T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 15:02 GMT

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 15:41 GMT

Hi dear all,I didn't know the brachistochrone curve, it is fascinating in fact.Still and always the sphere dear friends, still and always the sphere and its rotations....the solution always is facilitated by the sphere and its comportments of motion.About the referential, it is always a question of serie and limits when we want correlate to the realism of the physicality.That facilitates the understanding of the different steps before the wall.Still and always the sphere dear friends, still and always the sphere and its rotations....Here is the question of the day....the identity of euler ...... ,why is it better to write correctly the identity of Euler, a first step was made with e exp i pi + 1 = 0 (first step the - is harmonized in the physicality), but still the zero must be adapted, who has an idea ,hihihihi ?The groups and the constants in the finite system takes a beautiful road.The logic has one road if the serie is encircled.Best RegardsSteve

Anonymous replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:00 GMT

Are you all physcis professors? I am in high school and am debating whether to major in Physics or Engineering. I enjoy science and am currently taking AP physics and calculus. I always wanted to attend Berkeley and got my acceptance letter already and now I just finishing high school and am preparing for next fall. I stated I wished to major in engineering but I am thinking I might go for Physics instead.The only thing I am worried about is getting a job. With engineering you can get a very nice job with a good salary. With physics, I believe you need a PhD to get a job anywhere. I would certainly like to eventually get a graduate degree but I am not quite sure what to choose.As far as the stuff here. I find it hard to understand what you guys are talking about when you discuss things like spinors and mirror particles.

Anonymous replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:20 GMT





I read a lot of books and watch science programs about black holes and stuff but I still don't understand it. In our science club we had a talk about einsteins general relativity and our teacher gave the diagram of the ball sitting on a rubber sheet with grids on it. The ball distirted the grid and another ball placed on the grid would start to move because the grid was distorted by the other ball sitting on it. This doesn't make sense to me and the teacher couldn't give me the exclanation of why a body would move at all, regardless of whether space is curved.



I can buy the idea that mass causes the space around it to be curved. What I don't understand is how another body around the mass would start to move just because the space is curved. So if I have an object not moving, how does the curvature of space start the ball to suddenly start moving? Doesn't it require a force anyways? Sure the object would move through the space that is curved but what causes the movement to begin with? Our teacher didn't have any answer. It makes no sense to me.



report post as inappropriate Also, if I can ask a question of the physicists here regarding black holes and general relativity I would appreciate it.I read a lot of books and watch science programs about black holes and stuff but I still don't understand it. In our science club we had a talk about einsteins general relativity and our teacher gave the diagram of the ball sitting on a rubber sheet with grids on it. The ball distirted the grid and another ball placed on the grid would start to move because the grid was distorted by the other ball sitting on it. This doesn't make sense to me and the teacher couldn't give me the exclanation of why a body would move at all, regardless of whether space is curved.I can buy the idea that mass causes the space around it to be curved. What I don't understand is how another body around the mass would start to move just because the space is curved. So if I have an object not moving, how does the curvature of space start the ball to suddenly start moving? Doesn't it require a force anyways? Sure the object would move through the space that is curved but what causes the movement to begin with? Our teacher didn't have any answer. It makes no sense to me.

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 16:21 GMT





I have a Ph.D. in High Energy Physics Phenomenology, taught for a few years, then left the field for a better-paying opportunity. If money is your first passion, you probably will make more money with a Masters in Engineering than with a Doctorate in Physics. However, if the search for knowledge is your passion, you might want to learn enough physics to be able to participate in these discussions. I'm the CEO of a family business during the day, but physics is my favorite hobby, and this blog-site is one of my outlets.



And like Tom recommended, there is a lot of information on sites like Wikipedia. I wouldn't trust them 100%, but it is usually an accurate start.



Have Fun!



Ray



report post as inappropriate I would say that answer depends on your passion.I have a Ph.D. in High Energy Physics Phenomenology, taught for a few years, then left the field for a better-paying opportunity. If money is your first passion, you probably will make more money with a Masters in Engineering than with a Doctorate in Physics. However, if the search for knowledge is your passion, you might want to learn enough physics to be able to participate in these discussions. I'm the CEO of a family business during the day, but physics is my favorite hobby, and this blog-site is one of my outlets.And like Tom recommended, there is a lot of information on sites like Wikipedia. I wouldn't trust them 100%, but it is usually an accurate start.Have Fun!Ray

T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 17:05 GMT





I realize that "rubber sheet geometry" is a popular teaching tool, but I honestly wish they would retire that analogy.



It doesn't really give you the true flavor of general relativity. In GR, space is mostly flat, Euclidean. It is only at great concentrations of mass that this rubber sheet thing applies, and it doesn't apply well at that, because you are getting only a 2-dimensional view of a 3-dimensional phenomenon embedded in a 4-dimensional spacetime. So it isn't suprising that, if you are at all a deep thinker in this subject, you would be confused as well as unsatisfied.



I think something to help you decide whether you want to be a physicist or not, is a serious read of Einstein & Infeld's classic, The Evolution of Physics. That will bring you through classical mechanics, and up to relativity. If you appreciate what's in there, you will surely want to probe deeper. It's an easily accessible book even for a high schooler, no heavy duty mathematics, but a lot of insight.



So far as your teacher's dilemma of not being able to answer why a body would move at all -- nobody can. The origin of inertia is still a mystery. In terms of this "rubber sheet" relationship, however, we can calculate the attraction between masses by Einstein's gravity equation -- you can look that up. You probably won't understand it, but get the flavor, anyway. It describes the gravity field in which the bodies move.



Tom



report post as inappropriate Anonymous,I realize that "rubber sheet geometry" is a popular teaching tool, but I honestly wish they would retire that analogy.It doesn't really give you the true flavor of general relativity. In GR, space is mostly flat, Euclidean. It is only at great concentrations of mass that this rubber sheet thing applies, and it doesn't apply well at that, because you are getting only a 2-dimensional view of a 3-dimensional phenomenon embedded in a 4-dimensional spacetime. So it isn't suprising that, if you are at all a deep thinker in this subject, you would be confused as well as unsatisfied.I think something to help you decide whether you want to be a physicist or not, is a serious read of Einstein & Infeld's classic, The Evolution of Physics. That will bring you through classical mechanics, and up to relativity. If you appreciate what's in there, you will surely want to probe deeper. It's an easily accessible book even for a high schooler, no heavy duty mathematics, but a lot of insight.So far as your teacher's dilemma of not being able to answer why a body would move at all -- nobody can. The origin of inertia is still a mystery. In terms of this "rubber sheet" relationship, however, we can calculate the attraction between masses by Einstein's gravity equation -- you can look that up. You probably won't understand it, but get the flavor, anyway. It describes the gravity field in which the bodies move.Tom

Anonymous replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT





report post as inappropriate Alright. Thanks. These probably sound like dumb questions to the advanced people here. I am just confused as to why the mass starts moving without a force to move it. I understand the curvature part when realtivity states that mass curves space, but it doesn't explain why the mass would deicde to start moving through the curved space in the first place so it makes it look like there is a force. The old law of physics by Newton says that a body won't move unless a force is applied to it so I can't understand how a body would start moving just because space is curved. So what if space is curved?

T H Ray replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 22:28 GMT





Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."



Tom



report post as inappropriate Anonymous,Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."Tom

James Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 23:03 GMT





James



report post as inappropriate Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation. Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity. If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. What is force?James

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 23:53 GMT





Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate In the United States anyone in the business of science or engineering is in the bueiness of going out of business. To pursue a physics career I advise becoming fluent in one or more foreign languages so you can expand your options in the world. The US of A is a declining civilization (has been for the last several decades), one which is degenerating into an economy favoring a few investment fat-cats and bankers, and where the rest of us will be left working casinos and tatoo parlors.Cheers LC

James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT





James



report post as inappropriate In the United States liberty is the engine of invention. Those who are in science and engineering and who emprace liberty will thrive. The key is to avoid simplistic ideologies from those who are educated but who have not completed the full cycle of learning and remain embedded in their own self-pride. Be not led to unrealistic thoughts that originate in the minds of those who desire to dominate you or to be admired by you. You can recognize the false prophets because they will not give straight answers to your scientific questions. They give a smattering of facts and make grand pronouncements, not knowing that they have not yet learned that they know nothing.James

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 01:45 GMT





LC



report post as inappropriate All politics is trash, and more to the point political ideology is crap. It is the case that a dominant political party or one going to some sort of extreme ends up bringing up personality disordered and sociopathic types. Oh and yeah, conservatives (GOP) have run things in the US by about a 2 to 1 margin for the last 40 years. The nation has lost considerable ground on nearly all fronts of R&D and industry through the time period.LC

James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:20 GMT





Politics is a function of liberty. It is the business of the people and their representatives. There is, of course the intrusion of crap such as socialism and communism. Even as crappy is psuedo scientific dogma that makes no sense and lacks logical and empirical support. Politics is trash for tyrants who wish to dominate humanity. There is of course the pretense that it is for the good of humanity. Without exception, it is for the tyant's needs.



