Science > Physics > What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Helland" |
| Date: |
26 Feb 2004 10:02:43 AM |
| Object: |
What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
Art does not exist on canvas. The canvas exists because of art.
I thought of the above little saying because I think its important to
physics. It will take this entire post to explain this position so
please don't flame this message without reading it all the way
through.
Physics is of course the natural science of the physical world. I'm
very fond of Karl Popper's take on how the natural sciences actually
work. In Popper's works he goes to great lengths to make the following
point:
Science does not exist as certain knowledge. Science is merely
conjectural knowledge that we come to with a two step process: a
conjecture is dreamt up, bad conjectures are eliminated by criticisms
often involving experimentation. There is no scientific method except
for the method of the Critical Rationalist (if this sounds "iffy" to
you I invite you to read the preface to _Realism and the Aim of
Science_). More importantly, the conjectures we come up with are
heavily influenced by the conjectures we previouslly held onto. And
inevitably, all these some-what arbitrary conjectures are based on
other arbitrary systems such as language.
What I'm getting at here is the importance and subtlety of language,
not only in our theories, but in our understanding of those theories.
Its interesting to me that at one point in time there was no idea
called "change." It had to be invented or discovered you could say
before we had the idea. Perhaps we should be saying it had to be
conjured, as thats really what Heraclitus did when he said "No one can
step into the same river twice."
But what if in his conjecture he got something wrong? Or incomplete?
That mistake could still be with us today, buried so deeply in our
intuiation and in the foundations of our understanding of the physical
world that identifiying and removing the problem could be rather
problematic itself.
Nonetheless, discovering errors such as those and fixing them is the
aim of science.
I will now follow the Popperian scientific method by attempting to
criticize one of these basic assumptions and provide a new conjecture.
I expect all those who reply to have the courtesy to do the same;
address my conjecture with direct criticisms. If this is not your
intention, can we please spare the insults?
Here is the idea that I think is incorrect. It may or may not be
explicitly stated in our scientific theories, but I think it is so
essential to our understanding that we have all assumed that it is
true without even realizing it.
The idea is that phenomena occur in space and time. That change
happens over time. That an event occurs "in" time. That an object
exists in space and its state exists in time.
I think this is wrong.
However, I cannot think of any experiment to test whether this is
right or wrong. So, then, how can I justifiy the position that the
assumption is wrong?
I will do it in two ways:
First I ask you, dear reader, to bear the burden of proof for the
claim that phenomena occur in space and time. If you cannot reasonably
do this, then you should have no reasonable problems realizing that
this claim is suspect and that we shoudl consider alternatives to this
claim for the sake of the pleasure of finding things out.
Second, I will show that a) this assumption leads to a contradiction
and b) that discussing physical phenomena by avoiding this assumption
removes that contradiction. In other words, I will show that my
conjecture passes a critical test that the previous conjectures
failed. In the Popperian view, this, barring any valid fatal
criticisms of the conjecture, should constitute as scientific
acheivement.
I said that I can show how "change exists over time" can lead us to a
contradiction. The contradiction is in the incompatibility between
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, two theories that rely on the
assumption in question. The contradiction is also adequately expressed
by Zeno. In some ways it seems as if time should act discretely. In
other ways it seems as if time is infintiely divisible and not
discrete.
That takes care of a), now for b), now to present a conjecture of time
that avoids the suspect assumption. I have to flip our understanding
of nature inside out.
Instead of an event occuring in time and space, time and space exist
within the event. Quite literally, time and space aren't a stage in
which change (and more generally life) occurs. I suggest that because
there is change, because something happens, and then space and time
exist within the context of that change.
Here's what I mean. Lets say two events occur. One is I kick the bass
pedal on my drumset and the other is I hit a crash symbol. In our old
understanding we would picture these events as happening in a shared
pool of time and space (as long as we are a single observer). In my
suggested conjecture though, there are two separate instances of time
and space that can be said to exist within the context of those two
separate events.
In other words:
Nature does not exist in space and time. Space and time exist because
of Nature.
I believe that this conjecture is the most elegant solution to Zeno's
Paradox. One simple idea will solve all four puzzles. Compared to the
rigourous mathematical proofs that currently exist, Occam's Razor
would appear to favor my solution.
I also believe that this conjecture allows us to form a new
interpretation of quantum mechanics that will also explain all of the
phenomena currently explained by Relativity Theory.
As I have already justified those positions in essay's posted on my
website I will simply point to them instead of reposting their
contents in this message. Please feel free to attack the ideas
contained in the following web pages in this thread:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
In some ways, Heraclitus and Einstein have already gotten this figured
out. The Greek once said:
"[No one can] touch mortal substance twice in the same condition"
And Einstein said:
"Space and time are relative to the observer"
If we put these together with quantum mechanics in mind, then we know
that when an observation occurs it is the result of an interaction
wherein the observer changes state, and this interaction is mediated
by a photon. If we regard the photon as "a mortal substance" then we
realize the following:
Back to the drum scenario, even that it appears to me that I kick my
foot and hit my symbol at the same time, these events are really being
relayed to me by photons coming from the respective events. The
photons from the kick and the photons from the cymbol aren't being
interacted with at the same time. No, on microscopic scales I'm
interacting with one photon at a time. This means that if I touch a
photon from the kick a nanosecond before I touch a photon from the
cymbol, I've already changed state from the first photon and now I am
a different observer! In this light, space and time are relative to
not the observer, but to the event being observed itself. Which is
more or less my idea.
The only difference is of course the simplicity of the language used
to express the idea. We could continue to warp Relativity to make it
fit, but, in my opinion, discussing quantum mechanics from the
perspective of my conjecture eliminates the need for Relativity and it
is susperceded on theoreticaly basis.
I know this is a wild claim based on all that I have provided here. I
haven't addressed time dialation or quantum gravity. But these ideas
are explored in the following two papers, and should be considered
before dismissing my conjecture:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
As always, I'm looking forward to criticisms and comment.
Mike Helland
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
27 Feb 2004 12:49:25 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0402260802.7565e94b@posting.google.com...
Yourwords were so numerous that I stopped reading before I got to the point.
Was there in fact one?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
27 Feb 2004 12:59:02 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:c1o3fk$35i$4@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0402260802.7565e94b@posting.google.com...
Yourwords were so numerous that I stopped reading before I got to the point.
Was there in fact one?
Yes, the point is that you can unify physics without being
hindered by *any* knowledge of physics and mathematics.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
28 Feb 2004 08:29:17 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<WrM%b.15402$ta5.650341@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
Yes, the point is that you can unify physics without being
hindered by *any* knowledge of physics and mathematics.
I challenge you to cite any of my posts that can support that
statement.
It is simply false.
There's an interesting insight into metaphysics provided by Kant.
Metaphysics seems to always be there, popping up everytime there's a
problem. The unfortunate part is no one has ever bested another in a
metaphysical debate. Its impossible. And its partly this reason why
Uncle Al attacks it as it approaches. And, traditionally, rightly so.
However I beleive that now we have both Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics it is _because_ of that knowledge we have the appropriate
tools to put forth a final theory of everything. You would have known
that, Dirk, had you decided to ask for my opinion before filling in
the blanks for yourself.
I'm suggesting that a final theory should acheive the aims of science.
To understand nature and seek truth.
Interestingly enough those aims are also the aims of philosophy and
metaphysics. I don't find it at all surprising that a final theory
should not only unite the branches of physics but philosophy with
physics as well.
All that said, I have only corrected your understanding of my
position. But you still failed to answer the question about what my
point is. My point is that the phenomena of nature must contain space,
matter, and time instead of our traditional inside-out interpretation
where space and time contain matter and the phenomena they are
involved with. What you pointed out was most certainly not the point
of this thread and was only based on a single comment in my response
to Uncle Al's clock work flames.
That two fumbles in one post, Dirk. I don't suppose you have the
humility to add these to your collection though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
29 Feb 2004 04:58:59 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0402281829.1e1732b3@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:<WrM%b.15402$ta5.650341@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
Yes, the point is that you can unify physics without being
hindered by *any* knowledge of physics and mathematics.
I challenge you to cite any of my posts that can support that
statement.
Why not just cut the thread short by listing what you actually *do* know in
physics?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
29 Feb 2004 02:53:19 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.0402281829.1e1732b3@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<WrM%b.15402$ta5.650341@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
Yes, the point is that you can unify physics without being
hindered by *any* knowledge of physics and mathematics.
I challenge you to cite any of my posts that can support that
statement.
It is simply false.
I can't show any of your posts that show that you have *any*
knowledge - not even the tiniest - of physics and mathematics.
I can show a post that shows the contrary
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=ad157aec.0308291115.18a90365@posting.google.com
There's an interesting insight into metaphysics provided by Kant.
Do and think about philosophy as much as you like, but stay away
from the philosophy of science: you are not ready for it.
Try to develop a philosophy of programming or something :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
01 Mar 2004 09:47:23 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3Mh0c.16859$dz6.772144@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
I can't show any of your posts that show that you have *any*
knowledge - not even the tiniest - of physics and mathematics.
Oh, thats an unfair exaggaration and you know it. Besides personal
attacks and pschological warfare, what value is this fabricated
strawman in coversation?
In my posts I've been discussing a theory that aims to produce the
Uncertainty Principle and the indeterministic properties of quantum
behavior in a deterministic computer program. In order to even know
that requires some knowledge of physics.
So you're demonstrably wrong right there. Thats three fumbles in the
last two posts. They haven't seem to made your website yet.
My contemplations on realtivity led me to the conclusion that there is
a "fundamental nature" where relativistic observations don't exist. I
found out just recently that Einstein spoke of an "objective reality"
where the Lorentz transformations aren't applied that sounds almost
identical to the notions I independently developed. On top of having
some knowledge of physics, as I came to similar metaphysical
conclusions as Einstein I am also demonstrating some intuition towards
the concepts underlying the knowledge produced by physics.
Come on, Dirk. Instead of cheap shots either step up and criticize my
ideas like a big boy or take off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
01 Mar 2004 01:07:19 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.0403010747.421e40bb@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3Mh0c.16859$dz6.772144@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
I can't show any of your posts that show that you have *any*
knowledge - not even the tiniest - of physics and mathematics.
Oh, thats an unfair exaggaration and you know it.
Absolutely not - and *you* know it. If you honestly don't, then
something must have gone wrong with the way your parents
raised you. I have no cure for that.
I repeat - and this time without the smiley: try to develop a
philosophy of programming. From what I gather I see that you
are a first class software developer - use *that* valuable quality
in stead of *de facto* making a fool of yourself.
I sincerely mean that.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
03 Mar 2004 02:18:19 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0403010747.421e40bb@posting.google.com>...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3Mh0c.16859$dz6.772144@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
I can't show any of your posts that show that you have *any*
knowledge - not even the tiniest - of physics and mathematics.
[MP]
Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
[Uncle Al]
If it isn't mathematics it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a
***** about your opinions. Mathematics exists so inferior mentalities
can be rapidly discarded with minimal but effective consideration.
They become social advocates and whine for their suppers
[MP]
Do you have a T-shirt that says "If it ain't metal, it ain't
music"? Same FUCKWIT mentality, Al. Proof that having a math mind
doesn't make you anything *like* smart. One thing for sure about the
universe, it would be better without you in it.
Come on, Dirk. Instead of cheap shots either step up and criticize my
ideas like a big boy or take off.
[MP]
Mike, I was enjoying your exchange with Servo, though not
necessarily following all that was said. I'm a total layman on the
subject of physics, but I have an interest in it, and I have the basic
confidence to know for sure that that is a good thing. I also have
some notions of my own to share. I think you/we/I/somebody should
seriously consider creating a moderated forum for such exchanges. I
notice over on sci.physics.research they have some sort of voting
process for new groups. Can we do that? Are you willing to put in the
time? I am. Call it sci.physics.noflames or something. That way people
with an interest could communicate without being interrupted by
closed-minded, self-righteous jerks like the two above. They are
*noise*. What do you think?
Mitch Perkins
"Heracleum Mantegazzianni"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
03 Mar 2004 12:46:23 PM |
|
|
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:64dddc3d.0403030018.5b4cd7c9@posting.google.com...
mhelland@techmocracy.net (Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0403010747.421e40bb@posting.google.com>...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3Mh0c.16859$dz6.772144@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
I can't show any of your posts that show that you have *any*
knowledge - not even the tiniest - of physics and mathematics.
[MP]
Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
[Uncle Al]
If it isn't mathematics it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a
***** about your opinions. Mathematics exists so inferior mentalities
can be rapidly discarded with minimal but effective consideration.
They become social advocates and whine for their suppers
[MP]
Do you have a T-shirt that says "If it ain't metal, it ain't
music"? Same FUCKWIT mentality, Al. Proof that having a math mind
doesn't make you anything *like* smart. One thing for sure about the
universe, it would be better without you in it.
Come on, Dirk. Instead of cheap shots either step up and criticize my
ideas like a big boy or take off.
[MP]
Mike, I was enjoying your exchange with Servo, though not
necessarily following all that was said. I'm a total layman on the
subject of physics,
but you think you are in a position to say:
| > Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
| > un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
but I have an interest in it, and I have the basic
confidence to know for sure that that is a good thing. I also have
some notions of my own to share. I think you/we/I/somebody should
seriously consider creating a moderated forum for such exchanges. I
notice over on sci.physics.research they have some sort of voting
process for new groups. Can we do that? Are you willing to put in the
time? I am. Call it sci.physics.noflames or something.
I suggest nosci.nophysics.ignorance - I will vote for its creation.
But then, there already is a group with that purpose. It is called
alt.sci.physics.new-theories. It is not moderated but there are no
flames - probably because there are no scientists either.
Have a look - Followup set.
That way people
with an interest could communicate without being interrupted by
closed-minded, self-righteous jerks like the two above. They are
*noise*. What do you think?
Something you probably do not want to know ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
03 Mar 2004 07:32:57 PM |
|
|
"> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3Mh0c.16859$dz6.772144@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
I can't show any of your posts that show that you have *any*
knowledge - not even the tiniest - of physics and mathematics.
[MP]
Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
[Uncle Al]
If it isn't mathematics it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a
***** about your opinions. Mathematics exists so inferior mentalities
can be rapidly discarded with minimal but effective consideration.
