What are space and time?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.5: Why is P(B) or P(AB) = 2P(A) - 1 Optimal Rather than nP(A) - 1, n > 2?
Next: Quantum Gravity 400.6: Mechanical Advantage in Terms of Force, Distances, Probabilities
From: John Stafford on 23 Jul 2010 08:42 In article <1ae1057e-028b-4792-8fb2-e06f27a8bc84(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I use the word "conjecture" slightly differently than a mathematician > would. I use this word because it is the best word to describe the > tentattive kinds of relationsships I seek to manipulate. Yet at the > same time, a conjecture can never be proven or disproven. Conjectures have been proven. Once proven, the definition of conjecture no longer applies. But you may use the word, but never say never. > My usage of the word conjecture is not the same as the common usage. A > conjectural statement, in my scheme, is a statement which is based on > existential indeterminacy which would form a valid mathematical > statement under the assumption of either existence or nonexistence. Show the math, please. > Such objects are different from the standard conjectures that are > common in math, science and elsewhere. Conjecture, in my usage, cannot > be proved. All you can do is demonstrate consistency with mathematics. Show the math.
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Jul 2010 09:27 Huang wrote: > On Jul 22, 8:43 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> Huang wrote: >> > On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> [spit a newsgroup] >> >> >> Huang wrote: >> >> >> <snip >> >> >> > Starting with some preliminaries: >> >> >> > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont >> >> > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should >> >> > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking >> >> > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. >> >> >> You don't have any idea what mathematics is. >> >> > And you have no idea what an axiom is. >> >> > I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities >> > or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such >> > counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will >> > assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is >> > really absurd. >> >> > If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist >> > with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very >> > difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is >> > quite impossible. >> >> Sigh! Not p. >> \ >> >> >> >> > I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol >> >> No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor >> what it can't do. > > > In mathematics things are proved. Not all the time. > The reason you can do this is > because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits > together like Lego building blocks, You have never built a geometry nor an algebra. Did you ever go through the exercise of proving the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Did you ever take a plane geometry class which did proof by construction? >and ever piece fits perfect. That > is mathematics. It only fits perfect because you've only looked at algebras and geometries which other people have built over the years. > > Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but > "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because > they are and must remain conjectural. This has nothing to do with measuring mass with a ruler. > But you CAN show that > conjectures are consistent, Not all conjectures. There are hundreds of thousands of conjectures which don't work. > and so all of these conjectures fit > together like Lego building blocks as well. In fact, for every > mathematical statement there is a corresponding conjectural statement > and vice versa. You are talking nonsense. You are assuming everything is commutative. >There is no mathematical way to transform back and > forth between the two, such operations are currently under study but > to be sure - I do know what math is and what it is not. I also believe > that there are tools other than math which can accomplish the same > things that math does. Huh? Name one. > >> >> >Futher, I dont >> >> > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be >> >> > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. >> >> >> This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All >> >> endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet >> >> and eating your breakfast. >> >> >> You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor >> >> shown how to measure it with a ruler. >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> /BAH >> >> > I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said >> > he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and >> > that's what I provided. >> >> For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method >> of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that >> all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong. >> If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing >> requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment >> which will falsify your hypothesis. >> >> You ain't doing science; you're just blowing gas. > > > > Define mass in terms of length - eh ? No. Measure it using a ruler. It is you who made declaration that you can describe this using only space and time. So you are the one who has to provide the mechanism for measuring in the labs. I susggested that you show how to measure mass. You still have not demonstrated a way to use a ruler to do this. > > Ok - there are many ways to do this I just want you to describe one way. > depending on how precise you want > to make it. If you want an exact derivation you'll never get it > because it's not calculable, would require too much computing power > which does not exist at this time and probably never will. Forget about this smoke and mirrors. You can't do it; can you? > > However, if we allow (for brevity) to model objects more coarsely we > can come up with some decent models. Instead of considering every > individual atom, just consider a planet as a whole and skip all of the > fine structure. > > A planet may then be regarded (in my model) as a gradient. The > gradient is comprised of a potential, and to each point in space we > assign a potential that the point exists. What the hell does potential have to do with mass? I haven't got as far a electricity. I just want you to demonstrate something basic so a Physics 101 lab can do a experiment. >That gives rise to this > gradient. Consider that the nucleus of the planet is enriched, and the > areas in it's outer shells are rarified. A planet (or atom) is nothing > more than an imbalance as described. It is composed of nothing more > than dimension. Enriched in it's core, and rarified at the periphery. > It should be obvious that two such bodies which are near to each other > create a "well" between them, and they will naturally be attracted to > each other because that is how space is bent. Objects will tend to > fall into such a depression, and both objects are creating a > depression in the fabric of spacetime because the regions on their > periphery is existentially rarified like a vacuum which decreases > exactly as described elsewhere in physics where orthodox mathematics > is being used, and I repeat that I have used no math here. Obviously. YOu have also ignored my request. You haven't talked about mass, let alone how to measure it with a ruler. > Only set > the stage for modelling conjecturally. > And your stage is completely engulfed in manufactured fog. /BAH
