math-free analysis

[imagine]

Hello, this is my first post at this forum. To my knowledge, it breaks no laws, but I do not know all the laws of the world.

 

I have a method of analysing information.

It is like calculus, as it involves integration, and differentiation.

 

I call it "math-free analysis; because it effectively makes number (or "counting") optional. You could say it "stops time"' allowing time to run as you please.

 

The method is this:

 

write out the problem as simply as possible. Find common ground between two of the concepts in the problem. When this common ground has been found, separate the two aspects on the common ground, usually by one step only (that is the "math-free" part) so as to maintain maximum ways these two aspects can interact.

 

This gives a pattern where the two (original) concepts can share (meet) and separate; their association is free.

 

Take this pattern (this "together-apart")(or "quark") and find common ground between it and another concept in the problem. On finding common ground, differentiate (usually by one step only); getting a pattern that allows all three concepts to free associate.

 

And so on till every concept in the problem has been included. This gives a final "free association space" for the problem. Now the future (or "time") has become space-like.

 

This method is very similar to quantum electro dynamics.

 

Applying this method to "physics standard model" I get:

 

from previous thinking I found that "physics" may equal "logic"; and that "logic" may equal "path".

 

A model is a copy of something. A standard is a source of multiple copies.

How does one 'know the difference" between "model" as a copy; and the copies made from a standard (using this link as common ground between the concepts)?

 

The difference is obvious- they are coming from different directions- one is a copy, the other is that from which copies are made.

(keeping this discussion in free-association space)

 

 

This gives a pattern of "something which is seen from two linked but opposite perspectives, one being the standard from which copies are made; the other a model. Since "copies" is plural; this implies a bent path (hopping from one copy to the next to the standard, and since the concept "model" is included (as 'a copy"), a third copy is needed but one doesn't know which of the three is the model (and which are the two copies that relate to "standard").

 

So at one end there is "standard"; at the other is two copies distributed among three (allowing both "standard" and "model" to be integrated and one-step-only-differentiated by this pattern).

 

The pattern gives a "triangle" of three attached to a one.

 

A path is also three ("A", the middle, and "B") all together (as one...)

 

So how differentiate "Physics" ("logic") ("path") from "standard model" given this common ground both concepts appear to have?

 

You would need (if differentiating by one-step only) for example "a 2-d path" (Two paths as one) (a path integrated).

 

This gives a final pattern of:

 

"physics standard model" AS "path integrate".

 

If you then try to integrate paths with "physics standard model" you would experience an interference in their respective definitions it appears likely.

 

Unless the path integrating was done in 2 dimensions (i.e. via Shrodinger's equation).

 

If you want "accuracy", it should now be possible to deduce everything that is known in physics from here (by pure logic).

 

Because it involves free association; time is "frozen" (or independent of space- i.e. it belongs to you).

 

People tend to treat time as something forced on them by a relentlessly changing universe. However, it appears that a harmony is available such that nothing happens without your being "looked after" by the universe.

[imagine]

By suspending "number" you can solve this:

 

Simple relativity: you are in a train and you notice the train next to you has started moving backwards...or is it your train moving forwards?

 

Eistein Relativity: you are in a train and you notice that RELATIVE to a third train, you and the next door train are both moving (forwards OR backwards)...

 

Quantum theory: "quantum" involves the same pattern as "quantity" which involves "More than one". Note that Einstein Relativity also involves "at least two items moving as one RELATIVE to a third "fixed" (strictly "floating fixed" i.e. relatively fixed re: the other two "together" items) background item. To make the quantum (the together items) "theoretical" requires a "fixed rate of exchange" (a constant feedback (loop) betwen the three items (otherwise known as "gravity" i.e. a "shrinking" of the three items in space-time (because a varying of the three items relative locations IS "space in time" so clashes with superposed "SPACE-TIME", this clash resolved by incorporating a solid-looking i.e. a conserved division (or where time meets space) i.e. like an atom.

 

If an atom is already defined then this "atom" now becomes "one of two possible atoms"; which is which? By vibrating this "vibrated" atom you get a modicum of certainty (i.e. a solid-looking atom that keeps switching sides, like it is in some kind of time-warp (spin?).

 

Given "Einstein Relativity" AND "quantum theory" are apparently different ways of describing the pattern known as "bracketing"; (ER being two items bracketed against a (floating) fixed background; and QT being two "backgrounds" floating against a third fixed-fixed (I.e. solid-looking) item; how does one tell which is which? By generalising the Einstein Relativity. Now they are distinct, but there is always a "hidden" Einstein Relativity existing in between.

 

I.e. ER is using a third train as reference to the movement together of two trains; QT is how this looks from the third train (where two locations of this third train ("fixed-fixed") makes the other two trains look as if they are travelling togther (forwards or backwards) hence generating "an uncertainty principle" re: the other two trains (as they are moving this gives them two positions but they are already two trains!

[CPL.Luke]

not really

 

quantum mechanics is a theory that more accuratly describes things with P/m <<(much less) c than newtonian mechanics.

 

where p is the momentum, m is the mass and c is the speed of light, (this is equivalent to saying that the velocity is much less than the speed of light)

 

if that condition is not met, then one must resort to Quantum Field theory. which has special relativity implicitly guaranteed in the equations.

 

its general relativity and quantum field theory that have a problem, not quantum and special relativity.

[imagine]

Quoting: "not really"

 

True, in that the title "Einstein Relativity meets Quantum Mechanics" was used when the subject I wrote on was "Einstein Relativity meets Quantum Theory"; a subtle difference.

 

Quoting:

 

"quantum mechanics is a theory that more accuratly describes things with P/m <<(much less) c than newtonian mechanics.

