > > > > Its' a STUPID question asked by someone who doesn't understand the
> > > > > > words he uses.
>
> > > > > Thanks for your subjective reaction.
>
> > > > > String theory alleges a multiverse, of which our universe is one of
> > > > > many.
>
> > > > > Is the space and time of universes different from our own "relative"?
>
> > > > > Relative to what frame of reference?
>
> > > > Why do you continue to babble about things you do not understand?
>
> > > Do you understand string theory?
>
> > No, and neither do you. On the other hand, I am very familiar with
> > what string theory has to explain - you are not.
>
> Oh. What, then, in your eyes does string theory have to explain?
What part of "theory of everything" confuses you?
>
> > > No. You just pretend to be an authority on me because you don't like
> > > me.
>
> > I don't like you because you keep posting inane shit to this newsgroup
> > when it is clear that you can't make any of it work and that you have
> > no idea what you are talking about.
>
> It is not clear.
>
> You can say that over and over again, but that doesn't make it true.
>
> > > Getting over your petty personal issues with me would help you out
> > > greatly.
>
> > It isn't all about you.
>
> That's good to hear. It doesn't need to get personal.
>
> > > > Find yourself a different hobby because physics is beyond your ability.
>
> > > If different dimensions of space and time exist in a different brane,
> > > are they relative (or as relative) as the space and time of our brane?
>
> > > Just because you don't think about these things doesn't mean no one
> > > else is allowed to.
>
> > I didn't say you aren't allowed to, just that you have no idea what
> > you are talking about.
>
> I have a faint idea.
>
> Hear me out.
>
> We define time as what a clock measures.
Welcome to 1905.
>
> *If* there is another dimension of time out there (as string theory
> and brane theory say), and we don't have a clock to measure it with,
> then our definition of time seems to be in need of some modifications.
>
> Wouldn't you agree?
Sure. But since there is zero evidence of more than four dimensions
and that the theories that assume more than four dimensions have zero
predictive ability at the moment, the discussion is pointless.
Spend less time fantasizing about crap that is beyond your ability and
spend more time working on the elementary stuff so you will be in a
position to understand it eventually instead of never.
Jerry
> Spend less time fantasizing about crap that is beyond your
> ability and spend more time working on the elementary stuff so
> you will be in a position to understand it eventually instead
> of never.
I was thinking...
That would be good advice for me, too. I've been posting since,
uh, before I started med school, I think...? Now I'm almost
ready to graduate, and despite these years of posting, I don't
think my level of understanding of physics has really deepened
at all from when I started. Oh, sure, a few extra facts here
and there, but I started out not having any -real- command of
physics past the Halliday and Resnick level, and I'm still at
the same level.
On the other hand, I've watched you steadily progress from being
a physics wannabe whose posts mostly consisted of insulting the
crackpots, to becoming a genuinely capable young physicist with
a command of the field that I can't match, not having the
fundamental background skills. I really admire you for that!
Of course, I can now deliver babies and you can't, so maybe we're
even...
Jerry
P.S. My residency situation is "sort of" straightened out. I even
get to stay in the area, which is important because family is
important. My brother's health has been deteriorating, and his
wife has had multiple sclerosis for nearly twenty years.
ACE
The planets orbit the sun (( roughly the center
of the effective mass (M-m) of the rest of the
universe )) at a special mean orbital radius to
conserve total energy.
SEE BOOK:
ONE WITH THE UNIVERSE-
THE MECHANICS OF
THE UNIVERSE
by Allen C. Goodrich
SEE: ISBN 0-595-41598-9
THE MECHANICS OF
THE UNIVERSE
Copyright 1984-2007 Allen C. Goodrich
SIR ISAAC NEWTON (1642 - 1727 )is best
known for his laws of motion and his
proposition of a universal gravitation theory,
which states that all bodies in space and on
the earth are affected by a force called
gravity.
However, we now know that orbital motion
has nothing to do with a force of gravity.
I have found that orbital motion obeys the
modified first law of thermodynamics. which
states that the total energy of the universe is a
constant. The total energy of a planet or moon
is a constant, because there is no known way
for its energy to be changed except by
radiation of eneergy or contact with another
mass.
Orbiting masses have kinetic and potential
energies that are nearly equal, because
orbital motion occurs at the only orbital radius
where a positive change of kinetic energy is
accompanied by an equal negative change of
potential energy, complying with the modified
first law of thermodynamics.
All of the planets and moons orbit in a
manner that is consistent with the modified
first law of thermodynamics.
Any orbiting mass, m, such as the earth,
has a kinetic energy m (2 pi L )^2 / t^2
because of its velocity ,v , as m v^2 , and
a potential energy G ( M-m ) m / L,
because of its orbital radius L and the product
of the masses m and the rest of the effective
mass of the universe M-m, where M is the
effective mass of the total universe. In the
solar system this mass M would effectively
be the sum of the masses of the sun and
the rest of the masses of the planets and
moons of the solar system.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies
would be a constant for any particular planet,
or moon , because , no force, as a source
of an energy change, is available to the
orbiting mass ( if it is not in contact with another
mass ) . As a result, it continues to orbit at
nearly the same radial distance from the
center of the mass of the rest of the effective
universe, complying with the modified first law
of thermodynamics, as the fundamental
equation of the universe.
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 29, 10:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Spend less time fantasizing about crap that is beyond your
> > ability and spend more time working on the elementary stuff so
> > you will be in a position to understand it eventually instead
> > of never.
>
> I was thinking...
Always a good thing.
>
> That would be good advice for me, too. I've been posting since,
> uh, before I started med school, I think...? Now I'm almost
> ready to graduate, and despite these years of posting, I don't
> think my level of understanding of physics has really deepened
> at all from when I started. Oh, sure, a few extra facts here
> and there, but I started out not having any -real- command of
> physics past the Halliday and Resnick level, and I'm still at
> the same level.
Don't sell yourself short. You have a far better command of the
current state of the art as far as Sagnac and speed of light
experiments along with the seeming thousand varieties in both than I
do.
You are doing the same thing I would be doing were situations
different. I'd be self educating on what interests me. OTOH I'm doing
that already to a large extent, but you get my meaning I hope.
>
> On the other hand, I've watched you steadily progress from being
> a physics wannabe whose posts mostly consisted of insulting the
> crackpots, to becoming a genuinely capable young physicist with
> a command of the field that I can't match, not having the
> fundamental background skills. I really admire you for that!
Thank you.
>
> Of course, I can now deliver babies and you can't, so maybe we're
> even...
We stick with what we know.
>
> Jerry
>
> P.S. My residency situation is "sort of" straightened out. I even
> get to stay in the area, which is important because family is
> important. My brother's health has been deteriorating, and his
> wife has had multiple sclerosis for nearly twenty years.
That sucks. I hope he gets better, or at least not worse.
Bill Hobba
"Michael Helland" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69fb8aef-0a07-4ff0...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
No issue - in principle they can.
Bill
ZerkonX
> There are visible dimensions of space and time, and there are hidden
> dimensions.
>
> These hidden dimensions, I take it, cannot be measured.
What 'time' relative or hidden can be? A timely post date, btw.
Numbers can not accurately measure time even with an atomic clock much
less spring/electric clocks/calendars, both needing to be 'leaped' every
so often. Since this 'every so often' is actually a culmination of errors
made every second/millisecond/(etc)second.. maybe the biggest challenge
is to move away from numbers/time all together.
It seems time is an error because it always is in error.
theman
> On Feb 29, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > It's a simple question and I know enough to ask it.
>
> > > Is the conjectural space and time in another braneworld relative or
> > > not?
>
> > > It's not a bad question. There are just no good answers.
>
> > Its' a STUPID question asked by someone who doesn't understand the
> > words he uses.
>
> Thanks for your subjective reaction.
>
> String theory alleges a multiverse, of which our universe is one of
> many.
>
> Is the space and time of universes different from our own "relative"?
>
> Relative to what frame of reference?
Mike, I'll let you in on secret, its very important that you read
this, the reason everybody thinks your a worthless idiotic moron is
that you talk about things you know nothing about and then ignore
peoples comments and list of things you should read.
But thats ok we know that your just a cash register programmer who was
just a parrot of others coding. We also know that you were a severely
under privileged individual having the lowest IQ in your class having
to spend weeks to master simple concepts like 2+2=4 though you seem to
think it equals 5.
So why don't you take your absolutist ignorant pigeon puke,
philosophical waffling, and put it where it belongs, and stop
trolling these forum posting your worthless embarrassing ideas.
Cheers
Michael Helland
> On Feb 29, 5:22 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Hear me out.
>
> > We define time as what a clock measures.
>
> Welcome to 1905.
>
> > *If* there is another dimension of time out there (as string theory
> > and brane theory say), and we don't have a clock to measure it with,
> > then our definition of time seems to be in need of some modifications.
>
> > Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Sure. But since there is zero evidence of more than four dimensions
> and that the theories that assume more than four dimensions have zero
> predictive ability at the moment, the discussion is pointless.
If your intention is to explore the terrain, then exploring paths that
lead to no where may still be worthwhile.
If your intention is to look cool in a newsgroup, by being on the
righteous team, slaying the crank, then opening up a topic like that
for discussion is certainly not in your best interest.
> Spend less time fantasizing about crap that is beyond your ability and
> spend more time working on the elementary stuff so you will be in a
> position to understand it eventually instead of never.
Thank you.
Michael Helland
Absolutist?
What makes you say that?
Michael Helland
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:20:39 -0800, Michael Helland wrote:
> > There are visible dimensions of space and time, and there are hidden
> > dimensions.
>
> > These hidden dimensions, I take it, cannot be measured.
>
> What 'time' relative or hidden can be? A timely post date, btw.
>
> Numbers can not accurately measure time even with an atomic clock much
> less spring/electric clocks/calendars, both needing to be 'leaped' every
> so often.
If you started a count (t=0) of every second from here to whenever,
and ignored concepts like "day" and "month", and just focused on the
second, then no leaping is required.
> Since this 'every so often' is actually a culmination of errors
> made every second/millisecond/(etc)second.. maybe the biggest challenge
> is to move away from numbers/time all together.
>
> It seems time is an error because it always is in error.
Could it be that time is a measurement and thus always relative and
uncertain?
I think that could be like what you're saying with more neutral
connotations.
Michael Helland
Then I'll make you a deal.
If you could explain my method in one sentence, without using any
insults or subjective language, I could do just that.
There are three steps. They resembles the steps of information science
but with a twist to the 2nd information processing task.
That's the crux of the method. I have never meet anyone who could
explain step 2 back to me clearly.
That might be because it makes no sense.
Or because it's a difficult idea and counter-intuitive to present
methods.
(I see it as a 21st Century reworking of the Cartesian framework that
inspired Newton and Leibniz and Einstein via Spinoza.)
theman
> On Feb 29, 8:02 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 9:22 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 5:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Feb 29, 4:49 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 29, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
You're in no position to be dealing at this point having destroyed
your own character and destroyed an scrap of credibility you may have
had.
> If you could explain my method in one sentence, without using any
> insults or subjective language, I could do just that.
>
Easy, your method is backwards wrong and you would know that if you
had any idea what you were talking about. You claim that all comments
are subjective when they point out that you are wrong this the method
of a crank and a con-artist.
> There are three steps. They resembles the steps of information science
> but with a twist to the 2nd information processing task.
>
Unfortunantly you have no idea what the steps of information science
are since you belive your method is a twist on it. To make a change to
something you need to understand what you are changing and you don't.
Your information processing method is wrong, and won't work. If you
knew anything about computers or information theory you'd know that.
In fact it is obviously wrong to all those who know what their talking
about.
> That's the crux of the method. I have never meet anyone who could
> explain step 2 back to me clearly.
>
> That might be because it makes no sense.
>
> Or because it's a difficult idea and counter-intuitive to present
> methods.
>
Your first suggestion is the most credible thing you have said yet it
makes no sense congrats now take that and go learn about this stuff.
> (I see it as a 21st Century reworking of the Cartesian framework that
> inspired Newton and Leibniz and Einstein via Spinoza.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you had any idea what any of that is you might have some hope of
reworking it, as it stands you still remain a dedicated crank.
Cheers
Michael Helland
> On Mar 3, 10:24 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Then I'll make you a deal.
>
> You're in no position to be dealing at this point having destroyed
> your own character and destroyed an scrap of credibility you may have
> had.
>
> > If you could explain my method in one sentence, without using any
> > insults or subjective language, I could do just that.
>
> Easy,
Good to hear. Let's see how you did.
> your method is backwards wrong and you would know that if you
> had any idea what you were talking about. You claim that all comments
> are subjective when they point out that you are wrong this the method
> of a crank and a con-artist.
Subjective feelings (backwords wrong) and Insults.
Not one real argument.
