Origin of Natural Order

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Just out of curiosity does anyone (except the OP author) know what "The Problem" is? 

Apparently it will be "adequately demonstrated" at a later date. In my experience, this means it won't be, because it's something the author didn't understand to begin with. It's something that didn't fit intuitively, but instead of asking questions about it, they decided to make up something that made more sense to them. Thus the windup, because "the Problem" needs some special contortions and leaps of logic for it to make sense. Thus the need to call the replies "mockery". The author is obviously a smart person who made the mistake of filling in the gaps in their knowledge with stuff they've made up. 

[joigus]

On 9/10/2022 at 3:29 PM, 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.

Not even the froggiest idea, mate. But I will quote @TheVat:

On 9/6/2022 at 11:59 PM, TheVat said:

Ribbit!

[Eise]

On 9/10/2022 at 3:29 PM, 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.

He mentioned it:

On 9/7/2022 at 9:52 PM, RSolomon said:

“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.” 

It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like.

I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'...

If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism.

 

On 9/8/2022 at 7:21 AM, RSolomon said:

(4.) I know what I need to know about Mr. Einstein

Obviously not.

On 9/8/2022 at 12:21 AM, studiot said:

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.

And your reaction:

On 9/8/2022 at 7:21 AM, RSolomon said:

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

I assume Studiot thought more about Marcel Grossmann and David Hilbert. Historians more or less agree that Mileva's role was mainly that of a highly intelligent 'resonance board'.

[studiot]

35 minutes ago, Eise said:

It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like.

I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'...

If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism.

+1 for your usual clarity of insight.

Edited September 13, 2022 by studiot

[joigus]

22 hours ago, Eise said:

He mentioned it:

It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like.

I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'...

If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism.

[...]

Good job!

Poor old late Einstein is falsely quoted more than anobody else in science, probably.

[Eise]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Good job!

Poor old late Einstein is falsely quoted more than anobody else in science, probably.

Careful: the citation did not seem 'einsteinian' to me, and I did not say he did not say it. I just did not find it with google. But that the only citation I found was in an article of 'Solomon' is highly suspicious.

Quote

'The problem with citations in the internet, is that you never know if somebody really said it'

A. Einstein

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Eise

[joigus]

15 minutes ago, Eise said:

Careful [...]

I was. I said "probably," plus I didn't say Einstein was misquoted this time. I just said he's often misquoted. Probably more than anybody else.

I'm making room for the possibility that Solomon communicated telepathically with Einstein, or knew him personally.  

[studiot]

One of the things about quoting Einstein is that he often wrote several versions of his papers as time went on.

For instance compare the 1920s, 30 40s and 50s versions of sundry papers about Space, Time, Ether, and Geometry.

 

[RSolomon]

Studiot

I wanted to respond to your posts after having had a good look at the suggested book, and after having put together a more thoughtful response to some of your remarks. While a few of the forum members have offered posts that are worth talking into consideration, others, I would prefer to avoid their barrage of irrelevant or cynical remarks, as they only muddy the waters and are not worth fending off. The Frog, Mad Rabbit, Bandito, and Pirate, if not according to their appearances, then by the content of their remarks – what regard should one have for them?

It seemed better to respond more directly to what you have pointed out. I worked on it over a couple days, realizing that a number to matters had to be touched-on & clarified before I could cut-to-the-chase about my original assertions. Now I see it needs to be further edited – more thoughtfulness & time. Also, here there are olives to harvest & set to cure. I have not walked away from replying to you, nor from stating the case.

Now, I suppose it should include both some evidence of the Problem and a substantial part of the Solution, at least enough of it for you to determine if it is worth your considerations.

There are graphic lead-ups and graphic proofs, apparently, they need to be converted to a PDF format! Preferably, if I could forward it to a more discreet setting - please do offer suggestions?

You know what is said about the Impossible, and the virtues of Patience.

I Am on It!

Solomon

[studiot]

2 hours ago, RSolomon said:

Studiot

I wanted to respond to your posts after having had a good look at the suggested book, and after having put together a more thoughtful response to some of your remarks. While a few of the forum members have offered posts that are worth talking into consideration, others, I would prefer to avoid their barrage of irrelevant or cynical remarks, as they only muddy the waters and are not worth fending off. The Frog, Mad Rabbit, Bandito, and Pirate, if not according to their appearances, then by the content of their remarks – what regard should one have for them?

It seemed better to respond more directly to what you have pointed out. I worked on it over a couple days, realizing that a number to matters had to be touched-on & clarified before I could cut-to-the-chase about my original assertions. Now I see it needs to be further edited – more thoughtfulness & time. Also, here there are olives to harvest & set to cure. I have not walked away from replying to you, nor from stating the case.

Now, I suppose it should include both some evidence of the Problem and a substantial part of the Solution, at least enough of it for you to determine if it is worth your considerations.

There are graphic lead-ups and graphic proofs, apparently, they need to be converted to a PDF format! Preferably, if I could forward it to a more discreet setting - please do offer suggestions?

You know what is said about the Impossible, and the virtues of Patience.

I Am on It!

Solomon

 

Please remember the large number of insincere would be wizz kids that post untenable meanderings on this forum, usually wihtout any giving the ir chosen subject any real thought at all.

 

If you want to send something privately you can attach it to the site private messaging system (PM)   - -  It is a really good one.

 

As regards 'The Problem' and the quote allegedly attributed to Einstein.

Actually this question has been done quantitavely.

Read section 2 of this extract from Eddington's The Mathematical Theory of Relativity.

 

Incidnetally this idea of 'simplest formal structures' is not as easy as it first seems.

Occam's famous razor is actually rather blunted by the fact that any eperienced physical scientist or engineer will know very well.

To use another famous phrase, "There is more than one way to skin a cat".

In fact there are often many ways to perform a desired calculation and usually it depends upon circumstances which one is 'the simplest'

For instance in the loading and bending of beams and structures you can choose from slope-deflection; area-moment; force-displacement; Macaulay; virtual work; unit impulse;  and several other assorted methods.

 

Here is another commnent on 'Natural Order'.

In elementary Physics, a force is a 'push or a pull'.

Did you know that our bodies have no muscles that can push ?

In order to push our bodies employ a complicated internal mechancal arrangement.

I often recommend this book

Quote

Nature and humans build their devices with the same earthly materials and use them in the same air and water, pulled by the same gravity. Why, then, do their designs diverge so sharply? Humans, for instance, love right angles, while nature's angles are rarely right and usually rounded. Our technology goes around on wheels--and on rotating pulleys, gears, shafts, and cams--yet in nature only the tiny propellers of bacteria spin as true wheels. Our hinges turn because hard parts slide around each other, whereas nature's hinges (a rabbit's ear, for example) more often swing by bending flexible materials. In this marvelously surprising, witty book, Steven Vogel compares these two mechanical worlds, introduces the reader to his field of biomechanics, and explains how the nexus of physical law, size, and convenience of construction determine the designs of both people and nature. Steven Vogel teaches at Duke University.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cats-Paws-Catapults-Mechanical-Worlds/dp/0393319903

The price seem to have gone up by a factor of 10x since my Penguin copy, so look for an s/h one.

Edited September 18, 2022 by studiot

[NTuft]

this was a tease  

On 9/7/2022 at 3:21 PM, studiot said:

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.

as I suppose he saw the word paper.

Then @Eiseteased it out. Funny quote!

@RSolomon Scroll geo./phys. looks interesting to me... but, one of A.E.'s colleagues already developed this into a physical Theory. May be in more broad strokes, you would say. 

Edited September 19, 2022 by NTuft

[RSolomon]

Please excuse me!

In the back & forth, I now realize I have caused a misunderstand by emphasizing the “The Problem” in two different contexts. The A.E. quote was something I came across while pouring through volumes in the SDU library some years ago, it struck me as being quite interesting, so I saved it over. I happened to use it in response to something that came up on this forum. But it was not meant to be a direct reference to the “Problem” central to my assertions concerning the lack of an expression for the origin & cause of natural geometry, which is a matter to be demonstrated as an important precursor to offering a viable Solution. And being, as I understand it, that natural geometric structure occurs simultaneously with fields of force, they are relative to one another, and if so, then to define (tangibly) the ultimate origin (which is currently absent within the established geometric body of knowledge) of natural geometry (as a matter of fact), would shed light on relationships of forces. As form & force are born together from the onset and continue to act in concert throughout the manifold… So please do let us drop the issue of “The Problem” with regards to Mr. Einstein.          

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, RSolomon said:

the origin & cause of natural geometry

So this is "The Problem"?  It doesn't seem to be a big problem at all...

[MigL]

Perhaps he can give us an example of where this problem, of major consequences, actually arises ???

or is it simply an interesting geometric puzzle ?

[RSolomon]

Studiot and/or whoever it may concern:

See Attachment! 

Orderliness+3-NatGeo.pdf

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, RSolomon said:

Studiot and/or whoever it may concern:

See Attachment! 

Orderliness+3-NatGeo.pdf 989.67 kB · 2 downloads

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

 

Sadly, though I now have an inkling of what you mean by Natural Order I am still no wiser as to what you want to do with this.

In my experience every time Man has tried to force Nature into one of his pigeon holes, Nature comes up with exceptions.

Self -similarity is one such natural geometric phenomenon, first discovered in the 1960s.

Many of the shapes you have listed have physical reasons for their natural adoption. Minimum Energy reasons that the ancients knew nothing of.

There is much study today of minimal curves and surfaces. These are not parts of circular curves, as you have used, but much more sophisticated functions.

 

There seems to be one good thing in this though.
As far as I can see you are not one of the brigade determined to prove that we have the wrong value for Pi.

[RSolomon]

Seeing that the prevailing winds are contrary.

Undaunted, I will take another tact and continue.

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, RSolomon said:

Seeing that the prevailing winds are contrary.

Undaunted, I will take another tact and continue.

I am not taking issue with most of what you are saying; in fact I have been trying to point out phenomena I know of that support the connections you are making.

