James

You said

"I am held back sometimes from responding promptly because I have difficulty with your terminology. An example: "Mass being a manifestation of photon C work capacity

Haha yes I do understand. I do make effort towards prose, but not always, and not always well. Sometimes I just resort to short hand expressions, multiple meanings strung together without adequate reference for my reader. Sorry about this. In the case of the above example, I refer to my notion that mass is a work function based on photon velocity. Its ability to perform work equals velocity C. But I realize this is not the only confusing aspect of my expression. It has to be said though, that although you are far better at prose than myself, I sometimes also have to read your expressions a couple of times to let its message sink in, to become accustom to your approach. But a very worthwhile exercise it is indeed. I suspect this is somewhat inevitable when new concepts are invented.

I'm glad my observation relating a poles weight transition in a gravitational field, takes your interest. I have some material which will simplify your considerations on the subject, a couple of illustrations, graphs etc. I will have to prepare these for you, so please hold on a bit. Its a very straight forward observation isnt it? I'm a little staggered this hasnt been noted before now, and that the few times I have presented it to forum communities over the last couple of years didnt eventuate in constructive conversation. A tough crowd that isnt accustomed to taking fresh evidences back to the basic considerations. So tangled up in the confusions, and dont know when to retreat back to the beginning and start the puzzle fresh.

I have not fully ratified this quantum puzzle, because my understanding of the methods for testing Bells Inequality are limited. However, I have advanced my thinking far enough to know that this prescribes a very interesting dynamic which looks like a possible puzzle fit. A dynamic which decodes the anomalous quantum results, revealing the entirely causal mechanics behind the scenes. Put simply, the orientation of the two polarization filters in relation of each other, is an important detail in revealing the correlation of the quantum system, photons. If you change the orientation of the filters, then the shifting correlations observed of the photons, does not track linearly.

Heres another way to put it. If you can account an entirely causal interaction that makes sense of the individual photons behaviors, giving the observed probability curve. Then the correlations then observed between a second photon and its filter, becomes a purely incidental correlation. The magic disappears.

You asked me

"Do you know how to take a derivative of a function and also how to integrate a function?"

My mathematical ability is very informal. I am not schooled in the terminologies nor advanced formula building. But I think if you describe your meanings, I will take an understanding from you.

Steve

Dear Vladimir

Thank you kindly. I am delighted to receive such a message and rating, an appreciation for new ideas. And I also very much enjoyed the links you provided. I have begun reading your essay and am up to page five, and it has to be said that I understand why you were able to tune into my concept and appreciate its merit. I think that you like I, are undertaking a personal quest to learn the nature of things. The universe is a single physical process, everything in existence related within one scope. Furthermore its explanation needs to be of a natural process, which makes articulated sense of the structures and complexities observed of the natural world, without having a sense of being a forced explanation. People seem to have a hard time recognizing that the nature of the complexity of this world requires an organisational principle. So it is very pleasing to meet people like yourself who are focused on the real issues confronting our collective scientific awareness.

I have many considerations which have not been made apart of this essay, so if you are interested to know more about my concept at some time or another, then your questions are welcome plz? I will read your essay and follow up on your page with comments soon.

Here are some inspirational videos you might enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvrOzYtnLMA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khySM1YBQvA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnQZoh_YG40&list=RDrnJ1kRWUuyg&index=9

Thank you once again

Kind regards

Steve

Steven,

Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math. For example, Euclid's geometry is correct geometry. It says that a straight line is straight. Einstein needed a straight line to bend, but because we see it as a straight line, he needed Riemannian geometry invented before Einstein as an exercise in four dimensional geometry. It made no geometrical sense, but, since Einstein's space-time makes no geometrical sense, Riemannian geometry serves it well.

I intend to introduce mathematics that makes sense. Adding two numbers yields their sum. Subtracting two numbers yields their difference. Believe it or not, this is quickly headed toward understanding calculus. We begin mathematics with adding and subtracting. We do not add nor do we subtract. We memorize solutions or we must resort to counting. If we count what the solution is for 3 added to two, we count from two, then three, four, five, and have our solution of five. For addition we count upward. For subtraction we count downward. If we remember answers, we spout them out or write them down and are finished with doing the math. Lower mathematics consists of shortcuts for counting.