"It is the case that a dominant political party or one going to some sort of extreme ends up bringing up personality disordered and sociopathic types."



The typical immature name calling of middle schoolers is typical of intellectually immature middleschoolers.



Both politics and science function to serve humanity in spite of the middleschoolers who would simply make noise in order to disrupt and gain attention for themselves.



We could perhaps finally make progress if only someone truly brilliant could explain the fundamentals of theoretical physics. Like: What is force; what is mass; what is electric charge; what is temperature; what is thermodynamic entropy?



Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation. Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity. If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?



James



report post as inappropriate "All politics is trash, and more to the point political ideology is crap."Politics is a function of liberty. It is the business of the people and their representatives. There is, of course the intrusion of crap such as socialism and communism. Even as crappy is psuedo scientific dogma that makes no sense and lacks logical and empirical support. Politics is trash for tyrants who wish to dominate humanity. There is of course the pretense that it is for the good of humanity. Without exception, it is for the tyant's needs."It is the case that a dominant political party or one going to some sort of extreme ends up bringing up personality disordered and sociopathic types."The typical immature name calling of middle schoolers is typical of intellectually immature middleschoolers.Both politics and science function to serve humanity in spite of the middleschoolers who would simply make noise in order to disrupt and gain attention for themselves.We could perhaps finally make progress if only someone truly brilliant could explain the fundamentals of theoretical physics. Like: What is force; what is mass; what is electric charge; what is temperature; what is thermodynamic entropy?Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation. Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity. If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?James

T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:38 GMT





You asked, "Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation."



Actually, there is no way in principle to tell if moving particles are intelligent or not.



"Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity."



One shouldn't confuse science with philosophy.



"If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?"



What is "physicist?"



Tom



report post as inappropriate James,You asked, "Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation."Actually, there is no way in principle to tell if moving particles are intelligent or not."Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity."One shouldn't confuse science with philosophy."If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?"What is "physicist?"Tom

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:40 GMT





Time will tell the truth, but it looks like we traded better climate science for worser space science. We also traded better Health Care for the poor for worser Health Care for the elderly (and it involved one of the ugliest displays of politics that I've seen in a while - my Representative 'Blue Dog Democrat' Alan Boyd advertised that he was opposed to Health Care reform, but voted for it anyway). The economy is still pretty slow (despite the fact that the government now owns more of it). We are still involved in two wars. We still have aggressor nations who hate us. The more things 'CHANGE', the more they stay the same.



Can we get back to Lisi's theory? I would much rather talk about that.



Have Fun!



report post as inappropriate Dear Friends,Time will tell the truth, but it looks like we traded better climate science for worser space science. We also traded better Health Care for the poor for worser Health Care for the elderly (and it involved one of the ugliest displays of politics that I've seen in a while - my Representative 'Blue Dog Democrat' Alan Boyd advertised that he was opposed to Health Care reform, but voted for it anyway). The economy is still pretty slow (despite the fact that the government now owns more of it). We are still involved in two wars. We still have aggressor nations who hate us. The more things 'CHANGE', the more they stay the same.Can we get back to Lisi's theory? I would much rather talk about that.Have Fun!

James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 02:58 GMT





"You asked, "Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation.""



'Actually, there is no way in principle to tell if moving particles are intelligent or not.'



Can change of velocity of a particle of matter be the result or the cause of intelligent activity?



"Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity."



'One shouldn't confuse science with philosophy.'



I am not clear on what your are driving at. Is "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."" science or philosophy?



"If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?"



'What is "physicist?"'



Physicist was Dr. Crowell. Actually, anyone is welcome to answer that question. Another question would be: Is gravity a force? And: Is force an act of intelligence? This matters a great deal. It either is or is not. If it is not, then I think we have no physics theory that can explain this universe that gave birth to intelligent life.



James



report post as inappropriate Dear T H Ray,"You asked, "Getting back to my original message: "Theoretical physics embraces non-intelligence. Particles of matter are dumb. Nothing tells anything else how to bend or move unless there is a real explanation.""'Actually, there is no way in principle to tell if moving particles are intelligent or not.'Can change of velocity of a particle of matter be the result or the cause of intelligent activity?"Einstein's name is not enough to explain why there is gravity."'One shouldn't confuse science with philosophy.'I am not clear on what your are driving at. Is "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."" science or philosophy?"If an object undergoes acceleration then it is being acted upon by a force. ..." What is force physicist?"'What is "physicist?"'Physicist was Dr. Crowell. Actually, anyone is welcome to answer that question. Another question would be: Is gravity a force? And: Is force an act of intelligence? This matters a great deal. It either is or is not. If it is not, then I think we have no physics theory that can explain this universe that gave birth to intelligent life.James

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 11:54 GMT





My simple humble advice is the desire to understand the things around us.



At the age of 14 , I said but How these particles know what they must become.



I think in fact that it exists real works about our foundamentals and that in all sciences, naturals, reals and rationals.



The truth is everywhere, the system is universal.



We want undertand our reality and we have equations for that, proofs.



All centers of interests are interestings when the realism is correlated.



Maths, physics, chemistry,biology, evolution,philosophy, astronomy, astrobiology, universalism,sociology, ecology....in fact all is complementary and linked simply.



A doctorate or others is not the most important, but the real quest of the truths is a beautiful road of learning.



It exists good or bad books, good or bad teachers, good or bad works,....but when a theory or an idea, or an equation is foundamental, it synchronizes itself simply with our laws and universals correlations.



The universality is a good teacher and the desire to understand is so important.



The sciences are everywhere and in interactions ,the good books dear Anonyme , the good books and the foundamentals equations, it is only simple like that...Newton ,Bohr, Feyman,Gallilei,Einstein ,Darwin,....in fact we must continue their works simply and continue the correlations.



When the confusions appear thus forget these things, when you feel the synchro, continue ....



Good luck and regards....choose well your university and your centers of interests ,



Steve



report post as inappropriate Hello dear Anonymous,My simple humble advice is the desire to understand the things around us.At the age of 14 , I said but How these particles know what they must become.I think in fact that it exists real works about our foundamentals and that in all sciences, naturals, reals and rationals.The truth is everywhere, the system is universal.We want undertand our reality and we have equations for that, proofs.All centers of interests are interestings when the realism is correlated.Maths, physics, chemistry,biology, evolution,philosophy, astronomy, astrobiology, universalism,sociology, ecology....in fact all is complementary and linked simply.A doctorate or others is not the most important, but the real quest of the truths is a beautiful road of learning.It exists good or bad books, good or bad teachers, good or bad works,....but when a theory or an idea, or an equation is foundamental, it synchronizes itself simply with our laws and universals correlations.The universality is a good teacher and the desire to understand is so important.The sciences are everywhere and in interactions ,the good books dear Anonyme , the good books and the foundamentals equations, it is only simple like that...Newton ,Bohr, Feyman,Gallilei,Einstein ,Darwin,....in fact we must continue their works simply and continue the correlations.When the confusions appear thus forget these things, when you feel the synchro, continue ....Good luck and regards....choose well your university and your centers of interests ,Steve

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 12:14 GMT





As for politics, if we want to really return something called democracy to the process there is one things everyone can do: turn off the television. The whole process has been turned into a complete media three ring circus of nonsense and disinformation.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate Gravity is not really a force. The motion of bodies due to gravitation is geodesic motion, or due to extremal paths in curved spacetime. The point of supergravity or unification is to indicate how the other gauge forces are ultimately a similar physics.As for politics, if we want to really return something called democracy to the process there is one things everyone can do: turn off the television. The whole process has been turned into a complete media three ring circus of nonsense and disinformation.Cheers LC

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT





The cause of the mass is intrinsic.The center of gravities atre harmonized for an real evolution of increase of mass .The time duration is a constan,t which helps for that.



The gravity is a force function of its intrinsic rotating system of spheres, it is evident , its forces exist relatively speaking with the volume of this sphere and spheres.



It is the gravity which curves and not the space time which implies the gravity, it is totaly different.



The superimposings of all gravitational systems are correlated with these spheres and their rotations. The mass is better understood in this line of reasoning.



Best Regards



Steve



report post as inappropriate If the gravitation is not really a force, thus there ???? I don't understand because the general relativity and the gravitation are not synchronized.The cause of the mass is intrinsic.The center of gravities atre harmonized for an real evolution of increase of mass .The time duration is a constan,t which helps for that.The gravity is a force function of its intrinsic rotating system of spheres, it is evident , its forces exist relatively speaking with the volume of this sphere and spheres.It is the gravity which curves and not the space time which implies the gravity, it is totaly different.The superimposings of all gravitational systems are correlated with these spheres and their rotations. The mass is better understood in this line of reasoning.Best RegardsSteve

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT





In my opinion, the origin of gravity exists in the 5-brane of hyperspace, is translated to spacetime via entanglement (lattice models like Lisi's and mine may lead to conserved geometrical-like quantum numbers) or entropy (Verlinde-like) or fractal properties (El Naschie-like), and is observed via spacetime geometrical effects. The origin of mass is also hidden. If this is the case, then we need to seriously ask ourselves "Can we reconstruct the hyperspace gravitational Lagrangian that leads to observed spacetime gravity?" So much is hidden and mis-understood...



Have Fun!



Ray



report post as inappropriate Dear Friends,In my opinion, the origin of gravity exists in the 5-brane of hyperspace, is translated to spacetime via entanglement (lattice models like Lisi's and mine may lead to conserved geometrical-like quantum numbers) or entropy (Verlinde-like) or fractal properties (El Naschie-like), and is observed via spacetime geometrical effects. The origin of mass is also hidden. If this is the case, then we need to seriously ask ourselves "Can we reconstruct the hyperspace gravitational Lagrangian that leads to observed spacetime gravity?" So much is hidden and mis-understood...Have Fun!Ray

T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:41 GMT





You asked, "Can change of velocity of a particle of matter be the result or the cause of intelligent activity?"



Of course. And usually is. You're assuming that there is some boundary between intelligent behavior and self organized behavior, yet no such boundary can in principle be shown. A swarm of particles -- whether they be pollen grains in Brownian motion, birds in flight, or human beings in a traffic pattern -- exhibit behaviors that differ according to the scale of observation. One makes assumptions about the physics of the behavior, but one can neither assign nor deny properties of intelligence.



You asked, "I am not clear on what your are driving at. Is "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."" science or philosophy?"



Science. Wheeler is explaining how the fundamental physically real element of general relativity -- spacetime -- informs the continuous relationship between mass points in its field. Field theories in general contain the mechanics for communicating point to point. If you understood Lubos Motl's criticism of Garrett Lisi's theory, you see that Motl is asking, basically, "Where's the physics?" I.e., if it's true as Motl says that Lisi's theory contains only bosonic relationships (bosons are massless), then getting field theory dynamics from it is problematic, because without mass points (fermionic particles) there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics.



You asked, "Another question would be: Is gravity a force? And: Is force an act of intelligence? This matters a great deal. It either is or is not. If it is not, then I think we have no physics theory that can explain this universe that gave birth to intelligent life."



Gravity in general relativity is not a force; it is a consequence of the shape of space evolving in time. Whatever you mean by "act of intelligence" does not inform us of what "intelligence" means. Actually, we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a priori.



Tom



report post as inappropriate James,You asked, "Can change of velocity of a particle of matter be the result or the cause of intelligent activity?"Of course. And usually is. You're assuming that there is some boundary between intelligent behavior and self organized behavior, yet no such boundary can in principle be shown. A swarm of particles -- whether they be pollen grains in Brownian motion, birds in flight, or human beings in a traffic pattern -- exhibit behaviors that differ according to the scale of observation. One makes assumptions about the physics of the behavior, but one can neither assign nor deny properties of intelligence.You asked, "I am not clear on what your are driving at. Is "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."" science or philosophy?"Science. Wheeler is explaining how the fundamental physically real element of general relativity -- spacetime -- informs the continuous relationship between mass points in its field. Field theories in general contain the mechanics for communicating point to point. If you understood Lubos Motl's criticism of Garrett Lisi's theory, you see that Motl is asking, basically, "Where's the physics?" I.e., if it's true as Motl says that Lisi's theory contains only bosonic relationships (bosons are massless), then getting field theory dynamics from it is problematic, because without mass points (fermionic particles) there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics.You asked, "Another question would be: Is gravity a force? And: Is force an act of intelligence? This matters a great deal. It either is or is not. If it is not, then I think we have no physics theory that can explain this universe that gave birth to intelligent life."Gravity in general relativity is not a force; it is a consequence of the shape of space evolving in time. Whatever you mean by "act of intelligence" does not inform us of what "intelligence" means. Actually, we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a priori.Tom

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 13:44 GMT





Furthermore in your models ,El Nashchie, Lisi, You, and others, you apply the infinity in a finite serie, that has no sense all that.



In a thermodynamical point of vue, that seems irrealists all that.



The origin of mass is not hidden, only the different steps before the wall are hiddens.It is totally different too.



If the gravity and the relativity are utilized like that, it is not possible.



The hidden things are proportionals, far of us but proportionals and coherent with the foundamental laws.



The gravity is a force wich increases due to the polarization.But its perception is relative with the volume of the studied sphere,( and its velocity of rotations, spinals and orbitals.)



The mass of all spheres can be calculated because we can know its rotation,...thus we know its volume simply and all the others proportions....



Regards



Steve



report post as inappropriate I can understand but the cause is intrinsic , it is these rotations of these spheres which imply mass.Furthermore in your models ,El Nashchie, Lisi, You, and others, you apply the infinity in a finite serie, that has no sense all that.In a thermodynamical point of vue, that seems irrealists all that.The origin of mass is not hidden, only the different steps before the wall are hiddens.It is totally different too.If the gravity and the relativity are utilized like that, it is not possible.The hidden things are proportionals, far of us but proportionals and coherent with the foundamental laws.The gravity is a force wich increases due to the polarization.But its perception is relative with the volume of the studied sphere,( and its velocity of rotations, spinals and orbitals.)The mass of all spheres can be calculated because we can know its rotation,...thus we know its volume simply and all the others proportions....RegardsSteve

Bubba Gump replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 14:55 GMT





As another poster stated, if money is your primary concern, engineering would likely be the more prudent choice. With physics, it is true that you need a PhD to really get anywhere and a Bachelors degree will noto amount to much in the market. An industry that would hire a R&D physicist would likely want someone with extensive knowledge and experience in a paticular sub-discipline of condensed matter physics. The R&D industry is not really interested in hiring particle physicists. They want someone who will help them develop new products.



You can gain very good employment with just an undergraduate degree in a discipline of Engineering. Chemical engineers are in especially big demand.



So, I would eveluate how far you plan on taking your education and do you think you will stick with it all the way to a PhD? If you just want a four-year degree and then plan on heading out to start making a living, I would not reccomend physics as a major as you won't have enough specialized knowledge of any specific area--you gain this specialized knowledge in graduate school. With engineering, you are specializing in one area as an undergraduate.



report post as inappropriate I think the student who asked the question is now very confused.As another poster stated, if money is your primary concern, engineering would likely be the more prudent choice. With physics, it is true that you need a PhD to really get anywhere and a Bachelors degree will noto amount to much in the market. An industry that would hire a R&D physicist would likely want someone with extensive knowledge and experience in a paticular sub-discipline of condensed matter physics. The R&D industry is not really interested in hiring particle physicists. They want someone who will help them develop new products.You can gain very good employment with just an undergraduate degree in a discipline of Engineering. Chemical engineers are in especially big demand.So, I would eveluate how far you plan on taking your education and do you think you will stick with it all the way to a PhD? If you just want a four-year degree and then plan on heading out to start making a living, I would not reccomend physics as a major as you won't have enough specialized knowledge of any specific area--you gain this specialized knowledge in graduate school. With engineering, you are specializing in one area as an undergraduate.

James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 20:00 GMT





I know you could not tell from my message what my position really is. I do not assume there is some boundary between intelligent behavior and the rest of the universe. You used the phrase self organized behavior. What do you say is the physical means by which self organization occurs. Is the means described by theoretical physics?



"Science. Wheeler is explaining how the fundamental physically real element of general relativity -- spacetime -- informs the continuous relationship between mass points in its field. Field theories in general contain the mechanics for communicating point to point."



This seems to be a repitition of your previous answer. What is the mechanics for communication point to point. I am not aware that anyone has isolated either space or time for our inspection. Can you point to a explainable cause and not to effects?



"If you understood Lubos Motl's criticism of Garrett Lisi's theory, you see that Motl is asking, basically, "Where's the physics?" I.e., if it's true as Motl says that Lisi's theory contains only bosonic relationships (bosons are massless), then getting field theory dynamics from it is problematic, because without mass points (fermionic particles) there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics."



Even with mass points there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics. That is unless you can explain what cause is?



"Gravity in general relativity is not a force; it is a consequence of the shape of space evolving in time. Whatever you mean by "act of intelligence" does not inform us of what "intelligence" means. Actually, we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a priori."



We have no means whatsoever to conduct experiments on either space or time. All data has to do with objects. So the force gravity remains an unexplainable force. It causes matter to accelerate. It is a force. Is there another way of showing that gravity is not a force?