From: Huang on 23 Jul 2010 10:51 On Jul 23, 7:42 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <1ae1057e-028b-4792-8fb2-e06f27a8b...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I use the word "conjecture" slightly differently than a mathematician > > would. I use this word because it is the best word to describe the > > tentattive kinds of relationsships I seek to manipulate. Yet at the > > same time, a conjecture can never be proven or disproven. > > Conjectures have been proven. Once proven, the definition of conjecture > no longer applies. > > But you may use the word, but never say never. > > > My usage of the word conjecture is not the same as the common usage. A > > conjectural statement, in my scheme, is a statement which is based on > > existential indeterminacy which would form a valid mathematical > > statement under the assumption of either existence or nonexistence. > > Show the math, please. > > > Such objects are different from the standard conjectures that are > > common in math, science and elsewhere. Conjecture, in my usage, cannot > > be proved. All you can do is demonstrate consistency with mathematics. > > Show the math. OK - will try to find an illustrative example and post it shortly. But just to clarify and contrast a bit further: A mathematical statement is a "truth". It is a certainty. In my scheme a conjecture is a statement which is in a permanent state of indeterminacy. It's permanently a "possibility", a permanent state of uncertainty. It cannot be proven or disproven, it's impossible. And amidst the whole collection of such conjectures there is no way to prove anything, all one can do is demonstrate consistency. I made a little progress toward that end. I cant think of a better word to describe such a statement other than conjecture. It incorporates existential indeterminacy and so at it's most fundamental level it is a statement which is permanently and inherently indeterminate. But this usage is certainly different than the common usage of the word conjecture in math and elsewhere, it's the only word that seems to make sense.
From: John Stafford on 23 Jul 2010 10:59 In article <b0365dc2-ab55-422a-8931-53bcbdc15132(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:42�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > In article > > <1ae1057e-028b-4792-8fb2-e06f27a8b...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > �Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I use the word "conjecture" slightly differently than a mathematician > > > would. I use this word because it is the best word to describe the > > > tentattive kinds of relationsships I seek to manipulate. Yet at the > > > same time, a conjecture can never be proven or disproven. > > > > Conjectures have been proven. Once proven, the definition of conjecture > > no longer applies. > > > > But you may use the word, but never say never. > > > > > My usage of the word conjecture is not the same as the common usage. A > > > conjectural statement, in my scheme, is a statement which is based on > > > existential indeterminacy which would form a valid mathematical > > > statement under the assumption of either existence or nonexistence. > > > > Show the math, please. > > > > > Such objects are different from the standard conjectures that are > > > common in math, science and elsewhere. Conjecture, in my usage, cannot > > > be proved. All you can do is demonstrate consistency with mathematics. > > > > Show the math. > > > OK - will try to find an illustrative example and post it shortly. > > But just to clarify and contrast a bit further: > > A mathematical statement is a "truth". It is a certainty. A proven mathematical statement is a truth. > In my scheme a conjecture is a statement which is in a permanent state > of indeterminacy. It's permanently a "possibility", a permanent state > of uncertainty. It cannot be proven or disproven, it's impossible. I'm good with that. I have to leave for the day job now and will try to coin a word to replace 'conjecture'. > And > amidst the whole collection of such conjectures there is no way to > prove anything, all one can do is demonstrate consistency. I made a > little progress toward that end. So far it reads like most quantum assertions. > I cant think of a better word to describe such a statement other than > conjecture. It incorporates existential indeterminacy and so at it's > most fundamental level it is a statement which is permanently and > inherently indeterminate. But this usage is certainly different than > the common usage of the word conjecture in math and elsewhere, it's > the only word that seems to make sense. Yes. We need a new word. Or an old one that has not been corrupted. XYZZY? PLUGH! (A free beer to whomever first gives the source of those two words.)
From: Day Brown on 23 Jul 2010 14:38
On 07/22/2010 08:25 PM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote: > The three dimensional context is a physical reality. If we were in a > room and your choose a stable position (with say the tip of a pencil) > then I can address that position to some fairly arbitrary precision > with three values. No matter what position you choose I'll be able to > do this. > > Next, if we take a solid object as fundamental it will contain six > dimensions of information, this due to the rotational freedoms of that > object, which the earlier positional analysis did not include. > > This is limited to solid objects, and upon going into a fluid state > the 3D observation may no longer hold. There is no tape measure to > even make the measurement with, for it will be stirring about as a > fluid itself. We accept that the fluid is still three dimensional, but > that is with solid tools to observe it. These sorts of care to detail > are necessary if something is being ovelooked. > > Whatever high dimensional construction you take, it should still yield > the distance behaviors of our observations if it is a decent theory. > This essentially means that it is the burden of the high dimensional > theories to yield spacetime. Polysign does this regardless how high > dimensional you go, and it does support a 10D stage, plus 0D time in > T5, which is > P1 P2 P3 P4 P5, > though I have not found any fundamental arithmetic breakpoint to > support this level as unique. Dunno what it should do. That implies a mental construction which is somewhat dependent on group think. The whole notion of relative position and vectors in 3 dimensional space could be irrelevant as the number of dimensions increases. In "The Matrix" the observed world does not really exist, but is only a construct within what passes for a mind. I dunno how to tell the diff between that and what you outline above. |