John,

I looked at Gibbs and Loeb and agree with you. The important things first: You forgot the k of link, and I forgot to ask you for confirmation that the link to cosmologystatement.org still works.

Philip Gibbs wrote to James Putnam on Aug. 11, 2012, 18:05 GMT: "I think more people would agree with you than me but that is because I am ahead of my time :)"! Maybe, he envisions viXra ahead. While I appreciate the possibility to publish anything, I did not yet find any good viXra paper.

P. G. revealed to me why 't Hooft understood that my reasoning contradicts to "the holographic principle of Susskind and 't Hooft [6]. Understanding of this deep idea came in a number of steps each of which sought consistency through hypothetical thought experiments."

My understanding is different: I see unitarity reversible because it belongs to the level of abstracted from reality notions. It is elusive if understood as an attribute of reality. Only abstracted probabilities can add up to one. Ontological causality also belongs to the level of abstract notions. I maintain what I wrote about causality and elapsed time.

Best,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #30

Eckard, nice to meet you again

There are Gerard's new articles

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4926

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3612

Dear Yuri,

Since John blamed me for a no prisoners essay, I would like to beg the more for your further support. I highly appreciate a lot of hints you gave me including Winterberg, to whom I referred to at [1], Popper on Parmenides, and the Pauli issue to be found in perhaps the first interesting to me viXra paper. Your new hints might be more appealing for those like Lawrence Crowell and Michael Goodband than for those who follow Popper's view like me.

In my reply to Steven I stressed that I consider determinism related to models, not to the open in the sense of reasonably taken for potentially infinite reality. I reiterate what I wrote in my essay 1364: "While reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism, respectively."

By the way, didn't give Lawrence Crowell an intriguing straightforward answer to the question what might be wrong: unitarity, locality, and spacetime geometry?

Best,

Eckard

1st submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing similar works for End Notes.

Excellent review of Pre-Math and intuition. Disturbed by statement, "no consciousness for future time", but love "now time is zero".

One (of many) approaches to this contest looks at E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present?

Comment? (may be used in my End Notes)

    • [deleted]

    • Post #33

    Eckard,

    Tom and I have been arguing over causality, so I'll post my explanation of it:

    I'm not arguing against causality, but just trying to clarify it.

    Is one event in a sequence the cause of the next, or are they both surface descriptions of deeper process? Does it really make sense to say yesterday is the cause of today, or would it make more sense to say they are both the effect of the earth spinning relative to the light coming from the sun?

    If I was to hit a nail with a hammer, it makes sense to say my swinging the hammer is the cause of the nail being driven into the board. So what happened here? There was a direct transfer of energy from my arm, to the hammer, to the nail. My output of energy became input for the nail.

    So why doesn't yesterday cause today, but the rotation of the earth and light of the sun does? Energy. There is no direct transfer of energy from yesterday to today, but there is both the momentum energy of the rotation of the earth and radiant energy of the sun, which does go to create this event we call a day. So causation is a function of the transfer of energy, rather than to a direct sequence of events.

    Hello Eckard,

    I must tell you that in fact it is simple and complex.

    The free will is an essential. Like is essential the free critics. The catalyzations are after all the most important when the determinism is the torch of causes and effects. So the free will is the sister of the free critic. In fact , I beleive strongly that a real universal teacher must be always rational.In fact we cannot affirm a thing if we have not the proof. That said, it exists universal evidences which sometimes does not really need a proof. It is important to be deterministic. It is essential for a scientist at my humble opinion.

    If you simulate the future ,you can be determistic but it is difficult because you cannot compute all the parameters.

    About the essays, there are all kind of essays. I like, you know it, the determinism, so I hope that the most rational essays shall be recognized. I have my prefered but I don't say anything :)

    Best Regards

    • [deleted]

    • Post #36

    Eckard,

    News from Gerard

    http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

      John,

      I dislike imprecise thoughts. In my understanding any measure of time like for instance the timespan yesterday does neither cause nor be an effect of anything.

      While primary or so called temporal causality is bound to reality, so called ontological causality refers to abstractions from real processes.

      Nonetheless I agree with you: A causal relation is obviously more than merely a temporal order between earlier and later. You are ascribing it always to a transfer of energy. Hm. I rather see processes integrating influences. Instead of a single cause, I see a plurality of influences. In case of a family tree it would not be justified ascribing a transfer of energy to the male or the female line of influences.

      Eckard

      Dear Yuri,

      Thank you for the hint to "Not even wrong". I found:

      "... no sign of any superpartners at all. Not only were they supposed to be not too much heavier than the Higgs, but many of them were supposed to be much produced much more copiously, and thus be much easier to see. By now the LHC experiments have shown that such expected particles are absent, unless they are made inaccessible by pushing their masses up to more than an order of magnitude higher than that of the Higgs, a value far beyond what had been advertised as reasonable.

      The implications of this attack on theorists by the reality principle are just beginning to sink in. The big yearly conference of superstring theorists was held this past week in Munich, with different speakers taking different approaches to dealing with the problem. One speaker advocated not doing anything until next year, hoping against hope that newer data would give better results. Others took the attitude that it had been clear for quite a while that superstring theory wasn't going to show signs of existence at the LHC, so best to just work on finding other uses for it. In the conference final "Outlook and Vision" talk, the illustrious speaker announced that all was well, and didn't mention the LHC results at all. The ostrich-like tactic of burying one's head in the sand seems to be on the agenda for now, but this will become increasingly difficult to maintain as time goes on and more and more conclusive negative experimental results arrive."

      Regards,

      Eckard

      Time is what power acts on to produce energy like length is what force acts on to produce a "mechanical" energy.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #40

      Eckard,

      Yes, there are many causes to any event. The conversation thread, in which you commented, had been about determinism vs. probability:

      "We can't know what all past events will affect current ones, until the affected events actually happen. All the laws deciding what happens may be entirely deterministic, or they wouldn't be laws, but there is no way to know all input, ie, from prior events, before the event in question happens. For the simple reason that the lightcone of input isn't complete until the event happens. So in order to know all potential cause, prior to effect, you would need superluminal signaling, but if such a possibility existed, then it might also provide input into that event, thus needing even faster signaling, and the problem repeats.

      Therefore that which has not yet occurred is probabilistic, as all input cannot be known, while all factors have been factored in what has occurred, making it determined."

      Tom didn't agree, but that's to be expected.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #41

      Hi Ted Erikson,

      Well, elapsed time is in reality always positive as is distance too. Ws = Nm.

      I just do not yet understand how your comment relates to my essay. In particular, I would never state "no consciousness for future time" or "now time is zero". To me, consciousness does not matter in objective physics.

      Eckard

      Hello Steve,

      What you means with determinism is perhaps causality and the possibility to reduce anything to the laws of nature if only something like Laplace's demon is available. You should ask yourself whether or not all possible influences can be taken into account. It depends from this pre-mathematical decision whether you are a theorist like for instance Tom Ray or someone with common sense like for instance me.

      Best regards,

      Eckard

      John,

      I see you quite right. What has not yet occurred is not yet fully decided. We only can attribute some probability to it. I wonder if Tom or someone else could refute your argument. I consider Tom's view at the heart of illusions that affect not just modern physics but already modern mathematics.

      Best,

      Eckard

      Hello Eckard,

      :) I sort always the things. I need always to select the determinism. I don't affirm whenit is irrational or if it is not already proved. In fact , it is objective and precise the sciences. The confusions are not really a good partner when the illogism is the main conductor of the line of reasoning.

      The causality and the effects are always rational in fact simply. Thje proportions are always an universal evidence.

      Best Regards

      • [deleted]

      • Post #45

      Eckard,

      Tom is a true believer in the Gods of Math. There is a particular, essentially theological assumption built into that faith, that I've been trying to point out; There implicit assumption that a fundamentally objective knowledge of reality is possible, now referred to as a TOE. I keep arguing that knowledge is inherently subjective. It requires a specific frame, perspective, model, etc. Tom knows this, as he says we have nothing without models, but he cannot accept those models he holds dear, are not the "face of God." Such as that a dimensionless point is a mathematical contradiction, since anything multiplied by zero doesn't exist, so it is just a modeling convenience, but the desire for theoretical perfection of measurement would rather a contradiction, than the conceptual fuzziness of requiring points, lines and planes some minimal width/depth.

      Not to mention that the "fabric of spacetime" must be "physically real."

      Eckard

      You analyse shortcomings in physics well, but the page limit makes a comprehensive list impossible. I was pleased to agree with all, and strongly with most, particularly the need to recognise 'concrete' meaning in concepts, and that 'points' are inadequate in doing so.

      I develop these key points in my own essay to find some important results and implications, particularly the quantum mechanical derivation of the observed relativistic effects by analysing particles as non zero spatially and interactions being non zero temporally. Reading your essay I was increasingly surprised you seem not to have gleaned this from mine, or at least not commented.

      The minor typo's and grammar errors count for nought (i.e; 'has a correlate..', 1920th, et cetera), as the content excellent. Perhaps as disjointed at times as mine is 'over dense' in it's layers, but it read smoothly none the less.

      Figure 5 was no surprise and I'm surprised it was a surprise for many, because it was in a medium not 'the vacuum'. I assert there is no distinction, where most assume one. But, more importantly, were observations also taken and analysed from the rest frame of the air?? or, to look at it another way. If the air were at rest and both emitter and 'mirror' moving in unison sideways. With 'light' the findings would then be different (Kinetic Reverse Refraction). I find that this is a massively important fact, not assimilated into theory, which then allows the non-zero particle interaction to produce observed 'Stellar Aberration', which is in the opposite direction tofindings from the emitter frame (as with your Fig 5 from sound).

      Perhaps you may re-check my essay as I think we are far more compatible and complimentary that you appeared to recognise.

      Well done, and best of luck.

      Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #47

        Peter,

        I have to react to a reply by Lawrence Crowell. Therefore I will only briefly tell you nthat i do not understand your questio n concerning Fig. 5.

        You wrote: "Figure 5 was ... in a medium not 'the vacuum'. I assert there is no distinction ... . But, more importantly, were observations also taken and analysed from the rest frame of the air?? or, to look at it another way. If the air were at rest and both emitter and 'mirror' moving in unison sideways."

        Feist's car was moving with 120 km/h relative to the air being at rest re ground. The signal was emitted as well as received by the 220 kHz distance finder E which moved together with reflector R "in unison sidewards" because E and R were arranged on the roof of the car with the line ER perpendicular to the direction of motion. Measurement in a wind channel would also be possible but not so easily feasible.

        You speculated: "With 'light' the findings would then be different (Kinetic Reverse Refraction)." Wouldn't refraction require different media?

        Eckard

        John,

        I consider Tom's view in agreement with mainstream mistakes. He and all the others do not understand that even obviously matching denotations for elements of reality are subject to possible changes that may put the chosen identification in question. Roger Schlafly stated: "Nature has no faithful mathematical representation."

        Presumably, not even Tom will deny that this is correct for the entity of all aspects. On the other hand, Tom argues that there is no reason to doubt that some well confirmed observations and laws of nature are true. He, Lawrence, and many others even refuse to question Einstein's special theory of relativity, and set theory (ST). ST was correctly still called a belief by Hilbert is now established as if it was a fact. Let me call the mainstream (which was called by Weyl the rats who followed the piper Hilbert like the children of Hameln) naive which means too ready to trust in something merely intuitively founded and now at odds with other intuitions. Some most questionable intuitions behind modern mathematics and physics are addressed in my essay. They are typical human fallacies, in particular driven by the desire for rigor and generalization.

        Eckard