Re: a programm

On Apr 3, 11:16 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
.

xxein:
------------------------
Yes.  That is what we have attempted to do since the dawn of
whatever.  But you, too, are using a 'classical' approach.  What are
the definitions?  How do you make definitions?  How do you define
without using some classical sense?

TH
--------------------------
I use time as a starting point ant this is a process of counting, that does
not need a unit.
energy is dimensionless too. It is intensity of rotation summed over an area
(of spacetime). I use the timedefiniton of that observer to cut this into
pieces and transform it into the realm of observations.

xxein:
------------------------
Waves and particles are the same thing.  How do we choose to
differentiate them into separate sets of physics and math?  What does
your automata represent?  Iow, when we distinguish a wave or particle
as 'the' function, we make it 'classically' a wave or particle profile
without any consideration that they represent the same thing.

TH
--------------------------
that was the picture of the screw. It has two aspects, one is quantized (if
you scratch over the bolt) one is not (if you screw it in). The idea was
about rotation in something fourdimensional imaginary, described by
quaternions. Those quaternions have that properties of beeing
sc(r)ew-symmetric.
In fact, there was a lie. The automat is not what I wanted to model. I said
that somehow our world is working like that

xxein:
------------------------
Now add to that the fact that gravity exists.  Why and how does it
exist?  I'm sure I've said this before.  Explain it before you use it
as a 'classical' device in your supposedly 'non-classical' automata.

Gravity's features are well documented.  But this does not mean that
we understand the physic of it.  When we say we understand 'the
physics' of it, it only means that it has a predictive behavior.  Our
'physics' doesn't explain it, it only gives it a descriptive
behavior.  We can get similar results from any 'bully pulpit' telling
us how to think.

TH
--------------------------
I wanted to develop a model for spacetime of GR. That was my task. Somehow I
thought, whatever I find will be in accordance to GR too, because it is
based entirly on that ideas. I didn't worry much about gravity, because in
microlevels its not expected and on big scale I have GR to deal with it.
The hole thing is more or less geometric. I'm quite happy to have gravity
encoded into geometry of worldlines. The exact reason is not easy to find,
because of gravity is so enormously weak. In first approximation you may
simply forget about that.

Thomas Heger

xxein: Then what do you expect out of your model? To not represent
gravity? Why use GR then.

All you are doing is using spurious input from SR-GR to see what
happens. Not very well if you abandon the gravitational aspect of
it. Not very well if you restrict your model to a mathematic without
physicle principle either.

Look, I've been all over math and physics. You are not going to
produce "the cherry" with this. I can give you all kinds of
mathematical relationships regarding observation. The same from
within any theory based upon subjective measurement. None works to
date. You might as well consult a horoscope.

I just lied. But only in the context of subjective measurement.
Don't you wonder why others may measure different than you (SR)?
There, it is strictly implied, assumed and made holy that there are
different frames of observation. Along with that there is the 1st
postulate of SR. Don't let that mean anything beyond Lorentz. He
covered it well wrt non-gravity.

The main aspect of of all this is that there is gravity. It confuses
people into thinking that Lorentz has no meaning and that Einstein
somehow transformed our physics into gravity inclusive. Far from it.
There is no physic (physics) to transform. Only our understanding of
it.

An invention and application of a math cannot change the physic. It
leaves us with only the desire to know what the hell is going on.
While we may ponder or not, we may go through several beliefs. So
much for beliefs. But a wonder and a belief are not the same, are
they?

Would you believe anything I say? I hope not. I especially hope that
you do not make it your belief for what anybody else says. Whether
'gang' philosophy or physics philosophy, everyone has something to
say. The physic cannot hear it. It does what it does. Does that
make a clear sense?

While we strive to put a mechanism to the whole thing, we don't
understand it enough, in the proper context, to do so. All of our
attempts are biased to what we invent.

Inertial frame observations (SR) have a clarity in and only among
their exclusive selves. Clockrates are different, by their own
definition. We allow ourselves to be confused by that for the
'greater' part of a theory. It is only 'greater' because we choose to
believe a 'good enough'. Take that into any bar see how many fights
break out.

But let's get a little more serious here. You are trying to match a
math to the physic. I can't say "neither the twain shall meet", but I
can say that it hasn't yet. That is the present state of our physics
explaining the physic.

I hate to bring this up, but it is a similar contrast in the way we
attempt to think. Who's God is it, anyway? You might think that
physics is universally understood or that you will provide the Rosetta
to unify it. Why? It's just an abstract math.

We can do more with math than we can do with controlling any physical
effect. But one is completely abstract (guess).

Do not impose math. Use a physical logic.

Other than that, I'm done here.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics versus Mathematics
    ...  Bend your math anyway you like. ... Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force. ... can't quite do the same for gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Superiority of LET over SR!
    ... Ilja Schmelzer wrote: ... >> gravity is not evidence against LET ether! ... LET, as a physical explanation of SR math, is ... based on any physics, it is merely in the choice of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics versus Mathematics
    ... wondering what you think of gravity. ... physic or what we describe as physics, ... reject math your awareness on it is strong. ... from a continuum, and this ought to be more inline with a physicists ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... known quantities and making sure the math follows the established ... I just got lucky to find a huge gaping hole in quantum physics theory ... >>The strong force and gravity are both mainstream physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Marte, dus intors 5 ore !
    ... largely unrecognised kind of physics. ... elementary particles - while general relativity deals with gravity. ... Heim began to rewrite the equations of general ... An electron has both mass and charge. ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
Quantcast