Reliance upon principles of self organization is taking something that is observed and saying that it contains all of the potential properties necessary to cause all of the observed effects. That potential must include the means for intelligence. Intelligence cannot emerge from dumbness. It emerges from fundamental properties that must already contain in potential form every observed intelligent effect. You say there is: "No need to assume intelligence a priori." Of course there is. Intelligence cannot arise from dumbness. Higher intelligence cannot arise from lower intelligence. All effects must be provided for in the properties that existed since the beginning of the universe. Obviously those properties cannot be only dumb properties.



James



report post as inappropriate Tom,I know you could not tell from my message what my position really is. I do not assume there is some boundary between intelligent behavior and the rest of the universe. You used the phrase self organized behavior. What do you say is the physical means by which self organization occurs. Is the means described by theoretical physics?"Science. Wheeler is explaining how the fundamental physically real element of general relativity -- spacetime -- informs the continuous relationship between mass points in its field. Field theories in general contain the mechanics for communicating point to point."This seems to be a repitition of your previous answer. What is the mechanics for communication point to point. I am not aware that anyone has isolated either space or time for our inspection. Can you point to a explainable cause and not to effects?"If you understood Lubos Motl's criticism of Garrett Lisi's theory, you see that Motl is asking, basically, "Where's the physics?" I.e., if it's true as Motl says that Lisi's theory contains only bosonic relationships (bosons are massless), then getting field theory dynamics from it is problematic, because without mass points (fermionic particles) there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics."Even with mass points there is no dynamic communication, no mechanics. That is unless you can explain what cause is?"Gravity in general relativity is not a force; it is a consequence of the shape of space evolving in time. Whatever you mean by "act of intelligence" does not inform us of what "intelligence" means. Actually, we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a priori."We have no means whatsoever to conduct experiments on either space or time. All data has to do with objects. So the force gravity remains an unexplainable force. It causes matter to accelerate. It is a force. Is there another way of showing that gravity is not a force?Reliance upon principles of self organization is taking something that is observed and saying that it contains all of the potential properties necessary to cause all of the observed effects. That potential must include the means for intelligence. Intelligence cannot emerge from dumbness. It emerges from fundamental properties that must already contain in potential form every observed intelligent effect. You say there is: "No need to assume intelligence a priori." Of course there is. Intelligence cannot arise from dumbness. Higher intelligence cannot arise from lower intelligence. All effects must be provided for in the properties that existed since the beginning of the universe. Obviously those properties cannot be only dumb properties.James

T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 21:29 GMT





I had started to make a long reply addressing your questions one by one, assuming that you were serious in your inquiry. I somehow hit the wrong button, however, and lost all the information I had typed in the window.



No matter, though, when I returned and read your final paragraph, which I had not gotten to, I realized that any reply would be pointless. All that you wrote, I'm afraid, comes under the heading of "not even wrong" (Pauli). In fact, we know to a reasonable certainty that the idea of a designer universe is superfluous--and yes, self-organization is a huge research area in theoretical physics. You might want to look it up.



Tom



report post as inappropriate James,I had started to make a long reply addressing your questions one by one, assuming that you were serious in your inquiry. I somehow hit the wrong button, however, and lost all the information I had typed in the window.No matter, though, when I returned and read your final paragraph, which I had not gotten to, I realized that any reply would be pointless. All that you wrote, I'm afraid, comes under the heading of "not even wrong" (Pauli). In fact, we know to a reasonable certainty that the idea of a designer universe is superfluous--and yes, self-organization is a huge research area in theoretical physics. You might want to look it up.Tom

James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 22:12 GMT





My messages are serious. Why theoretical physicsts think that they can define a universe using dumb, inanimate, purposeless properties and end up with intelligence as a given is definitely unclear to me. I am sorry that you feel that understanding the origin and cause of intelligence is "not even wrong".



Intelligence is not theory, it is fact. Your theories are not facts. They are invented ideas about the nature of cause. We receive all information in the form a a mixed storm of photons coming to us at the speed of light from innumerable sources. We must already know how to discern patterns and how to decide the best choices among patterns and how to apply meaning to those patterns and how to then draw ourselves a mental picture of what we think is occurring. That interpretation of photonic date is an entirely local phenomenon. All meaning that we attach to it, including the idea of distance, is not experienced by us directly. We add the idea of distance and continuity.



I think your position is untenable, not even wrong.



James



report post as inappropriate Tom,My messages are serious. Why theoretical physicsts think that they can define a universe using dumb, inanimate, purposeless properties and end up with intelligence as a given is definitely unclear to me. I am sorry that you feel that understanding the origin and cause of intelligence is "not even wrong".Intelligence is not theory, it is fact. Your theories are not facts. They are invented ideas about the nature of cause. We receive all information in the form a a mixed storm of photons coming to us at the speed of light from innumerable sources. We must already know how to discern patterns and how to decide the best choices among patterns and how to apply meaning to those patterns and how to then draw ourselves a mental picture of what we think is occurring. That interpretation of photonic date is an entirely local phenomenon. All meaning that we attach to it, including the idea of distance, is not experienced by us directly. We add the idea of distance and continuity.I think your position is untenable, not even wrong.James

T H Ray replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 23:16 GMT





Solipsism is not science, and hardly a worthy topic in a science forum.



Tom



report post as inappropriate James,Solipsism is not science, and hardly a worthy topic in a science forum.Tom

James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 23:32 GMT





This is silliness. You have no curved spacetime data. You have only data about the motion of objects. Is there any other way besides relying upon theoretical constructs that can show us that gravity is not really a force? What real empirical difference separates gravity out from other forces?



"As for politics, if we want to really return something called democracy to the process there is one things everyone can do: turn off the television. The whole process has been turned into a complete media three ring circus of nonsense and disinformation."



I understand that you are impatient with having to let others express and even worse implement their ideas. You are helpful here in showing why democracy is the best solution. It may not please any of us all or even most of the time, but, it is better by far than having always to do things your way or the way of someone else who feels as you do but has the determination to force the rest of us to dance on the end of their strings.



James



report post as inappropriate "Gravity is not really a force. The motion of bodies due to gravitation is geodesic motion, or due to extremal paths in curved spacetime. The point of supergravity or unification is to indicate how the other gauge forces are ultimately a similar physics."This is silliness. You have no curved spacetime data. You have only data about the motion of objects. Is there any other way besides relying upon theoretical constructs that can show us that gravity is not really a force? What real empirical difference separates gravity out from other forces?"As for politics, if we want to really return something called democracy to the process there is one things everyone can do: turn off the television. The whole process has been turned into a complete media three ring circus of nonsense and disinformation."I understand that you are impatient with having to let others express and even worse implement their ideas. You are helpful here in showing why democracy is the best solution. It may not please any of us all or even most of the time, but, it is better by far than having always to do things your way or the way of someone else who feels as you do but has the determination to force the rest of us to dance on the end of their strings.James

James Putnam replied on Apr. 3, 2010 @ 23:41 GMT





I don't hit the floor that easily.



"Solipsism is not science, and hardly a worthy topic in a science forum."



How about forgetting the tactic of dismissal? You may be a superior intellect, but, that is not apparent yet. How about answering questions with answers? getting back to: "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."



Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is. What is electric charge? Is it one of your possible answers, then you have no answer. If you become interested I will explain why. If you already know the answers then how about please giving some answers that do not involve guesses and conjecture?



James



report post as inappropriate Tom,I don't hit the floor that easily."Solipsism is not science, and hardly a worthy topic in a science forum."How about forgetting the tactic of dismissal? You may be a superior intellect, but, that is not apparent yet. How about answering questions with answers? getting back to: "Take a tip from John Wheeler: "Mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move."Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is. What is electric charge? Is it one of your possible answers, then you have no answer. If you become interested I will explain why. If you already know the answers then how about please giving some answers that do not involve guesses and conjecture?James

James Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2010 @ 01:15 GMT





"Can we get back to Lisi's theory? I would much rather talk about that."



I do not agree with Dr. Crowell's politics. I think he should stick to his specialty of inventing other dimensions.



I looked in and saw what Tom had to say and felt it needed to be challenged. After-all, real answers should not be so cryptic and unscientific. A real empirical answer would have sufficed. If Dr. Crowell chooses to take the opportunity to go off topic just because I re-appear to ask a scientific question, then, I respond so that he gets pushed backward. I do not understand why his political nonsense survives. However, there are many others like him who wish to perfect the world so that it no longer offends their immature senses.



I say their senses stink. I say they are not the saviors they make themselves out to be. I think that they think in very simplistic ways that are prone to causing social damage more than improvement. If this thread could stay on topic, I think that would be an improvement. I challenged Tom and I am far more interested in his answers than I am in Dr. Crowell's vitriolic views. I think it should be possible to engage in scientific debate without him interjecting half baked political ideology.



