Re: johnreed take 1


randamajor@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > <randamajor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1113250453.223853.228120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> > From: "Bill Hobba" <bho...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - Find messages by this
> > author
> > Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:09:12 GMT
> > Local: Fri,Apr 8 2005 2:09 pm
> > Subject: Re: johnreed take 1
> > Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show
> > original | Report Abuse
> >
> >
> >
> > <randama...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > news:1112991737.892996.147710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > > Today the mathematical descriptions of the universe on the
> blackboard
> >
> > > and in the published papers, are abstract and devoid of any
> > conceptual
> > > connection to physical reality.
> >
> >
> > John do you actually know the theories you criticize in this way?
> For
> > example can you describe to me what renormalization is all about?
> >
> > jr writes:
> > Off the cuff Bill I know that it is a mathematical way of making
> > unacceptable answers acceptable. Like eliminating results like
> > singularities and infinities. The one method that comes to memory
is
> > dividing the set of infinite numbers by the set of even infinite
> > numbers. In no way am I proficient here.
> >
> > Bill Hobba
> > Then you really have no basis to make the comments you do. The
> answer is
> > some QFT's blow up with infinity. To solve the problem we apply
> physical
> > insight - not mathematics - but physical insight. Physically it is
> > reasonable to assume that we may be including areas of physics we
> know
> > nothing about -
>
> jr writes>
> Now that is a reasonable conclusion.
>
> eg energies way beyond anything we can investigate.
> jr writes>
> Yes we have trouble with the focus of the earth attractor force we
> feel. Don't we Bill?
>
> It is
> > quite reasonable to say maybe we should neglect these
contributions.
> So we
> > impose an energy cutoff and low and behold the infinities
disappear.
>
> jr writes>
> Sure sounds like magic Bill.
>
> But
> > the question is what cutoff should we use? Then we again make use
of
> > physical insight and say - if this is a legitimate procedure then
> formulas
> > should give values we obtain from experiment. So we write down the
> formula
> > and this time instead of expressing the result in terms of a
> prediction we
> > plug in the value from experiment - this value is called the
> renormalized
> > value. And when we do that we find something marvelous in some
> theories -
> > the formula can be written in terms of renormalized value and not
> contain
> > the cutoff. Thus we have eliminated the cutoff and replaced it
with
> > something we can measure - the renormalized value.
>
> jr writes>
> This is nice Bill. I have no problem with it. Its not my field
however,
> nor is it my focus in physics.
>
> Such theories are called
> > renormlaisable. The point is it is the physics that drives the
math
> - not
> > the other way round.
> >
> jr writes>
> Yes. The universe we live within is stable. That stability drives the
> math. We agree here apparently.
>
> > > The American physicist, Steven
> > > Weinberg, wrote, "... it is always hard to realize that these
> numbers
> >
> > > and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with
> the
> >
> > > real world." With the phrase, "...something to do with the real
> > > world", Weinberg reveals that the mathematician has an unformed
> idea
> > > as to what his abstractions represent conceptually.
> >
> >
> > Weinberg believes in objective reality as I, and most physicists,
do
> -
> > http://www.physics.nyu.edu/fac­ulty/sokal/weinberg.html
> >
> > jr writes>
> >
> > I don't have the time today to get there Bill, but I will examine
the
> > sight asap. I make no judgements of men here. Weinberg is a Nobel
> > Laureate and a fine mathematician physicist. I am only interested
in
> > the quote.
> >
> > Bill Hobba
> > OK.
> >
> >
> > 'When I was an undergraduate at Cornell I heard a lecture by a
> > professor of
> > philosophy (probably Max Black) who explained that whenever anyone
> > asked him
> > whether something was real, he always gave the same answer. The
> answer
> > was
> > "Yes." The tooth fairy is real,
> >
> > jr writes>
> >
> > So much for philosophy.
> >
> > the laws of physics are real, the rules of
> > baseball are real, and the rocks in the fields are real. But they
are
> > real
> > in different ways.
> >
> > jr writes>
> >
> > Not the tooth fairy.
> >
> > What I mean when I say that the laws of physics are real
> > is that they are real in pretty much the same sense (whatever that
> is)
> > as
> > the rocks in the fields, and not in the same sense (as implied by
> > Fish19) as
> > the rules of baseball --
> >
> > jr writes>
> >
> > Yes I understand this, I think. One could then say that Ptolemy
> > described the solar system with the rules of baseball.
> >
> > we did not create the laws of physics or the rocks
> > in the field, and we sometimes unhappily find that we have been
wrong
> > about
> > them, as when we stub our toe on an unnoticed rock, or when we find
> we
> > have
> > made a mistake (as most physicists have) about some physical law.
But
> > the
> > languages in which we describe rocks or in which we state physical
> laws
> > are
> > certainly created socially, so I am making an implicit assumption
> > (which in
> > everyday life we all make about rocks) that our statements about
the
> > laws of
> > physics are in a one- to-one correspondence with aspects of
objective
> > reality.
> >
> > jr writes>
> >
> > Yes, but the one to one relationship need not be correct outside
the
> > mathematical representation. For example: if a function is
> > differentiable we will obtain its minimum boundary condition when
we
> > differentiate.
> >
> > Bill Hobba
> > That is not what we obtain when we differentiate.
> >
> jr writes>
> Yes my error perhaps in haste here. I meant to say "least action
> function".
> For example if we differentiate the function that describes the
volume
> of the sphere we get the function that describes the area of a
sphere.
> This is pretty consistent to my knowledge.
>
> > We obtain the maximum space it contains when we
> > integrate. Now, this is an aspect of the mathematics that I cannot
> > explain. But it clearly lends itself well to least action systems.
> > Since stable systems must be efficient to the degree they are
stable,
> > the math applies readily to a stable universe.
> >
> > Bill Hobba
> > I think you are confused about calculus. May I suggest you study
> analysis?
>
> jr writes>
> You may suggest anything Bill. It may not apply however.
> >
> >
> > Now if the quantity "mass" operates within a least action system
> where
> > it can be quantified, can we conclude that it will operate in
another
> > least action system in a proportionally quantified manner, where it
> > cannot be directly quantified?
> >
> > Bill Hobba
> > I have no idea what you are trying to say.
> >
> jr writes>
> Any system that we can in principle measure the quantity is OK. I am
> talking about weighing the earth etc.
>
> > To put it another way, if we ever discover intelligent creatures
on
> > some distant planet and translate their scientific works, we will
> find
> > that
> > we and they have discovered the same laws.
> >
> > jr writes>
> >
> > Yes. To the extent of their development and ours. They may be
> advanced
> > or primitive compared to us. Easy to imagine a likelihood for
either
> > case.'
> >
> >
> >
> > > Consider the
> > > words of the late Hungarian mathematician and physicist, Eugene
P.
> > > Wigner, "...the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural
> > > sciences is something bordering on the mysterious... there is no
> > > rational explanation for it." It is in the contemplation of the
> > > mathematics and the operation of the stable systems in the
> universe,
> > > that I found the rational explanation for it. Galileo may have
> been
> > > the first to formally assert that, "...the laws of nature are
> written
> >
> > > in the language of mathematics." Today we may elaborate.
> Stability
> > > in the field requires economy in cyclic motion.
> >
> >
> > ??????????. Stability in physics (and engineering for that matter)
> > usually
> > refers how sensitive a systems equations are to a perturbation.
> >
> > jr writes>
> > Yes my tools are different. I would say that a naturally occuring
> > stable physical system retains its stability through perpetuity to
> the
> > extent that it does not display inefficient action. Or something
> > similar.
> >
> >
> > > The invariant aspects
> > > of the stable systems within the physical universe, toward which
we
> > > necessarily direct our investigative efforts, derive from least
> > action
> > > functions*.
> >
> >
> > The PLA lies at the base of much of physics - true. And
conservation
> > laws
> > are really symmetries in the lagrangian - Noethers powerful result.
> > So?
> >
> > jr writes>
> > Our classical system for physics functions from the quantity mass.
> >
> > Bill Hobba
> > The basis of classical physics is not mass - it is the PLA, the POR
> and the
> > galelain transformations. See Landau - Mechanics.
>
> jr writes>
> Are you quibbling over inconsequentials here Bill? How much must I
pare
> my conversation down. I am the one claiming its all the PLA not you
and
> not classical physics. Newton you will recall essentially began the
> structure for classical physics. Robert Boyle and Hooke and Huygens
and
> etc etc and etc would have had no major carrier without mass. I say
> that classical physics functions from the quantity mass... because
> without it it is nothing. It is also the focus of a major argument I
> represent. This argument will eventually change classical physics.
And
> it is a simple question regarding mass.
>
>
> >
> > Bill
>
> jr writes>
> Come on Bill. Lets not make a mockery of it. The important
information
> from me to you is the paragraph below. Do you just not want to face
it?
> Should we just pretend that it does not matter?
> >
> > We
> > assign the attraction the earth has on matter to this quantity
mass.
> > However, we can perform no experiment that differentiates (non
> calculus
> > use) between the mass of an atom and the atom itself, such that we
> can
> > determine the focus of the attraction.
>
> jr writes>
> Doesn't the above paragraph bother you? That is the focus of this
post
> Bill. The trivia you throw at me pales in significance to your
failure
> to address the above. Tell me I am wrong Bill. Tell me that we can
> differentiate between the mass of an atom and the atom itself, such
> that we can determine the focus of the earth attractor. That is where
> you score the point Bill. Not in this other drivel you put forward.
>
>
> johnreed

