|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
a galathaean theory of space
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 ] 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 just to demonstrate one of the ways i have taken this foundation in the past i wanted to describe one of my clumsy approaches to quantisation if anything i suspect it will show my awkwardness and make for light comedy my idea was to start with a path integral formulation here however as in the rest of the formalism the action S is a function of configurations of distances d_12, ... through time ie. S(D) where D(t) is a "path" of d's so in the standard form the amplitude is /-/ | | i S(D) / h | | dD e /-/ at the time i was very interested in looking at quantum leaps and tunneling in terms of alternate topological paths ( or more accurately in terms of alternate paths in idealisations of the physics that platonise space ) and so I was looking for ways to encode this in the action the idea i came up with was that the action could be seen as having contributions from all manifolds that support a given path --- \ S(D) = / S (D) --- M manifolds M and each manifold contribution could also be decomposed furthur by interpretations on the given manifold --- \ S (D) = / S'(i(D)) M --- M interpretation i that maps the existents to points in a way that allows the distance path to be possible now these summations are actually measure unions as manifolds and interpretations are not even countable so these are "actually" integrals but i keep this notation because of the discrete differences that separate case types for instance 2-manifolds have the classic classification theorem in terms of tori and projective planes but there are a number of metrics that may be applied to any of these topologies similarly interpretations might be related by discrete symmetries or by continuous translations and rotations i was hoping to separate these at some point ( and although i investigated these issues individually i don't believe i ever came back with a more explicit decomposition ) of course at some point i'd have to come to some action that i could in principle calculate and the interpretation was my stopping point here i could borrow from work on the euclidean (ahem cartesian!) case standard relativistic quantum mechanics gives the action of a path proportional to its proper time and the translation to the language of "distance paths D" gives a [n(n-1)/2]-volume form with some interesting properties -+-+-+- anyway the point here is that this formalism allows one to exploit the possibilities in topology in a way very reminiscent of both string theory and lqg however as with most of my approaches in this formalism there is always some point when the equations are derived in the context of some interpretation on a platonised space i had always hoped that i could arrive at a sufficiently beautiful equation and then magically say: " i no longer take this as derived i take this as fundamental and all else is subsequently derived from it " but even taking this down to the simplest case of 2 particles and going through some very long and tedious calculations i never arrived at anything that was even close to elegant ( though i did derive basic wave mechanics when i threw much of this out and limited to planes! ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
a galathaean theory of space
"Uncle Al" wrote in message ... [snip river of **** from Schwartzcyst] Schwartz: http://tinyurl.com/ck9r2 "Uncle ****wit" wrote in message ... Newtonian physics is infinite lightspeed (instantaneous knowledge of all aspects of a system), You ****in' ignorant, stoooopid, LYING *******! ROEMER,DOPPLER, MICHELSON, SAGNAC! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer "Cassini had observed the moons of Jupiter between 1666 and 1668, and discovered discrepancies in his measurements that, at first, he attributed to light having a finite speed." http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...er/Doppler.htm Einstein: "we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Get the **** out of the river of ****, you are the biggest TORD in it, you lying ****headed ****! Go and worship Nehemiah Scudder! **** OFF and DIE! This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Wilson Theory of Space. | Henri Wilson | Astronomy Misc | 102 | February 28th 07 08:21 PM |
Does My Convex Space Theory Give Space Expansion the 5th Dimension? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 2 | September 2nd 06 12:41 AM |
location of new theory of space and matter | Gary Forbat | CCD Imaging | 0 | April 29th 04 07:49 AM |
location of new theory of space and matter | Gary Forbat | Misc | 0 | April 28th 04 12:58 AM |
location of new theory of space and matter | Gary Forbat | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 26th 04 09:22 AM |