Physicists Don't Know Shit: 2. Discrete Universe; 3. Probabilistic Universe
Traveler
In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
(infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
and other continuous structures.
Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
particle internally when it is being accelerated).
3. Probabilistic Universe
The above line of reasoning is fine for most intents and purposes but
this is not what really happens. In truth, there is only one jump
(interaction) duration in nature (a very minute interval, probably on
the order of 10^-32 second). That is to say, all particle jumps have
equal durations, regardless of the observed macroscopic speed of the
particle. It is a rather counterintuitive concept to grasp but the
truth is that there is only one speed in nature and that speed is c,
the speed of light (I will explain why in a future post). Nothing can
move faster or slower! How can this be since we observe bodies moving
a various speeds? The answer is that what we observe are macroscopic
speeds, the result of countless jumps and rests between the jumps.
Since nature cannot calculate exact durations for interactions, it is
forced to use the only possible alternative: probability. What this
means is that the timing of jumps or interactions is probabilistic,
such that, given a particle in inertial motion, the average interval
between all positional jumps during a sufficiently long travel segment
(t2 - t1) will be equal to that of another sufficiently long travel
segment (t4 - t3) for the same particle or some other particle moving
at the same inertial speed. For purposes of clarity, however, it is
beneficial to assume that the jump durations of a particle in inertial
motion are equal over the duration of the movement. Over time, the
arithmetical results of this convention are accurate enough for most
purposes.
Contrary to the deterministic doctrine that is being preached in
certain quarters (e.g., digital physics), a discrete universe is
necessarily a probabilistic one. By the way, this is also the reason
for the probabilistic decay of certain subatomic particles.
More to come...
(1) It is interesting to note that, close to the end of his life in
1954, Einstein wrote to his friend Michele Besso: "I consider it quite
possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on
continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
modern physics."
From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.
Louis Savain
Physics From the Bible
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm
Eric Gisse
[snip junk]
For all your spewing...are you even capable of working out a classical
mechanics problem?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:q9tm13pkos9a4g9ib...@4ax.com...
> 2. Discrete Universe
>
> In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
... have something that at least remotely resembles the brain
of the common housefly, Savain?
You are right on this one as well.
A sheer necessity indeed, way out of your league.
Dirk Vdm
PD
> 2. Discrete Universe
>
> In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
> confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
> (infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
> mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
> illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
> general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
> phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
> existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
> simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
> and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
> positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
> means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
> things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
> abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
> geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
> immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
> and other continuous structures.
Interestingly, this is not the case. *Continuous* spacetime is not a
requirement of gravity. John Wheeler was the first to play with the
idea of spacetime "foam". This was, of course, after Einstein's time
and Einstein wasn't aware of the work. The quote below and the
apprehension by you that if continuous spacetime is dispensed with
then all of modern physics calamitously vaporizes, is simply bogus. It
would be good of you to catch up.
>
> Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
> inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
> or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
> illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
> discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
> quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
> interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
> the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
> and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
> same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
> its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
> a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
> duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
> Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
> particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
> particle internally when it is being accelerated).
All of this is lovely. You'll find that people are singularly
uninterested unless you can propose an experimental test that will
distinguish your model from the prevailing models. This is how science
is done: a new theory predicts a behavior that the current theory says
*cannot* happen, or it does a better job of matching quantitatively a
measurable behavior. In either case, *experiment*, not argument or
sensibility, determines which model is the better one.
PD
hanson
AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....
>
Paul "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176298587.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 6:35 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> 2. Discrete Universe
>> In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
>> confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
>> (infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
>> mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
>> illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
>> general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
>> phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
>> existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
>> simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
>> and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
>> positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
>> means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
>> things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
>> abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
>> geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
>> immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
>> and other continuous structures.
>
> Interestingly, this is not the case. *Continuous* spacetime is not a
> requirement of gravity. John Wheeler was the first to play with the
> idea of spacetime "foam".
>
Now, watch Paul's yearning in his next sentence..... ahahahahaha...
>
[Paul]
> This was, of course, after Einstein's time and Einstein wasn't
> aware of the work.
>
AHAHAHAHA... now that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....
>
[Paul]
> The quote below and the
> apprehension by you that if continuous spacetime is dispensed with
> then all of modern physics calamitously vaporizes, is simply bogus. It
> would be good of you to catch up.
