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

Expand Messages
• ... 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.
• ... 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.
• 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.

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
• ... 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.