 

where p is the momentum, m is the mass and c is the speed of light, (this is equivalent to saying that the velocity is much less than the speed of light)

 

if that condition is not met, then one must resort to Quantum Field theory. which has special relativity implicitly guaranteed in the equations.

 

its general relativity and quantum field theory that have a problem, not quantum and special relativity."

 

By simplification this can be solved as:

 

Assuming that "Einstein Relativity" is represented by someone sitting in a train, looking at the next door train, and wondering if it is their train going forwards or the next-door train going backwards, with only a third train to act as reference (and that Quantum theory is the perspective on the first two trains as seen from two locations of the third); what happens (in this non-mathematical version- introducing mathematics cateorises everything) when the word "special" is introduced?

 

Since Einstein Relativity (as described non-mathematically above via three trains) gives "a fixed coupling of two trains, moving relatively forward or backward as one vis-a-vis the third train) is "general" (in that it involves two, so a generality); to make it "special" would require a second movement. (this second movement is the "specification moment", like "magnetic moment")

 

Now the pattern is special Einstein relativity; the "forwards or backwards" can now cancel each other out (on the second movement) or extend further.

 

This has the effect of doubling the location of the third train (making it "fuzzy" like an "electron") (Here one can see that "magnetic moment" and "electron" may be different ways of looking at the same idea)(Hence by pure logic, one can deduce that to define "magnetic moment" and "electron" so as to differentiate these concepts, would require the number "2"!)(If you do an experiment, by definition an experiment contains some uncertainty, i.e. some "two-ness", so you will not get a value of exactly 2!- by logic?)

 

Quantum field theory:

 

can be simplified as:

 

quantum involves quantity involves more-than-one; "field" is a space you can move around; "theory" involves more than one candidate.

 

"Quantum field" then is like a field with a fence somewhere dividing it into two; "Quantum field theory" is like a field with two fences somewhere dividing it into three; but could be regarded as two fields one containing the second fence, but which side is the extra fence in?

 

So QFT is like a block that could be lopsided (the field without the extra fence being on one side) one way or the other.

 

This pattern of static position with potential lopsidedness one side or the other- isn't that identical to the pattern of two trains cancelling their forward or backward moements, or extending them, representing the idea "special Einstein Relativity"?

 

If so the "clash" between these two concepts is apparently explained.

 

However, mathematicalising everything converts "special ER" into categorised special ER; and QFT into categorised QFT.

 

Newtonian mechanics:

 

Newtonian Relativity can be represented as: being in a train, and wondering if it is your train going forwards, or the next-door train going backwards; solved by looking at the railway tracks. That is, it is "mechanical", as it allows movement against a; for the purposes of experiment; fixed background (i.e. it implies "macro-scale"- the background is deemed bigger (or more still) than the movement).

 

Newtonian mechanics:

 

Since "Newtonian Relativity" is already "mechanical" as described above; how to define "Newtonian mechanics"?

 

A clock? Movement against a fixed background + mechanical = background against a fixed movement!?

 

"light" can be regarded as "comparison"; as can "speed"; "speed of light" becomes in this view "comparison of comparison" i.e. e.g. compare two movies e.g. their location, implies a possible second location; compare the at-least-two locations via e.g. weather, implies at least two types of weather; the pattern here is two juxta-posing subsets (weather and location) of "movies".

 

So "speed of light" involves the pattern "much less than"! (A subset is less than a superset; two juxtaposing subsets might be regarded as being "much less than" a superset.

 

"Much less than the speed of light" to be distinct would require apparently:

a definite bias (one of the subsets being smaller) so a stack of sets getting smaller (and a stack of three sets getting smaller gives "a fixed direction"!)

 

Which gives "position" (i.e. to where the fixed direction points)?

 

If so, how to differentiate the concept "position" if include it? Could call it "mass" which appears to translate into the concept "uncertainty".

 

Here "mass" already includes the idea "a fixed direction"; so "mass x velocity" (mass x directed distance per time) gives mass x2 i.e. an enclosed space (i.e. volume)(mass implying two locations; x2 so the locations can swap places so enclose a space!) so volume per time.

 

But "time" involves the idea "anywhere within limits" (like a pendulum swing); volume (an enclosed space) per anywhere within limits; so gives a buffer zone around the enclosed space.

 

Also called "momentum"? (This discovery has remarkable consequences)

 

Momentum divided by mass then gives "a buffer zone surrounding an enclosed space" divided by uncertainty; gives "movement between the walls" (i.e. the buffer zone implies two walls on each side of the enclosed space; divide by the uncertainty (the two-ness) gives back-and-forth between the walls, like a shuttle).

 

For this "shuttle" to be "much less than the speed of light" i.e. to have a fixed direction (as a stack of decreasing subsets) would require breaking through a wall.

 

If the above reasoning is accurate; then "p/m much less than c" translates into "breaking through a wall"; "Newtonian mechanics" translates as "clock"; given that "quantum mechanics" can be regarded as "the mechanics of meeting" it is "clock breaking through a wall" (time freeze)(which is why I guess "freezing time" via a stopwatch plays such a large role in making QM work...?!?!).

 

Why would QM hold for "p/m much less than c" more than Newtonian Mechanics?

 

QM appears to contain both patterns; how can it hold for one more than the other of two patterns it contains within?

 

Ahh- if it has become biased (all those clock-watching experiments !) creating AN UNCERTAINTY in defining Newtonian mechanics (i.e. in defining a clock); so apparently making QM increasingly inaccurate in its very "accuracy"? (like a hedge fund; ...?)

 

I misread "general relativity" as "special";

 

anyway if Einstein Relativity is two ways of bracketing; and Quantum Field Theory is bracketing two ways; special ER is one-sided bracketing, general ER is the same thing as QFT (hence a clash) ?

[Klaynos]

Words are NOT theories, and are NOT simplifications of theories.

