Origin of Natural Order

[RSolomon]

                                         Origins of Natural Order  

             A Strong Bond Between Geometry, Mathematics, and Physic                                                                                     

                                                    S.  Solomon

Assertion:

An omission occurred during the early development of our formal geometric knowledge, it was a notable Problem that lacked a satisfactory Solution, which was eventually set aside and nearly forgotten about over time. Since then, the many advances in geometry, mathematics, and physics now constitute the rigor, logic & laws of today’s natural science. Nevertheless, that ancient geometric omission remains obscure & unresolved, thus leaving a gap in continuity of the geometric foundation that underpins natural science. Such an oversight would foreseeably carry over into the subsequent fields of study that depend on the wholeness of the geometric foundation. If the foundation is in some real way incomplete, it will naturally hinder a more complete understanding of the relationships that exist within & between those fields of knowledge.

The assertion is, that the body of geometric knowledge was & still is incomplete, i.e., the Problem. The Problem will be adequately demonstrated, followed by a remarkable Solution, one that will lend insight into the bonds between natural geometry, mathematics, and physics.

RSVP

[Phi for All]

Please make your case without all the wind up. You're trying to persuade us, NOT sell us something. Start with stating what you think are problems. It could be they aren't at all. So far, this sounds like you hit a snag in geometry somewhere, and instead of learning it the way everyone else learned it, you decided it was a mistake made by the ancients that nobody has recognized... until YOU came along. Evidence is what you need to persuade us, not teasing about some remarkable solution to a problem we may not agree is a problem.

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, RSolomon said:

The Problem will be adequately demonstrated,

Well go on then, demonstrate it.

Since it is geometry and you are new here,  do you need help posting something ?

Edited September 6, 2022 by studiot

[joigus]

Yes, now that we've been properly teased, lay it on us.

[RSolomon]

studiot 

Be patient, I certainly shall demonstrate it! 
While “it” requires background & surrounding evidence to set the stage onto which such a matter can be properly introduce. 
It will involve posting several sets of geometric proofs, and I do appreciate your offer of help! Let us see how it goes. 
Firstly, the Assertion needs to be expanded upon, in terms of a broader Introduction, touching on important & relevant matters & facts that must be comsidered, and to see if as-much passes muster on your end. This is a new approach for me, I will get to work on a revised introduction – be patient! 
 

[Bufofrog]

15 minutes ago, RSolomon said:

Be patient, I certainly shall demonstrate it!

Based on this silly protracted lead in, there is approximately zero chance the rest will be worth anyone's attention.

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, RSolomon said:

Firstly, the Assertion needs to be expanded upon, in terms of a broader Introduction, touching on important & relevant matters & facts that must be comsidered, and to see if as-much passes muster on your end.

Oh please, NO, don't expand on it! Please just assume we know what "notable Problem" you're talking about, or what you think geometry is missing, and perhaps give us some actual evidence that this omission is affecting other branches of science. Why does physics allow us to describe the natural world so incredibly well within its various applications if it's based on bad foundations? What mathematics aren't working because of incomplete geometries?

As I said before, you should be persuading us with reasonable arguments, not waving your hands and setting us up like you want to sell us something.

[RSolomon]

Guys!
I am not trying to jerk you guys around – how stupid would that be?
The matter has been reviewed by the heads of several physics departments (who found no fault in it), yet they advised that it be propose to one of the larger research institutions. So now you are it! 
I will cut to the chase as soon as I am able. While it is that I have proposed something that amounts to a rather tall order, and it requires that I be circumspect. 
You guys have been working on this matter, in one way or another, for a long while now. So, when someone comes forward with a proposed/possible Solution, be patient… It is a bit more than “42”.
Now let me work on an introduction worthy of your consideration.
 

Bulofrog

You are just rude, please stay out of this, if that is all you have to offer!

[TheVat]

Ribbit!

[MigL]

I suspect most of us will stay out, and it has nothing to do with being rude.

