“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
may not have any existence at all. The equations of
relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
I think the things that are real are THINGS.
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
may not have any existence at all. The equations of
relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find the
basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
elementary particles are not points as the standard model
posits. In the real world there are no such things as
dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
may not have any existence at all. The equations of
relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find the
basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
elementary particles are not points as the standard model
posits. In the real world there are no such things as
dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
My own view:
spacetime is real and particles are not.
As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
nothing or disappears without a trace.
Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
'magic dust'
Growing Earth
Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
(of/in spacetime).
See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:See my 'book' about this idea:
Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
may not have any existence at all. The equations of
relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find the
basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
elementary particles are not points as the standard model
posits. In the real world there are no such things as
dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
My own view:
spacetime is real and particles are not.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)
As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
nothing or disappears without a trace.
I don't believe that has ever been observed happening. Conservation of mass-energy is quite firmy established.
Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
'magic dust'
I'm not familiar with such.
Growing Earth
An unscientific speculation.
Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
(of/in spacetime).
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
"It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth continuum,
that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."
Yes, in GR fields are real things. But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
photons
are PARTICLES. QFT has tried to get around this by going back to
fields,
but string theory started out with particles. I'm with Feinman.
"We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations on
our
own state of being."
This is essentially the first postulate of SR.
"By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real observations.
But our observations are real only to us"
I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena." What we observe IS the real world.
Am Mittwoch000026, 26.06.2024 um 01:26 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 14:20 schrieb gharnagel:
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
may not have any existence at all. The equations of
relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find thedetect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
elementary particles are not points as the standard model
posits. In the real world there are no such things as
dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
My own view:
spacetime is real and particles are not.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)
fromAs 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes
nothing or disappears without a trace.
I don't believe that has ever been observed happening. Conservationof
mass-energy is quite firmy established.
Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
'magic dust'
I'm not familiar with such.
Growing Earth
An unscientific speculation.
Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns' (of/in spacetime).
See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH
"It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smoothcontinuum,
that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."
Yes, in GR fields are real things. But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,to
photons are PARTICLES. QFT has tried to get around this by going back
fields, but string theory started out with particles. I'm withFeinman.
Well, I personally think, that material objects like particles are
'timelike stable patterns'.
This was my assumption, which I needed to connect GR and QM.
As proof of concept I had 'growing Earth' in mind.
This is so, because the growth of Earth is happening from the inside of
the planet, where no particles from out space are supposed to be.
(Actually I have always disliked the 'particle concept' and wanted a way
to disprove it.)
Particles are too 'materialistic' for my taste. They also attempt to
exlain particles by particles (quarks), but make no attempts to explain quarks. (string theory is actually worse)
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
'real'.
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something
with higher dimensions.
Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
are infinetely thin.
on"We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations
our own state of being."
This is essentially the first postulate of SR.
observations."By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real
But our observations are real only to us"
I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena." What we observe IS the real world.
No, we don't, because we can only see a subset of the real world, that
is visible to us.
E.g. we cannot see beyond the horizon, even if there is a 'world'
behind.
But visibility is also very limiited to us, because from the wast range
of the em-spectrum we can see only a very small part.
But time is also an issue, because we are bond to what I call 'Time
domaine'.
This is so, because we like to stay material objects and do not want to dissipate into the environment.
But we could imagine, that such a 'universe around the corner' would
exist, where time runs into a different direction than our time.
Such a world would be entirely invisible, even if it could be really
close.
So, in effect we can only observe some parts of reality and need to
guess, how the rest of the universe may look like.
TH
Brane theory began with string theory and was built up by logical steps.
...https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharingMatter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'>
(of/in spacetime).
See my 'book' about this idea:
continuum,
TH
"It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth
that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
'real'.
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something
with higher dimensions.
Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))
Sure.Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
are infinetely thin.
"Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.
Am Donnerstag000027, 27.06.2024 um 20:32 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
'real'.
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
somethingthat are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of
with higher dimensions.
Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))
No, I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
I wanted to create matter, space and time out of pure nothing.
There exist actually a book about this idea.
Unfortunaterly it is very expensive and VERY difficult to read.
(My own 'book' is for free and much easier to read.)
whichAlso: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders,
are infinetely thin.
"Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.
