Re: Physics versus Mathematics

On Jul 29, 1:41 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
xxein:  So you have unexplained observations that you think a math
will cover?  Bend your math anyway you like.  Just remember that it
(math) will not change the physic.  It only changes the way we think
about it.

Yes. Transforms are a fine example of what you describe. The idea to
me is to find the math that is native to the physical world.



Your asking about a rest mass becomes mute if an electron is a wave.
Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force.  I don't want to
accept particles as waves, but I see no other choice.  But still, I
don't feel any unity to the Copenhagen interpretation.  Been there,
done that.  There is still something to be explained about the physic
that the Copenhagen missed.  Iow, it was just a choice between a
particle and a wave that still missed the physic.

Lumps of energy is what a wave is.  How do they form and exist as a
structure?  This question is not avoided, exactly, by Q theories.  But
assumptions are made, just as with any other guess we have.  Where is
gravity?

Continuous functions in our math assemblages do not necessarily
represent the physic and how it is continuous.  That is why I have to
think we do not have particles.  I guess we can use that concept to
suit us if we wish, but it tends to avoid a true continuity.  Working
with that, waves (lumps of energy) are constrained just as much as a
particle.

It seems to me that stability is the proper context for this area that
you are describing. That is a trouble with the wave theories isn't it?
Waves as we ordinarily think of them do dissipate. Yet the electron is
conserved. Yet the QMers are happy that the electron goes everywhere
too.
Waves which go everywhere and then disappear as they localize into one
location of energy transfer are counterintuitive. Regardless of the
model it seems to me that the strongest model will derive stability
rather than assume it. This would be an instance of a strong math yet
to be constructed.
In atomic theory the harmonic oscillator is granted, not derived. The
worst problems in all thinking are invalid assumptions. They are
invisible.



You know that empty space is just that, empty.  Bur HERE we have a
space that contains something.  We might not know how it came into
existence, but we are aware.  We exist and so does the universe we can
see.  Space is not empty.  Is there empty space?  Maybe, but we can
never realize it.  We don't know of an empty space.  All we can say is
we think there is empty space between a here and a there, but still
seek some sort of connection.

A few of your latter comments seem to make a sense in and of
themselves, but only within a certain general framework of our notion
of the physic.  Using another notion, time becomes 4-d (3 + 1).

As we can understand universal expansion as a global function, we
can't quite do the same for gravity.  We first separate gravity into
masses and then add them up again.  This is because we can only
understand a 'peak' origin and not the mechanism.  We don't seem to do
so badly at this, but we are missing an essence that directly affects
time.  I don't think we understand time well enough.  Using 3 + 1, is
1 the same for all sets of the 3?  No, of course not. 3 + 1 is only
valid in a self-homogeneous frame of reference moving in an
homogeneous flat space.  A general expansion may make time a function
dependent on itself (t=t^j, for example), but gravity (mass) does not
allow it to function in such a general manner.  It makes t rather
chaotic, but still subject to some universal law.  Only by finding and
understanding the mechanism of gravity, can we nail time to such a
law.On Jul 29, 10:15 am,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 28, 10:16 am, "Timothy Golden   BandTechnology.com"

<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

xxein:  So you have unexplained observations that you think a math
will cover?  Bend your math anyway you like.  Just remember that it
(math) will not change the physic.  It only changes the way we think
about it.

Your asking about a rest mass becomes mute if an electron is a wave.
Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force.  I don't want to
accept particles as waves, but I see no other choice.  But still, I
don't feel any unity to the Copenhagen interpretation.  Been there,
done that.  There is still something to be explained about the physic
that the Copenhagen missed.  Iow, it was just a choice between a
particle and a wave that still missed the physic.

Lumps of energy is what a wave is.  How do they form and exist as a
structure?  This question is not avoided, exactly, by Q theories.  But
assumptions are made, just as with any other guess we have.  Where is
gravity?

Continuous functions in our math assemblages do not necessarily
represent the physic and how it is continuous.  That is why I have toOn Jul 29, 10:15 am,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 28, 10:16 am, "Timothy Golden   BandTechnology.com"

<tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

xxein:  So you have unexplained observations that you think a math
will cover?  Bend your math anyway you like.  Just remember that it
(math) will not change the physic.  It only changes the way we think
about it.