There is not one descriptive element of ANY idea in your response,
much less the specific idea you are attempting to criticize.
I'm pretty confident the standards of quality that my work measures up
to is a lot higher than the standards set by your insults.
If you want to run me out of town, try engaging in a real discussion
with me.
ZerkonX
>> Numbers can not accurately measure time even with an atomic clock much
>> less spring/electric clocks/calendars, both needing to be 'leaped'
>> every so often.
>
>
> If you started a count (t=0) of every second from here to whenever, and
> ignored concepts like "day" and "month", and just focused on the second,
> then no leaping is required.
Interesting. You are basically then just counting from one to ten and
"bob's your uncle". Numbers/seconds are the concept and metaphor for the
day. If you ignore it then the numbers have meaning only to themselves,
nothing else.
>> Since this 'every so often' is actually a culmination of errors made
>> every second/millisecond/(etc)second.. maybe the biggest challenge is
>> to move away from numbers/time all together.
>>
>> It seems time is an error because it always is in error.
>
> Could it be that time is a measurement and thus always relative and
> uncertain?
Yes, I think so.
Here measurement is always uncertain and imperfectly relative because the
strict and neat order of numbers does not, nor will it ever, fit the
complexity of what they attempt to measure. Also, thinking that what is
measured the same as the measurement itself is not so good for anyone.
Michael Helland
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:44:10 -0800, Michael Helland wrote:
> >> Numbers can not accurately measure time even with an atomic clock much
> >> less spring/electric clocks/calendars, both needing to be 'leaped'
> >> every so often.
>
> > If you started a count (t=0) of every second from here to whenever, and
> > ignored concepts like "day" and "month", and just focused on the second,
> > then no leaping is required.
>
> Interesting. You are basically then just counting from one to ten and
> "bob's your uncle". Numbers/seconds are the concept and metaphor for the
> day. If you ignore it then the numbers have meaning only to themselves,
> nothing else.
The Julian date is a way of counting days that never has a leap year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day
That's because its just a count of the days going by.
There is no months, or years, so there is no leap year.
If you did the same thing for seconds, Julian seconds, I suppose, then
there should never need be any correction for leaps because 24 hour
days aren't used.
aZerkonX
> That's because its just a count of the days going by.
>
> There is no months, or years, so there is no leap year.
>
> If you did the same thing for seconds, Julian seconds, I suppose, then
> there should never need be any correction for leaps because 24 hour days
> aren't used.
OK, nice. Yet there are no leaps only because it is self-referencing as
it were and not referenced to external change, unlike the calendar. Not
so bad really. Keeps things in proper perspective.
Michael Helland
Cite?
Salviati
I replied in spr. You may respond here to my reply either immediately here
or privately, if your response will be rejected there. I do not read
sci.physics on a regular basis.
Regards,
Salviati
Michael Helland
Thanks for the response. I'm still thinking about it. I'll have a
response soon.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> In the Principia Newton defined time and space for physics:
I find it interesting that Newton was not taken with the three
dimensions of observed space.
Likewise in terms of your question on the relativity of the 'hidden
dimensions' of string theory I am fairly certain that the answer is
yes, they are relative. But the question begs a larger question that
many string theorists have ignored:
Why spacetime?
Theory is supposed to explain observation and since we observe
spacetime we would like a theory that generates spacetime. By
providing additional dimensions and laying down an artificial
structural difference the string theorists have fully breached this
problem.
I think it is alright to view these problems as open problems and as
such to come at them from new angles is entirely appropriate. I took a
look at your website. I think you are a bit obsessed with human
qualities within your model. I do think we are caught as humans in
spacetime making models but to then reimpose our human qualities
within an idealistic model is inappropriate. Gandhi takes an
interesting stance in terms of truth where he claims an absolute truth
but then concedes that we as humans are caught in individual relative
truths.
The unit shell is a decent absolute coordinate system but it puts us
with no access to its origin. Being caught on the shell we should see
a maximum distance and at this distance we should see the same thing.
This is somewhat consistent with the big bang principle where we
should not see further than 14 billion light years or some such value.
I'm pretty sure there are a number of conflicts with this model but it
might be an alternative absolute coordinate system that would still
leave us its elements with a relative reference and even 3D of
freedom. Doesn't the big bang give absolute time? I'm not a firm
believer but still it is consistent with your model.
The biggest booger that I see with the string theory is that to answer
the question
Why spacetime?
with an answer like
Oh, its actually 10D...
leaves us the question
Why 10D?
which then seems doubly artificial in that the structural manufacture
carries no reasoning other than consistency with current theory. The
consistency is good but the artifice is bad. I'm not so troubled by
the untestability problem. Under the new vein of deriving spacetime as
a basis our access to those underlying principles (we humans as
elements of spacetime) is not likely. So pure theory with consistency
would be alright, but that theory should be pure. Then it can be
freestanding.
The keywords 'emergent spacetime' can lead to some interesting papers.
Also I have
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
which provides some math capable of supporting a spacetime physical
theory.
-Tim http://www.BandTechnology.com
> Are they still relative?
>
> In finding an answer, I think I have the idea for a new hypothesis
> that is an alternative to string theory with one important twist:
>
> while string theory is a contemporary descendant of Newton's physics;
Michael Helland
Thank you for the wonderful response.
Your comments on space-time and string theory recalled to memory this
web page:
<quote>
Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings.
It will be the first step towards a reconciliation of physics and
philosophy. Perhaps it will be quickly followed by a change of view,
to a point from where all of our universe can be seen as a consequence
of our possible experiences just as the old philosophers wanted us to
see it. What other ways will we have to modify our understanding to
accommodate such a theory? Not all can be foreseen.
</quote>
http://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
You do make a good point regarding my paper, that human biology is
central to how I suggest we must accommodate a new theory.
Whereas Gibbs talks about space-time emerging from "interacting
strings", I've suggested space-time emerges from "interacting things",
where one of the things is an observer.
(But then Gibbs does go ahead and mention it could be based on
"experience", which might as well be "observation".)
"Biocentrism" seems to be an up and coming trend:
<quote>
A New Theory of the Universe
Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the
equation
</quote>
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/archives/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html
So, if you decide to take another look, any more feedback or criticism
of the conjecture would be fantastic.
I looked through Polysigns.
Did you devise that concept by yourself? That's very interesting.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
This server has moved up in the world:
http://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
I have read this piece before and even tried to track down Gibbs by
email, but as I recall he has disappeared from the internet.
Perhaps he'll resurface.
>
> You do make a good point regarding my paper, that human biology is
> central to how I suggest we must accommodate a new theory.
>
> Whereas Gibbs talks about space-time emerging from "interacting
> strings", I've suggested space-time emerges from "interacting things",
> where one of the things is an observer.
>
> (But then Gibbs does go ahead and mention it could be based on
> "experience", which might as well be "observation".)
>
> "Biocentrism" seems to be an up and coming trend:
>
> <quote>
> A New Theory of the Universe
> Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the
> equation
> </quote>http://www.theamericanscholar.org/archives/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html
I read a fair amount of this but got tired. I think he's a good writer
but there are flaws.
Lanza says
"Physicists venture beyond the scope of their science beyond the
limits of material phenomena and law when they try to assign physical,
mathematical, or other qualities to space and time."
What then is the realm of the physicist? He's knocked out Newton and
Descarte so he's demolished physics. The microscope he peers through
is based on principles which he has rejected invalidating his attack.
Further back he says
"Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has
existence unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how
it is perceived further influences that reality."
I reject this thinking. We are fortunate to exist but that does not
make our existence necessary. Humans are an optional and temporary
feature of reality. Certainly we do construct belief systems and as
such all of them are open to modification and hopefully improvement.
Many of them are false, but to merely dismiss them wastes the tool of
skepticism. The weak parts indicate a chance for improvement. We
should be engaged in a progression.
Please reconsider the necessity of the observer. While the observer is
a helpful modeling agent it's necessity within a theory is falsehood.
Theory itself should not rely upon observers except as verification.
That is the ideal observer: no interaction. This entity of puritanical
observer does not exist in reality, or if it does its ability to
communicate with we humble elements of spacetime is nonexistent.
You're going back to the freshman debate of a tree falling in the
woods. That we are humans
I am happy to enjoy the puzzle with you but I also have to concisely
reject the anthropic paradigm. If you can convince me otherwise that
would be wonderful but unlikely. The proper stance is not to tread so
heavily as to demolish physics but instead to declare the problem an
open one. Modern physics, like Newton, presumes spacetime as a basis
and says nothing about why spacetime exists. This is a new topic and
there are numerous explorations ongoing. Lisa Randall has become
mainstream and while I have attempted to plumb her Warped Passages I
am not convinced that she is the one. She and Karch said (in Relaxing
To Three Dimensions)
"No fundamental physical principle singles out three dimensions.
Yet three dimensions of space
clearly has a special status. The obvious question is why."
- http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0506053
Another source:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/research.shtml
He claims quantum theory already supports D=4 but I have yet to
understand that.
Yes, the polysign construction is my own work. On the surface
generalizing sign seems a feeble approach but once the tie to
dimension is exposed it becomes sensible. If generalizations like this
have not been taken within the existent branches of math then what
else lays open? I do think there is still more to construct.
- Tim
Michael Helland
It's hard to say what specifically he was going for with that
sentence.
The preceding sentence is:
"In fact, space and time fall into the province of biology--of animal
sense perception--not of physics. They are properties of the mind, of
the language by which we human beings and animals represent things to
ourselves."
I think maybe what he is keying on is that biology and physics are
unifying at some level.
Because he's a biologist and not a physicist, it seems he's claiming
biologies primacy, but that's just his opinion.
We could easily say that the functions of nerves and neurons is the
province of physics - of physical forces - not of biology.
It's neither here not there.
> "Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has
> existence unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how
> it is perceived further influences that reality."
> I reject this thinking.
But we can divide reality into three worlds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popperian_cosmology
And one of those worlds is created by consciousness.
Descartes, Newton, and Einstein all accepted that.
I take it you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM?
> We are fortunate to exist but that does not
> make our existence necessary. Humans are an optional and temporary
> feature of reality. Certainly we do construct belief systems and as
> such all of them are open to modification and hopefully improvement.
> Many of them are false, but to merely dismiss them wastes the tool of
> skepticism. The weak parts indicate a chance for improvement. We
> should be engaged in a progression.
>
> Please reconsider the necessity of the observer.
I will.
I need you to answer a question for me.
In my paper, I describe two sets of information existing in their own
way, in their own resources.
Two very different sets of information.
The first set of information is all the data of the computer program
in the resources of the computer.
That data demonstrates a wonderful complexity: it seems that some of
the data has arranged itself into a new virtual resource for
information.
Furthermore, the information in that second set is a theory about the
first set.
Essentially:
set 1. program's data in computer's physical resource
set 2. what the program thinks about itself
Notice there is no artificial intelligence code.
This is pure intelligence.
And that notion allows me to end up with two radically different sets
of information.
How do I end up with the two sets of information without an internal
observer?
> While the observer is
> a helpful modeling agent it's necessity within a theory is falsehood.
> Theory itself should not rely upon observers except as verification.
> That is the ideal observer: no interaction. This entity of puritanical
> observer does not exist in reality, or if it does its ability to
> communicate with we humble elements of spacetime is nonexistent.
> You're going back to the freshman debate of a tree falling in the
> woods. That we are humans
>
> I am happy to enjoy the puzzle with you but I also have to concisely
> reject the anthropic paradigm. If you can convince me otherwise that
> would be wonderful but unlikely.
Let's put it this way. If you can answer my question, you will have
convinced me to drop the observer.
> The proper stance is not to tread so
> heavily as to demolish physics but instead to declare the problem an
> open one.
Indeed. I'm trying to pioneer a new field of physics.
> Modern physics, like Newton, presumes spacetime as a basis
> and says nothing about why spacetime exists. This is a new topic and
> there are numerous explorations ongoing. Lisa Randall has become
> mainstream and while I have attempted to plumb her Warped Passages I
> am not convinced that she is the one. She and Karch said (in Relaxing
> To Three Dimensions)
> "No fundamental physical principle singles out three dimensions.
> Yet three dimensions of space
> clearly has a special status. The obvious question is why."
> -http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0506053
>
> Another source:
> http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/research.shtml
> He claims quantum theory already supports D=4 but I have yet to
> understand that.
>
> Yes, the polysign construction is my own work. On the surface
> generalizing sign seems a feeble approach but once the tie to
> dimension is exposed it becomes sensible. If generalizations like this
> have not been taken within the existent branches of math then what
> else lays open? I do think there is still more to construct.
> - Tim
The possibilities are endless.
Michael Gordge
> II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
> external, remains always similar and immovable.
>
> Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
> spaces;
Give the meaning of "space" as ewe have used it in that Kantian crap.