Sure.
That's why I wrote, that spacetime of GR is a smooth continuum.
What we regard as systems, that are actually subparts, which we define
as independent systems, while these borders between them depend on our definitions.
But actually there are no independent entities, because the entities we
call 'particles' are not as independent as we think.
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000027, 27.06.2024 um 20:32 schrieb gharnagel:
something
Thomas Heger wrote:
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
'real'.
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of
with higher dimensions.
Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))
No, I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.
But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it
doesn't mean it's false.
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
That's where ALL of physics IS.
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.
But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean it's false.
Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than points in Euclidean space have.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three dimensions.
Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
'Pauli algebra'.
My 'book' about this idea can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic' concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
That's where ALL of physics IS.
Sure,
but I'm not a physicist.
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.
But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean it's false.
Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike
elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than
points in Euclidean space have.
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three
dimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.
W dniu 04.07.2024 o 18:39, gharnagel pisze:
Thomas Heger wrote:
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
nothing.So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.
GRI had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of
'pointlikefor real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of
elements'.
thanThat is something like a point with features and higher dimensions
points in Euclidean space have.
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
certainThese 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual assumptions.
threeOne unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than
dimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention toexpress
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express mathematical
concepts.
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.07.2024 o 18:39, gharnagel pisze:
nothing.
Thomas Heger wrote:
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely
GR
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of
'pointlikefor real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of
thanelements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions
certainpoints in Euclidean space have.
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a
threeequation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than
expressdimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Now you're getting the idea. Good job!
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.
But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like >>> > it doesn't mean it's false.
Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike
elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than
points in Euclidean space have.
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain >>> equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three
dimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.
Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.
But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean it's false.
Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike
elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than
points in Euclidean space have.
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three
dimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.
Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are
connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
'Pauli algebra'.
My 'book' about this idea can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
That's where ALL of physics IS.
Sure,
So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm.
W dniu 04.07.2024 o 23:10, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Now you're getting the idea. Good job!
So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
threeOne unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than
dimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention toexpress
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express mathematical concepts.
Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.
If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to combine GR and QM.
This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good,
because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation.
Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that
particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective.
I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription
and wrote my 'book' about this idea.
'materialistic'I wanted something different than one of the usual
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
That's where ALL of physics IS.
Sure,
So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm.
no, not quite.
It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.
That is similar to other professions, say medicine:
I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not
heal.
...
TH
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
three
Thomas Heger wrote:
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than
expressdimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical concepts.
Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.
And space is coordinate-free.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.07.2024 o 23:10, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Now you're getting the idea. Good job!
So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response
Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response
Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.
I answered it:
"I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.07.2024 o23:10, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Now you're getting the idea. Good job!
So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response, but
I'll be condescending to the poor eighth-brain.
Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
fingers, etc.
Anything else is frosting on the cake.
I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.
On 2024-07-05 13:01:12 +0000, gharnagel said:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 04.07.2024 o 23:10, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Now you're getting the idea. Good job!
So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response, but
I'll be condescending to the poor eighth-brain.
Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
fingers, etc.
Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).
Anything else is frosting on the cake.
I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.
Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:43, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response
Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.
I answered it:
"I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.
Instead you presented some pseudophilosophical
mumble, as expected from a Shit worshipper
when asked a question.
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:43, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 15:01, gharnagel pisze:
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response
Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.
I answered it:
"I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.
Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
answer I gave:
On 2024-07-05 13:01:12 +0000, gharnagel said:
Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
fingers, etc.
Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).
Anything else is frosting on the cake.
I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.
Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-07-05 13:01:12 +0000, gharnagel said:
Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
fingers, etc.
Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).
There ya go! Maybe I'll have to get out my LoP and reread that.
Anything else is frosting on the cake.
I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.
Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.
Indeed. He has the manners of a pig. I grew up on a farm and we often
had pigs and cows in the same corral. When cow plop happened, the pigs
came running. So I've had my say and I'm done with him.
In one of the trade journals, many years ago, someone wrote an article
as a Socratic dialog about a young man who was trying to decide whether
to become a mathematician or a scientist. One of the things Socrates
tried to draw out was the student's attitude toward certainty and uncertainty, mathematics involving more of the former.
Am Freitag000005, 05.07.2024 um 07:06 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 06:53, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
mind.
