md65536

You might find it useful to consider that rotation involving two dimensions around a third dimension's axis can be described as complementary sinusoidal oscillations in each of the two dimensions (sine and cosine ie. "complement sine"). If my wording is bad please correct me. For any sinusoidal oscillation, you may be able to imagine a cosine oscillation in some visible or hidden dimension, that can turn any particle described as oscillating in one dimension, into one (perhaps coupled with an imaginary component) described as rotating in two dimensions. Bignose said your idea was rejected because the math fails, but I disagree. Your theory is rejected because the math fails. Ideas are a bit more subjective. I'd reject your idea because there's no need for nor evidence of these U1 particles, but as I said an idea is vague and is also easily modified. I'd be more intrigued if your idea were evolved away from "U1 particles are the exclusive reality" maybe towards something like "Since energy can be converted to different forms, it is always(?) possible to express it in terms of some other imaginary and/or immeasurable form (such as in the kinetic energy of rotating U1 particles), in a way that is unfalsifiable due to its immeasurabilty." Then, since it's unfalsifiable, it might be more a philosophical argument than a scientific one? However, if it could be proven scientifically, it would show that there is always another way to express the energy of a system, so perhaps spinning U1 particles are as good as any other form of energy, but it would also suggest that "spinning particles" is arbitrary and the same energy can be interpreted in other ways that are just as "real". You said earlier that your theories were intended to correspond to existing theories, but they go against special relativity. In SR, the universal speed limit of c is (ironically?) logically a consequence of some observations and assumptions about how light behaves. If you have a good reason why it is wrong, then perhaps it is possible to prove it. If you know it, you should be able to show it. But that's been attempted countless times for over a century now. If your reason for it being wrong is only that it doesn't make sense, then it will be FAR EASIER to learn it and figure out why it makes sense, than to try to find some contradictory evidence.

Don't lose sleep over it! An advantage of string theory is that, while it is also based on tiny made-up things, it corresponds with other theories and observations of reality. That is, it explains what we actually observe, in addition to a bunch of things we don't. I think it'd be better to try to explain things the way they're observed (even if it doesn't seem to make sense) rather than explain how you imagine them to be (ideally you'd devise an experiment that shows it's both). Not corresponding with other theories is a problem for your theory, not a benefit.

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to shoehorn the equation to be dimensionally sound? Express mass M in terms of the U1 "unit masses", so that M becomes a dimensionless count of particles. Then if all U1 are spherical and identical, wouldn't their kinetic energy be proportional to their rotation rate? Express R in terms of the kinetic energy of a single U1 particle. Would this work? E = (M/Mu) Eu R/Ru Where M is mass, Mu is the mass of a U1 particle, R is rotational speed of the particles, Ru is the unit rotational speed of a U1 particle? Eu is the (kinetic?) energy of a U1 particle rotating at Ru Then just combine the constants into one: U = Eu/(MuRu), with the right dimensions, and E=MRU Though, I don't think this should be done, for the same reason that we shouldn't try to force any other idea to work, such as "all energy can be explained by the existence of tiny U1 rechargeable batteries that no one can ever detect." I suppose since energy is convertible, it can be converted and stored in rotating particles, or tiny batteries, or in the body heat of tiny U1 gnomes, etc... Without evidence to suggest that one of these exists while another doesn't, why assume that it does? Have you considered instead of tiny rotating particles, that maybe the U1s are perhaps vibrating strings? That might be a strategy toward getting your theory to say anything you want.

Uhh... did you just quote something that defines mass according to its measure? Are you sure you don't want to provide an owl-definition? Some alternative owl-mass to go along with owl-time that better fits owl-realism? You wouldn't want someone to try to define spacetime by its measure.

