- Frederick>This is an easy claim. The engineer must adjust the parameters his real hardware provides and that could look to the uninterested as you describe.adjusted in the context of what he believes, in the case of physics according to theory he believes. What relationship has this to being interested or "uninterested"?>Adding a fudge factor to bring results into line.ok>To “add a correction” to the physics, however implies a very specific kind of “correction”."correction" to fit theory.>Rather than adjusting for gravitational anomalies in the earth, slight variations in temperature, physical size, frequency, etc., you would have to adjust the detail of the physical relation between position in the gravity field and time rate, etc.connected by theory>That this can look the same from very far outside the loop does not make it the same thing.lost me, and the rest what you say about this does not make it any clearer.>Roger, the Greeks believed that their math was so elegant and perfect that reality just had to follow.This flowed down through the relatively modern view that the planets and sun orbit the earth in perfect circlesPythagoras did not have sun go round earth. Aristotle had sun go round earth because he went by appearances.>To believe that the physics must follow math

Pythagoras>is to

believe that our made up numbers and made up rules to manipulate them have an effect on reality. That is why I described it as believing in magic.

Pythagoras was considered a wizard. Tesla also a modern day wizard.>Rather the miracle, and what magic

I can accept, is that the universe can, in some cases, yield to a mathematical analysis by such poor mathematicians as we are.

Not all "poor", some mathematicians are so gifted that they look like wizards. Ramanujan comes to mind.

Roger

**From:**"McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>

**To:**"usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com" <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>

**Sent:**Friday, 23 August 2013, 15:15

**Subject:**RE: [usa-tesla] New Tesla

“They just add corrections whenever it deviates too much from expected.”This is an easy claim. The engineer must adjust the parameters his real hardware provides and that could look to the uninterested as you describe. Adding a fudge factor to bring results into line. To “add a correction” to the physics, however implies a very specific kind of “correction”. Rather than adjusting for gravitational anomalies in the earth, slight variations in temperature, physical size, frequency, etc., you would have to adjust the detail of the physical relation between position in the gravity field and time rate, etc. That this can look the same from very far outside the loop does not make it the same thing. So I do not grant you that corrections to the parameters to get the “expected” results is the same thing as “adjusting the theory”. My grasp of the details would have to be much deeper to point you to any particular case. Generally however, if the theory is wrong, the (whatever parameter) would likely have to be adjusted constantly, while if the theory is OK but the parameter was not measured accurately enough, adjustments should become smaller as the parameter is adjusted to it’s actual value. And I am pretty sure that there are at least some accumulating numbers, as the clock time for protracted periods, where such errors in theory would have to show up rather too vividly to ignore. What specific measurement would you look for based on your more better theory?“Is the universe one of many”(paraphrased)If the universe is one of many – (unlikely to involve any touching or interaction since conservation laws seem to work pretty well. Thus any other universes are – to this universe anyway – nonexistent) – then the box is bigger. In this case my ref to box was intended in the more general sense, containing all that is real, containing nothing unreal. I think if we cannot interact with it, it is classified as unreal for me, even if it is, from some heavenly perspective, real.Maths are rigid in that we set up rules for identifying members of the set of “numbers”, the interactions, etc. Change those rules and you have a different math. And you can set up any kind of math you want with any kind of numbers, interactions, etc. I loved the idea of a math of maths.Roger, the Greeks believed that their math was so elegant and perfect that reality just had to follow. This flowed down through the relatively modern view that the planets and sun orbit the earth in perfect circles, then with epicycles and the like so they could still be perfect, then finally the solar centric gravitationally defined gradually shifting ellipses. To believe that the physics must follow math is to believe that our made up numbers and made up rules to manipulate them have an effect on reality. That is why I described it as believing in magic. In my reality there is no way that our limitations in math limit the universe. Rather the miracle, and what magic I can accept, is that the universe can, in some cases, yield to a mathematical analysis by such poor mathematicians as we are. The idea of “interested” was that of a very very detailed close view of the nature of each adjustment. If the engineering is to be used, as I suggested, as a proof of principle experiment, then you need to do real physics on any parameter adjustment, rather than taking the broader (My implication that this was disinterest) view that all adjustments are of the same significance to theory.

Theory is used to measure the value of all parameters. Which theory – exactly – and what kind of adjustment. Note that “the theory” is a perfectly calculable case of the general. Reality is very complex and a number of major snafus have occurred in the past because the simplifications to do the engineering missed an important aspect of the problem. If you argument is that adjustments of parameters proves error in theory you need to get into that in the level of detail I can’t find the time to do. The precision of the results strongly suggests that things like GPS that use GRT with adjustments, is a very sound and predictable process. Thus a “better” theory would derive the adjustments that the engineering is currently adding. If the only dif is the precision of knowing (the precise value of a parameter – enough of the engineering details to apply all the appropriate theories) then any supposedly better theory would derive none of these adjustments and would be, at best, just exactly as “adjusted” as the GRT

No disrespect for the math geniuses of this world intended, but I believe we are given a huge gift in that so much of the physics can be described with simple pure closed forms.

**From:**usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com [mailto:usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com]**On Behalf Of**ROGER ANDERTON

**Sent:**Friday, August 23, 2013 9:21 AM

**To:**usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com

**Subject:**Re: [usa-tesla] New TeslaFrederick

>This is an easy claim. The engineer must adjust the parameters his real hardware provides and that could look to the uninterested as you describe.

adjusted in the context of what he believes, in the case of physics according to theory he believes. What relationship has this to being interested or "uninterested"?

>Adding a fudge factor to bring results into line.

ok

>To “add a correction” to the physics, however implies a very specific kind of “correction”.

"correction" to fit theory.

of the physical relation between position in the gravity field and time rate, etc.>Rather than adjusting for gravitational anomalies in the earth, slight variations in temperature, physical size, frequency, etc., you would have to adjust the detail

connected by theory

>That this can look the same from very far outside the loop does not make it the same thing.

lost me, and the rest what you say about this does not make it any clearer.

>Roger, the Greeks believed that their math was so elegant and perfect that reality just had to follow.

This flowed down through the relatively modern view that the planets and sun orbit the earth in perfect circles

Pythagoras did not have sun go round earth. Aristotle had sun go round earth because he went by appearances.

Pythagoras>To believe that the physics must follow math

>is to believe that our made up numbers and made up rules to manipulate them have an effect on reality. That is why I described it as believing in magic.

Pythagoras was considered a wizard. Tesla also a modern day wizard.

>Rather the miracle, and what magic I can accept, is that the universe can, in some cases, yield to a mathematical analysis by such poor mathematicians as we are.

Not all "poor", some mathematicians are so gifted that they look like wizards. Ramanujan comes to mind.

Roger

**From:**"McGalliard, Frederick B" <frederick.b.mcgalliard@...>

**To:**"usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com" <usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com>

**Sent:**Friday, 23 August 2013, 15:15

**Subject:**RE: [usa-tesla] New Tesla“They just add corrections whenever it deviates too much from expected.”

This is an easy claim. The engineer must adjust the parameters his real hardware provides and that could look to the uninterested as you describe. Adding a fudge factor to bring results into line. To “add a correction” to the physics, however implies a very specific kind of “correction”. Rather than adjusting for gravitational anomalies in the earth, slight variations in temperature, physical size, frequency, etc., you would have to adjust the detail of the physical relation between position in the gravity field and time rate, etc. That this can look the same from very far outside the loop does not make it the same thing. So I do not grant you that corrections to the parameters to get the “expected” results is the same thing as “adjusting the theory”. My grasp of the details would have to be much deeper to point you to any particular case. Generally however, if the theory is wrong, the (whatever parameter) would likely have to be adjusted constantly, while if the theory is OK but the parameter was not measured accurately enough, adjustments should become smaller as the parameter is adjusted to it’s actual value. And I am pretty sure that there are at least some accumulating numbers, as the clock time for protracted periods, where such errors in theory would have to show up rather too vividly to ignore. What specific measurement would you look for based on your more better theory?

“Is the universe one of many”(paraphrased)

If the universe is one of many – (unlikely to involve any touching or interaction since conservation laws seem to work pretty well. Thus any other universes are – to this universe anyway – nonexistent) – then the box is bigger. In this case my ref to box was intended in the more general sense, containing all that is real, containing nothing unreal. I think if we cannot interact with it, it is classified as unreal for me, even if it is, from some heavenly perspective, real.

Maths are rigid in that we set up rules for identifying members of the set of “numbers”, the interactions, etc. Change those rules and you have a different math. And you can set up any kind of math you want with any kind of numbers, interactions, etc. I loved the idea of a math of maths.

Roger, the Greeks believed that their math was so elegant and perfect that reality just had to follow. This flowed down through the relatively modern view that the planets and sun orbit the earth in perfect circles, then with epicycles and the like so they could still be perfect, then finally the solar centric gravitationally defined gradually shifting ellipses. To believe that the physics must follow math is to believe that our made up numbers and made up rules to manipulate them have an effect on reality. That is why I described it as believing in magic. In my reality there is no way that our limitations in math limit the universe. Rather the miracle, and what magic I can accept, is that the universe can, in some cases, yield to a mathematical analysis by such poor mathematicians as we are.