What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 22 Jul 2010 21:40 On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical > > construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, > > and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I > > interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its > > description. > > > I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the > > rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've > > tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat > > on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to > > provide observational correspondence. > > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 Jacpaints 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. > > > > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > > > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > > > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > > > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > > > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > > > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > > > and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > 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. Futher, I dont > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. > > So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows: > > Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments > and nonexistent segments. Planck length is the smallest unit of length > which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with > standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be > understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is > a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length > segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe > that this is the only correct view, but that there are several > approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of > Einstein's Equivalence Principle. > > Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as > [eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee] > > and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as > [nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn] > > If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have > uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent. > Some examples of would include an infinite number of different > discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous > distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont > include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it. > > My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where > nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we > have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is > expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length > represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion > less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one > were to attempt to make an observation. > > This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical > couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches > are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the > mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically > intractible. > > So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a > conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which > space may be bent by performing such operations. OK Huang. I will have to make my own interpretation of your nonexistent length, but here is my next criticism: here you state that space may be bent by mixing your enlength (new word: quip of existent nonexistent length), yet the meaning of bending space via the construction is completely ignored here. To take this level of freedom there is a large gap you will have to fill in, and the level of interpretation that you surmise does not seem so straightforward as you propose. I can't buy this as a serious analysis, particularly not atop granting existence to nonexistent length. Still, I accept that you are a complex thinker and have formed a thought process that you are sticking with. To me the trouble is that the steps are too large. I encourage you keep taking the freedoms you do, but also encourage you to take a more critical view of your own work. - Tim > If it were not for > this limitation we would be able to bend space in ways which nature > will not allow. This is similar to the speed of light being the cosmic > speed limit. I do not have a more formal derivation at this time but > believe that it may be easier to model this using conjecture than > mathematics, and then convert the whole thing back into a mathematical > argument. I should probably study some more QM and try to make some > more formal derivations, but it does seem that gravity would be a > pretty good place to start. > > (a) I used the word "probable" for illustrative purposes only. Formal > probability theory technically cannot be used to make conjectures > because PT is orthodox mathematics. Instead, existential potential > must be used in place of probability theory. But to make the > explanation as clear as possible I sometimes use the word "probable" > as a means of conveying the broader idea.
From: Huang on 22 Jul 2010 22:14 On Jul 22, 8:40 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical > > > construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, > > > and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I > > > interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its > > > description. > > > > I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the > > > rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've > > > tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat > > > on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to > > > provide observational correspondence. > > > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 Jacpaints 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. > > > > > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > > > > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > > > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > > > > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > > > > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > > > > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > > > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > > > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > > > > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > > > > and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > 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. Futher, I dont > > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. > > > So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows: > > > Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments > > and nonexistent segments. Planck length is the smallest unit of length > > which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with > > standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be > > understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is > > a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length > > segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe > > that this is the only correct view, but that there are several > > approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of > > Einstein's Equivalence Principle. > > > Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as > > [eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee] > > > and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as > > [nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn] > > > If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have > > uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent. > > Some examples of would include an infinite number of different > > discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous > > distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont > > include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it. > > > My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where > > nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we > > have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is > > expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length > > represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion > > less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one > > were to attempt to make an observation. > > > This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical > > couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches > > are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the > > mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically > > intractible. > > > So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a > > conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which > > space may be bent by performing such operations. > > OK Huang. I will have to make my own interpretation of your > nonexistent length, but here is my next criticism: here you state that > space may be bent by mixing your enlength (new word: quip of existent > nonexistent length), yet the meaning of bending space via the > construction is completely ignored here. To take this level of freedom > there is a large gap you will have to fill in, and the level of > interpretation that you surmise does not seem so straightforward as > you propose. I can't buy this as a serious analysis, particularly not > atop granting existence to nonexistent length. Still, I accept that > you are a complex thinker and have formed a thought process that you > are sticking with. To me the trouble is that the steps are too large. > I encourage you keep taking the freedoms you do, but also encourage > you to take a more critical view of your own work. > > - Tim A fair criticism and you probably gave me more than most would dare. Just to elaborate a bit on the space bending might be in order... If you have model one of these gradients using conjectural methods, the whole thing should be easily convertible back into standard mathematics. However, we know what bent space looks like in the context of relativity. It is not so simple a thing, it is a bit tricky. Standard GR does not just hand you some bend space like a warped piece of plastic. You have to proceed like Einstein to say that acceleration is equivalent to a gravity field, and so whether space is bent or not can depend on your frame of reference. When you convert form conjecture back to mathematics, it must map to that same exact siatuation in GR somehow. I think that when you take the nonexistent and mix with the existent, you have infinitely many possible ways to partition such a conglomerate and they are all "equivalent" - THIS is critical to understand how to do that. Critical to understand how to map to that peculiar situation which we find in GR. Now for the mind blower - Modelling with Existential Indeterminacy is "equivalent" to modelling with mathematics. So - any space bending which you do by making conjectural models is essentially nullified when you convert back to mathematics. So - we have something very similar to the case we discussed in GR. The space bending can be made to "go away" due to an equivalence relation, just like in GR. Mind bending !!
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. |