Re: Physics versus Mathematics

On Jul 27, 10:24 pm, xxein <xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 26, 1:50 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"



<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 25, 9:55 pm,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:42 pm,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
xxein: I can appreciate a good answer even if it opposes what I think
the physic actually IS. Not that yours did.

I am no newbie to figuring out the objective physic, but I am
wondering what you think of gravity. I have come to a satisfactory
(near) explanation/conclusion for how gravity actually 'works' in the
natural essence. Of course I don't have a BH wired up nor a LHC in my
basement, but I would like it if you could give me a particle or wave
synopsis that I might consider (that is not of the run of the mill
variety).

What is your driving concept?

I ask because my concept (although similar to some past considered
kooks) was developed with what I hope is a completely external logic.
Iow, the physic from scratch. It seems to work very well in
explaining almost all new things we discover as we go on.

Pioneer was a stumbling block for me (for example). I had possible
answers but they all lacked a connectedness, completion and
continuity. I could not satisfy the logic I had developed for a
'single/singular' universe. I think I can do it now (thought of as I
write this).

So with this post at hand, what IS gravity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: So. It seems that you all recognize that I don't take the
physic or what we describe as physics, lightly. But don't follow me.
Do some thinking for yourself.

I know that very few of us are inclined or can think on this level,
but it is worth an effort that seems beyond the effort of even less
than the few.

There is Einstein who seems unassailable. Why? Did he have a TOE?
Did he reconcile Q-theories?

What are we missing? All we have are theories that set/describe their
own conditions.

We don't need anymore rhetoric about tweaking existing theories. We
need new thinking.

Some have done that and received the usual response of "it doesn't
comply with what we presently believe". Why should it? There are
surely an infinite number of such concepts that can comply to how we
wish to think of the physic.

But there is only one physic.

The keywords here are 'wish' and 'believe'. Like the physic might be
malleable to that? We are too much into our subjective observation
without the reality of the objective physic. We have it fairly right
that our sun will eventually become a red giant and engulf our Earth,
but we still cannot agree on a c+ (or -v) for light between frames or
a changing of a frame (gravity and/or expansion for how they apply).
What's with that?

We have always made observations/concepts and made a math to accord to
it. But now it seems that we will allow a math to drive a concept.
We are wishy-washy.

In the past we allowed ourselves to believe in all sorts of things
that we find to be untrue now. What's going to be the next belief/
concept we will wish to discard?

It has to be replaced by something new, of course, but it can never be
the ultimate. It is an 'artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of
sorts' that we do in our feeble attempt to understand the physic.

I hope no one minds that I spellchecked some of the previous post.

Hixxein. I like reading your posts here. Even though you seem to
reject math your awareness on it is strong.

xxein: I don't reject math. I just find it as a capriciously formed
and applied tool of our mental organization. While it has the
capability of a useful mapping of/for how we wish to view a physical
structure (our belief), it still has no intrinsic physical
attributes. It is just a tool we use for an awareness.

I think we should seek a more natural math for physics. For instance
the real number as constructed from integers is a fallacy to a
spacetime continuum. Instead it is much easier to get discrete values
from a continuum, and this ought to be more inline with a physicists
approach, except for those who want to play out solutions on a
lattice, but I don't see how they can do this sanely.

xxein: Math is arbitrary in its construction. Agreed. We measure
something and assign a value to it. That would be just fine if
nothing moved (except light), but we are into the subjectively based
observations called relativity. Things do move and that causes the
energy gradient to constantly change, including all the way to how
light moves. I can't put it all here in a post.

That's an interesting awareness to maintain. I know that the apparent
energy of an object changes with velocity but I don't think I have so
rounded out a view of this as you. Perhaps you could expound on what
you see as the crux here. I suppose we'll wind up at rest mass which
of itself is troubling; can you really get an electron to stand still?
What then of its rest mass figure? We think of protons as slower but
can't they suffer the same problem?


The point of the math is that it relies on the values we give to it
and they change do to the conditions that are the very ones we are
trying to describe with math in the first place, but that is not the
fault of a math, itself. We just tweak it to accommodate for the
changing values we measure. Perhaps I said that to lightly. We tend
to distort a math to fit our observation or else put layers on top of
it (manipulate it into creative areas). The physics remains the same
all throughout.





Cartesian thinking is really basic and universal to modern sight, but
this relies upon the real number. Time is unidirectional, not
bidirectional. Furthermore we do not have any degree of freedom in
time as we do with the three spatial dimensions. Are you free to go
back 1hour or forward 1 hour? There is no freedom in either direction.
The attribution of a real valued component to time is a misnomer. A
cleaner math exists at
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned
which exposes a simpler number than the real number which is
unidirectional and zero dimensional yet still performs algebra. It
exposes the complex numbers as the next general number type in a
progression which includes the reals. This perspective helps explain
how the complex number can come into physical systems naturally. The
discrete/continuous paradigm is refreshed under the polysign
construction.

xxein: A continuum if fine by me (for what that's worth). It means
that we assign a math to continuous functions. No problem, except
that we assign numbers to them. It doesn't need numbers. You don't
need numbers to catch a fly ball.

Here I think your (un)happiness with heaps of math is catching up with
you. Already you are up to continuous functions which are built upon
quite a pile. In fact continuous functions rarely are a direct match
to the physical world. A particle path is not a continuous function
since it is free to trace out a path and wind up at the same position.
The continuous function only makes sense if you are willing to ascribe
a 1D geometry to time. If we reject this then we are in a loopy space
where calculus is not quite so clean. Path lengths and differentials
can still make sense, but areas under curves are no longer what they
were. While I cannot fully reject the continuous function as fiction I
do not believe that the continuum itself relies upon such a high level
construction.

I tend to think in terms of magnitude as a fundamental and while
instances may vary from zero upwards other representations do seem
acceptable, including a unity to zero space for magnitude. Here we can
see that where the real valued continuum was built upon the integer
that a large (e.g. 123450000.001) value implies a far away position.
Yet things far away are quite meaningless to the local frame. The
direct relation of say one hundred oranges to one hundred meters is
arbitrary. Consider zero meters and how important a position that is.
So does it make sense that its value cancels in a product? Perhaps we
have an inversion in our Cartesian sense of continuum. It follows from
this thinking that the infinity that one gets when we apply the
classical gravitational force at short distances may be quite wrong.
By inverting our sense of distance to
y = 1 / ( x + 1 )
we can clean up the classical force equations. For instance gravity
now looks like
F = m1 r1 m2 r2
with no infinities. You see this is an indicator of the falsity of the
reliance upon the real number as constructed from the integers. We are
left with the situation that it will be easier to rename reality than
it will be to rename the real number. In effect the word real could
become farcical. Reality includes a feature called time which does not
posess two directions and so should not be attributed a full real
dimension. I've somewhat joikingly renamed reality triality in the
past.

I cannot say that this distance transform is a finality. It exposes an
alternative primitive and it is deep down here where better solutions
will be found. Upon working higher up the heap one is not so free to
address the basis directly. You are happy with the real valued basis
by training I think. But that step right there may be a large mistake.
Yes, I do see its cleanliness. But it can be generalized further. The
polysign construction is proof of this. Marrying the generalization of
sign with the product feature that I've exposed above here suggests
that torque interactions exist in nature. As I try this out it leads
over to thermodynamics and perhaps gravity too.

Thomas and I both have a desire to work with a more native spacetime
than an arbitrary RxRxRxR.
This takes us back to the time of Hamilton and his quaternion
discovery.
If I could talk with Hamilon then I'd show him how the polysign number
not only extends the complex number into higher dimension but that the
complex number itself is an extension from the real number naturally
and that time lays just beneath the real number in this progression.
That spacetime has a natural basis without an arbitrary choice. That
arithmetic product relations are common to nature and this natural
spacetime basis. That electromagnetism is a feature of spacetime
itself and that the electron's spin is inherent because of this. Oops,
got a little past Hamilton there...


Otoh, if there are quanta, we could count them. But, still, we
wouldn't have a pristine number because of the energy field. It leads
back to an almost infinity that becomes a continuity.

But again, we have R=2M and R=3M which have significance. It is not

You've lost me here. I've not seen R=2M or if I have it's not waking
anything up.
I am familiar with interpretations that QM impies high dimension
solutions but I've not fully grasped how they claim this. Anyhow
another way to attack QM is to ask whether it has recovered any of
traditional physics? For instance rather than derive any electric
effect of charge it has merely applied the old classical field upon
itself higher up. As soon as you start considering an electron taking
all paths then shouldn't you have thrown away such a law? Have they
recovered such a simple relation as F=qE? If they have then it should
be on center stage in their presentations, but it is not.

the 2 or 3 though. It is a relation we have built (a damned good one)
that allows us to express in this manner and form. But it becomes
malformed in the lesser physics due to local subjective observation.
Quantum cannot describe a gravity, for instance, because it will
discard anything below 10^30 on its own scale. The observation of the
cosmos gives gravity more observability.

Math as numbers is simply assigned relations. We can easily have one
set for this and one set for another that we can assign a changing
value arbitrarily out of an ignorance. As above, we can make a math
into anything we like. Stack one set of math upon another. Make a
new math. The physic remains what its function is.

I don't know if I touched your sense of the physic, but I surely hope
that I have touched your sense of a math.

What are numbers now?

Sure I'm with you. We could go toward nature as well. What math is
generating such rich dynamics? Certainly not the flat and straight
real number. So I'm sure that when you use 'physic' you are
incorporating an appreciation of nature. Should we hope for a clean
simple explanation? Where are numbers in this? When the mathematician
moves from a real value such as 1.234 to the value 'a' they have a
deep sense of satisfaction. It's a relief. Our three dimensional sense
of space is substantial and so I do feel comfortable relying upon
mathematics which though self-referential is consistent, or at least
fairly consistent. That 'three-dimensional' concept is defined on the
reals so we've relied upon them to get this satisfaction. I try to
break this. One substantial point is that this three dimensional
constancy is only satisfied on a solid. Proof in a fluid form will be
more challenging. I am happy to treat the problems of physics as open
problems. This does require skepticism but that does not mean outright
rejection. Dancing this barrier and hopefully winding up with an
improved or at least alternative view is where I want to be.
Identifying a mistake in existing physics is a feat. Fixing the
mistake is a greater feat. Best of all if we can expose fundamentals
which have not yet been constructed then proof of an open system is
substantiated. To seek fundamentals or primitives is to seek new
maths. Logical thinkers such as yourself who attempt to cast off the
existing boundaries are left coming up with constructions out of thin
air. It's not quite so tough as that, but I do believe that the way to
the new is to challenge the old rather than build on top of it. The
accumulation of existing work is daunting and to cast it off is a
great relief.

- Tim

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Physics versus Mathematics
    ... I think we should seek a more natural math for physics. ... time as we do with the three spatial dimensions. ... progression which includes the reals. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • 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: 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)
Loading