>
>> Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
>> inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
>> or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
>> illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
>> discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
>> quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
>> interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
>> the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
>> and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
>> same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
>> its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
>> a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
>> duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
>> Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
>> particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
>> particle internally when it is being accelerated).
>
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> [hanson]
> AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
> Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
> notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
> that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
> Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....
Still exposing your stupidity on a world stage Hanson?
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
hanson
"Phineas T Puddleduck" aka Diddlyfuck Mike Varney, an aging Einstein
Dingleberry himself, 35-ish and still not graduated, cranks himself...
<phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-E...@news.octanews.com...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f002c02bce7c0fdf
>> AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
>> Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
>> notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
>> that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
>> Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....
>
> Still exposing your stupidity on a world stage Hanson?
>
... So.. s.p. is your world stage, Varney... That figures...
All Einstein Dingleberries have that illusion... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Varney.
BTW, if you studied more instead of spending your time
on the net you may have graduated by now... 35... sheesh!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> [hanson]
> ... So.. s.p. is your world stage, Varney... That figures...
> All Einstein Dingleberries have that illusion... ahahaha...
> Thanks for the laughs, Varney.
> BTW, if you studied more instead of spending your time
> on the net you may have graduated by now... 35... sheesh!
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
Still insisting I'm some Varney bloke loon?
And I take it you feel threatened by people who better themselves too
;-) For your info, graduate this year with a nice shiny doctorate place.
Of course, you don't need to feel bad you're getting older and still
haven't achieved anything - not everyone can do it.
John "C"
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:ma7Th.8155$V15.3221@trnddc02...
What a Faggot name!
HJ
hanson
"Phineas T Puddleduck" aka Diddlyfuck Mike Varney, an aging Einstein
grievously as <phineasp...@gmail.com> & wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-E...@news.octanews.com...
news:phineaspuddleduck-D...@news.octanews.com...
>
>> [hanson to Paul, who had enough class not to take the bait]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f002c02bce7c0fdf
>> AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
>> Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
>> notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
>> Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....
>
[But Diddlyfuck Varney went for it hook, line and sinker]
> Still exposing your stupidity on a world stage Hanson?
>
>> ... So.. s.p. is your world stage, Varney... That figures...
>> All Einstein Dingleberries have that illusion... ahahaha...
>> Thanks for the laughs, Varney.
>> BTW, if you studied more instead of spending your time
>> on the net you may have graduated by now... 35... sheesh!
>> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Still insisting I'm some Varney bloke loon?
> And I take it you feel threatened by people who better themselves too
>
Of course you are the "Varney bloke loon" because you act like
one, with all the earmarks... and the only thing you know better
is that you come running after me after you killfiled me.... ahahaha
So, you were lying then as you are lying now.
>
[Diddlyfuck Varney, on the hook, tries to get off]
> ;-) For your info, graduate this year with a nice shiny doctorate place.
> Of course, you don't need to feel bad you're getting older and still
> haven't achieved anything - not everyone can do it.
>
... ahahaha... and you of course you just lied again. Trying to make
me believe that you'll doctor this year in astronomy when you whine,
in your last year of study, that you have problems with trivial IR spectrum
issues... ahahaha... Put me back into your killfile, loser... ahahaha...
... ahaha... I will call you, Varney. Don't call me. Go argue with Relf...
But thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> [hanson]
> ... ahahaha... and you of course you just lied again. Trying to make
> me believe that you'll doctor this year in astronomy when you whine,
> in your last year of study, that you have problems with trivial IR spectrum
> issues... ahahaha... Put me back into your killfile, loser... ahahaha...
> ... ahaha... I will call you, Varney. Don't call me. Go argue with Relf...
> But thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
Where as these problems with trivial IR spectrum issues from Loon?
Whats sad is you're uttlerly wrong about this Varney bloke, but you're
too stupid to see it.
John "C"
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-2...@news.octanews.com...
> In article <iFdTh.2583$Z66.2322@trnddc06>, "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
> wrote:
>
> > [hanson]
> > ... ahahaha... and you of course you just lied again. Trying to make
> > me believe that you'll doctor this year in astronomy when you whine,
> > in your last year of study, that you have problems with trivial IR
spectrum
> > issues... ahahaha... Put me back into your killfile, loser...
ahahaha...