Ewe've preceded a noun with two dopey adjectives and then pretended
that by doing so the meaning of the noun changes, light and heavy
doesn't change the meaning of weight, short and long doesn't change
the meaning of distance, slow and fast doesn't change the meaning of
duration, so how do ewe Kantians get relative and absolute to change
the meaning of space?
Michael Gordge
Michael Helland
> On Feb 29, 8:20 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything
> > external, remains always similar and immovable.
>
> > Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
> > spaces;
>
> Give the meaning of "space" as ewe have used it in that Kantian crap.
The above was written by Newton before Kant was ever born.
You latched onto something and you came out with guns a blazing.
Why not toning down your emotions and biases a bit?
> Ewe've preceded a noun with two dopey adjectives and then pretended
> that by doing so the meaning of the noun changes,
Newton did that. Descartes before him. And many others.
> light and heavy
> doesn't change the meaning of weight, short and long doesn't change
> the meaning of distance, slow and fast doesn't change the meaning of
> duration, so how do ewe Kantians get relative and absolute to change
> the meaning of space?
This was all pretty widely established before Kant was ever born.
You're biased and subjective.
Tone it down.
Michael Gordge
> Tone it down.
Oh get fucked and deal with the subject, ewe Kantians have never liked
your dopey mish-mash trashy ideas challenged have you?
All I challenged you to do was to give the meaning of "space" in your
promotion of the dopey idea that a noun somehow changes in meaning by
preceding it with an adjective.
Duration doesn't change in meaning by preceding it with slow and fast,
so run through the process of space changing in meaning by preceding
it with relative.
MG
Michael Helland
> On Mar 7, 5:45 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tone it down.
>
> Oh get fucked and deal with the subject, ewe Kantians have never liked
> your dopey mish-mash trashy ideas challenged have you?
The text you were responding to was written by Newton.
Before Kant ever lived.
> All I challenged you to do was to give the meaning of "space" in your
> promotion of the dopey idea that a noun somehow changes in meaning by
> preceding it with an adjective.
>
> Duration doesn't change in meaning by preceding it with slow and fast,
> so run through the process of space changing in meaning by preceding
> it with relative.
That's a conclusion of induction.
Michael Gordge
Its a statement of fact that the adjectives light and heavy dont
change the meaning of the weight, so how does the adjective relative
change the meaning of space in your dopey Kantian idea?
Why are ewe fudging?
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> But I was in the mood for something objective.
Oh good, so you'll be able to answer objectively how the adjectives
relative and or absolute change the meaning of space.
Which is challenging you to give the meaning of "space" when its
preceded by the edjective relative.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Is the conjectural space and time in another braneworld relative or
> not?
How does the adjective "conjectural" change the meaning of the nouns
space and time?
Which is asking ewe to explain the meaning of time in "conjectural
time"
Michael Gordge
Michael Helland
It's a Newtonian idea.
It existed before Kant.
Accept that, settle down, and I'll answer your question.
Michael Gordge
> I'll answer your question.
Ewe haven't yet, why not?
MG
Michael Helland
Because you haven't shown any respect for thoughtful discussion.
You can start by spelling "you" correctly.
Next you can refrain from looking at everything in terms of Kant just
to knock it down.
Michael Gordge
> Because you haven't shown any respect for
> thoughtful discussion.
In other words ewe cant explain how the adjectives relative and
conjectural change the meaning of space!
And ewe want people to believe there's a thoughtful discussion
happening when ewe cant even explain the premise your original
question relies upon?
Michael Gordge
Michael Helland
If the adjective.is not really an adjective but part of the name.
For example a "golden eagle" and a "bald eagle" refer to a different
species of bird.
theman
> On Mar 6, 8:55 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> > > Because you haven't shown any respect for
> > > thoughtful discussion.
>
> > In other words ewe cant explain how the adjectives relative and
> > conjectural change the meaning of space!
>
> > And ewe want people to believe there's a thoughtful discussion
> > happening when ewe cant even explain the premise your original
> > question relies upon?
>
> > Michael Gordge
>
> If the adjective.is not really an adjective but part of the name.
>
> For example a "golden eagle" and a "bald eagle" refer to a different
> species of bird.
Mike try this on for size, lets see what you know:
So explain for me the problem with 32D SuperGravity Theory
Or how about, what is the purpose of Calculus of Variations?
Or if those are to difficult tell me what one uses a Power Series for?
Think of it as a test of your knowledge, and hey if you can answer the
question then you'll not be as ignorant as I thought.
Cheers
Michael Gordge
> If the adjective.is not really an adjective but part of > the name.
Wishing things different doesn't make them so. Ewe're not trying very
hard.
> For example a "golden eagle" and a "bald eagle" refer to a different
> species of bird.
Shrug, boring, golden eagle and or bald eagle doesn't give "bird" a
different meaning, dont be silly.
The question is; What is the meaning of "space" in "relative space"?
Realitive has its own meaning - sooo why not space?
Golden and bald have their own meaning and so does eagle.
Try harder.
Michael Gordge
Michael Helland
> On Mar 8, 12:14 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the adjective.is not really an adjective but part of > the name.
>
> Wishing things different doesn't make them so. Ewe're not trying very
> hard.
>
> > For example a "golden eagle" and a "bald eagle" refer to a different
> > species of bird.
>
> Shrug, boring, golden eagle and or bald eagle doesn't give "bird" a
> different meaning, dont be silly.
In terms of biology, the science of life, yes it does.
It refers to a different species of bird.
> The question is; What is the meaning of "space" in "relative space"?
Space is what a ruler measures.
Michael Gordge
Golden eagle and bald eagle do not change the meaning of bird, grow
the fuck up.
> > The question is; What is the meaning of "space" in "relative space"?
>
> Space is what a ruler measures.
And the adjective "relative" changes that meaning of space HOW?
Michael Gordge
cjpo...@aol.com
> "Michael Helland" <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f6a1761-c454-4892...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own
> > nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by
> > another name is called duration:
>
> > relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external
> > (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
> > motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour,
> > a day, a month, a year.
>
> > external, remains always similar and immovable.
>
> > Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute
>
>
>
> > Are they still relative?
>
> Dimensions are not relative.
>
>
>
> > In finding an answer, I think I have the idea for a new hypothesis
> > that is an alternative to string theory with one important twist:
>
> > while string theory is a contemporary descendant of Newton's physics;
>
>
>
>
>
> > my potential hypothesis is not a descendant of Newton.
>
> > It is a descendant of Leibniz.
>
> > <quote>
> > Until the discovery of subatomic particles and the quantum mechanics
> > governing them, many of Leibniz's speculative ideas about aspects of
> > nature not reducible to statics and dynamics made little sense. For
> > instance, he anticipated Albert Einstein by arguing, against Newton,
> > that space, time and motion are relative, not absolute. Leibniz's rule
> > in interacting theories plays a role in supersymmetry and in the
> > lattices of quantum mechanics. His principle of sufficient reason has
> > been invoked in recent cosmology, and his identity of indiscernibles
> > in quantum mechanics, a field some even credit him with having
> > anticipated in some sense. Those who advocate digital philosophy, a
> > recent direction in cosmology, claim Leibniz as a precursor.
> > </quote>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz
>
> > Here is a description of the seed which I expect to grow into a
> > hypothesis:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
String Theory took the electron as a point(QM) and changed it to a
vibrating string. It gave the building blocks of the micro realm
their true feature and that is energy in place Bert+SUnbeam
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
You must like information theory. I think that is commendable.
Unfortunately my answer is a bit of a shortcut though I did study your
code.
You've qualified observer to "internal observer" but my point is that
upon interaction the quality of observer is contaminated.
Within the definition of observer in its purest sense is a lack of
interaction.
Observer can only take a theoretical usage and worst of all should not
be a critical element of that theory.
It should be a form of verification. The common phrase
"If I were a fly on the wall"
is appropriate. Unfortunately even the fly can upset the system,
especially when a spider chases the fly and the human gets up to get a
newspaper to roll up to swat the spider, then the fly flies off and
the human exits the room to chase the fly.
Such a program that is purely observant will be even simpler than
yours. It would simply read the values and do nothing with them,
perhaps store them in local registers but certainly perform no write
operations. As soon as such a listener sends a signal or flips a bit
of any sort then it has ceased to be an observer. So your "internal
observer" stance could be applied to a singular portion of your
program such as:
* see if there's anything to interact with
for each oB in oAbsoluteMatter
lnDx = oB.nDx
but when we reach a line such as
oB.nDx = this.nDx
this observational claim is lost.
I don't mean to be completely discouraging, but perhaps our sense of
observer is a bit mislaid. As I look out the window at a chickadee and
it breaks open a sunflower seed gripped in its feet against an apple
tree branch I am feeling like an observer yet I just put out the
sunflower seeds an hour or so ago. Rather than be frustrated by this
process there is a nice inkling of unification and interconnectedness
in it as well that should probably yield some appreciation. The human
divisions between biologist and physicist are conveniences whose
accuracy breaks down even as soon as the the biologist slips an
imperfectly flat piece of glass under a microspcope with coated optics
to see some protoplasm. This does not cause me to reject the
biologist's view of protoplasm any more than the biologist ought to
reject the optics of his microscope or spacetime for that matter. How
we come to have such freedom is a valid question I believe, but to
rely upon that freedom as a fundamental crux of reality is a step I am
not willing to take. We are more of a side-effect than a central
function.
Perhaps in terms of spacetime it is then inappropriate to claim that
we 'observe' spacetime since its observation requires a series of
experiments. Yet who will challenge that three dimensions of space
adequately define position? Plenty I suppose but then when asked to
prove such a dilemma is exposed. The original alternative which is the
common notion of 3D space should include the alteration of an objects
position. Is there than a new term that must be applied? Is it invalid
to claim that we observe spacetime? Do we instead interact spacetime?
I am not that excited about declaring such a prospect but somehow it
is there. Either way spacetime remains well defined while our behavior
does not. What it means to be a human may be as valid a topic as what
spacetime is. The proper structure I believe is to place us as
elements within spacetime; as its prisoners. The Popperian system
seems humancentric though it may expose the problem of errancy. Then
also we are caught with exchanging sequential words here. Could we
agree on one point: regardless of what we believe reality is the same
for all of us?
- Tim
Michael Gordge
>
> It refers to a different species of bird.
How does sparrow and eagle change the meaning of "bird"?
> Space is what a ruler measures.
Oh, rulers can be used to measure dress size soooooo so how does
"relative dress size" differ from dress size?
Which is asking ewe how does realtive space differ from space?
Which is asking ewe HOW does the adjective relative change the meaning
of the noun, space, it precedes?
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
<tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Either way spacetime remains well defined...
Well away ewe go then, define spacetime and explain how it difers from
space and time.
Michael Gordge
jer0en
"
There are visible dimensions of space and time, and there are hidden
dimensions.
These hidden dimensions, I take it, cannot be measured.
"
ZerkonX wrote:
"
What 'time' relative or hidden can be?
Numbers can not accurately measure time even with an atomic clock much less
spring/electric clocks/calendars, both needing to be 'leaped' every so
often. Since this 'every so often' is actually a culmination of errors made
every second/millisecond/(etc)second.. maybe the biggest challenge is to
move away from numbers/time all together.
It seems time is an error because it always is in error.
"
As to Micheal Helland, no, it cannot be measured, since were are, at least
sensuary but possibly even completely physically, captured in gravitational
space. everything happening and measurable in 3D space, which is the only
space we have (perceptional) access of, is related to the motion of the
inert, and the inert is another word for mass, or the gravitational force
field, to be precise.
so all we can measure is movement and movement requires a mass component in
the moving particle, because only mass can be the object of any force field,
by changing its inert behaviour, that is, its speed and direction. as you
know all particles are made up of combinations of different force fields
that, as one particle, share the same space.
as a subject, that is as a field that is exerting a force, any force field
in 3D space will qualify. but only the gravitational field will qualify as
an object of force, eventhough it may need the "intervention" or "aid" of
another force field that it is spacially combined with in the particle to be
the object of a force field of another type.
as far as we can measure, all other force fields seem to be completely
unaffected by force fields, that is, by each other. so if they would be
combined in particles without a gravitational component, we would not be
able to determine their existence.
it is only likely that the other force fields also experience influences
from each other, but the effects of these influences are at least sensuary
completely out of reach in gravitational space, or inert space if you like.