I would very much like to see you and others get back to Lisi's theory.



James



report post as inappropriate Dear Cosmic Ray,"Can we get back to Lisi's theory? I would much rather talk about that."I do not agree with Dr. Crowell's politics. I think he should stick to his specialty of inventing other dimensions.I looked in and saw what Tom had to say and felt it needed to be challenged. After-all, real answers should not be so cryptic and unscientific. A real empirical answer would have sufficed. If Dr. Crowell chooses to take the opportunity to go off topic just because I re-appear to ask a scientific question, then, I respond so that he gets pushed backward. I do not understand why his political nonsense survives. However, there are many others like him who wish to perfect the world so that it no longer offends their immature senses.I say their senses stink. I say they are not the saviors they make themselves out to be. I think that they think in very simplistic ways that are prone to causing social damage more than improvement. If this thread could stay on topic, I think that would be an improvement. I challenged Tom and I am far more interested in his answers than I am in Dr. Crowell's vitriolic views. I think it should be possible to engage in scientific debate without him interjecting half baked political ideology.I would very much like to see you and others get back to Lisi's theory.James

anonyrat replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 09:54 GMT





More than half the people here are not competent physicists. They are random members of the public who want to understand or who think they understand or who have their own ideas or philosophy that they want to push. Just because they talk about space and energy and physics does not mean they understand the subject. Some of them are probably more confused than you are.



You may have noticed on the Internet that when anyone may contribute to a discussion, that includes people who don't know what they are talking about, and even people who don't know that they don't know what they are talking about. The situation is especially bad on physics forums, because there are just so many people who think they have it figured out, or who refuse to believe the modern discoveries, and so on.



I recognize the name Lawrence Crowell above. As I recall he is involved in speculative theoretical research which I personally think is in the wrong direction, but I can guarantee that he does truly understand orthodox quantum mechanics and general relativity. So he is probably a safe person to listen to, if you have basic questions about theoretical physics.



As for the career advice, I have no answer. People don't do degrees in advanced physics for job security. But competence in physics does indicate mathematical, logical, and problem-solving ability. During the height of the recent financial bubble, mathematical physics graduates found it relatively easy to get a job in mathematical finance. I personally know many physicists who went into biology. So a physics degree can indirectly be an asset.



anonyrat



report post as inappropriate Dear anonymous high school student,More than half the people here are not competent physicists. They are random members of the public who want to understand or who think they understand or who have their own ideas or philosophy that they want to push. Just because they talk about space and energy and physics does not mean they understand the subject. Some of them are probably more confused than you are.You may have noticed on the Internet that when anyone may contribute to a discussion, that includes people who don't know what they are talking about, and even people who don't know that they don't know what they are talking about. The situation is especially bad on physics forums, because there are just so many people who think they have it figured out, or who refuse to believe the modern discoveries, and so on.I recognize the name Lawrence Crowell above. As I recall he is involved in speculative theoretical research which I personally think is in the wrong direction, but I can guarantee that he does truly understand orthodox quantum mechanics and general relativity. So he is probably a safe person to listen to, if you have basic questions about theoretical physics.As for the career advice, I have no answer. People don't do degrees in advanced physics for job security. But competence in physics does indicate mathematical, logical, and problem-solving ability. During the height of the recent financial bubble, mathematical physics graduates found it relatively easy to get a job in mathematical finance. I personally know many physicists who went into biology. So a physics degree can indirectly be an asset.anonyrat

T H Ray replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 10:44 GMT





I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the sciences long ago.



You ask, "Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is."



Of course not. Nor is it either necessary or relevant to science to know what cause "is." There's no "isness", no innate something that changes nature from dead to animate. What we do know, is that in the positive feedback effects of a self organized universe, cause is overwhelmed by decohering effects -- Murray Gell-Mann is the major light in explaining quantum decoherence. I agree heartily with Gell-Mann that "something else" is never required to explain a phenomenon; no mysticsm need enter.



You are exercised over Wheeler's wonderful metaphor for general relativity: "mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move." No, of course, one doesn't interpret it literally, as a human-like conversation. It is quite accurate, however, in that local effects of mass interacting with spacetime involve communication -- exchange -- of properties among points in the field. Mass effects change in the massless points of space, as the spacetime field changes relative location of mass points by directing their motion.



You may reserve your right to be incredulous. Your personal belief is your own business. We know these effects to be valid, however, by experiment. Even if turns out (a long shot, but possible) that relativity theory has to be adjusted, no facts would change -- just as the facts of Newtonian physics did not change with Einstein's adjustment.



I apologize to the forum for going off topic.



Tom



report post as inappropriate James,I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the sciences long ago.You ask, "Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is."Of course not. Nor is it either necessary or relevant to science to know what cause "is." There's no "isness", no innate something that changes nature from dead to animate. What we do know, is that in the positive feedback effects of a self organized universe, cause is overwhelmed by decohering effects -- Murray Gell-Mann is the major light in explaining quantum decoherence. I agree heartily with Gell-Mann that "something else" is never required to explain a phenomenon; no mysticsm need enter.You are exercised over Wheeler's wonderful metaphor for general relativity: "mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move." No, of course, one doesn't interpret it literally, as a human-like conversation. It is quite accurate, however, in that local effects of mass interacting with spacetime involve communication -- exchange -- of properties among points in the field. Mass effects change in the massless points of space, as the spacetime field changes relative location of mass points by directing their motion.You may reserve your right to be incredulous. Your personal belief is your own business. We know these effects to be valid, however, by experiment. Even if turns out (a long shot, but possible) that relativity theory has to be adjusted, no facts would change -- just as the facts of Newtonian physics did not change with Einstein's adjustment.I apologize to the forum for going off topic.Tom

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 11:28 GMT





Dear James, they do not want understand simply, it's a job for them , they win monney with these stupidities and absurdities,they shall continue thus unfortunaly.



Even in the LHC and in all labs, these monney implies chaos and decrease of velocity of evolution.



In fact they speak abot democracy or others but they dislike the truths, the real democracy and the real universality.



They confound all in sciences, they use maths tools to manipulate the public simply, they use the badest method for their credibility.



Their vanity is their sister.Their words are without universalism, without the real foundamentals.



It is logic in fat to see these planets in this state.



It exists only a few people who are real searchers, real experimentalists, real scientists.



I invite them to study the horticulture ahahah they shall be more happy .



SAD and the word is weak....



Best Regards dear James and congratulations for your works, the origin of the intelligence is foundamental and purely linked with the mass.I liked a lot to read it on the net you know.



I saw an interesting idea about the velocity of rotation, indeed the mass is linked, the spheres when they decrease their spinal velocity, increase their mass, thus their we can insert the informations, the fusion light gravity, and the increase of mass, the volume do not change, only the density and the mass, thus the quantic number too do not change.After the evolution is important to encircle the polarisations aged from 13.7 billions years, thus the volumes of the spheres are essentials.



Regards



Steve



report post as inappropriate What a beautiful discussion ....Dear James, they do not want understand simply, it's a job for them , they win monney with these stupidities and absurdities,they shall continue thus unfortunaly.Even in the LHC and in all labs, these monney implies chaos and decrease of velocity of evolution.In fact they speak abot democracy or others but they dislike the truths, the real democracy and the real universality.They confound all in sciences, they use maths tools to manipulate the public simply, they use the badest method for their credibility.Their vanity is their sister.Their words are without universalism, without the real foundamentals.It is logic in fat to see these planets in this state.It exists only a few people who are real searchers, real experimentalists, real scientists.I invite them to study the horticulture ahahah they shall be more happy .SAD and the word is weak....Best Regards dear James and congratulations for your works, the origin of the intelligence is foundamental and purely linked with the mass.I liked a lot to read it on the net you know.I saw an interesting idea about the velocity of rotation, indeed the mass is linked, the spheres when they decrease their spinal velocity, increase their mass, thus their we can insert the informations, the fusion light gravity, and the increase of mass, the volume do not change, only the density and the mass, thus the quantic number too do not change.After the evolution is important to encircle the polarisations aged from 13.7 billions years, thus the volumes of the spheres are essentials.RegardsSteve

James Putnam replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 22:53 GMT





"I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. ..."



Of course you are stumped. You do not know what cause is? Therefore, your theories about causes are guesses.



"I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the...



view entire post Tom,"I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. ..."Of course you are stumped. You do not know what cause is? Therefore, your theories about causes are guesses."I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the...



"I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. ..."



Of course you are stumped. You do not know what cause is? Therefore, your theories about causes are guesses.



"I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the sciences long ago. ..."



Please not the dismissal tactic again. Answers are what win debates.



"..."You ask, "Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is."...