> > ... ahaha... I will call you, Varney. Don't call me. Go argue with
Relf...
> > But thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
>
> Where as these problems with trivial IR spectrum issues from Loon?
>
> Whats sad is you're uttlerly wrong about this Varney bloke, but you're
> too stupid to see it.
>
HJ
Traveler
>On Apr 10, 6:35 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> 2. Discrete Universe
>>
>> In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
>> confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
>> (infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
>> mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
>> illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
>> general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
>> phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
>> existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
>> simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
>> and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
>> positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
>> means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
>> things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
>> abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
>> geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
>> immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
>> and other continuous structures.
>
>Interestingly, this is not the case.
What is not the case? Everything I wrote above is correct.
> *Continuous* spacetime is not a
>requirement of gravity.
It sure is in GR. Did GR change while I wasn't looking?
> John Wheeler was the first to play with the
>idea of spacetime "foam". This was, of course, after Einstein's time
>and Einstein wasn't aware of the work. The quote below and the
>apprehension by you that if continuous spacetime is dispensed with
>then all of modern physics calamitously vaporizes, is simply bogus. It
>would be good of you to catch up.
ahahaha... Wheeler is an aging crackpot who does not even realize that
spacetime cannot change by definition. Heck, spacetime simply does not
exist, foamy or not. It is not a physical entity, period. Wheeler
should pack his foamy crap up his geriatric ass. At the very least, it
might induce some bowel movement. ahahaha... How many times must it be
explained to you morons? Physics is exclusively about particles, their
properties and their interactions.
>> Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
>> inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
>> or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
>> illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
>> discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
>> quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
>> interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
>> the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
>> and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
>> same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
>> its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
>> a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
>> duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
>> Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
>> particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
>> particle internally when it is being accelerated).
>
>All of this is lovely. You'll find that people are singularly
>uninterested unless you can propose an experimental test that will
>distinguish your model from the prevailing models.
True but only if I was trying to convince the masses. I am not. I put
my stuff on usenet mainly for record keeping purposes, you know, prior
art and all that jazz. The other reason is that I enjoy making fun of
you idiots.
> This is how science
>is done: a new theory predicts a behavior that the current theory says
>*cannot* happen, or it does a better job of matching quantitatively a
>measurable behavior. In either case, *experiment*, not argument or
>sensibility, determines which model is the better one.
Well, I agree. The experiment is in the works and it will indeed do
something that current theory forbids. ahahaha...
hanson
It said in the last post: *** " I will call you, Varney. Don't call me." ***
No wonder you haven't graduated yet, at 35, if you can't understand this.
Here it is again for your benefit:
>
... hahaha... AHAHAHA... I've touched yet another nerve in this one!:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" aka Diddlyfuck Mike Varney, an aging Einstein
Dingleberry himself, 35-ish and still not graduated, cranked himself
grievously as <phineasp...@gmail.com> & wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-E...@news.octanews.com...
news:phineaspuddleduck-D...@news.octanews.com...
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
> [hanson]
> ... ahahaha... and you of course you just lied again. Trying to make
> me believe that you'll doctor this year in astronomy when you whine,
> in your last year of study, that you have problems with trivial IR spectrum
> issues... ahahaha... Put me back into your killfile, loser... ahahaha...
> ... ahaha... I will call you, Varney. Don't call me. Go argue with Relf...
> But thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson
Whats this IR stuff loon? I've already asked you once, backpedalling?
hanson
Re-read Act 3, then 2... then check your own archive, if you
have memory problems already at 35.... ahahahaha...
BTW, Varney, that you are so readily, repeatedly and greedily
answer to the name Mike Varney then claim steadfastly that
you are not him shows again that you are a liar... ahahahaha....
Now again, *** "I will call you, Varney. Don't call me." ***
>
[Act 3] Diddlyfuck Mike Varney, listen: Don't play coy now.
It said in the last post: *** " I will call you, Varney. Don't call me." ***
No wonder you haven't graduated yet, at 35, if you can't understand this.
