a galathaean theory of space

[ the following was rejected from sci.physics.foundations
for attempting to overstimulate interdisciplinary debate
through excessive cross-posting ]

i have learned that to be an effective usenet crank
one must have a crackpot theory of space to defend

whether mike gordge or henri wilson
or any of those fighting for or against various continua
or jack sarfatti evangelising the interesting models
connecting the zero-point to inertia and gravity
or robert israel on euclidean dynamics
( though of course not with the same existential commitments )
every name is throwing their hat in the ring

so i have decided to destroy all remnants of credibility
( meagre as they may be )
and describe some ideas on space i have toyed with over the years

when i first studied relativity
i became very impressed by the writings of ernst mach

i enjoyed the way he related properties of space
to properties of interaction

but both berkeleyan immaterialism
and einsteinian relativity
seemed to fall short of the machian interactionism

in particular in their notions of space

i began to think that models of space should know only
distance between two existents
that there was no good way to define a space of possible points
without introducing counterfactual existents
and other nonoperational existents
space could only be defined
in terms of properties on collections of existents
and i started simply with two-point distance relations

the observation that at the time "cinched" the model for me
was that none of the known forces had angular dependence
except in the presence of 3 or more particles
(and their higher multipole terms)

that all known forces decompose
to interactions between existents

models of space should be in the language of networks
with the edges of the interaction graph
colored by distances and other "interaction intensities"

to start
i used simple distance pairs

d , d , d , ...
12 13 23

for existents

e , e , e , ...
1 2 3

so that a succession of cases could present themselves for analysis

now i was drawn to first find a formulation
that would recapitulate the euclidean / galilean dynamics
so that i could understand better the translation
to this language of space

1 existent models
have no interactions and no notion of distance of pairs
they are very lonely and boring

2 existent models
can define d
12

there are several natural dynamics that i have studied here
but in general any H(d ) = C provides a dynamic
12

if
d = constant
12

this describes a completely correlated and combined state

there is no change with time
and we can see that if we map this to euclidean
we see the natural appearance of circles in this model

in particular
this model only has derived notions of angular arrangement
but not one innate to the two-point description

now if both existents are "inertial"
and i translate in the euclidean model
whose dynamics i want to emulate
i see a point and a line of locations for the other existent

d will decrease to a minumum and then increase
12

the constant of integration
can be taken as that minimum distance d
mu
and focus on the perpendicular d as the initial condition
|_
then

2 2 2
d = d + ( d - v t )
12 mu |_ 2

2
2 d /\ (d ) = - 2 d v /\ t + O( (/\t) )
12 -- 12 |_ 2 -- --

or as the first "fundamental" equation
in this formulation:

galathaea wrote:
[snip crap]

i began to think that models of space should know only
distance between two existents
[snip rest of crap]

A relativistic universe has four distinct distances: luminosity
(inverse square), angular diameter, parallax, and proper motion. No
two of them need agree to maintain consistency.

GPS works. Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Feb 27, 8:14 am, Uncle Al wrote:
galathaea wrote:

[snip crap]

i began to think that models of space should know only
distance between two existents

[snip rest of crap]

A relativistic universe has four distinct distances: luminosity
(inverse square), angular diameter, parallax, and proper motion. No
two of them need agree to maintain consistency.

GPS works.

gps works because it is so easy
to develop a pointwise relativistic model of distances

all of the above measures
except for proper motion
are easy to develop in the dynamics

angular measures are all embedded
in the differential structure of the theory
as derived notions

their behavior does not change
from the standard model
which is why i claim lack of testable predictions

proper motion is the pointwise distance
used in the galathaean models i have derived
( though i did try once to enforce
an operational definition of relativistic distance
with the result of ugly formulas that i never could simplify )

Idiot.

yes
i am

i notice _my_ theory is to abandon angles as a fundament of space
and "your" theory is to push angles into the torsion at points

so my theory is distinctly anti-al!

do you mind if i use this in the advertisements?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

