Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
The explicate order
Replies:
20
Last Post:
Feb 14, 2014 12:58 PM



hanson
Posts:
1,651
Registered:
12/13/04


Re: The explicate order
Posted:
Feb 12, 2014 11:45 AM


Potter, this is good tripe that you wrote. However, it is not going far enough to break new ground, nor will it be accepted the by s.p. & the general crowd, since you posted new definitions and equations for well known, otherwise explained issues. > Whenever you post equations, s.p. & s.p.r. readers do freeze, especially when they cannot google for it or look it up in their old text books. > So, go the belletristic way and dig deeper, by explaining physics in a NON anthropic way. > Remover all human connected interpretations and especially any and all observers, and get even yourself out of the picture, except for you telling: >. ... the story of physics the way particles do see it. e.g. what the particle feels & does when it moves, (NOT what you/humans see it do), etc, etc. > It wont be easy to get the human ego out of the pix/story, but it will get physics off Einstein's useless relativity crap which has retarded any & all advances in fundamental physics for over a century now, and only accomplished to breed vast hordes of Einstein Dingleberries who worship Albert's Sphincter. > Potter, you made a good start with your tripe below. Potter, Kudos and keep at it. hanson
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@yahoo.com> wrote: in message news:ldg34s$gpv$2@dontemail.me... > The explicate order! > > Reality is composed of properties, not objects. > ( Objects arise from real and imagined properties. ) > > 1. There is only one property in the universe and that is: > closed cycles about geodesic paths. > > 2. These cycles can be clockwise or counterclockwise. > > 3. These cycles combine algebraically. > > 4. What we call bodies are aggregates of cycles which we perceive to be > associated. > > 5. Time arise from three H's. ( Cycles or angular displacement ) > a. H(M), the H to be measured. > b. H(big), an H which can be used as a reference with which to determine > when H(M) has completed a cycle. > c. H(small), an H which can be counted to determine "how long" it takes > H(M) > to complete a cycle. > > What we call time is H(small) / H(M). In other words, time is the H(small) > of some outside reference system per H(M) as referenced against the most > stable background possible, H(big). Perhaps, H(big) should be called > H(small) as many cycles of H(big) occur for small angular displacements of > H(small). > > 6. The Uncertainty Principle arises, because we can only count whole > cycles > of H(Small). ( The use of neutrino's rather than electrons as our > reference > would reduce the uncertainly enormously. ) > > 7. What we call an interaction is when two aggregates of H are perceived > to > influence each other in some way. Interactions basically change the H of > the > systems under observation. Interactions involve 4 H's. > > a. H(A)  the cycles perceived in body A. > b. H(B)  the cycles perceived in body B. > c. H(C)  the cycle of the bodies about a common center. > d. H(D)  the cycle ( precession ) of the bodies about the universe. > > The relationship between these cycles is: > > H(A) * H(B) = H(C) * H(D) > > Note that this equation equates particlelike properties to wavelike > properties. H(A) and H(B) are associated with bodies ( particlelike ) > while > H(C) ( period ) and H(D) ( Precession ) are associated with times ( > wavelike ). > > 8. The dimensionless ratios of these cycles are commonly called beta. > > beta(A) = H(C) / H(A) > beta(B) = H(C) / H(B) > > These beta's are sine functions. The corresponding cosine functions can be > used to compute conventional Special Relativity problems. > > length = length(0) * cosine(A) Fitzgerald contraction > time = time(0) * cosine(A) Time dilation > mass = mass(0) / cosine(A) apparent mass increase > > 9. Some conventional properties expressed as betas and cycles: > > period = 2 * pi / H(C) > radius(A) = C / H(A) > radius(B) = C / H(B) > velocity(A) = beta(A) * C > velocity(B) = beta(B) * C > mass(A) = beta(B)^3 / H(C) * U ( Kepler's law ) > mass(B) = beta(A)^3 / H(C) * U ( Kepler's law ) > force(A) = beta(B)^3 * beta(A) * U * C > force(B) = beta(A)^3 * beta(B) * U * C > energy(A) = beta(B)^3 * beta(C)^2 / H(C) * U * C^2 > energy(B) = beta(A)^3 * beta(B)^2 / H(C) * U * C^2 > > where > > C = the speed of light. ( Distance per time constant. ) > U = C^3 / G ( Mass per time constant. ) > G = the universal gravitational constant. > > ** Note that some of these properties are composite. That is, they cannot > exist unless two bodies are involved. > > ** Also note that the are TWO masses, energies, forces, etc. associated > with > a closed system. The conventional system tends to ignore this. > > ** There are also TWO RADII involved in interactions. > > Conventional physics tends to define ONE radius as: > radius = C / ( H(A) + H(B) ) > > **** Radius is a very bad definition as it leads to many errors. **** > > 10. Angles are cycle ratios multiplied by some constant. > > constant(angle) = 2 * pi or 100 or 360 ( Commonly ) > > 11. There are four distinct sets of bidirectional cycles. These are > associated with time, charge, baryon number and what I call "weakness". > weakness = strangeness + baryon number  charge. > > *** Weakness needs to be defined as neither strangeness nor hypercharge is > symmetrical. > > Time is associated with left handed neutrinos. > Time and parity are the same thing. > Time and parity violations are associated with righthanded neutrinos. > >  > > Some of the advantages of this system over the current system include: > > 1. No infinities. > 2. Only one fundamental property. > 3. Is symmetrical, whereas the conventional system tends to emphasize the > mass of more massive bodies and the velocity of less massive bodies. > 4. Clearly shows the particlewave duality. > 5. Indicates why uncertainty exists. ( Smallest cycle is our scale ) > 6. Eliminates errors caused by the radius concept. > 7. No constants are needed. > 8. Makes clear what constants are for if they are used. ( Scaling ) > 9. Energylike angular displacement ( H(D) ) is velocity invariant. > >  > > The implicate order! > > Does a deterministic reality "unfold" from chaos? > > Bohm says in his book, Wholeness., ('82,US ed) p.77: "we assume that psi > is.in a rapid random, chaotic fluctuation. Values of psi in quantum > theory.must be long, compared with [these] fluctuations [which] can be > regarded as coming from a deeper subQM level, [as a] Brownian motion of a > microscopic liquid droplet comes from a deeper atomic level." > > Note that these fluctuations would cause the smallest cycles ( Those > associated with neutrinos and electrons. ) to deviate from perfect circles > but as they > would average out and we have no smaller cycle to use to detect them, we > could not observe them directly. > > It seems to me that these "chaotic fluctuations" would let some kind of > underlying "implicate order" modulate uncertainty chaotically ( Rather > than > randomly as Bohm indicated. ) and interface with the classical world in > such > a way as to allow a deterministic world to arise from it. > > This makes sense to me because: > > 1. If there was an underlying "Planck's Constant", we could use it to > perform > Fourier transforms on uncertainties which occur at a higher level and > detect > fluctuations. ( There may be a "Planck s Constant" associated with > neutrinos > but chaos would ultimately lie under this order and any future unfolded > order. ) > > 2. If the underlying fluctuation was random, negative entropy would be > randomly distributed rather than associated with certain kinds of > "things". > The distribution of negative entropy seems to indicate that what arises > from > uncertainty is not random. > >  > Tom Potter > https://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/ > http://prioritize.biz/ >



