| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2003 11:15:29 AM |
| Object: |
Attack of the Strings People; "just so story?" |
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of necessary &
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so stories" can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a tv show about a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most microscopic level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory provides a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other properties of both the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a string can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that our ears sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the same holds true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts, particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the music, so to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Force particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration and hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same rubric of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings can play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: string theory |
04 Nov 2003 01:54:50 PM |
|
|
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent matter or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent degrees of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This is how it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and represented.
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of necessary &
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a tv show about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most microscopic level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory provides a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other properties of both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a string can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that our ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the same holds true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts, particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the music, so to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration and hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same rubric of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings can play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: string theory |
04 Nov 2003 02:07:46 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent matter or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent degrees of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This is how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist? You mean that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we are all one and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of necessary &
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a tv show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other properties of both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a string can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that our ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the same holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the music, so to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings can play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: string theory 2 |
04 Nov 2003 02:56:30 PM |
|
|
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a monist. It seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two substances.
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent matter or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent degrees of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This is how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist? You mean that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we are all one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of necessary &
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a tv show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other properties of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a string can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that our ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the same holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the music, so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings can play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: string theory 2 |
05 Nov 2003 12:43:20 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a monist. It seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different substances in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent degrees of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist? You mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we are all one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of necessary &
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a tv show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other properties of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: string theory 2b |
07 Nov 2003 07:17:56 PM |
|
|
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For one substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot interact.
jJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a monist. It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist? You mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we are all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: string theory 2b |
08 Nov 2003 02:44:29 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bohg82$73s$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For one
substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot interact.
jJ
How can I ponder the substance of your idea if there is no agreement in
substance of the substance of your substance[s]?
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a monist. It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This
is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist? You
mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we are all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of
necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics
community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide
the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with
the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a
string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have
resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark
is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the
music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well.
Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: rise o ye masses |
09 Nov 2003 09:29:13 PM |
|
|
To gotta get the right gear you oughta get good gear
The ships are still coming in.
Oh for the lantern in me wooden leg.
Casey sailed the seven seas
sideways Jones
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqqlgso0l41801@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bohg82$73s$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For one
substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot interact.
jJ
How can I ponder the substance of your idea if there is no agreement in
substance of the substance of your substance[s]?
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a monist. It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent
degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration.
This
is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way
that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and
represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist? You
mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we are
all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of
necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a
tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics
community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide
the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all
forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other
properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated with
the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a
string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have
resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that
our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the
same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark
is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental
facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and
the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the
music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well.
Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string
vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the
same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings
can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: rise o ye masses |
10 Nov 2003 02:42:44 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bon0m8$b7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
To gotta get the right gear you oughta get good gear
The ships are still coming in.
Oh for the lantern in me wooden leg.
I just hold up my index fingers on each hand and see what parts would fit on
the screen.
Casey sailed the seven seas
sideways Jones
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqqlgso0l41801@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bohg82$73s$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For one
substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot interact.
jJ
How can I ponder the substance of your idea if there is no agreement in
substance of the substance of your substance[s]?
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a monist.
It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two
substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent
degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration.
This
is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way
that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and
represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist? You
mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we are
all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of
necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just
so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got a
tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics
community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may
provide
the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string
theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all
forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the
observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other
properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated
with
the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which a
string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have
resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns that
our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the
same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the
up-quark
is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental
facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one and
the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration -- the
music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well.
Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string
vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the
same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that strings
can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Train spotting |
14 Nov 2003 06:27:49 PM |
|
|
Listen mate. This is a train spotting newsgroup, unimaginative, very dull,
very repetitive.
Very disappointing.
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqvu5m26g83e11@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bon0m8$b7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
To gotta get the right gear you oughta get good gear
The ships are still coming in.
Oh for the lantern in me wooden leg.
I just hold up my index fingers on each hand and see what parts would fit
on
the screen.
Casey sailed the seven seas
sideways Jones
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqqlgso0l41801@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bohg82$73s$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For one
substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot interact.
jJ
How can I ponder the substance of your idea if there is no agreement
in
substance of the substance of your substance[s]?
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a
monist.
It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two
substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot
represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent
degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration.
This
is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only
way
that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and
represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist?
You
mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we
are
all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of
necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But
"just
so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got
a
tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics
community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may
provide
the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string
theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all
forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the
observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other
properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated
with
the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which
a
string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have
resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns
that
our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the
same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's
oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the
up-quark
is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental
facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one
and
the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration --
the
music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as
well.
Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string
vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under
the
same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that
strings
can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Train spotting |
15 Nov 2003 01:48:29 AM |
|
|
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message news:<bp3ru3$kom$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
Listen mate. This is a train spotting newsgroup, unimaginative, very dull,
very repetitive.
Very disappointing.
JJ
And you're proud to hang out here!
W :)
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqvu5m26g83e11@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bon0m8$b7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
To gotta get the right gear you oughta get good gear
The ships are still coming in.
Oh for the lantern in me wooden leg.
I just hold up my index fingers on each hand and see what parts would fit
on
the screen.
Casey sailed the seven seas
sideways Jones
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqqlgso0l41801@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bohg82$73s$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For one
substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot interact.
jJ
How can I ponder the substance of your idea if there is no agreement
in
substance of the substance of your substance[s]?
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a
monist.
It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two
substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist? Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot
represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent
degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration.
This
is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only
way
that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and
represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist?
You
mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we
are
all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of
necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But
"just
so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They got
a
tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics
community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may
provide
the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string
theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all
forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the
observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other
properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated
with
the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in which
a
string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have
resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns
that
our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics -- the
same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's
oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the
up-quark
is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic experimental
facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one
and
the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration --
the
music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as
well.
Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string
vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under
the
same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that
strings
can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Error Train spotting |
16 Nov 2003 09:37:55 PM |
|
|
What is my letter doing above? I sent my comment to sci.logic, not this
newsgroup.
JJ
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bp3ru3$kom$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
Listen mate. This is a train spotting newsgroup, unimaginative, very dull,
very repetitive.
Very disappointing.
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqvu5m26g83e11@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bon0m8$b7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
To gotta get the right gear you oughta get good gear
The ships are still coming in.
Oh for the lantern in me wooden leg.
I just hold up my index fingers on each hand and see what parts would
fit
on
the screen.
Casey sailed the seven seas
sideways Jones
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqqlgso0l41801@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bohg82$73s$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist?
Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For one
substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot
interact.
jJ
How can I ponder the substance of your idea if there is no agreement
in
substance of the substance of your substance[s]?
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the
universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a
monist.
It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two
substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist?
Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot
represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent
degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical
consideration.
This
is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only
way
that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and
represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance] monoist?
You
mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that we
are
all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of
necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But
"just
so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They
got
a
tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics
community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may
provide
the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands -- string
theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all
forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the
observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other
properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles associated
with
the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in
which
a
string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have
resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate -- patterns
that
our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics --
the
same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of
the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's
oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the
up-quark
is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic
experimental
facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of one
and
the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration --
the
music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as
well.
Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string
vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under
the
same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that
strings
can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Error Train spotting |
17 Nov 2003 05:28:23 AM |
|
|
I'm getting the same *****. I spent about an hour responding to some sci guy
who thought he knew something about something (he didn't), only to see my
post get zapped into cyber space never to be seen again. Instead I see a
post I sent to alt.alt.test showing up in its place. What gives?
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bp9fqh$hvu$1@titan.btinternet.com...
What is my letter doing above? I sent my comment to sci.logic, not this
newsgroup.
JJ
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bp3ru3$kom$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
Listen mate. This is a train spotting newsgroup, unimaginative, very
dull,
very repetitive.
Very disappointing.
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqvu5m26g83e11@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bon0m8$b7$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
To gotta get the right gear you oughta get good gear
The ships are still coming in.
Oh for the lantern in me wooden leg.
I just hold up my index fingers on each hand and see what parts would
fit
on
the screen.
Casey sailed the seven seas
sideways Jones
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqqlgso0l41801@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bohg82$73s$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist?
Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
I do not see any advantage in regarding substances at all. For
one
substance
cannot be identified or counted, and two substances cannot
interact.
jJ
How can I ponder the substance of your idea if there is no
agreement
in
substance of the substance of your substance[s]?
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqih9li3e5hrad@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo93pt$f9b$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Yes, I know. The idea presented of one substance in the
universe
requires
one substance in which change is supported. But I'm not a
monist.
It
seems
to me that the idea of one substance is as crazy as two
substances.
Then are you a kind pluralist or substance [degree] pluralist?
Are
there
many of the same kind of substance or are there many different
substances
in
kinds or degrees of substance-hood?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqg1rvca8l8la6@corp.supernews.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com...
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot
represent
matter
or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics
represent
degrees
of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical
consideration.
This
is
how
it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the
only
way
that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and
represented.
Then are you a kind monoist or a degree [substance]
monoist?
You
mean
that
your monads are all the same thing in many places or that
we
are
all
one
and
only one particular?
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration
of
necessary
&
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But
"just
so
stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence. They
got
a
tv
show
about
a
book called the Elegant Universe.
http://www.mcgoodwin.net/pages/elegantuniverse.html
The universe rock n' rolls! [q-rock]
[1] - ...a sizeable part of the physics and
mathematics
community
is
becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may
provide
the
answer
[to Einstein's dream of a unified theory].
[2] - From one principle -- that everything at its
most
microscopic
level
consists of combinations of vibrating strands --
string
theory
provides
a
single explanatory framework capable of encompassing
all
forces
and
all
matter.
[3] - String theory proclaims, for instance, that the
observed
particle
properties -- that is, the different masses and other
properties
of
both
the
fundamental particles and the force particles
associated
with
the
four
forces of nature (the strong and weak nuclear forces,
electromagnetism,
and
gravity) -- are a reflection of the various ways in
which
a
string
can
vibrate.
[4] - Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano
have
resonant
frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate --
patterns
that
our
ears
sense
as various musical notes and their higher harmonics --
the
same
holds
true
for the loops of string theory.
[5] - But rather than producing musical notes, each of
the
preferred
mass
and force charges are determined by the string's
oscillatory
pattern.
[6] - The electron is a string vibrating one way, the
up-quark
is
a
string
vibrating another way, and so on.
[7] - Far from being a collection of chaotic
experimental
facts,
particle
properties in string theory are the manifestation of
one
and
the
same
physical feature: the resonant patterns of
vibration --
the
music,
so
to
speak -- of fundamental loops of string.
[8] - The same idea applies to the forces of nature as
well.
Force
particles
are also associated with particular patterns of string
vibration
and
hence
everything, all matter and all forces, is unified
under
the
same
rubric
of
microscopic string oscillations -- the "notes" that
strings
can
play.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html
Video Part That Goes Along With That
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3013_r_06.html
Thanx to Mike Dubbed
http://tinyurl.com/tma5
the attack of the sting people
http://superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/
http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: string theory |
05 Nov 2003 12:09:59 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message news:<bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
I thought of it years ago.
How many years, Ludi ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: string theory 3 |
07 Nov 2003 08:00:48 PM |
|
|
I thought of it years ago.
How many years, Ludi ?
I thought of it when I was twenty.
It is obvious, we can disregard metaphysical notions such as matter and
force, and say that we can only approach the topic of the structure of the
universe mathematically, as change. For example, as changes of curvature
upon a line. But remember that mathematics will not tell us what we are
looking at. For example, there is no definition of a 'line' in mathematics
that can invoke the idea of 'line'-, the idea of 'line' is certainly not
defined by a mathematical structure. We mathematically describe the world as
a sequence of changes, but mathematics does not tell us what changes we
perceive or are looking at. I can ascribe mathematics to anything. I can
present numbers as a line, and changes in the world (from gravity, etc) as a
description of variations upon the the movement of numbers, or objects, due
to the curvature of that line. But objects themselves are a curvature of
that line so we can dispense with the idea of object.
JJ
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd762132.0311051009.53114202@posting.google.com...
"John Jones" <john.jones53@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:<bo9069$7iv$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
I thought of it years ago.
How many years, Ludi ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: string theory |
04 Nov 2003 03:45:10 PM |
|
|
John Jones wrote:
I thought of it years ago.
[snip]
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: string theory |
09 Nov 2003 09:29:38 PM |
|
|
I did. Years ago.
JJ
Its true.
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3FA81DE6.63DE680D@hate.spam.net...
John Jones wrote:
I thought of it years ago.
[snip]
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Attack of the Strings People; "just so story?" |
04 Nov 2003 01:56:15 PM |
|
|
I thought of it years ago. Its simply that we cannot represent matter or
forces as physical icons. The strings of physics represent degrees of
curvature, which is ultimately a mathematical consideration. This is how it
must be if there is only one substance-, this is the only way that
differences in a physical universe can be unified and represented.
JJ
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vqfnot65o8dnf3@corp.supernews.com...
Or is this a "just so story", an a prior elaboration of necessary &
sufficient conditions for a theory of everything? But "just so stories"
can
lead to stories backed with direction & evidence | |