3D space is in fact quite accurate as well, since the effect of the
gravitational field being an object to other force fields is movement, and
movement and 3D space are eventually logically identical.
the effects of other force fields being objects of each other are unknown
and unmeasurable to us, and we have no idea what the universes in which
these effects would in theory be accessible to us would actually look like.
it is not very likely these effects would be movement, since we can see
movement, so it is not very likely the concept of "dimension" would have a
useful application in these universes at all.
note that the subject/object dichotomy is completely relative as to movement
in inert space, and that it is just a very single sided means of describing
what is in fact an INTERACTION between theoretically at least two, but in
reality ALL particles that have a gravitational component in all of space,
and that the determination of any "subject" or "object" particle in the
complete picture is fundamentally impossible.
so the subject/object dichotomy is only a means of logical self-limitation
that allows us to numerically describe part of something that, in reality,
can not be split up as a phenomenon, i.e. the whole of inert space. which is
where we live.
as to ZerkonX, you seem to be describing the limitations of measurement as a
whole rather that specifically that of time. measurement is an intrinsically
discontinuous, or a digital practice if you like, with inherent limitations.
the only alternative to measurement that I know of is human perception, that
may eventually evolve into something I like to call the full physiological
understanding of the universe, which would involve us becoming one with it.
and that is too far out even for A.E. van Vogt.
still I would care to abuse your observation to divulge a suspicion I have
had for some time concerning relativity theory. it is my belief that the
reason why relativity theory is inaccesible to us, or inconclusive if you
like, that it is in fact dealing with matters that require a satisfactory
explanation in philosophy, i.e. in metaphysics, before it can further be
dealt with in "objective" science.
IMO the whole matter of relativity revolves around metaphysical
subject/object theory, which E. did not care, or have the knowledge to
address, let alone solve. for a very small detail I do not think it has yet
been scientifically addressed, let alone established whether time is a
subjective or an objective phenomenon.
well it is in fact quite objective, and perhaps it is even (metaphysically)
possible to prove this, but no one seems to have so far, which is basicly my
point. I think many people are quite unclear in this matter and do in fact,
perhaps subconsciously, assume time to be completely subjective, which it
isn't, unless everthing else would, which would define solipsism. so outside
of solipsism, time is, in fact, objective.
now what E. is describing with trains passing by and to forth is, in fact,
the subjective perception of time by human beings, and it seems to me he is,
throughout his theory, projecting this subjective time onto the objective of
physical space. at the very least there is hardly a satisfactory distinction
between subject/object matters anywhere in his theory. so is anything
perceptionally happening in space? in E.'s space there is!
jer0en
only way we know of any other force fields is through the gravitational
field, and because of the ability or "willingness" of the other force field
to spacially combine with the gravitational field in a single particle.
as you know, force fields only interact with their own type, but in 3D space
the effect of that interaction is only apparent to us through the
gravitational field, provided it is combined with the interacting field type
in a particle.
if the ability to combine with mass is absent, the force field will be for
ever undetectable and its existence completely arbritary to us, or at least
to practical science.
Michael Helland
Those postulates are challenged by my conjecture.
> It should be a form of verification. The common phrase
> "If I were a fly on the wall"
> is appropriate. Unfortunately even the fly can upset the system,
> especially when a spider chases the fly and the human gets up to get a
> newspaper to roll up to swat the spider, then the fly flies off and
> the human exits the room to chase the fly.
> Such a program that is purely observant will be even simpler than
> yours. It would simply read the values and do nothing with them,
> perhaps store them in local registers but certainly perform no write
> operations. As soon as such a listener sends a signal or flips a bit
> of any sort then it has ceased to be an observer. So your "internal
> observer" stance could be applied to a singular portion of your
> program such as:
>
> * see if there's anything to interact with
> for each oB in oAbsoluteMatter
> lnDx = oB.nDx
>
> but when we reach a line such as
>
> oB.nDx = this.nDx
>
> this observational claim is lost.
You may have lost me, but...
The code I presented is a world without an internal observer.
That code comes from step 1. It represents an interaction between two
absolute objects (monads).
But it isn't an observation.
In step 1, there is no observer. There is only one set of information.
Step 2 the innovation. To my knowledge, it hasn't been completed.
That is where the complexity of simple rules similar to the code in
step 1 arranges into an internal observer.
Not directly in code, but indirectly through complexity.
Sure.
Reality, in that case, is the third world in Popper's system, and to
some degree, the first.
FWIW, I don't believe space-time exists in the first world, only the
third.
Thomas Heger
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
news:5b4a56ed-9945-445c...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 5, 4:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 12:40 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
>>
>> web page:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
>> we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
>> string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
>> recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings.
>> It will be the first step towards a reconciliation of physics and
>> philosophy. Perhaps it will be quickly followed by a change of view,
>> to a point from where all of our universe can be seen as a consequence
>> of our possible experiences just as the old philosophers wanted us to
>> see it. What other ways will we have to modify our understanding to
>> accommodate such a theory? Not all can be foreseen.
>> </quote>http://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
>
> This server has moved up in the world:
> http://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
> I have read this piece before and even tried to track down Gibbs by
> email, but as I recall he has disappeared from the internet.
> Perhaps he'll resurface.
>
and QM. Gibbs says, spacetime is proven to be existent of its own rights.
There is a certain description of spacetime in form of quaternions. That are
four-dimensional complex numbers. Those numbers have the perfect properties
to modell spacetime. But its amazing to see, that they don't only modell
spacetime but em-field and quantumeffects too. Philosophically experessed:
GR is describing some fundamental phenomenon. Its a bit like a fluid. QM is
describing the physics of observations. The point is, that spacetime is
imaginary. Its a complex valued phenomenon, hence has dimensions of
unmeasurable type: spacetime or lightyears. Spacetime is not space + time.
Those are observations of spacetime. The idea sounds dodgy, but is definetly
correct. Lenght as basics of geometry is a certain measurement. we ca can -
of cause- measure lenght. QM has a certain idea about measurement. It gains
an expactation value, in this case of the position operator. That is
something like E(x_i)=<psi|x_i|psi>. This has some stunning similarities to
the formular for rotations of quaternions that is f(v)=zvz^-1. That doesn't
look same in the first sight, but
z^-1 is z* for unit quaternions. Bra and ket are connected through one
beeing the conjugate of the other. v is a vector for the position. Its
mainly the quaternion beeing rotated. Those z quaternions are the rotating
influences. That is very much like the idea of a quantumstate.
Quantumphysics is a bit more abstract and further reaching, but seam to
describe some phenomena happening in spacetime. (This simple fact rules out
the idea of planck scale or quantum gravity).
It is possible to develop theories of observations. Its not very likely,
that nature needs us or anybody else to function, but models may describe
the outcome of experiments or observations. That are useful models. Since
nature don't need humans, models for the deep fundations of nature should be
'non-useful'. They should not contain an observer. They should be about the
deep foundations of nature. As much I like the humans, I don't regard them
as that fundamental.
Its definitly neccessary to have some ideas about what exactly your are
modelling and what is the role of the observer.
> I am happy to enjoy the puzzle with you but I also have to concisely
> reject the anthropic paradigm. If you can convince me otherwise that
> would be wonderful but unlikely. The proper stance is not to tread so
> heavily as to demolish physics but instead to declare the problem an
> open one. Modern physics, like Newton, presumes spacetime as a basis
> and says nothing about why spacetime exists. This is a new topic and
> there are numerous explorations ongoing. Lisa Randall has become
> mainstream and while I have attempted to plumb her Warped Passages I
> am not convinced that she is the one. She and Karch said (in Relaxing
> To Three Dimensions)
> "No fundamental physical principle singles out three dimensions.
> Yet three dimensions of space
> clearly has a special status. The obvious question is why."
> - http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0506053
>
See above. Space is observation of spacetime. Space has real dimensions.
That means: space could be measured. If you cut off time and treat space as
timestable (no-time part) you get three real dimensions. That is because
time is not a simple component of spacetime. Its joint together with space,
by measuring it you cut it of. This is done by defining space in a certain
way. Look at the certain room that you may sit in. This room seem to stay
where it is. It is time stable. Time is running, if you look at your watch.
But that is a question of definition. If you look at spacetime in space
direction you got time stretched out. Usually physicists do something like
that when they research fields or light. So em-field is the entity you get
out of spacetime when you make a cut in time direction (cutting off space).
Thomas Heger
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> On Mar 8, 8:24 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
think you should clearly define that phrase.
I am open to an underworld type of approach, but I wouldn't label that
approach with 'world'.
What the physicists attempt to do is create mathematics that either
corresponds with reality or predicts it, or even creates reality. The
arithmetical correspondence of physical existence to three dimensional
space is unmistakable. This simple geometrical stance is all that we
need to be discussing. Yes, this is a step back from spacetime, but
historically getting these three 'extended' dimensions would be a
first step to getting to spacetime in its arithmetic form. Probably
historically people had a sense of time long before they had a sense
of dimension beyond length. But to crack the spacetime nut I think it
would be ridiculous to ignore the plain simple three dimensions of
space that can be so easily derived. If you can come up with a model
which begets these three dimensions then you may have a candidate
theory to a pre-world set of rules. Best of all would be to get time
in there as well, though modern confusion over what time is leaves
that realm largely to your own judgement. None the less, the polysign
interperetation happens to come with a new domain that does have time
correspondence as well as three dimensions of space.
When we see this behavior of the space we are in exposed it is so
fundamental that it lays beneath our level of perception. That
geometry takes on discrete dimension such as 3D or even 10D rather
than 3.14125D can be taken as a puzzle on its own. Here lays a
continuum with discrete properties, already without even performing
any physics. Can the quantum model be reshuffled into a more coherent
system? Can sting theory yield spacetime rather than presume it? I
don't see how entering bio logic helps any of this if that bio logic
comes back down to measuring the dimensions of things beneath a
microscope and declaring their geometry since all of that will send us
back to the more fundamental issue of geometry. Perhaps this is a
stronger attack on your anthropic paradigm. You do seem to dodge this
word 'anthropic' though isn't it what you practice? You seem to be a
structured thinker based upon your code. As we consider coherent
structure what on earth is biology doing at the bottom of it all? Call
me a materialist please, but these material complexities are far
beyond necessity. The complexity of the materials that the human
specimin is capable of handling e.g. a square and a ruler are
simplistic things. To use those things, albeit within spacetime, to
observe spacetime is a far simpler prospect than to structure such a
belief which chains down in its fundaments with biology. Immanuel Kant
uses the word manifold mysteriously and I think this would be well
worth your study from "Critique of Pure Reason":
" AXIOMS OF INTUITION
Their principle is: All intuitions are extensive magnitudes.
Proof:
Appearances,in their formal aspect, contain an intuition in space and
time, which conditions them, one and all, a priori.
They cannot be apprehended, that is, taken up into empirical
conciousness, save through that synthesis of the manifold whereby the
representations of a determinate space or time are generated, that is,
through combination of the homogeneous manifold and consciousness of
its sythetic unity. Consciousness of the synthetic unity of the
manifold [and] homogeneous intuition in general, in so far as the
representation of an object first bevomes possible by means of it, is,
however, the concept of a magnitude(quantum). Thus even the perception
of an object, as appearance, is only possible through the same
synthetic unity of the manifold of the given sensible intuition as
that whereby the unity of the combinations of the manifold [and]
homogeneous is thought in the concept of a magnitude. In oher words
appearances are all without exception magnitudes, indeed extensive
magnitudes. As intuitions in space or time, they must be represented
through the same synthesis whereby space and time in general are
determined."
There are rather a lot of modern qualities stated here though I don't
believe that the term 'manifold' as he uses it is the same as the
modern mathematical version. Still this and the focus on magnitude and
'homogeneous' are important usages that he unmistakably is careful to
include them at a human level. Notice also that he always couples his
usage of space and time in this passage.
- Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitragnews:5b4a56ed-9945-445c...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> See above. Space is observation of spacetime. Space has real dimensions.
> That means: space could be measured. If you cut off time and treat space as
> timestable (no-time part) you get three real dimensions. That is because
> time is not a simple component of spacetime. Its joint together with space,
> by measuring it you cut it of. This is done by defining space in a certain
> way. Look at the certain room that you may sit in. This room seem to stay
> where it is. It is time stable. Time is running, if you look at your watch.
> But that is a question of definition. If you look at spacetime in space
> direction you got time stretched out. Usually physicists do something like
> that when they research fields or light. So em-field is the entity you get
> out of spacetime when you make a cut in time direction (cutting off space).
>
> Thomas Heger
Hi again Mr. Heger.
Nice of you to chime in here. As I look at your adoption of a
bidirectional time which happens to be fixed out by our calculations I
can't help but wonder:
Suppose I that I ate a soft-boiled egg on the morning of March 9
2008 and I had an overeasy egg the day before. Is this information
likely to change?
You do have support from some mainstream physicists. I believe it
was in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_%28TV_series%29
that Michio Kaku confessed his own obsession with the lack of
necessity of unidirectional time. As I recall he states that all of
the known laws of physics work as well forward as backward in time. I
forget if he excepted out thermodynamics from that.