Here it is again for your benefit:
>
"Phineas T Puddleduck" aka Diddlyfuck Mike Varney, an aging Einstein
Dingleberry himself, 35-ish and still not graduated, cranked himself
grievously as <phineasp...@gmail.com> & wrote in message
PD
> On 11 Apr 2007 06:36:27 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 10, 6:35 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> 2. Discrete Universe
>
> >> In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
> >> confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
> >> (infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
> >> mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
> >> illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
> >> general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
> >> phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
> >> existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
> >> simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
> >> and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
> >> positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
> >> means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
> >> things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
> >> abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
> >> geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
> >> immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
> >> and other continuous structures.
>
> >Interestingly, this is not the case.
>
> What is not the case? Everything I wrote above is correct.
Why, no, no it's not. That's why I pointed out that it's not. As I
said, you need to catch up.
>
> > *Continuous* spacetime is not a
> >requirement of gravity.
>
> It sure is in GR. Did GR change while I wasn't looking?
Uh, yeah. Duh. That would be the point.
>
> > John Wheeler was the first to play with the
> >idea of spacetime "foam". This was, of course, after Einstein's time
> >and Einstein wasn't aware of the work. The quote below and the
> >apprehension by you that if continuous spacetime is dispensed with
> >then all of modern physics calamitously vaporizes, is simply bogus. It
> >would be good of you to catch up.
>
> ahahaha... Wheeler is an aging crackpot who does not even realize that
> spacetime cannot change by definition.
Nonsense. More on this in a minute.
> Heck, spacetime simply does not
> exist, foamy or not.
And so if it doesn't exist, then how is it that it can't change by
definition? Idiot.
> It is not a physical entity, period. Wheeler
> should pack his foamy crap up his geriatric ass. At the very least, it
> might induce some bowel movement. ahahaha... How many times must it be
> explained to you morons?
I enjoyed your statement that spacetime cannot be changed by
definition. Where on Earth did you get the idea that spacetime
*necessarily* is what Einstein says it was, nothing more and nothing
less, and that GR is *exactly* what Einsteins says it was, nothing
more and nothing less? Does it not occur to you that GR and spacetime
are attempts to describe what *reality* is, and that if it turns out
that reality is more interesting or more complicated than we thought,
then GR and spacetime need to be upgraded to reflect what reality
really shows itself to be? Where on Earth did you get the idea that a
physical idea has to be taken *exactly* for what it was when it was
originally proposed, and that progress with the idea is disallowed,
and that if it turns out that the *original* idea isn't quite right,
then the whole thing -- kit and caboodle -- has to be chucked?? Oh, I
see. If you can pin it down and insist no progress, no changes are
allowed, then this opens the door for you to insert an idea. No reason
for you to try to keep up. Hell, then, Louis, don't work on spacetime.
Go back to 1650 and nail Newton to the wall and point out that his
corpuscular theory of light is clearly wrong, and so all of Newtonian
physics has to be chucked out on its ear -- useless! -- and say that
nothing that has been done in 350 years is worth anything because the
corpuscular theory of light is wrong. No need to catch up. It's
obvious it's all wrong, since something 350 years ago was wrong. Best
start from scratch. That'll give you an opening, won't it? Hell, then
the playing field is WIDE OPEN for hacks like you, isn't it?
> Physics is exclusively about particles, their
> properties and their interactions.
Bullshit. Physics is what *physicists* say it is, not what you say it
is.
>
> >> Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
> >> inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
> >> or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
> >> illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
> >> discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
> >> quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
> >> interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
> >> the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
> >> and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
> >> same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
> >> its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
> >> a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
> >> duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
> >> Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
> >> particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
> >> particle internally when it is being accelerated).
>
> >All of this is lovely. You'll find that people are singularly
> >uninterested unless you can propose an experimental test that will
> >distinguish your model from the prevailing models.
>
> True but only if I was trying to convince the masses. I am not. I put
> my stuff on usenet mainly for record keeping purposes, you know, prior
> art and all that jazz.
Oh, right. That's why you put it up on a DISCUSSION GROUP. For record-
keeping purposes. So the website where you put your "records" isn't
sufficient for record-keeping purposes, and it's important to put it
up on a DISCUSSION GROUP, purely for backup record-keeping purposes.
You slimy, disingenuous, self-deluding weasel. You say you want to
make fun of idiots, and then you say something idiotic. Over and over
again. Get a grip.
> The other reason is that I enjoy making fun of
> you idiots.
