Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368728 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-06 09:10 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-10-31 18:47 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 15:45 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:03 -0700
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 15:53 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 12:14 -0700
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-10-31 12:25 -0700
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 22:33 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:51 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:12 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 03:44 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:57 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 10:03 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 15:08 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:44 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:05 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:16 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 14:05 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:28 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:51 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:07 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 06:58 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:09 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:11 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-04 16:30 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 04:52 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:06 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 10:01 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 07:47 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 13:44 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 11:22 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 15:23 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 12:36 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 16:06 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 13:35 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 16:54 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 14:24 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 14:50 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 19:48 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 02:42 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 08:18 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 11:33 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:57 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 18:58 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 17:00 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 21:59 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-05 19:34 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 00:50 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 04:34 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 09:31 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-06 07:02 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:25 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 09:42 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:56 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 10:29 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 13:36 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 11:02 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 11:40 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-06 20:20 +0100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 08:13 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 09:03 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:45 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 12:40 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-05 23:29 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 19:37 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 00:53 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 22:01 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 02:32 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 17:11 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 14:29 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 14:42 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 18:21 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 15:24 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 15:27 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 19:51 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 16:58 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 20:36 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:43 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:58 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 12:10 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 16:01 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-05 00:14 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 16:30 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-05 04:16 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 20:49 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 00:43 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 22:03 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-05 01:21 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-05 07:09 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 06:45 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-04 15:40 -0500
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 00:37 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 02:53 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:46 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-06 08:51 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-05 16:11 -0600
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Henry Wilson <HW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 09:04 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 00:52 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) - 2015-10-31 19:52 +0000
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 22:36 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:52 +1100
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-02 08:59 -0800
Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Henry Wilson <HW@home.com> - 2015-11-06 09:10 +0000
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 16:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sgrk3bhlmea0u0t0h32kp6grnscrqk4m94@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369059 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:10:12 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding Le Sage gravity theory;
>> Today there's a whole Wiki page on it!
>
>(You can excuse if this is a bit conversational.)
>
>It's enough for logic to keep clear its p's and q's, not sure how
>to begin organizing t's and f's for "gravitic" and "gravific".
>
>(Also the universal quantifier is maintained in the differences
>among for any / for each / for every / for all.)
>
>It might help to have this all spelled out already so I don't
>trample and destroy a bunch of things getting there already.
>
>How close do we have to look at a nucleus, before it's
>within its own Schwarzchild radius? (Is the atomic nucleus
>a gravitic, or gravific, singularity?)
It doesn't matter, there is nothing that
could hold the nucleus that compressed.
>Looks here Le Sage's theory was state-of-the-art in the
>theoretical cosmology for more than two hundred years,
Not really, Newton preceded him, and
cosmology did not really become appreciated
until the 1920s;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
Before that, ideas abounded, none
able to reveal anything new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Observation_history
Incoming particle gravity was always
pretty much a fringe theory, I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Le_Sage
>i.e., up to the era of Einstein (who is also revered).
Opinions of Einstein are unimportant,
what is important is the accuracy of predictions
of precise geometry due to gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 00:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1e71c$8cl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369059 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> (Is the atomic nucleus a gravitic, or gravific, singularity?)
Obviously not, since deep inelastic scattering gets results.
> Looks here Le Sage's theory was state-of-the-art in the
> theoretical cosmology for more than two hundred years
Nope. Not even close. The concept basically never had any traction,
with most thinkers at the time finding it ad hoc and unmotivated,
entirely unsuitable to be a serious model of gravitation. In
subsequent decades, with advancement of workable models for matter
and radiation, the idea became increasingly even less plausible.
Plus, there's nothing "cosmological" about it. It was an ill-fated
attempt to "explain" Newtonian gravity, which a small handful of
kooks today hope to bring back from the trash bin of failed ideas.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 16:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a64661c-2d25-4d35-bab1-4557a77892a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369083 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 4:14:41 PM UTC-8, shuba wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > (Is the atomic nucleus a gravitic, or gravific, singularity?) > > Obviously not, since deep inelastic scattering gets results. > > > Looks here Le Sage's theory was state-of-the-art in the > > theoretical cosmology for more than two hundred years > > Nope. Not even close. The concept basically never had any traction, > with most thinkers at the time finding it ad hoc and unmotivated, > entirely unsuitable to be a serious model of gravitation. In > subsequent decades, with advancement of workable models for matter > and radiation, the idea became increasingly even less plausible. > > Plus, there's nothing "cosmological" about it. It was an ill-fated > attempt to "explain" Newtonian gravity, which a small handful of > kooks today hope to bring back from the trash bin of failed ideas. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- What do you see as direction for unification? I don't necessarily agree, and you'll find a variety of support in data for these positions, variously. The concept of Le Sage's (or Fatio's) gravity or _forces mortes_ does have some traction. What would be of interest would be for you to explain how gravity works with our other "standard" theories (Newtonian mechanics and c is a constant and limit, electron transitions are quantized). They hand out Ph.D.'s for that, where you might already have one. Seriously enough I would be interested in your opinion. You may note I'm sincere and discover I'm quite tenacious, and also dogmatic (conscientious scientism).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1el75$rt2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369085 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> The concept of Le Sage's (or Fatio's) gravity or
> _forces mortes_ does have some traction.
Hah. No more sense arguing about that than the "flat earth" or
modern-day geocentrism. If you want to go down that dead end road
then joining up with David de Hilster's "natural philosophy" cranks
might be a good idea. Given the incomprehensibility of many of your
posts here so far it seems that his group may be a perfect fit.
> What would be of interest would be for you to
> explain how gravity works with our other
> "standard" theories (Newtonian mechanics and
> c is a constant and limit, electron transitions
> are quantized).
Newtonian mechanics has long been superseded as fundamental by both
relativity and quantum theory. Gravity "works" exceptionally well
with general relativity. While it is expected to fail at extreme
distance and/or energy scales, coming up with doable experiments in
those realms is a challenge, to say the least. It's a similar story
for quantum theory. In large part we are victims of our successes,
in that our models are valid throughout a very large domain.
> Seriously enough I would be interested in your opinion.
My opinion, not good for much I suppose, is that we already have
many if not most of the puzzle pieces to arrive at a good model
encompassing both relativity and quantum theory. It's just no one
quite knows which pieces are needed or even exactly where missing
pieces need to be inserted. I am confident, based on past history,
that huge advances are likely to be made in the near future, both
on the observational and theoretical fronts, which will lead to a
better understanding of the puzzle and our picture of the universe.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 20:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b45e13e-f7e2-4898-a02e-4a723e54fd2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369099 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-8, shuba wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > The concept of Le Sage's (or Fatio's) gravity or > > _forces mortes_ does have some traction. > > Hah. No more sense arguing about that than the "flat earth" or > modern-day geocentrism. If you want to go down that dead end road > then joining up with David de Hilster's "natural philosophy" cranks > might be a good idea. Given the incomprehensibility of many of your > posts here so far it seems that his group may be a perfect fit. > > > What would be of interest would be for you to > > explain how gravity works with our other > > "standard" theories (Newtonian mechanics and > > c is a constant and limit, electron transitions > > are quantized). > > Newtonian mechanics has long been superseded as fundamental by both > relativity and quantum theory. Gravity "works" exceptionally well > with general relativity. While it is expected to fail at extreme > distance and/or energy scales, coming up with doable experiments in > those realms is a challenge, to say the least. It's a similar story > for quantum theory. In large part we are victims of our successes, > in that our models are valid throughout a very large domain. > > > Seriously enough I would be interested in your opinion. > > My opinion, not good for much I suppose, is that we already have > many if not most of the puzzle pieces to arrive at a good model > encompassing both relativity and quantum theory. It's just no one > quite knows which pieces are needed or even exactly where missing > pieces need to be inserted. I am confident, based on past history, > that huge advances are likely to be made in the near future, both > on the observational and theoretical fronts, which will lead to a > better understanding of the puzzle and our picture of the universe. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- When I say "the concept of Fatio/LeSage", here that would be a "modernized/retrofit, particle/wave force field model of gravity as to match and fit with particle/wave force field models of relativistic motion as to fit with generally tractable systems as of equations and formulas, with clearly defined scale and gauge invariance". This "modern concept of Fatio/LeSage" is of a unification attempt then that there would be established the "Feynman bridge" (with regards to computation of the path integral) of what this effect would be, from the global and total, then to the usual local effect of gravity (that it is instantaneously effective in the relative motion of massy items, the force field of effect of motion as via gravity). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering (I think it is Technicolor or "quarks all the way down" beneath the charge model of the Democritan atom that defines an element via its atomic weight and electron orbital configuration.) (Neutrinos are bradyon and tachyon.) Then that neutrinos are bradyon or tachyon has to do with "gravitons" that gravitons would be tachyons (the effect of gravity and changes in gravitic force is instantaneous as a function of distance, which clearly changes at < 2c). Then, back to this notion of "curvature of space-time" and how that is used to model gravitational lensing (vis-a-vis the "solar Fresnel lensing" for wave and geometric optics), model light falling into the gravitational singularity (vis-a-vis light and plasma), it is the black hole's purely gravitic effect on mass-less light that seems among the most compelling reasons to reject space as aether (that otherwise the passage of the light would be "anti-Fresnel'ed" while the plasma was absorbed). Variously other examples would follow, then for that yet the goal is to describe all of physics with the least amount of foundation, thus that via the "principle of least surprise", as it were, gravity is an instantaneous force that is the same as the nuclear force that is "mediated" (and that may be technical) with the charge model of the Democritan atomic nucleus. Then that is re-ified in Technicolor. Really I'm mostly interested in disseminating this mathematics with the "geometry of points and spaces", "spiral space-filling curve as a natural continuum", and "continuum infinitesimal analysis" for automatically equipping models of continuous fields in physics with new features as via the mathematics of the numbers in discretization or individuation of the continua. Then I'm looking for simple factors in physics to use as experiment for that. Experimentally, the binary pulsars as relativistic sandboxes seem most conducive to high energy observation. "Microlensing anomalies" between the Earth and Sun, for example, are much more tenuous, as is a usual particle accelerator configuration as may be housed on Earth. So, if you think I have "radical" physics views, then I should probably disclose that I have "totally radical" mathematics views. (Then mathematics are _proved_ and science follows.) I noticed a mention of you in the String Theory to Branes camp, I'm for that and have open/closed strings as evaluated as "real mathematical infinitesimals" also. That is to say, for building an SU^N gauge theory of the SU^3, I am putting the three space dimensions into one instead of writing them out to nine. Thanks. Time goes back forever, Space goes on forever, there's only one Total Continuum, even in an entire Mathematical Universe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 00:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2uql3btcnd2r43qi6l7c8vtdpic95b6ib8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369100 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:49:12 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-8, shuba wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> > The concept of Le Sage's (or Fatio's) gravity or
>> > _forces mortes_ does have some traction.
>>
>> Hah. No more sense arguing about that than the "flat earth" or
>> modern-day geocentrism. If you want to go down that dead end road
>> then joining up with David de Hilster's "natural philosophy" cranks
>> might be a good idea. Given the incomprehensibility of many of your
>> posts here so far it seems that his group may be a perfect fit.
>>
>> > What would be of interest would be for you to
>> > explain how gravity works with our other
>> > "standard" theories (Newtonian mechanics and
>> > c is a constant and limit, electron transitions
>> > are quantized).
>>
>> Newtonian mechanics has long been superseded as fundamental by both
>> relativity and quantum theory. Gravity "works" exceptionally well
>> with general relativity. While it is expected to fail at extreme
>> distance and/or energy scales, coming up with doable experiments in
>> those realms is a challenge, to say the least. It's a similar story
>> for quantum theory. In large part we are victims of our successes,
>> in that our models are valid throughout a very large domain.
>>
>> > Seriously enough I would be interested in your opinion.
>>
>> My opinion, not good for much I suppose, is that we already have
>> many if not most of the puzzle pieces to arrive at a good model
>> encompassing both relativity and quantum theory. It's just no one
>> quite knows which pieces are needed or even exactly where missing
>> pieces need to be inserted. I am confident, based on past history,
>> that huge advances are likely to be made in the near future, both
>> on the observational and theoretical fronts, which will lead to a
>> better understanding of the puzzle and our picture of the universe.
>>
>>
>> ---Tim Shuba---
>
>
>When I say "the concept of Fatio/LeSage",
>here that would be a "modernized/retrofit,
>particle/wave force field model of gravity as to
>match and fit with particle/wave force field
>models of relativistic motion as to fit with
>generally tractable systems as of equations
>and formulas, with clearly defined scale and
>gauge invariance". This "modern concept of
>Fatio/LeSage" is of a unification attempt then
>that there would be established the "Feynman
>bridge" (with regards to computation of the path
>integral) of what this effect would be, from the
>global and total, then to the usual local effect
>of gravity (that it is instantaneously effective in
>the relative motion of massy items, the force
>field of effect of motion as via gravity).
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering
>(I think it is Technicolor or "quarks all the way down"
>beneath the charge model of the Democritan atom that
>defines an element via its atomic weight and electron
>orbital configuration.)
>
>(Neutrinos are bradyon and tachyon.)
>
>Then that neutrinos are bradyon or tachyon has to do
>with "gravitons" that gravitons would be tachyons (the
>effect of gravity and changes in gravitic force is instantaneous
>as a function of distance, which clearly changes at < 2c).
>
>Then, back to this notion of "curvature of space-time"
>and how that is used to model gravitational lensing
>(vis-a-vis the "solar Fresnel lensing" for wave and
>geometric optics), model light falling into the gravitational
>singularity (vis-a-vis light and plasma), it is the black hole's
>purely gravitic effect on mass-less light that seems among
>the most compelling reasons to reject space as aether (that
>otherwise the passage of the light would be "anti-Fresnel'ed"
>while the plasma was absorbed). Variously other examples
>would follow, then for that yet the goal is to describe all of
>physics with the least amount of foundation, thus that via
>the "principle of least surprise", as it were, gravity is an
>instantaneous force that is the same as the nuclear force
>that is "mediated" (and that may be technical) with the charge
>model of the Democritan atomic nucleus. Then that is re-ified
>in Technicolor.
>
>Really I'm mostly interested in disseminating this mathematics
>with the "geometry of points and spaces", "spiral space-filling
>curve as a natural continuum", and "continuum infinitesimal
>analysis" for automatically equipping models of continuous
>fields in physics with new features as via the mathematics of
>the numbers in discretization or individuation of the continua.
>
>Then I'm looking for simple factors in physics to use as
>experiment for that.
>
>Experimentally, the binary pulsars as relativistic sandboxes
>seem most conducive to high energy observation. "Microlensing
>anomalies" between the Earth and Sun, for example, are much
>more tenuous, as is a usual particle accelerator configuration as
>may be housed on Earth.
>
>So, if you think I have "radical" physics views, then I should
>probably disclose that I have "totally radical" mathematics views.
>(Then mathematics are _proved_ and science follows.)
>
>I noticed a mention of you in the String Theory to Branes camp,
>I'm for that and have open/closed strings as evaluated as "real
>mathematical infinitesimals" also. That is to say, for building
>an SU^N gauge theory of the SU^3, I am putting the three space
>dimensions into one instead of writing them out to nine.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Time goes back forever,
>Space goes on forever,
>there's only one Total Continuum,
>even in an entire Mathematical Universe
If you are on the level about being
a serious student of math, you are on the
wrong road, and due for a crash at any
time you come to your senses.
I get the impression you have never
taken a physics lab class, maybe three
or 4 semesters of labs would bring you
back to reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 22:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d20de85-2e7a-4bcc-a662-61086860e8ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369102 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:43:15 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:49:12 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson" > <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-8, shuba wrote: > >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >> > >> > The concept of Le Sage's (or Fatio's) gravity or > >> > _forces mortes_ does have some traction. > >> > >> Hah. No more sense arguing about that than the "flat earth" or > >> modern-day geocentrism. If you want to go down that dead end road > >> then joining up with David de Hilster's "natural philosophy" cranks > >> might be a good idea. Given the incomprehensibility of many of your > >> posts here so far it seems that his group may be a perfect fit. > >> > >> > What would be of interest would be for you to > >> > explain how gravity works with our other > >> > "standard" theories (Newtonian mechanics and > >> > c is a constant and limit, electron transitions > >> > are quantized). > >> > >> Newtonian mechanics has long been superseded as fundamental by both > >> relativity and quantum theory. Gravity "works" exceptionally well > >> with general relativity. While it is expected to fail at extreme > >> distance and/or energy scales, coming up with doable experiments in > >> those realms is a challenge, to say the least. It's a similar story > >> for quantum theory. In large part we are victims of our successes, > >> in that our models are valid throughout a very large domain. > >> > >> > Seriously enough I would be interested in your opinion. > >> > >> My opinion, not good for much I suppose, is that we already have > >> many if not most of the puzzle pieces to arrive at a good model > >> encompassing both relativity and quantum theory. It's just no one > >> quite knows which pieces are needed or even exactly where missing > >> pieces need to be inserted. I am confident, based on past history, > >> that huge advances are likely to be made in the near future, both > >> on the observational and theoretical fronts, which will lead to a > >> better understanding of the puzzle and our picture of the universe. > >> > >> > >> ---Tim Shuba--- > > > > > >When I say "the concept of Fatio/LeSage", > >here that would be a "modernized/retrofit, > >particle/wave force field model of gravity as to > >match and fit with particle/wave force field > >models of relativistic motion as to fit with > >generally tractable systems as of equations > >and formulas, with clearly defined scale and > >gauge invariance". This "modern concept of > >Fatio/LeSage" is of a unification attempt then > >that there would be established the "Feynman > >bridge" (with regards to computation of the path > >integral) of what this effect would be, from the > >global and total, then to the usual local effect > >of gravity (that it is instantaneously effective in > >the relative motion of massy items, the force > >field of effect of motion as via gravity). > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering > >(I think it is Technicolor or "quarks all the way down" > >beneath the charge model of the Democritan atom that > >defines an element via its atomic weight and electron > >orbital configuration.) > > > >(Neutrinos are bradyon and tachyon.) > > > >Then that neutrinos are bradyon or tachyon has to do > >with "gravitons" that gravitons would be tachyons (the > >effect of gravity and changes in gravitic force is instantaneous > >as a function of distance, which clearly changes at < 2c). > > > >Then, back to this notion of "curvature of space-time" > >and how that is used to model gravitational lensing > >(vis-a-vis the "solar Fresnel lensing" for wave and > >geometric optics), model light falling into the gravitational > >singularity (vis-a-vis light and plasma), it is the black hole's > >purely gravitic effect on mass-less light that seems among > >the most compelling reasons to reject space as aether (that > >otherwise the passage of the light would be "anti-Fresnel'ed" > >while the plasma was absorbed). Variously other examples > >would follow, then for that yet the goal is to describe all of > >physics with the least amount of foundation, thus that via > >the "principle of least surprise", as it were, gravity is an > >instantaneous force that is the same as the nuclear force > >that is "mediated" (and that may be technical) with the charge > >model of the Democritan atomic nucleus. Then that is re-ified > >in Technicolor. > > > >Really I'm mostly interested in disseminating this mathematics > >with the "geometry of points and spaces", "spiral space-filling > >curve as a natural continuum", and "continuum infinitesimal > >analysis" for automatically equipping models of continuous > >fields in physics with new features as via the mathematics of > >the numbers in discretization or individuation of the continua. > > > >Then I'm looking for simple factors in physics to use as > >experiment for that. > > > >Experimentally, the binary pulsars as relativistic sandboxes > >seem most conducive to high energy observation. "Microlensing > >anomalies" between the Earth and Sun, for example, are much > >more tenuous, as is a usual particle accelerator configuration as > >may be housed on Earth. > > > >So, if you think I have "radical" physics views, then I should > >probably disclose that I have "totally radical" mathematics views. > >(Then mathematics are _proved_ and science follows.) > > > >I noticed a mention of you in the String Theory to Branes camp, > >I'm for that and have open/closed strings as evaluated as "real > >mathematical infinitesimals" also. That is to say, for building > >an SU^N gauge theory of the SU^3, I am putting the three space > >dimensions into one instead of writing them out to nine. > > > >Thanks. > > > >Time goes back forever, > >Space goes on forever, > >there's only one Total Continuum, > >even in an entire Mathematical Universe > > If you are on the level about being > a serious student of math, you are on the > wrong road, and due for a crash at any > time you come to your senses. > > I get the impression you have never > taken a physics lab class, maybe three > or 4 semesters of labs would bring you > back to reality. Science can't account for an "alternate explanation", only that there is not a "contradiction to an explanation", scientists know this. So there's always the possibility of an "alternate explanation" or "doubt" to any "scientific explanation". The goal is to reduce doubt to zero by providing comprehensive data as would most easily otherwise falsify the result, and doesn't. Mathematics has not so much this foible, then to what may be "usual paradoxes" of mathematics and resolution of _them_. I have usual undergraduate engineering physics courses, I'm a national scholar. (Says so on the school's test of my head.) I've been reading "Time, Chance, and Reduction", and for leisure some Tegmark and Krauss, about "Mathematical Universe Hypotheses" and "A Universe from Nothing". (This is how most books start on average over time.) Fischer: this is new foundations. This includes building a countable model of real numbers that establish the Intermediate Value Theorem and resultingly the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. The "feature in effect" is that, to diagram, halve a copy of the unit square, then partition into thirds etc., translating each partition to a next nearest free integer. The area under these line segments is: one. In the denouement, there is a point-width at each non-negative integer, and: the area under them is integrable and sums to: two! !!! Points are one-sided in the line (continuous) and two-sided on the line (discrete). This is so built via modern standard rigorous mathematics. Then on the plane the points are one-sided or, however many sides it takes to identify a point. This then relates to the poly- and pan-dimensional as are so in effect in physics. It might be more clear in an overall context to call this "falling attractive" gravity instead of the usual "pulling attractive" gravity, instead of "repulsive gravity" with the idea that "repulsive" forces are generally used to reflect also charge forces or otherwise non-gravitic (or gravific) in direction. Fischer: thanks for the pointers to the interesting reading of the "Gravity Research Foundation". Also my Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG has 349 BHP (or as via its plant). Well then that's quite some bravado, what, I should be humble to be a lowly Software Development Engineer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 01:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5rsl3bte9nh4k83egp77aqdqd39p0hsoei@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369103 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:03:26 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:43:15 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:49:12 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
>> <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-8, shuba wrote:
>> >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The concept of Le Sage's (or Fatio's) gravity or
>> >> > _forces mortes_ does have some traction.
>> >>
>> >> Hah. No more sense arguing about that than the "flat earth" or
>> >> modern-day geocentrism. If you want to go down that dead end road
>> >> then joining up with David de Hilster's "natural philosophy" cranks
>> >> might be a good idea. Given the incomprehensibility of many of your
>> >> posts here so far it seems that his group may be a perfect fit.
>> >>
>> >> > What would be of interest would be for you to
>> >> > explain how gravity works with our other
>> >> > "standard" theories (Newtonian mechanics and
>> >> > c is a constant and limit, electron transitions
>> >> > are quantized).
>> >>
>> >> Newtonian mechanics has long been superseded as fundamental by both
>> >> relativity and quantum theory. Gravity "works" exceptionally well
>> >> with general relativity. While it is expected to fail at extreme
>> >> distance and/or energy scales, coming up with doable experiments in
>> >> those realms is a challenge, to say the least. It's a similar story
>> >> for quantum theory. In large part we are victims of our successes,
>> >> in that our models are valid throughout a very large domain.
>> >>
>> >> > Seriously enough I would be interested in your opinion.
>> >>
>> >> My opinion, not good for much I suppose, is that we already have
>> >> many if not most of the puzzle pieces to arrive at a good model
>> >> encompassing both relativity and quantum theory. It's just no one
>> >> quite knows which pieces are needed or even exactly where missing
>> >> pieces need to be inserted. I am confident, based on past history,
>> >> that huge advances are likely to be made in the near future, both
>> >> on the observational and theoretical fronts, which will lead to a
>> >> better understanding of the puzzle and our picture of the universe.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---Tim Shuba---
>> >
>> >
>> >When I say "the concept of Fatio/LeSage",
>> >here that would be a "modernized/retrofit,
>> >particle/wave force field model of gravity as to
>> >match and fit with particle/wave force field
>> >models of relativistic motion as to fit with
>> >generally tractable systems as of equations
>> >and formulas, with clearly defined scale and
>> >gauge invariance". This "modern concept of
>> >Fatio/LeSage" is of a unification attempt then
>> >that there would be established the "Feynman
>> >bridge" (with regards to computation of the path
>> >integral) of what this effect would be, from the
>> >global and total, then to the usual local effect
>> >of gravity (that it is instantaneously effective in
>> >the relative motion of massy items, the force
>> >field of effect of motion as via gravity).
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering
>> >(I think it is Technicolor or "quarks all the way down"
>> >beneath the charge model of the Democritan atom that
>> >defines an element via its atomic weight and electron
>> >orbital configuration.)
>> >
>> >(Neutrinos are bradyon and tachyon.)
>> >
>> >Then that neutrinos are bradyon or tachyon has to do
>> >with "gravitons" that gravitons would be tachyons (the
>> >effect of gravity and changes in gravitic force is instantaneous
>> >as a function of distance, which clearly changes at < 2c).
>> >
>> >Then, back to this notion of "curvature of space-time"
>> >and how that is used to model gravitational lensing
>> >(vis-a-vis the "solar Fresnel lensing" for wave and
>> >geometric optics), model light falling into the gravitational
>> >singularity (vis-a-vis light and plasma), it is the black hole's
>> >purely gravitic effect on mass-less light that seems among
>> >the most compelling reasons to reject space as aether (that
>> >otherwise the passage of the light would be "anti-Fresnel'ed"
>> >while the plasma was absorbed). Variously other examples
>> >would follow, then for that yet the goal is to describe all of
>> >physics with the least amount of foundation, thus that via
>> >the "principle of least surprise", as it were, gravity is an
>> >instantaneous force that is the same as the nuclear force
>> >that is "mediated" (and that may be technical) with the charge
>> >model of the Democritan atomic nucleus. Then that is re-ified
>> >in Technicolor.
>> >
>> >Really I'm mostly interested in disseminating this mathematics
>> >with the "geometry of points and spaces", "spiral space-filling
>> >curve as a natural continuum", and "continuum infinitesimal
>> >analysis" for automatically equipping models of continuous
>> >fields in physics with new features as via the mathematics of
>> >the numbers in discretization or individuation of the continua.
>> >
>> >Then I'm looking for simple factors in physics to use as
>> >experiment for that.
>> >
>> >Experimentally, the binary pulsars as relativistic sandboxes
>> >seem most conducive to high energy observation. "Microlensing
>> >anomalies" between the Earth and Sun, for example, are much
>> >more tenuous, as is a usual particle accelerator configuration as
>> >may be housed on Earth.
>> >
>> >So, if you think I have "radical" physics views, then I should
>> >probably disclose that I have "totally radical" mathematics views.
>> >(Then mathematics are _proved_ and science follows.)
>> >
>> >I noticed a mention of you in the String Theory to Branes camp,
>> >I'm for that and have open/closed strings as evaluated as "real
>> >mathematical infinitesimals" also. That is to say, for building
>> >an SU^N gauge theory of the SU^3, I am putting the three space
>> >dimensions into one instead of writing them out to nine.
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >
>> >Time goes back forever,
>> >Space goes on forever,
>> >there's only one Total Continuum,
>> >even in an entire Mathematical Universe
>>
>> If you are on the level about being
>> a serious student of math, you are on the
>> wrong road, and due for a crash at any
>> time you come to your senses.
>>
>> I get the impression you have never
>> taken a physics lab class, maybe three
>> or 4 semesters of labs would bring you
>> back to reality.
>
>
>Science can't account for
>an "alternate explanation",
>only that there is not a
>"contradiction to an explanation",
>scientists know this.
>
>So there's always the possibility
>of an "alternate explanation"
>or "doubt" to any "scientific
>explanation". The goal is to
>reduce doubt to zero by providing
>comprehensive data as would most
>easily otherwise falsify the
>result, and doesn't.
>
>Mathematics has not so much this
>foible, then to what may be "usual
>paradoxes" of mathematics and
>resolution of _them_.
>
>I have usual undergraduate engineering
>physics courses, I'm a national scholar.
>(Says so on the school's test of my head.)
>
>I've been reading "Time, Chance, and Reduction",
>and for leisure some Tegmark and Krauss, about
>"Mathematical Universe Hypotheses" and "A Universe
>from Nothing". (This is how most books start on
>average over time.)
>
>
>Fischer: this is new foundations.
>
>This includes building a countable model of
>real numbers that establish the Intermediate
>Value Theorem and resultingly the Fundamental
>Theorem of Calculus.
>
>The "feature in effect" is that, to diagram,
>halve a copy of the unit square, then partition
>into thirds etc., translating each partition
>to a next nearest free integer. The area under
>these line segments is: one. In the denouement,
>there is a point-width at each non-negative
>integer, and: the area under them is integrable
>and sums to: two! !!! Points are one-sided in the
>line (continuous) and two-sided on the line
>(discrete). This is so built via modern standard
>rigorous mathematics. Then on the plane the points
>are one-sided or, however many sides it takes to
>identify a point. This then relates to the
>poly- and pan-dimensional as are so in effect in
>physics.
>
>
>
>
>It might be more clear in an overall context
>to call this "falling attractive" gravity instead
>of the usual "pulling attractive" gravity, instead
>of "repulsive gravity" with the idea that "repulsive"
>forces are generally used to reflect also charge
>forces or otherwise non-gravitic (or gravific) in
>direction.
>
>Fischer: thanks for the pointers to the interesting
>reading of the "Gravity Research Foundation".
>
>Also my Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG has 349 BHP (or as
>via its plant).
>
>Well then that's quite some bravado, what, I should
>be humble to be a lowly Software Development Engineer.
Well, I hope you don't turn out to be
a math nut with nothing to use it for.
I have been hoping someone with math
skills and extraordinary ability would take
on the math of the Divergent Matter model,
but you seem only interested in the Fatio
insanity.
I have been interested in understanding
the cause of gravity since 1943, but only in
the last few months have I felt a need for
the math, the discussions and objections
to the model here was what brought me
to realizing several enlightenments.
It is only by expanding that matter
can create the attribute of mass and the
appearance of forces from afar, and
making inertia the engine of gravity
and energy.
Give up the Fatio insanity while you can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 07:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1evag$dni$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369100 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> So, if you think I have "radical" physics views, then I should
> probably disclose that I have "totally radical" mathematics views.
That's fine with me, but I've no interest in deciphering your code.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73821757-f8d6-4305-8516-7eebe4bf6c3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369111 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 11:09:07 PM UTC-8, shuba wrote: > Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > > So, if you think I have "radical" physics views, then I should > > probably disclose that I have "totally radical" mathematics views. > > That's fine with me, but I've no interest in deciphering your code. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- Any change in the foundations here leaves anything you already know about mathematics unchanged, except to add a few things. 1) Calculus is the same 2) Integers and all the usual standard laws are the same 3) The raw differential, sees the raw "differentials" all put together as a function N <-> R[0,1] 4) This function is a CDF and pdf of the naturals at uniform random, because it goes to one and its integral = 1 5) the naturals at uniform random or U_N also have another pdf which is strange where otherwise we know a pdf is unique for a probability distribution 6) a "Factorial/Exponential Identity" is discovered, relating those terms in factorial/gamma and the exponential (this is via a deductive/total argument, probabilistic) 7) def'ns of continuity are provided (more and matchin def'ns) 8) this is put together into a theory and it's consistent and complete re Goedel etc., which may also be surprising
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 15:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4bqk3btat9qspo227aj8rnc91g3e4lfhoa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369057 |
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:43:25 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 10:44:17 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 07:47:07 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
>> <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 7:01:36 AM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:06:37 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson"
>> >> <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 4:52:14 AM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >> >> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 10:30:16 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:09:45 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > ....
>> >> >> > > The only kind of motion that can be detected without reference to
>> >> >> > > external objects that define a reference frame, is rotation. However,
>> >> >> > > that require all the momentum-energy of the universe and you, Ralph
>> >> >> > > just proposed a universe with only your meter sticks.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Rotation is meaningless without the universe as we know it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > From your above statements, I can only assume you are no more than five
>> >> >> > years old.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> From Ralphie-boy's above statement, one can only assume that he is a
>> >> >> petulant, infantile brat with a very wide mean streak and a very narrow
>> >> >> mind. Apparently, he has never heard of Mach's Principle:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
>> >> >>
>> >> >> nor has he heard of tests such as those of the Hughes-Drevers type. This
>> >> >> is not surprising since such experiments strongly support Lorentz invariance
>> >> >> which is anathema to Ralphie-boy's fantasies.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is
>> >> >actually repulsive from the edges of the universe,
>> >> >and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then
>> >> >objects are drawn together locally as they block
>> >> >each other out (then that this matches attractive
>> >> >gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence).
>> >> >Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of
>> >> >the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s).
>> >> >
>> >> >Wondering how this might simplify the systems that
>> >> >basically sees objects fall together.
>> >> >
>> >> >A simple two-body system is shown to be the same
>> >> >with either "attractive" or "repulsive" gravity.
>> >>
>> >> That has been examined a lot, and dismissed
>> >> as unworkable, because there is NO "substrate",
>> >> all aether theories have been discounted by
>> >> experiment or lack of necessity.
>> >
>> >
>> >I hope you might provide some historical perspective
>> >on Mach
>>
>> Did you google it?
>>
>> http://www.padrak.com/ine/INERTIA.html
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0407078.pdf
>>
>>
>> It is easy to find all kinds of goofy ideas
>> with an internet search engine.
>>
>> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Ernst-Mach.htm
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0683.pdf
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
>>
>>
>> An early idea about a substrate (aether)
>> was propounded by Le Sage;
>>
>> http://metaresearch.org/publications/books/PushingG.asp
>>
>> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp
>>
>> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/lostjournals/lostjournals06.htm
>>
>> http://keelynet.com/gravity/wright.htm
>>
>> I did not read any of the above garbage,
>> but did read a lot by
>>
>> http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=881
>>
>> and visited him for a talk about the
>> cause of gravity in the late 1980s.
>>
>> http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1966/carnahan.pdf
>>
>> But consider the ideas to be hogwash,
>> just like Le Sage and all aether-type theories.
>>
>> http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=881&subpage=abstracts
>>
>> http://db.naturalphilosophy.org/member/?memberid=881&subpage=books
>>
>>
>> >and whether or not he also looked to the
>> >consideration of the alternatives of gravity as a
>> >nuclear force and gravity as a constant force (in
>> >space terms, besides whether its aetheric or
>> >of the Dirac positronic sea, also re zwitterion).
>>
>> No, gravity is not a force, it is partly
>> geometry, for objects moving in free space,
>> solely kinematics with all objects in inertial
>> motion.
>>
>> That seems to be the exact opposite
>> of what you have in mind, and also very
>> different than Newtonian attractive gravity.
>>
>>
>> >I think you can offer a unique historical perspective.
>>
>> But only to show how many people
>> get silly ideas even though General
>> Relativity is a well established theory
>> of gravity as a geometric phenomenon
>> of a mathematical space-time construct.
>>
>>
>> >We know Newton's classical result and formulas about
>> >gravity, and of geodetic survey, in Earth's gravity,
>> >are true (the attractive force is proportional to the
>> >product of the mass of the two bodies and in inverse
>> >proportion to the square of their distance, in a line
>> >through their centers of mass).
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Gravitation
>> >
>> >You should be able to see that it could be either way.
>>
>> No, it couldn't, there is no long range
>> attraction, and no long range anything in
>> my view, because, if there was, present
>> day physics research would have found
>> some indication of a causal mechanism,
>> and they have not.
>>
>> A close range repulsion could exist,
>> and there is a force of gravity pushing
>> upward, not downward.
>
>
>If you bend the space, isn't that suitably
>a model of force(s) on the space?
No, "space" is not observed to have
any intrinsic attributes whatsoever that
could be associated with gravity.
>For example, in the rubber sheet model,
>there would still be something pushing
>everything "down".
It is an analogy, and worthless as
far as physics goes, but does demonstrate
the geometry.
>Basically, with gravitational repulsion
>(from the edges of the universe to the
>origin that is everywhere) then charge
>of the nuclear model establishes volume
>of matter, vis-a-vis the nuclear forces then.
Fine, of a mechanism is ever directly
detected. I consider it to be an insult
to modern physics to support unseen,
undetectable interaction mechanisms,
but I am just a mechanic, and can only
think in terms of physical interactions
I can see, feel detect.
>I mean you can have SR without GR.
No, you can work problems using
SR and ignoring or sidestepping gravity,
but SR is an important part of GR.
>I do
>believe in GR and as an interpretation. That
>said then the nuclear force can be original (of the
>origin)
Nuclear and particle "forces", yes, but
they are all extremely short range.
>then gravitic force can be universal, while
>each _minimizes space occupied by matter_. Then
>gravity as among near bodies still has the classical
>solutions, then that the actual source of the force
>is via a conservation instead of a regime.
I'm trying to avoid mentioning what
I believe, it is useless to try to have a rational
discussion if one of the parties has irrational
obsessions.
>There is kind of a revival of the absolutist in
>the theories (theories of natural philosophy).
Not of any consequence.
>I am not too attached to either notion, as much as
>to the notion of features for effect in discretization
>of the numbers to automatically equip theories of
>continuum with new explanations in foundations for
>explanation of the measurement/observer effect and
>otherwise of the continuous and discrete. (It doubles
>when you discretize it in 1-D, times 3, 4, 5 in 2-D.)
There is NO continuum that can be
detected, so any consideration of one
is no better than the fictitious, imaginary
forces of Newton.
>One of the goals of theoretical physics is to have the
>least number of axioms or laws that explain the most
>features of physics. Here a repulsive theory of gravity
>may be generally intractable, yet still fundamental, then
>for establishing bridge results and neat adjustments to
>expectations.
I do believe in repulsive gravity,
search for my name in this newsgroup
and see.
>Thanks, I'm interested in this natural philosophy organization.
I don't know anything about it,
but suspect it is a fringe organization,
but only because I see it embellishes
the ideas of Bill Carnahan which I
consider to not be rational.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 00:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mZ6dnRBB_riqZKfLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369045 |
On 11/4/15 11/4/15 8:06 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > I wonder how you'd entertain that gravity is > actually repulsive from the edges of the universe, > and that mass occludes it as a force, so, then > objects are drawn together locally as they block > each other out (then that this matches attractive > gravity up to basically the same sphere of influence). > Then gravity is a feature of the substrate instead of > the bodies, which are defined by the nuclear force(s). > > Wondering how this might simplify the systems that > basically sees objects fall together. > > A simple two-body system is shown to be the same > with either "attractive" or "repulsive" gravity. Yes, when one looks only superficially at it. But ACTUAL 2-body systems are NOT the same -- your approach cannot describe the perihelion shifts of the inner planets. There are LOTS of aspects of GR that this has no hope of reproducing. Look up "LeSage gravity" for a specific model. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 02:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n1fu1h$kkm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369110 |
On 05/11/15 17:37, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/4/15 11/4/15 8:06 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >> Wondering how this might simplify the systems that >> basically sees objects fall together. >> >> A simple two-body system is shown to be the same >> with either "attractive" or "repulsive" gravity. > > Yes, when one looks only superficially at it. But ACTUAL 2-body systems > are NOT the same -- your approach cannot describe the perihelion shifts > of the inner planets. There are LOTS of aspects of GR that this has no > hope of reproducing. Perihelion shifts are entirely chaotic due to the complicated movements of the other planets and various factors. They do not have constant values. Anyone who puts forward or supports a theory that claims to explain such a chaotic process is an idiot. Even the direction of Mercury's precession will vary chaotically with time. Tom Roberts >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 08:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <984cc5e3-69bb-4eb5-8352-efc475da1b0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369126 |
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:53:26 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote: > On 05/11/15 17:37, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 11/4/15 11/4/15 8:06 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > >> Wondering how this might simplify the systems that > >> basically sees objects fall together. > >> > >> A simple two-body system is shown to be the same > >> with either "attractive" or "repulsive" gravity. > > > > Yes, when one looks only superficially at it. But ACTUAL 2-body systems > > are NOT the same -- your approach cannot describe the perihelion shifts > > of the inner planets. There are LOTS of aspects of GR that this has no > > hope of reproducing. > > Perihelion shifts are entirely chaotic due to the complicated movements > of the other planets and various factors. They do not have constant values. > Anyone who puts forward or supports a theory that claims to explain such > a chaotic process is an idiot. > > Even the direction of Mercury's precession will vary chaotically with time. > > Tom Roberts > > It seems they call these various assemblages: "Post-Newtonian". The mathematics of Clifford Algebra are used in regular mathematical computations of the solar orbits. http://mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm "Hall noted that he could account for Mercury's precession if the law of gravity, instead of falling off as 1/r^2, actually falls of [sic] as 1/r^n where the exponent n is 2.00000016. However, most people didn't (and still don't) find that idea to be very appealing, since it conflicts with basic conservation laws, e.g., Gauss's Law, unless we also postulate a correspondingly modified metric for space (ironically enough)." Looks like a "Feynman area integral." This is where the "Feynman path integral" is supposed to evaluate to 1.0 but is some 1.0000....0018.... Yes I know that is not very didactic. It doesn't seem to matter whether "instantaneous gravity" or "curving space" are in effect for the gravitation among massy bodies. A model replaced with different means would leave you unable to tell the difference. The planets are not moving at relativistic speed differences to each other as would see significant relativistic effect in their relative motion (eg, > 0.5c), here of the initial terms of the usual numerical approximant of the Taylor expansion. What is the "metric for space" as about the "Feynman path integral" vis-à-vis the usual scalar metric. ? Is that even wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 08:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <4qjn3bhrpr75gsof8g811l2rmqvdpeu1v6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369133 |
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:46:17 -0800 (PST), "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:53:26 AM UTC-8, HGW wrote: >It doesn't seem to matter whether "instantaneous >gravity" or "curving space" are in effect for the >gravitation among massy bodies. A model replaced >with different means would leave you unable to tell >the difference. The planets are not moving at >relativistic speed differences to each other as would >see significant relativistic effect in their relative >motion (eg, > 0.5c), here of the initial terms of the >usual numerical approximant of the Taylor expansion. > >What is the "metric for space" as about the "Feynman >path integral" vis-à-vis the usual scalar metric. ? > >Is that even wrong? Time and space are totally unrelated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 16:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <94mdnadgWdVpTqbLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369126 |
On 11/5/15 11/5/15 9:53 AM, HGW wrote: > Perihelion shifts are entirely chaotic due to the complicated movements of the > other planets and various factors. They do not have constant values. > Anyone who puts forward or supports a theory that claims to explain such a > chaotic process is an idiot. > > Even the direction of Mercury's precession will vary chaotically with time. Merely one more instance of Wilson obfuscating the discussion -- telling a lie via half-truths, supported by his colossal ignorance. He has hyper-developed powers of dissimulation and bullshit generation, and completely lacks any ability for fact checking. So he probably doesn't recognize the lie himself. Yes, perihelion shifts are largely chaotic, but not completely so. And almost all of the chaos can be MODELED, and thus removed. The RESIDUAL perihelion shift of mercury [#] has been known quite accurately for over a century. It is this value that is modeled by GR (because the GR model does not include the other planets). [#] I.e. after subtracting the KNOWN effects of the other planets (and moons when needed). The oblateness and rotation of the sun are also important Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 09:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1hqf8$d7p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369169 |
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 16:11:00 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/5/15 11/5/15 9:53 AM, HGW wrote: >> Perihelion shifts are entirely chaotic due to the complicated movements >> of the other planets and various factors. They do not have constant >> values. >> Anyone who puts forward or supports a theory that claims to explain >> such a chaotic process is an idiot. >> >> Even the direction of Mercury's precession will vary chaotically with >> time. > > Merely one more instance of Wilson obfuscating the discussion -- telling > a lie via half-truths, supported by his colossal ignorance. > > He has hyper-developed powers of dissimulation and bullshit generation, > and completely lacks any ability for fact checking. > So he probably doesn't recognize the lie himself. > > Yes, perihelion shifts are largely chaotic, but not completely so. And > almost all of the chaos can be MODELED, and thus removed. HHAHAHHAHHHA! THAT'S REALLY SILLY TOM, EVEN FROM YOU.. > [#] I.e. after subtracting the KNOWN effects of the other planets (and > moons when needed). The oblateness and rotation of the sun are also > important So in your opinion, what is the basic physics behind planetary precession? > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 00:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <880bd0ed-6d16-4dc1-816d-42831434e3be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #368740 |
W dniu sobota, 31 października 2015 20:51:09 UTC+1 użytkownik Sam Wormley napisał: > One must define the movement of an object with respect to some > other object as there are no reference frames of an absolute nature. > > Galileo, Newton and Einstein all understood this, But Copernicus surely didn't. Galileo, actually, probably didn't too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves Whoever understood this, anyway, didn't understand the way language works. It's an obvious bullshit, refuted by any experiments with real observer you could make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20151031Ra6FyJy56q@KeFW> |
| In reply to | #368728 |
In article <jgu93bd0ogku4nmjiubfd3dvdic7g2p2cu@4ax.com>, hw@.. posted: > > Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those > objects are defined in terms of spatial intervals and > their movements in time intervals. All the space and time > intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We > cannot mentally understand how any such interval can > extend to infinity and we know of none that does. > > Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have > beginnings and ends in the physical sense, we wrongly > deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME and > SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings > and ends when in fact they are only mathematical scales. > > In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is > based entirely on intervals, we misconceive the space > dimension itself to be an interval when, in fact, it is > just a convenience used to define inter-relationships > between spatial intervals. > > The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space > and time is therefore shown to be just a psychological > misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more relevance > to space or time that it does, for instance, to the > colour red. It is only meaningful with regard to > dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world all > intervals must be finite by definition. Just because you yourself do not know or understand some things does not mean that they are unknowable. Another person may know or understand what you don't, and vice versa. Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi Om Shanti http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 22:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56370464.3084@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #368728 |
Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in > terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space > and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot > mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of > none that does. > > Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in > the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME > and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in > fact they are only mathematical scales. > > In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on > intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in > fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between > spatial intervals. > > The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore > shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more > relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is > only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world > all intervals must be finite by definition. > > Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production. The Starmaker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web