On Feb 27, 7:21 am, "galathaea" wrote:
[ the following was rejected from sci.physics.foundations
for attempting to overstimulate interdisciplinary debate
through excessive cross-posting ]

notice also that this formulation is automatically affine
which appears to be a fundamental character of natural law
but must be derived in pointful formulations of space

i have learned that to be an effective usenet crank
one must have a crackpot theory of space to defend

whether mike gordge or henri wilson
or any of those fighting for or against various continua
or jack sarfatti evangelising the interesting models
connecting the zero-point to inertia and gravity
or robert israel on euclidean dynamics
( though of course not with the same existential commitments )
every name is throwing their hat in the ring

so i have decided to destroy all remnants of credibility
( meagre as they may be )
and describe some ideas on space i have toyed with over the years

when i first studied relativity
i became very impressed by the writings of ernst mach

i enjoyed the way he related properties of space
to properties of interaction

but both berkeleyan immaterialism
and einsteinian relativity
seemed to fall short of the machian interactionism

in particular in their notions of space

i began to think that models of space should know only
distance between two existents
that there was no good way to define a space of possible points
without introducing counterfactual existents
and other nonoperational existents
space could only be defined
in terms of properties on collections of existents
and i started simply with two-point distance relations

the observation that at the time "cinched" the model for me
was that none of the known forces had angular dependence
except in the presence of 3 or more particles
(and their higher multipole terms)

that all known forces decompose
to interactions between existents

models of space should be in the language of networks
with the edges of the interaction graph
colored by distances and other "interaction intensities"

to start
i used simple distance pairs

d , d , d , ...
12 13 23

for existents

e , e , e , ...
1 2 3

so that a succession of cases could present themselves for analysis

now i was drawn to first find a formulation
that would recapitulate the euclidean / galilean dynamics
so that i could understand better the translation
to this language of space

1 existent models
have no interactions and no notion of distance of pairs
they are very lonely and boring

2 existent models
can define d
12

there are several natural dynamics that i have studied here
but in general any H(d ) = C provides a dynamic
12

if
d = constant
12

this describes a completely correlated and combined state

there is no change with time
and we can see that if we map this to euclidean
we see the natural appearance of circles in this model

in particular
this model only has derived notions of angular arrangement
but not one innate to the two-point description

now if both existents are "inertial"
and i translate in the euclidean model
whose dynamics i want to emulate
i see a point and a line of locations for the other existent

d will decrease to a minumum and then increase
12

the constant of integration
can be taken as that minimum distance d
mu
and focus on the perpendicular d as the initial condition
|_
then

2 2 2
d = d + ( d - v t )
12 mu |_ 2

2
2 d /\ (d ) = - 2 d v /\ t + O( (/\t) )
12 -- 12 |_ 2 -- --

or as the first "fundamental" equation
in this formulation:

.
d d = - d v
12 12 |_ 2

i felt at the time that this seemed to mesh
with the views of poincare on relativity
but i look at the equation now
and cannot quite see why

it is a very elegant conservation equation
in units of area per time

as also found in newtonian mechanics
or revilla's goldbach work
or in quantum black hole thermodynamics
these are beautiful units

there is more structure at 3-existents
here euclidean restriction actually inhibit possible space state

there are the triangle inequalities

d + d d
12 13 = 23

d + d d
12 23 = 13

d + d d
13 23 = 12

constraining possibilities and correlating the d_ij

now following out similar calculations to the two existent case
derived in a euclidean frame where e is stationary
1

http://i16.tinypic.com/3ywvbjk.jpght...om/2e4k86h.jpg
.
d d = - d v
12 12 2 mu alpha 2

.
d d = - d v
13 13 3 mu alpha 3

.
d d = [ ( x - x ) ( v - v ) +
23 23 2 alpha 3 alpha 2 x 3 x
( y - y ) ( v - v ) ]
2 alpha 3 alpha 2 y 3 y

an important point about these formulations
is that the constants on the right side are just constants
call them C
simple conservation symmetries
and the values from the euclidean ontology
simply one way to name the relationships between constants

from here on the generalisation is just repetition
but the structure is lain

for complete graphs
distances form a traceless symmetric matrix D(t)

0 d d d d d d d ...
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
d 0 d d d d d d ...
12 23 24 25 26 27 28
d d 0 d d d d d ...
13 23 34 35 36 37 38
d d d 0 d d d d ...
14 24 34 45 46 47 48
d d d d 0 d d d ...
15 25 35 45 56 57 58
d d d d d 0 d d ...
16 26 36 46 56 67 68
d d d d d d 0 d ...
17 27 37 47 57 67 78
d d d d d d d 0 ...
18 28 38 48 58 68 78
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .

the dynamics of this matrix
conserve constants element-wise
and thus completely decomposes in the inertial case

but of course
to me
the point was always secretly
to relax and generalise these conditions

noneuclidean spaces
nonmanifold spaces
strange topologies with exotic (un-"real") metrics
distance distributions and stochastic interpretations

discretisations are obvious
and seem to naturally describe petri nets
and other models for a linear logic or pi calculus

i used to think about possibilities
like interpreting quantum mechanics
in "inconsistent" distance sets
but later when i read fotini markopoulou
i would think about how this might be a model structure
on which to map "consistent geometries"
as a dual interpretation to consistent histories

it was a different approach
from connes' deformations into noncommutative spaces
and didn't quite seem to mesh with other physics foundations

yet it had all these nice theoretical properties

- machian
- interactionist
- does not platonise space
existents are not assigned point positions in a space
pairs of existents have a property distance
- dimensions, metrics, connectivity, etc.
all easily generalisable in this model
- provides the ontology necessary for the known interactions

so i would nurse these particular delusions
secretly feeding them by developing relativistic versions
(simple)
or trying to generalise to forms that were in some way quantum
( never could come up with anything intuitive
that i could derive anything with )

i would read loop quantum gravity papers
straining my eyes in this way i do
trying to find an interpretation in their algebra
because their language seemed so suggestively close

but

i haven't touched this in years
and most of it is in one of four boxes of papers
that i still need to go through and organise
because i have moved often over that time

and i have always felt slightly ashamed
and i never wanted to show anyone
because i was afraid of the type of insanity exposed

but i have seen the courage of the cranks on usenet
and in their spirit and in the fullest earnestness
i present the above outline

of the galathaean theory of space

it is a revolutionary theory
despite its lack of concrete testable prediction
like einstien's negation of the ether or preferred frame
for once my theory is appreciated
it will show present-day science for the sham it is

any hidebound reactionary or self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy
can challenge my theory with all their nazi zeal
but i will not be harmed

because i don't really care if it is "right" or not

its just a pastime i have had
that i wanted to finally share

according to
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
you probably should not give any of this much time

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

Hi Galathaea,

You're trying to model what, exactly ? and why should I care ?
What are the inputs, the givens, and the desired results ?

On Feb 27, 3:22 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Galathaea,

You're trying to model what, exactly ? and why should I care ?
What are the inputs, the givens, and the desired results ?

Since when do you give a **** about physics, relf?

On Feb 27, 4:22 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Galathaea,

You're trying to model what, exactly ? and why should I care ?
What are the inputs, the givens, and the desired results ?

i am trying to model spatial relationships between existents
without introducing the unobservable space

usual physics presupposes some kind of "manifold" structure
or at least some kind of background "point" structure
and each individual existent is given "position"
by being assigned a location in this space

when i am feeling particularly machian
this starts to feel a little dirty

because there are points not assigned to existents
and it is possible to define places inaccessible from existents
and the whole thing is very counterfactual

so some time ago i derived some equations for a distance-only approach

let me give describe the triangle case in a little more detail

1

"galathaea" wrote in news:1172589666.019951.314600
@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

i began to think that models of space should know only
distance between two existents
that there was no good way to define a space of possible points
without introducing counterfactual existents
and other nonoperational existents
space could only be defined
in terms of properties on collections of existents
and i started simply with two-point distance relations

I'm not sure I see how Galathaean space differs from Euclidean space. He too
begins with 2 points and a distance. His straight line is your d.

We don't get Platonized space until the Cartesian Plane.

Am I missing something?

Hi Galathaea, Why are you posting from both Win_XP and Mac boxen ?

Physicists ( and engineers ) don't need a Swiss Army knife.
You don't use a fork-lift to pick up a pea,
nor do you use a fork to pick up pallet loads.

Quoting from my website, " www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/ ":

Based on the desired result and " givens ",
scientists chose the best model(s)... be it Quantum Mechanics,
thermodynamics, special relativity, general relativity or a mix.

Like thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle
are about temperatu

An ideal laser is perfectly coherent, at absolute zero.
( But the energy of the wave itself is the proper temperature )

The more coherent your source is
( e.g. a laser, Cooper pairs, etc. ):

1. The less you can know ( in theory and/or practice )
which slit the particle passed though.

2. The more you know, a priori, the momentum, the frequency
and the integrity of the interference pattern.

General Relativity can model the field of a massive object
only because its energy is so very predictable.
" Static 4-D spacetime " ( i.e. GR's gravitational field )
equals, " 8 * pi * G * T_αβ / c^4 ".
( A function of density and pressure )

The metric and the light cone can be " givens ", static.

Geodesics inside the cone are " Timelike ",
geodesics on the surface of the cone are lightlike,
the rest are spacelike.

If you assume the -+++ signature
( i.e. imaginary time, orthogonal to " length " )
timelike signatures are negative.

On Feb 27, 5:55 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:
[snip garbage]

You are neither an engineer or a physicist, idiot relf. You didn't
even graduate high school.