Re: Structured spacetime

Thomas Heger wrote on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:51:02 +0200:

Extract:

"I have a diploma in economies-engineering. [...]
I am a hobby physicist and wanted to have a challenging task."

Well, you are not a hobby physicist nor any other kind of physicist but
someone with a claimed "diploma in economies-engineering".

First statement is true, while I could prove to have a diploma, but
don't want to. It isn't interesting, to think about the person is
pointless. Better to talk about ideas.

I am not asking you for a diploma. I will trust you at this. I want just
to remark that this newsgroup is full of posters with self-proclaimed
degrees. There is self-proclaimed graduate students on physics who cannot
compute simple tensor stuff, architects and enginners with difficulties
to do simple matrix algebra, etc.

You are right that is better to talk about ideas. However, it is a fact
in this newsgroup that most of nonsense is said by people who is not even
a scientist but pretend to talk about physics as if were one.

Your "challenging task" is to build a theory of all physics, as you
say. This is an interesting project, but it is too difficult even for
professional physicists.

Actually thats not, what I wanted.
The idea is to find the 'smallest common denominator'. You may guess,
why I think, this could be important.

Unfortunately you show misunderstandings of both relativity and quantum
mechanics, but also of thermodynamics, EM, and chemistry. It seems
clear you have *not* studied those subjects.

Even as this is a false statement, it wouldn't matter, because the point
is this connection.
Don't you think, it is at least interesting to find out why and how it
is possible to give some kind of explanation to almost all kinds of
phenomena in physics with only a handful of assumptions?

Any theoretical scientist think so. In fact the history of science is
about finding the most general framework possible, joining a common
explanation for phenomena a priori disconected. This is an 'axiom' of
physics since Newton (and even before).

In contrast QM
and relativity give almost no satisfying explanation, for how 'things
work' or about the reason for the dowings of their researchers.

That is just untrue.

It
starts really simple with SRT and length contraction: What does that
mean?? What is length, what does get contracted and how? And through
what mechanism it is caused? This newgroup in example entertains itself
for years with loads of misinterpretations. What SRT actually says is
impossible, that a fast spacecraft would push the space in front
together. So something else must be the positive content of this theory.
So I relate the Lorentz transforms to observations and thats it. Why and
how we make observations and of what, is the interesting point. So the
observations could not be regarded as a fundamental process, but what we
observe. Since -due to SRT- we have to ommit, that somehow our
observations could be disturbed or are impossible altogether, we cannot
claim, that the things we can't see are not really there. This plausible
statement is in direct violation of a basic principle of QM. So I
thought, so what ...

This very much reflect I said about your lack of understanding, which is
present in your doc.

(...)

Indeed, you describe your methodology as,

"to transfer mathematics into graphics and then try to interpret them
as physical systems and compare that with observed systems. So Pi
relates to something like a circle and a cross product to something
spinning (and so forth)."


I like this method, because it requires to make some sense out of a
model. It requires to understand a relation, because otherwise you
couldn't draw it. It is easier to discuss misunderstandings or faults
this way. It has an other great benefit: the method makes all kind of
different models compatible, since in grafics you have neither words nor
mathematics, but have to think about their meaning. And all kind of
different descriptions would lead to the same picture, hence guide you,
if there would be a connection.
To strike out faults is an other method. But to strike them out, you
must first make them. So it would bother me at all, if you find all
kinds of faults. That isn't a big deal to correct them.

I have nothing more to add to I said.

Regards





--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: wanted - rigorous definition of "wave"
    ... only works for a SUBSET of waves, much like "gives live birth to its ... the context of physics. ... explanation, and if those are ruled out, then the only possible ... that pretty much sums up the idea of waves without a medium. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: nuclear shell model periodic table
    ... *all* nuclear scientists deny that. ... This has nothing at all to do with being cheated, idiot. ... in many cases, physics *needs* math. ... I already gave a short explanation. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... Emergent Materialism asserts that the mind is irreducible (http:// ... Materialism doesn't have a convincing answer to the mind problem. ... conservation laws of physics aren't applicable to psychological ... phenomenon for which a complete physical explanation is not known. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science tries to explain WHY and how. ... Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. ... that's just the nature of biology is' ... a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... science tries to explain WHY and how. ... Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. ... that's just the nature of biology is' ... a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast