|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory?
On Apr 28, 2:47 am, HMSBeagle wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 09:57:05 -0700, wrote: [snip] The FACTS which contradict Big Bang theory are not only many but growing almost at every step taken by researches/thinkers. While there is not one single fact yet discovered/proposed which contradicts that the universe is an evolutionary process in many ways very little different from that which produces a black hole (only more so). Which proposal is probably best espoused at: http://physics.sdrodrian.com The above link eventually has this paragraph: {begin quote} "Since I am not here going to give merely one more description of the visible universe but am actually going to show the causes behind its observed effects, there will be no resorting here either to supernatural interpretations (uninformed guessing and other leaps of faith) or to the "usual" mathematical obfuscations (the mere reduction of manifest observations to exacting measurements) behind which the absence of actual basic knowledge has habitually been veiled." {end quote} Can Mr.Rodrian provide specific examples of "usual mathematical obfuscations"? Can he demonstrate how those examples habitually veil "basic knowledge"? Any child could. I'd be a poor adult if I couldn't! And I have done this exercise many, many times: .... In the following example, a most innocuous "mathematical obfuscation" (the superstition that our reality consists of a specific "number" of "dimensions") has driven mathematicians to work out complex purely-mathematical systems based on that "mathematical obfuscation" which have then thwarted what would have been (might easily have been) an examination of reality that could have/might have then produced the true understanding of it (of reality/of the universe). BEGIN QUOTE: wrote: wrote: Could I be more specific about what I mean? Let's try: NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO "ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS. Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional: YOU CAN NOT HAVE MORE DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM. Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish. Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure mathematics need not have ANY connections with anything other than itself (its equations balance themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles). If one abstracts the least single dimension from ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science- fiction). This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional" (no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist). And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of dimension(s). .... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO manifold, however complex, which is not already part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts to describe the universe in terms of mathematical gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness. In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)" in their "equations" while understanding that while it may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense). And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to "(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional." The trick is not being led to believe that "mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY. If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad. Trying to advance the process, S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://music.sdrodrian.com http://mp3.sdrodrian.com Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL "dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER "dimension(s)." PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post! " http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...&rnum=1&lnk=ol from "The Achilles Heel of String Theory." The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe anything which might exist apart from our reality (universe)... you can be certain it is a science- fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic study of reality"). I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in the same manner that a science-fiction story must be purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies). My objection is when either mathematics or science- fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on reality THAN does reality. One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions, but that does not remove such a sphere from our reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds ("a topological space in which every point has a neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality. The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in reality." It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality" of a painting, which painting then seen from behind proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two- dimensional" painting. The fact is that even theoretically it would be hard to conceive of anything being even one-dimensional: Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have to look at it from a little to the side). Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air: Your floating arm is describing an impossible journey through an infinite number of (certainly more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any circumference such as the earth's... And because all it would take would be a very tiny "little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And we are talking strictly theoretically here.) The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's Length, although I do not know of any objection to that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on because if it were but even the smallest fraction to any side it would have to look at it from a second, third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's much more easy to just look at a comic strip and believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional drawing... even though we know that no true purely two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.] HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with" the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo graphic is two-dimensional. And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely three-dimensional object can exist in our reality, then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered- dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not really very smart, no matter how clever you may be (and not even though you be even as clever as a checkers-playing computer). The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs through a time-line from beginning to end; but the universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not possible at this point in human history to point to anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore each item (with the proviso that each item consists of sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning at the same time and most of them are all likely to stop spinning at the same time, all things being equal. But we're really talking coincidence here, since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in the universe--be set spinning at the same time.] Strictly on principle, because energy is neither created nor destroyed, some scientists may be therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes between the objects/items of the universe, neither going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby they also being forced to give up the notion of "time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and suspect that time indeed does go marching on.] This is why not all the atoms of a given element in the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be reconstituted into their original form inside a star's furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave the time-line of matter that has gone from old age (and even death) back to youth! In any case, our description of time is always quite superficial. And we usually limit such a description to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both child and man, but what we conveniently agree to overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our own time" as well, just in some other form than either child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar is still here with us. " String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus, then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And since string theory can only balance its equations by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible) "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute." I am assuming that the possibility exists that there are more than 3 spatial dimension. And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our reality. IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST. (And if something exists in one or more dimension than those of our reality... then those so-called other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.) String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it. Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your life trying to figure out how string theory governs life! see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com from "If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It Be Disproved? Yes!" It's very simple: "If anywhere in your equations Santa Claus is required: your equations are utterly divorced from reality." Well, the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory and Ed Wood's--I mean Ed Witten's supersymmetry nonsense--and thereby potentially bestows incalculably monumental savings to the physics establishment by keeping it from chasing rainbows with no pots of gold) .... the Santa Claus Law disproves string theory because all string theory equations require the utterly embarrassing notion of "dimensions" (a truly goofy Abbot & Costello confusion which arises innocently enough from the innocuous historical tradition of referring to our reality as "three" -dimensional). Follow such time-wasting nonsense to its logical conclusion and you're likely to end up lost in a Star Trek script world full of time-travel, worm holes, and dark matter/dark energy clouds teeming with intelligent non-corporeal beings, Mister Spok. It's rather all so simple that it pains me to have to point it out (and why I had to come up with the Santa Claus Law for theoretical physics, in the first place): In the "real" world there "is" no such a thing as "dimensions" of any kind, sort, or flavor (be it the eleven dimensions of string theory, or 11,000 dimensions, or the singularities of legend & lore): The very idea that the world is somehow restricted to three-dimensions is a purely mathematical fiction (a mental convenience, mathematical shorthand) which SEEING any object with more than six sides instantly disproves (if such proof be needed). Hell, if we lived in a universe in which only six-sided blocks existed I might forgive some "mental deficient" believing that such a universe was three-dimensional, but purely six-sided blocks are rare natural objects (just a few crystals), and therefore I can only look with contempt upon those who still cannot separate [the mathematical shorthand of calling ours a "three-dimensional reality (universe)"] from [the "real" universe]. Embarrassing to even be in the same species as these theoreticians, for Heaven's sakes. For purely illustrative and needless additional elaboration: Once you assign an arbitrary number (as is the "3" dimensions in the infamous historical mathematical shorthand) you can use that number in calculations/equations/theories to construct all sorts of math; but this does not mean that that particular number has any reality outside our minds (and the purely mental, detached from all reality, equations that can live in the brain exclusively quite "elegantly"): Our reality should be better described as something like "infinitely dimensional," since there is no practical means of limiting the number of ways you can slice a sphere. All manifolds, of whatever design, are impossible to separate from our "spherical reality" and are merely "combinations of perverse slices" of the "sphere." The Möbius strip, for example, is perhaps the easiest and most self-evident misinterpretation of reality (the suspension of its reality from the rest of reality): Take a strip of paper and just before gluing its two ends together twist one of the ends, now you can run a pencil down one side of the strip and discover that without having lifted the pencil from that one side... the unbroken line you've drawn runs down BOTH sides of the strip: Does this mean you've created a piece of paper with only one side (something akin to one-dimensionality)? No, of course not. Or, more aptly: ONLY IN YOUR MIND. Another optical illusion is the "two-dimensional" film screen. In it you can "see" two-dimensional objects "existing." And I have actually heard otherwise very respected physicists (apparently the modern day equivalents of metaphysicists or your everyday lunatics, can't tell which) going on and on about the existence of these "two-dimensional objects," when describing what we "witness" on film screens! But, as all first year art students know, the purely merely "optical illusion" we're seeing is achieved with different shades/colors and the art of perspective: In reality, in the reality in which we actually live, there is not even the remotest anything related to "two-dimensionality" about anything ever "seen" on any movie screen or a Renaissance painting. .... The same thing with the silly notion of a "singularity" (or, a one-dimensional object), which, like all things impossible, are/is "hidden" by their magician theorizers by conveniently reducing it/them "out of sight" and into a physically impossible small size ("absolute" size... something which ought to be an instant tip-off for even silly inflation aficionados of entire universes growing out of jelly beans and other flyspecks) in flagrant violation of all the laws of physics. Therefo ANY and ALL mathematical models claiming a connection with/to reality... which employ ANY (always necessarily arbitrary) number [of dimensions?] to balance their equations are and ever will be "ultimately" divorced from reality (agreeing with reality ONLY when forced into it, and only inside the human mind). In special relativity, for example, the number "3" is restricted to the construction of a three-dimensional grid whose purpose extends ONLY to the orientations of the required map (which is the principal purpose of having devised/assigned the number "3" to the "dimensions" of reality in the first place--That is, so that such a map could be drawn up). And so: S D Rodrian's Santa Claus Law: "If anywhere in your equations Santa Claus is required: your equations are utterly divorced from reality." END QUOTE The examples are endless. From the most basic one (above) "that Einstein did not know what Gravity was (in reality)" so instead of trying to find out "what it was" he produced "a geometrical description of what he saw Gravity doing." And from this "mathematical obfuscation" to "veil his utter lack of basic knowledge" (which has thwarted basic research into exactly WHAT Gravity really IS, rather than just what it's "doing") we've gotten mired in utter insanities such as "warped space" , "worm-holes" , "time-travel" and so many, many more it's a wonder we don't all believe Star Trek is real---instead of just most of "us"). Every one of which "mathematical obfuscation" is and remains one more confusion we will have to dispense with before we can finally get at "basic knowledge" of still veiled Reality. The very concept of "time" as something other than (more than) just "the timing of one arbitrary motion against another arbitrary motion" (the science fiction that "the Future" and "the Past" actually "exist") is yet another insanity for which we can thank Einstein's "mathematical obfuscations" (where it simply used to be just a beautiful fantasy in the imagination). The list, as I said, is endless. And when we shall bring an end to it all is anybody's guess (because the careers/prestiges/ monies of most of the world's thinkers/physicists/teachers/ mathematicians are all wrapped up now in the perpetuation of nonsense rather than in the pursuit of "basic knowledge"). S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com All religions are local. Only science is universal. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 7 | April 30th 07 06:48 AM |
What Was The Main Difficulty Einstein Faced When He Tried To Unify GR With Particle Theory? | [email protected] | UK Astronomy | 0 | April 27th 07 05:56 PM |
EXHiBiT VELOCiTY & SPEED of light ..for DiFFERENT particle COUNTs.!! EXHiBiT ERROR-BARs for ALL "in-vacu" PARTiCLE-COUNTs, Cracked-pot.!! Many DiFFERENT particle-COUNTs *NOT* different SiTUATiONs, Dimwit.!! | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | November 21st 05 06:13 AM |
EXHiBiT VELOCiTY & SPEED of light ..for DiFFERENT particle COUNTs.!! EXHiBiT ERROR-BARs for ALL "in-vacu" PARTiCLE-COUNTs, Cracked-pot.!! Many DiFFERENT particle-COUNTs *NOT* different SiTUATiONs, Dimwit.!! | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 21st 05 06:13 AM |
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" | Lester Solnin | Solar | 7 | April 13th 05 08:17 AM |