Re: I will rebuild physics from the ground up, as promised.


"Dr. V I Plankenstein" <PlankensteinC@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OrSdnbWry4rtcJTbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174989871.089946.304650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 26, 8:59 pm, "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
2 years ago I stated that I intended to destroy physics and
rebuild
it
in a
form more suiting my tastes, and that is exactly what I intend to
do.

I dont really give a *** either, whether you like it or not, I do
not
care.

Have at it.

However, when you do that -- painting reality according to your
tastes, rather than according to what it is -- then what you are
doing
is no longer physics. Perhaps you may want to post your intentions
to
alt.reality.mine.all.mine or alt.philosophy.personal.lump.it.

PD

True. But I do get a kick out of sounding like a pious ass once in a
while.

I could probably write a damn book with all the wacky ideas I've been
posting, it's really turning into a synopsis of wacky ideas, the Mt
Everest
of slippery slopes ?

Wacky ideas are a dime a dozen. Oddly, a book filled full of wacky
ideas is worth even less.

Question is, is your time so worthless that you're happy to spend it
coming up with a string of worthless ideas?

PD


I wind up spending a lot less money this way when you consider the cost of
an average porno DVD is about $25 after haggling, a hooker would be 10
times
that amount, and in light of that - I probably wind up saving quite a bit
of
money this way.


I'll get a worthless one for ya -

Here's what I want to do.

There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century in the precession
of
the perihelion of Mercury.

Just for the hell of it, try to come up with a differential equation or a
PDF which would model this discrepancy if indeed length were
probabilistic.
Try to model bent space using the concept of an existential potential.

Throwing caution to the wind, and with the caveat that this will be a work
in progress - we boldly proceed.

According to Newton,
F=GmM/r^2

However, we will attempt to abandon the notion of force. In accordance
with
my theory in general terms, all interactions of energy and transformations
from one form to another must be essentially probabilistic processes
somehow.

Start with something dirt simple.
A projectile travels with velocity v = 10 m/s. It travels a distance
of
10 meters, and science predicts that it will require 1 second to traverse
the 10 meters. However, using a very precise stopwatch, accurate
measurements show that the 10 meters are traversed in just 0,9 seconds.
The
distance of 10 meters is measured at a distance using standard surveying
methods, and the distance of 10 meters is not disputed.

To explain this in terms of an existential potential, assume that the
probability that length exists at an arbitrary point along the 10 meters
is
not everywhere equal to 1. Let the probability that length exists at any
given point be equal to 0,9. So, even though it looks like 10 meters long,
the probability that length exists any any point from one endpoint to the
other is only 0,9 and so the projectile travels from one endpoint to the
other as follows :

distance * probability = velocity * time required
10 m * 0,9 = 10 m/s * 0,9
9 = 9


I dont know any other way to do this except "distance * probability", the
probability being the existential potential that length exists between two
endpoints. Dont laugh, I know how stupid it sounds.

Next, we should try something just slightly more tricky, I think that
ballistic equations and freefall would be pretty easy to think about,
gradually building in difficulty toward the orbit of Mercury, abberation
of
precesion or perhelion, Newton, diff eq, bla bla bla.

a =32
v = 32 t + m
d = 16 t^2 + mt + n

A rock falls from a height of 1,000 meters. Initial velocity is 0 m/s

1,000 = 16 t^2 + 0 t + 0
1 000 / 16 = 62.5
sqrt(62.5) = 7.90569415

The time in transit for this rock is predicted as 7.90569415 seconds.
Terminal velocity is predicted as 7.90569415 * 32 = 252.982213 meters
sec^-1

The distance 1,000 meters is not disputed, having been measured by
triangulation using extremely accurate surveying equipment.

However, researchers at Batavia have carefully measured the time in
transit
to be just 7 seconds, instead of the predicted 7.90569415, and they are
stubbornly confident of their results that the total elapsed time is
exactly
just 7 seconds.

An elapsed time of 7 seconds implies a distance of 16 * 7 * 7 = 784
meters.

Net existential potential from start to finish is 784/1000 = .784 =
probability that points exist along that path.


Now, I dont know how to reconcile the nonlinearity of the distance
function,
and the linearity of the velocity equation, with the existential potential
nonsense I've been spewing - I think that it could be a deal breaker. Not
sure - If I can prove that I'm an idiot then I will have no choice but to
permanently shut up.

Thus far, I see no reason to quit just yet.


I did'nt want to divulge this, but I will anyway.

Consider nested CAs, all superimposed on top of each other. This structure
would give you a means to establish a linear or nonlinear PDF or gradient,
i.e. "existential potential".












.

Quantcast