On Jul 22, 8:43 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote: > Huang wrote: > > On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote: > >> [spit a newsgroup] > > >> Huang wrote: > > >> <snip > > >> > Starting with some preliminaries: > > >> > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont > >> > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should > >> > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking > >> > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. > > >> You don't have any idea what mathematics is. > > > And you have no idea what an axiom is. > > > I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities > > or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such > > counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will > > assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is > > really absurd. > > > If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist > > with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very > > difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is > > quite impossible. > > Sigh! Not p. > \ > > > > > I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol > > No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor > what it can't do.
In mathematics things are proved. The reason you can do this is because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That is mathematics.
Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because they are and must remain conjectural. But you CAN show that conjectures are consistent, and so all of these conjectures fit together like Lego building blocks as well. In fact, for every mathematical statement there is a corresponding conjectural statement and vice versa. There is no mathematical way to transform back and forth between the two, such operations are currently under study but to be sure - I do know what math is and what it is not. I also believe that there are tools other than math which can accomplish the same things that math does.
> >> >Futher, I dont > >> > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > >> > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. > > >> This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All > >> endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet > >> and eating your breakfast. > > >> You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor > >> shown how to measure it with a ruler. > > >> <snip> > > >> /BAH > > > I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said > > he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and > > that's what I provided. > > For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method > of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that > all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong. > If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing > requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment > which will falsify your hypothesis. > > You ain't doing science; you're just blowing gas.
Define mass in terms of length - eh ?
Ok - there are many ways to do this depending on how precise you want to make it. If you want an exact derivation you'll never get it because it's not calculable, would require too much computing power which does not exist at this time and probably never will.
However, if we allow (for brevity) to model objects more coarsely we can come up with some decent models. Instead of considering every individual atom, just consider a planet as a whole and skip all of the fine structure.
A planet may then be regarded (in my model) as a gradient. The gradient is comprised of a potential, and to each point in space we assign a potential that the point exists. That gives rise to this gradient. Consider that the nucleus of the planet is enriched, and the areas in it's outer shells are rarified. A planet (or atom) is nothing more than an imbalance as described. It is composed of nothing more than dimension. Enriched in it's core, and rarified at the periphery. It should be obvious that two such bodies which are near to each other create a "well" between them, and they will naturally be attracted to each other because that is how space is bent. Objects will tend to fall into such a depression, and both objects are creating a depression in the fabric of spacetime because the regions on their periphery is existentially rarified like a vacuum which decreases exactly as described elsewhere in physics where orthodox mathematics is being used, and I repeat that I have used no math here. Only set the stage for modelling conjecturally.