 

I'm too tired to reply more than that right now I shall try to eitehr tomorrow or tuesday.

 

But physics is quite stern on the above...

 

Have you read the first post in the thread btw?

[imagine]

Well,

 

unfortunately I have limited internet access and it would take a while to persuade you that the technique I use, which I call "math-free analysis", appears to work incredibly well and allow the unravelling of any information-containing puzzle!

 

It appears that every concept (concepts are often represented by words, but sometimes are represented by pictures and even sounds or other types of data) contains within it what one might call "essential defining characteristics". Often these essential defining characteristics can be found by looking at a simpler version of the patterns in the puzzle; often in very ordinary ideas.

 

Once these essential defining characteristics have been found; you can then solve the information distributions in the puzzle; bypassing complicated mathematics. I have applied this technique to many problems, resulting in a vast number of newly discovered inventions and technologies (for which I am currently seeking investors/ buyers /sponsors/ publishers!)

(One of these involves a breakthrough in earthquake forecasting, by figuring out the physics of how a certain animal is able to respond prior to an earthquake happening. I also apparently found how to see the foreshock sequences in the supposed 80% of earthquakes that "don't" have foreshock sequences. The techniques work; but may surprise "old-school" physicists with their audacity and simplicity!)

 

 

I was able to discover that if you work out what "logic" is; the patterns you get are identical to the patterns found in "quantum electro dynamics". So it appears that QED is logic. If so, this immediately explains Richard P. Feynman's comment "nobody understands it"; as to understand QED would involve trying to be logical about logic?

 

My technique is very similar to Feynman's; except I deal with concepts, not sub-atomic particles.

 

 

Quote: "Do you have a new theory?

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

 

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions."

 

The question is though, do "our curent theories" make real predictions, or is it a trick? If they are logic, then the "predictions" may be illusory. I.e. is modern physics "a self-fulfilling prophesy"? With my technique, I was able to discover why you "square the final arrow, in Feynman QED, to get a probability".

 

My technique is based on honesty and freedom; it automatically incorporates any and all data, including current theories; but goes far beyond this.

 

 

 

Quote: "Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron.

 

If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field."

 

Experience with simplifying physics showed me that "energy" translates (incorporates the idea) to "alternatives". An "electron" translates as "a modification". An "electro-magnetic field" translates as a "specification-generalisation move-around space".

 

"The energy of an electron in an electro-magnetic field" becomes:

 

the "alternatives of a modification in a specification-generalisation move-around space".

 

But "specification" is like the overlap area between two sets; "generalisation" is like one set. "specification generalisation" then is presumably the sections of the two sets not in the overlap!

 

But the overlap IS a modification (as it is where each set "modifies"; the other. So to have alternatives of a modification (different ways of looking at the overlap betwen the two sets) is to talk of the two remnant (non-overlap) sets? And this is the same pattern as "specification-generalisation" i.e. "electro-magnetism"!

 

So how do you differentiate "electro-magnetism" from "energy of electron" if they are different ways of describing the same thing?

 

You would need a third set, i.e. "spin".

If you include the "spin" via the concept "field" (i.e. so providing alternative ways for electro-magnetism to happen); then the electron's angular momentum (its conservation of spin) cannot be described unless it is differentiated requiring 2 electro-magnetic fields (1 creates a default electron by allowing the residual sets on each side of the overlap of two sets, to swap sides; 2 creates "back to where you were before" so "a stitch in time" so-to-speak).

 

That IS a "specification move-around space" i.e. a "magnetic field"!

(A place to juggle sets' content/s).(An information exchange place)

 

 

To define this pattern "magnetic field" also would require a contribution from the magnetic field and from the electron's angular momentum (I.e. a constant displacement). Which is in accordance with what has been written in standard physics. Only with this method, not only can I check if standard physics is logically consistent; the wider view allows many new discoveries to be made (and many new inventions to be invented).

 

(Of course; "orbital angular momentum" is another name for "a constant displacement", so to add then differentiate that concept; will require "a fixed observation" ("gyro not-magnetic ratio"; i.e. "a constant displacement x 2" otherwise describable as "a firm mat" or "level". This has enormous consequences in new technology.)

 

I am not about to claim that "the standard model" is wrong; (I figured out how to deduce its content and even explain the 19 constants); only, that "the standard model" is like perhaps digging a hole with teaspoons; when a mechanical digger is available.............. .

[CPL.Luke]

your method fails on its own terms let alone the reasons why it fails physicly

 

for one quantum is not derived from "quantity" but rather from "quanta" which is a word that effectively means "a unit of", thats the problem in that words especially names are rather imprecise, and analyzing what I said based on reinterpreting the words that I said ends up wih you getting a different meaning than what was intended. And in this case I know what te physics are and you don't, so it is much better for you to try to understand exactly what I am telling you and not try to pull more information out of a sentance than it contains.

 

although I highly recommend checking what I say and learning more on your own from other sources. But I speak plainly and when I want to be clear I'm clear.

 

now on to your post responding to me.

 

for the most part its meaningless gobbldy gook

 

much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number. It has nothing to do with sets.

 

I'm not going to answer the questions as you posited them because they are so far off the reservation that the only response is to tell you how your definitions are wrong from the get go

 

special relativity does not require a third observer it works for any number of observers and merely describes how the time and distance scales between these observers will differ from one another, the reason why it is "special" is that it cannot describe situations in which an observer is accelerating.

 

General relativity solves this problem and describes how measurement scales differ from observer to observer regardlesss of acceleration (and as a consequence how gravity works)

 

quantum mechanics is the physics of small things to which newtonian mechanics is an approximation for large bodies.

 

Quantum field theory is a theory that puts special relativity into quantum mechanics, thus relativistic mechanics is an approximation to quantum field theory.

