Re: Equations
Re: Equations
Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2007−12/msg00584.html
• From: johnlawrencereedjr • Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:11:15 −0800 (PST) On Dec 12, 12:15 pm, "RH Nigl / GH Diel" wrote: "johnlawrencereedjr" wrote in message news:698050c6−4ab8−4654−9486−77aa95e3c237@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RH Nigl / GH Diel at wrote: "johnlawrencereedjr" wrote in message news:43a25790−862c−458f−ad89−f6d968c5a42e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Nov 30, 11:39 am, "RH Nigl / GH Diel" wrote: [snip previous repeat posts]
The drawing represents the concept, 'zero', or, perhaps, another trivial form. ;−) RHN
Furthermore, the 'evolution of thought' is conjectural, for 'thought' is Re: Equations 1
Re: Equations not a biologoical selection process. It's genesis is the 'self', and only 'self' contained.
Hello> Well I read this response a few days ago and initially concluded that I could take you no further so I shined it. The fact that you can draw an oval of sorts and in your mind or theory or whatever conclude that its a circle and that it somehow equates with something more specific, which justifies your body of knowledge, just seemed too far outside the realm of science. If I got it right here at all.
But here's the thing. Recall the type writing monkeys. Anything whatsoever that those monkeys "might" put down on paper is gibberish to the monkeys. We "might" be able to train monkeys to draw various ovals and pay them with food. We then "might" even be able to reward the monkeys with more food when they draw better and better ovals, so that we could recognize an intuitive awareness on the monkey's part if its actions resulted in a more perfect oval (I am being generous here). Assuming the intuitive recognition of a symmetry in the drawing by the monkey, there is no way that we will be able to train the monkey to recognize "pi".
Point: a world of difference exists between the two. If you don't recognize "pi" you can't recognize "circle". An intuitive notion of a symmetric closed oval is the best you get. Re: Equations 2
Re: Equations Circle hasn't been scratched.
If thought is only conjectural of what ultimate use is the exchange of ideas?
Have a good time. johnreed
GHD
Gosh, JR, thanks for considering my notion, at all. We, humans, have many abstract forms to consider, especially as individuals, but more powerfully, as groups, ie. those who collective agree on basic principles and form 'laws'.
jr writes> Collective decisions do not usually offer the most efficient conclusions. It will always be the individual that redirects the effective perhaps but incomplete focus. However the individual must transfer his/her focus to the group at large. The effort this requires is the biggest hundrance to success.
Our so called laws primarily describe quantities that apply to us as emergent inertial mass objects, working within an electromagnetic universe. For example, we have assigned to the entire universe our subjective notion of gravity. You may call it gravitational force or you may call it the consequence of a curved space time. Both are based on the subjective notion that what we feel is fundamental. Therefore both are wrong. What we feel can be quantified in terms of weight as measured on a balance scale. Weight is the product of two quantities: inertial mass and the accelerative action on the inertial mass object at the planet surface. Weight is also a subjective quantity that we work against depending on our location. The fact that we feel the resistance we work against vertical to the planet surface when we are Re: Equations 3
Re: Equations in contact with the planet, as a force and measure as weight (mg) does not mean that the planet attractor action (g) acts on inertial mass (m). If (g) changed with different magnitudes of inertial mass (m) then (g) would be dependent on inertial mass (m). In this case Newton's third law which falls out of the impact interaction between inertial mass objects independent of the planet attraction (g), could not exist. We have generalized this subjective quantity we feel as resistance and call weight to the entire universe.
What? Do we rationally think we are fundamental objects? Of course not. So how is it we conclude that the resistance we work against (mg) is a causal force in the universe? This derives objectively from the equal and opposite quantitative behavior of impacting inertial mass objects, possibly first noted by Descartes. In turn this behavior is but a special case of the inertial mass interactions between inertial mass objects. The action of the balance scale is a comparative measure of inertial mass as well. On balance (g) divides out, leaving only the inertial mass comparison. By virtue of the fulcrum each balance pan is equal and opposite on balance. Additionally, since we define the resistance we work against here as (mg), and since on balance (g) divides out, this is a measure of the interaction between inertial mass objects. Finally, since we are inertial mass objects and the objects we interact with quantitatively are also inertial mass objects, then the effort we apply to lift the inertial mass object is an interaction between inertial mass objects. By virtue of the equal and opposite behavior of inertial mass objects we assign this interaction as an interaction between our effort and the planet's pull on us, in terms of our inertial mass and the planet pull as (Mg). Where (mg) and (ma) are independent of the planet attractor action (Mg).
Theoretical part: What then does the planet attractor act on if not on inertial mass? It acts on matter. At first glance, with the above conclusion, we seem to have returned to pre−Newtonian physics. A momentary illusion. What benefit arises here? Stable matter today reduces to stable atoms. The planet attractor acts on atoms which is our segue into super− electromagnetic attraction. Where electro magnetism originates from efficient atomic structure and attracts or repels by virtue of efficient atomic structure. And where we have produced magnets out of plastic by modifying a quantity we call spin. I put forward the idea of constructive fusion where the extreme pressure theorized to exist within star forming galactic clouds results in a collapsed super efficient electromagnetic star core structure, possibly contiguous, as a single super atomic star core, that acts on all forms of matter of any atomic structure.
Re: Equations
4
Re: Equations
But, don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of scientific principle.
However, as an artist, my personal experience shows it possible to understand the 'reality' of perception withing seemingly opposing views−−I was interested to see a quote of Stephen Hawking the other day: "I don't know what reality is."−
jr writes> This is well and good. But he will tell you also that gravity is the result of a curved space−time because inertial mass alters space−time curvature and space time curvature tells inertial mass where to go. Or maybe that was Wheeler. Nonetheless it is an acceptable consensus of opinion based on quantitative results that apply to us and the objects we interact with. Our perception. He also say's that "All we can do is rely on mathematical models..." etc.
−and I thought, this is true not only only of perceptions, his being theoretical physics, but, of all of our disciplines, art, science, government, music, religion, (insert your option here).
jr writes> There are some things we can know however. And this evolves (very very slowly true). Stable systems require least action motion is one. Least action motion lends itself readily to mathematical analysis is another.
But, for me, recognition and understanding of tested reality (perhaps mine alone), Re: Equations 5
Re: Equations is derived from a geometric, albeit quasi−mathematical, understanding of the world within which we seem to exist, that is, 'observe'. For instance, it is possible to describe the abstraction of a 'circle' without pi, (as equidistant quadrant subdivisions of smoothed arcs within a square.) Similarly, drawing freehand, the perfect circle. Abstractions of Art, meet the abstractions of science.
jr writes> A circle is not an abstraction. It is a geometic form with properties all its own. True we do not require these properties to draw a circle. We can secure one end of a straight line in space and spin the line around its secured end and have a circle. To call it a circle, by virtue of the known properties of a circle today, requires an awareness of pi. To call it a circle because you recognize it as the object that is called a circle, means only that you have a preformed notion of a circle that is incomplete.
A planet orbit can be represented in the abstract as a static ellipse. The properties of the ellipse itself as an object are not an abstraction.
Wait! You say science is not an abstraction?
jr writes> I asked how abstract is "pi". How abstract is "phi".
Why then the viability of mathematics?
jr writes> Science is the study of physical phenomena. The fact that we exist Re: Equations 6
Re: Equations within a stable system enables this study. Both the analytical use of the math and the universe itself share a common fundamental property. An affinity for least action. A circle is an efficient enclosure of area. The greatest area contained within the shortest line. The orientation of leaves in trees with respect to the sun shows an efficiency of action. Exponential spirals show that same efficiency of action. The circle is a special case of a conic section. The ellipse is another case of a conic. The planet orbit describes an ellipse in space but in terms of time it is identical to the circle by virtue of Kepler's first law. An efficient enclosure of space. An efficient symmetry. Spiral galaxies can be represented in terms of the exponential spiral. Thus "pi" and "phi" apply mathematically to the universe as a result of the shared least action affinities or both.
And so too, we are much longer 'dead' than 'alive', and what happens after 'life'? Perhaps, the logical extention of your observation would be: Nothing. Hmm?
jr writes> Perhaps? I have no preconception here whatsoever. Hope of course lingers eternal. The question can only be answered after life. Before life. Or not answered at all. Since death is required here, it is presently out of my conceptual range. If we survive as a species in whatever future form then as a species we would be longer alive than an individual member of the species, as well, but in any case death appears to most likely return us to a state of pre−life. Life will always be that stage in between for a single life form. But the evolution of consciousness (awareness of self or being) may continually increase and carried over by the genes.
Meet me here again.
jr writes> Done :)
Regards, RHN
Re: Equations
7
Re: Equations Like Yogi Bera: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." ;−) You, apparently, sat in the front row of physics classes, I, apparently, unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be, sat, in the back, complaining ... 'That's not right'. Regards, RHN "How can you say that? Rand Jefferies, said, and blinked blankly at his gorgeous transgendered assistant. Now that we know everything, that's just absurd." Jefferies seemed to be struggling with the concept of 'everything'. His synthetic spine, just slightly out of sync with the remainder of his organic body, ejected him unexpected straight upward causing the startling, almost surrealistic, effect of rocketing him up and out of his chair. He stood. "It's simple," Aubrey ventured, "we don't know everything." Excerpt from the 'Beth, Part III, The Translator's Journals', 'A Story of Travel and Colonization', by G. H. Diel (google G H Diel, R H Nigl) RHN for GHD
jr wites> Kepler's first law should read: Kepler's law of areas. Have a good time. johnreed .
Re: Equations
8