Huang wrote: > 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.
Not all the time.
> The reason you can do this is > because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits > together like Lego building blocks,
You have never built a geometry nor an algebra. Did you ever go through the exercise of proving the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Did you ever take a plane geometry class which did proof by construction?
>and ever piece fits perfect. That > is mathematics.
It only fits perfect because you've only looked at algebras and geometries which other people have built over the years.
> > 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.
This has nothing to do with measuring mass with a ruler.
> But you CAN show that > conjectures are consistent,
Not all conjectures. There are hundreds of thousands of conjectures which don't work.
> 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.
You are talking nonsense. You are assuming everything is commutative.
>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.
Huh? Name one. > >> >> >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 ?
No. Measure it using a ruler. It is you who made declaration that you can describe this using only space and time. So you are the one who has to provide the mechanism for measuring in the labs. I susggested that you show how to measure mass. You still have not demonstrated a way to use a ruler to do this.
> > Ok - there are many ways to do this
I just want you to describe one way.
> 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.
Forget about this smoke and mirrors. You can't do it; can you?
> > 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.
What the hell does potential have to do with mass? I haven't got as far a electricity. I just want you to demonstrate something basic so a Physics 101 lab can do a experiment.
>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.
Obviously. YOu have also ignored my request. You haven't talked about mass, let alone how to measure it with a ruler.
> Only set > the stage for modelling conjecturally. >
And your stage is completely engulfed in manufactured fog.