Re: Math & physics.

To Mr. Bell.

On Jul 12, 8:20 am, "Steve Bell" <sb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:b7295da4-4052-4d0b-8bee-a0669f21c858@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What I find is one may write "laws of nature"
in either differential forms "df" or incremental
forms "DELTA f".
Permit me to provide a simple example using a
right angle triangle with S being hypotenuse,
X adjacent side and q opposite side and q is
constant, then

S dS = X dX and S DELTA(S)= X DELTA(X) ,
Eq0 Eq1

are both true.
Which Eq. is 'truer' , oughta to drive the
metaphysical philosopher mathematicians nutz.
Comments invited.

Let the deltas instead be time deltas, and we are talking motion, mechanics. Then if the universe propagates continuously, it's
the
differential, but if time jumps from present to present to present, etc., discretely, then it's the DELTAS.

Thanks Bell for taking the time (increment :-)
to consider Eq0 vs Eq1, neatly, with understanding.
Can we use a physical experiment to decide
"Which Eq. is 'truer' "?

If time is discrete, probably the delta-t between "present times" is around Planck time scale, which I think is about 10^-43 sec? We
would have to be able to observe time using clocks with at least close to this level of temporal resolution. If that's even
possible, that's a long, long way off. Then there is perhaps an unanswerable question.

Sounds to me, that you have selected Eq1, from
the standpoint of measurement, then reverted to
the continuum in your next paragraph...

Where does all the matter "go" during these
absolute delta-t's between "present times"? In a certain way, if matter simply never ceases "to exist" this demands a continuous
flow of time, not discrete.

We're going metaphysical,
((There are 10,000 languages for the word "Sun".))

These time discussions also show how the QM physicists have completely misunderstood their own UP. In the energy-time variant of the
UP, some QM people fail to see that they are saying *time itself* is stochastic, it has a "standard deviation" of a "time random
variable" which is the delta-t in the "delta-E*delta-t >= some constant" variant of the UP. It is actually this stochastic
variability in time that I see why the QM people say a violation of the conservation of energy is allowed. The QM people say the
time it takes for a physical system to change energy is *itself,* in the *external world,* stochastic. They have made a very weird
jump to saying stochastic time is "physical" and physical systems *all on their own* behave according to this weird UP idea. But
(and here is where it becomes immensely apparent to me about the nonsense of jumping from the UP to "physical reality,") the delta-t
in the energy-time UP is *not* about some innate stochasticism in time, it's just simply the standard deviation representative of
the temporal resolution of some damn clock used by *us* to quantify how much time it takes the system to change energy. Using this
"external clock" in no way can change a goddamn thing about how a system behaves on its own. This is the temporal analog of the
other gigantic QM mistake, where the "spatial resolution" of a microscope is then insanely thought to be how the external world
"is," that is, the physical position of a particle is stochastic in nature, just because *we* can't focus light to a dot. See how
clear thinking exposes the insanity of QM? These people *do not* understand the simple concept of measurement error.

I think we understand resolution limitations
provided that is not confounded with reality.

I see the mistake as confounding QM (and theory
of predicting measurements) with one that intends
to give an actual description of nature, with the
term actual to mean one that provides a measurement
uncompromised by definition.
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

As you say, QM doesn't describe nature. It describes some weird ass "we are gods when we measure, because then we actualize
matter
into existence" crap.

I think most phycists know we have measurement
compromises, such as Eq0=/=Eq1 from above.

For me, there are no problems with taking measurements. The external world exists at an instant in time as an array of particles.
There are volumes of space that have these particles (you, me, the sun, etc.) and volumes of space that do not (that's just empty
space to me, a total vacuum there, and I mean total, no QM "foam", but I do believe by now that "empty" volumes have EM flowing
through, no matter there though). In the final evaluation of things, measurements are made by shinning light on these particles.
The
electrons jump up if the incoming energy is correct, then jump down, irradiate and we take that irradiation and focus it using,
just
generally, a "microscope." The fact that the microscope produces a diffraction pattern is no big mystery to me, you can't focus
light to a dot. This is always true for any microscope no matter why the EM came into it for any reason. Diffraction patterns are
"after the fact," after the physical act of absorption/irradiation on the part of the electrons involved (the ones we're "looking
at"). The fact that diffraction patterns are produced in no way, imo, precludes an electron from being a physically existing,
full-blown "small ball of matter" particle with a fully deterministic state attached to its center of mass at an instant in time.
That's what I think it is at each and every time point we call "the present."
Steve Bell

Ok, IMO it's slovenly to define an 'event' at xyzt,
as it implies a point at xyzt, where at a measurement
occured, it's one hell of a simplification.