 

Quantum field theory also allowed for the description of 3 of the known forces in quantum terms.

[Klaynos]

"math-free analysis" does not make falsifiable accurate predictions and is therefore is not better than mathematical analysis, and can be happily disregarded....

[imagine]

Thank you; very briefly:

 

quoting: "your method fails on its own terms let alone the reasons why it fails physicly

 

for one quantum is not derived from "quantity" but rather from "quanta" which is a word that effectively means "a unit of", thats the problem in that words especially names are rather imprecise, and analyzing what I said based on reinterpreting the words that I said ends up wih you getting a different meaning than what was intended"

 

There is no dispute here? How do you know something is "a unit of"? You would need more than one, or the term "a unit of" is meaningless?

 

I am looking at two computers; that is what enables me to regard ONE of them "as a unit". Plurality is essential (at least potential plurality) to define the concept "unit".

 

Is that correct? (If there was only one computer in the world, how would you know it was a "unit"? Unless there COULD be more than one!!! (I rest my case! ))

 

If so, then your understanding of the word "quantum" as related to "quanta" and "a unit of" incorporates the pattern I found, of "plurality" or "more than one" or "a meeting of items" (as in a group). My claim was simply that an essential defining characteristic of the word "quantum" was to involve the concept "more than one". In practice a short cut was discovered in navigating quantum mechanics by regarding "quantum" as "meeting"; and "quantum mechanics" as "the mechanics of meeting" (e.g. we could meet at New York or at Chicago- where we meet is "the mechanics of meeting.' This level of simplification may surprise some people but is very beneficial as allows much faster solving of the puzzles associated with quantum mechanics.

 

Quote: "And in this case I know what te physics are and you don't, so it is much better for you to try to understand exactly what I am telling you and not try to pull more information out of a sentance than it contains.

 

although I highly recommend checking what I say and learning more on your own from other sources. But I speak plainly and when I want to be clear I'm clear.

 

now on to your post responding to me.

 

for the most part its meaningless gobbldy gook

 

much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number. It has nothing to do with sets."

 

Let us look at this:

 

"Much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number":

 

What is "number"? I discovered that "number" involves the notion "anywhere within limits", e.g. "a number of oranges" refers to "anywhere within limits of defining what is an orange".

 

What is "compared to some other number"?

 

To define "other" number; would require e.g. in "some other number of oranges"; a division in how oranges are defined (so as to separate out the two numbers: e.g. heavy oranges and light oranges).

 

What does "vanishingly small " mean?

 

To define "small" requires a scale, e.g. a set and a subset; with a way to identify the subset (as "small"). With "oranges" this would require an overlap between light and heavy oranges (so providing a subset?). Curiously it is already "vanishingly" (as the overlap between number of heavy oranges and number of light oranges

creates a localised limit in defining these kinds of oranges.

 

Since the concept "vanishingly" is already included here; to differentiate this concept (at least by one-step only) requires e.g. a second way the overlap can occur.

 

So the concept "vanishingly small compared to some other number" can be represented as "two kinds of oranges, heavy and light; which overlap in two ways" (creating a "polarisation" effect you might say (metaphorically at least) in the category "orange").

 

Given my claim that "speed of light" translates to "comparison of comparison"; like two movies compared via one potentiallly two locations; compared again again in one potentially two weather conditions; this pattern looks very much like "much less than"!

 

Think about it.

 

Quote: "I'm not going to answer the questions as you posited them because they are so far off the reservation that the only response is to tell you how your definitions are wrong from the get go

 

special relativity does not require a third observer it works for any number of observers and merely describes how the time and distance scales between these observers will differ from one another, the reason why it is "special" is that it cannot describe situations in which an observer is accelerating."

 

I claimed that Newtonian Relativity is like sitting in a train wondering if your train is going forwards, or the next-door train is gioing backwards; and that Einstein Relativity is the same but with only a third, possibly moving train, as reference.

 

Therefore Einstein relativity involves a relatively fixed coupling of (any) two of the three trains. In this sense it is already general. If the concept "special" is added to it; then that would need two positions for the third train; which has the effect of creating a floating fixed reference frame. In other words, allowing a plurality of observers!

 

Exactly as you say.

 

Of course it cannot describe conventionally circumstances where the observer is accekerating; because acceleration is self-referential; but in Special Einstein Relativity the observer (as the twice located third train) is ALREADY self-referential.

 

NO DISPUTE HERE; we have no disagreement; my technique is simply alien to you?

 

 

Quoting "General relativity solves this problem and describes how measurement scales differ from observer to observer regardlesss of acceleration (and as a consequence how gravity works)"

 

Well given that "Einstein Relativity" is already general; then to generalise it again would involve two locations for the two trains that are effectively moving together relative to the third train.Which would give them a swappability re: each other's location (creating a default single train relative the third).

 

Now it doesn't matter who is the observer; the default single train or the third train!

 

Now two differentiate three trains, a fourth (or fixed background) is projected.

 

This appears to allow a means for an observer to accelerate (to be self-referential) without losing the three trains (you just get Einstein Relativity going backwards in time so-to-speak i.e. an alternative way for the two-train reversible coupling to happen).

 

All three trains come together via "acceleration"; so "coming togther" (gravity) here is apparently synonomous with defining "acceleration" in Einstein Relativity?

 

If so, then to define "acceleration due to gravity" would require a permanent fourth; i.e. a space-time differential (or "curvature of space-time").

 

 

 

Quoting: "quantum mechanics is the physics of small things to which newtonian mechanics is an approximation for large bodies."

 

 

If "quantum mechanics" involves "the mechanics of meeting" (e.g. two people could meet at an airport or at a bus station); and if "physics" is "logic" and "logic" is "path"; and if "small things" are subsets; then the "path of subsets" is what "physics of small things is...

