Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [usa-tesla] Mathematics and the Real World

Expand Messages
  • McGalliard, Frederick B
    ... Actually I have never seen any real evaluation of the nature of the relationship, except for describing the formalism for position as a certain type of
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: David Thomson [mailto:dwt@...]
      ...
      > That was very long. It is good that scientists have pondered
      > the relationship of math and science before, but much more
      > can be done to formalize the actual relationships.

      Actually I have never seen any real evaluation of the nature of the
      relationship, except for describing the formalism for position as a
      certain type of mathmatical space.
      For example, I have often thought that GRT uses a parameter
      substitution, essentially, to bury gravity in the metric used. This has
      great value in reducing the equations to solveable relationships, but it
      is often thought of very incorrectly. Most folk are told that space is
      warped and this explains gravity. Of course it does no such thing. It
      simply replaces the mystery of a force, with the mystery of a bent
      space.
    • McGalliard, Frederick B
      ... Yes. Thanks from me as well. And. Why is 1+1=2? Welllllllll. In physics it would be because when we put one billiard ball in a bag, then add a second, we
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: David Thomson [mailto:dwt@...]
        ...
        > Thanks for sharing this. It is pretty clear that there is a
        > connection between math and the physical world.

        Yes. Thanks from me as well.
        And.
        Why is 1+1=2?
        Welllllllll.
        In physics it would be because when we put one billiard ball in a bag,
        then add a second, we get two balls in the bag.
        In math, it is because that is how 2 is defined. It is the integer which
        is one greater than the integer one.
        I expect a math where 1+1=2,3,4,5 may be less usefull, but it could be
        very interesting, and might, after years of study, be found to be of
        inestimable value. Like complex numbers.
      • David Thomson
        Hi Fred, ... the ... done to ... I agree, not enough has been done to investigate the relationship of math and physics. ... space. From the perspective of GR,
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Fred,

          > > That was very long. It is good that scientists have pondered
          the
          > > relationship of math and science before, but much more can be
          done to
          > > formalize the actual relationships.
          >
          > Actually I have never seen any real evaluation of the nature
          > of the relationship, except for describing the formalism for
          > position as a certain type of mathmatical space.

          I agree, not enough has been done to investigate the relationship
          of math and physics.

          > For example, I have often thought that GRT uses a parameter
          > substitution, essentially, to bury gravity in the metric
          > used. This has great value in reducing the equations to
          > solveable relationships, but it is often thought of very
          > incorrectly. Most folk are told that space is warped and this
          > explains gravity. Of course it does no such thing. It simply
          > replaces the mystery of a force, with the mystery of a bent
          space.

          From the perspective of GR, I agree with your comments. GR
          theory removes the Newtonian concept of gravity as a force and
          replaces it with gravity as space-time curvature. This is the
          main reason why there is no Unified Force Theory in modern
          physics. The electrostatic force and strong force have not been
          formulated within a system of space-time curvature and the strong
          force has not been formulated as a force law. Space-time
          curvature and force laws are mutually exclusive of each other,
          being designed in systems of physics with completely different
          foundations.

          Within the APM, I have successfully formulated the strong force
          in terms of a bonafide force law, which mathematically ties to
          the gravitational and electrostatic forces. The so-called "weak
          force" is shown to be a dimensionless proportion of the
          electrostatic and strong force, which both have carriers
          expressed as charge dimension. I succeeded because I found the
          way to express all the forces within the same system of physics.

          In the process, I have also formalized the physical cause of
          duality (subject/object relationships), which explains the
          appearance of cardinal and ordinal numbers. The theory will also
          reveal that numbers are created from the spin structure of the
          Aether in combination with primary angular momentum. This
          combination causes a continuum of space-time to be cut up into
          discrete moments and spaces, which gives the individual subatomic
          particles their discrete existence. Because each subatomic
          particle is discrete, cardinal numbers then have real meaning,
          because the Universe has given us something to count.

          It is interesting that the constants of the quantum realm spin
          structure also generate the value of log e, the musical notes of
          the Pythagorean scale, the Pythagorean triples, and the shell
          structures of the atoms. Even the patterns of living things
          wrapped up in the Fibonacci sequences are easily generated by the
          constants of Aether structure. Talk about beauty in physics, no
          physics theory has ever compared to the beauty the APM
          quantifies.

          Dave
        • McGalliard, Frederick B
          ... Well, first I thought of Don t think of an elephant! And the like. And of course Could God create a rock so big he couldn t lift it? And the like. And
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Codesuidae [mailto:codesuidae@...]
            ...
            > McGalliard, Frederick B wrote:
            ...
            > > Can you think about a
            > > thought that cannot be thunk by the mind of man?
            >
            > Of course, you had to do so to formulate the question.

            Well, first I thought of
            "Don't think of an elephant!"
            And the like. And of course
            "Could God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it?"
            And the like.
            And I could have said
            "Can you think a thought that cannot be thunk..."
            I deliberatly chose the similar but critically different "think about a
            thought" because I think it illustrates the problem of thinking about
            things that you cannot actually think, imagining things that cannot
            exist, etc.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.