>
> > This is how science
> >is done: a new theory predicts a behavior that the current theory says
> >*cannot* happen, or it does a better job of matching quantitatively a
> >measurable behavior. In either case, *experiment*, not argument or
> >sensibility, determines which model is the better one.
>
> Well, I agree. The experiment is in the works and it will indeed do
> something that current theory forbids. ahahaha...
Ah, good. Details, please. You do know that experiments in physics are
fully disclosed, don't you? Or is it important to keep it safe in the
basement from prying eyes? Is it your Precious, Louis? Does they wants
to STEAL it from you, Louis?
Are you congenitally unable to blush, Louis? Don't you look in the
mirror sometimes and say to yourself, "OK, surely there's something
better I can be doing with my time than this nonsense"?
PD
Jeff…Relf
Nature has no such contraints.
True randomness can't exist so true change and true choices don't exist.
This means time is spatial, falsely directional.
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
And you can back up this?
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous
COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).
Jeff…Relf
Today we know different, Duckie. As our measurements get better,
gravity ( and cosmic energy ) are getting ever more predictable.
Like Einstein and many others, you can extend that to the postulate:
" Time is spatial, falsely directional. ". For the details, see:
" news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ".
Koobee Wublee
> On Apr 10, 6:35 am, Traveler <trave...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
> > confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
> > (infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
> > mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
> > illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
> > general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
> > phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
> > existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
> > simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
> > and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
> > positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
> > means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
> > things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
> > abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
> > geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
> > immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
> > and other continuous structures.
>
> Interestingly, this is not the case. *Continuous* spacetime is not a
> requirement of gravity.
If spacetime is not continuous, how do you perform differential to
derive the geodesic equations. This sentence of yours is total
nonsense.
> John Wheeler was the first to play with the
> idea of spacetime "foam".
As playing in the bathroom with soap bubbles?
> This was, of course, after Einstein's time
> and Einstein wasn't aware of the work.
Einstein was a nobody. Sometimes he did not even understand the work
of the ones he plagiarized from. <shrug>
> The quote below and the
> apprehension by you that if continuous spacetime is dispensed with
> then all of modern physics calamitously vaporizes, is simply bogus.
Space and time must be continuous. Or else you don't observer linear
motions with Newtonian results.
> It would be good of you to catch up.
Where is your argument that spacetime does not have to be continuous?
What does continuity in this case mean anyway? When are you going to
get out of the bathtub and stop playing with soap bubbles?
> > Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
> > inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
> > or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
> > illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
> > discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
> > quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
> > interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
> > the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
> > and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
> > same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
> > its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
> > a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
> > duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
> > Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
> > particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
> > particle internally when it is being accelerated).
>
> All of this is lovely. You'll find that people are singularly
> uninterested unless you can propose an experimental test that will
> distinguish your model from the prevailing models.
Or if they have been brainwashed in some way.
> This is how science
> is done: a new theory predicts a behavior that the current theory says
> *cannot* happen, or it does a better job of matching quantitatively a
> measurable behavior.
That is supposed to be how science is done. What science is done now
is to constantly suggest lies into young minds over and over and over
and over ... again.
> In either case, *experiment*, not argument or
> sensibility, determines which model is the better one.
Oh, I forget to mention all experimental results are INTERPRETED to
reinforce the lies. <shrug>
Jeckyl
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> Like all information, our models are discrete.
What models are you talking about?
> Nature has no such contraints.
What constraints?
> True randomness can't exist
Why not?
> so true change
Why can there not be change .. you don't need randomness for change
> and true choices don't exist.
Why not?
> This means time is spatial, falsely directional.
What exactly do you mean by that. Are you just agreeing with SR that time is
a 4th dimension etc?
What do you mean by 'falsely directional'
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
Poor Jeff, were you feeling neglected so you had to spout some more
nonsense?
Are you trying for a lifetime award?
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
Yeah, you reference your own nonsense.
Show me a citation where your beloved Albert says time is a spatial
dimension. Be careful what scrapes you post.
T Wake
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:132c7md...@corp.supernews.com...
Jeff claims time is a spatial dimension. He also includes numerous other
choices (weight, heat, entropy, mass etc - depends on his mood) of things
which are also *spatial* dimensions.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
He also claimed he could write density as a dimension in his "metric", which I
guess was more like an "imperial".