We come here to discuss, not to be preached to.
This is your second go at it, and we still don't have anything worth discussing.
Sh*t , or get off the pot !
( i guess you bring out the 'rude' in us )

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, RSolomon said:

The matter has been reviewed by the heads of several physics departments

If you have a paper suitable for review, why not paste it here?

1 hour ago, RSolomon said:

(who found no fault in it),

If you have a perfect paper, it should be pretty easy to share it with us, or even just the parts that address the "problems" as you see them.

1 hour ago, RSolomon said:

yet they advised that it be propose to one of the larger research institutions. So now you are it! 

The heads of several physics departments told you Science Forums.net is one of the larger research institutions? We're a science discussion forum, so I'm not sure what they were talking about. Perhaps Dr Swanson has been talking us up at conventions?

 

[RSolomon]

 
Introduction  
The early geometers who laid the formal foundations of natural geometric knowledge, which in turn has much to do with the development of mathematics. The knowledge of natural geometry serves as frameworks to gauge the dynamic models in of theoretical physics. Natural geometry, mathematics, and physics are positively linked – while the exact manner by which they are linked has not, as yet, been defined.    
Mr. Einstein strongly pointed to “the root of natural geometry” in his quest for Unified Field – “a statement of pure elegant simplicity, most likely overlooked due to man’s overly complex ego”! He was right about a lot of things.
The current body of natural geometric knowledge is based on a limited number of primary geometric structures & forms, all of which are graphically represented on pages 2. – 3. This body of knowledge was established long ago & remains essentially unchanged, and has sense been much elaborated upon.
But there was & is one Problem! The said omission did not go unnoticed, yet for lack of that Solution, researchers had no choice but to move forward in their quest for more complete knowledge of the make-up & workings of the natural world, while leaving the Problem unaddressed & obscure.  
The Problem had to do with the lack of continuity within & between the individual elements of geometry of that body of knowledge, in that they were unable to discover a geometric common denominator – or a tangible expression for the origin or cause of natural shapes & forms. So, research (Science) ended up building on a nearly, yet not entirely, complete geometric foundation, and have since been unable to close the gap – not geometrically, mathematically, nor in any of the realms of theoretical physics.
Definition: “Geometric Element” refers specifically to those individual whole (closed) primary geometric elements. (See Pages 2. – 3.)  Not to be confused with Euclid’s Elements. 
In general, the elementary basis of current body of geometric knowledge is a collection of, more-than-less, individual entities or groups of entities that lack geometric continuity. No known expression for a unitary bond. Nowhere in mathematics, nor in physics has there been satisfactorily Solution to the Problem. 
That outlines the Problem in words, while geometry is a precise language in & of itself.
If you, at the forum, want to call BS at this place, then I will not further bother

[MigL]

So this 'problem' is based on A Einstein's quote, and his quest for a Unified Field Theory ?
That, because geometry is used in building one model, GR, it should be used for all physical models ?
And the fact that geometry lacks a basic 'consistency' ( for lack of a better word ) means that it cannot be used to build all other models ?

Have I got it straight ?

Geometry, and all of mathematics, are tools, used for physical model building.
There is a vast difference between the physical 'reality' ( whatever that is ) and the model we use to describe it and make predictions.
And 'tools' don't require 'consistency/coherence'; I certainly don't expect that from my hammer and saw.

Incidentally, A Einstein's search for a Unified Field Theory, was, at best, misguided.
Kaluza-Klein had some promise, but that was before anyone had any consideration for the 'strong ( color ) interaction, and the weak interaction.

[studiot]

23 hours ago, RSolomon said:

Be patient, I certainly shall demonstrate it! 
While “it” requires background & surrounding evidence to set the stage onto which such a matter can be properly introduce. 
It will involve posting several sets of geometric proofs, and I do appreciate your offer of help! Let us see how it goes. 
Firstly, the Assertion needs to be expanded upon, in terms of a broader Introduction, touching on important & relevant matters & facts that must be comsidered, and to see if as-much passes muster on your end. This is a new approach for me, I will get to work on a revised introduction – be patient! 
 

Instead of the over lenghty preamble, can I suggest you explain/define some of the terms you are hefting about ?

I am a retired applied mathematician, who has also (had to) studied lots of other applied subjects to go with the mathematics.
So I was always interested in verifiable answers and results.
Since I have been retired I have taken the opportunity to look into the foundations of Mathematics to widen my base.
And I have never heard of 'Natural Geometry'.

So first of all what is Natural Order ?

And then what is Natural Geometry ?

Never mind your famous solution, that would be for a much later post when I and other members understand what you think is wrong with Mathematics in general and Geometry in particular.

In other words what is the problem that needs this 'solution'  ?

 

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by studiot
spelling

[RSolomon]

Response to MigL

It takes a degree of intelligence to understand a matter - a lack thereof to deliberately misunderstand it!
No, you ain’t got it straight!
There was a big stinking hurry for me to offer a quick & comprehensive Solution to the Origin of Matter. I thought this was a civilized forum, wherein if a topic seemed uninteresting to someone, it would be simply passed over, for the sake of someone with something worthwhile to say. Why the coming across with off-of-the-wall BS.
I could go over it slowly, but that would not resolve intentional ignorance.
no cigar dude! 
So now Einstein is a lacky, and you superior & beyond reproach. 
Perhaps it is jealousy or some other idiosyncrasy, ego, or failures that caused bitterness – Whatever! But I did not think this forum was a place for such cheap banter.   
“The Problem” by Albert Einstein: “Which are the simplest formal structures that can be attributed to a four-dimensional continuum, and which are the simplest laws that may be constructed to govern these structures. We then look for the mathematical expressions of physical fields in these formal structures and the field laws of physics already known to a certain approximation from earlier research in simplest laws governing the structures.” 
Why should I bother to offer a valid Solution to the Problem? 
 

[RSolomon]

Studiot

I appreciate your response and have a prepaired answer, one that I trust will simplify & clairify the entire discussaion.

If it happens to not set well with you, simply say so and I will accept it as your honest observation.

It is composed in MS Word with graphics included. Is there something I should know about importing it?I 

I imported it! Concerned about how well it survived!

 

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, RSolomon said:

It is composed in MS Word with graphics included. Is there something I should know about importing it?I 

!

Moderator Note

Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no).

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, RSolomon said:

Studiot

I appreciate your response and have a prepaired answer, one that I trust will simplify & clairify the entire discussaion.

If it happens to not set well with you, simply say so and I will accept it as your honest observation.

It is composed in MS Word with graphics included. Is there something I should know about importing it?I 

I imported it! Concerned about how well it survived!

 

Thank you for your posting, I fear it will not be long before the moderators remove your attachment as being against the rules here and against what they have already told you.

 

I see from the attachment that you wish to discuss two and a half thousand year old mathematics.

Do you not think we have moved on at least a little bit since then ?

You have introduced some more modern terms manifold, group, order but tried to use them in non mathematical ways.

The 5 platonic solids you mention form what we now call a 'homotopy group' and it is by this means that we can prove that there are only these 5 regular solids in 3 dimensions. They actually enjoy no particular order (in the mathematical sense). Groups are not, as you suggest, series in mathematics, they have a very special definition.

Quote

Elements of Natural Geometry: There are a limited number of primary geometric shapes & forms (elements) observed throughout the manifold, known to be the basis of natural structure & order. All natural structure & order can be traced to one or more (combinations of) of these elementary shapes/forms.  

 

These same elements of form are enshrined within the ancient foundation of natural science. In addition, further study & quantification of these geometric elements has much to do with the development of our mathematics.

 

In the adjacent graphics, it is notable that there are a number of internally related groups (series), yet there is no unitary geometric expression that can be seen to transition between them all – no single geometric common denominator - no tangible transitional expression that serves as a universla bond. Yet one must surely exist. One that can be said (logically & theroetically) to represent the underlying origin of natural geometry, while at the same time it has ever been present (in stealth) throughout the manifold.

