Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time
From: Mike Helland (mhelland_at_techmocracy.net)
Date: 06/03/04
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Microfluids change direction"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Current without magnetic field"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Jun 2004 10:45:42 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c9necp$oel$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > You've made it this far, you should try giving my papers an honest
> > read.
>
> Do they explain all the questions I had above?
Yes. This is exactly why I said:
"[the following] is a summary of my hypothesis, so if you find this
hard to follow you may want to check out the full text"
You and I have been trading messages for several weeks now, if not
longer, and I keep saying "If you want a detailed explanation of what
I'm talking about read my papers" and you keep refusing, yet you keep
asking questions to get a detailed explanation of what I'm talking
about.
Take some time, figure out what I'm talking about. I will readily
admit, however, that many of the ideas (especially regarding "system
of information") would make much more sense if you were comfortable
with logical systems and the basics of computer programming.
If there are any questions that are not answered by the papers, or new
ones, please feel free to reask them here.
First, a lighthearted introduction:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
Then, the more technical paper:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Please read these papers in order, and *please* try to wrap your head
around the propositions instead of dismissing them due to their
departures from accepted scientific reasoning.
If you will not honor my requests, please disengage. Productive
conversation is only possible if both parties wish to understand each
other.
All that said, I will respond to your questions, but this is *no
substitute* for reading my papers:
> > Here is the basis (it is a summary of my hypothesis,
>
> So you admit that your basis is only a hypothesis (at best)? Whereas
> *my* basis is a well-established theory?
Of course.
> > so if you find
> > this hard to follow you may want to check out the full text):
> >
> > 1. Our reality exists as a system of information about the
> > interactions we observe. This this system of information is called
> > "nature"
>
> What is "system of information" supposed to mean? Do you define that
> term anywhere in yoru full text?
A system of information is a product of logical rules.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/logical_systems.html
The system of information I speak of is produced by networks of
interacting agents.
There is a description of this in both texts.
> > (This is close to the copenhagen interpretation.
>
> Sorry, I don't see what this has to do with the Copenhagen interpretation.
The copenhagen interpretation says reality is created by observation.
I define observation as a logical rule (the fundamental forces) that
produces information.
In other words observation/measurement/interaction creates the
information which makes our reality.
> > You'll see soon my
> > deviations from and extensions to this view.)
> >
> > 2. Matter, space, and time do not "make up" this information. Instead,
> > matter, space, and time emerge from this information.
>
> How?
They emerge from complex analyses in the networks mentioned above. The
specifics are explained in detail in both texts.
> > (This information doesn't exist in space, space exists within the
> > information.
>
> How can anything exist within information?
As more information. If you read the papers and this isn't answered,
you will need to be more specific in asking this question.
> > 3. If space exists within the information about our interactions and
> > only gravitational interactions occur between observers and a black
> > hole then no information will exist about electromagnetic interaction
> > for an observer of a black hole
>
> Sorry, I don't understand how this follows. Or is this not a conclusion,
> but you simply say here "if only information about gravitational
> interactions exists, then no information about electromagnetic
> interactions exists"???
Nature is the set of all information about phenomena observed in the
unvierse. There are four basic ways phenomena occur:
Gravitational Force
Electromagnetic Force
Strong Nuclear Force
Weak Nuclear Force
So there are four subsets of information that contribute to nature as
a whole. I'm asserting that only gravitational information exists
about a black hole to an observer outside it.
(By the way, Hawking Radiation has not been confirmed and my
hypothesis does not allow for it as far as I can tell. So confirming
Hawking Radiation would also falsify my hypothesis.)
> > and thus there should exist no space, matter, or time.
>
> How does that follow?????
If the space, matter, and time exist as analyses of information, and
the information doesn't exist then space, matter, and time will not
exist.
I said that there will be no information about the black hole giving
by electromagnetic observations, so there will no space, and thus no
measureable distance, produced by the experiment.
> > To test this we will see if space can be measured and quantified as
> > non-zero by strictly electromagnetic interactions like the experiment
> > we've discussed this far.
>
> So far, you talked about measuring the size of a Black Hole - not measuring
> and quantifying space itself!
Is there a compelling difference? When we measure the distance to the
sun we measure how much space is in between us and the sun. When we
measure the distance of the radius of the moon, we measure how much
space it takes up.
> > It is quite possible that I'm interpreting my own conjecture
> > incorrectly.
>
> What part of the above was the conjecture, and what as the interpretation?
The conjecture is that space exists as an analyses. The interpretation
is that measurements of space where it does not exist will not result
in a non-zero measurement.
> > For example there will be em interactions with the light
> > on other side of the event horizon.
>
> What light? Coming from there? Which "other side"?
>
> > Perhaps this light will lead to a
> > meaningfull measurement of the distance in between.
>
> Distance between what?
A black hole in GR will have a great deal of light coming around it
just beyond the event horizon by light from the vicinity.
See part way down:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html
"What might you see if you were to orbit a black hole? Computer
simulations show that light near the hole gets so bent that the myriad
stars behind it would appear as a series of concentric rings."
> > Just remember that to really understand my ideas you'll probably
> > need to contemplate the silly sounding explanations before getting to
> > the meat.
>
> So far, I see simply no reason to contemplate the explanations.
Do you or do you not wish to understand my point of view? If you do,
then you will have a reason.
Have a nice day.
-- Mike Helland http://www.techmocracy.net/science/zeno.htm
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Microfluids change direction"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Current without magnetic field"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Non-homogenous theories of space and time"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
