| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2006 06:32:55 AM |
| Object: |
The Unity Problem |
When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
arbitrarily.
Another might choose the centimeter.
Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
You might say that this is splitting a hair.
That is a fine position.
But what if there are consequences?
I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
this way.
Is this premise a valid conflict?
If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
affirmative.
The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
space.
Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent.
The mathematicians will point his finger at the physicists. This has
already happened.
Will the physicist point his finger back at the mathematician?
I am curious how people feel about this minor discrepancy in our
mathematical model of space.
-Tim
.
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: All numbers are virtual. |
17 Nov 2006 09:14:04 PM |
|
|
Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
Reality is always something different... more or less.
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
All entities are virtual, with a finite Duration/Volume.
Real choices don't exist; all are imprisoned in a virtual casino,
and the house always wins in the end.
Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
thus enabling me to understand their intent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: All numbers are virtual. |
18 Nov 2006 11:48:56 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_17_13_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
Reality is always something different... more or less.
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
Your gibberish has reached a new depth of nonsense. Well done.
All entities are virtual, with a finite Duration/Volume.
Real choices don't exist; all are imprisoned in a virtual casino,
and the house always wins in the end.
Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
thus enabling me to understand their intent.
Nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: All numbers are virtual. |
18 Nov 2006 12:28:47 PM |
|
|
In article <ZpSdnYWXN_IW2sLYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
thus enabling me to understand their intent.
Nonsense.
Strangely enough. I have a similar response. Whenever, on USENET where
the word "Jeff Relf" is brought up, my mind automatically replaces it
with the phrase "drooling idiot". I find it enables me to understand his
posts.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "unsettled" |
|
| Title: Re: All numbers are virtual. |
18 Nov 2006 12:35:32 PM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <ZpSdnYWXN_IW2sLYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
thus enabling me to understand their intent.
Nonsense.
Strangely enough. I have a similar response. Whenever, on USENET where
the word "Jeff Relf" is brought up, my mind automatically replaces it
with the phrase "drooling idiot". I find it enables me to understand his
posts.
Relf was in a class by himself for a while.
Now he is joined by others, including Wake.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: All numbers are virtual. |
17 Nov 2006 09:16:00 PM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_17_13_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
Reality is always something different... more or less.
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
All entities are virtual, with a finite Duration/Volume.
Real choices don't exist; all are imprisoned in a virtual casino,
and the house always wins in the end.
Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
thus enabling me to understand their intent.
Your mind replaces a lot of things. For a start, you seem convinced that
the more you spout your useless babble the more people will believe it.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "unsettled" |
|
| Title: Re: All numbers are virtual. |
17 Nov 2006 09:22:41 PM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_17_13_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
Reality is always something different... more or less.
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
All entities are virtual, with a finite Duration/Volume.
Real choices don't exist; all are imprisoned in a virtual casino,
and the house always wins in the end.
Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
thus enabling me to understand their intent.
Your mind replaces a lot of things. For a start, you seem convinced that
the more you spout your useless babble the more people will believe it.
You've got it wrong.
He's busy convincing himself and his mirror is broken.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: All numbers are virtual. |
17 Nov 2006 10:49:17 PM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
Reality is always something different... more or less.
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
Really? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Time and time again, over all of recorded history... |
18 Nov 2006 03:05:03 AM |
|
|
Hi Bob_Kolker, Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
Physical process determine absolutely everything...
that's called " Physicalism "... and how could it be any other way ?
But don't take my word for it...
read ( and understand ) the following links and quotes...
In the following quotes from Einstein,
he argues that time is pseudo-directional
( i.e. he argues that time is spatial )
because, just as a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom
( i.e. just as it's known to be causal ), all randomness is pseudorandom.
But the scientist is possessed by
the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is
every whit as necessary and determined as the past.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html
and:
People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
SpeakingOfFaith.PublicRadio.ORG/programs/einsteinsgod/unheardcuts.shtml
See also:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time
Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
Title: Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ?
Urgrue.ORG/lib/mysterious-flow.html
Title: That Mysterious Flow
Journal: Scientific American, Sep 2002
Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
Title: 4D View of Time
Consequently, Einstein felt
physical processes determined absolutely everything, including man's desires.
For example, he said:
I do not believe in freedom of the will.
Schopenhauer's words:
“ Man can do what he wants,
but he cannot will what he wills ”
accompany me in all situations throughout my life and
reconcile me with the actions of others
even if they are rather painful to me.
This awareness of the lack of freedom of will
preserves me from taking too seriously myself and
my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and
from losing my temper.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/credo.html
See also: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Physicalism
Einstein thought good theorists should be Logical Positivists,
pushing the border between physics and metaphysics:
I believe that every true theorist is
a kind of tamed metaphysicist,
no matter how pure a " positivist " he may fancy himself.
Leiwen.Tripod.COM/eingra.htm
While Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation was intentionally mute
on metaphysical issues, Einstein thought today's theories and technologies are
not the last word, i.e., if the past is any indicator,
theories and technologies will improve.
Einstein's ability to find once hidden causalities
decades before they were empirically proven exemplified his Logical positivism.
For example, decades before it could be empirically verified
his General Relativity explained exactly how
a clock with 10 ^ -16 second accuracy ticks faster
with a minute increase in altitude. See:
PhysicsToday.ORG/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Time and time again, over all of recorded history... |
18 Nov 2006 11:50:27 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_2_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Bob_Kolker, Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
<snip droning>
You seem to have misread Bob Kolker's post.
He said:
Really? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
Please, share _your_ evidence for _your_ claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light. |
18 Nov 2006 04:02:56 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake ( and Bob_Kolker ), I wrote:
Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
And you replied:
< snip droning > You seem to have misread Bob Kolker's post. He said:
Really ? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
Please, share _your_ evidence for _your_ claims.
I did show the " empirical evidence ".
Netwon once thought the Biblical God maintained the orbits,
according to His _Whim_... guess what ? he was wrong.
Why is it that you can predict the weather better when you have more data ?
Because there are physical causes behind it... behind everything, always.
How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
the same everywhere, all the time ?
Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light. |
18 Nov 2006 04:51:29 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_5_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake ( and Bob_Kolker ), I wrote:
Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
And you replied:
< snip droning > You seem to have misread Bob Kolker's post. He said:
Really ? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
Please, share _your_ evidence for _your_ claims.
I did show the " empirical evidence ".
Nope. You posted a load of droning nonsense which, largely, highlighted your
ignorance.
Netwon once thought the Biblical God maintained the orbits,
according to His _Whim_... guess what ? he was wrong.
Well done.
Why is it that you can predict the weather better when you have more data
?
Because there are physical causes behind it... behind everything, always.
You make an illogical leap here.
How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
the same everywhere, all the time ?
Wow. Show me a time it isnt and I will take your comments on board. Until
then, the bedrock principles of physics remain intact.
Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
Gibberish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake finally gets it. |
18 Nov 2006 06:37:21 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake ( and Bob_Kolker ), I wrote:
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
And you replied:
Wow. Show me a time it isn't and I'll take your comments on board.
Until then, the bedrock principles of physics remain intact.
Finally ! you've got it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake finally gets it. |
19 Nov 2006 08:53:47 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_6_@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake ( and Bob_Kolker ), I wrote:
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is
pseudo-directional.
Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
And you replied:
Wow. Show me a time it isn't and I'll take your comments on board.
Until then, the bedrock principles of physics remain intact.
Finally ! you've got it.
Ok, so you admit that the bedrock principles remain intact then? Thank you.
Now please go away and find some actual evidence for your claims - not just
the nonsense you post showing how little you understand.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake finally gets it. |
18 Nov 2006 06:38:47 PM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_6_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Wow. Show me a time it isn't and I'll take your comments on board.
Until then, the bedrock principles of physics remain intact.
Finally ! you've got it.
No - I think you will find its you who hasn't got it. Your hardon for
Einstein is embarassing, and it got you run off Wiki.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light. |
18 Nov 2006 04:08:45 PM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_5_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
the same everywhere, all the time ?
Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
You have a SHED load of reading up on cosmology to do.
Start with the cosmological principle and work up.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light. |
18 Nov 2006 04:19:31 PM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_5_@Cotse.NET>,
Jeff=C5=A0Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
the same everywhere, all the time ?
Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
You have a SHED load of reading up on cosmology to do.
Start with the cosmological principle and work up.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way for people with negative intelligence.
The more Relf reads, the dumber he gets.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
=20
--=20
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light. |
18 Nov 2006 04:23:20 PM |
|
|
In article <1163888371.418631.199960@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, it doesn't work that way for people with negative intelligence.
The more Relf reads, the dumber he gets.
He has an imaginary IQ ;-)
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light. |
18 Nov 2006 06:57:57 PM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
the same everywhere, all the time ?
Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
We don't know that. But everytime the speed of light is measured in a
vacuum it comes out the same. The supposition that the speed of light is
constant regardless of the motion of the source has led to correct
predictions and has not yet been falsified. There is no way of -knowing-
if a physical law or a hypothesis holds everywhere and everywhen. That
is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Kolker joins T_Wake in seeing the light. |
18 Nov 2006 09:34:01 PM |
|
|
Hi Bob_Kolker,
Had you spent any time reading Einstein and the links I gave you,
Your reply would've been:
The supposition that " Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual. "
has led to correct predictions and has not yet been falsified.
There is no way of -knowing- if a physical law or a hypothesis
holds everywhere and everywhen.
That is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
Amen... I couldn't have said it better myself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Kolker joins T_Wake in seeing the light. |
19 Nov 2006 09:09:10 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_7_@Cotse.NET...
Hi Bob_Kolker,
Had you spent any time reading Einstein and the links I gave you,
Your reply would've been:
The supposition that " Nothing is truly random, so all changes are
virtual. "
has led to correct predictions and has not yet been falsified.
There is no way of -knowing- if a physical law or a hypothesis
holds everywhere and everywhen.
That is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
Amen... I couldn't have said it better myself.
Poor Jeff. You are unable to produce a counter argument so you re-write
other peoples posts to make it look like they agree with you.
Well, is this an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Kolker joins T_Wake in seeing the light. |
19 Nov 2006 06:37:36 AM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_7_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Bob_Kolker,
Had you spent any time reading Einstein and the links I gave you,
Your reply would've been:
The supposition that " Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
"
has led to correct predictions and has not yet been falsified.
There is no way of -knowing- if a physical law or a hypothesis
holds everywhere and everywhen.
That is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
Amen... I couldn't have said it better myself.
Still pushing your "interpretations".
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Kolker joins T_Wake in seeing the light. |
19 Nov 2006 09:24:21 AM |
|
|
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-B8051D.12373619112006@free.teranews.com...
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_7_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffSRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Bob_Kolker,
Had you spent any time reading Einstein and the links I gave you,
Your reply would've been:
The supposition that " Nothing is truly random, so all changes are
virtual.
"
has led to correct predictions and has not yet been falsified.
There is no way of -knowing- if a physical law or a hypothesis
holds everywhere and everywhen.
That is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
Amen... I couldn't have said it better myself.
Still pushing your "interpretations".
It just shows how badly Jeff interprets the things he reads. No wonder he
has less than a clue about anything to do with physics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Kolker joins T_Wake in seeing the light. |
19 Nov 2006 11:50:28 PM |
|
|
c is the limit .
inside and outside the universe.
That star we see at the edge of the universe as far away as we can see
is going near c 14 billion light years away so thats where it was 14 bil
year ago.
Now that star is going faster still and faster away and faster then c
from us.
A photon from that star is still at c.
worse yet is a nutron from it is at c from that point in space .
The photon will eject at one point in space at c and the star move on.
a strait line is more then 1 point in space and 1 photon can only be
in one point in space.
Time its self then has become a line .
the point where we find out we are not in one point in space .
If we are not in one point of space ...we are in one point in time .
If we are in one pont in time then the photon ejects in one point in
time not just 1 point in space.
No two objects can be in the same place at the same time . No object
can be in two places at the same time.
DARK ENERGY is that photon fromoutside the universe and neurtons ,,,at
c with no wavelngth to react with and no time to react with but will
displace part of its time.
dark energy is displaced by the most time.
evy 28 billion years time colides with time and a flat universe of H .
In the begining God said let there be light from evry point evry where
..
a photon left evry point and nothing exsisted but light as a photon
ejected from evry point of all space at c .
space has a division the firmement of time.
evry 28 billion years time colides with time .
You are in 1 place in time not space.
You dont move to another point in space you ove to another point in time
..
Its not interchangable like energy and mass.
You cant have it either way.
one point in time and no other object can be at the same point in time.
BUt what if time then could be all time in one space
?????????????????????????????
IF time was all at 1 point in space then would time its self explode
from that point ???????
NOOOOO
all time cant be at one point in space.
BANGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Time and time again, over all of recorded history... |
18 Nov 2006 08:02:44 AM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Nov_18_2_@Cotse.NET>,
JeffŠRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Bob_Kolker, Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
Your einstein nonsense is laughable. Run off Wiki and forced to repeat
it here.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David C. Ullrich" |
|
| Title: Re: The Unity Problem |
14 Nov 2006 10:08:17 AM |
|
|
On 14 Nov 2006 04:32:55 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote:
When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
arbitrarily.
Yes,
Another might choose the centimeter.
yes,
Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
huh?
You might say that this is splitting a hair.
I'd be more likely to say it was nonsense.
If I have a measurement to make I can measure it in inches
or in centimeters. The real numbers do not have anything
to say about this.
I'm tempted to ask why you say what you do, but I'm going to
refrain.
That is a fine position.
But what if there are consequences?
I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
this way.
Is this premise a valid conflict?
If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
affirmative.
The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
space.
Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent.
The mathematicians will point his finger at the physicists. This has
already happened.
Will the physicist point his finger back at the mathematician?
I am curious how people feel about this minor discrepancy in our
mathematical model of space.
-Tim
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: The Unity Problem |
14 Nov 2006 12:17:27 PM |
|
|
David C. Ullrich wrote:
On 14 Nov 2006 04:32:55 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote:
When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
arbitrarily.
Yes,
Another might choose the centimeter.
yes,
Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
huh?
You might say that this is splitting a hair.
I'd be more likely to say it was nonsense.
If I have a measurement to make I can measure it in inches
or in centimeters. The real numbers do not have anything
to say about this.
I'm tempted to ask why you say what you do, but I'm going to
refrain.
That is a fine position.
But what if there are consequences?
I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
this way.
Is this premise a valid conflict?
If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
affirmative.
The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
space.
Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent.
The mathematicians will point his finger at the physicists. This has
already happened.
Will the physicist point his finger back at the mathematician?
I am curious how people feel about this minor discrepancy in our
mathematical model of space.
-Tim
************************
David C. Ullrich
The Cartesian space that we use to represent reality uses the real
numbers as its basis.
It is admittedly a minor point, yet I have already been in the
discussion with mathematicians who will insist that unity on the real
line is not an arbitrary choice. Another mathematician simply says that
this is a problem for physics and shrugs it off. So I'm pointing out a
minor conflict and seeing what comes back. Thanks for your responses
Sam and David.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gib Bogle" |
|
| Title: Re: The Unity Problem |
19 Nov 2006 06:54:57 PM |
|
|
Have you considered writing an article for Social Text? I think they
might like your stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Text
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" |
|
| Title: Re: The Unity Problem |
19 Nov 2006 07:52:54 PM |
|
|
Gib Bogle wrote:
Have you considered writing an article for Social Text? I think they
might like your stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Text
I refute your accusation.
I am not a hoaxer.
I am an explorer.
I am not afraid to make a mistake.
I am happy to admit one if it is cleanly exposed.
Usually I am the one that exposes my own errors.
Are you willing to admit that humans can go astray en masse?
There are plenty of instances.
That mathematics could be astray is troubling, but blind faith takes
math as religion.
One must be open to error.
A skeptical approach is valuable.
The unity problem is trivial on the one hand yet profound on the other.
That such a subtle shift could have consequences makes it well worth
exploring.
Empty criticism seems to be par for the course in these newsgroups.
Where is the critical analysis?
I want someone to critique these ideas.
Yet usually the naysayers just say their nay without ever saying why.
Ulrich above here has done a good job of addressing my concern and I
believe that his defense is about as good as can be done. I also
believe it to be weak in not conceding that there is only need for one
concept of unity, not two.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Marcus" |
|
| Title: Re: The Unity Problem |
19 Nov 2006 09:26:58 PM |
|
|
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
Have you considered writing an article for Social Text? I think they
might like your stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Text
I refute your accusation.
I am not a hoaxer.
I am an explorer.
I am not afraid to make a mistake.
I am happy to admit one if it is cleanly exposed.
Usually I am the one that exposes my own errors.
Are you willing to admit that humans can go astray en masse?
There are plenty of instances.
That mathematics could be astray is troubling, but blind faith takes
math as religion.
One must be open to error.
A skeptical approach is valuable.
The unity problem is trivial on the one hand yet profound on the other.
That such a subtle shift could have consequences makes it well worth
exploring.
Empty criticism seems to be par for the course in these newsgroups.
Where is the critical analysis?
I want someone to critique these ideas.
Yet usually the naysayers just say their nay without ever saying why.
Ulrich above here has done a good job of addressing my concern and I
believe that his defense is about as good as can be done. I also
believe it to be weak in not conceding that there is only need for one
concept of unity, not two.
Why do you start each sentence on a new line?
--
David Marcus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David C. Ullrich" |
|
| Title: Re: The Unity Problem |
14 Nov 2006 12:52:13 PM |
|
|
On 14 Nov 2006 10:17:27 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote:
David C. Ullrich wrote:
On 14 Nov 2006 04:32:55 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote:
When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
arbitrarily.
Yes,
Another might choose the centimeter.
yes,
Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
huh?
You might say that this is splitting a hair.
I'd be more likely to say it was nonsense.
If I have a measurement to make I can measure it in inches
or in centimeters. The real numbers do not have anything
to say about this.
I'm tempted to ask why you say what you do, but I'm going to
refrain.
That is a fine position.
But what if there are consequences?
I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
this way.
Is this premise a valid conflict?
If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
affirmative.
The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
space.
Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent.
The mathematicians will point his finger at the physicists. This has
already happened.
Will the physicist point his finger back at the mathematician?
I am curious how people feel about this minor discrepancy in our
mathematical model of space.
-Tim
************************
David C. Ullrich
The Cartesian space that we use to represent reality uses the real
numbers as its basis.
It is admittedly a minor point, yet I have already been in the
discussion with mathematicians who will insist that unity on the real
line is not an arbitrary choice. Another mathematician simply says that
this is a problem for physics and shrugs it off. So I'm pointing out a
minor conflict and seeing what comes back. Thanks for your responses
Sam and David.
Hmm, maybe there's hope.
It's correct to say that "unity on the real line is not
an arbitrary choice", if by that we mean that we're not free
to choose which real number should be 1. There's only one real
number that equals 1, nothing arbitrary about it.
But this says nothing whatever about whether or not we can choose
our units arbitrarily when we make a measurement! The result
of a measurement is a _length_, and a length (assuming we're
talking about an actual physical measurement) is not just a real
number. A length consists of a real number _together with_ a
choice of units. That is, 1 is not a length, and 2.4 is not a
length. 1 inch is a length, and 37 cm is a length.
Deciding on units of measurement really says nothing at all about
whether the "1" in the real numbers is arbitrary. Deciding on
what units to use simply says what length shall correspond to
the number 1.
-Tim
David C. Ullrich
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