You're right. I'm struggling to find a positive way forward with this. I think that "alternative science" can be valuable but that the work that would be required to turn crackpot science into real science would be some combination of long, tedious, arduous, maddening, disappointing, etc. Any advice I could give you, knowerastronomy, would be somewhat disingenuous, because I believe that any way forward with theories like this will require a lot of suffering. So I don't know what to say!; perhaps just be glad for the work that you've done and trust that you'll get proper credit for any way that it is useful. Perhaps this article from 2006 offers some perspective, relating to the many who think that science must be wrong because it goes against common sense: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1162/was-einstein-a-fake

I agree with the others. Personally I think that if you want someone to do the math, you would have to start at the beginning. There should be some "first step" that goes from what you're trying to explain (observations, measurements, other models) and leads you to the first step in your explanation (your model). Then instead of "here's the final thing, can someone put some math in it?" it would become... uh... more like this: "Here is my reasoning for why I think these observations can be explained by this device. Is it mathematically sound?" You have obviously seen a reason why your model is a good explanation. Can you convey that to others? Otherwise I think it would be hard for a mathematician to know where to begin, or to even want to bother. However if (or, as) your reasoning is based on a lack of understanding of the existing physics, I think it would do more good to put effort into learning what already exists rather than trying to prove something new. BUT there's another problem with this. If you invent a device such as "spinning particles that correspond to the energy of a system" and you can change their numbers or the energy imparted to their spin at will, then you can make the math work out easily! Eg. E=MR corresponds with SR if you make sure that R=C^2. But how do you know if that is true or not? How do you measure the count or the spin of your U1 particles? How do you even detect if they're there? Or, what predictions are made by assuming they're there, which can then be tested against predictions that are made by assuming they're not there?

If it's not a false dichotomy, then which option is it that you're claiming is true? In case it's "we (or 'science') can not know Earth's shape", then how do you know Earth's shape? Isn't it "observations and measurements"?

Or MISSION ACCOMPLISHED or My other ship's the size of Mars

Sorry to digress, and it's an interesting question, but... isn't that a bit unscientific? You're asking why it would be there. If you're talking about humans building it, then "why should we?" is scientifically relevant. But if we're talking about finding an object near mercury, aren't you're saying "We found evidence of this ship. To determine whether or not it is a ship we must ask why anyone would build it." Justifying its construction might be useful for explaining it or determining what it was for, but it wouldn't change the evidence of whether or not it was actually built. "The problem of a theoretically infinite universe is to find a purpose for it." ??? I suppose my point is only valid if we're using the answer to "Why would anyone build it?" to answer "Is it there or not?", which was the case earlier in the thread. Otherwise the question could be scientifically relevant. 4. Because they can? 5. Alien hubris. Showing up the neighbors, who built a ship half the size of Mercury last spring. 6. Because the best technology they have works better on a bigger scale.

This is true. To deny it would be to assert the absurdity of cartoon physics. Before Newton discovered gravity, did people float off the Earth because they didn't understand the math? No. They "already knew" about gravity, because their feet stuck to the ground. They didn't have to do any math to tell their feet to do that. Likewise, that the Earth is round and doesn't change shape is part of a-priori knowledge. We already know that it's round. It doesn't take measurements to tell us that. We've always known that. Even when people thought it was flat, they still "knew" it was round because you can't "know" something that is false. It's not that hard to separate scientific "facts" like "the Earth is flat", from a-priori knowledge, because the latter is true. We didn't have to "discover" that the earth's diameter is invariant, because it's always been true.