 

 

Unfortunately the rest of your article starts to wander off into mystic woo, for instance trying to introduce the so called golden ratio, instead of finding out just how much more modern mathematics in general and geometry in particular has to offer.

You may wish some entertaining light reading about geometry.

Try perusing The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry by David Wells.

You may also like

The Self Made Tapestry  - Pattern formation in nature  by Phillip Ball
I think you will find many suprises in it especially as it has a similar theme to yours, but with the benefit of modern scientific observations so it represents the best of our knowledge.

 

I suggest avoiding entering a slanging match about Einstein.
Although he may well have been the world's greatest Physicist, he was no a Mathematician and had to rely on support form for competent mathematicians.
Od course many other scientists have done great things in many other areas of science, both before, at the same time and after.

 

One thing I picked up from your earlier postings was concsrned 'the continuum';
The theoretical nature of the continuum has, as you say, been a subject of investigation since before Greek times and has still not been settled today.

But for all current practical purposes the continuum we live in behaves observably like the one you will find in any standard textbook of continuum mechanics.

It is only the pure mathematicians that are still arguing over Cantor's 'Continuum Hypothesis' and the practical result will be the same whichever one is eventually proved correct, - if that ever happns.

Edited September 7, 2022 by studiot

[RSolomon]

Studiot

Unfortunately the rest of your article starts to wander off into mystic woo, for instance trying to introduce the so called golden ratio, instead of finding out just how much more modern mathematics in general and geometry in particular has to offer.

(1.) The Golden Mean / Fibonacci Series / 1/1.618… references a natural progression/proportions that are prominent featurs of a great variety of natural structures – what is so “mystic woo” about that, it is a natural fact. While there are those who regard spiritual values and who recognize the Golden Mean Series as having to do with Creator & Creation. Be that as it may, I did not come into this forum to preach the mystical, rather make an offering of truth/fact to the scientifically inclined – technically speaking. At the same time, I do not limit myself to the limitations of others.

You may wish some entertaining light reading about geometry.
(2.)Do you presume that I haven’t! Rather I researched it enough to know that current geometric knowledge, though it has been greatly elaborated on, the essential geometric facts were ascertained & established long ago (the geometric foundations of science). Meanewhile, none of your modern research has been able to define the underlying cause or origin of the geometric structure of nature or cosmos. That does not preclude humble me from having gained discreet understandings of such law & order, that the mainstreem accedemia is yet to be fully privy to. Both might have something "new" to learn.
Try perusing The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry by David Wells.
You may also like - The Self-Made Tapestry - Pattern formation in nature by Phillip Ball
I think you will find many surprises in it especially as it has a similar theme to yours, but with the benefit of modern scientific observations so it represents the best of our knowledge.
(3) I appreciate the suggestions and may do so! Nevertheless, I Am now long of tooth, had sever dyslexia as a youth, so that I, then & now, only delved into the things of serious interest – and I do know what I am talking about where some such things are concerned. Sort of self-taught. Is not suprising that I do not fully conform to your ivory tower intelligencia.    
I suggest avoiding entering a slanging match about Einstein. 
(4.) I know what I need to know about Mr. Einstein, and I do not need to be tutored by some arrogant joker.
Although he (Einstein) may well have been the world's greatest Physicist, he was not a Mathematician and had to rely on support form for competent mathematicians.
(5.) Yes, Mileva was, in some real way, a great blessing.