I have no idea how people can come to refute unidirectional time and
its discrepant behavior from the spatial dimensions. This focus to me
points the way for structured spacetime rather than isotropic
spacetime. Already relativity theory has taken us half way. If
bidirectional time does exist should there be some evident form that
allows for the human perception of unidirectional time? Isn't one of
us then misusing the word 'time'? I tire of getting wordy but it does
seem that we are stuck there.
- Tim
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 10, 4:05 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>> Newsbeitragnews:5b4a56ed-9945-445c...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
I don't think like that. Time in my picture is not bidirectional. How do you
come to that idea?. I said something about spacetime to be imaginary.
Spacetime has properties to model nicely with imaginary numbers, but that
does not make it unreal. This is the point to carefully think about. What do
you think, the term reality means. In fact one part is observation. But this
would put the observer, hence the humans, too much in front. It fact there
is a usefull theory of observations, that is in general quantumphysics. But
spacetime is what you could regard as underlying reality.
The properties of time are interesting, but not within my current field of
interest. If you think of spacetime as fundamental, as I do, than there is a
new puzzle: what is spacetime. But thats for later. Time is simply one
aspect of spacetime. The observation of developing fields. By observation
you cut spacetime into pieces. If you cut off time, you get a 3d-space as
residual no-time part. And you get a field of energy distribution (or
matter). This is due to observation spacetime unter the aspect of time. You
get a field in a 3d-space for any kind of observation. If you look at
geometry, you get a field of gravity. If you look at twist it gets electric.
If you look at dislocation you get magnetism. Chirality is associated with
the forces binding nucleusses together.
Try it out! You need those quaternions for that. It is really amazing, but
natur seems to behave like those beasts.
You may call me stupid, but the correlations are stunning.
Thomas Heger
Thomas Heger
"Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fr2q3p$6dm$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag
> news:5b4a56ed-9945-445c...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 5, 4:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 12:40 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
>>>
>> reject the anthropic paradigm. If you can convince me otherwise that
>> would be wonderful but unlikely. The proper stance is not to tread so
>> heavily as to demolish physics but instead to declare the problem an
>> open one. Modern physics, like Newton, presumes spacetime as a basis
>> and says nothing about why spacetime exists. This is a new topic and
>> there are numerous explorations ongoing. Lisa Randall has become
>> mainstream and while I have attempted to plumb her Warped Passages I
>> am not convinced that she is the one. She and Karch said (in Relaxing
>> To Three Dimensions)
>> "No fundamental physical principle singles out three dimensions.
>> Yet three dimensions of space
>> clearly has a special status. The obvious question is why."
>> - http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0506053
>>
What makes anyone believe in that? There might be some reasons (what?), but
there is such litttle connection to the way a physicist would think, that I
have no idea how to deal with 9-branes or tachions. What do those guys
think, what that could be. Is there ANY evidence for strings or any
observation to support this idea? In my idea this hole thing leads to
nowhere. So what the f* those guys are doing? And why do they think they are
allowed to challange anybody to find out what it could mean?
Thomas Heger
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 10, 4:05 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>> Newsbeitragnews:5b4a56ed-9945-445c...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
> Nice of you to chime in here. As I look at your adoption of a
> bidirectional time which happens to be fixed out by our calculations I
> can't help but wonder:
> Suppose I that I ate a soft-boiled egg on the morning of March 9
> 2008 and I had an overeasy egg the day before. Is this information
> likely to change?
> You do have support from some mainstream physicists. I believe it
> was in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_%28TV_series%29
> that Michio Kaku confessed his own obsession with the lack of
> necessity of unidirectional time. As I recall he states that all of
> the known laws of physics work as well forward as backward in time. I
> forget if he excepted out thermodynamics from that.
>
One more comment: within this series of bbc, I can't agree to some
statements. In black holes time does not stop. It depends on the perspectiv
if it looks like, but black holes have massive gravity hence curvature of
spacetime. That does not make timeflow stop. If you would fall into a black
hole you might experience a lot, maybe yourself shredded to pieces but not
time to stop. Time is assumned as observation of spacetime development. Its
better to think of spacetime in steady flow. So time could not stop. It only
looks like if observed from further away.
Foam of spacetime was mentioned. Don't know what that could be. To me
spacetime is strictly continuus.
There were some statements about wormholes. I guess a black hole is
something a bit like a wormhole, but I wouldn't recommend to try passing
through. And there is no way back.
Thomas Heger
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
I guess my point is that time operates unidirectionally and until that
feature is exposed arithmetically we'll be puzzling over time
construction ad nauseum.
The spatial features are much more straightforward yet if we accept
that these two concepts are unified then we are caught with a break in
symmetry that I claim indicates structured spacetime. In your time
chopping perspective the unidirectional delta in time is not a free
choice directionally. I believe that the ideal theory will actually
include this unidirectional feature rather than impose it. Rather than
chopping a singular dimension the polysign progression exposes that
unidirectional feature as a zero dimensional domain; the one-signed
numbers. This then satisfies our sense of the present or 'now'.
Further it excludes any freedom in time that we experience in the
spatial dimensions. Polysign numbers are also generalizations of the
complex number P3, though the polysign exposes the real number P2 as a
form of the same generalization, and the zero dimensional P1 beneath
the real number P2. Of course I share this with you to try to draw you
in and at some level I'll have to flex over to your own more
mainstream quaternion viewpoint. There is another form nearby to these
put forth by Olariu
http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0011044v1
and I think earlier yet by Beresford as 'terplex'
http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/4894/
which proposes an arithmetic product very similar to the polysign
product. It seems that the arithmetic product in all of these spaces
holds their key behaviors since under superposition they all act as
vector spaces.
Even upon reviewing all of these systems the polysign system stands
out as highly generalized. That the same rules which build the reals
build the complex numbers is only exposed by generalizing sign. That
sign is discrete just as dimension is and that a zero-dimensional
algebra does exist in the one-signed numbers are features that these
other domains do not express because they rely upon the Cartesian
construction to obtain dimension. The balance of sign via
Sum over s ( s x ) = 0
is the missing link that ties dimension and geometry to sign.
>
> The properties of time are interesting, but not within my current field of
> interest. If you think of spacetime as fundamental, as I do, than there is a
> new puzzle: what is spacetime. But thats for later. Time is simply one
> aspect of spacetime. The observation of developing fields. By observation
> you cut spacetime into pieces. If you cut off time, you get a 3d-space as
> residual no-time part. And you get a field of energy distribution (or
> matter). This is due to observation spacetime unter the aspect of time. You
> get a field in a 3d-space for any kind of observation. If you look at
> geometry, you get a field of gravity. If you look at twist it gets electric.
> If you look at dislocation you get magnetism. Chirality is associated with
> the forces binding nucleusses together.
> Try it out! You need those quaternions for that. It is really amazing, but
> natur seems to behave like those beasts.
> You may call me stupid, but the correlations are stunning.
>
> Thomas Heger
No, I will not label you or Hamilton stupid. Here's a quote:
"Time is said to have only one dimension, and space to have three
dimensions. [...] The mathematical quaternion partakes of both these
elements; in technical language it may be said to be "time plus
space", or "space plus time": and in this sense it has, or at least
involves a reference to, four dimensions. And how the One of Time, of
Space the Three, Might in the Chain of Symbols girdled be." -- William
Rowan Hamilton (Quoted in R.P. Graves, "Life of Sir William Rowan
Hamilton")
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
I think the girdling seems best implied in the cross product, where
the real component disappears. What then though is this statement on
spacetime? That time disappears naturally? In terms of the one and the
three it's pretty clear where the components would map in terms of
space and time. Yet is it so direct?
I do like the rotational aspects of the quaternion but it is all still
a bit mysterious isn't it? Is there a full reformulation of physics in
terms of quaternion fundamentals or are these steps still just
morphings? For instance Maxwell's equations find representation in
tensor and quaternion forms. Is there evidence that the quaternion
form is superior? I'm having trouble finding the Maxwell formalism in
terms of quaternions on the web. A link would be appreciated.
- Tim
Michael Helland
Good idea.
The idea of the internal observer is the innovation.
At this point, I would agree, it is indeed science fiction.
But I think several decades from now we might find it hard to conceive
science without this idea.
This is hard to explain, so bear with me.
The internal observer is a composite object, the result of complexity
from simple forces and objects (monads).
For example, an internal observer might exist from the interaction of
hundreds of thousands of monads in the code.
What makes it an internal observer, is that it exists within the
physical resources of a computer program.
Yet indirectly through complexity, the information arranges into a new
virtual resource for a completely unique second set of data.
That second set of data is information, stored in a unique resource,
that represents what the composite object has observed.
It's like brane mechanics.
Except I begin with one brane, and put an observer in it, and a whole
other brane pops into existence.
That's because this would be a mathematical hypothesis of the mind.
The mind (internal observer) is created from monads in the first set
of information
In its virtual resource, the second set of information are the
observations made from within.
I don't think that's ever been done before.
But I think it can be done with the right programmers, physicists, and
neuroscientists.
Before Popper described his worlds, he would say something like
"without taking the words 'world' or 'universe; too seriously" and
then described his hypothesis.
So I agree.
Personally, I would say the Universe can be split into several natures
(a braneworld, or a reality).
But that's all besides the point, IMO.
> What the physicists attempt to do is create mathematics that either
> corresponds with reality or predicts it, or even creates reality. The
> arithmetical correspondence of physical existence to three dimensional
> space is unmistakable. This simple geometrical stance is all that we
> need to be discussing. Yes, this is a step back from spacetime, but
> historically getting these three 'extended' dimensions would be a
> first step to getting to spacetime in its arithmetic form. Probably
> historically people had a sense of time long before they had a sense
> of dimension beyond length. But to crack the spacetime nut I think it
> would be ridiculous to ignore the plain simple three dimensions of
> space that can be so easily derived. If you can come up with a model
> which begets these three dimensions then you may have a candidate
> theory to a pre-world set of rules.
Yes, that is exactly the idea.
The absolute nature doesn't have our matter or space or time. It is
its own metaphysical sphere, with its own matter, space, and time.
Through a mind, a new metaphysical sphere is created.
That sounds like mystical bullshit, but I think using information
science it is possible to achieve the second set of information, which
is contains matter, space, and time as we observe and study them.
> Best of all would be to get time
> in there as well, though modern confusion over what time is leaves
> that realm largely to your own judgement. None the less, the polysign
> interperetation happens to come with a new domain that does have time
> correspondence as well as three dimensions of space.
>
> When we see this behavior of the space we are in exposed it is so
> fundamental that it lays beneath our level of perception. That
> geometry takes on discrete dimension such as 3D or even 10D rather
> than 3.14125D can be taken as a puzzle on its own. Here lays a
> continuum with discrete properties, already without even performing
> any physics. Can the quantum model be reshuffled into a more coherent
> system? Can sting theory yield spacetime rather than presume it?
Not likely.
But, since that is the central purpose of my conjecture, I suspect its
odds are much better.
> I
> don't see how entering bio logic helps any of this if that bio logic
> comes back down to measuring the dimensions of things beneath a
> microscope and declaring their geometry since all of that will send us
> back to the more fundamental issue of geometry. Perhaps this is a
> stronger attack on your anthropic paradigm. You do seem to dodge this
> word 'anthropic' though isn't it what you practice?
Maybe a little.
My position is that the code has to contain true intelligence which
demonstrates an ability to observe its environment and has accessible
information about its observations.
That could be done with a virtual human being.
But it doesn't have to be. The observer doesn't even have to be
biological.
All we need to know, is that it exists within the physical resource of
the computer, and it's observations yield relative and indeterminate
results.
> You seem to be a
> structured thinker based upon your code. As we consider coherent
> structure what on earth is biology doing at the bottom of it all?
The structure is:
absolute reality -> mind -> relative reality
That's basically how the Greeks looked at 3000 years ago, and most
elite thinkers have since.
Biology is one obvious possibility for the mind. Which isn't at the
bottom. It's in the middle.
He was pretty influenced by Newton.
Notice I'm trying to start a new meme, that "space, time, and matter"
are the proper group, not just space and time.
That is because, whatever is true of space and time is also true of
matter.
If space and time have dual natures (as Newton and many others
recognized) so does matter (as Leibniz recognized).
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 10, 8:43 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>> Newsbeitragnews:eebcbec0-f092-477c...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
> I guess my point is that time operates unidirectionally and until that
> feature is exposed arithmetically we'll be puzzling over time
> construction ad nauseum.
I think about time as an observation and apply qm for that. It makes some
sense to think about quantumphysics as physics of observations. This is why
qm requires a background like minkowski space. If you think of spacetime in
the sense of gr as fundamental, you have to ask why could that be. I don't
know. But it is very likely that spacetime is not to be quantised. This let
us think about the properties of spacetime and how to get the models of qm
into that. Its really simple, but you have do give up some dogmas. The first
one is absolute space or time. Thats granted. But you have to give up
particles. Thats tough. A particle in my picture is more like a whirl. Those
generate patterns in a (hyper)-sheet of spacetime, that we call space. The
relation to particles is, that rotating whirls seem to interact only if they
match the state of an other one exactly. This could only being achieved if
the rotation is completed. Time is now associated with the movement of that
level, pacing with c along the timelike path of an object trough spacetime.
