Re: The Retreat From Reality
From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 10/27/04
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: The Retreat From Reality"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Retreat From Reality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Oct 2004 11:55:57 -0700
"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:2u94c9F27qi3hU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8097fcc.0410262312.621c3315@posting.google.com...
> > Your reply did not come through in Google.
> It may show up later. I am not sure what the policy is but it has
> something to do with 3 to 9 hour delays. I am shopping around for a news
> reader better that Outlook Express. Whether Google's newly aquired stock
> holders know that 3 to 9 hours delays make the term "news group" a huge
> oxymoron is anyone's guess. Personally, I prefer Yahoo because of the
> HTML capability but the clientel' ranges from the absurb to mathematical
> models of the absurb.
> >
> > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:2u75k2F27d0suU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> > > news:d8097fcc.0410260233.18831d69@posting.google.com...
> > > > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:2u65ofF25ufo2U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > Exerpt:
> >
> > > > > each of them. This means that present-day physical theory is
> > > > > based on some thirty or forty assumptions about entities that
> are
> > > > > almost totally unknown.
> > > > > } http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bpm/index.htm
> > > > > http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bpm/bpm18.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, much baggage from primal nature still features.
> > > >
> > > > So, treat yourself to a sabbatical from same and make a start at
> > > > considering the potential of this system:
> > > >
> http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
> > >
> > > Nice web site Peter. Thanks.
> > > With no desrespect to your line of thinking, you'll probably find
> > > it is easier to identify Maxwell's errors than try to make sense of
> > > Einstein's solutions. Too much focus on the "properties" of time
> > > can overshadow what the principle of relativity implies for
> > > forces between entities with relative motion.
> >
> > The essential point of my reply to your extract was that, to use your
> > terms,
> > "the principle of relativity", or, as I would say, the relational
> > nature of value, should be dealt with in the radically different
> > manner I suggested rather than looking at things from different
> > perspectives, albeit cumulatively.
> >
> > Our different opinions very probably arise through our different
> > premises
> > manifesting in our terms "the principle of relativity" and "the
> > relational
> > nature of value".
> <<Definition of Principle of relativity
> In general, the principle of relativity is the requirement that the laws
> of physics be the same for all observers. Somewhat more particularly,
> the measurements an observer makes in his frame of reference of an
> important event are related in a particular way to those made by another
> observer.
> >> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Principle_of_relativity
>
> >
> > Perhaps you would say a few words, if only in the context of Physics,
> > why you choose to express a world of "forces between entities with
> > relative motion" and reject or fail to address a world which expresses
> > relational nature of value, and which crystallises or selects a single
> > frame of reference?
> If you were deprived use of the word "time" could you not still express
> the laws of physics. Begin with: "Your weight on the moon is one sixth
> that on earth regardless of the time."
> See how far you can get before you need a clock.
> >
> > > You say about as much in your paragraphs:
> > > { Effectuationism is a contrast: Value, effecting through, and
> > > indeed as, relationship of forces, and is- -am inferentially
> > > multi-faceted.
> >
> > Yes, but the point is the connotations of same and how to advance from
> > there. I recognise the relational nature of value, select a single
> > frame of reference and get on with business.
> Newton, presumably Maxwell, and Einstein take what I regard as a primal
> (non)sense approach and express a great
> bungle in finding it necessary to see things from more than one frame of
> reference or an accumulation of FoRs.
>
> This is one, but not the only argument for or against the existance of
> an electrodynamanic ether. If submarines had bathtubs and patios, you
> would not expect experiments on the patio to match those in the bathtub
> if the boat is submerged and cruising. But we do expect a pair of radios
> on the deck of an aircraft carrier to work just the same as a pair of
> radios in the hanger deck, regardless of the boat's motion.
> > Bring out TECCS (see chapter), and bear in mind
> > > the s equation when determining, from any selected- -logged
> > > value, positions of objects for the system.
> >
> > Note: "any selected- -logged value".
> >
> > >
> > > So, PoR seems to be a system produced during the collapse of a
> > > philosophy system, and somewhat in denial and haste. Lacking a
> > > good philosophical foundation, it seems to use a combination of
> > > the old absoluteness and the new relativity. It is complicated or
> > > convoluted.
> > > }
> > > http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/23/38.html?1095628994
> > >
> It isn't clear to me whether you are making a case for or against the
> principle of relativity.
Here we have a bit of substance at last. You have not got a clue what
I am saying and lack the self confidence to say so. (But my point may
have been of interest to some readers).
> > >
> > > Einstein's use of time as an imaginary axis doesn't imply a real
> world
> > > equivalent any more than you can run an extra light bulb off the
> > > "apparent power" of a reactive electrical load.
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Sue...
> >
> > The title of your thread is "The Retreat From Reality" and seems to
> > imply
> > that Einstein's work is a retreat from reality. So, I am proposing
> > that
> > Einstein's "time" (and "space") be sent on vacation, the better to
> > consider
> > the radically new "axis" being proposed and to try to advance towards
> > "a real world".
>
> I made no mention of Einstein or Maxwell and the page I linked includes
> him with about 10 other noted physicists. Will ya send me a case of that
> stuff if I give you the address?
>
> >
> > It seems to me that "the real world" recognises the relative nature of
> > value, regards the best in some respect(s) that tends to be on offer
> > as good enough, and crystallises. It does not try to be all things-
> > -perspectives; it makes do with one and goes on accordingly. The
> > science of Quantum Mechanics seems not to be concerned with multiple
> > FoRs, nor is my philosophy system, and I'm confident an efficient and
> > simpler navigation system would result from a
> > selected single FoR - as at URL above.
> (I am not familiar with Maxwell's electromagnetism, and do not know how
> that would fare).
> You'll get nowhere without it so dig in!
> Kind regards,
> Sue...
I half expected that you would use it as a means of rapid escape.
>
> I have to go
> > further
> > and say that the notion of a subject and object world - axiomatic to
> > Relativity - is appropriate to a certain order of Nature or level of
> > evolution; it comes after QM level of order and precedes
> > Effectuationism.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Kinane
> > http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
-- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com/
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: jahn: "Re: The Retreat From Reality"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Retreat From Reality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