Your asking about a rest mass becomes mute if an electron is a wave.
Go to the beach and see if a wave imparts some force.  I don't want to
accept particles as waves, but I see no other choice.  But still, I
don't feel any unity to the Copenhagen interpretation.  Been there,
done that.  There is still something to be explained about the physic
that the Copenhagen missed.  Iow, it was just a choice between a
particle and a wave that still missed the physic.

Lumps of energy is what a wave is.  How do they form and exist as a
structure?  This question is not avoided, exactly, by Q theories.  But
assumptions are made, just as with any other guess we have.  Where is
gravity?

Continuous functions in our math assemblages do not necessarily
represent the physic and how it is continuous.  That is why I have to
think we do not have particles.  I guess we can use that concept to
suit us if we wish, but it tends to avoid a true continuity.  Working
with that, waves (lumps of energy) are constrained just as much as a
particle.

You know that empty space is just that, empty.  Bur HERE we have a
space that contains something.  We might not know how it came into
existence, but we are aware.  We exist and so does the universe we can
see.  Space is not empty.  Is there empty space?  Maybe, but we can
never realize it.  We don't know of an empty space.  All we can say is
we think there is empty space between a here and a there, but still
seek some sort of connection.

A few of your latter comments seem to make a sense in and of
themselves, but only within a certain general framework of our notion
of the physic.  Using another notion, time becomes 4-d (3 + 1).

As we can understand universal expansion as a global function, we
can't quite do the same for gravity.  We first separate gravity into
masses and then add them up again.  This is because we can only
understand a 'peak' origin and not the mechanism.  We don't seem to do
so badly at this, but we are missing an essence that directly affects
time.  I don't think we understand time well enough.  Using 3 + 1, is
1 the same for all sets of the 3?  No, of course not. 3 + 1 is only
valid in a self-homogeneous frame of reference moving in an
homogeneous flat space.  A general expansion may make time a function
dependent on itself (t=t^j, for example), but gravity (mass) does not
allow it to function in such a general manner.  It makes t rather
chaotic, but still subject to some universal law.  Only by finding and
understanding the mechanism of gravity, can we nail time to such a
law.

Does such a law have to be expressed mathematically?  No.  Can it be?
Yes, if we can ID it.  This is why I shun math in favor of the ID.  We
currently use a proxy ID with a proxy math to match it.

Time, under such variable conditions also means that c is suspect to a
variable (like a field strength of gravity).  We can accept this as a
consequence of 2M and a BH, but change our concept for Shapiro and
Einstein.  That 3M is also a special relation to 2M, relies upon
nothing but a simple relation.  But we don't know how simple it is.
Instead, and with a wrong concept, we make this 'proof' through a math
that runs amuck.  With the correct concept, however, the 'proof' of
this relation is direct and needs no math for anything but a "put it
into math" expression.

Can you catch a fly ball without math?  A ball that has varying speed
and trajectory?  All you have to do is get there and you can generally
nail it.  Even from the bleachers, a spectator can tell you where it
is going.  Such is a concept understood without a math.  Especially if
the density, speed and direction of the air were to be visibly
colorized into a perception.  But not everyone gets the 'feel' for
this.  There can be variations in concept that allow for almost
identical results.  The ball player may be a varying strength magnet
that alters an otherwise straight path for the ball.  A foolish
conjecture for us, because we think we know better.  Do we really have
all the correct concepts that we would use to understand the physic?
think we do not have particles.  I guess we can use that concept to
suit us if we wish, but it tends to avoid a true continuity.  Working
with that, waves (lumps of energy) are constrained just as much as a
particle.

You know that empty space is just that, empty.  Bur HERE we have a
space that contains something.  We might not know how it came into
existence, but we are aware.  We exist and so does the universe we can
see.  Space is not empty.  Is there empty space?  Maybe, but we can
never realize it.  We don't know of an empty space.  All we can say is
we think there is empty space between a here and a there, but still
seek some sort of connection.

A few of your latter comments seem to make a sense in and of
themselves, but only within a certain general framework of our notion
of the physic.  Using another notion, time becomes 4-d (3 + 1).