They become social advocates and whine for their suppers
[MP]
Do you have a T-shirt that says "If it ain't metal, it ain't
music"? Same FUCKWIT mentality, Al. Proof that having a math mind
doesn't make you anything *like* smart. One thing for sure about the
universe, it would be better without you in it.
[MH]
Come on, Dirk. Instead of cheap shots either step up and criticize my
ideas like a big boy or take off.
[MP]
Mike, I was enjoying your exchange with Servo, though not
necessarily following all that was said. I'm a total layman on the
subject of physics,
but you think you are in a position to say:
| > Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
| > un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
Anyone is in the position to say this, Dirk, as you specify "not
even the tiniest"; anyone who has completed any level of education in
North America has at the very least a tiny bit of knowledge of math.
In fact, all one has to do is count one's change at the corner
store...Perhaps you meant to say "the amount of knowledge of math
required by *me* to speak to a great and awesome scholar such as
myself..." Be *specific*, Dirk. As for Uncle Al, this is a man(?) who
states in public that he has no compassion for people with physical
disabilities, and believes that mathematics exists for some purpose he
made up, whereas it can be put to any purpose for which it is useful.
You guys seem demented.
but I have an interest in it, and I have the basic
confidence to know for sure that that is a good thing. I also have
some notions of my own to share. I think you/we/I/somebody should
seriously consider creating a moderated forum for such exchanges. I
notice over on sci.physics.research they have some sort of voting
process for new groups. Can we do that? Are you willing to put in the
time? I am. Call it sci.physics.noflames or something.
I suggest nosci.nophysics.ignorance - I will vote for its creation.
But then, there already is a group with that purpose. It is called
alt.sci.physics.new-theories. It is not moderated but there are no
flames - probably because there are no scientists either.
Have a look - Followup set.
Suggest nothing, vote for nothing. There is no shortage of flames on
aspnt. However, many of the scientists who contribute to these ng's
are open-minded and take the time to honestly criticize new ideas,
however speculative. It's called open dialogue, and we are dead in the
water without it. For some reason, you need to swoop in like a harpee
and pluck out the eyes of someone like Mike who clearly states that he
is looking for honest criticism of his ideas. Then you have the *gall*
to tell him how to best spend his time! Even if an idea is "not even
wrong", it could contain the seed of something viable. You feel
compelled to shut that down. A moderated ng would keep your type of
shitty negativism out.
That way people
with an interest could communicate without being interrupted by
closed-minded, self-righteous jerks like the two above. They are
*noise*. What do you think?
Something you probably do not want to know ;-)
Dirk Vdm
No, Dirk, I *absolutely* don't want to know, as I was clearly
asking Mike, and not you; you are the *noise*, remember?
Mitch Perkins
"Heracleum Mantegazzianni"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
04 Mar 2004 01:09:22 PM |
|
|
"mitch perkins" <mitchsperkins@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:64dddc3d.0403031732.1e74ddc9@posting.google.com...
"> > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3Mh0c.16859$dz6.772144@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
I can't show any of your posts that show that you have *any*
knowledge - not even the tiniest - of physics and mathematics.
[MP]
Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
[Uncle Al]
If it isn't mathematics it is opinion. The universe doesn't
give a
***** about your opinions. Mathematics exists so inferior mentalities
can be rapidly discarded with minimal but effective consideration.
They become social advocates and whine for their suppers
[MP]
Do you have a T-shirt that says "If it ain't metal, it ain't
music"? Same FUCKWIT mentality, Al. Proof that having a math mind
doesn't make you anything *like* smart. One thing for sure about the
universe, it would be better without you in it.
[MH]
Come on, Dirk. Instead of cheap shots either step up and criticize my
ideas like a big boy or take off.
[MP]
Mike, I was enjoying your exchange with Servo, though not
necessarily following all that was said. I'm a total layman on the
subject of physics,
but you think you are in a position to say:
| > Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
| > un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
Anyone is in the position to say this, Dirk, as you specify "not
even the tiniest"; anyone who has completed any level of education in
North America has at the very least a tiny bit of knowledge of math.
In fact, all one has to do is count one's change at the corner
store...
Yes, in order to be able to contribute to the unification of physics
one must be able to add and subtract.
Excellent, overwhelming point.
You do have a very nice website http://friendlyfirefilms.ca/index.html .
Seems you have a valuable asset as well. Good for you.
But if you decide to continue wasting your time showing your
ignorance here, be my guest :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
03 Mar 2004 07:20:38 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3Kp1c.21571$vK3.1516601@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
If I were to reply to your message trying to engage in a discussion,
what are the chances that you'll respond without completely ignoring
my point-of-view and ridiculing me?
Mike, I was enjoying your exchange with Servo, though not
necessarily following all that was said. I'm a total layman on the
subject of physics,
but you think you are in a position to say:
| > Not only an exaggeration, but simply wrong and very
| > un-scientific. Nasty and mean-spirited to boot.
Science is the art of coming up with a better criticism or conjecture
than the next guy to explain something about the world. The post you
put forward contained neither serious criticisms nor a conjecture, and
instead personal attacks. How is your behavior scientific?
but I have an interest in it, and I have the basic
confidence to know for sure that that is a good thing. I also have
some notions of my own to share. I think you/we/I/somebody should
seriously consider creating a moderated forum for such exchanges. I
notice over on sci.physics.research they have some sort of voting
process for new groups. Can we do that? Are you willing to put in the
time? I am. Call it sci.physics.noflames or something.
I suggest nosci.nophysics.ignorance - I will vote for its creation.
But then, there already is a group with that purpose. It is called
alt.sci.physics.new-theories. It is not moderated but there are no
flames - probably because there are no scientists either.
Have a look - Followup set.
Someone asks for a discussion without flames and then you flame him?
Mitch, I wouldn't be too concerned about posters like Dirk interupting
threads. If you don't want to read his messages just don't click on
them. I think the "flameless" newsgroup you're looking for is in fact
sci.physics.research. Though they are pretty strict about what is let
on. I asked a question once, and someone replied looking for
clarfication. My response clarifying the question I had already asked
was then rejected. Oh well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
04 Mar 2004 01:07:17 PM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.0403031720.3d7fabff@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3Kp1c.21571$vK3.1516601@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
If I were to reply to your message trying to engage in a discussion,
what are the chances that you'll respond without completely ignoring
my point-of-view and ridiculing me?
Zero.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=ad157aec.0308291115.18a90365@posting.google.com
In this department you just haven't got what it takes.
You have another extremely valuable asset. Don't waste it - use it.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
05 Mar 2004 09:06:01 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<F7L1c.23166$wq4.1782835@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
If I were to reply to your message trying to engage in a discussion,
what are the chances that you'll respond without completely ignoring
my point-of-view and ridiculing me?
Zero.
Doesn't that strike you as dogmatic and bigoted?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=ad157aec.0308291115.18a90365@posting.google.com
In this department you just haven't got what it takes.
Ok, you've trotted this out far too many times, let me explain.
I've taken calculus in college. Not a bad little system, takes some
practice. What I was doing with that thread was thinking the numerator
was Planck's Constant because I was trying to figure out some numbers
related to Planck's scales. I thought that maybe because Planck's
Constant is a special kind of number in nature that maybe there are
exceptions to how its used near infinities. I didn't make that clear,
and if I did, you'd probably be laughing at me for that too. Its a
silly idea now that I look back. But at least I'm daring to push my
horizons by coming up with new conjectures and trying to talk about
them with people. The hostility you respond with is unscientific and
unwelcome.
So will you please stop with this and either engage in a friendly
conversation or ***** and die?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
05 Mar 2004 11:47:30 AM |
|
|
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message news:ad157aec.0403050706.4559364@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<F7L1c.23166$wq4.1782835@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
If I were to reply to your message trying to engage in a discussion,
what are the chances that you'll respond without completely ignoring
my point-of-view and ridiculing me?
Zero.
Doesn't that strike you as dogmatic and bigoted?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=ad157aec.0308291115.18a90365@posting.google.com
In this department you just haven't got what it takes.
Ok, you've trotted this out far too many times, let me explain.
I've taken calculus in college. Not a bad little system, takes some
practice. What I was doing with that thread was thinking the numerator
was Planck's Constant because I was trying to figure out some numbers
related to Planck's scales. I thought that maybe because Planck's
Constant is a special kind of number in nature that maybe there are
exceptions to how its used near infinities. I didn't make that clear,
and if I did, you'd probably be laughing at me for that too.
You bet I would - and I would laugh *much* harder :-)
Lucky for you that you aren't arrogant enough to qualify on my
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Its a
silly idea now that I look back. But at least I'm daring to push my
horizons by coming up with new conjectures and trying to talk about
them with people. The hostility you respond with is unscientific and
unwelcome.
Since you haven't got what it takes in the scientific department,
this will be what you will get, and apparently not only from me.
Don't look at me as hostile - I just find you funny and I can't help it.
But I do admire your skills as a software developer.
So will you please stop with this and either engage in a friendly
conversation or ***** and die?
Some day I *will* die of course, but meanwhile you can always follow
your advice to Mitch:
"If you don't want to read his messages just don't click on them",
remember?
Ah, by the way, when you flip the universe inside out, this is the
sound you get to hear:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/YoMama.mp3
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mitch perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
04 Mar 2004 02:55:14 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0403031720.3d7fabff@posting.google.com>...
Mitch, I wouldn't be too concerned about posters like Dirk interupting
threads. If you don't want to read his messages just don't click on
them. I think the "flameless" newsgroup you're looking for is in fact
sci.physics.research. Though they are pretty strict about what is let
on. I asked a question once, and someone replied looking for
clarfication. My response clarifying the question I had already asked
was then rejected. Oh well.
Right you are, Mike. SPR sent back *three* of my posts! In my case,
*over*-speculative was an *under*statement,(though the first post was
just a joke). The spirit in which they responded was very positive. I
continue to enjoy struggling with the concepts therein presented
(yours, too). Had I a math mind like say, Uncle Al's, I would want to
encourage as many people as possible to think about physics;
inspiration comes from unexpected places...I certainly would *not*
call anyone a moron for trying. Strange hostility...
BTW, what was your question to SPR? My joke was a response to a
question regarding the definition of parallel universes. Since no one
had responded to the poster's question, I postulated that a parallel
universe could be one in which some entity, say, me, did respond. I
then concluded paradoxically that no such parallel universes existed.
By rejecting *my* post, the moderator supported my conclusion...until
someone else answered the original post in earnest. ~:?|
I'm working up the courage to withstand the royal flaming I am going
to receive when I post my first "not even wrong" crude notion to SP.
Meanwhile, http://friendlyfirefilms.ca/index.html if you're
interested.
Mitch Perkins
"Heracleum Mantegazzianni"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
27 Feb 2004 05:22:13 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:c1o3fk$35i$4@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0402260802.7565e94b@posting.google.com...
Yourwords were so numerous that I stopped reading before I got to the point.
Was there in fact one?
Yes, the point is that you can unify physics without being
hindered by *any* knowledge of physics and mathematics.
It's been done many times over the ages by many societies. The most
recent succss was the Dark Ages in Europe, though the Inquisition was
a pretty good echo in horrified counterpoint to the Renaissance and
the Protestant Reformation. Torquemada and Savonarola really knew how
to throw a party. One stand amazed that Muslims were the
*enlightened* society - but they found the One True God, too, and
degenerated into oozing putrescence at flank speed.
The state of Georgia recently made a wel-publicized stab at it, but
god seems to have fallen to situational ethics. Few adherents of the
halfling ***** god-on-a-stick wish to abandon their VCRs long term
for the entertaining diversion of witch burnings short term. Do hard
shell Baptists still refuse to make love standing up for fear of being
mistaken for dancing?
If it isn't mathematics it is opinion. The universe doesn't give a
***** about your opinions. Mathematics exists so inferior mentalities
can be rapidly discarded with minimal but effective consideration.
They become social advocates and whine for their suppers.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Powers" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
29 Feb 2004 03:07:18 AM |
|
|
(Mike Helland) wrote in message news:<ad157aec.0402260802.7565e94b@posting.google.com>...
They say Einstein said, "Time is an illusion, though a very persistent
one."
The way see it, "time" exists only as a concept, albiet a very useful
one. One may be begin with the obvious fact of motion of an object
and easily derive a concept of time. However, this simple concept is
not really correct, as shown by special relativity. I think this is
more or less what you are saying.
The Zeno paradoxes, well, I'd say they are in essence the false
assertion that "an infinite series must have an infinite sum," and
hence are not very interesting.
Oh, you mentioned the "crash symbol." Could that be the Microsoft
logo?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Servo" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
26 Feb 2004 09:07:17 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote
[...]
Instead of an event occuring in time and space, time and space exist
within the event. Quite literally, time and space aren't a stage in
which change (and more generally life) occurs. I suggest that because
there is change, because something happens, and then space and time
exist within the context of that change.
What you have apparently done in your "wild claim" is dress up the old
chicken-and-egg cliche in the language of physics. I am unable to see
how this amounts to anything more than word manipulation, so let's begin
with what the words mean.
You come close to explaining what appears to me the most fundamental
possible meaning of the word "event." An event denotes a change in
something. If nothing has changed, no event has occurred.
A term for 'things which can change' is differentia. This includes,
in our universe, time and space, but other fundamental differentia
as well.
Changing the spatial relationship between two entities is obviously
an "event." Changing the temporal relationship between two entities
is more difficult to understand as an "event," without elaboration
on space-time as a unified concept. So I'll use the easy example of
an entity which exists, then ceases to exist, as a possible temporal
event.
In both of these examples, the thing which enabled the change was
the medium of differentiation, time and space. Without the medium,
the notion of an "event" has no meaning.
In short, events do not create the media of differentiation, space
and time in this example. Instead, they are best understood in the
following manner.
Event: The instantiation of a change in the relationship of one entity
to itself or to another in any medium of differentiation.
Even if your notion about events creating space and time were in some
strange sense true, most of the universe is constantly changing in its
relationship to most other things, engendering a virtual infinity
of "events" (and thus space and time, to your thinking) everywhere.
Servo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
27 Feb 2004 09:37:43 AM |
|
|
"Servo" <dividedby@zero.moc> wrote in message news:<c1mda201tvl@enews3.newsguy.com>...
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
What you have apparently done in your "wild claim" is dress up the old
chicken-and-egg cliche in the language of physics. I am unable to see
how this amounts to anything more than word manipulation, so let's begin
with what the words mean.
I am manipulating words, but I think its consequences extend beyond
language. I tried to avoid such a criticism by explaining (citing
Popper) how important transparent things like language are in our
understanding. But no bother, this is still a good point to discuss
:-)
My idea goes beyond word manipulation when we consider the following:
If events do not occur "in time", and instead, when an event occurs
time exists within the context of the event, then two separate events
cannot be said to exist along a single shared continuum of time, but
rather, two separate instances of time exist within the two separate
events. This is _very_ important in understanding the time dilation
involved with relative movement. I will explain this using one of
Zeno's lesser known puzzles:
Zeno suggests that we have rows of bodies:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
and that row B will move to be in line with:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
Zeno next considers that this motion is occurring along a discrete
version of time, where there is a minimal indivisible interval of
time. He proposes that the minimal interval of time is how long it
takes for one body to pass another. We should regard this motion as
occurring in one instant in time. Complications arise by adding
another row moving in the opposite direction. Using this effect Zeno
shows that the interval of time is actually equal to twice itself.
Like so:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
moves to:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
We see that in this one movement that occurs in one instant of time, C
moved past one space in A but it moved past two spaces in B. Observing
this Zeno tries to show that if this movement occurred in one instant
of time depending on how you measure how far something moved in that
time you can show that time is not equal to itself.
Zeno's error is that he assumes these two measurements of the motion
must be equal, presumably because the uniformity of the time that this
motion occurs in. If we remove this assumption, and slide in the
proposed definition of time then the movement Zeno suggests is not
allowed in reality. I will explain why. Starting with:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
We know that the B row is going to move all the way down one seat.
Presumably the first two rows will look like this after one instant:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
But I say that this is not an instant! What we have observed here are
four separate movements resulting in four separate instants. How would
I want to represent our bodies after a single instant? Like so:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
And after two instants:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
And three:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
If we consider each body movement one instant of time, following this
pattern we avoided the observation that C2 moved past two bodies in
row B during a single instant. Zeno's measurements agree.
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Given that my defintion of time also solves the first 3 puzzles with
extreme ease too, it seems as if Occam's Razor would prefer my
solution.
Does that help to further explain the importance of my conjecture?
Mike Helland
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
27 Feb 2004 09:37:48 AM |
|
|
"Servo" <dividedby@zero.moc> wrote in message news:<c1mda201tvl@enews3.newsguy.com>...
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
What you have apparently done in your "wild claim" is dress up the old
chicken-and-egg cliche in the language of physics. I am unable to see
how this amounts to anything more than word manipulation, so let's begin
with what the words mean.
I am manipulating words, but I think its consequences extend beyond
language. I tried to avoid such a criticism by explaining (citing
Popper) how important transparent things like language are in our
understanding. But no bother, this is still a good point to discuss
:-)
My idea goes beyond word manipulation when we consider the following:
If events do not occur "in time", and instead, when an event occurs
time exists within the context of the event, then two separate events
cannot be said to exist along a single shared continuum of time, but
rather, two separate instances of time exist within the two separate
events. This is _very_ important in understanding the time dilation
involved with relative movement. I will explain this using one of
Zeno's lesser known puzzles:
Zeno suggests that we have rows of bodies:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
and that row B will move to be in line with:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
Zeno next considers that this motion is occurring along a discrete
version of time, where there is a minimal indivisible interval of
time. He proposes that the minimal interval of time is how long it
takes for one body to pass another. We should regard this motion as
occurring in one instant in time. Complications arise by adding
another row moving in the opposite direction. Using this effect Zeno
shows that the interval of time is actually equal to twice itself.
Like so:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
moves to:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
We see that in this one movement that occurs in one instant of time, C
moved past one space in A but it moved past two spaces in B. Observing
this Zeno tries to show that if this movement occurred in one instant
of time depending on how you measure how far something moved in that
time you can show that time is not equal to itself.
Zeno's error is that he assumes these two measurements of the motion
must be equal, presumably because the uniformity of the time that this
motion occurs in. If we remove this assumption, and slide in the
proposed definition of time then the movement Zeno suggests is not
allowed in reality. I will explain why. Starting with:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
We know that the B row is going to move all the way down one seat.
Presumably the first two rows will look like this after one instant:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
But I say that this is not an instant! What we have observed here are
four separate movements resulting in four separate instants. How would
I want to represent our bodies after a single instant? Like so:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
And after two instants:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
And three:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
If we consider each body movement one instant of time, following this
pattern we avoided the observation that C2 moved past two bodies in
row B during a single instant. Zeno's measurements agree.
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Given that my defintion of time also solves the first 3 puzzles with
extreme ease too, it seems as if Occam's Razor would prefer my
solution.
Does that help to further explain the importance of my conjecture?
Mike Helland
.
|
|
|
| User: "Servo" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
27 Feb 2004 01:48:49 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0402270737.243fb04e@posting.google.com...
"Servo" <dividedby@zero.moc> wrote in message
news:<c1mda201tvl@enews3.newsguy.com>...
[...]
If events
As I mentioned, all "events" entail a change in something. In what
medium for differentia are your events occurring?
Zeno next considers that this motion
So the change of your event is movement through space, that is,
a change in the relative positions of two or more bodies.
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
moves to:
A1 A2 A3 A4
B1 B2 B3 B4
C1 C2 C3 C4
We see that in this one movement that occurs in one instant of time, C
moved past one space in A but it moved past two spaces in B. Observing
this Zeno tries to show that if this movement occurred in one instant
of time depending on how you measure how far something moved in that
time you can show that time is not equal to itself.
Drop your preoccupation with instants and infinitesimals for a moment.
They are preventing you from seeing the obvious.
a) Space has dimension, by definition, and unless dimension is traversed,
no "motion" (your event's medium of change) has occurred.
b) The notions of space and time are apparently inseparable under ordinary
circumstances. Motion which takes no time would be tantamount to an
entity's disappearance from one region of space and reappearance in another.
c) Velocity is defined as "distance travelled per unit time." If the velocity
of your event's motion is less than infinite, then the time will also be
finite.
Frame your problem instead with three finite strings of objects moving finite
distances relative to each other.
1) Relative to A, B is moving right one unit of length in one unit of time.
2) Relative to A, C is moving left one unit of length in one unit of time.
3) Relative to each other, B and C are moving TWO units of length in one
unit of time.
Your preoccupation with "instants" repudiates the concept of velocity, that
one thing can move faster than another, i.e., through more space in the same
time. Being a Zeno variant, at face value it ultimately disowns motion itself.
There are more obvious and straightforward solutions to Zeno than divorcing
space and time, or holding that motion somehow creates time.
But I say that this is not an instant! What we have observed here are
four separate movements resulting in four separate instants. How would
I want to represent our bodies after a single instant? Like so:
[...]
Here you are abandoning the notion of simultaneity, making the universe
one giant von Neumann serial-event processor of infinitesimals instead
of the massively parallel circumstance it is.
Does that help to further explain the importance of my conjecture?
I think you now know my answer to that question. It will be interesting
to see how you respond.