OK Bill:
I don't expect you to suddenly grasp the fact that you are engaging in
an historically important scientific discussion. I don't expect you to
recognize the fact that all the elements for a unified field theory are
in place, within my first 6 posts. I don't expect that the universal
law of gravitation will suddenly be corrected nor do I expect that any
text books will be rewritten soon. But when you ask me a question and I
respond to that question, I do expect the response to be addressed, if
only with incredulity.

I try to address all your comments. As shallow as they may appear to
be, and certainly all your questions. As you say Bill, "We didn't make
the laws of physics." We must discover them. Rigor is not something
that is reserved solely for the mathematician. Rigor in thought
requires among other things, that you start at the right spot and that
no stone be left unturned, no matter how inconvenient lifting it may
appear to be.

The fact of it is, once we recognize that the earth attractor acts on
individual atoms and not on the masses of the individual atoms (while
inertia does function from the mass of the atom), the entire mystical
notion of a deep physical reality hidden within bizarre mathematical
equations vanishes. A clarity falls out of the math for a take 6 atom
and a constructive fusion process for star mechanics.

A much needed clarity, wouldn't you agree Tonto?
Yes kemo sabay, a much needed clarity. So I guess our work here is
finished eh kemo sabay?
Yes Tonto, for now anyway.
Where to next kemo sabay?
Olaf Roemer, Tonto, Hi Yo Silver Away.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: johnreed take 1
    ... Bill Hobba wrote: ... nor is it my focus in physics. ... this is an aspect of the mathematics that I cannot ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... It's bullshit Bill. ... Scandinavian languages that I without greater difficulties ... > Yada Yada Yada - make a prediction with your word games and we will see ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... It's bullshit Bill. ... Scandinavian languages that I without greater difficulties ... > Yada Yada Yada - make a prediction with your word games and we will see ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What it takes NOT to be a revolutionary thinker
    ... > fast destroyer Bill H. is on a multiple attack run in revenge for its ... > of its capital ship the Tom R. the outcome of which is at present ... > lost smirks Kirk as its navcom's a bit shot. ... Loosen up PD this is not meant to be Physics although it may be a science ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Today in Sticklers Ancestors Histories
    ... Egged on by an amateur mathematician, the Indiana General Assembly ... almost passes a bill adopting 3.2 as the exact value of pi. ... theory it was, Waldo declined, saying he already knew enough crazy people.. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
Loading