What are space and time? [Logic]

Prev: NP+complete-problem navigation, search In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC), is a class of problems having two properties: * It is in the set of NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) pr
Next: Continuity and Uncountability

From: John Stafford on 18 Jul 2010 10:10

In article
<82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad26245a2(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> > [1] Relativity
> > [2] HUP
> > [3] WP-Duality
> > [4] A correct understanding of causality
> > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
> > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
> > Length
> > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
> > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics
>
>
> Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important
>
> [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
> never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
> conservation without resorting to a magic wand.
>
> You guys do nonstandard physics like Jackson Pollock paints pictures,
> here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.

You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.

From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 11:07

On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article
> <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > [1] Relativity
> > > [2] HUP
> > > [3] WP-Duality
> > > [4] A correct understanding of causality
> > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
> > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
> > > Length
> > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
> > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics
>
> > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important
>
> > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
> > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
> > conservation without resorting to a magic wand.
>
> > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jackson Pollock paints pictures,
> > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.
>
> You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine.

From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 18 Jul 2010 11:33

On Jul 18, 1:35 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/15/2010 07:59 AM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 3:52 pm, Day Brown<dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> traits of a projected matrix.
> >> The speed of light is the frame rate.
> >> Planck's constant refers to the pixel size.
> >> Absolute zero is black. I dunno what the maximum intensity is, but
> >> prolly related to the maximum frequency of vibration.
>
> > Hi Day. It seems you like discrete systems. It's a nice point that
> > intensity can go two ways: toward higher frequency and toward higher
> > density. I don't believe there is any theoretical maximum intensity of
> > light established yet. Nor is there a maxiumum frequency. I do feel
> > open to there being some surprises that we've overlooked.
>
> > I was swimming the other day, and paddled up a vertical current with
> > my hand and found one distinct stationary wave of a very small height.
> > When I stopped paddling and the water slowed down the stationary wave
> > came in, and closed to a point. It is quite pretty and I tried it
> > again and again with success. It is a strikingly discrete process
> > occuring on what seems to be a continuum. I have no idea how to
> > explain it, but I suppose someone must have documented it before. Then
> > too, some discoveries like this may still be overlooked. There are
> > many pretty effects on still water that seem to have discrete
> > structure; Microripples and so forth.
>
> > Just as math can transform some systems from one domain to another
> > there may be parallel theories. Still, depending on the transformation
> > side effects can be important, no different than they are in software.
> > This is information theory. If we shuffle the isotropic stance as I
> > suggest then I believe that the system can hold up. A structured
> > spacetime does not necessarily deny taking relative reference frames.
> > In this arena the problems are quite open, but it is easy to me to
> > falsify the isotropic assumption of relativity theory. The same
> > fundamental problem exists when people start discussing time reversal
> > physics. We observe no freedom to traverse time, either forward or
> > backward, and anyone who insists that they can place a coffee mug
> > cleanly within a 4D spacetime tensor is eating food that is unfit for
> > human consumption. We need only rotate the x axis of the existing
> > reference frame to the t axis to observe the incoherent construction.
> > The tensor is by definition consistent with such rotations, and if we
> > step back to 3D space we see that it does work coherently. Clearly
> > time is somehow different than the other spatial dimensions. Therefor
> > the tensor construction is not sensible. The Minkowski metric was sold
> > to us, and this does paint the level of human ability in the topic.
> > Does each of us truly assess the validity of this theory, or do we
> > simply attempt to gulp it down, because it is professed? Here the
> > human social condition does enter into science directly, and
> > unfortunately the human does not hold up under such scrutiny. So it is
> > that we are apes, and as righteous as it is for us to attempt
> > understanding, and as bright as some of the greats have been, they and
> > we are so limited. The practice of construction from an open place
> > will lead to a better generation of physicists and mathematicians.
> > This means declaring the problems open early, and studying the
> > weaknesses of the existing system as much as measuring a child's
> > ability to mimic it. The grade A mimics rule for now.
>
> > - Tim
>
> FWIW, Planck's constant must be related to the minumum wavelength, and
> therefore the frequency. I experienced a de jevu this evening, so I know
> there's something fishy, but that dont tell me what the truth is.

Hmmmm. I'm for positing the weakness of the human mind rather than its
strength. In this regard the dejavu should not be granted too much
credit. Still, if it is a mind opening experience that allows one to
break through the old programming then it could suffice as useful.
Perhaps it is a sort of sublingual processing. Even in a mentally weak
state, this may be all that we have and so we have to procede. This
explains why reality is such a puzzle to us, and has been since we
were capable of puzzling over it. Beyond this we are capable of
building false belief systems, and these are capable of propagating
through the mimicry response. It is as much our strength as our
downfall, and I think without the awareness of that factor the
idealization of the scientist or mathematician as independent of the
human form is only a Randian story. The truth is sadder than the
story. Still, it's OK.

The bottom line is that we are constructivists. Those constructions
which propagate are the ones that we mimic. Upon forming our own
construction we are on our own, until that construction propagates,
which it may not, even though it is more truthful. How many truthful
renditions failed to propagate in the hands of organized power? Likely
many. I happily posit that someone did create the polysign number
before I did. It is too simple to have been overlooked.

Back on Planck... There is alot to consider in terms of continuous
versus discrete. Geometry is inherently dimensional, and the ability
to transit from say a two dimensional form to a three dimensional form
is a sort of discrete problem. Whether it can actually be done- well,
here I think is a more convincing way into a Planck type constant.
Still, to date, dimension is considered a discrete concept. For
instance we are not free to ponder a 2.13 dimensional space. There are
a few ways to challenge this, but none will bridge the Euclidean gap
directly. Should this be a means of challenging Euclidean space? That
would be quite pretty. Then an old sector model I played with comes
up.

I have a gut reaction when the two words:
continuous
discrete
are juxtaposed, probably not unlike your own dejavu. It turns out that
there are deeper ways to reconstruct space, and that the idea of a
continuum distance that varies from zero to infinity, as the
traditional representation does, can be replaced. This implies going
beneath the real number rather than constructing from the real number.
The polysign format
s x
replaces the real number so long as s is one of two signs and x is a
zero to infinity type of magnitude, but there are other forms for x.
These other forms tweak the algebra though, so there is quite some
tension in playing variations down there. Still, can't we admit that
if something more fundamental than the real number exists, and all of
physics builds out from the real number, that physics will be cleanly
expressed?

I cast this as an open problem and have only partial answers. The idea
that our present belief system is false is easy to accept. Where is
the false assumption? The answer locates critical openings. I am for
attempting this at fundamental levels, where the old assumption is
transparent, and so simple as to be overlooked.

- Tim

From: John Stafford on 18 Jul 2010 12:05

In article
<28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5edefc(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 18, 9:10�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> > In article
> > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > [1] Relativity
> > > > [2] HUP
> > > > [3] WP-Duality
> > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality
> > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
> > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
> > > > Length
> > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
> > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics
> >
> > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important
> >
> > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
> > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
> > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand.
> >
> > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jackson Pollock paints pictures,
> > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.
> >
> > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine.

Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.

From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 12:17

On Jul 18, 11:05 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article
> <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 9:10 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > [1] Relativity
> > > > > [2] HUP
> > > > > [3] WP-Duality
> > > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality
> > > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
> > > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
> > > > > Length
> > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
> > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in physics
>
> > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important
>
> > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
> > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
> > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand.
>
> > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jackson Pollock paints pictures,
> > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.
>
> > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine.
>
> Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims
instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool
cannot fix another.

Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read
my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that
you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply.