Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/19/05
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Previous message: hUNT3R: "Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem!"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:07:53 -0500
Lester Zick wrote:
>
> The problem is the definitions don't describe circloids. As just
> pointed out in a collateral reply, the definition "the set of all
> points equidistant from any point" equally describes points, lines,
> circles, and spheres depending on which dimensionality one works in.
> That makes spatial dimensionality itself the independent variable and
> not points or the lack of spatial dimensionality. So if you want to
> regress particular definitions to definitions of greater generality
> you have to do it in terms of spatial dimensionality first.
You have a restricted view of Space and of spaces. You do not take into
consideration phase spaces wherein the states of physical system can be
represented. You are still stuck back in the Newtonian era of pure
mechanics. Also note that mechanics as done by Newton is no longer the
prefered mehtodology of physics. Old fashioned mechanics is a relic of
the past.
>
> What modern math tries to do is substitute a set theory of points and
> dense infinities of points for geometry and spatial dimensionality. It
> doesn't work. They try to make points the independent variable when it
> only represents a derivative concept. Einstein tried the same thing.
> He tried to make velocity the independent variable instead of space in
> universal terms and wound up with all kinds of nonsense to accommodate
> the irrationalities involved.
Take note that neither of Einstein's relativity theories have ever been
falsified, ever. Foruthermore the special theory is one of the bases of
quantum field theory, the most accurate physical theory ever formulated.
It predicts over a wide variety of conditions and has never been
falsified, ever. Einstein made several blunders in his physics but his
theories of space and time are not among them.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Previous message: hUNT3R: "Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem!"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|