As we can understand universal expansion as a global function, we
can't quite do the same for gravity.  We first separate gravity into
masses and then add them up again.  This is because we can only
understand a 'peak' origin and not the mechanism.  We don't seem to do
so badly at this, but we are missing an essence that directly affects
time.  I don't think we understand time well enough.  Using 3 + 1, is
1 the same for all sets of the 3?  No, of course not. 3 + 1 is only
valid in a self-homogeneous frame of reference moving in an
homogeneous flat space.  A general expansion may make time a function
dependent on itself (t=t^j, for example), but gravity (mass) does not
allow it to function in such a general manner.  It makes t rather
chaotic, but still subject to some universal law.  Only by finding and
understanding the mechanism of gravity, can we nail time to such a
law.

Does such a law have to be expressed mathematically?  No.  Can it be?
Yes, if we can ID it.  This is why I shun math in favor of the ID.  We
currently use a proxy ID with a proxy math to match it.

Time, under such variable conditions also means that c is suspect to a
variable (like a field strength of gravity).  We can accept this as a
consequence of 2M and a BH, but change our concept for Shapiro and
Einstein.  That 3M is also a special relation to 2M, relies upon
nothing but a simple relation.  But we don't know how simple it is.
Instead, and with a wrong concept, we make this 'proof' through a math
that runs amuck.  With the correct concept, however, the 'proof' of
this relation is direct and needs no math for anything but a "put it
into math" expression.

Can you catch a fly ball without math?  A ball that has varying speed
and trajectory?  All you have to do is get there and you can generally
nail it.  Even from the bleachers, a spectator can tell you where it
is going.  Such is a concept understood without a math.  Especially if
the density, speed and direction of the air were to be visibly
colorized into a perception.  But not everyone gets the 'feel' for
this.  There can be variations in concept that allow for almost
identical results.  The ball player may be a varying strength magnet
that alters an otherwise straight path for the ball.  A foolish
conjecture for us, because we think we know better.  Do we really have
all the correct concepts that we would use to understand the physic?

Does such a law have to be expressed mathematically?  No.  Can it be?
Yes, if we can ID it.  This is why I shun math in favor of the ID.  We
currently use a proxy ID with a proxy math to match it.

Well can't we simply put your ID concept inside of math nomenclature?
If it is a construction that obeys rules then this is appropriate.
We can call this your own math construction.
Logic may be an element of philosophy but certainly it takes its place
in the realm of math as well.
If human language did not have so many exceptions then it might
likewise fit into the math realm.
As I look at the body of math and its expansive generalizations on
multiple tiers I do come away with a sense of rejection somewhat like
your own.
We are free to pick and choose out of this pile and build our own if
we like.



Time, under such variable conditions also means that c is suspect to a
variable (like a field strength of gravity).  We can accept this as a
consequence of 2M and a BH, but change our concept for Shapiro and
Einstein.  That 3M is also a special relation to 2M, relies upon
nothing but a simple relation.  But we don't know how simple it is.
Instead, and with a wrong concept, we make this 'proof' through a math
that runs amuck.  With the correct concept, however, the 'proof' of
this relation is direct and needs no math for anything but a "put it
into math" expression.

What is 2M and 3M and BH? Is that a Bosonless Higgs?



Can you catch a fly ball without math?  A ball that has varying speed
and trajectory?  All you have to do is get there and you can generally
nail it.  Even from the bleachers, a spectator can tell you where it
is going.  Such is a concept understood without a math.  Especially if
the density, speed and direction of the air were to be visibly
colorized into a perception.  But not everyone gets the 'feel' for
this.  There can be variations in concept that allow for almost
identical results.  The ball player may be a varying strength magnet
that alters an otherwise straight path for the ball.  A foolish
conjecture for us, because we think we know better.  Do we really have
all the correct concepts that we would use to understand the physic?

