Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2007

On Feb 25, 12:25 pm, ivars.fabrici...@gmail.com wrote:

<< REMEMBER the physical process that caused them
to  be even if we take dimensions away. >>

That argument would be more convincing if you offer
some subatomic DNA or macroatomic protons at
a reasonable price.

Sue...

Next time when you send something to more than one newsgroup,
please do it by crossposting as opposed to multiposting.
Have a look at  http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

Dirk Vdm

So you consider a hypothosis that physics should not depend on the
coordinate system used, and then another hypothesis that coordinate systems
are meaningless below a certain threshold.  If you consider contradictory
hypothesis of course you will arrive at a contradiction.

When there is no space or time, since velocity is defined in those terms, it
is meaningless, like speaking of the smell of isomorphism.

Bill

On Feb 25, 12:25 pm, ivars.fabrici...@gmail.com wrote:

On Feb 25, 12:25 pm, ivars.fabrici...@gmail.com wrote:

xxein:  How many directions can anything one thing travel at the same
time?  Doesn't a physical length contraction limit itself to this
direction?

If you have a constant velocity (without an outside FOR) do you still
think your FOR is not an FOR'?  The Lorentzian and SR math allow such
relative observations but the default premise is that lightspeed is
recripocally constant along the direction (axis) of travel in your
FOR.  What if it weren't?  That's easy to contemplate since we use
that asymmetry to describe everything else but our own FOR!!!  Why not
our own? --- because that isn't the way we were raised up wrt
physics.  Hell!  We even know that our timerate is affected by gravity
without even knowing what gravity IS!!!

Let the math guide us to what we observe, but it doesn't necessarily
describe the physic.  We know that there are infinite different
'languages' in math that can all describe the same observational
result.  None of them necessarily describe the physic despite the
degree of inclusion and comprehensibility.  In fact, we leave the
comprehensibility out in favor of inclusion so that the math is free
to roam the range without any physical guidance except for the
observational result.  This has worked only with mediocrity in the
past and cannot get any better as we get more aware of the smaller
scale of events.

This, then, leads to a scale that you seem not to fully understand.
Of the known "four forces", we have whittled them down a bit by using
a math to unite a couple.  But I think we have done so in a pseudo-
math fashion only.  Have you heard of self-similarity?  That is mostly
the product of the same ingredients, but with an outside parameter
(different conditions).  This is why we cannot simply 'scale-down'.
The starting condition is unequal to the scale in its initial presumed
equality.  This is expressed by mixing different mass balls together
in a container with/ and without gravity.  Many other starting
conditions can also exist, such as velocity/c  of the components or a
direction wrt a 'wind'.

We have been a little less than careful in making math express what we
measure, and we have done so by trying to make the math simple.  Not a
bad idea since the universe cannot have too many initial laws, but we
have misinterpreted what those laws may actually be.  We end up lost
in mathematical relations and try to bend them to suit a false
simplicity without knowing the real facts of the physic and how it
operates.  Iow, tell me again how a one-way speed of light can be
measured or what gravity IS.

So, then, you can begin to see more factors of consideration that must
be taken into account to get a notion of the physic.  We assume a lot
of crap because it gives a reasonable result.  So why, then, can't we
blend relativity theory into quantum theory?  Is the incomplete
descriptive math going to be the scapegoat?  Or do we simply lack a
physical knowledge that is necessary for the correspondence?  Math
loses until it understands the physic.  And then it can flower.

Change the physic to whatever you like.  Just let us know so that we
can adjust the math and logical comprehension to try to characterize
it.  If you don't tell us exactly what it is, it may take eons for us
to understand and comprehend.

Oh crap!  That is where we are now!

So, if you could create a universe and make us guess how it operates
(and fail), and if I guess close, will you make me describe it within
the present understanding of the physic or will you allow me to
express it as I 'see' it?  This is a sort of catch-22 in physics.  Why
should it be expressed in archaic terms where the god of thunder has
to be satisfied?

You may have all the reference you want through the Internet, but is
it any more valid than a tomorrow will become?  And now you get to
think about yourself.  Do you just accept a belief, an 'authority'?
You have questions, but would they be satisfied beyond your belief?
Can you track the origins of belief and put them against the physic?
Can you figure out anything by yourself or do you need to comply to
the whole 'social' structure for a saneness of physical thought?
Haven't you graduated to the pull-down Pampers yet?

I speak in broad terms.  Don't take anything personal unless it
hurts.  If it does, then recognize that you are torn between.  Make a
well-educated choice.  But I can't tell you how or with what you want
to be educated.  I only know that the universe (and beyond) will
continue to operate despite what you or I think of how it operates.

This is my second post to you on this.  I guess my original post went
somewhere our present notion of physics doesn't apply.

Here are two speculative theories.
One deals with scales and the other with processes, so you may find
them of interest.

Scale Relativity and Fractal Space-Time:
http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/arRevFST.pdf

Process Physics: Modelling Reality as Self-Organising Information
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009023