This is how you cut. Its not like chopping off. Its more due to our own
state of beeing an object in the same plane. So if you leave the perspective
of the all seeing observer to that of a co-moving observer, you are moving
in time together with what you observe. By this spacetime is devided into
space and time. If you chose an other perspective and fix space and look at
timeflow (maybe with an oscilograph) you get lots of sin-curves. But that is
only an other perspective of the same thing.
So why time flows, I don't know. (Might be related to thermodynamics) but it
does for us, as we are bound to our neighborhood in spacetime. Spacetime
seem to evenly evolve by a constant factor. Time is our observation of that.
...
> I do like the rotational aspects of the quaternion but it is all still
> a bit mysterious isn't it? Is there a full reformulation of physics in
> terms of quaternion fundamentals or are these steps still just
> morphings? For instance Maxwell's equations find representation in
> tensor and quaternion forms. Is there evidence that the quaternion
> form is superior? I'm having trouble finding the Maxwell formalism in
> terms of quaternions on the web. A link would be appreciated.
>
> - Tim
Many think, vector algebra is the queen of all math. Well - its usefull. But
it could be more likely that nature dont care for usefulness. Quaternions
are not my choice. They seem to fit perfectly to how nature behaves. Who
knows why? Its just like that you have something in the fundamentals of
physics that needs those numbers. I'm not a mathematician and have no idea
about the reason. (In fact I'm only an amateur in physics, treating this as
a hobby). I have chosen quaternions for some intuation of how could pieces
fit together in a big puzzle. But the more I learn, the more promising the
track seems.
Thomas Heger
Michael Gordge
> Good idea.
I asked ewe to explain the meaning of space in your piffle "relative
space" ewe replied, quote: "space is what a ruler measures".
Sooo your idea that relative space means "relative what a ruler
measures", can ewe explain what makes that a good idea?
MIchael Gordge
Michael Helland
> On Mar 11, 4:06 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Good idea.
>
> I asked ewe
I asked you to show me the proper amount of respect when you address
me.
You haven't.
I've been ignoring you.
Go figure.
Michael Gordge
Respect is something earned and not commanded, ewe Nazi cunt, now get
back to the subject.
HOW does "relative" change the meaning of "something a ruler measures"
now seeee if ewe can earn my repect by answering a very simple
question.
Michael Gordge
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>
> > On Mar 5, 4:08 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 12:40 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
>
> >> web page:
>
> >> <quote>
> >> Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
> >> we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
> >> string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
> >> recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings.
> >> It will be the first step towards a reconciliation of physics and
> >> philosophy. Perhaps it will be quickly followed by a change of view,
> >> to a point from where all of our universe can be seen as a consequence
> >> of our possible experiences just as the old philosophers wanted us to
> >> see it. What other ways will we have to modify our understanding to
> >> accommodate such a theory? Not all can be foreseen.
> >> </quote>http://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
>
> > This server has moved up in the world:
> > http://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
> > I have read this piece before and even tried to track down Gibbs by
> > email, but as I recall he has disappeared from the internet.
> > Perhaps he'll resurface.
>
> and QM. Gibbs says, spacetime is proven to be existent of its own rights.
> There is a certain description of spacetime in form of quaternions. That are
> four-dimensional complex numbers. Those numbers have the perfect properties
> to modell spacetime. But its amazing to see, that they don't only modell
> spacetime but em-field and quantumeffects too. Philosophically experessed:
> GR is describing some fundamental phenomenon. Its a bit like a fluid. QM is
> describing the physics of observations. The point is, that spacetime is
> imaginary. Its a complex valued phenomenon, hence has dimensions of
> unmeasurable type: spacetime or lightyears. Spacetime is not space + time.
> Those are observations of spacetime. The idea sounds dodgy, but is definetly
> correct. Lenght as basics of geometry is a certain measurement. we ca can -
> of cause- measure lenght. QM has a certain idea about measurement. It gains
> an expactation value, in this case of the position operator. That is
> something like E(x_i)=<psi|x_i|psi>. This has some stunning similarities to
> the formular for rotations of quaternions that is f(v)=zvz^-1. That doesn't
> look same in the first sight, but
> z^-1 is z* for unit quaternions. Bra and ket are connected through one
> beeing the conjugate of the other. v is a vector for the position. Its
> mainly the quaternion beeing rotated. Those z quaternions are the rotating
> influences. That is very much like the idea of a quantumstate.
> Quantumphysics is a bit more abstract and further reaching, but seam to
> describe some phenomena happening in spacetime. (This simple fact rules out
> the idea of planck scale or quantum gravity).
>
>
>
>
>
> >> central to how I suggest we must accommodate a new theory.
>
> >> Whereas Gibbs talks about space-time emerging from "interacting
> >> strings", I've suggested space-time emerges from "interacting things",
> >> where one of the things is an observer.
>
> >> (But then Gibbs does go ahead and mention it could be based on
> >> "experience", which might as well be "observation".)
>
> >> "Biocentrism" seems to be an up and coming trend:
>
> >> <quote>
> >> A New Theory of the Universe
> >> Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the
> >> equation
> >> </quote>http://www.theamericanscholar.org/archives/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html
>
> > I read a fair amount of this but got tired. I think he's a good writer
> > but there are flaws.
> > Lanza says
> > "Physicists venture beyond the scope of their science beyond the
> > limits of material phenomena and law when they try to assign physical,
> > mathematical, or other qualities to space and time."
> > What then is the realm of the physicist? He's knocked out Newton and
> > Descarte so he's demolished physics. The microscope he peers through
> > is based on principles which he has rejected invalidating his attack.
> > Further back he says
> > existence unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how
> > it is perceived further influences that reality."
> > make our existence necessary. Humans are an optional and temporary
> > feature of reality. Certainly we do construct belief systems and as
> > such all of them are open to modification and hopefully improvement.
> > Many of them are false, but to merely dismiss them wastes the tool of
> > skepticism. The weak parts indicate a chance for improvement. We
> > should be engaged in a progression.
>
> > a helpful modeling agent it's necessity within a theory is falsehood.
> > Theory itself should not rely upon observers except as verification.
> > That is the ideal observer: no interaction. This entity of puritanical
> > observer does not exist in reality, or if it does its ability to
> > communicate with we humble elements of spacetime is nonexistent.
> > You're going back to the freshman debate of a tree falling in the
> > woods. That we are humans
>
> that nature needs us or anybody else to function, but models may describe
> the outcome of experiments or observations. That are useful models. Since
> nature don't need humans, models for the deep fundations of nature should be
> 'non-useful'. They should not contain an observer. They should be about the
> deep foundations of nature. As much I like the humans, I don't regard them
> as that fundamental.
> Its definitly neccessary to have some ideas about what exactly your are
> modelling and what is the role of the observer.
>
> > reject the anthropic paradigm. If you can convince me otherwise that
> > heavily as to demolish physics but instead to declare the problem an
> > and says nothing about why spacetime exists. This is a new topic and
> > there are numerous explorations ongoing. Lisa Randall has become
> > mainstream and while I have attempted to plumb her Warped Passages I
> > am not convinced that she is the one. She and Karch said (in Relaxing
> > To Three Dimensions)
> > "No fundamental physical principle singles out three dimensions.
> > Yet three dimensions of space
> > clearly has a special status. The obvious question is why."
> > -http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0506053
>
> That means: space could be measured. If you cut off time and treat space as
> timestable (no-time part) you get three real dimensions. That is because
> time is not a simple component of spacetime. Its joint together with space,
> by measuring it you cut it of. This is done by defining space in a certain
> way. Look at the certain room that you may sit in. This room seem to stay
> where it is. It is time stable. Time is running, if you look at your watch.
> But that is a question of definition. If you look at spacetime in space
> direction you got time stretched out. Usually physicists do something like
> that when they research fields or light. So em-field is the entity you get
> out of spacetime when you make a cut in time direction (cutting off space).
>
> Thomas Heger
Hi again Mr. Heger.
Nice of you to chime in here. As I look at your adoption of a
bidirectional time which happens to be fixed out by our calculations I
can't help but wonder:
Suppose I that I ate a soft-boiled egg on the morning of March 9
2008 and I had an overeasy egg the day before. Is this information
likely to change?
You do have support from some mainstream physicists. I believe it
was in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_%28TV_series%29
that Michio Kaku confessed his own obsession with the lack of
necessity of unidirectional time. As I recall he states that all of
the known laws of physics work as well forward as backward in time. I
forget if he excepted out thermodynamics from that.
I have no idea how people can come to refute unidirectional time and
its discrepant behavior from the spatial dimensions. This focus to me
points the way for structured spacetime rather than isotropic
spacetime. Already relativity theory has taken us half way. If
bidirectional time does exist should there be some evident form that
allows for the human perception of unidirectional time? Isn't one of
us then misusing the word 'time'? I tire of getting wordy but it does
seem that we are stuck there.
- Tim
2008031013:59:16est sci.physics, alt.philosophy,
sci.physics.relativity
On Mar 10, 8:43 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitragnews:eebcbec0-f092-477c...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:05 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
I guess my point is that time operates unidirectionally and until that
feature is exposed arithmetically we'll be puzzling over time
construction ad nauseum.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
I do like the rotational aspects of the quaternion but it is all still
a bit mysterious isn't it? Is there a full reformulation of physics in
terms of quaternion fundamentals or are these steps still just
morphings? For instance Maxwell's equations find representation in
tensor and quaternion forms. Is there evidence that the quaternion
form is superior? I'm having trouble finding the Maxwell formalism in
terms of quaternions on the web. A link would be appreciated.
- Tim
2008031109:10:35est sci.physics, alt.philosophy,
sci.physics.relativity
Here is an opportunity for errant beliefs to crop up, which humans
exemplify.
Still, I suppose your intelligent computer might take in more of the
exterior and hence wind up with superior internal representations.
Still shouldn't we admit that the model in the computer is virtual and
flexible?
If for instance we corrupt a low level (fundamental) principle by
adding say some new cold temperature behavior of matter such as
superconductivity then this machine should be open to breaking its
internal belief system. The only strong indicator of the machine's
accuracy is when its predictions outpace new experimental evidence.
You've described a singular computer and it won't have much to argue
with itself about, but what if there are multiple such entities? What
should they do about variations in their models?
I think your term 'internal observer' for what you are describing is a
misnomer. The proper term is 'internal model' and I agree that this is
how humans operate, except that we also have the problem of needing
the model to be passed on and inserted into us from the previous
generation. I say need but really that is in the nature of humans; how
else does one learn any of hundreds of languages out of thin air at
such an early age? Mimicry is a basic part of humanity. Without it the
flow would be nonexistent yet with it the impedance to change is also
challenging, especially in terms of the fundamental assumptions.
Still, your method is not so far away from the mathematician's realm.
The stories of Euclidean geometry being challenged strike the same
ground that you are covering. Kant's own description is heavily
humanistic and appropriately so. Modern education attempts to remove
the human from the math but it will always be a human pursuit... until
your superdoopercomputer comes into being.
To divorce the internal model from the basis is not desirable. When
the model is accurate it will include the basis accurately. If this is
not possible then the problem will remain open. I suppose my usage of
basis is near to the Popperian first world though I'm not entertaining
any feedback from the third world into the first.
Still, I am comfortable admitting that direct access to such a basis
is not necessarily feasable since we as humans are products of the
basis. This then puts the problem in a theoretical realm. Still, the
consequences of the supposed basis should be consistent with whatever
we can glean of our existence. This is the mode that I attempt to work
from. From it I see the Popperian model as a head game. As a problem
in information theory I can happily accept that we will not ever have
a full computational model of reality. Will the speck of dust on my
monitor ever make it into such a model? There is too much information
for that expectation. So this model which exists within my processor
or your ideal processor can only be a generalization of the actual
existence. Both can come examine the speck of dust on my monitor and
so accept that they share the same reality, but they give up the hope
of fully predicting it. Still, they can argue about the qualities of
the dust and hopefully come to some agreement, or if not multiple
theories will be present, which is a fine state to be in. Here we are
arguing out a level from this. Spacetime is the basis of modern
physics. We both see that the provision of spacetime would be
valuable. Rather than assume its existence we should be able to grasp
it more deeply. It is not arbitrary. I prefer to leave the puzzle as a
problem of basis and that leaves open the option for a pure
mathematical solution. If your program and I wind up with the same
solution then we'd both be happy right? But then is this what you
anticipate of this program? A clean mathematical solution? It feels
more to me like you want to push the problem off and keep it a
mystery. Certainly that piece on biology as a principle of spacetime
goes here. Have you ever heard of project attachment? When an engineer
works on a project for a long time and doesn't complete it this is
often what is going on. I may suffer this as much as anyone but I'll
admit it too. Worst of all is when you finish a job and someone else's
project attachment wrecks it.