Of course many other scientists have done great things in many other areas of science, both before, at the same time and after.
(6.)Yes! They each in their own way & language (geometry, mathematics, physics, etc.) set out to comprehend and prove things pertaining to the laws, structure & unity that operates throughout nature & cosmos. Their discoveries are what the great edifice of science is made up of. 
 One thing I picked up from your earlier postings was concsrned CONTINUITY & 'the continuum';
The theoretical nature of the continuum has, as you say, been a subject of investigation since before Greek times and has still not been settled today.
(7.) That’s what I am talking about! “and has still not been settled today”.
But for all current practical purposes the continuum we live in behaves observably like the one you will find in any standard textbook of continuum mechanics.
Yes! It is all quite logical!
(8.)??? Continuum of what? It is Dynamics in concert with Form – the laws of dynamics/physics acting in unisons with natural structure. Physics knows quite a lot about force fields such as the Four Forces, also about the natural (material world) natural geometry = natural structure – see the graphics I sent. Now where did THEY come from? Is there an underlying expression that they arose from and continues to act as a transitional geometric bond, a common denominator... 
Is it absurd of me to ask? It is basically the question that has been at the heart of the sciences from its inception. So is an acute understanding of continuity and the workings of the continuum something that only those who have degrees can be acquainted with.… All the books are there, and the mind that understands is not limited by the universities, rather understanding is written in the stary heavens, Nature is the great teacher – if we pay close attention, it comes through the cloud arises out of the deep grayness between our ears . There is knowledge to be had from books, moreover understanding is written throughout the living creation.
(9.) But do you really think I should continue in this attempt to divulge the matter, to cast pearls before mockers & scorners… Right or wrong, what should I expect? Mockery or robbery, or both…
I have learned a lesson here…  Perhaps I shall peddle my wares elsewhere. What would you suggest? 
Sincerely 
Solomon
 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, RSolomon said:

Studiot

Unfortunately the rest of your article starts to wander off into mystic woo, for instance trying to introduce the so called golden ratio, instead of finding out just how much more modern mathematics in general and geometry in particular has to offer.

(1.) The Golden Mean / Fibonacci Series / 1/1.618… references a natural progression/proportions that are prominent featurs of a great variety of natural structures – what is so “mystic woo” about that, it is a natural fact. While there are those who regard spiritual values and who recognize the Golden Mean Series as having to do with Creator & Creation. Be that as it may, I did not come into this forum to preach the mystical, rather make an offering of truth/fact to the scientifically inclined – technically speaking. At the same time, I do not limit myself to the limitations of others.

You may wish some entertaining light reading about geometry.
(2.)Do you presume that I haven’t! Rather I researched it enough to know that current geometric knowledge, though it has been greatly elaborated on, the essential geometric facts were ascertained & established long ago (the geometric foundations of science). Meanewhile, none of your modern research has been able to define the underlying cause or origin of the geometric structure of nature or cosmos. That does not preclude humble me from having gained discreet understandings of such law & order, that the mainstreem accedemia is yet to be fully privy to. Both might have something "new" to learn.
Try perusing The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry by David Wells.
You may also like - The Self-Made Tapestry - Pattern formation in nature by Phillip Ball
I think you will find many surprises in it especially as it has a similar theme to yours, but with the benefit of modern scientific observations so it represents the best of our knowledge.
(3) I appreciate the suggestions and may do so! Nevertheless, I Am now long of tooth, had sever dyslexia as a youth, so that I, then & now, only delved into the things of serious interest – and I do know what I am talking about where some such things are concerned. Sort of self-taught. Is not suprising that I do not fully conform to your ivory tower intelligencia.    
I suggest avoiding entering a slanging match about Einstein. 
(4.) I know what I need to know about Mr. Einstein, and I do not need to be tutored by some arrogant joker.
Although he (Einstein) may well have been the world's greatest Physicist, he was not a Mathematician and had to rely on support form for competent mathematicians.
(5.) Yes, Mileva was, in some real way, a great blessing.

