Re: Geometric Form


"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dqt9do$66b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ----- 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?

Looking up a standard book on physics is the best way to discover what terms
mean. A frame is a conventional standard of rest against which experiments
can be conducted. A coordinate system is a labeling of points.

> It seems to me that if Nature features a multilicity of contending
> preferred frames, contending special co-ordinate systems will also emerge.

The principle of general covariance says otherwise.

>
> This is important because you are making Physics your preferred frame,

As usual you string words together in silly ways. Used here 'frame' does
not have the meaning used above - such semantic manipulation simply
introduces obfuscation. But, tautologically, yes relativity being part of
physics uses the methods of physics.

> 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.

Someone once posted they thought you were a computer program. They may be
correct.

Bill

>
> Peter Kinane
> http://www.effectuationism.com
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Let us be sure that we know what the problem is!
    ... observer, in any valid SR measurement frame, measures ... a photon is never at ... Math does not lie, not even in SR. ... physics 'ended' a longer time ago. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
    ... >the choice that "The rest frame of the ether is what ... The base to SR is a math base, ... Any physics equation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ABOUT THE USE OF THE LT
    ... often no physical frame is meant at all. ... So you understand that 'coordinate system' is not necessarily ... they exist out of the our sense of a relativity and measurement? ... Next up this ladder is physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... >>Velocities measured relative to that frame are just ... > frame, especially as used in SR, the ether, being ... No one needs to abandon the math of SR, ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ambiguity in the "Affine Connection"
    ... >>Velocities measured relative to that frame are just ... > frame, especially as used in SR, the ether, being ... No one needs to abandon the math of SR, ... and LET is the correct physics ...
    (sci.astro)