Any half way decent book on mineralogy, crystallography, solid state chemistry and some solid state physics books will show this.

 

But I am taking issue with all embracing claims like this

Quote

All natural structure & order can be traced to one or more (combinations of) of these elementary shapes/forms.
 

Clouds are pretty natural in my opinion and there are plenty of these above Earth.

How do they fit in to your scheme of things ?

Edited September 28, 2022 by studiot

[RSolomon]

Response Attached!Clouds-1.pdf

[MigL]

Response should be here, so we can discuss.
Use PDFs as supporting evidence, please.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, RSolomon said:

Response Attached!Clouds-1.pdf

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Response should be here, so we can discuss.
Use PDFs as supporting evidence, please.

I agree +1 and suggest to RSolomon that you start following the rules here, before a moderator closes this thread and perhaps worse.

 

However I will give a couple of responses to your new text.

Quote

Yes! As seen in highly magnified images taken by electron microscopes is the stacking of atoms, due to geometric configuration & dynamics (attractions & repulsion) innate to the particular atomic element involved, which in mass results in crystal structures of that particular kind. That much is fairly obvious and there are many variations of such geometric staking according to the elements or compounds, hence the variety crystals seen in the natural world.

If you were prepared to listen a bit more, instead of trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs,  you might be in danger of learning some very useful and interesting stuff.

Very few crystal studies are performed using electron microscopes.
Obviously the larger ones can be seen and measured with the naked eye.
Smaller ones are amenable to optical methods.
The main micro level studies are performed by diffraction methods, pioneered by the Braggs.

You would then learn that there are not many variations in geometric stacking but in fact suprisingly few.

As I said last time this is due to the configurations being minimum energy ones.

Quote

I reiterate, that the “Self-made Tapestry” of nature, is part-in-play with the entire Cosmos, which was first initiated prior to the Big Bang, or perhaps the Sudden and Orderly Development that arose out of the (latent potential) inherent to the Primordial Void. While there is entropy (chaos) involved, where organization collapsed in the direction of a returning into the Void, nevertheless the laws of physics in concert with inherent natural form are predominant, as is observed throughout the manifold continuum.

I'm sorry, this is just mystical woo woo not Science. And in particular nothing to do with clouds.

Again if you listened a bit you would learn that Chaos has nothing whatsoever to do with entropy.
It is a mathematical umbrella for a number of recently discovered natural pattern making, which includes the shape of clouds, which are fractal nature.
Once again energy plays a leading role, this time in determining the climate of the whole planet through certain types of cloud formation. The names Malkus, Riehl and Schaefer staning out here.
One thing is certain cloud shapes bear no resemblence at all to the traditional Greek shapes you claimed control all natural structure and order.
One single counterexample is enough to demolish such an overambitious claim.

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by studiot

[joigus]

On 9/14/2022 at 2:59 PM, studiot said:

One of the things about quoting Einstein is that he often wrote several versions of his papers as time went on.

 

This is a very interesting point. People often change their views during their lifetime. Einstein is no exception. Even when the thinking of one particular person significantly contributed to change everyone else's interpretation, it's interesting to consider the challenges they had to face, the historical climate they stood up against, as well as their own thinking as an ongoing process, and get --be it ever-- the roughest feel for how their thinking must have evolved. I once read that it took Einstein one whole year to realise that Minkowski's 4-dimensional description of his own research was actually relevant. Even if that's an apocryphal story --which I don't think it is--, there's a potential lesson in it. We tend to think of scientific breakthroughs as kind of a static or frozen process, which they are surely not.

Edited October 1, 2022 by joigus
minor change

[NTuft]

 

Did you do this your self? I don't know it, but I think you had a computer work on re-doing Platonic solids inside of closed circles. Have to get through recent posts, apology.

Edited October 1, 2022 by NTuft
words

[NTuft]

"...found to hold valuable clues to the origin of matter."

"...understand the implications, then there is much more to be unfurled regarding this matter."

On 9/6/2022 at 2:37 PM, RSolomon said:

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!

46? 

No? At least you're not calling them 'closing' solids anymore? I still doubt Albert cracked that hinged 46 nut single-handedly. Cut to the chase.

[RSolomon]

NTuft

“Did you do this your self? I don't know it, but I think you had a computer work on re-doing Platonic solids inside of closed circles. Have to get through recent posts, apology.

If I hadn't expect more from you, I might think part of your response to be a bit silly, to which I might claim that I used my little brothers etch-a-sketch!

 Actually, I am a seasoned independent AutoCAD architectural draftsman, “AutoCAD is an extremely accurate with the capability of 16 decimal places of precision.”  I did useAutoCAD, while my knowledge of such geometry dates to years before AutoCAD's existance.  

If someone were to use inaccurate language regarding Building Plans & International Codes, I would understand their intended meaning, without berating them.

Please do critic my more recent post, it offers plenty of material for some naysayers to make shallow remarks about it. Though I might expect better understandings of you. If not, then simply let it go!  

PS If I attached the PDF file incorrectly, then let me know!