Servo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
29 Feb 2004 03:09:21 AM |
|
|
"Servo" <dividedby@zero.moc> wrote in message news:<c1o867015d6@enews3.newsguy.com>...
There are more obvious and straightforward solutions to Zeno than divorcing
space and time, or holding that motion somehow creates time.
What gave you the impression that I'm separating space and time?
Not only does my conjecture provide deeper insight into the
relationship between space and time, it goes even further with the
idea claiming that matter is equally intertwined with space and time.
To explain how we'll have to straighten out some terminology. We've
been talking about events and I agree with you as to what they are.
But instead of events let's use the word "observation."
Observation we'll define as "an interaction where information is
relayed over a distance to an observer."
If that's all good, let's start there and assume nothing about a
medium. You asked about the medium that things happen in earlier. I
don't think thats an important question because we as observers only
see the things that happen. We don't see the medium.
Here's where things start to get conceptually more difficult.
Now that we're not talking about an observation in relation to a
medium, such as time or space, we are talking about an observation as
an interaction of some kind. This interaction can be considered to be
the result of the evaluation of logical rules. There are only four
fundamental interactions in the universe and we could probably
formalize those interactions as codified rules.
Because we're not talking about the medium an observation occurs in,
how this observation/interaction occurs is not of any interest to us.
All we know is that it has occured.
All of these interactions involve particles (theoretically, of
course). For example, two electrons can interact by exhanging a
photon. This is an electromagnetic interaction.
There are of course many ways to attempt to understand this
phenomenon. The standard intuition is to think that it is an
interaction between matter in time and space. The intuition I'm
suggesting is that the phenomenon simply happens, no questions asked.
And because one body reacted to another body it means there existed
action in nature where one body responded to the precense of another
body. This very subtle point, that within the data of the interaction
we can make the analysis that a particle was present from the point of
view of an observer, it is at this level of abstraction that matter
enters the picture. Also, there is a distance traversed by the
mediating bodies of the interaction (in electromagnetism it is the
photon). This realization also springs from the single fact that an
observation has occured. Lastly, as there exists both before and after
data associated with the interaction then time is present.
If we take the view that all phenomena simply occur as the result of
logical rules, and as such can be said to exist as statements in a
logical system, then matter, space, and time spring from these
statements as by-products. Metaphenomena.
This might seem backwards at first, but it is actually quite intuitive
when you think about it. If you had a comptuer program, or formula,
that was purported to produce all of nature, then the program would
also have to produce matter, space, and time as well. The matter,
space, and time that the program is running in, the medium of the
code, is irrelevant and those 3 aspects of nature must be recreated
for the reality we intend to construct.
Ok. That should dispell the idea that my theory tries to divorce space
and time. As for more straightforward solutions to Zeno than my
proposition I humbly beg to differ. Zeno's arguments assumed the
premise "motion exists in time" to come to the conclusion that "motion
is impossible." By avoiding that premise we avoid the conclusion (or
in physics terms the prediction) that motion is impossible.
The paradox is shown to be correct based on the premises, and we have
(potentionally) removed false knowledge from our understanding. This
idea should also play instrumental resolving problems between quantum
mechanics and relativity by interpretating quantum theory in such a
way (with the new defintion of time) that the phenomena explained by
relativity is adequately explained in quantum theory eliminating the
need for relativity, if only on the theoretical basis.
Mike Helland
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/nature.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Servo" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
29 Feb 2004 08:46:06 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0402290109.56adf11@posting.google.com...
"Servo" <dividedby@zero.moc> wrote in message
news:<c1o867015d6@enews3.newsguy.com>...
In your post you shift the topic from 'motion creates time' to "observation
as an interaction [as] the result of the evaluation of logical rules," and in
doing so failed to properly respond to the issues I raised. Until you do, this
is not a discussion but a series of your monologues.
I will state their consequences in the form of the following questions,
to which a response is necessary if I am to continue, and then comment on
Zeno:
1. From my comments it's clear that motion at a finite velocity cannot
occur, BY DEFINITION, apart from finite time. Do you agree or disagree?
2. Do you or do you not acknowledge the variability of velocity, thereby
invalidating the purported inferences of the example you used?
3. Are you or are you not abandoning the concept of simultaneity in your
serial-instant example?
MY COMMENTARY ON USING ZENO
You seem to believe that making time a function of events holds predictive or
explanatory power, and offered your putative paradoxes of Zeno as examples of
problems your view solves.
Zeno is easily solved without recourse to your notion. The more common
solutions involve Cantor's infinite sets, the sum of convergent series, etc.
I'll offer yet another below.
A short review of the more prominent paradoxes is in order. They are:
I ACHILLES: The running Achilles can never overtake the crawling turtle
because he must close half the distance, then half the remaining, then
half the remaining, ad infinitum.
II DICHOTOMY: Motion cannot exist because for any entity to move some
distance it must travel an infinite succession of half the remaining
distances.
III ARROW: For an arrow to fly for an interval of time, it must travel an
infinite succession of half the remaining intervals, therefore it cannot
move.
IV STADIUM: Three rows file into a stadium. Row A stays stationary while
rows B & C move at equal speeds in opposite directions. When they have
reached the second position, each B has passed twice as many C's as A's.
[...] So time is equal to twice the time.
The first thing to recognize is that THE FIRST THREE ARE ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL.
Placing Achilles and the turtle in space, their motion becomes relative and
simply a variant of II. III is different only in that it substitutes time
for space. These three would have motion through space or time an impossibility.
Using similarly flawed reasoning, it would thus be impossible for something to
accelerate from 1 m/s to 2 m/s, because the entity would have to pass through
1.5 m/s, 1.75 m/s, ad infinitum. Further, if something were changing its RATE of
acceleration from 1 m/s^2 to 2 m/s^2, as it would also have to pass through 1.5,
1.75, ad infinitum.
Thus, though less frequently noted, Zeno's reasoning would not simply have
motion through time or space as impossible, but all CHANGE on continua as well.
Kind of a dull universe.
While Zeno posed the first three paradoxes by separating time and space,
you'll note that in my acceleration and rate-of-acceleration "paradoxes,"
time and space are combined.
As for more straightforward solutions to Zeno than my
proposition I humbly beg to differ. Zeno's arguments assumed the
premise "motion exists in time" to come to the conclusion that "motion
is impossible."
As we can see, for the first three he did NOT. They were either about motion
OR about time, but not both. The stadium paradox merely give the illusion of
combining motion and time. Therein lies his problem, and therein lies my
solution.
Paradoxes I and II are solved by the simple recognition that as a uniformly
moving body passes through the series of halfway points between L1 and L2, it
is simultaneously passing--with increasing rapidity--through the series of
chronological halfway points between T1 and T2.
There is a one-to-one correspondence between L/2 and T/2, L/4 and T/4, etc.
As the distance remaining becomes infinitesimal, the time it takes to travel
that distance becomes infinitesimal. The infinities cancel. Finite motion is
thus possible, and time is what makes it possible.
Paradox III is as easily dispatched, as a corollary of my solution of I and
II. If time is what makes space-time motion possible, then "movement" though
time is possible.
Yet another corollary is that if "the time it takes to travel that distance
[eventually] becomes infinitesimal," we have the foundation for any sort of
variable continua, including acceleration and rate of acceleration.
Paradox IV has an obvious solution. Rows B and C are moving at the same velocity
relative to A, but at twice that velocity relative to each other. The solution,
once again, is the GENUINELY simultaneous use of time AND space.
Zeno's arguments assumed the premise "motion exists in time" to come to the
conclusion that "motion is impossible." By avoiding that premise we avoid
the conclusion (or in physics terms the prediction) that motion is impossible.
You misidentified his premises, since Zeno clearly divorced time from space
in the first three of these problems. (See above.) He did so precisely because
it made them seem paradoxical. He was a master of diversion.
In the last one he gives the ILLUSION of combining the two, but ignores
the obvious change in the spatial relationship of B and C per unit of
time (velocity), in fact attempting to substitute "twice the time" for
what was in reality twice the relative DISTANCE for the same time.
In short, the last paradox, the one on which you based your last post,
is actually an out-and-out fraud.
The paradox is shown to be correct based on the premises, and we have
(potentionally) removed false knowledge from our understanding.
You are incorrect about his premises, the paradoxes have no merit even
based upon Zeno's premises, and I do not see any explanatory power in
your 'events create time' view. There is no problem here which requires
solving.
I wouldn't mind hearing more about your 'logical operations' notion, but
you need to address this post first.
Servo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
01 Mar 2004 08:34:17 AM |
|
|
"Servo" <dividedby@zero.moc> wrote in message news:<c1u9j60292u@enews1.newsguy.com>...
In your post you shift the topic from 'motion creates time' to "observation
as an interaction [as] the result of the evaluation of logical rules," and in
doing so failed to properly respond to the issues I raised.
Sort of. I started out more general saying that "motion creates time"
and moved on to something more specific where any motion or
interaction is a phenomenon, and the abstract properties of space,
time, and matter exist as metaphenomenon within the
phenomenon/observation. Its more or less the same idea just with
bigger words.
The issue you raised was that in my theory space and time are not
intertwined. I tried to show that space and time (as well as matter)
are all metaphenomena of a phenomenon in my theory not only
intertwining them but providing a real explanation as to how they are
intertwined.
Until you do, this
is not a discussion but a series of your monologues.
Sounds fair. Sometimes it feels like I'm addressing a point but often
I haven't communicated it clearly enough and I move on before I should
have.
I will state their consequences in the form of the following questions,
to which a response is necessary if I am to continue, and then comment on
Zeno:
1. From my comments it's clear that motion at a finite velocity cannot
occur, BY DEFINITION, apart from finite time. Do you agree or disagree?
I'm inclined to agree.
You have to remember that I'm taking nature and abandoning the idea of
modeling it with a formula. Instead I'm taking a computational
approach that produces the phenomena of nature. Within the patterns in
the output, if our model is correct, we should be able to "discover"
our formulas within those effects, but the actual model itself is
based on prorgrams that look nothing like the formulas and cannot even
be mathematically related to one another. Since velocity is a formula
of nature, velocity doesn't literally exist in my model. Thats because
my model is not a model of nature, it is a model of a larger system
that produces nature indirectly.
Basically the model is of a system I call "fundamental nature", which
runs in its own space and time, and produces nature as a subset in the
model with its own unique space and time. As a result, in my model we
are observing it in the space and time of fundamental nature, and not
the space and time of our nature (the subset). Therefore, as the time
and space of nature are only abstractions of the time and space of
another nature, the velocity observed in the model is the velocity of
another time and space.
I'm probably starting to loose you, eh? I wish I could explain it
better. (But there is a downloadable version of the model that you can
run. Its available as a link in nature.htm. Have you waded through
that document yet?)
2. Do you or do you not acknowledge the variability of velocity, thereby
invalidating the purported inferences of the example you used?
I do acknowledge variable velocity, however I do not think my
conjecture is invalidated.
First, variable velocity exists in macroscopic objects. What we're
talking about here are particles. The individual electrons and protons
and photons, ect.
Now those objects can have variable wavelengths and thus they do move
at variable velocity. However, an electron can only have one wave
length at a time. That means that if an electron has some wavelength
and is moving at some velocity, then interacts with something and
changes wavelength and moves at a different velocity, then there is
still not a problem with my model because the electron moving at some
speed during one phenomenon and then at another speed in another
phenomenon creates two separate instances of time and space that do
not have to agree for the conjecture to be correct.
3. Are you or are you not abandoning the concept of simultaneity in your
serial-instant example?
Simultaneity is abandonded.
Zeno is easily solved without recourse to your notion. The more common
solutions involve Cantor's infinite sets, the sum of convergent series, etc.
This is true. However I am still of the opinion that an affirmation of
the paradox and identification of the false premise is *so* much
simpler than the conjuring up the mathematics you mention that it
should be prefered by Occam's Razor.
A short review of the more prominent paradoxes is in order. They are:
I'd like to make one nitpick. I am of the opinion that there is only
one paradox that emerges when all four of Zeno's puzzles are
considered together:
<quote>It is commonly thought that Zeno presented four paradoxes
relating to motion and time. But I cannot believe that this is what
Zeno had in mind when he presented the four puzzles we call paradoxes.
Instead, Zeno used these puzzles during debate to show that time must
act a certain way, or so he thought. If his opponent claimed that time
must be continuous and infinitely divisible, Zeno could show using the
puzzle of the Tortoise and the Hare that if this were true motion
would be impossible. If his opponent claimed that time should then be
discrete Zeno used the stadium puzzle to show that relative motion of
bodies in the most minimal time interval divides the supposedly
indivisible interval of time, so if it were true that time is discrete
then movement in opposite directions is impossible.
Obviously, both motion and motion in opposite directions are possible.
But to solve all four of the puzzles without contradicting one another
would require time to be both discrete and continuous. This is of
course impossible, Zeno thought. And this conclusion, derived from
analyzing all four of his motion puzzles, is the Paradox of Zeno. We
have four puzzles and a single paradox.</quote>
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
The first thing to recognize is that THE FIRST THREE ARE ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL.
Of course.
Thus, though less frequently noted, Zeno's reasoning would not simply have
motion through time or space as impossible, but all CHANGE on continua as well.
Kind of a dull universe.
True.
While Zeno posed the first three paradoxes by separating time and space
<snip>
You misidentified his premises, since Zeno clearly divorced time from space
in the first three of these problems. (See above.) He did so precisely because
it made them seem paradoxical. He was a master of diversion.
This appears to be a non sequiter to me because I don't see why the
separation of time and space is required by the first three paradoxes.
Can you explain this further?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Servo" |
|
| Title: Re: What sound does the universe make when you flip it inside out? |
01 Mar 2004 05:19:59 PM |
|
|
Mike Helland <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0403010634.66447ec8@posting.google.com...
"Servo" <dividedby@zero.moc> wrote in message
news:<c1u9j60292u@enews1.newsguy.com>...
[...]
The issue you raised was that in my theory space and time are not
intertwined. I tried to show that space and time (as well as matter)
are all metaphenomena of a phenomenon in my theory not only
intertwining them but providing a real explanation as to how they are
intertwined.
Here you sound wholistic.
"I suggest that because there is change, because something happens,
and then space and time exist within the context of that change."
But here you sound reductionistic.
In the former it sounds as though space and time might among the media
(differentia) through which events are actualized. In the latter, it
sounds as though they are a product ("because") of change, not existing
until "then."
1. Do you see the distinction between these presentations?
2. Do you recognize your use of the chronological term "then" in
your last formulation, implying a "before" and "after" independent of
the change? That time stuff is tricky.
3. Wouldn't the entire universe be an (ongoing) "event," a "chang[ing]"
entity whose context would therefore be permeated with space and time?
Until you do, this is not a discussion but a series of your monologues.
Sounds fair. Sometimes it feels like I'm addressing a point but often
I haven't communicated it clearly enough and I move on before I should
have.
OK. Whenever you see little numbers followed by a sentence and then a
question mark, that'll be your que.
[Snip velocity Q/A in anticipation of what follows.]
You have to remember that I'm taking nature and abandoning the idea of
modeling it with a formula. Instead I'm taking a computational
approach that produces the phenomena of nature.
I've been nursing a form of this idea for many years.
Within the patterns in
the output, if our model is correct, we should be able to "discover"
our formulas within those effects, but the actual model itself is
based on prorgrams that look nothing like the formulas and cannot even
be mathematically related to one another. Since velocity is a formula
of nature, velocity doesn't literally exist in my model. Thats because
my model is not a model of nature, it is a model of a larger system
that produces nature indirectly.
And this as well.
Basically the model is of a system I call "fundamental nature", which
runs in its own space and time, and produces nature as a subset in the
model with its own unique space and time.
I touched on the notion of our "universe" as a possible component of
a larger existence, one of many forms, in my post on 'our universe as
a singular event.'
As a result, in my model we
are observing it in the space and time of fundamental nature, and not
the space and time of our nature (the subset). Therefore, as the time
and space of nature are only abstractions of the time and space of
another nature, the velocity observed in the model is the velocity of
another time and space.
Can't see the relevance. Whether our universe is singular or subset,
formulaic or computational, real or abstraction or abstraction from
abstraction, by definition "velocity" is a product of both space and time.
Finite spatial events entail finite time, part and parcel. Space and time
do not exist "because" (to use your word) of a space-time event, but
are instead inherent, "in the nature of."
I'm probably starting to loose you, eh? I wish I could explain it
better. (But there is a downloadable version of the model that you can
run. Its available as a link in nature.htm. Have you waded through
that document yet?)
The word is "lose." I'm not lost, as you can see. Actually find some
parallels in our thinking. No, have not been to website.
2. Do you or do you not acknowledge the variability of velocity, thereby
invalidating the purported inferences of the example you used?
I do acknowledge variable velocity, however I do not think my
conjecture is invalidated.
What is invalidated is your use of Zeno, not your broader conjecture
as outline above, nor even your contingent space-time notion.
First, variable velocity exists in macroscopic objects. What we're
talking about here are particles. The individual electrons and protons
and photons, ect.
[Particle] phenomenon creates two separate instances of time and space that
do not have to agree for the conjecture to be correct.
Since we can view our universe as an event, I'm unable to see the advantage
of instantiating time and space for each particle.
4. Cannot they exist within the continuous "fabric" of the space-time of our
universe "event"?
5. Further, since most of the particles in our universe are constantly changing
in relation to most other particles, they would be spawning P! "instances" of
space-time at any given "moment" and at each moment thereafter. What does this
explain that continuous space-time does not?
3. Are you or are you not abandoning the concept of simultaneity in your
serial-instant example?
Simultaneity is abandonded.
In some contexts, that may not be a bad idea. In the context of your Zeno
Stadium example, however, your serial processing of "instants" creates a
problem where none exists. If our universe, greater or not, is a compu-
tational thingie, then it would seem to be massively parallel.
Zeno is easily solved without recourse to your notion. The more common
solutions involve Cantor's infinite sets, the sum of convergent series, etc.
This is true. However I am still of the opinion that an affirmation of
the paradox and identification of the false premise is *so* much
simpler than the conjuring up the mathematics you mention that it
should be prefered by Occam's Razor.
First, as I stated and demonstrated with the examples you have snipped,
Zeno did not combine time and space in the examples. Your claim that
he did so seems false.
6. Can you demonstrate that Zeno combined space and time in the paradoxes
we have discussed? (Remember, the stadium problem only appears to do that--
it's a fraud.)
7. If he did not, then is your claim that "Zeno's arguments assumed the
premise 'motion exists in time'" really true?
A short review of the more prominent paradoxes is in order. They are:
I'd like to make one nitpick. I am of the opinion that there is only
one paradox that emerges when all four of Zeno's puzzles are
considered together:
This is true in the sense that they all involve Zeno's division of
continua (space and time) into infinitesimals. It is untrue in that
the first three involve either space or time but not both, while the
last (stadium) problem gives the false appearance of combining them.
<quote> [...]
Obviously, both motion and motion in opposite directions are possible.
But to solve all four of the puzzles without contradicting one another
would require time to be both discrete and continuous. This is of
course impossible, Zeno thought. And this conclusion, derived from
analyzing all four of his motion puzzles, is the Paradox of Zeno. We
have four puzzles and a single paradox.</quote>
The first thing to recognize is that THE FIRST THREE ARE ESSENTIALLY
IDENTICAL.
Of course.
Thus, though less frequently noted, Zeno's reasoning would not simply have
motion through time or space as impossible, but all CHANGE on continua as
well.
Kind of a dull universe.
True.
While Zeno posed the first three paradoxes by separating time and space
<snip>
You misidentified his premises, since Zeno clearly divorced time from space
in the first three of these problems. (See above.) He did so precisely
because
it made them seem paradoxical. He was a master of diversion.
This appears to be a non sequiter to me because I don't see why the
separation of time and space is required by the first three paradoxes.
Can you explain this further?
Clearly Zeno's strategy was divide and conquer. In the first two, as listed,
no mention is made of time. In the last one, no mention is made of space.
There is absolutely no intellectual linkage between the two concepts. They
give absolutely no reason to believe that one should think of space in terms
of time, or of time in terms of space. In short, if there is ANY way to infer
that "Zeno's arguments assumed the premise 'motion exists in time'" it is
unknown to me. The burden of proof would be yours.
We are free to combine them ex post facto, of course. I did so in my
acceleration
and rate-of-acceleration "paradoxes." If Zeno had presented a problem in this
form, a case for such a premise might be made.
In the fourth case, as I pointed out, Zeno mislabeled relative velocity as
"time."
In other words, where he DID "assume the premise 'motion exists in time'" in the
smuggled concept of relative velocity, he immediately disowned it by denying one
of its factors (distance) and calling it the other (time).
Quite the opposite of your view, I believe that Zeno may have wished to hide the
connection between time and space. His motives for this we can only guess.
8. Do you think he understood that motion through an infinitesimal distance
requires
only an infinitesimal amount of time?
9. Do you think he understood that half the distance or time is a larger
infinity
(of infinitesimals) than one-quarter the distance or time?
10. Standing Zeno's paradox on its ear, do you think he understood that if a
hypo-
thetical entity could travel one point or through one instant, it could travel
through two, or four or eight or sixteen... or through an infinite number?
(Remember, he seemed to dispute space a | | | | | | | |
