Steve,

Re Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2021 @ 12:34 GMT:

Why am I a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) physics and a critic of the ideas of (male dominated) computer nerds? Because, unlike you and Tom and others, I actually DID study physics, maths and information (computer) science at university for 3 years, receiving a high distinction for one of my maths subjects, and I was a computer analyst and programmer for more than 20 years. Unlike some others, I am not an uncritical follower.

    And Steve,

    I might add that there is only one, ONE, thing you need to know about the world: is the world such that people genuinely make a difference to the world (i.e. is the world such that people change the numbers for the variables) or not? And clearly, people DO change the numbers for the variables.

    Lorraine, you seem to have a problem of competition with the males and the others also , and you don t know better the maths and physics, unlike you, me I have studied in details the maths and physics and I see the generality, you apparentely no simply, you repeat the same things still and always with the variables, we have understood about the changes. Try to go farer and discuss the other threads with more logic and generality, thanks for your understanding. It is not because you have studied at university the physics that you are a gnereal innovative thinker simply, I dont want to offense but for me it lacks many things to study for you.Ps

    Ps I was at university and I study all days the maths and physics of the best papers of best thinkers,don t try lorraine, try to be less vanitious and frustrated please

    ps, stop to tell also ironical things about the members , Tom is a relevant thinker . And the persons that I have known on FQXi them are more general and skilling than you for me, they are able to speak generally , not you, you repeat the same always Lorraine like if you had something to prove, you prove nothing of really innovative and generally relevant you know. You just show us a frustration and anger.

    You know Lorraine, Personally I am a nice guy and I am going to tell you an advice for your credibility, stop to be too much like this against the males, I can recognise that the hormonal testosterones can imply problems but it exists men respectable . And for your informations, I am obliged to tell it I am invited to many conferences to present my theory and many Phd from manu countries like my theory , and I improve it all days.They told me that I have found a general universal link and it is innovative in the sense that the spheres can be the answer and that there is probably a conjecture with the strings and fields. Instead to repeat these things about the variables, boolean algebras and computing, if you could speak about the geometrical algebras, the quantm gravitation, and others with concrete maths , it d be better becase there we don t learn nothing from you.We just see an odd comportment of frustration agianst the males.Make the peace with yor psychology and past please .

    Steve,

    I'm sorry to be such a pest. I'm laughing to myself when I write about "the men". But it is not just a joke: you can't deny its true: it IS men that have come up with particular types of ideas/ views about the world, and who continue to vigorously defend these ideas/ views as if the ideas/ views about the world were truth itself.

    And you must admit that the ideas/ views of these men have a LOT of followers, mainly men, people who also never question that the ideas/ views are truth itself. E.g. people who never question the idea that a set of equations could represent a system, and then wonder why the equations never ever seem to represent a system.

    You and Tom are very smart people who can actually do the equations as well as, or better than, any physicist; and better than I can now. But I'm saying that the equations are only PART of the picture, and can never represent a whole system.

    Importantly, for a person like you who wants to save the world (and who DOESN'T want to save the world?), physics does NOT allow you to act to save the world, or to act to do anything at all. According to the crazy ideas/ views of physics, its only the laws of nature that change the numbers for the variables. This is important: the ideas/ views of physics say that you CAN'T act to save the world: the only actors are the laws of nature.

    Hi Lorraine, Lol I don t see you like a pest but like a rebel against the testosterones and the correlated vanity and power. I must say that can understand what you tell in the sense that indeed we are governed in majority by the mene and that indeed these testosterones can imply problem in the social interactions and that it is more difficult for a woman on this planet. But it exists also good men trying to fight these hormonal comportments with the consciousness.

    For the project Global collaboration, I try indeed to make something for a better world. I know that it will not be easy. It is not to satisfy my vanity you know, I am sincere Lorraine , I find sad that we don t do it knowing that the solutions exist. The laws of nature Lorraine don t say that we cannot act to save the world, because the laws of nature have created this consciousness and that this tool can be utilised in finding solutions of adaptation in utilising the tools of this nature. We have created a specific global econonomical system and we have a sad common past and this system with the greed, the vanity, the individualism, the power, the unconsciousness...is not perfect and not harmonised where all lifes can find its place in being more happy. What I tell is that this system global can be improved , we need funds and a new global revolutionary industrialisation. We can give water, food,energy, jobs, hope to the majority and the humans globally need to be reasured and the world bank and the UN and all governments are the keys, they must simply take their responsabilities and improve what can be improved.The lazs of nature are complex and this consciousness and intelligence are results of evolution from these lazs of nature Lorraine. We cannot be fatalists or defeatists, because we can optimise, it is not an utopy, it is just improvements of the global system. Wer are actors of these laws of nature with a brain and a consciousness. Take care, regards, from a man trying to harmonise these testosterones wich indeed can sometimes imply problems lol :)

    Hi Rod,

    You wrote "Regarding your quote from your paper, I think I agree with you and Einstein and Minkowski about not seeing space or time as physical quantities. But what do you mean by "..grows and decays locally as a function of its global topology"? I realize the answer might be long."

    Not too long, though I hope, satisfactory:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353644476_6_april_2017

    Regards,

    Tom

    Hello Sir, since this is a set theory formulation, have you considered 'tearing' or 'stretching'? It seems to me that stretching might equate to Special Relativity. And tearing might equate with acceleration. Thanks

      Hi Lloyd,

      I have not considered those things. I'm wondering if your use of the word 'sets' here is that used in topology, i.e., where the sets are (I think) generally of 'points' in an underlying geometric space. In that scenario, I suppose such sets are generally of infinite cardinality (not sure). Anyway, my (sub)sets are over finite-sized sets (of binary elements). Specifically, the fermionic state of a corpuscle is a set of Q (e.g., 10^6) Planck-size fermion-planckons, chosen from a much larger ('master') set, e.g., 10^10 fermion-planckons. Moreover, there is no spatial ordering (topology) over that master set: they are just an unordered collection of elements. So in this case, I'm not sure 'tearing' and 'stretching' apply in the way you may intend. I have developing ideas on acceleration (and thus, I suppose on SR), that I hope to share at some point, but not ready yet. As described in the essay, in my theory, the notion of space itself (thus, the kind of of geometric space underlying a topological space) is emergent: specifically, the space, i.e., its dimensionality and its valuedness on each dimension emerges in the patterns of intersection over the sets (each of which represents a particular state).

      Thanks

      Rod

      8 months later

      Hi Dr. Gerard Rinkus,

      I skimmed over you essay about set theory as a basis for a physical theory and found it to be interesting. As a matter of fact your idea is very similar to mine but mine is more direct and its easy get results with simple calculations that match QM/QFT in a a very simple way. As I have always thought that my idea can be formulated in many other mathematical formalisms , one of which I was hoping to be set theory which I thought is very natural. So Please skim over my essays and see how much similarity there is. Thanks.

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2451

      https://www.reality-theory.net/

      you can run the simple modifiable JavaScript programs to confirm some of the results

      https://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm

        • [deleted]

        • Post #59

        other essays

        https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

        Write a Reply...