To me, to say an event happens at x,y,z,t has nothing to do with measurement. It is a physical event that simply occurred all on
its own, and did so even if not measured in any way.

In place of that, I'll use 'occurance' with "D" being
finite such as,

Occurance = Dx Dy Dz Dt DE = DV3 Dt DE = DV4 DE

So, things actually physically occur, even if never observed? That's what I think. In other words, does Dx mean an event actually,
truthfully, physically took this amount of space in x to occur, to "pan out"? And it physically took an amount of energy DE to do
so? And it physically took a Dt amount of time from the start of the event to its end? And all of this occurs even if not being
observed? If that's what you mean by "occurrence," I agree.

where a quantized change in energy "DE" occurred
within a spatial volume DV3 in moment of time Dt.

To me, what you have written contains the left side of QM's energy-time variant of the UP, which is how I interpret your Dt DE. If
your D's represent what systems do *all on their own*, then I agree, if a system *physically* changes energy, some particle
somewhere had to *physically* change position, and it took some physical amount of time to do so. And it either does or does not
change energy even if not being observed. Also, your syntax makes better sense to me if Dt is not a "moment of time" (which is a
"dot of time" to me) but is instead an interval of time, a delta-t.

Ok, I'll follow up this way, is there such a thing
as an "occurence" that cannot be sub-divided into
2 (or more) smaller occurences?
Is there such a thing as a "minimum occurence"?

Some fella's go to 5D with Occurance = DV5.

Is it that here you are adding a 4th spatial dimension, like Kaluza? I myself don't think these extra dimension theories are
correct. Obviously then, I don't think string theory is correct.

Not sure, if I can convert Kaluza 5D to AE 4D then
it's all the same to me, it becomes math linguistics.

Einstein reasoned DV5 collapses to DV4 via Guv=Tuv,
with the spacetime geometry DV4 eliminating DE, by
energy expressed as spacetime curvature.

Is this non-zero Tuv from the electromagnetic field that, say, a rotating charged central ball of matter itself generates, and then
"fills the space" surrounding it?

Yummy, when I use a test particle to probe said
Tuv, a relation developes, I have no evidence a
field exists without a measurement.

Myself, I'm ok with Einsteins Law Guv=Tuv, and I
use nonorthogonal-nonsymmetrical metrics in g_uv
to perform the operation of DV5 => DV4, so energy
is equivalent to spacetime stress.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I've done some research here,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf

It is also so in regular 3-D space, 1-D time GR, that any electromagnetic energy resident in space at an instant in time contributes
to Tuv.

Yes, some fella's use a 'box of light'.

What has to be assumed to get to a Schw or Kerr solution is that there is no energy in the space outside of the central ball
of matter, so that there, Tuv = 0.

That depends on your definition and resolution
of density.

Or if there is electromagnetic energy present, all the balls of matter of concern (the central
ball and the idly biddy test particle ball) are electronically neutral, so the geodesic motion is not disturbed by any electricity
or magnetism present, and is then just dictated by gravity. If all balls of matter involved are neutral, the Tuv can be set to zero.

That's what most guys do, I go both ways.

Newman introduced the effects of the charge of the central body on the curvature of the space surrounding it, and it's effect on
time dilation, but I disagree with this result.

Yes, I do too. He used charge self energization
that has no evidence, Purcell supports you Bell.

Also, I intuitively dislike an "asymmetric" geometry as the geometry of space, I
think nature is more symmetric than that. In fact, I think orthogonal, symmetric metric tensors are the only ones nature "uses."

Well, I use antisymmetrical metrics to convey
magnetism and electrostatics via the spacetime
field.


Steve Bell

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Consciousness "Hard Problem"
    ... >> forms of energy. ... energy can affect electrons in living matter, ... in matter that was never alive but is otherwise identical to ... living matter (like say the mineral apatite, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Math & physics.
    ... Where does all the matter "go" during these ... These time discussions also show how the QM physicists have completely misunderstood their own UP. ... the temporal resolution of some damn clock used by *us* to quantify how much time it takes the system to change energy. ... These people *do not* understand the simple concept of measurement error. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
    ... > I got it long before you were born, without matter ... How many bottles of energy have you seen? ... >>mass in the same sentence and not recognizing your error. ... >>has a quantity, i.e. it is a measurement, then it is called a kilogram, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can antimatter manifest to be gravity?
    ... attract matter to have minimization of energy. ... manifesting as quantum gravity and particles constituting positive ... The electrons are ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mass of Light
    ... So, light isn't really a particle like matter, because it doesn't exist ... And light is energy, that could be turned over in mass? ... Usually, when light isn't travelling, it means that it has hit ... electrons and allow you to see the emitting matter. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading