is interesting perceive that in some theories,the physics is exchanged by pure mathematics.see that witten,borcherds create physiical theories that just
reflections of deep mathematics logic,that touch low or quasi-nothing in reality
physics.then laws,fields,symmetries,groups are abstractions to explain the "particle*,and the "movement of particles" as concentrations of energies,holes,minimal surfaces,fiber bundles,infinite hilbert space;or time as something REAL,but at the same time,it is imaginary,and also can explain the
motion of the space,that infinite,in each infinitesimal parts that divide it,and so
ad infinitum.how altere the space of something that in each time intervals,is infinite,but can to discretes,but motion cannot be thinked with "jumps" or "quantized".
then appear that all the universe,and same newton' laws only occur by invent the
differential and integrable,and the vectors and tensor pure abrastrctions to explain
something that is not there.
the extra-dimension are some intangible,same to proper mathematics that get not explain its proper funcionality,in superstrings,that has foundation the non-comutative differential geometry that can be fusion of space-time in the primordial vaccum,that does emerge the space-time continuos,as discrete entity,
of the high-dimensions,then the space-time belong not to reality observed by us.as well as gravitational would be originated of the high-dimension.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 23 2006, 01:04 PM)
reflections of deep mathematics logic,that touch low or quasi-nothing in reality
What is quasi-nothing?
What is quasi-nothing?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 23 2006, 01:04 PM)
then laws,fields,symmetries,groups are abstractions to explain the "particle*,and the "movement of particles" as concentrations of energies,holes,minimal surfaces,fiber bundles,infinite hilbert space;or time as something REAL,but at the same time,it is imaginary,
Buzz word alert! Hilbery spaces aren't 'movement of particles', they are the mathematical structure within which you place fields and operators. It's like saying coordinates are the motion of particles. No, the motion is expressed as how the position of the particle within the coordinates changes with time.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 23 2006, 01:04 PM)
lso can explain the
motion of the space,that infinite,in each infinitesimal parts that divide it,and so
ad infinitum.
motion of the space,that infinite,in each infinitesimal parts that divide it,and so
ad infinitum.
Care to explain that one again?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 23 2006, 01:04 PM)
lthe extra-dimension are some intangible,same to proper mathematics that get not explain its proper funcionality,
What has pure maths got to do with hidden dimensions? Explain so carefully.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 23 2006, 01:04 PM)
,in superstrings,that has foundation the non-comutative differential geometry that can be fusion of space-time in the primordial vaccum,that does emerge the space-time continuos,as discrete entity,
Space-time doesn't emerge within string theory, it's assumed. It's LQG which derives space-time. Another case of you not knowing what you're talking about.
Mott, why didn't you post these questions in the thread you'd already made on the connection betweem maths and physics? Why didn't you reply to my questions there? Is it because you don't know anything of which you speak and you just want to come across as clever?
Mott, why didn't you post these questions in the thread you'd already made on the connection betweem maths and physics? Why didn't you reply to my questions there? Is it because you don't know anything of which you speak and you just want to come across as clever?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 23 2006, 12:04 PM)
is interesting perceive that in some theories,the physics is exchanged by pure mathematics.see that witten,borcherds create physiical theories that just
reflections of deep mathematics logic,that touch low or quasi-nothing in reality
physics.then laws,fields,symmetries,groups are abstractions to explain the "particle*,and the "movement of particles" as concentrations of energies,holes,minimal surfaces,fiber bundles,infinite hilbert space;or time as something REAL,but at the same time,it is imaginary,and also can explain the
motion of the space,that infinite,in each infinitesimal parts that divide it,and so
ad infinitum.how altere the space of something that in each time intervals,is infinite,but can to discretes,but motion cannot be thinked with "jumps" or "quantized".
then appear that all the universe,and same newton' laws only occur by invent the
differential and integrable,and the vectors and tensor pure abrastrctions to explain
something that is not there.
the extra-dimension are some intangible,same to proper mathematics that get not explain its proper funcionality,in superstrings,that has foundation the non-comutative differential geometry that can be fusion of space-time in the primordial vaccum,that does emerge the space-time continuos,as discrete entity,
of the high-dimensions,then the space-time belong not to reality observed by us.as well as gravitational would be originated of the high-dimension.
Wacko alert!
reflections of deep mathematics logic,that touch low or quasi-nothing in reality
physics.then laws,fields,symmetries,groups are abstractions to explain the "particle*,and the "movement of particles" as concentrations of energies,holes,minimal surfaces,fiber bundles,infinite hilbert space;or time as something REAL,but at the same time,it is imaginary,and also can explain the
motion of the space,that infinite,in each infinitesimal parts that divide it,and so
ad infinitum.how altere the space of something that in each time intervals,is infinite,but can to discretes,but motion cannot be thinked with "jumps" or "quantized".
then appear that all the universe,and same newton' laws only occur by invent the
differential and integrable,and the vectors and tensor pure abrastrctions to explain
something that is not there.
the extra-dimension are some intangible,same to proper mathematics that get not explain its proper funcionality,in superstrings,that has foundation the non-comutative differential geometry that can be fusion of space-time in the primordial vaccum,that does emerge the space-time continuos,as discrete entity,
of the high-dimensions,then the space-time belong not to reality observed by us.as well as gravitational would be originated of the high-dimension.
Wacko alert!
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 23 2006, 03:04 PM)
... that in some theories, the physics is exchanged by pure mathematics...
Unfortunatelly, just these theories aren't usually working.
Unfortunatelly, just these theories aren't usually working.
I believe that for some maths there is a corresponding PHYSICAL REALITY TO BE DESCRIBED. I call this REAL MATH because it applies to our understanding of correct physical models of THE REAL WORLD. Real physics and real math are the same. The other maths are just imaginary. For example Stephen Hawking's IMAGINARY CLOCK measuring time in the complex plane.
QUOTE (Nick+Nov 23 2006, 10:25 PM)
The other maths are just imaginary. For example Stephen Hawking's IMAGINARY CLOCK measuring time in the complex plane.
You do realise that the mathematical term 'imaginary' doesn't literally mean "It's all made up nonsense", just like the mathematical term 'complete' doesn't mean something is finished, or just like 'compact' doesn't mean something is small, or irrational doesn't mean it's a baseless view.
Oh no, wait, you don't realise that because you don't know.
You do realise that the mathematical term 'imaginary' doesn't literally mean "It's all made up nonsense", just like the mathematical term 'complete' doesn't mean something is finished, or just like 'compact' doesn't mean something is small, or irrational doesn't mean it's a baseless view.
Oh no, wait, you don't realise that because you don't know.
QUOTE (Nick+Nov 24 2006, 12:25 AM)
...real physics and real math are the same. The other maths are just imaginary. For example Stephen Hawking's IMAGINARY CLOCK measuring time in the complex plane.
This is not the best example, as the imaginary time is pretty real in fact. It describes the time running for underwater waves, whereas the time at the surface is driven by surface wave spreading. Both the real, both imaginary time are mutually related, recursively. The picture on the right illustrates, how the imaginary time is related in composition of such waves in complex plane (i.e. the rotation).
This is not the best example, as the imaginary time is pretty real in fact. It describes the time running for underwater waves, whereas the time at the surface is driven by surface wave spreading. Both the real, both imaginary time are mutually related, recursively. The picture on the right illustrates, how the imaginary time is related in composition of such waves in complex plane (i.e. the rotation).
QUOTE (Nick+Nov 24 2006, 12:25 AM)
...Oh no, wait, you don't realize that because you don't know.
Without example given here's nothing to wait and it's obvious, you don't know as well...
Examples of analogies are causal manifestation of idea persistence...
Without example given here's nothing to wait and it's obvious, you don't know as well...
Examples of analogies are causal manifestation of idea persistence...
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 23 2006, 10:35 PM)
Without example here's nothing to wait and it's obvious, you don't know as well...
I'd say I've proven I can do a decent amount of PDEs and related material, in threads like this one and when I showed you the derivation of Maxwell's equations in QED.
Some of us can actually demonstrate our abilities when asked rather than avoiding the questions and having to resort to Google's copy and pastes and innane pictures
I'd say I've proven I can do a decent amount of PDEs and related material, in threads like this one and when I showed you the derivation of Maxwell's equations in QED.
Some of us can actually demonstrate our abilities when asked rather than avoiding the questions and having to resort to Google's copy and pastes and innane pictures
In order to demonstrate Imaginary Time's reality the requirement is an IMAGINARY CLOCK to measure it; but such an "IMAGINARY CLOCK" doesn't exist.
There is no other way for us to verify Imaginary time. As such the concept must be discarded
Mitch Raemsch > Light Falls
There is no other way for us to verify Imaginary time. As such the concept must be discarded
Mitch Raemsch > Light Falls
Considering T = -it, you can measure normal, 'real' time then just do the Wick rotation on it to get the imaginary time.
QUOTE (Nick+Nov 23 2006, 10:49 PM)
There is no other way for us to verify Imaginary time. As such the concept must be discarded
Wick rotations are of VITAL importance to quantum field theory when computing amplitudes from Feynman diagrams, though that's more an evaluation method.
Wick rotations also come into play when Euclideanising a Lorentzian metric. This has plenty of uses in general relativity, including such things as computing the temperature of a black hole via a completely seperate method to the 1st Law of Black Hole Mechanics which some might consider slightly ad hoc at first glance.
A Wick rotation doesn't literally say "There exists another time dimension", it's a computational and conceptual tool to allow people to understand complicated and often counter intuitive systems in a way more familiar to them.
You'd know this if you'd done GR, but as plenty of the discussions you and I had months ago Nick about geodesics showed, you've never picked up a GR textbook in your life.
Wick rotations also come into play when Euclideanising a Lorentzian metric. This has plenty of uses in general relativity, including such things as computing the temperature of a black hole via a completely seperate method to the 1st Law of Black Hole Mechanics which some might consider slightly ad hoc at first glance.
A Wick rotation doesn't literally say "There exists another time dimension", it's a computational and conceptual tool to allow people to understand complicated and often counter intuitive systems in a way more familiar to them.
You'd know this if you'd done GR, but as plenty of the discussions you and I had months ago Nick about geodesics showed, you've never picked up a GR textbook in your life.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 12:42 AM)
...and having to resort to Google's copy and pastes and innane pictures...
Just try to found the original source of the pictures above... Surprisingly enough, although every body knows about Euler transform and quantum rotator concept, I've never found to applied it to the phase interface concept.
This is somewhat strange, don't you think? So plenty of physical theorists are working of quantum mechanic intensively and none illustrative pictures of it exists at all....
Until now. Of course, I'm just idiot by mainstream understanding, who is just googling on the web...
Just try to found the original source of the pictures above... Surprisingly enough, although every body knows about Euler transform and quantum rotator concept, I've never found to applied it to the phase interface concept.
This is somewhat strange, don't you think? So plenty of physical theorists are working of quantum mechanic intensively and none illustrative pictures of it exists at all....
Until now. Of course, I'm just idiot by mainstream understanding, who is just googling on the web...
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 23 2006, 11:54 PM)
Just try to found the original source of the pictures above...
I wasn't referring to that picture in particular, but I've caught you doing it before and so have people like Pup.
Clearly a lot of your 'information' on stuff like string theory comes from frantic use of Google because you always display a lack of understanding of the technical terms you use, as if you've only just seen the things you're talking about and haven't thought about it properly (or just plain can't understand it).
Clearly a lot of your 'information' on stuff like string theory comes from frantic use of Google because you always display a lack of understanding of the technical terms you use, as if you've only just seen the things you're talking about and haven't thought about it properly (or just plain can't understand it).
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 23 2006, 11:54 PM)
So plenty of physical theorists are working of quantum mechanic intensively and none illustrative pictures of it exists at all....
Plenty of illustrative pictures of quantum mechanical notions exists, half the pictures you post you've taken from other places, by your own admittance. Then of course there's the both illustrative and computationally indespencible Feynman diagrams.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 23 2006, 11:54 PM)
Of course, I'm just idiot by mainstream understanding
No, you're any idiot by any understanding. You have to have things explained to you 5 or 6 times at least and then you forget those things in less than a week anyway. 5 year old kids remember and learn things better than you!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 02:01 AM)
...you always display a lack of understanding of the technical terms you use...
LOL, which one, for example?
LOL, which one, for example?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 02:01 AM)
...you have to have things explained to you 5 or 6 times at least ...
LOL, which one, for example?
It seems, the math experience doesn't makes you very specific in your arguments...
LOL, which one, for example?
It seems, the math experience doesn't makes you very specific in your arguments...
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 12:09 AM)
LOL, which one, for example?
You think the Euler-Lagrange equations are derived in relation to an inertial environment, because you've seen them used in the context of fields. You fail to realise that they arise as a mathematical procedure totally independent of any physics, it's just they have application in dynamical systems.
You think the Euler-Lagrange equations are derived in relation to an inertial environment, because you've seen them used in the context of fields. You fail to realise that they arise as a mathematical procedure totally independent of any physics, it's just they have application in dynamical systems.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 12:09 AM)
LOL, which one, for example?
I have had to explain to you on numerous equations that just because string theory incorporates special relativity by design, it doesn't automatically include general relativity, nor is automatically compatible with general relativity. All quantum field theories involving point particles incorporate special relativity by construction, but not only don't include general relativity, they are totally incompatible with it too.
I've also have to explain to you several times that string theory does have physical predictions, it's just none of them are unique only to string theory. You were previously claiming string theory has no predictions of any kind.
I've also have to explain to you several times that string theory does have physical predictions, it's just none of them are unique only to string theory. You were previously claiming string theory has no predictions of any kind.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 12:09 AM)
It seems, the math experience doesn't makes you very specific in your arguments...
It would seem you have the memory of a goldfish.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 02:16 AM)
The Euler-Lagrange equations ... arise as a mathematical procedure totally independent of any physics, it's just they have application in dynamical systems.
LOL, can you prove it?
Of course, no math procedure depends on some physic. This is normal, as the time concept cannot be derived by math and without time whole physic is unthinkable.
The Euler-Lagrange equation was developed in the 1750s by Euler and Lagrange in connection with their studies of the tautochrone problem. This is the problem of determining a curve on which a weighted particle will fall to a fixed point in a fixed amount of time, independent of the starting point.
Lagrange solved this problem in 1755 and sent the solution to Euler. The two further developed Lagrange's method and applied it to mechanics, which led to the formulation of Lagrangian mechanics. Their correspondence ultimately led to the Calculus of variations, a term coined by Euler himself in 1766.
LOL, can you prove it?
Of course, no math procedure depends on some physic. This is normal, as the time concept cannot be derived by math and without time whole physic is unthinkable.
The Euler-Lagrange equation was developed in the 1750s by Euler and Lagrange in connection with their studies of the tautochrone problem. This is the problem of determining a curve on which a weighted particle will fall to a fixed point in a fixed amount of time, independent of the starting point.
Lagrange solved this problem in 1755 and sent the solution to Euler. The two further developed Lagrange's method and applied it to mechanics, which led to the formulation of Lagrangian mechanics. Their correspondence ultimately led to the Calculus of variations, a term coined by Euler himself in 1766.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 12:46 AM)
LOL, can you prove it?
Of course, no math procedure depends on some physic.
You aske me to prove that the E-L equations are derived without reference to physics then confirm that's your view too?
The proof is quite short, but a pain to type in text format. I'm sure your local library would be more than happy to furnish you with a book which explains their derivation, or just use your well practiced Google skills and you'll no doubt find some site with a step by step guide.
It's pretty elementary stuff though Zephir and if, as you claim, you know how to minimise Lagrangians for AWT, you already know the proof, so why are you asking me? Perhaps because you've not done the minimising Lagrangian process in AWT
Of course, no math procedure depends on some physic.
You aske me to prove that the E-L equations are derived without reference to physics then confirm that's your view too?
The proof is quite short, but a pain to type in text format. I'm sure your local library would be more than happy to furnish you with a book which explains their derivation, or just use your well practiced Google skills and you'll no doubt find some site with a step by step guide.
It's pretty elementary stuff though Zephir and if, as you claim, you know how to minimise Lagrangians for AWT, you already know the proof, so why are you asking me? Perhaps because you've not done the minimising Lagrangian process in AWT
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 12:46 AM)
The Euler-Lagrange equation was developed in the 1750s by Euler and Lagrange in connection with their studies of the tautochrone problem. This is the problem of determining a curve on which a weighted particle will fall to a fixed point in a fixed amount of time, independent of the starting point.
Yep, it has plenty of physics applications and the drive to develop such mathematical methods was physics (similarly with calculus itself, Newton needed it for his laws of motion and gravity). The actual PDE theory though is totally independent of physics.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 03:00 AM)
The actual PDE theory though is totally independent of physics
You're extraordinarily right.
This is exactly, why I'm not interested about explicit solution of AWT equations.
and 
This is simply math business.
You're extraordinarily right.
This is exactly, why I'm not interested about explicit solution of AWT equations.
and This is simply math business.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 01:15 AM)
This is exactly, why I'm not interested about explicit solution of AWT equations. and This is simply math business.
