Chasing the black holes of the ocean

"And you seem to think particular theories are inviolate."

No I don't.

"The fact is that people have been constructing and dismantling theories for as long as they have been cognisant. Religions are theories, just that the agencies of the objects, fields and frames(earth, sun, wind, fire, etc.) are anthropomorphic. Monotheism just declares it all to be one agent. Epicycles were a theory. Angels dancing on the head of a pin was a theory. Ether was a theory."

So what?

"Now you have one theory which can't distinguish between past and future, so its adherents declare there is no difference and anyone thinking otherwise just can't understand the depth of their own ignorance. Then you have another theory that can't seem to reconcile the determinism of the past and the probability of the future and its adherents are willing to accept reality must branch out at every point of quantum decision and anyone thinking otherwise just can't understand the depth of their own ignorance."

Understanding the depth of one's ignorance isn't logically possible.

"Probability is the coming together of two or more frames of reference, without any larger frame to predetermine the outcome."

It is? Then probable outcomes don't physically exist.

"Collapse is the process of this input coming together."

Since you claim there's no frame of reference for the outcome, however, one would never be able to distinguish collapse from non-collapse.

"Actuality is the physical mass and energy of which these frames consist."

But since according to you, there is no probable outcome, and no knowledge of collapse vs, non-collapse, we also can't know what "these frames" are made of.

Congratulations, John -- you have just created the logical framework for -- quess what?

The many worlds hypothesis.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

""You do not know basic physics. You have to know it.""

"Fortunately, I do know basic algebra. What language is your basic physics written in? Please provide a translation key.

Brouwer called mathematics "a languageless activity of the mind." Is 'basic physics' a languageless activity of your mind? How does one learn to speak it?"

The fact remains that you do not understand the difference between an indefinable property and a defined property in physics. You are unfamiliar with the basics of theoretical physics.

""Photons deliver information about the acceleration of particles.""

"Not if all motion is relative."

It makes no difference whether the motion is relative or not. The information delivered by photons in both cases is information about acceleration of particles.

""We can distinguish between acceleration and gravity. The Einstein example demonstrates deliberate disregard for evidence. The elevator is closed because the evidence of sight refutes Einstein's claim.""

"What evidence of sight? There's nothing to see in a closed elevator except the walls, which are stationary with respect to the observer."

""Also, we can tell the difference even with the elevator being closed. The force pushing the person upward will cause distortion for the length of their body that is consistent with constant force.""

"So does gravity. What's the difference?"

""The gravity field will cause bodily distortion that decreases with height.""

"The height of what? Einstein's thought experiment is conducted far from the influence of a gravity field."

The above exchange demonstrates that Einstein's example is doctored to fit with his conclusion.

James Putnam

"You are unfamiliar with the basics of theoretical physics."

You keep saying this as if you think it is relevant. If it is relevant, how do I keep refuting your claims based on the basics of relativity?

"The information delivered by photons in both cases is information about acceleration of particles."

*Not* if all motion is relative the constant speed of light. Do photons move faster or slower than light?

Tom,

"Then probable outcomes don't physically exist."

That doesn't mean there are not frames which can make predictions. I go to the races and read the form and it gives quite a mathematical analysis of the potential odds of any particular horse winning a race, but that is not sufficient to determine it. Even "fixed" races don't always turn out as expected.

"Since you claim there's no frame of reference for the outcome,"

The frame of reference for the outcome is the outcome, ie. what emerges from these factors coming together. For instance, there are ten potential winners before a race, but only one actual winner after it.

"But since according to you, there is no probable outcome, and no knowledge of collapse vs, non-collapse, we also can't know what "these frames" are made of."

Sez you. Might the problem be your own assumptions are flawed?

"The many worlds hypothesis."

You and I constitute different frames and while there might be some meeting of the minds, there is certainly no merging, but this polarization doesn't mean there is no connection. The problem with the multiverse hypothesis is it conflates one with oneness, unit with unity. You can have endless connections between different frames, but that doesn't mean the result is a singular unit. The universe isn't some ball floating in spaceless space, along with other such universes. It is infinite, with only horizon lines as the ultimate limit to any particular frame. There is no central frame to determine the interactions, because the absolute is neutral space, not a point.

Regards,

John M

Hey, I got a quote on the front page of Nautilus!

POPULAR ON NAUTILUS

The best comments from the most lively recent discussions.

While many flowering plants emit scents for the purpose of attracting the right pollinators, this article introduces yet another reason for certain flower smells--VOCs.

-- Comment by earthling

BIOLOGY

Learning to Speak Shrub

At risk of getting semantically obtuse: Upon contemplating the concept of a multiverse, does it not become just another aspect of the universe?...

-- Comment by Rich Dailey

MATTER

Beyond the Horizon of the Universe

It's not that the present "moves" from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what is, turns future into past.

-- Comment by John Brodix Merryman Jr.

"Might the problem be your own assumptions are flawed?"

No. I followed what *you* said to its logical conclusion. They are your assumptions, not mine. I've been telling you all long, John, that one can rationalize anything one wishes to make up.

To get a true deduction from first principles, one has to familiarize oneself with the first principles, and ensure that they are self consistent.

"The universe isn't some ball floating in spaceless space, along with other such universes. It is infinite, with only horizon lines as the ultimate limit to any particular frame. There is no central frame to determine the interactions, because the absolute is neutral space, not a point."

As I said.

You don't know that any of this is true, and you don't have to know. You can always change it to suit your whim.

Best,

Tom

Congratulations, John. That certainly underscores their promise to be "a new kind of science magazine."

I liked Laura Mersini-Houghton's take on what "multiverse" means. She explains that we know the universe is finite ... though, "If I have a collection of objects, and the entirety of that collections is infinite -- that would be the multiverse."

This is perfectly legal mathematics. A "finite set of infinite things," as I explained in my last essay's end-note -- and covered quite well by Hermann Weyl's little book, *The Continuum: a critical examination of the foundation of analysis.* That book was written almost a hundred years ago.

Tom,

"You don't know that any of this is true, and you don't have to know. You can always change it to suit your whim."

I'm sorry that I seem to have to use a little basic physical sense to try and peer through the symbology of math physics is encased in. Math is a useful tool, but when it becomes religion, all bets are off, because it becomes a cultural movement, not a logical system.

To ask a simple question; Does the temperature of absolute zero equate to a point, or to a vacuum?

Another; Is a dimensionless point physically real, or mathematical convenience?

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Apparently this fact eeds repeated:

""Photons deliver information about the acceleration of particles.""

"Not if all motion is relative."

It makes no difference whether the motion is relative or not. The information delivered by photons in both cases is information about acceleration of particles.

Also, the principle of equivalence is expressed in different ways with different words. One of those ways is to say that acceleration and gravity are the same thing.

And finally, you haven't refuted my claims. You haven't even understood them. You need to learn the fundamentals of the theoretical physics that you defend. I mention its starting point and you are completely unaware of it. How could you not yet understand that difference between an indefinable property and a defined property. Why don't you put your time into reading about it? Finally learn that mass is an indefinable property. Your See spot run algebra was an irrelevant retort that demonstrated you still have no idea what is being discussed.

James Putnam

James Putnam

Tom,

"You don't know that any of this is true, and you don't have to know. You can always change it to suit your whim."

What do I change? That instead of arguing space/the universe is infinite, I say it is finite?

That instead of saying the baseline is flat space/the vacuum, I argue it all began at a point?

What are my other options?

Regards,

John M

"You can't even qualify that with a 'we think the universe is finite?'"

I can. If general relativity cosmology (big bang) is true, the universe is finite in volume, though unbounded.

I concede the point, John.

Best,

Tom

"What do I change? That instead of arguing space/the universe is infinite, I say it is finite?"

That's one. You referenced Olbers paradox earlier. That's one piece of evidence for a finite universe.

"That instead of saying the baseline is flat space/the vacuum, I argue it all began at a point?"

You don't have to assume the general relativity cosmology. However, if space is primordial and minimally two-dimensional, how did it get that way?

"What are my other options?"

How many do you need? :-)

Best,

Tom

"It makes no difference whether the motion is relative or not. The information delivered by photons in both cases is information about acceleration of particles."

It makes all the difference in the world. Because relative motion is referred to the absolute speed of light, the speed of photons -- all of which are emitted at the speed of light -- does not impart any historical information about massive particles at less than the speed of light. So any information that photons may have acquired, by whatever mechanism that you propose, is not about the acceleration of particles -- because that information can apply only to the motion of massive particles relative to other massive particles.

"Also, the principle of equivalence is expressed in different ways with different words. One of those ways is to say that acceleration and gravity are the same thing."

Only colloquially.

"And finally, you haven't refuted my claims. You haven't even understood them. You need to learn the fundamentals of the theoretical physics that you defend. I mention its starting point and you are completely unaware of it. How could you not yet understand that difference between an indefinable property and a defined property. Why don't you put your time into reading about it? Finally learn that mass is an indefinable property. Your See spot run algebra was an irrelevant retort that demonstrated you still have no idea what is being discussed."

Here's the thing, James -- I haven't introduced any new physics in these discussions. It is not my knowledge of basic physics that you are questioning; it is Einstein's and Newton's.

It's irrelevant whether I have any idea of what's being discussed. You are refuted by 300 years of classical physics, and the onus is not on me to fix that.

Best,

Tom

"To ask a simple question; Does the temperature of absolute zero equate to a point, or to a vacuum?"

What is the temperature of absolute zero?

"Another; Is a dimensionless point physically real, or mathematical convenience?"

It's a point on the continuum of dimensionless numbers. All fundamental elements of mathematics are conveniently chosen, John.

Best,

Tom

"You can't even qualify that with a 'we think the universe is finite?'"

I can. If general relativity cosmology (big bang) is true, the universe is finite in volume, though unbounded.

I concede the point, John.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"It makes all the difference in the world. Because relative motion is referred to the absolute speed of light, the speed of photons -- all of which are emitted at the speed of light -- does not impart any historical information about massive particles at less than the speed of light. So any information that photons may have acquired, by whatever mechanism that you propose, is not about the acceleration of particles -- because that information can apply only to the motion of massive particles relative to other massive particles."

I am talking about objects that are observed. That is what empirical evidence consists of. I don't propose the mechanism. Accelerated charged particle, at any velocity they have, emit photons. If there is no acceleration, there is no photon to tell you about constant velocity. You have never received information about no change. You didn't learn the concept of no change from the universe. Photons always deliver information about change of acceleration only. At least that is the case for the mechanical universe of theoretical physics.

""Also, the principle of equivalence is expressed in different ways with different words. One of those ways is to say that acceleration and gravity are the same thing.""

"Only colloquially."

Physicists describe it that way along with other expressions.

"Here's the thing, James -- I haven't introduced any new physics in these discussions. It is not my knowledge of basic physics that you are questioning; it is Einstein's and Newton's."

No. The thing is that you do not understand the significance of and are unaware of the difference between an indefinable property and a defined one.

"It's irrelevant whether I have any idea of what's being discussed. You are refuted by 300 years of classical physics, and the onus is not on me to fix that."

I am exposing the inappropriate action taken by physicists to decide to tell nature that its property of mass is a fundamental indefinable property only because force was not chosen.

James Putnam

"The thing is that you do not understand the significance of and are unaware of the difference between an indefinable property and a defined one."

Enlighten me.