 

Are "the mechanics of meeting" the "path of subsets"?

 

"Bus station" or "airport" are subsets of where two people meet ("Two people" implies they are already categorised so "meeting"; two people AGAIN implies a secondary meeting; divided into two subsidery locations (airport and bus station).

 

To know the difference between "two people" and "two locations" requires "stretching" the locations (making them into paths)?

 

Which is ALREADY special Einstein Relativity!

 

I.e. a second observation (stretching!)

 

So to add "special Einstein Relativity" to quantum mechanics, since Quantum Mechanics already contains special Einstein Relativity; would require "path integrating" (i.e. combining more than one path (or "bundling" you might say?).

 

Quantum field theory is "meeting move-around-space more than one option" ;

but "meeting move-around-space" is "path"; "more than one option" added to this pattern gives... path combining!

 

Quote:

"Quantum field theory is a theory that puts special relativity into quantum mechanics, thus relativistic mechanics is an approximation to quantum field theory."

 

 

So who's arguing? It's hard to see any disagreement!

[iNow]

What color is an invisible elephant?

[Klaynos]

Hit the quote button, it'll manage quotes for you and make it slightly easier to read

 

Thank you; very briefly:

 

your method fails on its own terms let alone the reasons why it fails physicly

 

for one quantum is not derived from "quantity" but rather from "quanta" which is a word that effectively means "a unit of", thats the problem in that words especially names are rather imprecise, and analyzing what I said based on reinterpreting the words that I said ends up wih you getting a different meaning than what was intended

 

There is no dispute here? How do you know something is "a unit of"?

 

Mathematical derivations and experimental evidence.

 

Einstein won his nobel prize for the following physics.

 

I have a single photon light emitting source I shine it on a bit of metal and I don't measure any photoelectric effect, I increase the power of the light source and therefore the intensity and I still see no photoelectric effect, I now change the frequency slightly and suddenly there is a massive photoelectric effect, the only conclusion is that light is quantised.

 

You would need more than one, or the term "a unit of" is meaningless?

 

If I have one photon, I cannot split it, it is a single quanta. This is quite difficult to explain I'd recommend you read the massive amount of information and mathematical derivations that explain this. Even something simple like working out energy levels in potential wells.

 

I am looking at two computers; that is what enables me to regard ONE of them "as a unit". Plurality is essential (at least potential plurality) to define the concept "unit".

 

I am looking at one computer I still know it's only one computer.

 

Is that correct? (If there was only one computer in the world, how would you know it was a "unit"? Unless there COULD be more than one!!! (I rest my case! ))

 

Computer are not quantised, you can have one and a bit computers. You CAN'T have one and a bit energy levels.

 

If so, then your understanding of the word "quantum" as related to "quanta" and "a unit of" incorporates the pattern I found, of "plurality" or "more than one" or "a meeting of items" (as in a group). My claim was simply that an essential defining characteristic of the word "quantum" was to involve the concept "more than one".

 

Quantum is just used as a decription to show that the phenomena involved are quantised, they have set energy levels (or other things are set).

 

So take spin, it is quantised in electrons as either +1/2 or -1/2 you CAN'T get +1/3 spin electrons, they are not physically possible. Many things become quantised when you analyse them mathematically. A good QM text will show you how to do this.

 

In practice a short cut was discovered in navigating quantum mechanics by regarding "quantum" as "meeting"; and "quantum mechanics" as "the mechanics of meeting" (e.g. we could meet at New York or at Chicago- where we meet is "the mechanics of meeting.' This level of simplification may surprise some people but is very beneficial as allows much faster solving of the puzzles associated with quantum mechanics.

 

The above makes no sense what so ever.

 

And in this case I know what te physics are and you don't, so it is much better for you to try to understand exactly what I am telling you and not try to pull more information out of a sentance than it contains.

 

although I highly recommend checking what I say and learning more on your own from other sources. But I speak plainly and when I want to be clear I'm clear.

 

now on to your post responding to me.

 

for the most part its meaningless gobbldy gook

 

much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number. It has nothing to do with sets.

 

Let us look at this:

 

"Much less than is a mathematical concept meaning vanishingly small in comparison to some other number":

 

What is "number"? I discovered that "number" involves the notion "anywhere within limits", e.g. "a number of oranges" refers to "anywhere within limits of defining what is an orange".

 

What is "compared to some other number"?

 

To define "other" number; would require e.g. in "some other number of oranges"; a division in how oranges are defined (so as to separate out the two numbers: e.g. heavy oranges and light oranges).

 

What does "vanishingly small " mean?

 

To define "small" requires a scale, e.g. a set and a subset; with a way to identify the subset (as "small"). With "oranges" this would require an overlap between light and heavy oranges (so providing a subset?). Curiously it is already "vanishingly" (as the overlap between number of heavy oranges and number of light oranges

creates a localised limit in defining these kinds of oranges.

 

Since the concept "vanishingly" is already included here; to differentiate this concept (at least by one-step only) requires e.g. a second way the overlap can occur.

 

So the concept "vanishingly small compared to some other number" can be represented as "two kinds of oranges, heavy and light; which overlap in two ways" (creating a "polarisation" effect you might say (metaphorically at least) in the category "orange").

 

Given my claim that "speed of light" translates to "comparison of comparison"; like two movies compared via one potentiallly two locations; compared again again in one potentially two weather conditions; this pattern looks very much like "much less than"!

 

Think about it.

 

I'm not going to answer the questions as you posited them because they are so far off the reservation that the only response is to tell you how your definitions are wrong from the get go

 

special relativity does not require a third observer it works for any number of observers and merely describes how the time and distance scales between these observers will differ from one another, the reason why it is "special" is that it cannot describe situations in which an observer is accelerating.