Advanced mathematics also consists of shortcuts for counting. There are many shortcuts, but, they all represent memorization of solutions or looking the solutions up in mathematical tables. There always remain some necessary calculations of multiplication, division, adding and subtracting, but those have their shortcuts covered in lower mathematics.

Now for understanding calculus. There are two operations. One consists of taking the derivative of a function. The other consists of integrating a function. A function is an equation such as f=ma. The difference between lower mathematics and Calculus is that calculus is the mathematics of change. It is liberating! I remember very clearly when an instructor showed how to take the derivative of a function in my first semester of college. Then he dropped the subject and moved on to some other mathematical subject that needed to be reviewed by new students. I had no previous understanding of just about anything he was presenting. I didn't even know what algebra was.

After seeing his short presentation of how to take a derivative and how he then just moved on to something else, I spoke up and asked if we were coming back to this? I knew that something very important had just passed in front of me. He said: Yes we are coming back to this. Mathematics came alive for me at that moment because I recognized that taking the derivative introduced the mathematics of change. Physics is about change.

You should take notice that a derivative of a function is represented by the letter D. The reason is because taking the derivative is division. You should also notice that the symbol for integrating a function is very much like an S. The reason is because integration is taking the sum. It is addition. Addition is made simpler by memorization of multiplication tables. Division and multiplication are covered in lower mathematics as shortcuts for counting. We are still counting things. we count up and we count down.

More in my next message about the mathematics of change. It has to come from me or it will probably be made to seem mystical by those who rely on others not understanding it.

James Putnam

Dear Steve,

I thank you for the deep and inspiring response to my commentary, as well as for the wonderful links! Magnificent music and the majestic beauty of the Cosmos enable us, earthlings, to realize the necessity of unity in diversity for the preservation and development of life on Mother Earth - our Common Space Home .

Kind regards

Vladimir

James

This made me chuckle

"Theorists have ideas that cause math to have to account for strangeness. Then, when their ideas are challenged, they resort to telling us: You need to learn the mathematics. Actually you do not. The reason is because it is their fallacious ideas that need their math."

Nicely put.

Then you said

"For example, Euclid's geometry is correct geometry. It says that a straight line is straight. Einstein needed a straight line to bend, but because we see it as a straight line, he needed Riemannian geometry invented before Einstein as an exercise in four dimensional geometry. It made no geometrical sense, but, since Einstein's space-time makes no geometrical sense, Riemannian geometry serves it well."

I believe you are entirely correct in what you say here. Non Euclidean straight lines in curved space, will be shown to be the wrong way to interpret the properties of space. However I believe Einstein did achieve something amazing, even if the interpretations are skewed somewhat. His concept of space time does track a real correlation. So how can GR be considered both right and wrong at the same time? Within my paradigm it is very simple.

Time is nothing more than object activity. If your clock depends on photon activity to track time, and that activity alters its rate depending on gravitational potential, then you simply have to ask the practical question. Why does object activity, or photon activity change at different heights in a gravitational field? This is a better and simpler way to visualize what spacetime is. Time is not a component of the fabric of space. It is object activity. The spacetime concept is still real and useful, but it represents a correlation between space and object activity, or photon activity.

Einsteins theory of General Relativity successfully tracks the correlation between space and object activity. This is how it is both right and wrong at the same time. He knew he didnt have all the conceptual pieces of the puzzle, and he never claimed that he did. He had successfully approached a remarkable truth, and so I think he deserves his credit.

Thank you for being willing to assist my math learning. I am paying close attention, and I realize you are giving me a wonderful gift. Emphasizing the important points through story of experience, you are a good teacher James. "I knew that something very important had just passed in front of me." I am hearing you.

Steve

James

Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.

The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.

The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20weight%20transition.jpg?dl=0

Steve

Dear Vladimir

I have accidentally added the last message to the wrong thread. Just in case you were wondering what that was about.

Kind regards

Steve

James

Here are a couple of diagrams that will help you to interpret the pole weight transition in comparison to photon probability curves.

The graph above, the length of the lines is proportional and represents the weight at that angle, 0, 22, 45, 67, 90 degrees. And so it shows the proportions of weight change through an arc of 90 degrees.

The graph underneath is an altered version of that wiki link. The way they set out the chart on wiki is not very conducing to visualizing what I wish to point out. The way I present it here, it does not matter if you visualize a pole at different relative angles to the ground, or gravitational field, or a photon at different angles to a light polarization filter. Please let me know if you have any questions?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w

eight%20transition.jpg?dl=0

Steve

James

Here is a really useful visual aid, the photon probability characteristics. I expect you might watch it from the start, but I point to the detail beginning at 3 minutes in, till 4.40 mins out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adrCLSTn9mI

Like I said earlier, I haven't fully ratified this concept. I dont knew if the proportions demonstrated by the poles weight transition are an exact match for the photon probability, or just similar. It would be nice to find out.

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #26

Hi Steven,

1. This is an amazing essay. I have seen nothing like this taking Darwinian to the universe level. I like it and believe you are correct that "Life came to express aims and intention, in a universe of compounded complexity neither contrived not chance, but Darwinian".

2. You are much more than "an attentive student of nature". Out with it...how many degrees do you have.

3. Please forgive this criticism: Your abstract is not about this essay.... were you trying to mislead people?

Please take a look at my website, in particular the section: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/30_A_Tale_of_Two_Wavelengths.html

Then go to the index and check out everything concerning gravity including: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/20_Dark_Energy_and_Mercurys_Orbit.html

If you do this you will know why I support your thesis. I can see why others are having trouble rating your essay highly. They need to be trained in spotting good science and good art.

Thanks very much,

Don Limuti

    Hi Don

    I could not be happier that you are persuaded by my arguments. Seeing evidence that people can agree with my conclusions is a wonderful thing. Thank you Kindly.

    Regarding your second comment, I dont want to make the essay about me. As far as I am concerned it is the quality of the evidence provided for me by others, that made my observations possible. I feel as though I merely assembled a puzzle whereby the puzzle pieces were already well defined. You might expect me to be highly educated, but the truth will challenge this preconception. As it turns out, you dont need a formal science education to realize something new about nature.

    Your third question, was I trying to mislead people? No certainly not. You feel I should have declared my conclusions at the start? I feel I needed to slowly turn up the heat and build something of an argument before delivering my most controversial conclusions. And besides I started assembling the essay a week out from submission closure, and by the time closure fell upon me, I could have spent another week refining my essay. With spelling errors and bad grammar unresolved, I submitted in the final hour. I just copy pasted the essay opening into the abstract, but actually I think it is relevant to my essay. We have need for a natural organisational principle to explain the world. That pretty much sums it up and was stated.

    I am definitely going to follow up with your work, as I am very curious as to why you are receptive to my ideas. Do you have an essay submission? Please be a little patient as I need to contribute to peoples essay ratings as a priority, in the time I have between work and the pumping surf. But yes very keen to trade ideas with you.

    Yes, it takes time for people to assimilate new ideas. If I was trying to win this competition with popular points of view, then I wouldnt have criticized peoples cherished ideas in the opening paragraphs, multiverse, anthropic principle etc. And I am quite aware that radical ideas are not automatically liked. So my expectations are somewhat tempered by this. But as it turns out, a couple of high ratings have done wonders for my score lately. Thank you everybody for this, I feel very fortunate.

    Steve

    Hi dear Steven,

    You have represented one well written and attractive essay.

    You have touched there large cognitive problems of the nature and concerning to humanity also that is very interesting to read as these pushed to thinking on too many things. I like your work because I feel there the logic as well as the morality, without these we hardly can go ahead - to our "bright future." So I think your work deserved to good rating and more large attention of readers!

    Try please to open my work, its written a little bit in hard style and it concerned to somewhat short aspects, but I hope you can find there also something logic and morality.

    I hope hearing your impression in my page, and I will completed to study your work within short time.

    Best wishes

      Hi Steven,

      My exchanges with Steve Agnew have slowed down. I have tomorrow off from babysitting grandchildren.

      A helpful hint:

      When you want to include a link here at FQXi.org remove http://

      For example https://www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w will not become a link.

      In what follows I am substituting ( for [ you must use [

      The reason I am substituting ( is so that I do not form links in the examples

      You first write (link:

      Remember that ( should be [

      Then remove https:// from your address.

      Then you have (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w

      Close the brackets (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w)

      Those parenthesis are supposed to be brackets. Moving on:

      Add a name for your link. No spaces are necessary.

      (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w]Interpreting the pole weight transition

      Add (/link)

      (link:www.dropbox.com/s/8amvglg2qxqpkcd/Pole%20w)Interpreting the pole weight transition(/link)

      Use brackets instead of those parenthesis and its done. I will do that now:

      Interpreting the pole weight transition

      James

      James

      Yes your discussions with Steve Agnew. Do you feel he swayed your mind, or did you sway his on any point or another? I only tuned into part of the conversation, so I'm not sure how things turned out.

      But generally speaking, I see the difficulty you have making people realize the potential benefit of defining mass. It not only surprises me that they cant see the logic, but also that they will argue so fervently to maintain status quo. They have accepted and wish to preserve understanding of the world that has been presented to them. Its a particular mindset more than it is a reasoned approach to science. But dont worry James, something is going to give at some point and the flood gates will open to change. Those stuck in the mud will be swepped up reluctantly in the current. They will need to hear it from their perceived to be authorities first, and then they will change direction all as one.

      Thanks for the link pointer.

      Youre free tomorrow! I wonder if we couldnt try live chat? Do you have Facebook, perhaps we could use the messenger service?

      Steve

      Steven,

      You are doing well for your first participation and introduction of your views. I think it would be best to leave your views undisturbed here in your forum. Readers should be introduced in the easiest manner possible to what you think. Please look to my forum for discussions that include my view.

      James Putnam

      Steven,

      Well we disagree. That is fine; but, it will need to be discussed so that we have a chance to bat it back and forth. I will introduce my position by saying that Einstein messed physics up but good! Lets talk about predicting relationships:

      SA: However I believe Einstein did achieve something amazing, even if the interpretations are skewed somewhat. His concept of space time does track a real correlation. So how can GR be considered both right and wrong at the same time? ...

      JP: Professionals will always pay attention to the patterns observed in empirical evidence. They make certain that their interpretation does not contradict empirical evidence. You will not find that a professional's ideas contradict patterns observed in empirical evidence. At least not for known patterns. Their mathematics will include known patterns. It is those patterns that make for successful predictions. The mathematics is unaware. It does not know what names theorists' assign to properties. It does not know what interpretations are expressed verbally. What it knows is that there are magnitudes that are brought together according to the rules of mathematics. The mathematics does honor units. It honors the relationships between properties, which are represented by their units, and it has been given, by the theorist, the mathematical form necessary to mimic the patterns of empirical evidence. For example, the predictions of the equation f=ma are unaffected by my disagreement with theorists; where, I insist that mass must be made a defined property while they live with it remaining an undefined property. There is much else about physics that will show that it is affected by this disagreement, but not f=ma. I will wait for your response before continuing on to clock's versus altitude and then on tp space-time.

      James Putnam

      Steven,

      I just tried to leave a post in your forum and then a post in my forum. They both ended up in your forum. Sorry. Being experienced doesn't always protect one from making a mistake! :)

      James Putnam

      Dear George

      Thank you kindly, I am delighted to receive these words from you. That there are people out there that follow my logic, and that realize it does have the promise of conforming to the observations of the world. That is everything I set out to achieve with my essay, and is what you have provided for me. Thank you once again.

      I have read your abstract and have taken an immediate liking to it. I will make a start on your essay now and return to you soon with comment.

      Best regards

      Steve

      "Youre free tomorrow! I wonder if we couldnt try live chat? Do you have Facebook, perhaps we could use the messenger service?"

      I will have more time, but, I am not certain when. First I will do what my wife would like to do. That won't take up the whole day. We are in for some inclement weather. I will post in the Alternative Models forum under Blogs when I am available. I like that others, including adversaries, see what I write. I am not active on Facebook although I do have an account there. I don't use it, so I am inexperienced, although I receive notifications because it is there. My family and relatives use Facebook a lot. So I see when they have tagged me or other. I won't evaluate my discussion with Steve Agnew. I will let our posts help readers determine that for themselves. I would like to know what readers think. Maybe there are any! :) Everyone is busy. I am writing what I think needs to be said. I keep it up!

      James Putnam

      James Putnam

      James

      I wonder how our time zones will correlate? I'm in Australia, My late morning will be your evening. I'll message here sometime in the morn, but if your busy then no drama.

      Steve