Re: Geometric Form

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: Geometric Form


> Peter Kinane wrote:
>> Re "This is clearly required because of the simple observation that
>> nature uses no coordinates []":
>> Does it use "geometric forms"?
>> Does it use math?
>>
>> "So any valid theory of physics must be expressible in a [geometry and
>> math]-free manner."?
>
> Hmmm. Math in general, and geometry in particular are the methods used to
> formulate physical theories. Such theories of course are _models_ of the
> world, and are not the world itself. The world itself clearly does what
> you ask. Our theories of the world are models, and must therefore involve
> math and geometry.
>
> Within those models, however, if any coordinate system was special, then
> the model could not be an accurate model of the world, as the world uses
> no coordinates and therefore has no special coordinate system.
>
>
>> What philosophy system does your understanding- -notion of nature
>> express?
>
> I am discussing physics, not philosophy.
>

Re "no special coordinate system":
Does this imply "no special-preferred- frame (in general)"? If not, what's
the difference?
It seems to me that if Nature features a multilicity of contending preferred
frames, contending special co-ordinate systems will also emerge.

This is important because you are making Physics your preferred frame, quite
independent of Philosophy. And your preferred Physics frame is Special
Relativity. (Where would that leave your logic?)

I suggest "the world" 'is' all about preferred frames 'and' co-ordinate
systems, though Nature may not until recently have expressed this in math
form - and you are an example.

This then would bring focus onto your "the world". Options of preferred
frames here too become the issue. Philosophy features, and different systems
come into tension.

Otherwise, it seems to me, we are to be little more than computer-like
symbol shufflers.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Geometric Form
    ... "So any valid theory of physics must be expressible in a -free manner."? ... Our theories of the world are models, and must therefore involve math and geometry. ... Within those models, however, if any coordinate system was special, then the model could not be an accurate model of the world, as the world uses no coordinates and therefore has no special coordinate system. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... >>light is independent of the source as a function of geometry. ... deeper questions physics into a shallow debate over semantics. ... I will only justify my assumptions at the same level you do. ... Your refusal to understand what the math means ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What to study?
    ... >I was under the impression that topology and geometry were similar in natural, and may even go hand-in-hand in some cases. ... wide knowledge of different areas of math that you need at this point. ... Organize the proof in your head in outline form, ... then actually write them down (presentation mode), ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Gravitational field of a homogeneous universe
    ... >> have the raw math required to parse it. ... the Casimir effect is a prediction of Quantum Field Theory, ... >> our universe according to GR and QM? ... >> Im going to muse for a minute about geometry. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The "GOODBYE ALBERT" Experiment.
    ... So Henri, where did you go to school? ... Math is hard, as you ... > create a geometry that will maintain a constant c under all circumstances. ... > Geese, I'll tell you a secret, RELATIVITY EXPLAINS NOTHING! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)