How about this theoretical scenario:
Computer A comes up with a 2D reality.
Computer B comes up with a 3D reality.
Computer C comes up with a 4D reality.
How do we resolve this? Is the error in their programming? What if
they share the same code and have made differing observations?
- Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I've had this conversation with you on derivation of spacetime
already. It's not that hard to find three dimensional space. Yes you
need some rulers and squares to do it but upon settling into a clean
rectangular room you'll soon be convinced that with few tools the
local spatial positions are cleanly defined with three unique values.
This is all that I mean by 3D space. Time is more elusive but using
ordinary references and geometry I am happy to conclude that time is
unidirectional and zero dimensional since the freedoms allotted in the
above 3D system are not extended into time. The catch-22 of it is that
all of these observations must have gone on within spacetime. Still,
these ordinary qualities are what we have to work from and are stuck
with. Even a theory which attempts to replace them should explain how
these things come about for humans, these things being spacetime.
There is no difference as far as I can tell between "space and time"
versus "spacetime". I accept the philosophy of their unification but
still challenge their isotropic usage in tensor form. I believe they
are structured qualities and what makes their structure natural is a
modern problem as much for the philosopher as for the mathematician or
physicist. If such structural information exists then it will likely
have consequences on these fields of study.
- Tim
Thomas Heger
For instance Maxwell's equations find representation in
> tensor and quaternion forms. Is there evidence that the quaternion
> form is superior? I'm having trouble finding the Maxwell formalism in
> terms of quaternions on the web. A link would be appreciated.
>
> - Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
Here is a concise piece of historical analysis:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm
I have heard many times that Heaviside has been overlooked. But here
is an account that goes the other way from your perception. That is
fine. I think sometimes I get caught in this too. The flow of
historical development is not at all structural theory. Those
sequential steps are breaks in existing theory; replacing old footings
with stronger new ones hopefully. Then again there are the
accumulations as branchings off from the core. I think we are focused
on the core. In that regard all of this work whether it is the purely
mathematical 4D quaternion or the simplified vector based form of
electromagnetism has come from the assumption of spacetime as a basis.
In other words to choose the quaternion simply because it corresponds
to the basis is somewhat the same as choosing a 4D tensor
representation. The theoretical question of why that choice has been
made is left open beneath the direct correspondence. It may be true
that the quaternion has more character than the tensor and that some
of that character is embodied in realistic behavior. I can accept
that. Still, there is no breakpoint that indicates they are the proper
choice. They are not mathematically any more fundamental than their
predecessors (the complex numbers) or their successors the octonions.
In an attempt to ask
Why spacetime?
with the answer being the quaternion we are still left with the
question
Why 4D?
which the quaternion on its own will not answer. Call it mataphysics
if you wish, but it is coupled with the problem of unidirectional
time. I have some math that can support spacetime with unidirectional
time but I don't have the physics so I'm not claiming to be done.
Still, the math is suggestive. It is somewhat like your quaternion in
that it has a fair amount of character. Part of that character is that
unidirectional domain of time which seems to always land us in the
present moment. The quaternion relies upon real valued components no
different than the tensor representation. They've been melanged into
an interesting structure that supports rotation. Still, they are a
Cartesian construction. Polysign is somewhat radical in that they are
pure algebra whose geometry is inherently consistent. Within them and
their natural progression a behavioral breakpoint exists and the
nicely behaved systems portray spacetime.
I just saw your link to some quaternion emag but have only just
opened it.
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 10, 3:18 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>> Newsbeitragnews:3c4d1dba-c187-402b...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 8:43 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>> >> Newsbeitragnews:eebcbec0-f092-477c...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> In other words to choose the quaternion simply because it corresponds
> to the basis is somewhat the same as choosing a 4D tensor
> representation. The theoretical question of why that choice has been
> made is left open beneath the direct correspondence. It may be true
> that the quaternion has more character than the tensor and that some
> of that character is embodied in realistic behavior. I can accept
> that. Still, there is no breakpoint that indicates they are the proper
> choice. They are not mathematically any more fundamental than their
> predecessors (the complex numbers) or their successors the octonions.
> In an attempt to ask
> Why spacetime?
> Why 4D?
Four dimensions are preferred because we observe four, not two, nine or
eleven. Why four is a really difficult question. Is there a fundament to
something fundamental? Is there a reason, should there be one? (Will check
this later..)
For me the quaternions are more a method to put things together then a
dogma. Matrizes may work fine as well. Its more the metaphysical part that
I'm interested. The quaternions give very good arguments for ideas I had
anyhow. But nature seem to behave like those numbers more then like tensors.
So they will be a good choice.
First step is to understand GR. Then to get qm into this framework. This is
by thinking about: what are we doing, when we make a theory about our
experiments.
Complex numbers as representation of real effects and real numbers as effect
of measurement is an idea i like.
I think my model works fine, its simple and helps to get some intuitive
understanding. What else would you like? Maybe some more math. That
shouldn't be a big deal, because Maxwell started with quaternions. I guess
its even easier that way. The model has its disadvantages 'cause its really
radical anti-Newton. And its continuus, what qm dont like. It has randomness
not in its core but within interactions and observations, what is against
some other stupid quantum-dogma. Quantumphysics can stay uneffected. Only
some interpretations are different. Mainly quantumphysics is not about
particles or fields, since those do not exist in the foundations.
Quantumstates are in the quaternion-picture the influences acting on
elements of spacetime. This does not make this a classic theorie, since one
assumption of classical physics is not fulfilled at all: it is very
difficult to predict outcome of classical experiments. The model is very
non-linear, continuus and nowhere pointlike. So the theory is not of very
much use in calculations. We have to take those simplifications we are
allready using, but we know why...
Thomas Heger
Michael Helland
Good point.
I described a singular virtual environment. (first set of information)
I also said there will be an internal observer, which is really a
model of the virtual environment in the virtual environment (second
set of information).
I should have said there should be internal observers. Plural.
Many models within the model.
Their variations are important.
I predict my conjecture will explain time dilation and length
contraction by using more than one observer.
Having multiple internal measurements from different observers is
essential to deriving spacetime concepts in my conjecture.
> I think your term 'internal observer' for what you are describing is a
> misnomer. The proper term is 'internal model' and I agree that this is
> how humans operate, except that we also have the problem of needing
> the model to be passed on and inserted into us from the previous
> generation.
I agree with what you're saying.
I don't think the difference between an observer and someone with a
mental model is significant however.
I think its just terminology. I'm open to argument.
> I say need but really that is in the nature of humans; how
> else does one learn any of hundreds of languages out of thin air at
> such an early age? Mimicry is a basic part of humanity. Without it the
> flow would be nonexistent yet with it the impedance to change is also
> challenging, especially in terms of the fundamental assumptions.
> Still, your method is not so far away from the mathematician's realm.
> The stories of Euclidean geometry being challenged strike the same
> ground that you are covering. Kant's own description is heavily
> humanistic and appropriately so. Modern education attempts to remove
> the human from the math but it will always be a human pursuit... until
> your superdoopercomputer comes into being.
>
> To divorce the internal model from the basis is not desirable.
I will agree with you.
But the predictions made in step 3 should be based on the internal
model alone.
I am proposing the internal model is the falsifiable element of the
mathematics.
If the internal model (second set of information) adheres to the
uncertainty principle and demonstrates length contraction, we have a
winner, regardless of the picture painted by the first set of
information.
> When
> the model is accurate it will include the basis accurately.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I suppose that thousands of different bases (first set) can lead to
identical internal models (second set).
But that is an open question for the new field of research.
> If this is
> not possible then the problem will remain open. I suppose my usage of
> basis is near to the Popperian first world though I'm not entertaining
> any feedback from the third world into the first.
>
> Still, I am comfortable admitting that direct access to such a basis
> is not necessarily feasable since we as humans are products of the
> basis. This then puts the problem in a theoretical realm. Still, the
> consequences of the supposed basis should be consistent with whatever
> we can glean of our existence. This is the mode that I attempt to work
> from. From it I see the Popperian model as a head game. As a problem
> in information theory I can happily accept that we will not ever have
> a full computational model of reality.
Full in what sense?
Must it contain every galaxy and every star? Predict all human
behavior?
There are obvious reasons why that is not possible.
I suggest we will have a full computational model in the sense that
any experiment we can think of can be simulated in the environment.
> Will the speck of dust on my
> monitor ever make it into such a model? There is too much information
> for that expectation. So this model which exists within my processor
> or your ideal processor can only be a generalization of the actual
> existence. Both can come examine the speck of dust on my monitor and
> so accept that they share the same reality, but they give up the hope
> of fully predicting it. Still, they can argue about the qualities of
> the dust and hopefully come to some agreement, or if not multiple
> theories will be present, which is a fine state to be in. Here we are
> arguing out a level from this. Spacetime is the basis of modern
> physics. We both see that the provision of spacetime would be
> valuable. Rather than assume its existence we should be able to grasp
> it more deeply. It is not arbitrary. I prefer to leave the puzzle as a
> problem of basis and that leaves open the option for a pure
> mathematical solution. If your program and I wind up with the same
> solution then we'd both be happy right? But then is this what you
> anticipate of this program? A clean mathematical solution? It feels
> more to me like you want to push the problem off and keep it a
> mystery.
Through my conjecture and how I intend to demonstrate length
contraction and time dilation, I feel as if I am suggesting a deeper
understanding of space-time-matter.
> Certainly that piece on biology as a principle of spacetime
> goes here. Have you ever heard of project attachment? When an engineer
> works on a project for a long time and doesn't complete it this is
> often what is going on. I may suffer this as much as anyone but I'll
> admit it too. Worst of all is when you finish a job and someone else's
> project attachment wrecks it.
>
> How about this theoretical scenario:
> Computer A comes up with a 2D reality.
> Computer B comes up with a 3D reality.
> Computer C comes up with a 4D reality.
> How do we resolve this? Is the error in their programming?
Good question.
I think it indicates how much research there is in the territory I'm
suggesting.
> What if
> they share the same code and have made differing observations?
Again, good question.
Maybe someday we'll find that is the case and begin to explore the
issue.
Michael Gordge
>
> I asked you to show me the proper amount of respect when you address
> me.
Its ewe who has no respect for your own ideas and blame me just
because ewe cant explain them, or when you're challenged on them.
All I have asked ewe to do is explain how the adjective "relative"
changes the meaning of "something a ruler measures" which is YOUR
meaning of "space".
Michael Gordge
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Whether the math will be clean is a point you seem to have dodged.
In the classical sense that is an assumption that drives us onward.
Anyhow I think we did a good investigation here and you've held up
your side.
Especially when I meet someone who is willing to concede some minor
points I feel like they are being real.
I appreciate your attention to information theory.
It may be that a foray into self modifying code or a program which
generates programs would be helpful.
I don't know if you are familiar with NKS by Wolfram but if not you
probably should at least check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Keep going. I'm happy to pick this up again sometime. Your approach is
not going away. Neither is mine. Diversity is healthy.
- Tim
Jeff▲Relf
( or, “ The semi-informed, semi-random mind ”, or “ consumer bots ” ),
This is the first rule of science ( according to me ):
“ The cosmos is fully causal; it's 4-D, a motionless hyperstructure. ”.
Einstein's gravitational fields can be thought of as:
“ primordial inertia; it ‘ just is ’, 4-D, timeless, changeless. ”.
As Bert ( my UseNet friend ) says, “ It's gravity all the way down. ”;
but the visible Universe seems 3-D to us, because we're semi-informed.
Hell, some minds are limited to 2-D;
e.g. “ 2D ” of the Gorillaz: “ www.MyGorillaz.COM/2D%20Front.JPG ”.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 3:18 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> >> Newsbeitragnews:3c4d1dba-c187-402b...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 10, 8:43 am, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> >> >> Newsbeitragnews:eebcbec0-f092-477c...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > In other words to choose the quaternion simply because it corresponds
> > to the basis is somewhat the same as choosing a 4D tensor
> > representation. The theoretical question of why that choice has been
> > made is left open beneath the direct correspondence. It may be true
> > that the quaternion has more character than the tensor and that some
> > of that character is embodied in realistic behavior. I can accept
> > that. Still, there is no breakpoint that indicates they are the proper
> > choice. They are not mathematically any more fundamental than their
> > predecessors (the complex numbers) or their successors the octonions.
> > In an attempt to ask
> > Why spacetime?
> > Why 4D?
>
> Four dimensions are preferred because we observe four, not two, nine or
> eleven. Why four is a really difficult question. Is there a fundament to
> something fundamental? Is there a reason, should there be one? (Will check
> this later..)