Of course not. Nor is it either necessary or relevant to science to know what cause "is."..."



Wow! I am impressed by this admission, but you do not seem to be aware that your theoretical beliefs survive or fall by what you deem cause to be. If theoretical physicsts, in general, admitted this we would advance scientific learning about the meaning of empirical evidence without being forced to swear allegiance to the guesses about the nature of cause offered by theoretical physicists



"There's no "isness", no innate something that changes nature from dead to animate. "



Ok. Another unsupportable grand pronouncement. Very unscientific.



"What we do know, is that in the positive feedback effects of a self organized universe, cause is overwhelmed by decohering effects -- Murray Gell-Mann is the major light in explaining quantum decoherence. I agree heartily with Gell-Mann that "something else" is never required to explain a phenomenon; no mysticsm need enter."



You are welcome to agree with whomever you please, but my question challenged you to explain how the evolution of intelligence occurs by means of the properties presented to us by theoretical physics?



"You are exercised..."



I am asking you to be scientific in your answers to the point that you can explain things? I think you are excercised in trying to pretend that you are explaining why anything happens. Can you please answer a question directly? What empirical evidence do you have to offer that space and time bend? What experiements were performed upon either space or time?



"...over Wheeler's wonderful metaphor for general relativity: "mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move." No, of course, one doesn't interpret it literally, as a human-like conversation. It is quite accurate, however, in that local effects of mass interacting with spacetime involve communication -- exchange -- of properties among points in the field. Mass effects change in the massless points of space, as the spacetime field changes relative location of mass points by directing their motion. ..."



"This claim is just plain unexplainable and even more importantly has no empirical basis. Matter tells matter what to do! That is all you know. You have nothing to show for what happens inbetween. If you do then please show it?!



"You may reserve your right to be incredulous. Your personal belief is your own business. ..."



As is yours.



"...We know these effects to be valid, however, by experiment. ..."



Holy cow. You have finally gotten to the point. The point is that we only know about effects. We do not know what cause is. You may list the effects, I have no problem with that. Empirical evidence is a welcome sight when conversing with theoretical physicists.



"...Even if turns out (a long shot, but possible) that relativity theory has to be adjusted, no facts would change -- just as the facts of Newtonian physics did not change with Einstein's adjustment."



Of course facts do not change. Theory changes. The reason theory changes, and is vulnerable to drastic changes, is that it purports to explain what cause is. You nor anyone else knows what cause is. For a single example: The early stages of theory included defining a property we call mass. Even today no one knows what mass is. When we learn what mass is, everything could change.



James



view post as summary Tom,"I am not refraining from reply to you because you have me, or anyone, stumped. ..."Of course you are stumped. You do not know what cause is? Therefore, your theories about causes are guesses."I refrain because your questions simply do not pertain to science. Insofar as your view has any science in it at all, it is that of Aristotle, which was abandoned by the sciences long ago. ..."Please not the dismissal tactic again. Answers are what win debates."..."You ask, "Is there anyway you can actually explain the physics interpretation of 'tells' without resorting to your imaginary causes? I have to ask this question because, it is clear that we do not know what cause is. No one knows what cause is."...Of course not. Nor is it either necessary or relevant to science to know what cause "is."..."Wow! I am impressed by this admission, but you do not seem to be aware that your theoretical beliefs survive or fall by what you deem cause to be. If theoretical physicsts, in general, admitted this we would advance scientific learning about the meaning of empirical evidence without being forced to swear allegiance to the guesses about the nature of cause offered by theoretical physicists"There's no "isness", no innate something that changes nature from dead to animate. "Ok. Another unsupportable grand pronouncement. Very unscientific."What we do know, is that in the positive feedback effects of a self organized universe, cause is overwhelmed by decohering effects -- Murray Gell-Mann is the major light in explaining quantum decoherence. I agree heartily with Gell-Mann that "something else" is never required to explain a phenomenon; no mysticsm need enter."You are welcome to agree with whomever you please, but my question challenged you to explain how the evolution of intelligence occurs by means of the properties presented to us by theoretical physics?"You are exercised..."I am asking you to be scientific in your answers to the point that you can explain things? I think you are excercised in trying to pretend that you are explaining why anything happens. Can you please answer a question directly? What empirical evidence do you have to offer that space and time bend? What experiements were performed upon either space or time?"...over Wheeler's wonderful metaphor for general relativity: "mass tells space how to bend; space tells mass how to move." No, of course, one doesn't interpret it literally, as a human-like conversation. It is quite accurate, however, in that local effects of mass interacting with spacetime involve communication -- exchange -- of properties among points in the field. Mass effects change in the massless points of space, as the spacetime field changes relative location of mass points by directing their motion. ...""This claim is just plain unexplainable and even more importantly has no empirical basis. Matter tells matter what to do! That is all you know. You have nothing to show for what happens inbetween. If you do then please show it?!"You may reserve your right to be incredulous. Your personal belief is your own business. ..."As is yours."...We know these effects to be valid, however, by experiment. ..."Holy cow. You have finally gotten to the point. The point is that we only know about effects. We do not know what cause is. You may list the effects, I have no problem with that. Empirical evidence is a welcome sight when conversing with theoretical physicists."...Even if turns out (a long shot, but possible) that relativity theory has to be adjusted, no facts would change -- just as the facts of Newtonian physics did not change with Einstein's adjustment."Of course facts do not change. Theory changes. The reason theory changes, and is vulnerable to drastic changes, is that it purports to explain what cause is. You nor anyone else knows what cause is. For a single example: The early stages of theory included defining a property we call mass. Even today no one knows what mass is. When we learn what mass is, everything could change.James



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 23:19 GMT





The problem is that you are asking a scientifically imappropriate question. You seem to be wanting something similar to Schopenhauer's "Will and Representation" idea of the world.



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate James,The problem is that you are asking a scientifically imappropriate question. You seem to be wanting something similar to Schopenhauer's "Will and Representation" idea of the world.Cheers LC

James Putnam replied on Apr. 5, 2010 @ 23:32 GMT





I noticed that Tom made an effort to call in the troops be referring to 'anyone else'. You did not respond to my question: Do you have anything else to offer, besides the unempirically provable space-time, to show that gravity is not a real force? By the way, what I really seem to be asking is for real answers about the nature of cause.



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Crowell,I noticed that Tom made an effort to call in the troops be referring to 'anyone else'. You did not respond to my question: Do you have anything else to offer, besides the unempirically provable space-time, to show that gravity is not a real force? By the way, what I really seem to be asking is for real answers about the nature of cause.James

James Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 02:54 GMT





[This was originally addressed to Tom, but can be answered by anyone]



I wrote that:



"Intelligence is not theory, it is fact. Your theories are not facts. They are invented ideas about the nature of cause. We receive all information in the form a a mixed storm of photons coming to us at the speed of light from innumerable sources. We must already know how to discern patterns and how to decide the best choices among patterns and how to apply meaning to those patterns and how to then draw ourselves a mental picture of what we think is occurring. That interpretation of photonic date is an entirely local phenomenon. All meaning that we attach to it, including the idea of distance, is not experienced by us directly. We add the idea of distance and continuity."



I welcome a response from any theoretical physicist that does not rely upon mystical answers of empirically unobservable properties introduced by theoretical physicists into otherwise empirically based equations. Please, leave mystical, i.e. invented and unverifiable, theories out of this. I will ask for explanations.



What does it mean to anyone interested in real answers to say that the universe caused intelligence to evolve? Theoretical physics offers only dumbness in the form of mechanical type forces. What is the empirical evidence that shows that dumbness can produce, and in the case of theoretical physics can predict, intelligence. E8 or E88 or E888 or XXXX or YYYY or ZZZZ or any physics theory.



James



report post as inappropriate To anyone whom it may concern,[This was originally addressed to Tom, but can be answered by anyone]I wrote that:"Intelligence is not theory, it is fact. Your theories are not facts. They are invented ideas about the nature of cause. We receive all information in the form a a mixed storm of photons coming to us at the speed of light from innumerable sources. We must already know how to discern patterns and how to decide the best choices among patterns and how to apply meaning to those patterns and how to then draw ourselves a mental picture of what we think is occurring. That interpretation of photonic date is an entirely local phenomenon. All meaning that we attach to it, including the idea of distance, is not experienced by us directly. We add the idea of distance and continuity."I welcome a response from any theoretical physicist that does not rely upon mystical answers of empirically unobservable properties introduced by theoretical physicists into otherwise empirically based equations. Please, leave mystical, i.e. invented and unverifiable, theories out of this. I will ask for explanations.What does it mean to anyone interested in real answers to say that the universe caused intelligence to evolve? Theoretical physics offers only dumbness in the form of mechanical type forces. What is the empirical evidence that shows that dumbness can produce, and in the case of theoretical physics can predict, intelligence. E8 or E88 or E888 or XXXX or YYYY or ZZZZ or any physics theory.James

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 6, 2010 @ 23:13 GMT





All I can really do is to implore you to read some real literature on general relativity. You could also watch the



Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate James,All I can really do is to implore you to read some real literature on general relativity. You could also watch the Susskind Lectures on Relativity. There are 12 of these and they take about 1.75 hours each. The first starts out pretty elementary, but if you watch these you will read some basic foundations towards the end. I really do not have time to write a whole essay on the nature of gravitation here.Cheers LC

James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:03 GMT





"...I really do not have time to write a whole essay on the nature of gravitation here."