Of course many other scientists have done great things in many other areas of science, both before, at the same time and after.
(6.)Yes! They each in their own way & language (geometry, mathematics, physics, etc.) set out to comprehend and prove things pertaining to the laws, structure & unity that operates throughout nature & cosmos. Their discoveries are what the great edifice of science is made up of. 
 One thing I picked up from your earlier postings was concsrned CONTINUITY & 'the continuum';
The theoretical nature of the continuum has, as you say, been a subject of investigation since before Greek times and has still not been settled today.
(7.) That’s what I am talking about! “and has still not been settled today”.
But for all current practical purposes the continuum we live in behaves observably like the one you will find in any standard textbook of continuum mechanics.
Yes! It is all quite logical!
(8.)??? Continuum of what? It is Dynamics in concert with Form – the laws of dynamics/physics acting in unisons with natural structure. Physics knows quite a lot about force fields such as the Four Forces, also about the natural (material world) natural geometry = natural structure – see the graphics I sent. Now where did THEY come from? Is there an underlying expression that they arose from and continues to act as a transitional geometric bond, a common denominator... 
Is it absurd of me to ask? It is basically the question that has been at the heart of the sciences from its inception. So is an acute understanding of continuity and the workings of the continuum something that only those who have degrees can be acquainted with.… All the books are there, and the mind that understands is not limited by the universities, rather understanding is written in the stary heavens, Nature is the great teacher – if we pay close attention, it comes through the cloud arises out of the deep grayness between our ears . There is knowledge to be had from books, moreover understanding is written throughout the living creation.
(9.) But do you really think I should continue in this attempt to divulge the matter, to cast pearls before mockers & scorners… Right or wrong, what should I expect? Mockery or robbery, or both…
I have learned a lesson here…  Perhaps I shall peddle my wares elsewhere. What would you suggest? 
Sincerely 
Solomon
 

Not robbery, certainly, as you don't seem to have offered anything of value.

What I would suggest is radically altering your style of communication: cut out all this useless verbiage and circumlocution, and learn how to summarise ideas succinctly. Doing this may be challenging, but the process will help you get your own thoughts and ideas in order. Get to the point quickly, and stick to it. At the moment you seem to be in a huge muddle. My experience is that people that use a lot of words generally are less insightful, and produce work of less value, than those who are able to express themselves in a concise and focused way.  I find, myself, that trying to set down my ideas concisely in print is a good way to make sure I have thought the subject through properly.   

The other thing you can usefully do is control your ego. You have failed lamentably to express your ideas clearly on this forum, and when people's patience wears thin, you assume it is we who are the idiots, rather than you, and resort to insults. We will draw our own conclusions from that.  

Nobody owes you a hearing. It is you that needs to convince others that you have something worthwhile to say and show that you can have a civil discussion about it.  Unless you are happy to talk only to yourself, of course. 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by exchemist

[studiot]

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

Studiot

Unfortunately the rest of your article starts to wander off into mystic woo, for instance trying to introduce the so called golden ratio, instead of finding out just how much more modern mathematics in general and geometry in particular has to offer.

(1.) The Golden Mean / Fibonacci Series / 1/1.618… references a natural progression/proportions that are prominent featurs of a great variety of natural structures – what is so “mystic woo” about that, it is a natural fact. While there are those who regard spiritual values and who recognize the Golden Mean Series as having to do with Creator & Creation. Be that as it may, I did not come into this forum to preach the mystical, rather make an offering of truth/fact to the scientifically inclined – technically speaking. At the same time, I do not limit myself to the limitations of others.

Sincerely 

Solomon
 

Bolded quote

And modest with it.

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

You may wish some entertaining light reading about geometry.
(2.)Do you presume that I haven’t! Rather I researched it enough to know that current geometric knowledge, though it has been greatly elaborated on, the essential geometric facts were ascertained & established long ago (the geometric foundations of science). Meanewhile, none of your modern research has been able to define the underlying cause or origin of the geometric structure of nature or cosmos. That does not preclude humble me from having gained discreet understandings of such law & order, that the mainstreem accedemia is yet to be fully privy to. Both might have something "new" to learn.
Try perusing The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry by David Wells.
You may also like - The Self-Made Tapestry - Pattern formation in nature by Phillip Ball
I think you will find many surprises in it especially as it has a similar theme to yours, but with the benefit of modern scientific observations so it represents the best of our knowledge.

Sincerely 
Solomon
 

I haven't presumed anything.

Bbolded quotes

I very much doubt this claim, especially since it is offered with no support whatsoever ans just so easy to find numerous counterexamples.

Do you understand the geometry of Scottish Dancing or the placement of Tiles, or the arrangement of atoms in molecules ?

In other words the geometry of Juxtaposition ?

How about Pick's theorem ?

Or Mandelbrot's question  "How long is the coastline of Britain ?"

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

 

(3) I appreciate the suggestions and may do so! Nevertheless, I Am now long of tooth, had sever dyslexia as a youth, so that I, then & now, only delved into the things of serious interest – and I do know what I am talking about where some such things are concerned. Sort of self-taught. Is not suprising that I do not fully conform to your ivory tower intelligencia.    

Sincerely 
Solomon
 

Bolded quotes

Really ?

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

I suggest avoiding entering a slanging match about Einstein. 
(4.) I know what I need to know about Mr. Einstein, and I do not need to be tutored by some arrogant joker.
Although he (Einstein) may well have been the world's greatest Physicist, he was not a Mathematician and had to rely on support form for competent mathematicians.

Sincerely 
Solomon
 

Bolded quotes

Perhaps, but not interested in the sincere offerings of others.

 

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

 

(5.) Yes, Mileva was, in some real way, a great blessing.

Sincerely 
Solomon
 

 

Good of you to say so

 

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

 

Of course many other scientists have done great things in many other areas of science, both before, at the same time and after.
(6.)Yes! They each in their own way & language (geometry, mathematics, physics, etc.) set out to comprehend and prove things pertaining to the laws, structure & unity that operates throughout nature & cosmos. Their discoveries are what the great edifice of science is made up of. 
 
Sincerely 
Solomon
 

 

So why do you write so disparagingly about them  ?

 

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

One thing I picked up from your earlier postings was concsrned CONTINUITY & 'the continuum';
The theoretical nature of the continuum has, as you say, been a subject of investigation since before Greek times and has still not been settled today.
(7.) That’s what I am talking about! “and has still not been settled today”.
But for all current practical purposes the continuum we live in behaves observably like the one you will find in any standard textbook of continuum mechanics.
Yes! It is all quite logical!

Sincerely 
Solomon

Quote

The Continuum Hypothesis

The hypothesis that the cardinality of the continuum is the smallest non denumberable cardinal.

This was later shown to be undecidable.  That is the both the hypothesis and its negation are consistent with the standard axioms of set theory.  (Godel)

Is the the mathematical continuity you mean ?

 

4 hours ago, RSolomon said:

(8.)??? Continuum of what? It is Dynamics in concert with Form – the laws of dynamics/physics acting in unisons with natural structure. Physics knows quite a lot about force fields such as the Four Forces, also about the natural (material world) natural geometry = natural structure – see the graphics I sent. Now where did THEY come from? Is there an underlying expression that they arose from and continues to act as a transitional geometric bond, a common denominator... 
Is it absurd of me to ask? It is basically the question that has been at the heart of the sciences from its inception. So is an acute understanding of continuity and the workings of the continuum something that only those who have degrees can be acquainted with.… All the books are there, and the mind that understands is not limited by the universities, rather understanding is written in the stary heavens, Nature is the great teacher – if we pay close attention, it comes through the cloud arises out of the deep grayness between our ears . There is knowledge to be had from books, moreover understanding is written throughout the living creation.

Sincerely 
Solomon
 

First bolding

You need to be aware of the very very very great difference between the meaning of Field in Mathematics and in Physics.

In Mathematics a Field is a set of entities subject to two binary operations and certain other conditions.

In Physics a Fields is a set of elements that are either arguments or values of a function. The union of the range and the domain of a function.

 

Second bolding

Of course it is not absurd to ask. In fact most consider asking to be excellent practice.

I have tried to offer the beginnings of some answers so it is most disappointing for me to find that you are not receptive to discussion about the topic and only seem to wish to pronounce your views as though no one else has ever had anything worthwhile to say. Others have found them even more upsetting. However I have always treated your posts as those of a thinking adult.

Here is some modern (only 55 years old)  geometry that is one way to introduce the answers in Mathematics you claim to seek.

And yes, it is Scottish Dancing.

 

A final question to think about.