If we do not then it is our burden to construct them. I would be happy
if the answer to your question is no since it leaves us some work to
do.
If I pick up at transforms then we might be forced to admit that each
human carries their own internal representation which in order to be
transferred accurately will require interpretation. There may be
information loss in that procedure. We may not be able to fully
translate our own perceptions. The language may be less vivid than the
real things, but here we are using the language and so even without a
strict math our accuracy is still in demand. To quote one who is so
careful with language:
   "Time is not an empirical concept that has been derived from any
experience. For neither coexistence nor succession would ever come
within our perception, if the representation of time were not
presupposed as underlying them a priori."
   - Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Metaphysical Exposition
of the Concept of Time
He then goes on to state this even more concisely without a single
equation. Few will balk at Kant. Isn't His language so careful as to
be mathematical? You could almost criticize modern mathematics as
having too many empty equations and not enough substance for the human
reader. This perhaps seals the trouble with the mathematician; they
don't give a damn for reality. If you want reality go see a physicist.
Should math have a clean representation of time? A unidirectional
form? If this form happened to be zero dimensional then the puzzle of
how we always wind up in now would be resolved. Time travel would be
deleted. I do claim to have constructed such a thing and it is tied to
the real numbers but by generalizing in a new way. Why hasn't this
been done already several hundred years ago? I don't know. Perhaps it
was and was rejected because the real number was so named as to
transcend all others. What's so real about the real number? Yeah, it's
in there. But it's not the end-all be-all that modern Cartesian
thought would lead you to believe. We are locked into Cartesian
training from maybe second or third grade right? What is that about
twenty years of training in Cartesian thought that I am asking you to
break out of? I anticipate resistance and accept it. But you as the
criticizer of existing math are still relying upon your Cartesian
training. You see the possibility that something fundamental still
exists that is undiscovered, or do you? It is a slim little space to
work in. Not a lot of freedom down there. But if such a thing exists
then that will be a great hope.

Another way: challenge Cartesian thought directly. If two dimensions x
and y are independent of each other then what are they doing being
forced perpendicular to each other in a plane? The coupling (x,y) is a
choice. It is a construction. It is not inherent. If they were truly
independent then they would not have these arbitrary rules assigned.
So orthogonality as informational independence is a misnomer and I use
the term 'informationally orthogonal' to describe a truer
independence. This may be taken as an opening into the nonorthogonal
polysign spaces but I haven't relied upon it yet. They stand freely
without any Cartesian product. The Cartesian product is not a
mathematical necessity. It does work out somewhat but not when it
comes to a mathematical model of time. If you accept spacetime as
natural then you ought to seek its natural mathematical
construction.

 - Tim

xxein: I can agree. I only wanted you to see how the cartesian could
handle the physic (or not). What of any coordinate system we devise?
Do we need one? Only to transform it into a math system, huh? I
can't reach every fly ball, can you? But that is an aside.

If something is natural, why DO we math it? We, as ignorant of the
natural process, seem to insist that THIS/THAT math presentation
works. What's up with that? Why are we so quick to declare a 'glory'
physics?

I've been sitting on a notion/theory that comes close to a TOE. It is
not. I know this and realize this. But it explains a lot about
quantum entanglement and how gravity works. There is no website for
you to explore. But the near completeness of my thinking is almost a
mental/sexual experience.

I've read almost every theory/explanation out there and none do the
trick as well as I can.

So I act as a judge when viewing these posts and respond with less
clarity than the posts qualify for. Iow, it's very hard to make a
response about a person's 'physical' belief other than trying to show
flaws. But you can only show flaws by presenting a replacement
theory. I am not capable of doing this by myself. It might seem so
that I would be able to put it into a script, but I still need some
sort of help. Not with a theory in itself (although it needs an
improvement), but with the actual presentation. Who is open-minded
enough to collaborate? And I do mean open-minded.

Where are there knowledgeable people wrt to the physic that can think
and decide for themselves whether one theory can hold water better
than another one? I don't think that there is anyone (or group/
organization) that can do this with impartiality.

It is new exploration. We can 'see' things in a different 'light' (so
to speak). It is a new precedent of thought. But it is strictly
physical (no religion, transendentalism, or other wierd thoughts).
Just he physic.

Anyone?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... >> studied in physics and chemistry. ... and the math is what the math is. ... >clearly shows that the Aether is a quantum unit of rotating magnetic ... >> what is in mainstream physics with gravity omitted. ...
    (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)
  • Re: Errors being made by SR experts.
    ... SR is only math. ... We can't do physics without basic laws/postulates so start with. ... And those laws are gathered from what is observed in nature (i.e. by ... We then derive the wave equation in any ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)