Thomas Heger wrote:
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in
But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't >>>>> like
it doesn't mean it's false.
Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely
nothing.
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter >>>> can come from nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR >>>>> for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of
'pointlike
elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions
than
points in Euclidean space have.
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a
certain
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than
three
dimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express >>>> geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.
Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not
really real in a coordinate free space.
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.
If you take any of mathematically defined
spaces - it's built of 2 elements: a set
of something and some relation defined
about that set of something.
Applies also to "physical" space and to
spacetime.
'space' in math is something else than space in physics.
If you regard 'space' as that what is left, if all matter is taken away,
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 06:53, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:
like
Thomas Heger wrote:
But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind. >>>> >
it doesn't mean it's false.
Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing. >>>Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR >>>> for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike >>>> elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than >>>> points in Euclidean space have.
Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a
certain
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three >>>> dimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express >>> geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.
Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not
really real in a coordinate free space.
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.
If you take any of mathematically defined
spaces - it's built of 2 elements: a set
of something and some relation defined
about that set of something.
Applies also to "physical" space and to
spacetime.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:
three
Thomas Heger wrote:
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than
expressdimensions.
I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical concepts.
Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.
And space is coordinate-free.
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.
Which is why it's not real.
If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to
combine GR and QM.
This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good,
because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation.
Fields seem to work okay.
Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that
particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective.
I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription
and wrote my 'book' about this idea.
Quaternions are mathematical concepts, not real.
'materialistic'I wanted something different than one of the usual
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.
That's where ALL of physics IS.
Sure,
So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm.
no, not quite.
It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.
That is similar to other professions, say medicine:
So you want a nonprofessional to operate on you?
I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not
heal.
...
TH
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you like your idea too much.
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.
Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
answer I gave:
Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.
Of course, instead answerring
you presentewd some mumble combined with insults. That's how The Shit's doggies are trained to "discuss".
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.
Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
answer I gave:
Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.
Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.
of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the difference between existence
and physicality?
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 15:29, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't
understand the answer I gave:
Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.
Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.
What are definitions, Harrie?
Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
"do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
as the answer to your question?
That's typical of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the
difference between existence and physicality?
Well - if you answerred the question
"does the smallest prime number exist" -
maybe you'd get some clue about that
difference.
Or maybe not. You're really, really
stupid, Harrie.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:43:52 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 15:29, gharnagel pisze:
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 05.07.2024 o 18:37, gharnagel pisze:
Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't
understand the answer I gave:
Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.
Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.
What are definitions, Harrie?
I posted the definition of definitions and Wozzie-liar
Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
"do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
as the answer to your question?
Both cats and dogs have physical existence,
is being dishonest again. He doesn't attack the root
of the problem because he's incapable of critical
thought.
That's typical of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the
difference between existence and physicality?
D-K Wozzie refuses to answer the question at the root
of his ... question, which he only asked to try and trap
an unsuspecting person into an embarrassing dilemma.
But we all know how his devious and deceitful mind works.
Well - if you answerred the question
"does the smallest prime number exist" -
maybe you'd get some clue about that
difference.
Or maybe not. You're really, really
stupid, Harrie.
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so
So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so
So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so
So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
No, trash, mistaken as usual.
Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic
- the basic question is: does the smallest prime number exist or not.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 5:42:59 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:59:41 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 21:59, gharnagel pisze:
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so
So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
No, trash, mistaken as usual.
Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."
Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic
No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.
W dniu 07.07.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 5:42:59 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
No, trash, mistaken as usual.
Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."
Right after you define "defining", poor trash.
Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic
No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.
So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?
BTW, can you point experiments confirming
your pseudophilosophical dillema to be basic?
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:11:44 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 07.07.2024 o 15:02, gharnagel pisze:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 5:42:59 (UTC), Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 06.07.2024 o 23:41, gharnagel pisze:
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
No, trash, mistaken as usual.
Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."
Right after you define "defining", poor trash.
I already did that.
So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?
I'm glad Wozzie has finally got it.
W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:20, gharnagel pisze:
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."
Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
spoken to him, so he knows.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 4:15:45 +0000, Maciej Wozzie-liar wrote:
W dniu 07.07.2024 o 23:20, gharnagel pisze:
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."
