Re: SR & probability problem - please explain


rotchm@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >xxein: You still don't know what you are doing. Sorry that I have to
> >say that, but I don't want to be associated any wrong math or physics
> >unless it is my own.
>
> Ok, that understandable. but can you show me what I am doing wrong or
> what did I not understand?

xxein: You seem too willing to accept to accept a mathematical logic
over a physical logic. You must learn the difference.

Basically, with art, you can draw anything you imagine. Our
imaginations are full of stuff. If we apply math to that, it becomes a
mathematical application of our imagination. We can state a math
formula that describes, say, the pixels (meaning the detail), but we
cannot say (with that math formula) why those pixels were represented
to us as such. We are more willing to to find invented reason than
physical cause. OK. That didn't say much, but it reflects the method
we use --- math or physics.

The severity of self-deception occurs by choosing math over physics.
It is the physics we are trying to describe --- not the other way
around. Math can describe anything we can imagine, while there is only
one reality. This should be a big clue in how to think about physics.

If physics were opaque, there would be no generational theories. But
parts of it are still invisible to us. So we guess what ties it all
together. Some of are better than others at doing this. But that
doesn't seem to matter to those who rely more on math. To those, a
picture of an upside-down fish looks like a bicycle and they have the
math to prove it. A little fudge here, an invented relative constant
there and you have an instant belief.

Are you spinning on your own ?-axis right now? How do you know you are
not? You get the 'feel' by looking at things larger than you. Are you
inertial, NO. What is your state of being in this universe? Cosmology
has determined that the universe is expanding, yet there is gravity
(albeit universal and more pronounced locally to R:M) that is the
condition of that grand thought.

The question of whether an indefinite number squared is still an
indefinite number has no essence of applicability to physics. Do you
understand that? The reason is countability. It changes as the
universe does. Physics happens once in an infinitesimal instant! If
it is repeated in measurement then there is a regularity with the gross
structures that we can measure. But, we know that there are
self-similarities in the physical structural hierarchy that are not
exact and we should pay heed to them by not associating them so closely
together as an overlying physical law. They are definite divisions of
the increasingly deeper reality - repeatedly.

More importantly, you arrived at 3.71... instead of 3.73... . This is
incorrect in all respects of flat ether dynamics or flat SR. How did
you arrive at this number? Iow, show us what you think (if you don't
mind).

.

Relevant Pages

  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Should math be held to be literally the language of physics?
    ... > physics student, not a math major. ... when you get a physics major you get a minor in math for free! ... nothing else to say other than "is too a derivation!". ... > experiment in a Galilean universe and reach a contradiction. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?
    ... a "twisted math". ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ... | solution is to find out how the universe allows us to view and measure ... | yrs.) --- and the physics community at large for the last 20 yrs.) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast