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

      James

      I had a quick look on facebook and cant find you. Whats your handle?

      Steve

      Sorry James, I dont know where this is "the Alternative Models forum under Blogs"

      Steve

      Steven,

      Our winter storm failed to materialize and my time was spent with my wife out. The Alternative Models Forum is reached by clicking on Forum, then clicking on Ultimate Reality, then clicking on Alternative Models of Reality. If someone's blog messages has the link Alternative Models of Reality, then just click on their message.

      Following this message is another installment on taking a derivative. That will end it for now. This is our last week for evaluating Essays. Also, I have fallen behind in our general conversation. I will see what I can do about correcting that. Two quick responses: (1) What is being transferred? If the answer is energy, then the word may seem sufficient, Physicists rely heavily upon it; but, it is not an empirically established 'substance'. There is 'magic' in some of the words that physicists use and 'energy' is one of those words. Energy is not explained. The idea of mass and energy equivalence does not explain either mass or energy. Besides they are not equivalent. They are proportional to one another. They are not the same thing.

      Energy's only derivation is as the product of force and distance. One must explain 'force' if their solution relies upon the word 'energy'. What is it that is being transferred? Force is unexplained. there is much that remains unexplained because the properties of mechanics are derived from mass, length, and time. None of these are derived properties. None have a physical explanation. They are introduced simply as existing.

      Response (2): Photon activity refutes the idea that time is either photon activity or object activity or both. The reason for my saying this is what I presented in my essay for the first essay contest. The Nature of Time. What i showed in that essay is that there is a Universally Constant Incremental Measure of Time. It is the time that any photon spends acquiring information about a change of velocity of a charged particle. It is also the time that any photon spends transferring that information to another charge particle. In my essay and in all of my work, it can be seen as (delta)t. It is also the time required for a photon to travel the radius of a hydrogen atom anywhere, under any conditions. It is the time it takes for any photon to pass a given point. It is independent of the speed of light which is always changing. It is the clock of the Universe and it ticks away everywhere with perfect time.

      Anyway that is how I view it. My reward for learning this was that the use of (delta)t in the denominators in physics equations is what brought unity to all of my equations. It is also what allowed me to discover new equations, one of which was presented in my current essay.

      James Putnam