Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: The explicate order
Replies: 20   Last Post: Feb 14, 2014 12:58 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
hanson

Posts: 1,635
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: The explicate order
Posted: Feb 12, 2014 11:45 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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@dont-email.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 counter-clockwise.
>
> 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 particle-like properties to wave-like
> properties. H(A) and H(B) are associated with bodies ( particle-like )
> while
> H(C) ( period ) and H(D) ( Precession ) are associated with times (
> wave-like ).
>
> 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 bi-directional 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 right-handed 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 particle-wave 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. Energy-like 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 sub-QM 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/
>






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.