Thank you for your cordial message and suggested resource. I wasn't looking for a lecture on relativity theory, rather a short emirical type answer. As you already know, I think relativity theory is clearly wrong. I also think theoretical physics is fundamentally flawed beginning back with f=ma. The area I am not yet prepared to speak about is quantum mechanics. That is the area I am currently looking at and working on.



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Crowell,"...I really do not have time to write a whole essay on the nature of gravitation here."Thank you for your cordial message and suggested resource. I wasn't looking for a lecture on relativity theory, rather a short emirical type answer. As you already know, I think relativity theory is clearly wrong. I also think theoretical physics is fundamentally flawed beginning back with f=ma. The area I am not yet prepared to speak about is quantum mechanics. That is the area I am currently looking at and working on.James

T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:38 GMT





Tom



report post as inappropriate Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. And you're taking issue with _Newtonian_ physics, too? Wow. Please, find a philosophy or religion blog site.Tom

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 14:59 GMT





The admin is the arbiter of what is appropriate for this site. I don't endorse any views expressed, but I do declare James' comments to be entirely relevant and welcome. Keep the discussion rolling!

T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 15:06 GMT





Tom



report post as inappropriate Okay, Brendan. I'll play. However, for as many times as the subject arises, I will also point out that it is not science. And why.Tom

T H Ray replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 15:29 GMT





Now that I have been given permission to cut loose without fear of being criticized for being off-topic, please give your definition for "cause," and then I will give you mine (the scientific one).



Tom



report post as inappropriate James,Now that I have been given permission to cut loose without fear of being criticized for being off-topic, please give your definition for "cause," and then I will give you mine (the scientific one).Tom

James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:01 GMT





"Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. ..."



No theory is empirical. Theory is the accumulation of guesses that the theorists choose, because of their own philosphical biases, to replace that which they do not know about why the universe functions as it does....



view entire post To Tom and anyone else interested,"Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. ..."No theory is empirical. Theory is the accumulation of guesses that the theorists choose, because of their own philosphical biases, to replace that which they do not know about why the universe functions as it does....



"Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. ..."



No theory is empirical. Theory is the accumulation of guesses that the theorists choose, because of their own philosphical biases, to replace that which they do not know about why the universe functions as it does. Empirical science belongs to the real world, and, it studies patterns in effects. It is only effects that the universe makes known to us.



"...And you're taking issue with _Newtonian_ physics, too? Wow. ..."



The theoretical guess pushed onto f=ma was the decision to declare mass to be an indefinable property deserving its own indefinable units of measurement. No one could have known that that was true. It contradicts unity in the universe. Even worse, it made disunity a permanent part of our analysis of the operation of the universe. That is where theoretical physics first began to stray away from empirical science. That single act caused force to be improperly defined resulting in both energy and momentum being improperly defined and adversely affected all higher level theory that has made use of any of these properties.



Theoretical physics is a facade that prevents us from seeing the universe as it really is. I began removing that facade starting with f=ma. Behind the facade, I have found that the erroneous guesses of theoretical physics have been compounded and are distorting mass, electric charge, space, time, temperature, thermodynamic entropy, the origins of the fundamental constants of nature, the fine structure constant, permittivity, permeability, and have made disunity so firmly a part of our analyses that numerous unobservable properties must now be invented out of nothing in order to try to patch theory back together again. They are the new strain of guesses. That which we carelessly tore apart must now be joined back together with super, or hyper, but in any case, magic glue.



The guesses are easy to identify. Everytime a theorist declares a property to be a cause, it is a guess. Theory is the practice of inventing causes. No one knows what cause is. Furthermore, our equations cannot display cause on either side. If cause is found on either side, then that is a clear theoretical error. It may be a real, even though improperly defined, property, but it is not a 'cause'. There is a symbol that we use in our equations to represent all causes. That symbol is the equals sign.



All of your theoretical 'causes' could be squeezed behind the equals sign and empirical knowledge would not suffer. The equations would be better for it. They would be returned to their original, natural state. They would once again be empirical equations. Then, they could tell us the truth about that which we can know scientifically and that which we cannot. However, so long as they remain represented as physics equations, they can only serve to help us solve mechanical type problems.



I have previously objected to the use of the word 'tells'. It is certainly true that each object in the universe knows what to do. Cause is knowing what to do and reacting accordingly to an effect. An original cause is 'knowing everything to be done'. It is fair enough, in a general sense, to say that one object tells another what to do. My objection was directed at the use of the word 'tells' within the context of theoretical physics. Knowing, or intelligence, is the most important property of the universe, but it is not a property of theoretical physics. The philosophy upon which theoretical physics has been constructed cannot call upon any semblance of intelligent act in order to explain anything. The underpinning of the philosophy of theoretical physics is that the universe is mechanical, inanimate, purposeless and dumb. It can never know 'Why?'.



James



view post as summary To Tom and anyone else interested,"Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. ..."No theory is empirical. Theory is the accumulation of guesses that the theorists choose, because of their own philosphical biases, to replace that which they do not know about why the universe functions as it does. Empirical science belongs to the real world, and, it studies patterns in effects. It is only effects that the universe makes known to us."...And you're taking issue with _Newtonian_ physics, too? Wow. ..."The theoretical guess pushed onto f=ma was the decision to declare mass to be an indefinable property deserving its own indefinable units of measurement. No one could have known that that was true. It contradicts unity in the universe. Even worse, it made disunity a permanent part of our analysis of the operation of the universe. That is where theoretical physics first began to stray away from empirical science. That single act caused force to be improperly defined resulting in both energy and momentum being improperly defined and adversely affected all higher level theory that has made use of any of these properties.Theoretical physics is a facade that prevents us from seeing the universe as it really is. I began removing that facade starting with f=ma. Behind the facade, I have found that the erroneous guesses of theoretical physics have been compounded and are distorting mass, electric charge, space, time, temperature, thermodynamic entropy, the origins of the fundamental constants of nature, the fine structure constant, permittivity, permeability, and have made disunity so firmly a part of our analyses that numerous unobservable properties must now be invented out of nothing in order to try to patch theory back together again. They are the new strain of guesses. That which we carelessly tore apart must now be joined back together with super, or hyper, but in any case, magic glue.The guesses are easy to identify. Everytime a theorist declares a property to be a cause, it is a guess. Theory is the practice of inventing causes. No one knows what cause is. Furthermore, our equations cannot display cause on either side. If cause is found on either side, then that is a clear theoretical error. It may be a real, even though improperly defined, property, but it is not a 'cause'. There is a symbol that we use in our equations to represent all causes. That symbol is the equals sign.All of your theoretical 'causes' could be squeezed behind the equals sign and empirical knowledge would not suffer. The equations would be better for it. They would be returned to their original, natural state. They would once again be empirical equations. Then, they could tell us the truth about that which we can know scientifically and that which we cannot. However, so long as they remain represented as physics equations, they can only serve to help us solve mechanical type problems.I have previously objected to the use of the word 'tells'. It is certainly true that each object in the universe knows what to do. Cause is knowing what to do and reacting accordingly to an effect. An original cause is 'knowing everything to be done'. It is fair enough, in a general sense, to say that one object tells another what to do. My objection was directed at the use of the word 'tells' within the context of theoretical physics. Knowing, or intelligence, is the most important property of the universe, but it is not a property of theoretical physics. The philosophy upon which theoretical physics has been constructed cannot call upon any semblance of intelligent act in order to explain anything. The underpinning of the philosophy of theoretical physics is that the universe is mechanical, inanimate, purposeless and dumb. It can never know 'Why?'.James



report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:10 GMT





Cheers LC



report post as inappropriate James, I think I understand Tom's sentiments here. If you think physics is wrong going back to Newton's De Motu and Principia, then in effect you are saying science itself is wrong. Of course all the while you state this using a machine which is fabricated with considerable knowledge of quantum theory of electrons and phonons in condensed matter. Unfortunately if this is the case then to echo Tom's statement discussion is simply impossible. You may want empirical knowledge of spacetime curvature (Check out Einstein Lens on Google), but if you reject the huge amount of empirical knowledge of supporting Newtonian mechanics, "at large" with weak gravity, then extensive discussion is futile.Cheers LC

James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:29 GMT





I am not saying science is wrong. I am saying Tom and you are wrong.