"Exist" is used fairly broadly, so Wozzie-pig-poop-prevaricator
tries to twist it into what I said it wasn't.
Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
spoken to him, so he knows.
Lying Wozzie-pig says nature doesn't speak, now all of a sudden, the dishonest Wozzie-defecator proclaims that "Basic mathematics" DOES
speak.
[Congenital lies]
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:59:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[Congenital lies]
“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers….
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:06, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:59:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[Congenital lies]
:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?
“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers….
And some other morons defined communism as the
best political system ever, effective and just.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:22:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:06, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:59:13 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[Congenital lies]
:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?
Mathematics is a human invention.
a human claim.
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:45, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:22:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?
Mathematics is a human invention.
Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
you!!!!
What it "claims" is really a human claim.
Unlike a claim of Harrie, of course! His
claim of is a GOD's claim!!!
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:07:09 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 08.07.2024 o 16:45, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:22:50 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?
Mathematics is a human invention.
Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
you!!!!
Silly Wozzie-fool! The "laws" of physics are also human
inventions that try to mimic nature. DUH!
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
may not have any existence at all. The equations of
relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find the
basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
elementary particles are not points as the standard model
posits. In the real world there are no such things as
dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
Some of the things that string theory leads to, however,
are very interesting, such as M-theory and branes. The
ekpyrotic theory is one that sets forth a reason why the
big bang happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe
although I disagree with a cyclic universe as presented.
Anyway, that's not necessarily a given in the theory.
The universe may still be cyclic without a contraction
(in agreement with the present information that the
expansion is accelerating). The energy for a bang comes
from the bashing of an adjacent brane into ours, as
proposed in the original theory and, if it happened once,
why couldn't it happen again? And again, and again, and
again?
This would shoot down the idea that spacetime (and space)
only extends as far as the last bang (the one nearest and
dearest to our hearts) has had time to expand.
So then the question arises: what would be the effects
of a previous bang on us? If we applied GR to that model,
might it not explain some mysteries we are dealing with?
On 07/18/2024 07:29 PM, gharnagel wrote:
It seems that everyone is married to their own vision.
That's fine, but it seems to me that they should start
their own thread to discuss it. Then everyone can decide
if they want to discuss it there. I want arguments
against the ideas I've presented above.
“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
OTOH, I never learned much from an idiot, either.
All ideas fall short of reality, so Carl Sagan suggested
a way to get closer:
"Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to
be explained, think of all the different ways in which
it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you
might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right
answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.
"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just
because it’s yours."
If there's any good theory at all,
it's the one of them.
On 07/20/2024 06:04 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Are we getting closer to a TOE?
"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.
On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:36:31 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/20/2024 06:04 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Are we getting closer to a TOE?
"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.
Aye, there's the rub.
On 07/20/2024 12:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 20.07.2024 o 20:57, gharnagel pisze:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:36:31 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 07/20/2024 06:04 AM, gharnagel wrote:
Are we getting closer to a TOE?
"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.
Aye, there's the rub.
And, of course, it can ignore the reality, as it
is not scientific.
No, no, no no no, the theory: must be a true theory,
Anyone can check GPS and see how true
your theories must be.
On Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:21:35 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Anyone can check GPS and see how true
your theories must be.
Yes they can, and the fit is pretty good.
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"
On 07/20/2024 11:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 06:31, Ross Finlayson pisze:
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"
Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.
Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",
On 07/20/2024 11:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 21.07.2024 o 06:31, Ross Finlayson pisze:
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"
Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.
Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",
as it's always a "Mathematical Physics", and regardless
whether the mathematical interpretation lines up with
the physical interpretation lines up with the data,
it's always a mathematical physics and there's the
ubiquitous success of mathematics in physics, thusly,
any foundations of physics or "the theory" demands
a foundations of mathematics the "the theory".
"A Theory"
So, foundations of mathematics and foundations of physics
go together indubitably, and especially as to how there
are multiple law(s) of large numbers (infinity, infinitesimals)
and continuity, with respect to all such matters of continuum
mechanics, including the quantized version the quantum mechanics.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
So, mathematics _owes_ physics better (and, less) mathematical
models, to automatically equip the physical models, to
result better.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 74:22:39 |
Calls: | 7,775 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,749,992 |