I don't think you understand what owl's been saying here. If you did it would be clear that he understands the concept of abstraction, as he sees it. Look at it this way: Suppose you viewed Earth from a high-speed flyby vantage point, and it looked like it was squished. That is an abstraction, because it's only math that says that the Earth IS squished. Accepting reality as it is observed or measured just because it matches the math means that you're reifying the math. This description of the Earth as being actually physically squished, independent of the strictly mental math and observations that say it is, is called idealism. But even if the Earth appears squished or is measured to be or if the math says it is, it is only the abstraction that gets squished. Apart from the abstraction, there is an Earth that still exists in its ideal shape: mostly spherical. Understanding this ideal Earth, even if it doesn't match observed reality, is called realism. Having math that matches what you see is only an abstraction. But as soon as that abstraction matches what really IS, it's no longer an abstraction. I know a lot of this seems ironically backwards, but that might be because you're subscribed to the dogma of scientific "consensual agreement". But what does science know about epistemology? Since these topics (squished Earth etc) are unprovable (because they haven't yet been and may never be), they belong to the realm of philosophy not science. As the only one of us with sufficient expertise on philosophy, owl is the authority here, the only one qualified to make assertions on these unprovable things. This all makes sense if you forget your dogma, and instead appeal to owl's authority and assertions. Try turning around 180 degrees. From this vantage point, it's everything else that is backwards.

Oh. Well maybe you're right, after all of the arguing. That also provides an answer for philosophy of science, which is concerned with the assumptions and foundations of science. It lets us choose our assumptions simply to be "what we already know". That also seems like it must be right. I still disagree with most of your line of reasoning, but it's hard to argue in favor of an admittedly untested theory like relativity -- which, even if it makes sense to me, does in fact go against what I knew before I even heard of it! I was so sure of the math that I never even thought of it like that. But can the math still be right while the theory is wrong? Or is the math flawed?

Perhaps it's possible to answer the question by listing what conditions would make one corrupt, or that would keep one not corrupt. For example, it you weren't attracted by power, but you got power, would you abuse that power to keep it? Perhaps "willingness to give up power" is also a characteristic of someone who wouldn't be corrupted. Suppose you were granted ultimate power so that people could be made to vanish at your will. You'd be forced to decide if you use that power or not. If you did, you'd be forced to choose who to make vanish, and there would be a lot of lines you'd need to draw to decide where to limit yourself. Now, if you put that thought aside for a minute, and imagine that you also had the power to keep your power or to let it go. Then imagine that someone else wanted to take the power from you. Now further imagine that you could decide to stop them, or to allow them to have ultimate powers while you do not. How far would you go to keep your power, OR how far would you go from preventing someone else from having it? This basically would be a test of your values such as "are you willing to let other people do what they want or would you rather restrict people to doing what you accept", to an extreme degree. But there's another example that's a bit more realistic. Suppose you believe that people should be free to elect whomever they want to, and that you end up being elected and gaining some power, and then a re-election comes and it looks like people want someone else in power, but you strongly disagree with whom they want and you can use the powers that you still have to influence people, to try to stay in power. Where do you draw the line between sticking to your values by letting whomever people want to be elected get elected, vs using powers to do what you think is best for people? When does it become an abuse of that power? It seems to me that you would have to always choose to stick to your principles, over using your power to achieve what you want, in order to not be corrupted by power. If your principles include that it is always right to use power to do what you think is best, then like you say: gaining power might not corrupt you over whatever level of corruption you had before gaining power. But then, people who feel that way may be attracted to power in the first place, so it doesn't test the idea that power doesn't tend to corrupt those who aren't attracted to power. I think power would most test people whose principles go against the abuse of power, but also go in favor of trying to do what is best for people. I think that only if every moral decision were easy, it would be easy (for many at least) to not be corrupted by power.

Sorry; that does make sense. In that case my reply was unnecessarily silly but I still think the point is still reasonable: A ship of that size doesn't make sense based on current human scales, technology, and scientific understanding. Your argument could also be used to argue that the pyramids would never be built. I do agree with you that it's not a ship, and that such a ship would be unlikely for many reasons, even less likely compared to say a much smaller ship... but that this argument makes a lot of assumptions.