 

I claimed that Newtonian Relativity is like sitting in a train wondering if your train is going forwards, or the next-door train is gioing backwards; and that Einstein Relativity is the same but with only a third, possibly moving train, as reference.

 

Therefore Einstein relativity involves a relatively fixed coupling of (any) two of the three trains. In this sense it is already general. If the concept "special" is added to it; then that would need two positions for the third train; which has the effect of creating a floating fixed reference frame. In other words, allowing a plurality of observers!

 

Exactly as you say.

 

Of course it cannot describe conventionally circumstances where the observer is accekerating; because acceleration is self-referential; but in Special Einstein Relativity the observer (as the twice located third train) is ALREADY self-referential.

 

NO DISPUTE HERE; we have no disagreement; my technique is simply alien to you?

 

 

General relativity solves this problem and describes how measurement scales differ from observer to observer regardlesss of acceleration (and as a consequence how gravity works)

 

Well given that "Einstein Relativity" is already general; then to generalise it again would involve two locations for the two trains that are effectively moving together relative to the third train.Which would give them a swappability re: each other's location (creating a default single train relative the third).

 

Now it doesn't matter who is the observer; the default single train or the third train!

 

Now two differentiate three trains, a fourth (or fixed background) is projected.

 

This appears to allow a means for an observer to accelerate (to be self-referential) without losing the three trains (you just get Einstein Relativity going backwards in time so-to-speak i.e. an alternative way for the two-train reversible coupling to happen).

 

All three trains come together via "acceleration"; so "coming togther" (gravity) here is apparently synonomous with defining "acceleration" in Einstein Relativity?

 

If so, then to define "acceleration due to gravity" would require a permanent fourth; i.e. a space-time differential (or "curvature of space-time").

 

 

quantum mechanics is the physics of small things to which newtonian mechanics is an approximation for large bodies.

 

 

If "quantum mechanics" involves "the mechanics of meeting" (e.g. two people could meet at an airport or at a bus station); and if "physics" is "logic" and "logic" is "path"; and if "small things" are subsets; then the "path of subsets" is what "physics of small things is...

 

Are "the mechanics of meeting" the "path of subsets"?

 

"Bus station" or "airport" are subsets of where two people meet ("Two people" implies they are already categorised so "meeting"; two people AGAIN implies a secondary meeting; divided into two subsidery locations (airport and bus station).

 

To know the difference between "two people" and "two locations" requires "stretching" the locations (making them into paths)?

 

Which is ALREADY special Einstein Relativity!

 

I.e. a second observation (stretching!)

 

So to add "special Einstein Relativity" to quantum mechanics, since Quantum Mechanics already contains special Einstein Relativity; would require "path integrating" (i.e. combining more than one path (or "bundling" you might say?).

 

Quantum field theory is "meeting move-around-space more than one option" ;

but "meeting move-around-space" is "path"; "more than one option" added to this pattern gives... path combining!

 

Quantum field theory is a theory that puts special relativity into quantum mechanics, thus relativistic mechanics is an approximation to quantum field theory.

 

 

So who's arguing? It's hard to see any disagreement!

 

I've left the rest of your post in to help others reading it with the quotes added.

 

But my final comment tonight will be that words are unclear, easy to interoperate differently and don't make falsifiable predictions to the required degree of accuracy if at all, you can't derive anything using them.

 

This is NOT science.

[imagine]

If anybody out there is interested, as I depart these hostile shores for now;

consider this:

 

in answer to "what colour is an invisible elephant":

 

the answer is "any colour you want".

 

What "math-free analysis" does, is make the future free. It overthrows all forms of coercion. You no longer have to live in fear (like so many do?) of a "scary" universe that could spring unpleasant surprises.

 

It stops time.

 

How? By finding common ground between concepts; then differentiating them (usually by one step only to allow maximum freedom of interaction between the concepts as aspects on the common ground); it allows the "next step" (i.e. the future- or the past for that matter- as these are not distinguished at this stage) to be "a free association space". That is, the concepts can co-exist, and get together and come apart whenever.

 

 

What is "a falsifiable prediction"?

 

A typical prediction might be: it will rain this afternoon.

 

What are the minimum defining criteria for "a prediction"?

 

Is "it will rain" a prediction? What about after 10,000 years and it hadn't rained? Is it still a prediction? Doesn't "prediction" require "a fixed background" such as "this afternoon" or "within ten thousand years" or whatever?

 

If so, "prediction" requires something "predictable".

 

If it could ONLY rain this afternoon, if it COULDN'T not rain; would "it will rain this afternoon" be a prediction? If the future is compulsory, there is NOTHING to predict! It's a given, surely?

 

So to define "prediction" includes the concept "falsifiability"!

 

It MUST be possible to "not rain" for "it will rain this afternoon" to be defined as a "prediction"- don't you think?

 

If this is so; then what is "a falsifiable prediction"?

 

If the concept "prediction" ALREADY contains within it, the idea of "falsifiability" i.e. of an alternative existing to what the prediction is (this alternative I can call "carry the one").

 

How do I differentiate the concept "falsifiable" from "prediction" if "prediction" BY DEFINITION contains within it the concept "falsifiable"?

 

How would I "falsify" the prediction "it will rain this afternoon"?

 

If I waited till "this afternoon" (this "Property-less event" i.e. the event of the arrival of "afternoon- hey- how do I know "afternoon has arrived? The "rain/no rain" cannot tell me; or how would I know if it was raining or not raining - to see BOTH patterns I would need "a third point of reference" i.e. another way to tell the time!)

 

So to distinguish a "falsifiable prediction" requires TWO TIMES?

 

An independent background to time; so you know the difference, between "this afternoon" and "rain/no rain"?

 

... .... ... .... . .... ... .... ... . . .

[Klaynos]

Cutting threw the waffle...

 

How would I "falsify" the prediction "it will rain this afternoon"?

