Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Physics]
|
From: Huang on 13 Dec 2009 11:28 > > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > the universe. > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > not happened yet. > > > Fortunately!! I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > < Resorting to things such as "existential indeterminacy" is typically > regarded as breaking the rules, doing something which is not > mathematically valid. In my opinion, I believe that mathematics is not > the only tool available for making quantified abstract models of > things. Math is the best tool, but not the only tool. > > > Take away the word "quantified" and i'd agree. Leave it in and ... > name me another tool that uses equations to quantify things. The results of conjectural modelling, the numerical results, are all expexcted values. Modelling with conjeture produces the exact same numbers as mathematics. The difference is that mathematics operates on values which are "given", and conjecture operates on values which are "postulated". That is the difference between a deterministic tool such as mathematics, and an inherently non-deterministic tool such as conjecture. Other than that, the numbers produced by either model match exactly. The only diffence being that one result is provable, and the other result is an expectation and non-provable. Because the numbers match exactly, one may use mathematics of conjecture interchangeably. They are equivalent. And this jives very nicely with Einsteins Equivalence Principle, it meshes very well. > <And conjectural models are "equivalent" to mathematical models > because they both produce the same exact numerical results. > > > Give us an example. -------------------Reposted------------------------ Readers of my posts will recall that Conjectural Modelling is a methodology which is based on existential indeterminacy, objects which may or may not exist. I am seeking a way to link orthodox Mathematics with Conjectural Modelling. The first step toward developing some clarity of understanding regarding this linkage between math and conjecture is by examining a few simple examples. I have put together some examples and will try to word them as carefully as possible. We consider a very simple example of flipping a coin. First, we examine the standard model of a coin toss that is found in every book in probability theory. Then we examine the same exact problem but use conjectural methods to explain the coin toss. From Probability Theory: We use random variables and consider the probability P(X) where x is a member of {H,T}. P(H) = 1/2 P(T) = 1/2 For brevity we will omit alot of detail here assuming familiarity with this common example. From Conjectural Modelling Things are worded very differently. The philosophy is radically different, but the calculations remain unchanged. We consider the elements of the outcome space to be existentially indeterminate. H exists with probability 1/2, and T exists with probability 1/2. When the event actually occurs, one of these elements must have probability 1 and the other elements must all have probability 0. It is convenient to think of the probability of existence as being "conserved". We have an interesting new definition of what an event is, and a very interesting way of thinking about conservation. Both of these concepts have important applications in physics. Discussion There may or may not be a way to transform one model into the other. Such a transform is expected to be existentially indeterminate because it might make sense that such a transform could be constructed, you still have the fact that mathematics and conjecture are so fundemantally different that it should be impossible that such a trasform could be considered strictly existent. The numbers crunch the same regardless of how you word these problems - and that is an important, undeniable fact. You cannot say if a coint toss is really random or not. And you cannot say if existential indeterminacy is, or is not mathematics. -------------------Reposted------------------------ > < That is why Schrodinger's Wave Equation may be regarded as > mathematics, or it can be restated in terms of "conjectural modeling" > in which case it describes bent space. > > > Please restate the wave equation in terms of anything at all and show > us how it describes "bent space" - i.e. the u,v,w lines whose variable > curvature maps the density of space-filling compressible matter. The wave equation remains unchanged. The only thing that changes is the interpretation of it. > <These views are equivalent. These are very different views, but they > are equivalent. No different than the equivalence that we see in the > famous elevator example from GR. It is exactly the same thing. When > you see this, then you will understand QM as a layman should. > > > The elevator example is doubly defective. > 1. If it is being elevated by a constant applied force and someone in > it throws a ball across the room, the rate of acceleration of the > elevator and everything in it will change while the ball is flying. > Therefore so will the weight of everything in it. > 2. If a beam of light traversed the elevator at a given angle which is > a function of the speed of the elevator; and the speed changed for > reason 1, so would the angle of the beam. > (If you disagree, please refresh my memory by stating what the > elevator example actually was. Along the way, please define "QM". If > it stands for Quantum Mechanics, how "should" a layman understand it? > {No physicist ever did!}) > > glird I dont know that it can really be defined, but I would say that it is the physical manifestation of zero. The physical manifestation of a boundary on existentce. And I would postulate that there would be a similar kind of situation for the largest possible scales. Mathematics has to treat the number zero very carefully, and so too physics muct treat nothingness in very much the same way. Very carefully. That would be enough for the lay explanation, but the technical details become the subject of much debate, and only now are people beginning to question these thiings seriously. The nature of mathematics, existence, and whather perhaps it is valid to consider models which incorporate "partial existence", or "potential to exist", however one may describe it. It may not be mathematics, but if it is equivalent then it may be useful.
