Science > Physics > Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Peter Kinane" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2005 05:42:39 AM |
| Object: |
Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
(Note: I seem to be blocked in sci.physics.relativity from from making
secondary posts to my threads. I might as well take the opportunity to
ask if there are now any relativists in that group?).
Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
(See below).
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of
forces. (See below).
Isaac Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of
forces, indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially
multi-faceted. Change forces, change effect.
Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both the
moving train and the stationary platform, Effectuationism does not
feature reference frame jumping-about. Rather an option of frame of
reference (FoR) effects. So, of course, the "Principle of Relativity"
above does not feature - though it is somewhat supportive of the
Effectuationist principle of choosing one option - nor the related
Einstein principle that the speed of light is the same regardless of
the speed of the frame (or observer) measuring it, nor, of course, the
concept "space-time".
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of
reference, etc., at the philosophy level. Incoherent philosophy begets
incoherent physics models.
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is
an event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard
rate of event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension.
Emphasis: I expect that people are unaccustomed to employing, perhaps
even thinking of, a clock as an SES.
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required.
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation
Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship
with the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in
relation to the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes
(rockets) at some remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other
rockets can have determinable co-ordinates based on the established
axes. So, too, other loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can
look outwards as well as inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can
be tracked as routes on the co-ordinate system. A rotation of the Earth
at 'the equator' can be standard event speed (SES), when other moving
bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not
feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that
the Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces
the rocket can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate
system and Earth is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
rotate, with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such
feature inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For
example, let it commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in
front, or) at one's centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a
problem in determining (and retaining) the distance of the Earth from
FoR-r and the other rockets). The y value is continuous, but the body
moves in the other two co-ordinates, let's say, coming from East to
West; from +x to -x. Simultaneous to its movement into -x co-ordinates
it moves incresingly into +z co-ordinates, then progressing to its
maximum in -x while still increasing in +z and on to x_0 and to maximum
in +z, then on to maximum in +x as it decreases to its medium in +z,
and then on to x_0 and z_0 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have
eyes (rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the extended x and z
co-ordinates as inferred and in the constant co-ordinate of y_0, but
passing through z_0. The various x and z positions of the rockets,
which will be in the y_0 co-ordinate, can be determined, and their
clocks synchronised, if the z+1 value for Earth is sufficiently high to
allow a ray of light from FoR-r over and back to rocket-a (ra) and
another ray from FoR-r over and back to rb (rocket-b), and if,
likewise, ra can measure the position of rb and rc, and similarly rb
can get the position of rc and rd ... or some refinement of same. It
would also be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r sending
out rays of light to rockets which are in the other direction. This
would allow some verification or averaging of the information. Indeed,
the requirement above that the rockets should be able to see more than
one rocket at either side is probably surplus to requirements. (Other
variations, based on these principles would also be possible).
Rockets in other loops can be positioned by similar procedures and
related to those already positioned. For these the y co-ordinate would
not be constant.
FoR-r can synchronise its clock with that of r-b by having r-b coincide
with its (r-r's) measurement of the round trip speed of a light signal
from r-r to r-b and r-b to r-r when it (r-b) measures a signal from r-b
to r-r and from r-r to r-b. This assumes that if r-b has any speed it
will be steady or changing steadily. These clocks can then, likewise,
synchronise with yet others, in the case of those in other loops also
making allowance for the angle of the rocket's path. Clock of r-r, or
indeed any clock, would check occasionally that it continues to be in
sync with the SES.
This system could then be technologically equipped to study other
bodies.
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system
could be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or
extrapolates, to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket and
from this to others, in quite different zones in the cosmos and at
quite different speeds, then the measuring processes aboard same will
express these conditions (gamma factors) and the data may require
transformation for subsequent journeys at different speeds, and of
different materials, etc., according to trial and error. Also, the
duration of the transmission process should also be computed.
Gravity: Perhaps, much as in my Expansion Pressure Gravity Theory, this
is largely a matter of acceleration, association of complimentary forms
and spinning.
Light Warp and probably other gravitational phenomena: Turbulence, in
the fields around bodies, of 'the material' through which light
effects. (See below).
Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics:
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in
Effectuationism, a demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a
point but also somewhat continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous,
rather than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the
equator flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather
patterns - which simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It (Einstein's stuff included) seems to presume as rigorous its
concepts of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
observer on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this
should in some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the
micro-level, e.g. a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value
as inferentially indefinite, dynamic and multi-faceted. Quantum
Mechanics features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical
Mechanics (CM) regards QUANTUM Mechanics (QM) as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of
the two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this
latter weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a
relationship of forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a
lesson in Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has
about effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference
(FoR). Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of
"independent bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts
of "complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded.
Both QM and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM
world recognises that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world
conventionally is not smart enough to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating
the QM world through a minimum quantum of action (FoR-mqa). But, given
that 'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity"
and "the uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human
manipulation (FoR-mqa) within QM world on atoms and molecules - working
on more developed fields rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'.
Presumably we may do so with good prospects of constructive
discoveries.
Speculation regarding Gravity:
If ether flows somewhat rotationally and bodies, such as Earth
effectively effect through such ether, which are somewhat in its path
and which it carries - rotates and moves along - then around such
bodies would be a buffering phenomenon, which (zone) both forces in on
the body and keeps the flowing ether at some distance from the body.
This buffering phenomenon could serve as the gravity force locally
around bodies. It would allow for the MMX null. It could also be an
explanation of light warping.
In the case of a body with a neighbour, such as the Earth and its Moon,
the effects of the relationship of the buffering effect around each
could be quite complex - perhaps including a weakening of the force
inwards on each when they meet and also some effect - pyramid-like
bulge in the buffer (weakening of the inward force) - on the backside
of each.
Also, the ether would be a force on the Earth to rotate outwards and
likewise on the Moon. However, the Earth would be a force on the Moon
to rotate in the opposite direction. It seems the Moon's rotation is a
(rather even) balance of the two forces. Presumably, the degrees of
such forces would involve ether, mass and volume of the earth, distance
of the body from the Sun, details of the Moon and its distance from
Earth.
How well other planets accord with this in their rotations and in their
revolutions and precesessions ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 05:49:48 AM |
|
|
Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory
****************
Very effective presentation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 06:00:13 AM |
|
|
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.
pk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 06:10:49 AM |
|
|
On 17 Dec 2005 04:00:13 -0800, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.
pk
Please don't, it may inspire you to make a complete
fool of yourself.
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 07:23:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Joe Fischer <efischer@ig1ou.com> wrote:
On 17 Dec "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.
pk
Please don't, it may inspire you to make a complete
fool of yourself.
Joe Fischer
In an attempt to head off a flood of homegrown theories
about space, ether or fields, please let me state some facts.
There has never been a measurement of space.
Terms like "Minkowski space" are misleading, they
do not really mean "space".
Space and time is a misleading term, as there is
no way to measure space, no way to mark a spot in space,
and no way to describe space.
The measurements that have been called space
are nothing more than how many times a meter stick
has to be placed end to end to reach from one object
to another or to reach from a mark on an object to
another mark on an object.
Spacetime has special meaning to a relativists,
something about a map of the manifold of recorded
motion of objects due to the presence of gravity.
Without gravity, that manifold may be "flat",
but it says nothing about space.
Those who become engrossed in the ability
of space or medium supposedly filling all space (and
all matter) become extremely vain in defending the
frustratingly useless concept of ether.
Ether is even more wrong than space having
an effect on physics, neither are needed, nothing
about them will submit to measurement.
Matter and energy are the entities that make
up the universe, there are no open areas of missing
knowledge that new math is needed for.
Between Newtonian mechanics, General
Relativity and the quantum theories, there are more
than enough math and predictive theories.
At times, space may appear to expand or
take part in physical processes, but that is an
illusion, as many observer biased impressions are.
Relativity itself is more of a translation of
unbiased physics to the biased reference frames
used by people, than of the physics itself.
And this is where all the idiotic arguments
arise, not all people have the same bias impressions.
Even rumor and gossip alter common sense
about space and spacetime.
There is essentially nothing missing in physics
to the extent that technology has been already developed.
There will be new discoveries, but they are almost
always made by people very well practiced in the area of
development.
A number of new telescopes are being built and
some are being brought on line and calibrated and aligned.
Most of these use advanced software, and that
needs to be learned by the technicians and configured.
But all new physics is about matter and energy,
it cannot be about space or ether.
These words may seem to leave a void about
what causes the effects observed that are attributed
to gravity. It has been proven that space or ether
is not capable of being involved in physical processes,
Gravity is the least well known area of physics,
and that may continue to be true for a long time.
But gravity is obviously more related to geometry
than to particle, medium or force interactions.
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 09:37:10 AM |
|
|
Joe Fischer wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Joe Fischer <efischer@ig1ou.com>
wrote: > > >On 17 Dec "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.
pk
Please don't, it may inspire you to make a complete
fool of yourself.
Joe Fischer
In an attempt to head off a flood of homegrown theories
about space, ether or fields, please let me state some facts.
What is "ether"?
There has never been a measurement of space.
OBjECT (i.e. PARTiCLE) space is distinguished from "EMPTY-space".
[What are the Tom-Roberts-approved error-bars, on "EMPTY-space"?]
Terms like "Minkowski space" are misleading, they
do not really mean "space".
Space and time is a misleading term, as there is
no way to measure space, no way to mark a spot in space,
and no way to describe space.
SPACE is MEASURED by the parts per million ..PARTiCLE COUNT.!!
[i.e. So, if it has a NON-ZERO particle COUNT ..it's MEDiA].!!
[i.e. So, if it has a *ZERO* particle COUNT, it's a VACUUM].!!
The measurements that have been called space
are nothing more than how many times a meter stick
has to be placed end to end to reach from one object
to another or to reach from a mark on an object to
another mark on an object.
What "MEASUREMENTs" have been called "space", dimwit.?!!
CLEARLY, LiNEAR "measurements that have been called space are
nothing MORE than how many times a meter stick has to be placed
end to end". Anthing "MORE" than the MEASURE, here, is idiocy.!!
AVAGADRO's Law is PROOF of an iNTERFACE connection in BETWEEN.!!
Spacetime has special meaning to a relativists,
something about -=-
..GR-WORLD-points on WORLD-lines in GR-SPACE-time-curvature.
The "WORLDs" terminology soon became embarassing, so coup-GR
adopted a MORE sophisticated but cute, "map of the manifold".
(Especially, after Max Born's "LiTTLE iMP observers" fiasco).
-=- a map of the manifold of recorded
motion of objects due to the presence of gravity.
Without gravity, that manifold may be "flat",
but it says nothing about space.
EinsteiN CLEARLY specified ZERO particle COUNT "EMPTY-space".!!
Light VELOCiTY v keeps DECREASiNG, inversely as particle COUNT.
Light VELOCiTY c is now a MATHEMATiCAL CONSTANT ..just like pi.
Light VELOCiTY v keeps iNCREASiNG, inversely as particle COUNT.
Light VELOCiTY v is CONSTANT ..ONLY at CONSTANT particle COUNT.
Those who become engrossed in the ability
of space or medium supposedly filling all space (and
all matter) become extremely vain in defending the
frustratingly useless concept of ether.
What are you calling "ether"? Do you mean "AEther".?!!
Ether is even more wrong than space having
an effect on physics, neither are needed, nothing
about them will submit to measurement.
What is MORE WRONG about "ether" than "space", (snicker)?
Matter and energy are the entities that make
up the universe, there are no open areas of missing
knowledge that new math is needed for.
Between Newtonian mechanics, General
Relativity and the quantum theories, there are more
than enough math and predictive theories.
Which ALL lack the GUESS iSS AMBiENT MEDiA (n - 1) factor.!!
At times, space may appear to expand -=-
Can you give an EXAMPLE where SPACE "may appear" anyHOW.?
-=- or take part in physical processes, but that is an
illusion, as many observer biased impressions are.
Relativity itself is more of a translation of
unbiased physics to the -=-
..anthropologically..
-=- biased reference frames used by people, than of the physics > itself.
What is "physics [besides] iTSELF", you silly GR-cracked-pot.!!
And this is where all the idiotic arguments
arise, not all people have the same bias impressions.
Even rumor and gossip alter common sense
about space and spacetime.
"Romur and gossip alter COMMON sense", by definition.!!
There is essentially nothing missing in physics
to the extent that technology has been already developed.
There will be new discoveries, but they are almost
always made by people very well practiced in the area of
development.
Yes .."ALMOST".!!
A number of new telescopes are being built and
some are being brought on line and calibrated and aligned.
Most of these use advanced software, and that
needs to be learned by the technicians and configured.
But all new physics is about matter and energy,
it cannot be about space or ether.
How do YOU distinguish YOUR "space" and YOUR "ether", iDiOT.
Local GUESS iSS empty "SPACE" is m1's "CAViTY n" = mD/m1.!!
These words may seem to leave a void about
what causes the effects observed that are attributed
to gravity. It has been proven that space or ether
What PROOF of "ether ... NOT capable of being involved.."?
is not capable of being involved in physical processes,
Gravity is the least well known area of physics,
and that may continue to be true for a long time.
But gravity is obviously more related to geometry
than to particle, medium or force interactions.
You mis-SPELLED "particle-medium" there, dipstick.!!
GRAViTY is CENTRO-SYMMETRiC ..Maxwell's equations AREN'T.!!
Brian A M Stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><> ^
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 08:06:38 AM |
|
|
Re "In an attempt to head off a flood of homegrown theories about
space, ether or fields, please let me state some facts.": This seems an
improvement on assertion.
However, perhaps you would honour me by more directly addressing my
post. If, alternatively, you simply wish to post a treatise of your
own, perhaps you should open a new thread. Of course, you would need a
header for it?
Re "There will be new discoveries, but they are almost always made by
people very well practiced in the area of development.": You may be on
to something here.
Re "Gravity is the least well known area of physics, and that may
continue to be true for a long time.": Perhaps you or anyone can tell
me the direction of the Earth's orbit, with the Sun as frame of
reference - co-ordinate system.
I take it that as viewed from the Sun, the Earth rotates from left to
right (-x to +x).
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 12:00:31 PM |
|
|
On 17 Dec wrote a proper complaint about my response:
And I apologize for using his subject header without
addressing specifiv points in his original article.
Re "In an attempt to head off a flood of homegrown theories about
space, ether or fields, please let me state some facts.": This seems an
improvement on assertion.
Only the facts I stated about measurements of space,
sorry, I should have separated those facts from other statements.
However, perhaps you would honour me by more directly addressing my
post.
I will if you request, but it is rather non-specific,
maybe you would like to point out to me what you think
is clearly your idea of the physical aspects.
If, alternatively, you simply wish to post a treatise of your
own, perhaps you should open a new thread.
Ok, but you will laugh.
Of course, you would need a header for it?
Again, I am sorry, I got carried away, and it was
in the middle of the night for me.
Re "There will be new discoveries, but they are almost always made by
people very well practiced in the area of development.": You may be on
to something here.
I think so, they may not have advanced degrees
in the subject matter, but must know a great deal about
the things they devise.
Re "Gravity is the least well known area of physics, and that may
continue to be true for a long time.": Perhaps you or anyone can tell
me the direction of the Earth's orbit, with the Sun as frame of
reference - co-ordinate system.
Using standard astronomy and NASA terms?
I take it that as viewed from the Sun, the Earth rotates from left to
right (-x to +x).
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Standing where on the sun? Facing which direction?
I like blue, but could you change the 3366FF background
color to something a little darker, maybe 2222EE, it will make the
first page easier to read, I think.
You mentioned "physics, forum", I didn't check, is
the site a forum where people can discuss things about it?
Again, I apologize for using your header without
proper quoting and commenting. I really didn't mean
my words to apply to only your ideas, but to all concepts
that use the word "space" to mean the dimensions of
distances.
I am not sure, but for some people, Euclid started
this falsehood. But we should be glad the Earth is round,
else the hills would be steeper.
Joe Fischer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
17 Dec 2005 02:49:11 PM |
|
|
Joe Fischer wrote:
On 17 Dec wrote a proper complaint about my response:
And I apologize for using his subject header without
addressing specifiv points in his original article.
Re "In an attempt to head off a flood of homegrown theories about
space, ether or fields, please let me state some facts.": This seems an
improvement on assertion.
Only the facts I stated about measurements of space,
sorry, I should have separated those facts from other statements.
However, perhaps you would honour me by more directly addressing my
post.
I will if you request, but it is rather non-specific,
maybe you would like to point out to me what you think
is clearly your idea of the physical aspects.
Ok. Perhaps like you, my system does not feature the concept "space".
Also, I'm not sure I want to talk in terms of "the physical aspects".
There is a model featured (opening post) of a, shall we say, GPS. You
might find it worthwhile to take a look at it. Initally, you could
start at paragraph 16.
If, alternatively, you simply wish to post a treatise of your
own, perhaps you should open a new thread.
Ok, but you will laugh.
Of course, you would need a header for it?
Again, I am sorry, I got carried away, and it was
in the middle of the night for me.
That's ok, but it did follow your earlier post - not to worry.
Re "There will be new discoveries, but they are almost always made by
people very well practiced in the area of development.": You may be on
to something here.
I think so, they may not have advanced degrees
in the subject matter, but must know a great deal about
the things they devise.
Re "Gravity is the least well known area of physics, and that may
continue to be true for a long time.": Perhaps you or anyone can tell
me the direction of the Earth's orbit, with the Sun as frame of
reference - co-ordinate system.
Using standard astronomy and NASA terms?
I take it that as viewed from the Sun, the Earth rotates from left to
right (-x to +x).
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
Standing where on the sun? Facing which direction?
Well, as the scene outlined only contains the Sun and the Earth, for
frame of reference to effect the Sun - to have a face and back - would
need to be in relationship with the Earth - so, "facing" the Earth.
As I said, given that frame of reference, "I take it that the Earth
rotates from left to right (-x to +x)". Does that make sense to you?
If so, I then am asking what is "the direction of the Earth's orbit".
Might be better to avoid standard astronomy and NASA terms.
I like blue, but could you change the 3366FF background
color to something a little darker, maybe 2222EE, it will make the
first page easier to read, I think.
I appreciate the comment.
You mentioned "physics, forum", I didn't check, is
the site a forum where people can discuss things about it?
I suppose it could be.
Again, I apologize for using your header without
proper quoting and commenting. I really didn't mean
my words to apply to only your ideas, but to all concepts
that use the word "space" to mean the dimensions of
distances.
I am not sure, but for some people, Euclid started
this falsehood. But we should be glad the Earth is round,
else the hills would be steeper.
Think of the muscles we might have had.
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
26 Dec 2005 05:04:34 PM |
|
|
Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'".
(See below).
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of
forces. (See below).
Isaac Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of
forces, indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially
multi-faceted. Change forces, change effect.
Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both the
moving train and the stationary platform, Effectuationism does not
feature reference frame hopping . Rather an option of frame of
reference (FoR) effects. So, of course, the "Principle of Relativity"
above does not feature - though it is somewhat supportive of the
Effectuationist principle of choosing one option. The related Einstein
principle that the speed of light is the same regardless of the speed
of the frame (or observer) measuring it becomes non problematical as
any synchronization of clocks simply involves bringing secondary clocks
into agreement - sync - with the effected FoR rocket- -clock on the
round trip speed of light signals - effectively synchronization of
measurements of light speed- -velocity over common trips rather than
reconciling of respective perspectives. Neither does the concept
"space-time" feature.
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of
reference, etc., at the philosophy level. Incoherent philosophy begets
incoherent physics models.
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is
an event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard
rate of event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension.
Emphasis: I expect that people are unaccustomed to employing, perhaps
even thinking of, a clock as an SES.
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required.
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation
Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship
with the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in
relation to the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes
(rockets) at some remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other
rockets can have determinable co-ordinates based on the established
axes. So, too, other loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can
look outwards as well as inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can
be tracked as routes on the co-ordinate system. A rotation of the Earth
at 'the equator' can be standard event speed (SES), when other moving
bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not
feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that
the Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces
the rocket can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate
system and Earth is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to
rotate, with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such
feature inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For
example, let it commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in
front, or) at one's centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a
problem in determining (and retaining) the distance of the Earth from
FoR-r and the other rockets). The y value is continuous, but the body
moves in the other two co-ordinates, let's say, coming from West to
East; from -x to +x. Simultaneous to its movement into +x co-ordinates
it moves incresingly into +z co-ordinates, then progressing to its
maximum in +x while still increasing in +z and on to x_0 and to maximum
in +z, then on to maximum in -x as it decreases to its medium in +z,
and then on to x_0 and z_1 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have
eyes (rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the extended x and z
co-ordinates as inferred and in the constant co-ordinate of y_0, but
passing through z_0. The various x and z positions of the rockets,
which will be in the y_0 co-ordinate, can be determined, and their
clocks synchronised, if the z+1 value for Earth is sufficiently high to
allow a ray of light from FoR-r over and back to rocket-a (ra) and
another ray from FoR-r over and back to rb (rocket-b), and if,
likewise, ra can measure the position of rb and rc, and similarly rb
can get the position of rc and rd ... or some refinement of same. It
would also be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r sending
out rays of light to rockets which are in the other direction. This
would allow some verification or averaging of the information. Indeed,
the requirement above that the rockets should be able to see more than
one rocket at either side is probably surplus to requirements. (Other
variations, based on these principles would also be possible).
Rockets in other loops can be positioned by similar procedures and
related to those already positioned. For these the y co-ordinate would
not be constant.
FoR-r can synchronise its clock with that of r-b by having r-b coincide
with its (r-r's) measurement of the round trip speed of a light signal
from r-r to r-b and r-b to r-r when it (r-b) measures a signal from r-b
to r-r and from r-r to r-b. This assumes that if r-b has any speed it
will be steady or changing steadily. These clocks can then, likewise,
synchronise with yet others, in the case of those in other loops also
making allowance for the angle of the rocket's path. Likewise,
synchronisation with other clocks in any co-ordinate of the system can
be effected. Clock of r-r, or indeed any of the clocks in the loops,
would check occasionally that it continues to be in sync with the SES.
This system could then be technologically equipped to study other
bodies.
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system
could be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or
extrapolates, to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket and
from this to others, in quite different zones in the cosmos and at
quite different speeds, then the measuring processes aboard same will
express these conditions (gamma factors) and the data may require
transformation for subsequent journeys at different speeds, and of
different materials, etc., according to trial and error. Also, the
duration of the transmission process should also be computed.
Gravity: Perhaps, much as in my Expansion Pressure Gravity Theory, this
is largely a matter of acceleration, association of complimentary forms
and spinning.
Light Warp and probably other gravitational phenomena: Turbulence, in
the fields around bodies, of 'the material' through which light
effects. (See below).
Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics:
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in
Effectuationism, a demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a
point but also somewhat continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous,
rather than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the
equator flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather
patterns - which simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It (Einstein's stuff included) seems to presume as rigorous its
concepts of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the
observer on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this
should in some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the
micro-level, e.g. a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value
as inferentially indefinite, dynamic and multi-faceted. Quantum
Mechanics features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical
Mechanics (CM) regards QUANTUM Mechanics (QM) as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of
the two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this
latter weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a
relationship of forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a
lesson in Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has
about effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference
(FoR). Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of
"independent bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts
of "complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded.
Both QM and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM
world recognises that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world
conventionally is not smart enough to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating
the QM world through a minimum quantum of action. But, given that
'restriction', and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and
"the uncertainty principle", we may address the potential of human
manipulation within QM world on 'forces' - experimenting more with
relationships of forces rather than focusing on isolating 'forces'.
Presumably we may do so with good prospects of constructive
discoveries.
Speculation regarding Gravity:
If ether flows somewhat rotationally and bodies, such as Earth
effectively effect through such ether, which are somewhat in its path
and which it carries - rotates and moves along - then around such
bodies would be a buffering phenomenon, which (zone) both forces in on
the body and keeps the flowing ether at some distance from the body.
This buffering phenomenon could serve as the gravity force locally
around bodies. It would allow for the MMX null. It could also be an
explanation of light warping.
In the case of a body with a neighbour, such as the Earth and its Moon,
the effects of the relationship of the buffering effect around each
could be quite complex - perhaps including a weakening of the force
inwards on each when they meet and also some effect - pyramid-like
bulge in the buffer (weakening of the inward force) - on the backside
of each.
Also, the ether would be a force on the Earth to rotate outwards and
likewise on the Moon. However, the Earth would be a force on the Moon
to rotate in the opposite direction. It seems the Moon's rotation is a
(rather even) balance of the two forces. Presumably, the degrees of
such forces would involve ether, mass and volume of the earth, distance
of the body from the Sun, details of the Moon and its distance from
Earth.
How well other planets accord with this in their rotations and in their
revolutions and precesessions ...
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
05 Jan 2006 07:13:20 AM |
|
|
Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'". (See
below).
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
(See below).
Isaac Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of forces,
indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially multi-faceted.
Change forces, change effect.
Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both the moving
train and the stationary platform, Effectuationism does not feature
reference frame hopping . Rather an option of frame of reference (FoR)
effects. So, of course, the "Principle of Relativity" above does not
feature - though it is somewhat supportive of the Effectuationist principle
of choosing one option - nor does the second Einsteinian principle that the
speed of light is the same regardless of the speed of the source or of the
frame (or observer) measuring it. Any synchronization of clocks simply
involves bringing secondary clocks into agreement - sync - with the effected
FoR rocket- -clock on the round trip speed of light signals - effectively
synchronization of measurements of light speed- -velocity between clocks
rather than reconciliation of respective, and gamma influenced,
measurements. Neither does the concept "space-time" feature.
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of reference,
etc., at the philosophy level. Incoherent philosophy begets incoherent
physics models (and incoherent everything else).
Effectively, again, "change forces, change effects". Change frame of
reference, change effect. The speed of light in two different frames of
reference is not one event - not one and the same effect. A clock under one
set of circumstances- -forces is not the same clock if the forces change.
Hence, for two clocks - or phenomena - to 'talk' to each other they must
either opt for one language or else be provided with
interpreters- -transformations. (Where this leaves the second postulate (and
indeed the first) of Special Relativity ...).
The important point would seem to be that there is not one event involved
but two - inferentially. This effectively precludes the concept
"space-time". Next is to decide on the system by which such events -
phenomena - relate to each other - or indeed whether one should concern
oneself with acknowledging the inferential world other than to be aware of
the inferential factor. In my philosophy system, I talk of organisms
developing, through interaction with each other, connotational empathy. We
do not identify with each other; we develop empathy with each other's
connotations. The degree to which we succeed in such empathy of connotation
is what is important. Having appreciated different models - different FoRs,
to a great degree - one may then relate these different FoRs - effectively
models - and choose, according to one's fancy, which to espouse. So, I'll
proceed to outline the rudiment of the single - the non frame hopping -
world. This can then be related to the frame hopping world, and the reader
may choose their preference.
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is an
event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard rate of
event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension.
Emphasis: I expect that people are unaccustomed to employing, perhaps even
thinking of, a clock as an SES.
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required.
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, other
loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can look outwards as well as
inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes on the
co-ordinate system. A rotation of the Earth at 'the equator' can be standard
event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to rotate,
with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such feature
inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For example, let it
commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or) at one's
centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining (and
retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets). The
y value is continuous, but the body moves in the other two co-ordinates,
let's say, coming from West to East; from -x to +x. Simultaneous to its
movement into +x co-ordinates it moves incresingly into +z co-ordinates,
then progressing to its maximum in +x while still increasing in +z and on to
x_0 and to maximum in +z, then on to maximum in -x as it decreases to its
medium in +z, and then on to x_0 and z_1 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have eyes
(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the extended x and z co-ordinates as
inferred and in the constant co-ordinate of y_0, but passing through z_0.
The various x and z positions of the rockets, which will be in the y_0
co-ordinate, can be determined, and their clocks synchronised, if the z+1
value for Earth is sufficiently high to allow a ray of light from FoR-r over
and back to rocket-a (ra) and another ray from FoR-r over and back to rb
(rocket-b), and if, likewise, ra can measure the position of rb and rc, and
similarly rb can get the position of rc and rd ... or some refinement of
same. It would also be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r
sending out rays of light to rockets which are in the other direction. This
would allow some verification or averaging of the information. Indeed, the
requirement above that the rockets should be able to see more than one
rocket at either side is probably surplus to requirements. (Other
variations, based on these principles would also be possible).
Rockets in other loops can be positioned by similar procedures and related
to those already positioned. For these the y co-ordinate would not be
constant.
FoR-r can synchronise its clock with that of r-b by having r-b coincide with
its (r-r's) measurement of the round trip speed of a light signal from r-r
to r-b and r-b to r-r when it (r-b) measures a signal from r-b to r-r and
from r-r to r-b. This assumes that if r-b has any speed it will be steady or
changing steadily. These clocks can then, likewise, synchronise with yet
others, in the case of those in other loops also making allowance for the
angle of the rocket's path. Likewise, synchronisation with other clocks in
any co-ordinate of the system can be effected. Clock of r-r, or indeed any
of the clocks in the loops, would check occasionally that it continues to be
in sync with the SES.
This system could then be technologically equipped to study other bodies.
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system could
be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
As we move out into the cosmos, an Earth-centered world - with the
consequent revolving of the cosmos - can be avoided by having much the same
rocket system but travelling around a point, for example, in our solar
system, of intersection of lines from selected star systems.
Gravity: Perhaps, much as in my Expansion Pressure Gravity Theory, this is
largely a matter of speed, association of complimentary forms and spinning.
Light Warp and probably other gravitational phenomena: Turbulence, in the
fields around bodies, of 'the material' through which light effects. (See
below).
Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics:
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It (Einstein's stuff included) seems to presume as rigorous its concepts
of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level, e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
inferentially indefinite, dynamic and multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
(CM) regards QUANTUM Mechanics (QM) as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of "independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action. But, given that 'restriction',
and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the uncertainty
principle", we may address the potential of human manipulation within QM
world on 'forces' - experimenting more with relationships of forces rather
than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do so with good
prospects of constructive discoveries.
Speculation regarding Gravity:
If ether flows somewhat rotationally and bodies, such as Earth effectively
effect through such ether, which are somewhat in its path and which it
carries - rotates and moves along - then around such bodies would be a
buffering phenomenon, which (zone) both forces in on the body and keeps the
flowing ether at some distance from the body.
This buffering phenomenon could serve as the gravity force locally around
bodies. It would allow for the MMX null. It could also be an explanation of
light warping.
In the case of a body with a neighbour, such as the Earth and its Moon, the
effects of the relationship of the buffering effect around each could be
quite complex - perhaps including a weakening of the force inwards on each
when they meet and also some effect - pyramid-like bulge in the buffer
(weakening of the inward force) - on the backside of each.
Also, the ether would be a force on the Earth to rotate and likewise on the
Moon. However, the Earth would be a force on the Moon to rotate in the
opposite direction to itself. It seems the Moon's rotation is a (rather
even) balance of the Sun's and Earth's influences.
How well other planets accord with this in their rotations and in their
revolutions and precesessions ...
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
29 Dec 2005 12:06:45 PM |
|
|
Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory
Philosophy: Effectuationism.
Quantum Mechanics: David Bohm's idea of effect through relationship of
experiment and experimenter may be coherent with the philosophy system
above - "Effect, through, and indeed as, relationship 'of forces'". (See
below).
Classical Mechanics: This could be regarded as a relationship of forces.
(See below).
Isaac Newton's 1st law of motion need not feature.
Instead: Effect, through, and indeed as, tension of relationship of forces,
indefinite and dynamic, somewhat recurring and inferentially multi-faceted.
Change forces, change effect.
Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Galileo and Einstein: "The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial
Frames". Unlike Relativism, which tries to be, for example, both the moving
train and the stationary platform, Effectuationism does not feature
reference frame hopping . Rather an option of frame of reference (FoR)
effects. So, of course, the "Principle of Relativity" above does not
feature - though it is somewhat supportive of the Effectuationist principle
of choosing one option - nor does the second Einsteinian principle that the
speed of light is the same regardless of the speed of the source or of the
frame (or observer) measuring it. Any synchronization of clocks simply
involves bringing secondary clocks into agreement - sync - with the effected
FoR rocket- -clock on the round trip speed of light signals - effectively
synchronization of measurements of light speed- -velocity between clocks
rather than reconciliation of respective, and gamma influenced,
measurements. Neither does the concept "space-time" feature.
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of reference,
etc., at the philosophy level. Incoherent philosophy begets incoherent
physics models (and incoherent everything else).
Given: Tension of indefinite and dynamic forces, and inferentially
multifaceted.
With further development: Indefinite and dynamic Man/Person- -Ground in
tension with moving animal/object - Time- -Being.
Moving Object/Animal in relationship with FoR (Man/Person- -Ground) is an
event, with readily determined x,y,z co-ordinates and the standard rate of
event (RE) (or standard event speed (SES)) the t dimension.
Emphasis: I expect that people are unaccustomed to employing, perhaps even
thinking of, a clock as an SES.
One may extend or extrapolate from the FoR as required.
So, application of the Principles of the Effectuationism Navigation Model:
Through a frame of reference orbiting rocket (FoR-r) in relationship with
the Earth, movement of the Earth effects. Through the FoR-r in relation to
the Earth effect x,y and z-axes. FoR-r can also have eyes (rockets) at some
remove from itself 'along its orbit'. The other rockets can have
determinable co-ordinates based on the established axes. So, too, other
loops of rockets can be provided. The rockets can look outwards as well as
inwards. Thereby events inside and outside can be tracked as routes on the
co-ordinate system. A rotation of the Earth at 'the equator' can be standard
event speed (SES), when other moving bodies have been seen to move.
The conventional concepts of "Space" and "Independent Time" do not feature.
Further developed:
Rocket in relationship with the Earth. Let both have speeds such that the
Earth does not seem to move. Through this relationship of forces the rocket
can be frame of reference (FoR-r); FoR-r is a co-ordinate system and Earth
is a body in that system.
Now change the relationship of speeds such that the Earth is seen to rotate,
with different features coming and going repeatedly. Any such feature
inferentially would have a path in the co ordinates. For example, let it
commence as x_0, y_0 and z_1. (It is directly (in front, or) at one's
centre, but out a bit. Presumably there is not a problem in determining (and
retaining) the distance of the Earth from FoR-r and the other rockets). The
y value is continuous, but the body moves in the other two co-ordinates,
let's say, coming from West to East; from -x to +x. Simultaneous to its
movement into +x co-ordinates it moves incresingly into +z co-ordinates,
then progressing to its maximum in +x while still increasing in +z and on to
x_0 and to maximum in +z, then on to maximum in -x as it decreases to its
medium in +z, and then on to x_0 and z_1 again.
Now to observe it in a path such as has been inferred: FoR-r will have eyes
(rockets) 'along its orbit' giving the extended x and z co-ordinates as
inferred and in the constant co-ordinate of y_0, but passing through z_0.
The various x and z positions of the rockets, which will be in the y_0
co-ordinate, can be determined, and their clocks synchronised, if the z+1
value for Earth is sufficiently high to allow a ray of light from FoR-r over
and back to rocket-a (ra) and another ray from FoR-r over and back to rb
(rocket-b), and if, likewise, ra can measure the position of rb and rc, and
similarly rb can get the position of rc and rd ... or some refinement of
same. It would also be possible to cross-check the positions by FoR-r
sending out rays of light to rockets which are in the other direction. This
would allow some verification or averaging of the information. Indeed, the
requirement above that the rockets should be able to see more than one
rocket at either side is probably surplus to requirements. (Other
variations, based on these principles would also be possible).
Rockets in other loops can be positioned by similar procedures and related
to those already positioned. For these the y co-ordinate would not be
constant.
FoR-r can synchronise its clock with that of r-b by having r-b coincide with
its (r-r's) measurement of the round trip speed of a light signal from r-r
to r-b and r-b to r-r when it (r-b) measures a signal from r-b to r-r and
from r-r to r-b. This assumes that if r-b has any speed it will be steady or
changing steadily. These clocks can then, likewise, synchronise with yet
others, in the case of those in other loops also making allowance for the
angle of the rocket's path. Likewise, synchronisation with other clocks in
any co-ordinate of the system can be effected. Clock of r-r, or indeed any
of the clocks in the loops, would check occasionally that it continues to be
in sync with the SES.
This system could then be technologically equipped to study other bodies.
It should be possible that the accumulated information of the system could
be transmitted to any co-ordinate in the system.
Gravity: Perhaps, much as in my Expansion Pressure Gravity Theory, this is
largely a matter of speed, association of complimentary forms and spinning.
Light Warp and probably other gravitational phenomena: Turbulence, in the
fields around bodies, of 'the material' through which light effects. (See
below).
Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics:
The conventional model of Classical Mechanics:
1. It seems to presume that it can have a closed system or an inertial
system with which to work, rather than that it is (as in Effectuationism, a
demarcatory interactivity) particle-like up to a point but also somewhat
continuous.
2. Yet, it seems to have presumed energy or force to be continuous, rather
than that there are boundaries - such as the butterfly at the equator
flapping its wings and thereby influencing world weather patterns - which
simply are not addressed- -quantified- -particlated.
3. It seems to presume that it has an adequate model of gravity.
4. It (Einstein's stuff included) seems to presume as rigorous its concepts
of space and time.
5. It seems to presume that because the degree of influence of the observer
on the 'system' is insignificant or can be accounted that this should in
some way be relatable to the influence of observer at the micro-level, e.g.
a photon in Quantum Mechanics.
6. It does not seem to feature the Effectuationist principle of value as
inferentially indefinite, dynamic and multi-faceted. Quantum Mechanics
features a wave-particle duality concept.
Based on these assumptions the conventional model of Classical Mechanics
(CM) regards QUANTUM Mechanics (QM) as weird.
However, if (with the benefit of Effectuationism) one commences as
comfortable with the features of QM one can then see these conventional
characteristics of Classical Mechanics as weird, and that coherence of the
two models might be more successfully pursued by tackling this latter
weirdness - in effect, to make CM correspond to QM, as a relationship of
forces, rather than the other way about. ('Anyone for a lesson in
Effectuationist structure and syntax?')
On the other hand, QM needs to get over any inferiority complex it has about
effectuation of the measuring apparatus as frame of reference (FoR).
Whereas, CM needs to develop self-doubt about its concept of "independent
bodies in space and time". It would seem that the concepts of
"complementarity" and "the uncertainty principle" can be discarded. Both QM
and CM worlds feature selected frames of reference - the QM world recognises
that it is so in QM, whereas the CM world conventionally is not smart enough
to notice this in CM.
So, 'Nature' am effectuationist. We may be 'restricted' in manipulating the
QM world through a minimum quantum of action. But, given that 'restriction',
and abandoning the concepts of "complementarity" and "the uncertainty
principle", we may address the potential of human manipulation within QM
world on 'forces' - experimenting more with relationships of forces rather
than focusing on isolating 'forces'. Presumably we may do so with good
prospects of constructive discoveries.
Speculation regarding Gravity:
If ether flows somewhat rotationally and bodies, such as Earth effectively
effect through such ether, which are somewhat in its path and which it
carries - rotates and moves along - then around such bodies would be a
buffering phenomenon, which (zone) both forces in on the body and keeps the
flowing ether at some distance from the body.
This buffering phenomenon could serve as the gravity force locally around
bodies. It would allow for the MMX null. It could also be an explanation of
light warping.
In the case of a body with a neighbour, such as the Earth and its Moon, the
effects of the relationship of the buffering effect around each could be
quite complex - perhaps including a weakening of the force inwards on each
when they meet and also some effect - pyramid-like bulge in the buffer
(weakening of the inward force) - on the backside of each.
Also, the ether would be a force on the Earth to rotate and likewise on the
Moon. However, the Earth would be a force on the Moon to rotate in the
opposite direction to itself. It seems the Moon's rotation is a (rather
even) balance of the Sun's and Earth's influences.
How well other planets accord with this in their rotations and in their
revolutions and precesessions ...
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Rudiment of Effectuationism Grand Unification Theory |
30 Dec 2005 09:07:50 AM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:dp18k7$kpu$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
As we move out into the cosmos, an Earth-centered world - with the
consequent revolving of the cosmos - can be avoided by having much the same
rocket system but travelling around a point, for example, in our solar
system, of intersection of lines from selected star systems.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