 

If I waited till "this afternoon" (this "Property-less event" i.e. the event of the arrival of "afternoon- hey- how do I know "afternoon has arrived? The "rain/no rain" cannot tell me; or how would I know if it was raining or not raining - to see BOTH patterns I would need "a third point of reference" i.e. another way to tell the time!)

 

So to distinguish a "falsifiable prediction" requires TWO TIMES?

 

An independent background to time; so you know the difference, between "this afternoon" and "rain/no rain"?

 

... .... ... .... . .... ... .... ... . . .

 

You'd have to be more specific, the prediction would have to be

 

"It will rain in grid reference XXXX between the hours of 1200 and 0000UTC on 28th August 2008"

 

Then to falsify it you wait untill the times have passed if it hasn't rained the theory fails.

 

It is possible to forumlate unfalsifiable predictions using words, becaues you could predict

 

"It will rain this afternoon" and when I wait and it hasn't rained I can tell you that but you'll say "yeah but I meant the afternoon in UTC+10"...

 

Now not only do you have to make predictions, but these have to be testable, which generally means having some numerical output, and then measuring something.

 

But these predictions have to match experimental evidence BETTER than any currently excepted theory.

 

So take F=ma

 

If I apply a force of 5N for 10seconds to a mass of 1kg which starts at rest, it will have an acceleration of 5m/s/s and therefore afterwards a velocity of 50m/s.

 

The above looks like a word description but it's a fully mathematical one with an word explination of what the steps are, finding the numbers I put numbers into the first equation in my head.

 

Using words you can't do this as accurately, you can do "If I push something it will move" but that's all... And then you can't formulate anythign else from that.

 

Again classical mechanics, in the above example we've equations that describe the motion in terms of time and acceleration, we can then manipulate these using calculus to find velocity and position, you CAN'T do that with words.

[Bignose]

Since math is now irrelevant, I'd suggest to your boss that he can pay you whatever he wants. Your boss can just explain how being paid minimum wage and being paid 10x minimum wage are both very similar, and since they both have common ground, they are really the same. In fact, being paid $0.0001 per hour has common ground with being paid minimum wage, so they are probably the same, too.

 

I like this no math thing. I'm going to pay my bills this way, too. "Dear electric company, paying $5 this month has common ground with paying $50, so they are really the same."

 

And, guess what! I just broke the world record for the 100m sprint. I mean, 1m has common ground (in this case literally!) with 100m so they are really the same, and I just ran 1m in 9.0 seconds flat, so I'm clearly the world's fastest man now.

 

I think I like this brave new world of no math. There are so many opportunities...

[ajb]

"Math-free analysis" sounds to me to simply be physical interpretation.

 

That is one is trying to describe in words some mathematical construct or calculation. It is of merit, but one should be aware of what it is and its limitations. Very useful in pop-science or trying to explain some complicated constructions, but with out mathematics it can only ever be a hollow shell.

[foodchain]

"Math-free analysis" sounds to me to simply be physical interpretation.

 

That is one is trying to describe in words some mathematical construct or calculation. It is of merit, but one should be aware of what it is and its limitations. Very useful in pop-science or trying to explain some complicated constructions, but with out mathematics it can only ever be a hollow shell.

 

Yes but at the base you would never say this about anything like your life I am sure and plus I would think being social I am sure a female would freak out if I had to bust out a calculator before we talked.

 

That being said I get your point about such in relation to science but I think most the posts fail to resolve the issue that what’s being posted is more or less something human or could even fall under psychology or anthropology or some other science as something human, such as the ability to make associations like fire engine red.

 

If Dawkins is correct on explaining technology as a product of biology, such as genes and opposable thumbs then ultimately everything human I would think has to share in some extent of being human, like being wrong, with math on some exam for instance. Framing math the way you do basically denies that anything outside of it could never be considered factual, furthermore as is if math is something outside of humanity, something divine even.

 

I don’t think Darwin framed evolution as a differential equation initially, I might be wrong, but his "idea" certainly seemed to be able to shed light on things.

[Bignose]

foodchain, no one is saying that words and ideas have no value. Quite the contrary, they can have tremendous value.

 

But, the bigger point is that mathematics is the language of the science when you want to be exact.

 

For example, given a ball velocity, a spin rate, and a launch angle, I can predict where a struck golf ball is going to land. The models are good enough that I can predict where it will land within just a few cm, actually. (Testing done indoors with no random variables like wind.) The best words can do is "over there" or "over here" or "behind that sign".

 

For that matter, math lets us launch vehicles to land on Mars. Words cannot do that. The math is necessary to know what the mass of the vehicle, how much the gravity of Saturn is going to influence the probe on it's way, etc. etc.

 

Words can paint a pretty picture, and tell a compelling story -- we've all read novels -- but words alone cannot tell you anything in precise terms. And, depending on the application, preciseness can be very important. For example, I want this message to go precisely to the server this forum is on. And I want the keys to transmit precisely the right value to the computer when they are depressed. Words alone can't make this computer work.

 

So, like I said, words can describe things well. But, to do anything with precision and accuracy, you will need the math.

[ajb]

Yes but at the base you would never say this about anything like your life I am sure and plus I would think being social I am sure a female would freak out if I had to bust out a calculator before we talked.

 

I don't understand your point here.

 

That being said I get your point about such in relation to science but I think most the posts fail to resolve the issue that what’s being posted is more or less something human or could even fall under psychology or anthropology or some other science as something human, such as the ability to make associations like fire engine red.

 

If Dawkins is correct on explaining technology as a product of biology, such as genes and opposable thumbs then ultimately everything human I would think has to share in some extent of being human, like being wrong, with math on some exam for instance. Framing math the way you do basically denies that anything outside of it could never be considered factual, furthermore as is if math is something outside of humanity, something divine even.