--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the
rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey.
Jeff…Relf
on the " Time is spatial, falsely directional. " issue,
see the quotes and links at " news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ".
" Cosmic Energy " is the fifth spatial dimension, I posit.
For example, the known Universe was 3 kilokelvins 13.7 gigayears ago,
today it's just 3 kelvins. Energy_Time_Space, static and parochial.
Cosmic Energy spontaneously, irrevocably dissipates.
That's entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It's what created us; and, eventually, it will destroy us.
Pseudo_Entropy is Pseudo_God.
Jeff…Relf
that's just a fact.
The " Cosmological Constant " in the Lambda-CDM model
is like " Cosmic Entropy ", only without the randomness, ha ha.
As " Cosmic Energy " spontaneoulsy, irrevocably dissipates,
it looks like true entropy to us, but it's merely psuedo entropy.
Energy_Time_Space are the 5 spatial dimensions, static and immutable.
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> You'll never know what I did or didn't claim, Puddleduck,
> that's just a fact.
Its on Google Groups, a GLOBALLY available PUBLIC archive.
Note the clues in CAPS.
>
> The " Cosmological Constant " in the Lambda-CDM model
> is like " Cosmic Entropy ", only without the randomness, ha ha.
>
> As " Cosmic Energy " spontaneoulsy, irrevocably dissipates,
> it looks like true entropy to us, but it's merely psuedo entropy.
> Energy_Time_Space are the 5 spatial dimensions, static and immutable.
More Relfian Cosmology, called by many his "Bollocks" theory.
Eric Gisse
> You'll never know what I did or didn't claim, Puddleduck,
> that's just a fact.
Much like it is a _fact_ you are an idiot.
>
> The " Cosmological Constant " in the Lambda-CDM model
> is like " Cosmic Entropy ", only without the randomness, ha ha.
Stoopid joke from a stoopid person. They are nothing alike.
>
> As " Cosmic Energy " spontaneoulsy, irrevocably dissipates,
> it looks like true entropy to us, but it's merely psuedo entropy.
> Energy_Time_Space are the 5 spatial dimensions, static and immutable.
Energy is derived from time and space, idiot. Derived quantities are
poor choices for dimensions.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
It was density last year. Seriously...
Jeckyl
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
Ok .. so what is it .. you have a little program that combines random words
into non-sentences and posts them to newsgroups?
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
news:f05lm8$dqa$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Mr Hyde!?
>
> Fuck off troll Is =/= 0
> or
> Fuck off troll = 0
> or
> Fuck off troll = 0 = You
Fuck off troll = 0 = You = Hyde = 0 / 0
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think Again!
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:132d6it...@corp.supernews.com...
Jeckyl
> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed...@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:f05lm8$dqa$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>> Mr Hyde!?
>>
>> Fuck off troll Is =/= 0
>> or
>> Fuck off troll = 0
>> or
>> Fuck off troll = 0 = You
>
> Fuck off troll = 0 = You = Hyde = 0 / 0
Fuck off troll
maxwell
What experimental tests have justified the current obsessions with
quantum foam, quantum gravity, string theory?
Your view of science is not reflected in current practise.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Do not ever worry!
Therefore, I do know, you do not understand, and the worst is that, you do
not know nothing along that matter, as you do not know, even nothing along
the physics generally and the relativity particularly, whether along the
philosophy, would be for you an other and a different story, a definitely as
a matter a fact.
However, this |> Fuck off troll |, would ever and ever be a factor of any
help to you, as you do see, by yourself, that there is an infinite kind of
yours all along...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:132dd2h...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed...@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:f068d9$7sv$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> >
> > Once, you could not understand what would follows and what it is all
about
> > :
> >
> > 1 / c = G = 0
> >
> > h = G = 0 and 1 / c =/= 0
> >
> > Absolutely you are in an absolute as an urgent need of an absolute
> > professional help, whether, you do have nothing to do along that subject
> > line, a definitely as a matter a fact!
>
> Fuck off troll
>
>
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:132d6d3...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed...@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:f05lm8$dqa$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > Mr Hyde!?
> >
> > Fuck off troll Is =/= 0
> > or
> > Fuck off troll = 0
> > or
> > Fuck off troll = 0 = You
>
> Fuck off troll
>
>
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:f067vn$7n7$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
Jeckyl
>
> Do not ever worry!