Yes, I think in general people are corruptible; there are always exceptions. I guess I read a bit more into your post than what you actually said. I assumed you were saying "There is a correlation between power and corruption, but not a causal relation. That power attracts the (easily) corruptible explains the correlation." To which I'd say, that doesn't prove that there's not also a causal relation. If you gave an example of something like what swansont suggests investigating -- a situation where power was achieved but not due to its attraction -- we might try to show that power would or wouldn't corrupt in that example, which might be an argument against or for your claim. An example of someone with power but not attracted to power, who doesn't get corrupted, would be evidence that power doesn't necessarily corrupt the easily corruptible. I have a feeling that with enough power, the inconsistencies in what we each believe is right and wrong could cause anyone to make corrupt decisions, but I don't know if that's the case for all examples.

I agree. The Corinians would obviously have early 21st century Earth technology as well as human-like size and temperature requirements. Why wouldn't they also have a similar economy to ours? If you think the Dow can suffer without any effect on alien stock markets, you're nuts! With the obvious fall in the Quatloo, who in the universe could even afford a spaceship of that size?! Anyway, kidding aside, the explanation that it's an image processing effect is doubtless. I think that with automation and replication, building large scale structures is conceivable. Who knows what future technology might be like say 10000 or a billion years in the future, and whether bigger is better or not. I think a Dyson sphere would be possible, and a lot bigger.

The second statement doesn't support the first, unless you're presuming the existence of those who are not corruptible. Do you have an example of someone who is not corruptible even when wielding great power? I think in general power corrupts.

"Electromagnetism attracts electrons to an atomic nucleus to form atoms," [http://en.wikipedia....lectromagnetism] This happens without photons being exchanged between electron and nucleus, right? Is it safe to say that for not all effects of electromagnetism is there a need (or in any sense, "existence") of a photon to have the effect? Eg. electrons are bound to atoms due to the electromagnetic force; considering only a single atom, no photon can definitively be said to actually exist until there is a transfer of energy via electromagnetic radiation? In terms of gravitity and the hypothetical graviton, it could be that gravitation effects occur without gravitons, but that gravitons might "exist" anywhere that gravitational force information needs to be "carried", which would essentially be when there is a change. The http://en.wikipedia....i/Force_carrier link says "it is thought that there may be particles called gravitons which are the excitations of gravitational waves" (tentative). Also, it suggests that an answer to my question above is that any electromagnetic interaction can be thought of as carried out by "virtual particles", so whether or not particles actually exist in those cases is I guess somewhat up to interpretation? Couldn't the existence of non-virtual (long-lived) particles such as photons be the same as the existence of virtual particles? Might they have no physical existence beside the measurable effect that has occurred, ie. that a force has been carried? Or is that in fact what defines their existence -- that electromagnetic force carrying (light) has been measured, while gravitational force carrying has not been observed? So detection of gravity waves would constitute that and would show that gravitons exist? Sorry I realize with all these questions that I'm in over my head.

No worries. Figuring out the problems is what's interesting. I actually expected the formula to come out different!, that it would be simpler with some obscure simplification. Working with combinations instead of factorials should be a lot easier (programmatically or spreadsheet-ically) because you can have large values yet avoid calculating the full factorials. Edit: Actually I guess the same type of shortcuts could be made with either.

If you change one entry in each row to a 2, indicating where both members match, the number of 1s (where exactly 1 member matches) is 60. Hmmm... the chart gets me thinking of a different strategy to solve the problem. Say you already have the set X and T, and you want to construct Y so that exactly N members match. How many ways can you do this? You would choose N members from X, and then fill out the rest of Y with remaining members from T that aren't in X. The number of ways to do this is "From X choose N" times "From |(T \ X)| choose Y-N". Then "From T choose Y" is the total number of ways that Y can be chosen. Then the probability of randomly getting one of the sets where exactly N match (being lazy with the notation) would be... (x C n)(t-x C y-n) / (t C y) which expands to... uh I don't want to bother. It might be interesting to expand and compare it to the previous formula. But LibreOffice has a COMBIN function, so it's easier to keep it as combinations for spreadsheet math!... Using X=Y=2 and N=1 and T=5, it comes to 2 * 3 / 10 = 0.6

I have a feeling that this is the one point that will be taken from all your replies in this post, and that 6 months from now we'll be hearing about how "Science thinks that what spacetime really 'is' is pink fairies living on a rabbit pelt named Fred."

