> -----Original Message-----

...

> From: David Thomson [mailto:dwt@...]

> That was very long. It is good that scientists have pondered

Actually I have never seen any real evaluation of the nature of the

> the relationship of math and science before, but much more

> can be done to formalize the actual relationships.

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.> -----Original Message-----

...

> From: David Thomson [mailto:dwt@...]

> Thanks for sharing this. It is pretty clear that there is a

Yes. Thanks from me as well.

> connection between math and the physical world.

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.- 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.

I agree, not enough has been done to investigate the relationship

>

> 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.

of math and physics.

> For example, I have often thought that GRT uses a parameter

space.

> 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

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 > -----Original Message-----

...

> From: Codesuidae [mailto:codesuidae@...]

> McGalliard, Frederick B wrote:

...

> > Can you think about a

Well, first I thought of

> > thought that cannot be thunk by the mind of man?

>

> Of course, you had to do so to formulate the question.

"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.