You keep mentioning "Natural"     -  Natural Geometry, Natural Science, Natural Order etc

What would then be Unnatural Geometry, Unnatural Science, Unnatural Order   ?

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by studiot

[joigus]

"Ta da!"

"Ta da what?"

"Ta da!"

"What?"

"Ta da!"

"Bye."

[RSolomon]

Studiot
      It was never my intention to have things go off track in the ways they have, so at this place I will round things off as best as I can. I can now see many mistakes in my approach & presentation, and I will take in the well-meant criticism as good advice and be grateful for it. At the same time nothing said has given me caused to doubt the essential validity of the said Problem & Solution related to the Cause & Origin of Matter. Though for my part, the introduced was terribly awkward – my bad! I did not manage to present and define The Problem adequately, then overwhelmed by protests, which did not allow the Solution to be ventured. So yes, nothing much was shared nor received, not much more than a hard-bitten bone of contention. Everyone gets to have their part in it all.
      Setting aside controversies, I do appreciate the suggested reading The Self-Made Tapestry, sounds particularly interesting. So much so that I have ordered a hard copy that should arrive for my birthday – Thank You! May I learn from and treasure it! 
      Your remarks about Mr. Balls book, leads me believe that you know very well what natural geometry is, and in the way I use the term, i.e., “For centuries, scientists have struggled to understand the origins of the patterns and forms found in nature-from the leopard’s spots to the graceful spirals of a mollusk shell to the complex designs on a butterfly’s wing. Now, in this lucid and elegantly written book, Philip Ball applies state-of-the-art scientific understanding from the fields of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and mathematics to these ancient mysteries, revealing how nature's seemingly complex patterns originate in simple physical laws.” -- Exactly! Perhaps I can improve my English comp. while reading it, so as to better present my assertions. As there is still a nut yet to be cracked, one which is no doubt complementary to what Mr. Ball has sucessfully expounded upon. My cause is focused on the underlying origin of that which he speaks, the mostly uncharted precursor of form & dynamics... 
       Field is a broad term. – “Among the many fields of science… natural science (noun) · natural sciences (plural noun) a branch (field) of science that deals with the physical world, e.g., physics, chemistry, geology, biology. The branch of knowledge that deals with the study of the physical world.” 
       On the other hand, a Field as I often use that term refer to fields of influence/force, I.e., gravitational, electro-magnetic, the week force, and the strong force, etc. They are often expressed geometrically/graphically to making them more tangible & useful as theoretical models of those forces, etc. Natural structure (geometry) and dynamics act in concert, wherein the bond between natural geometry, mathematics, and physics exists as an unbroken continuum in action, as is present throughout the manifold cosmos, ect., ect...
        Once Again, “The Problem” by Albert Einstein: “Which are the simplest formal structures that can be attributed to a four-dimensional continuum, and which are the simplest laws that may be constructed to govern these structures. We then look for the mathematical expressions of physical fields in these formal structures and the field laws of physics already known to a certain approximation from earlier research in simplest laws governing the structures.” 
I know there are other approaches and lots of argument to be had. Nevertheless Mr. Einstein has goes a long way to define the matter, and I find his many similar such statments to be, as the UFO guys say, highly compelling. And more than a casual interest, I delved into it with unrelenting focus, many years ago, until the Solution was rendersd fourth. I Am now comfortably retired, which affords opportunity to cultivate an acceptable presentation.
      With well wishes and gratitude I bid adieu, perhaps we can pick it up again when I am better prepared to discussion it and to gain from what others have to offer. I greatly value much of what you have had to offered, setting aside the less agreeable mentions. In all thank you & may God Bless!
Shabbat Shalom 
Sincerely
Solomon

 
 

[Bufofrog]

Just out of curiosity does anyone (except the OP author) know what "The Problem" is?  I am a bit dense and I still haven't got an idea what "the Problem" is.

[exchemist]

40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Just out of curiosity does anyone (except the OP author) know what "The Problem" is?  I am a bit dense and I still haven't got an idea what "the Problem" is.

No idea whatsoever.