You're right. It is only consistent with all known measurements and the model of GR. If there were measurements that disagreed, that would be evidence against either GR and/or universal gravitation. So, philosophically, you can contemplate space that is not curved by the presence of mass, but that doesn't correspond to reality. I'm sorry. I was replying to someone's question in the thread, which I thought was on topic. Or is it only the questions that are on topic, and answers are off? I apologize for being slow at learning the rules of threads that belong to you. Yes, and a table is made of atoms. Does that bother you? But what is an atom? And what is a quark? Science has a broad range of ontological answers to the question "what is a table?" but they begin and end with what can be determined experimentally. Can you give me an example of any definitive ontological answer to a question of what something is, where one can't simply take the answer and say "But what IS that?", as you have been doing?

The symmetry in probabilities also makes sense, because if you chose Y from T and are left with (T \ Y) with 5 members, it is equivalent to choosing (T \ Y) first: taking 5 members away from T and leave the remaining ones as a set called Y. If exactly 2 members of X match with Y, then the rest (exactly 3) must match with (T \ Y). If Y and (T \ Y) are symmetrical or whatever, the probability of matching 2 in one and 3 in the other must equal the probability of matching 3 in one and 2 in the other. Looks promising!

Oh! Well that's easy! Let's assume that spacetime is not a "thing", as you will see in the following example that whether or not it "is" a thing is not relevant to the answer to the question (which is itself an answer to this thread's question). If you were to measure lengths in a given curved space, using any consistent method of measuring lengths, you would find that lengths which might be the same in flat space, are measured as different lengths in curved space. If a hypothetical mass moving through this space were also to measure these lengths, it too would find that lengths are not universal, and it would measure lengths that are consistent with what you measure. So you measure that lengths are different, and so does the mass. Lines that are straight from one viewpoint can be curved from another. Now, this hypothetical mass can also "measure lengths" using any consistent method. So it doesn't have to pull out a ruler and use its hands... the simple act of moving through a space can act as a measure of it. And THIS is how the mass "interacts" with the non-thing space that we're imagining: It only has to behave consistently in the space; it behaves over a length as if it has measured that length. Whether or not it actually "does something" to measure it is not important to answer the question. Just like if you walk across a room, the room will be the same length whether you have your eyes open or not (since the universe is consistent), something behaves in space the same whether it is measuring lengths with a ruler or not. So in the end we have that the mass only have to behave consistently in this space as if it is measuring it to be curved, and it will behave as if the space is curved. It doesn't matter what constitutes the measure. It doesn't matter if it's measuring "no thing", or "something". If it behaves as if curved space is nothing, then curved space might be nothing, but if it also behaves as if curved space is "something", then it might also be something. BUT HERE'S THE POINT of the science vs. purely philosophical questioning: If there's no way to answer (or differentiate, or test) whether one is right and the other is wrong or vice versa, then the question is irrelevant, can't (at least yet) be answered, doesn't make a difference to the behavior of things in that space, does not have to be answered for science to progress, cannot be answered definitively, and is a time-wasting digression from science. That said, of course philosophy in general is relevant to science and even the unanswerable questions can inspire useful scientific questions and ideas. I'm not a card-carrying scientist and I can only hope that this is correct enough. I'm sure it can be explained better. This is only what I've picked up from the many other answers to your questions, which you could have also done yourself.

My guess is that for small values of T, you're much more likely to match 2 or 3 or more, than just 1. For T=5, the probability is 1 for N=5. For T=9, the sum of the probabilities for N=[1,5] will be 1. After that, the sum of probabilities for N >= 1 will start falling to 0 as T approaches infinity, and the value of N that has the highest probability of being the number of exact matches will go from 5 down to 1 and eventually to 0 as T goes from 5 to infinity (that is, with a large enough T the most likely number of matches will be 0).