Given you've just demonstrated a profound lack of understanding for the physical meaning and derivation of mathematical processes you admit are in your own theory, I'm not suprised you aren't interested in the maths of your theory. If you think Lagrangian mechanics implies/requires an inertial environment, any maths you put in your theory will almost certainly be incorrectly connected to physical reality.
It's a shame that now means that all your results are ad-hoc. How can you say with any conviction vortices in your theory describe black holes when you cannot prove
1. Vortices are in your theory
2. They behave exactly like black holes
Both of those need maths to prove your claims are true. Oh well, just more ad hocing for you by the looks of it
and This is simply math business. Given you've just demonstrated a profound lack of understanding for the physical meaning and derivation of mathematical processes you admit are in your own theory, I'm not suprised you aren't interested in the maths of your theory. If you think Lagrangian mechanics implies/requires an inertial environment, any maths you put in your theory will almost certainly be incorrectly connected to physical reality.
It's a shame that now means that all your results are ad-hoc. How can you say with any conviction vortices in your theory describe black holes when you cannot prove
1. Vortices are in your theory
2. They behave exactly like black holes
Both of those need maths to prove your claims are true. Oh well, just more ad hocing for you by the looks of it
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 03:24 AM)
How can you say with any conviction vortices in your theory describe black holes when you cannot prove
I can imagine the inertial particles like the wave packets solution and the rest is quite easy.
I can imagine the inertial particles like the wave packets solution and the rest is quite easy.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 02:00 AM)
I can imagine the inertial particles like the wave packets solution and the rest is quite easy.
Yes and crazy people can imagine fairies living at the end of their garden, it doesn't mean it's true or that people believe them without evidence. If it's 'quite easy', why can't you actually formalise it? Why can't you actually give any kind of decent derivation instead of "Sounds alright in my head"?
Once again, you prove you're just ad hoc'ing all your results. You're a fraud and a liar
Yes and crazy people can imagine fairies living at the end of their garden, it doesn't mean it's true or that people believe them without evidence. If it's 'quite easy', why can't you actually formalise it? Why can't you actually give any kind of decent derivation instead of "Sounds alright in my head"?
Once again, you prove you're just ad hoc'ing all your results.
You're a fraud and a liar
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 04:02 AM)
You're a fraud and a liar..
You should prove at first, what I'm saying cannot be true. I can be right even without some formal proof.
Was the Galileo liar? After all, if somebody believes in massless strings, why not to believe in BH formed by wave packets...
You should prove at first, what I'm saying cannot be true. I can be right even without some formal proof.
Was the Galileo liar? After all, if somebody believes in massless strings, why not to believe in BH formed by wave packets...
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 01:00 AM)
I can imagine the inertial particles like the wave packets solution and the rest is quite easy.
Absolutely. Care to show us how? No? Holding all the "knowledge" to yourself?
Absolutely. Care to show us how? No? Holding all the "knowledge" to yourself?
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 02:07 AM)
You should prove at first, what I'm saying cannot be true. I can be right even without some formal proof.
Zephir, how many times does someone have to explain scientific methodology to you before you get it? This is another example of you having to have things explained to you again and again and again because you're an idiot.
Mainstream physics have relativity to explain gravitational phenomena. It's conceptually very neat and fantastically accurate. For a different theory to replace that it must have a series of acceptable postulates (ie no "God did it!") and show how it derives it's results which are then superior to relativity's when it comes to describing gravitational phenomena.
If a theory has no predictions and no derivation of results, it's not a theory at all. It's, in the eyes of sciencie, fiction, until proven otherwise. You adamentally refuse to prove otherwise. Yes, you might be right (by utter random luck) but if you refuse to ever do anything to prove your claims you'll never elevate AWT from "BS story" to an actual theory.
You make a fanciful claim, you should back it up. You demand evidence from me all the time. I said Maxwell's equations arise in QED, you asked for evidence, I provided. I said general relativity comes up in string theory. You asked how, I told you. I said capillary waves aren't governed by the wave equation. You asked for evidence, I provided. You demand people back up their claims, but never back up your own. That at the very least makes you a hypocrite.
You claim that vortices in aether foam can model black holes. Do you have any formal derivation of this other than "I can imagine it" ? Simple yes or no.
If no, then you're ad hoc'ing your result. If yes, provide the formal derivation.
Simple really.
Zephir, how many times does someone have to explain scientific methodology to you before you get it? This is another example of you having to have things explained to you again and again and again because you're an idiot.
Mainstream physics have relativity to explain gravitational phenomena. It's conceptually very neat and fantastically accurate. For a different theory to replace that it must have a series of acceptable postulates (ie no "God did it!") and show how it derives it's results which are then superior to relativity's when it comes to describing gravitational phenomena.
If a theory has no predictions and no derivation of results, it's not a theory at all. It's, in the eyes of sciencie, fiction, until proven otherwise. You adamentally refuse to prove otherwise. Yes, you might be right (by utter random luck) but if you refuse to ever do anything to prove your claims you'll never elevate AWT from "BS story" to an actual theory.
You make a fanciful claim, you should back it up. You demand evidence from me all the time. I said Maxwell's equations arise in QED, you asked for evidence, I provided. I said general relativity comes up in string theory. You asked how, I told you. I said capillary waves aren't governed by the wave equation. You asked for evidence, I provided. You demand people back up their claims, but never back up your own. That at the very least makes you a hypocrite.
You claim that vortices in aether foam can model black holes. Do you have any formal derivation of this other than "I can imagine it" ? Simple yes or no.
If no, then you're ad hoc'ing your result. If yes, provide the formal derivation.
Simple really.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 02:07 AM)
Was the Galileo liar?
There are hundreds of thousands of times more people throughtout histoy who claimed to have some great truth but were utterly wrong, in some cases even clinically insane. Just because a few people succeeded in bucking the trend doesn't mean you have. You do earn 40 points from the Crank Index for comparing yourself to Galileo though.
Remember Galileo provided both evidence for his claims and formal derivation. He also was the first to outline the modern notion of scientific methodology, providing evidence for claims otherwise they are not scientific. For someone who mentions him all the time, you don't follow his ethos much.
Remember Galileo provided both evidence for his claims and formal derivation. He also was the first to outline the modern notion of scientific methodology, providing evidence for claims otherwise they are not scientific. For someone who mentions him all the time, you don't follow his ethos much.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 02:07 AM)
After all, if somebody believes in massless strings, why not to believe in BH formed by wave packets..
Because quantum field theories are proven to be effective in describing the universe, string theory already incorporates verified results and has a huge amount of formal derivation. AWT has no results, aether has never been proved to ge an effective method of describing the universe and has zero formal derivation.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 04:25 AM)
...Mainstream physics have relativity to explain gravitational phenomena...
It's possible, whereas the other normal people are using it as the description of gravitational phenomena. Simple because we don't know the origin of gravitational phenomena. We just know, it fulfills some laws. But we don't know, why is it so.
It's possible, whereas the other normal people are using it as the description of gravitational phenomena. Simple because we don't know the origin of gravitational phenomena. We just know, it fulfills some laws. But we don't know, why is it so.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 04:25 AM)
...There are hundreds of thousands of times more people throughout history who claimed to have some great truth but were utterly wrong, in some cases even clinically insane....
Of course, many of such claims were singly wrong. The problem is, the evolution has no gradualistic character in distance from equilibrium, because of conservatism and hysteresis. The single invalid refusal of claim slovens the understanding of physic for another hundred year (the Copernicus hypothesis, as an example). Even at the case, it slovens the development for ten year, it can follow to the large lost of money (the cold fusion concept).
It's a lottery, based on statistic.
Furthermore, we can see, a many of concepts of Poppers methodology are violated by the scientists alone. We have a hundreds of cosmological theories, we have a lotta "TOE candidates". The methodology based on refusal doesn't protects us against spending of time & money in many alternative concepts.
Of course, many of such claims were singly wrong. The problem is, the evolution has no gradualistic character in distance from equilibrium, because of conservatism and hysteresis. The single invalid refusal of claim slovens the understanding of physic for another hundred year (the Copernicus hypothesis, as an example). Even at the case, it slovens the development for ten year, it can follow to the large lost of money (the cold fusion concept).
It's a lottery, based on statistic.
Furthermore, we can see, a many of concepts of Poppers methodology are violated by the scientists alone. We have a hundreds of cosmological theories, we have a lotta "TOE candidates". The methodology based on refusal doesn't protects us against spending of time & money in many alternative concepts.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 24 2006, 04:25 AM)
...You claim that vortices in aether foam can model black holes. Do you have any formal derivation of this other than "I can imagine it" ? Simple yes or no.....
Do you accept a boolean logic as the formal tool or not? Simple yes or no.....
Here are a formal theories, which are based on large amount of such logic in nested derivations and extrapolation of ad hoc postulates beyond of limit of its validity without relevant feedback. Such theories are so complex, it's virtually impossible to deduce some behavior by using it intuitively.
On the other hand, here are simple, but powerful concepts, which can enable us to extrapolate the behavior of complex phenomena easily. They're based on the assumptions, which cannot be formalized easily due its iterative character.
My opinion is, such concepts are in mutual duality by the same way, like the energy waves inside of water droplets and the simple surface waves. This is a AWT based understanding of the role of formal and conceptual theories. It's natural, the most successful conceptual theories will evolve in another, more complex formal ones. Whereas the unsuccessful concepts and overcomplicated theories will be simply deprecated like the tiny droplets in foam, which are dissolving on behalf of these larger ones. The similarity with biological evolution is quite obvious here.
Do you accept a boolean logic as the formal tool or not? Simple yes or no.....
Here are a formal theories, which are based on large amount of such logic in nested derivations and extrapolation of ad hoc postulates beyond of limit of its validity without relevant feedback. Such theories are so complex, it's virtually impossible to deduce some behavior by using it intuitively.
On the other hand, here are simple, but powerful concepts, which can enable us to extrapolate the behavior of complex phenomena easily. They're based on the assumptions, which cannot be formalized easily due its iterative character.
My opinion is, such concepts are in mutual duality by the same way, like the energy waves inside of water droplets and the simple surface waves. This is a AWT based understanding of the role of formal and conceptual theories. It's natural, the most successful conceptual theories will evolve in another, more complex formal ones. Whereas the unsuccessful concepts and overcomplicated theories will be simply deprecated like the tiny droplets in foam, which are dissolving on behalf of these larger ones. The similarity with biological evolution is quite obvious here.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 10:02 AM)
It's a lottery, based on statistic.
No, it's based on the effort, rationality, insight and ability of the people trying to come up with theories. Newton wasn't successful purely by luck, he had a keen mathematical mind, brilliant physical intuition, a hardworking attitude and almost a tiny smattering of luck. It was not 'a lottery', few other people in history would have accomplished what he did if they'd been in his shoes.
You seem to want to avoid the maths, hardwork, formalism and experimental components of what makes a scientist a scientist and just make stuff up.
No, it's based on the effort, rationality, insight and ability of the people trying to come up with theories. Newton wasn't successful purely by luck, he had a keen mathematical mind, brilliant physical intuition, a hardworking attitude and almost a tiny smattering of luck. It was not 'a lottery', few other people in history would have accomplished what he did if they'd been in his shoes.
You seem to want to avoid the maths, hardwork, formalism and experimental components of what makes a scientist a scientist and just make stuff up.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 10:02 AM)
Do you accept a boolean logic as the formal tool or not? Simple yes or no.....
This isn't about using logic as a formal tool, it's about asking you if you have any derivation of your results. As usual, you dodge the question by changing the subject. Yes, boolean logic can be useful, is answering yes or no too much effort for you
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 10:02 AM)
On the other hand, here are simple, but powerful concepts, which can enable us to extrapolate the behavior of complex phenomena easily. They're based on the assumptions, which cannot be formalized easily due its iterative character.
It allows us to do nothing. You say "We can extropolate the behaviour of complex phenomena easily" but you can't. You cannot even model simple things like masses moving under gravity. You don't have to come up with AWT to give vague arm waving guesses about how systems behave, so AWT isn't needed for ballpark approximations.
Then when it gets down to details, it's useless. You can't produce a single useful practical result. If any question involves "How much...", "How long...", "How far...." AWT can't answer it.
Therefore what use is it if other less convoluted theories give the same ballpark descriptions and other theories can actually give numerical, practical predictions.
Nothing about AWT makes it superior to other theories.
Then when it gets down to details, it's useless. You can't produce a single useful practical result. If any question involves "How much...", "How long...", "How far...." AWT can't answer it.
Therefore what use is it if other less convoluted theories give the same ballpark descriptions and other theories can actually give numerical, practical predictions.
Nothing about AWT makes it superior to other theories.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 24 2006, 10:02 AM)
's natural, the most successful conceptual theories will evolve in another, more complex formal ones.
Except you adamently refuse to do any development or show any development. You just make stuff up.
Prove me wrong, show the derivation of a result. But you can't You're a fraud.
Prove me wrong, show the derivation of a result. But you can't
You're a fraud.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.