"...if you reject the huge amount of empirical knowledge of supporting Newtonian mechanics, "at large" with weak gravity, then extensive discussion is futile. .."



I do not reject empirical knowledge. My conclusions are based upon empirical knowledge. I say you cannot support the above charge that you have made.



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Crowell,I am not saying science is wrong. I am saying Tom and you are wrong."...if you reject the huge amount of empirical knowledge of supporting Newtonian mechanics, "at large" with weak gravity, then extensive discussion is futile. .."I do not reject empirical knowledge. My conclusions are based upon empirical knowledge. I say you cannot support the above charge that you have made.James

James Putnam replied on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 23:43 GMT





James



report post as inappropriate Looking for specifics here instead of vague generalities and certainly not unsubstantiated theoretical conjecture.James

James Putnam replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 00:06 GMT





Sorry, I thought I included this in my last message. It was not there. Einstein's lens is established empirical evidence. However, it is not evidence that his theory is correct. His theory was formed by the use of transform equations. They are not scientifically reliable. The point is that: Empirical evidence will reamin empirical evidence, but, it is not held captive to theoretical interpretation as, say many theoretical physicists appear to be. The scientific question is: What are the real properties of light that produce Einstein's lens, but because they are real, are not suceptible to falling victim to theory as many humans do?



James



report post as inappropriate Dr. Crowell,Sorry, I thought I included this in my last message. It was not there. Einstein's lens is established empirical evidence. However, it is not evidence that his theory is correct. His theory was formed by the use of transform equations. They are not scientifically reliable. The point is that: Empirical evidence will reamin empirical evidence, but, it is not held captive to theoretical interpretation as, say many theoretical physicists appear to be. The scientific question is: What are the real properties of light that produce Einstein's lens, but because they are real, are not suceptible to falling victim to theory as many humans do?James

Member Ian Durham replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 00:19 GMT





Personally, I think its the political discussion that should be taken elsewhere.



report post as inappropriate I just want to second Brendan's comments (even though I'm not an admin). I don't necessarily agree with James' view, but having hashed out some things with him on another thread, he has an interesting, relevant, and potentially useful view.Personally, I think its the political discussion that should be taken elsewhere.

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 00:37 GMT





I have avoided this conversation. It was somewhat off topic, and I like you, Lawrence and Tom - I'm not trying to offend anyone.



I appreciate that you question the foundations of Physics. In my opinion, any *EXPERT* should study a field to the point where he/she could tear it apart or build upon it, if so inspired. You should know the strengths and know the weaknesses of any truth system that you accept.



The Susskind lectures that Lawrence recommended yesterday are pretty good.



My opinion is that the weakness of modern physics is its refusal to admit that extra hidden dimensions exist. We wrap up all of the characteristic effects of hyperspace in our definitions of time and fields and particles. As such, we confuse real cause with our idea/model of cause, and we confuse real effect with our idea/model of effect.



I think it is fruitless to directly challenge Newtonian Physics or Relativistic Physics or Quantum Physics because these truth systems perform perfectly well in their regimes of validity. Generally, one cannot overthrow an established theory. The reason is that there is a buffer layer of mathematical modeling that removes theory from direct contact with experiment. If you 'overthrow' an aspect of an established theory, then we recognize an anomaly in the theory by inventing a new model for that specific case.



I think you should narrow your approach, or you won't be able to see the trees for the forest.



Have Fun!



Ray



report post as inappropriate Dear James,I have avoided this conversation. It was somewhat off topic, and I like you, Lawrence and Tom - I'm not trying to offend anyone.I appreciate that you question the foundations of Physics. In my opinion, any *EXPERT* should study a field to the point where he/she could tear it apart or build upon it, if so inspired. You should know the strengths and know the weaknesses of any truth system that you accept.The Susskind lectures that Lawrence recommended yesterday are pretty good.My opinion is that the weakness of modern physics is its refusal to admit that extra hidden dimensions exist. We wrap up all of the characteristic effects of hyperspace in our definitions of time and fields and particles. As such, we confuse real cause with our idea/model of cause, and we confuse real effect with our idea/model of effect.I think it is fruitless to directly challenge Newtonian Physics or Relativistic Physics or Quantum Physics because these truth systems perform perfectly well in their regimes of validity. Generally, one cannot overthrow an established theory. The reason is that there is a buffer layer of mathematical modeling that removes theory from direct contact with experiment. If you 'overthrow' an aspect of an established theory, then we recognize an anomaly in the theory by inventing a new model for that specific case.I think you should narrow your approach, or you won't be able to see the trees for the forest.Have Fun!Ray

T H Ray replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 01:17 GMT





Did you really mean to suggest that "cause" means "knowing everything to be done"? You really want to stick with that and defend it as a scientific definition?



Think carefully.



Tom



report post as inappropriate James,Did you really mean to suggest that "cause" means "knowing everything to be done"? You really want to stick with that and defend it as a scientific definition?Think carefully.Tom

James Putnam, replied on Apr. 8, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT





Hi, you are a polite, respectful person and it is a pleasure to know you even if only over the Internet. I think that my opinion should not affect the work that you and Dr. Crowell are cooperating on. I really do look forward to seeing your name attached to a successful submission to a formal scientific journal. I do not pretend to think that I could do the same.



"...My...



view entire post Dear Ray,Hi, you are a polite, respectful person and it is a pleasure to know you even if only over the Internet. I think that my opinion should not affect the work that you and Dr. Crowell are cooperating on. I really do look forward to seeing your name attached to a successful submission to a formal scientific journal. I do not pretend to think that I could do the same."...My...



Hi, you are a polite, respectful person and it is a pleasure to know you even if only over the Internet. I think that my opinion should not affect the work that you and Dr. Crowell are cooperating on. I really do look forward to seeing your name attached to a successful submission to a formal scientific journal. I do not pretend to think that I could do the same.



"...My opinion is that the weakness of modern physics is its refusal to admit that extra hidden dimensions exist. We wrap up all of the characteristic effects of hyperspace in our definitions of time and fields and particles. As such, we confuse real cause with our idea/model of cause, and we confuse real effect with our idea/model of effect."



I cannot support this view. Hidden is hidden. In other words, it is not, by definition, empirical. I think that the effects we observe are real, because, they take place in the same space and time in which we live. They are our real evidence. Anything else is added on as an imaginary fix for problems that we have created. That is what I think has and still is happening.



"I think it is fruitless to directly challenge Newtonian Physics or Relativistic Physics or Quantum Physics because these truth systems perform perfectly well in their regimes of validity. ..."



I do not think it is fruitless to review old interpretations in light of new knowledge. The successes of any theory old or new rely only upon the degree of accuracy achieved by the theorist to fit their theory to the patterns observed in empirical evidence. I pointed to this in my first message. Equations begin, or should begin, as accurately representing empirical knowledge. Once they have been reformed, by theorists, into something else that represents the theorist's unempirical point of view, then they can continue to usefully extrapolate or interpolate predictions of other effects that are inherently consistent with the original empirical patterns, but, are no longer valid as representing the true nature of the universe.



"...Generally, one cannot overthrow an established theory. The reason is that there is a buffer layer of mathematical modeling that removes theory from direct contact with experiment. ..."



If you are defining mathematical modeling as theoretical modeling, then I think that modeling immediately removes the empirical form of the equation from existence and replaces it with an unverifiable model of what the theorist wants to speculate about. Once the theorist's unempirical ideas have been stripped away, their theory is also simultaneously stripped away. The empirical form of the equations will remain. The removal of theory does not remove the foundational equations that model the patterns observed in empirical evidence.



"...If you 'overthrow' an aspect of an established theory, then we recognize an anomaly in the theory by inventing a new model for that specific case. ..."



In this case I disagree. If theory is the cause of the problem, then it must be exluded from the corrective action taken to remove the problem. My approach would be to remove inventive models first and then resist inventive models thereafter in fixes or whatever.



James



view post as summary Dear Ray,Hi, you are a polite, respectful person and it is a pleasure to know you even if only over the Internet. I think that my opinion should not affect the work that you and Dr. Crowell are cooperating on. I really do look forward to seeing your name attached to a successful submission to a formal scientific journal. I do not pretend to think that I could do the same."...My opinion is that the weakness of modern physics is its refusal to admit that extra hidden dimensions exist. We wrap up all of the characteristic effects of hyperspace in our definitions of time and fields and particles. As such, we confuse real cause with our idea/model of cause, and we confuse real effect with our idea/model of effect."I cannot support this view. Hidden is hidden. In other words, it is not, by definition, empirical. I think that the effects we observe are real, because, they take place in the same space and time in which we live. They are our real evidenc