I suppose it is fine to leave this question open but please consider
that if the answer is yes to a reason for spacetime then the
consequences of that reason will likely extend into physics more
deeply as fundamental principles of nature. If those consequences line
up with some of current theory then a new candidate theory would be
born that is superior to the class of theories which assumed
spacetime. To current theory such a step is metaphysical but in
hindsight it would replace existing theory as substandard. Theory is
supposed to explain observation and in that spacetime is observed then
theory should explain it. No different than we hope to resolve the
mass to charge ratio we should seek a resolution of spacetime.
Especially the freedoms that the string theorists have taken build out
this position.
I'm still trying to iron out the information in the links that we've
each provided.
I was hoping that the quaternion form of electromagnetism would take
on simpler expressions in terms of a full value z in Q. Anyhow this is
definitely helpful for me to work through.
Your link leads to lots more on Sweetser's site:
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/
and I'm seeing a conflict in that
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/EandM/classicalem/classicalem.html
which is the same information as your pdf link says that
"Maxwell speculated that someday quaternions would be useful in the
analysis of electromagnetism."
whereas
http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm
says
"In truth the four equations traditionally included in the teaching
of physics are more aptly named the 'Maxwell-Heaviside Equations'
inasmuch as Oliver Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's original
equations from a quaternion format into a simple vector format."
so we have an informational conflict. Here is another concise
historical interpretation that adds to the mix:
http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=10917
The first post is pretty well written at first glance. There is a link
a few posts down to:
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QOphys.html
which I've seen before. It is very concise but loaded.
There is an 1861 paper out there by Maxwell called "On Physical Lines
Of Force" which I have downloaded but I can't find a current link to
it.
Hamilton claimed that a three-form product does not exist but I've
shown that it does, it's just that the Cartesian system is not the
right one to do it in. I've thought in the past that my vector
understanding of EM was sufficient. If the quaternion representation
treats the time component somewhat symmetrically with the spatial
components then I'm definitely interested.
- Tim
Michael Helland
Oh.
Well.
Do you understand how my model will contain length contraction and
time dilation?
Not through the direct information of the model, but indirectly
through the internal observer's model?
Well, the same goes for all quantum phenomena.
The first set of information may be determinate (or not) but what's
important is the second set of informaiton.
And of course all classical phenomena should follow quite simply (or
modern phenomena will follow from classical phenomena).
My point is that this one model, which should have pretty simple
rules, should yield the complexity of all observable phenomena.
It will be the *cleanest* solution.
Right now it just seems counter intuitive.
But this is how the Greeks understood it all generations before
Aristotle.
This is how Newton and Einstein understood the world because they were
inspired by similar ideas.
The Copenhagen Interpretation has imposed a mindset that may have
worked as a transitionary solution.
But it doesn't fit in with the past or the future.
> In the classical sense that is an assumption that drives us onward.
> Anyhow I think we did a good investigation here and you've held up
> your side.
> Especially when I meet someone who is willing to concede some minor
> points I feel like they are being real.
> I appreciate your attention to information theory.
> It may be that a foray into self modifying code or a program which
> generates programs would be helpful.
I'm not sure if you're making a new suggestion, or trying to summarize
my conjecture.
I've written programs that generate programs many many times.
But that deals with one set of informaiton.
One physical resource.
The resources accessible by the first program are the same as the
second program. They're stored in the same medium. They exist
essentially the same way.
What I'm talking about with my conjecture is much more innovative.
The second set of information exists entirely through complexity.
> I don't know if you are familiar with NKS by Wolfram but if not you
> probably should at least check it out:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Indeed. I got the book when it came out.
NKS, which I consider the science of examining complexity, is a major
influence on my conjecture, which I consider to be A New Kind of
Physics.
theman
> Speaking of 2-D, 3-D and 4-D models and artificial intelligence
> ( or, " The semi-informed, semi-random mind ", or " consumer bots " ),
>
> This is the first rule of science ( according to me ):
> " The cosmos is fully causal; it's 4-D, a motionless hyperstructure. ".
>
> Einstein's gravitational fields can be thought of as:
> " primordial inertia; it ' just is ', 4-D, timeless, changeless. ".
>
> As Bert ( my UseNet friend ) says, " It's gravity all the way down. ";
> but the visible Universe seems 3-D to us, because we're semi-informed.
>
yes you are only semi-informed... and the fact that you quote in other
groups statements like " It's gravity all the way down. ", it leads me
to believe that semi may not be semi, but a bit less...
<snip> pointless spam
So i take it you think you have something to teach us, well then oh
wise one, please enlighten everyone by explaining what you think a
motionless hyper-structure is, and perhaps you could provide us with a
mathematical model of that.
Since I am sure that you have a through understanding of mathematics
the current language of physics.
Cheers
Jeff▲Relf
for your sake, I hope you can remedy that.
Einstein's gravitational fields are 4-D;
i.e. they're timeless, motionless, changeless, eternal, static, etc.
A 4-D gravitational field is a hyperstructure,
a 5-D field ( space-time-energy ) is a hyperhyperstructure.
The kilogram could ( at least in theory )
be defined as a count of atoms in an atom laser,
much like the second and meter are counts of maser maxima.
Intrinsically ( i.e. irregardless of how informed one is ),
everything ( including photons ) are timeless hyperstructures,
because the cosmos is fully causal.
One way to visualize this to to imagine everything as
the product of “ primordial inertia ”.
Our minds are all semi-informed ( i.e. semi-random ),
so we envision quantum ( i.e. pseudo 3-D ) gravity as:
“ Denser objects sink faster. ”.
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 11, 2:08 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> analysis of electromagnetism."
>
> whereas
> http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm
> says
>
> "In truth the four equations traditionally included in the teaching
> of physics are more aptly named the 'Maxwell-Heaviside Equations'
> inasmuch as Oliver Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's original
> equations from a quaternion format into a simple vector format."
>
reduced to four by Heaviside. Would be interesting to find the origional
ones. Did you?
> so we have an informational conflict. Here is another concise
> historical interpretation that adds to the mix:
> http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=10917
I didn't know about that. but what an interesting story! My own approach was
naive and without any 'weapons' but some logic. Didn't know anything about
this century of struggle.
> The first post is pretty well written at first glance. There is a link
> a few posts down to:
> http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QOphys.html
> which I've seen before. It is very concise but loaded.
Yes, a lot of of stuff. Have to go through that, but this will take a while.
> There is an 1861 paper out there by Maxwell called "On Physical Lines
> Of Force" which I have downloaded but I can't find a current link to
> it.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:On_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf
I have not found the origional formulars neither.
My approach was very different. I wanted to apply a method from programming
that is called binary search. This means you have to make some big
decisions. First to decide, how to put gr and qm together. Sounds tough, but
there are only two choices. Since QM needs a background and GR is
selfcontained, it is obvious to try that. To quantise spacetime sounded so
dubious to me, that I thought a while about gravitons, and I found the idea
doesn't work. But 99 percent of physics seem to believe it does. They think,
that history repeats itself. This method, that worked fine in the past will
work fine in the future. But thats stupid. If an idea is that powerful, it
will be used to its extend by those that know how to do that. But if those
guys come to a hold, it will be strange to dig in the same field again and
again.
The next big decision is how to deal with fields. I prefer the method of
relativity. A field is something distributed in space. In spacetime you
don't have fields. You have tensors at any point, but you don't have space.
This point is very important and I dont believe that there are very many,
that would think like that. Gravity field is the distribution of gravity in
space around an object like the earth. But you might see, that you make
geometry a field by defining space. It is very similar to the em-field. An
moving electron generates a magnetic field. In this picture you have
yourself as observer, an electron and - well- movement and you get out a
magnetic field. Nothing else. If you attach the reference frame to the
electron you have - well- an electron. Nothing else. If you subtract both
pictures you see, that there is a simple relation of magnetism to spacetime.
So if you squeeze spacetime into your observation, you allways get a field.
This why I think of quantumphysics as physics of observations. This is not
common sense, I guess 99,9 % think of quants as real entities. But their
picture of reality is wrong. Since linear algebra and matrizes work fine in
qm, those think, there should be a way do that with spacetime too. But thats
stupid.
Thomas Heger
Thomas Heger
> On Mar 11, 5:03 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 6:21 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
>>
> probably should at least check it out:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Quite a lot, but worth reading.
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-1?firstview=1
I just started and found some of my basic ideas there. The complexity of our
world could be explained by simple rules. But this doesnt make the outcome
of a little experiment easier to describe. Nature should act simple, since
we are talking about were simple (stupid) things like an atom or a few
million. But that is simple only in principle. The behavior of a complex
system ist not. That can be as complicated as you like. So if you mix up
your description of behavior with fundamental rules, you certainly get it
wrong.
Thomas Heger
Thomas Heger
"theman" <generic...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d52c01f0-0083-46ce...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 10:54 pm, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
>> Einstein's gravitational fields are 4-D;
>> i.e. they're timeless, motionless, changeless, eternal, static, etc.
>>
> Yeah, well actually the idea of 4D is that it includes time... but
> you are correct technically photons and particles are timeless, and
> gravity does not experience time. but this is not useful in many cases
> since we need time as a tool for measurement...
>
No, sorry, but thats wrong. Particles are not timeless, since they decay
some_times_.
If you want to understand gravity you'd better take time into account. Time
as in fact something we can measure. In my way of thinking all measurements
are not fundamental. So time is our observation of spacetime under some
aspect. The aspect is, that particles are stable entities in space: we are
looking at space. You could look at a particle as a wave. In this picture
you have an observation of the time-dependency of a particle (something like
sin-curves): we are looking at time.
And spacetime is - of cause- not static.
Thomas Heger
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> >> "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> schrieb im
> > "Maxwell speculated that someday quaternions would be useful in the
> > analysis of electromagnetism."
>
> > whereas
> > http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm
> > says
>
> > "In truth the four equations traditionally included in the teaching
> > of physics are more aptly named the 'Maxwell-Heaviside Equations'
> > inasmuch as Oliver Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's original
> > equations from a quaternion format into a simple vector format."
>
> I have read, there were origionaly 20 quaternion formulars, that were
> reduced to four by Heaviside. Would be interesting to find the origional
> ones. Did you?
I found a scanned copy of Maxwell's "A Dynamic Theory Of The
Electromagnetic Field"
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1949
It would be a pretty good project to get this into the wiki commons
along side the other paper. But there are no quaternions in use in
this paper. I have viewed it and all of the math is in terms of
(x,y,z) coordinates and independent time as classical physics was
done. He even uses the del operator, so some vector treatment was
already there in Maxwell's original. But there is no quaternion
representation as far as I can tell. The wiki on Heaviside says
"In 1880, Heaviside researched the skin effect in telegraph
transmission lines. In 1884 he recast Maxwell's mathematical analysis
from its original cumbersome form (they had already been recast as
quaternions) to its modern vector terminology"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviside
but does not give a reference to that recasting into quaternion form.
Upon rereading
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/EandM/classicalem/classicalem.html
more closely the first set of equation on that page are it and they
are quaternion products. The notation is not well defined but it seems
pretty clear that where
q = (a0, a1 i, a2 j, a3 k)
He is taking for instance
( 0, B )
to mean
a0 = 0 ,
a1 = Bx ,
a2 = By ,
a3 = Bz .
In terms of what you wrote of field theory below the problem as I see
it is that when one enters the pure field realm the stability of the
singular parts which we observe comes into question. These stabilities
are typically held as singularities or even harmonic oscillators yet
the means by which they do not dissipate is a bit mysterious. Is it
fair to assume stability? If stability were derived in a theory that
derived theory would be superior to one which assumes stability. It's
OK even if they are so fragile since they will only be influenced by
fellow fragiles, but somehow they can take the form of singulaties
with long term stability in our time frame. The similarities here to
concern over the spacetime basis are similar not just in the ideal of
deriving them but perhaps in their synergy as basis forming. Many
people share this ideal going back at least to Weyl who titled a book
Space-Time-Matter
though it is mostly expounded relativity theory.
If for instance the quaternion form indicated certain fundamental
particles, even via some vortex model as Maxwell spent plenty of time
on, then the treatment of quaternions as fundamental would take a new
shine. I spend energy on this same topic in terms of polysign which
are not so far away from quaternions in their motivation though the
results are very different.
It's easy to see some of the cross product behavior in the definition
of the quaternion product. For some reason Sweetser stays away from
the simple arithmetic quaternion product. I don't get his usage of
automorphic basis in
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/intro/analysis/analysis.html
To define q* strictly in terms of q and then claim them as independent
variables is beyond me. Maybe I'm misreading the notation.
- Tim
theman
> "theman" <genericjoe2...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:d52c01f0-0083-46ce...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Hey you don't have to tell me that, read the post above mine.... by
Jeff Relf
Cheers