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 13:25 On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > > the universe. > > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > > not happened yet. > > > > Fortunately!! > > I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot > be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many > scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and > appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the > wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an > intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > Wave-Particle Duality is explained. The moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space.
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 13:50 On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Outside of Earth and its affairs, show me a clock, or "1 second", in > > the universe. > > > > Bending of space is meaningful in physics. > > > Not "of space"; of co-ordinate lines in METRICAL space. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space "In MATHEMATICS, a metric space is a set where a notion of distance (called a metric) between elements of the set is defined." > > <It is more difficult in mathematics because mathematicians are like a > > bunch of lawyers playing a complicated game, and they typically do not > > indulge in the highly "liberalized" models such as using "existential > > indeterminacy". If they did - physics would be unified. But this has > > not happened yet. > > > > Fortunately!! > > I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot > be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many > scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and > appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the > wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an > intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > Wave-Particle Duality is explained. The moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space.
From: glird on 13 Dec 2009 14:41 On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang wrote an excellent reply to my prior note. After awhile he continued thus: > > The elevator example is doubly defective. > > 1. If it is being elevated by a constant applied force and someone in > > it throws a ball across the room, the rate of acceleration of the > > elevator and everything in it will change while the ball is flying. > > Therefore so will the weight of everything in it. > > 2. If a beam of light traversed the elevator at a given angle which is > > a function of the speed of the elevator; and the speed changed for > > reason 1, so would the angle of the beam. > > (If you disagree, please refresh my memory by stating what the > > elevator example actually was. Along the way, please define "QM". If > > it stands for Quantum Mechanics, how "should" a layman understand it? > > {No physicist ever did!}) > > > glird > > I don't know that it can really be defined, but I would say that it [QM?] > is the physical manifestation of zero. The physical manifestation of a > boundary on existence. And I would postulate that there would be a similar > kind of situation for the largest possible scales. Textbooks say: Zero is a cipher not a number. Perhaps they say that about infinity too. (If not, they should.) Perhaps its because 0 times (10^2)^79)^100 times infinity = 0. A better reason may be that there IS not and cannot be any thing that is as small or smaller than zero nor as large or larger than infinity. Accordingly, infinity and zero are "limits". (In calculus, a limit is a quantity things may approach but never reach. (If you push any such equation "to the limit" the answer - as Blastermouth found out - is always "zero".) "Quantity" is the first dimension, and the number "1" is its unit of measure. (All other numbers are multiples of 1, i.e. 5 is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.) It is the first dimension because none of the others, such as weight and mass and velocity etc could be meaningfully given without it. > Mathematics has to treat the number zero very carefully, and so too physics > must treat nothingness in very much the same way. Very carefully. They should, but they don't. To them, waves can be conducted by nothing and all the energy in the universe suddenly arose in nothing, and stupidly irrational things such as that, including the notion that matter can be created out of energy. (If and when they realize that the m in e = mc^2 denotes the WEIGHT - in grams - of a quantity of matter, and that energy is an ability possessed by and exerted on matter, they _might_ begin to understand reality.) > That would be enough for the lay explanation, but the technical > details become the subject of much debate, and only now are people > beginning to question these things seriously. The nature of > mathematics, existence, and whether perhaps it is valid to consider > models which incorporate "partial existence", or "potential to exist", > however one may describe it. It may not be mathematics, but if it is > equivalent then it may be useful. It already is!! We the people pay BILLIONS of $$$$ every year, to support those members of the lunatic asylum whose "research" seekS "other worlds that simultaneously exist with ours" AND ARE ALWAYS WILLING TO TRY AN EXPERIMENT EVEN IF IT MIGHT POSSIBLY DESTROY eARTH AND ALL LIFE ON IT, ETC ETC ETC... glird
From: mpc755 on 13 Dec 2009 17:07
On Dec 13, 11:28 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I think it is a great misfortune. You have these things which cannot > be explained such as WP Duality etc...and many people (including many > scientists) take that as an opportunity to depart from formality and > appeal to some kind of mysticism. They seem to relish the mystery, the > wonderment of not being able to explain something. It serves as an > intoxicant for the mind of the intellectual, and they are all junkies. > I have a correct explanation for Wave-Particle Duality where the moving particle creates a displacement wave in the substance of space. That being said, the above paragraph is excellent and the fact that QM believers are in denial of a correct explanation for Wave-Particle Duality is evidence of their desire to 'relish the mystery'. |