Re: a programm

On Apr 7, 7:39 pm, "Thomas Heger" <hba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
xxein:
---------------------
You are missing a very basic point.  You cannot map math to the physic and
expect it to be anything congruent unless you can measure an activity
and be able to distinguish whether the measurement was affected by the
activity.  Iow, recognising the difference between objective and
subjective measurement.

TH
-------------------------
the basic idea is to precisely define the role of the observer. That is the
important point. Observer stands for any kind of experiment, measurement and
the space of our observation. That is governed by our fields, matter,
observations, 3d space ..
On the other hand I have the same phenomana modelled in an imaginary complex
space build out of quaternions. That is called the real space. Its real
because its not observed. This is because we humans are important, but don't
govern the laws of physics. If you want to understand the laws of physics
you can't measure. You can only guess. But there are strong restrictions for
guesses that come from measurements.

There is a corespondance between spacetime and space+time. The elements of
spacetime are mapped into our observation-space according to some rules.
First rule:  everything is related to an observer. That guy ( simply
anything could be an observer) is than the center of the universe.
Second: the signs of the metrics are swapped.
Third : various fields arise out of geometric relations in spacetime
Forth: everything get units and values (without an observer we couldn't
define a second)

Objective measurement you can't have. You can measure something that is
happening (in reality) but that is always subjective. You can't have
anything else, because everybody is allways somewhere. You can only perfom
measurements based on your own definitions. To some abstract imaginary truth
you dont have access. That doesn't mean, that reallity doesn't exist.

Thomas Heger

xxein: Granted that we can't an objective measurement (my bad), but
you can extract it. That is the essense of the physic.

The physic is the objective form of itself and how it reacts to
itself. But simply choosing certain conditions and making a physics
to the sum of its parts doesn't work. Unless you understand how the
physic works with itself, you will remain understanding only the sum
of its parts called physics.

To assume that some trick will allow us to completely understand is a
false hope. What we can do, however, is change "how" we believe.

We don't have to believe anything. The universe will not stop if we
don't believe a certain thing.

It is "what" we believe. This is our problem. The universe will
adapt to anything we attempt to do with it. So? Explode a BH. It
does not depend on anything we may use to describe it. It might
create a separate universe that (to our subjective measurement if we
were inside the event) would be the only universe to us.

So much for a lightcone. We really don't know, but we can speculate
better than we have done so in the past. It really doesn't require
rocket science (I have none) to gain an understanding of what is
surrounding us. We just let belief stand in the way.

If we choose to believe "Harry Potter", that is what and how we
believe. We will conform/contort a physics into that belief.

The issue becomes how a belief can possibly drive a physics into the
brick wall of the physic and claim a dominance by simple belief or an
abstract notion of a mathematic.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hooray: the Church of Scotland shows the way
    ... the measurement processes. ... phenomena - the classical mechanics of Newton for particles and the wave ... Unlike the other great pillar of modern physics, General Relativity, quantum ... needed is an understanding that includes the human observer as part of the ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe.
    ... >> talking about physical properties of real objects in the universe. ... >> every single physical object in the universe in a physics lab, ... >> relativity theory. ... no observable cyclical behaviour (relative to an observer). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?
    ... a math into it later. ... different period than the surface observer. ... measurement purposes. ... yrs.) --- and the physics community at large for the last 20 yrs.) ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Two EPR questions
    ... >> must arise whenever one wants to ask whether an observer will ... Is its Markov model an ontological theory? ... There's a psychological problem which has led theoretical physics ... >> Lorentz invariance and relativity are important when one needs to ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... >>>The observer doesn't have this effect. ... The theory of relativity ... >This is essential to the difference between physics and mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)