>
> Therefore, I do know, you do not understand, and the worst is that, you do
> not know nothing along that matter, as you do not know, even nothing along
> the physics generally and the relativity particularly, whether along the
> philosophy, would be for you an other and a different story, a definitely
> as
> a matter a fact.
>
> However, this |> Fuck off troll |, would ever and ever be a factor of any
> help to you, as you do see, by yourself, that there is an infinite kind of
> yours all along...
Fuck off troll
T Wake
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-6...@news.octanews.com...
A mint one?
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
Really? Can you no longer get to Google Groups?
> that's just a fact.
Like lots of your "facts," it is not *really* factual.
> The " Cosmological Constant " in the Lambda-CDM model
> is like " Cosmic Entropy ", only without the randomness, ha ha.
"ha ha" is appropriate, as you are posting comical nonsense.
> As " Cosmic Energy " spontaneoulsy, irrevocably dissipates,
> it looks like true entropy to us, but it's merely psuedo entropy.
> Energy_Time_Space are the 5 spatial dimensions, static and immutable.
Nonsense continued.
T Wake
> In article <1176931412....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 18, 1:19 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
>> > You'll never know what I did or didn't claim, Puddleduck,
>> > that's just a fact.
>>
>> Much like it is a _fact_ you are an idiot.
>>
>> >
>> > The " Cosmological Constant " in the Lambda-CDM model
>> > is like " Cosmic Entropy ", only without the randomness, ha ha.
>>
>> Stoopid joke from a stoopid person. They are nothing alike.
>>
>> >
>> > As " Cosmic Energy " spontaneoulsy, irrevocably dissipates,
>> > it looks like true entropy to us, but it's merely psuedo entropy.
>> > Energy_Time_Space are the 5 spatial dimensions, static and immutable.
>>
>> Energy is derived from time and space, idiot. Derived quantities are
>> poor choices for dimensions.
>
>
> It was density last year. Seriously...
>
And temperature.
And entropy.
And ...
Phineas T Puddleduck
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jeff claims time is a spatial dimension. He also includes numerous other
> >> choices (weight, heat, entropy, mass etc - depends on his mood) of things
> >> which are also *spatial* dimensions.
> >
> >
> > He also claimed he could write density as a dimension in his "metric",
> > which I
> > guess was more like an "imperial".
>
>
> A mint one?
As long as it was a spherically symmetric, non rotating mint. Otherwise you use
the Fox-Glacier metric
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> on the " Time is spatial, falsely directional. " issue,
> see the quotes and links at " news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ".
You've made several mistakes here.
First off, you are trying to reference one of your post as if it shows the
opinion of "leading scientists" when in reality it is a collection of
irrelevant, out of context, snips. You compound this with the original post,
which is basically nonsense.
Do you have a single quote where a "leading scientist" says "Time is a
Spatial Dimension?" I dont mean your misunderstanding about how dimensions
are structured or the like.
Are you aware of how the "four dimensions" are actually made up of three
spatial and one temporal dimension?
Are you aware (yet) of the evidence behind the claim to there being three
spatial dimensions? Are you ready for me to tell you?
> " Cosmic Energy " is the fifth spatial dimension, I posit.
> For example, the known Universe was 3 kilokelvins 13.7 gigayears ago,
> today it's just 3 kelvins. Energy_Time_Space, static and parochial.
You really are an idiot.
> Cosmic Energy spontaneously, irrevocably dissipates.
> That's entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> It's what created us; and, eventually, it will destroy us.
>
> Pseudo_Entropy is Pseudo_God.
And you are pseudo_sane.
T Wake
> In article <qsadnU1Dp_W2Krrb...@pipex.net>,
> "T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> Jeff claims time is a spatial dimension. He also includes numerous
>> >> other
>> >> choices (weight, heat, entropy, mass etc - depends on his mood) of
>> >> things
>> >> which are also *spatial* dimensions.
>> >
>> >
>> > He also claimed he could write density as a dimension in his "metric",
>> > which I
>> > guess was more like an "imperial".
>>
>>
>> A mint one?
>
>
> As long as it was a spherically symmetric, non rotating mint. Otherwise
> you use
> the Fox-Glacier metric
>
ROTFLMAO.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Its no less sensible then his other theories ;-)