 

The choice of words here, factual is interesting. As in pertaining to facts; "something that actually exists; reality; truth".

 

I am totally confused as to how mathematics is factual. (I am a PhD student in maths by the way). You have to start from some axioms and work consistently from there. From that starting place mathematics is factual.

 

Also I am very confused be the whole idea if mathematics simply being a human mental exercise. Is mathematics more universal than that? Does it represent some "deeper truth"? I think so, and usually think of mathematics being discovered and not invented. (Of course one can develop techniques and make useful constructions, much akin to engineering.)

 

Maybe I am a bit more of a realist that than. The main wonder and beauty of mathematics is that is simply is the language of nature. It is so amazing that our mathematical models can be used to describe nature extremely accurately. To me this is the factual content of mathematics. (My background is physics and I now work in mathematical physics)

 

I don't think using just words we could ever have advanced as we have. Our understanding of nature would be very much diminished. However, as a mathematical scientist one must communicate with fellow scientists. This is done principally using words. That said, no-one would believe what I am saying if I don't back it up with some real mathematics.

 

Most mathematical science papers will contain more words that mathematical symbols for example. Without some explanation of the hows and whys here, people simply won't follow what you are doing.

 

I don’t think Darwin framed evolution as a differential equation initially, I might be wrong, but his "idea" certainly seemed to be able to shed light on things.

 

My understanding was that Darwin always regretted not knowing more mathematics, but realised how important it is in science in general.

 

"Every new body of discovery is mathematical in form, because there is no other guidance we can have."

In N. Rose (ed.) Mathematical Maxims and Minims, Raleigh NC: Rome Press Inc., 1988.

 

"Mathematics seems to endow one with something like a new sense."

In N. Rose (ed.) Mathematical Maxims and Minims, Raleigh NC: Rome Press Inc., 1988.

[imagine]

I had to do other things but will post this for now:

 

 

Quoting: "Klaynos;430587]Cutting threw the waffle...

 

 

You'd have to be more specific, the prediction would have to be

 

"It will rain in grid reference XXXX between the hours of 1200 and 0000UTC on 28th August 2008"

 

 

That is the same finding that I made: i.e. you have given an independent background to time; in this case, you have given a grid reference!!! QED

("Quo Erat Demonstrandum" Latin for "that which was to be proved" and ironically closely matched to Quantum Electro Dynamics which turns out to be identical to "logic" if you write out the requirements of defining "logic"!!)

 

(By the way: "independent background to time" = "juxtapositioning constant" (obviously: it allows you to safely juxta-position "rain" and "no rain" AND "the time i.e. the rain/no rain available slot" without losing track of which is which; and previous work has shown me that "juxta positioning constant" = "electro magnetic constant"; and that "e-m constant" = "gearing comparison" which = Higgs boson. Nobel Prize number ten billion on its way- yeah right please excuse my bad attitude to your esteemed superiors in the halls of power and whatever...!)( )

 

?

 

 

Quote: "Then to falsify it you wait untill the times have passed if it hasn't rained the theory fails."

 

No argument. However, if the prediction was logically inconsistent; then you could falsify it without even waiting; by simply showing it to be "a contradiction in terms". The advantage of "math-free analysis" is to pass a "razor" over science and expose logical inconsistencies, thus clarifying the view, removing unneccessary barriers (due to obfuscations of the ideas) and opening vast new areas of insight and discoveries...)(it does this by simplifying ideas to minimal defining criteria; then integrating and usually one-step differentiating, so as to allow maximum freedom of interaction of the concepts. Anything against freedom is immediately exposed..? )

 

(Some comments that appeared here criticised math-free analysis for finding common ground, as if this "math-free thing" would create confusion. Math-free analysis doesn't just find common ground and leave it at that; it then DIFFERENTIATES (usually by onestep only- which makes "counting" (repeats of the same pattern) optional: which is why I thought of calling it "math-free"; it doesn't rule out math; it is simply larger than math; it encompasses math; it is a foundation without which there is no math?))

 

It is the comparing (seeking out common ground) and matching (seeing how the things that have something in common are yet still different so can be MATCHED) of patterns; so IS AN UNDERLYING INGREDIENT TO ALL THOUGHT. It is "Child's play".

 

 

(It is not word-dependent; it is about patterns; these can be drawings or other types of information.)

 

 

Quote: "It is possible to forumlate unfalsifiable predictions using words, becaues you could predict

 

"It will rain this afternoon" and when I wait and it hasn't rained I can tell you that but you'll say "yeah but I meant the afternoon in UTC+10"...

 

Now not only do you have to make predictions, but these have to be testable, which generally means having some numerical output, and then measuring something."

 

Most predictions do not require numerical output; that's just window-dressing? A ruler is not required to know whether or not rain is occuring?

?

 

Numerical output is a convenient way of comparing pedictions; e.g. "how much rain will fall betwen 1pm and 2pm" etc.

 

A list of compared predictions incorporates "a gearing comparison"; or "floating unit"- (i.e. the information pattern known as "a Higgs boson"...).

The "unit" of rainfall (say one inch if you like) must be conserved across all the compared predictions- so how do you know what "number" is as distinct from what "a unit of rainfall" is? To know "5" from "10" requires an imaginary number "One", i.e. a constantly carried "one".

 

If "unit" used to define "number"; and "unit" used to define rainfall; are to be kept distinct; THEN THERE MUST BE SOME LEEWAY (which I call "probe ability"; i.e. room for each to "see" something of each other; to find one another). (This is known as "Schrodinger's cat" or "imaginary category" one may say).

 

("Gearing" implies "unit" (the projections of the gear wheels); "gearing comparison" implies interchangeable units (a feature of human number system!)

 

If you didn't have leeway in defining "rain inch" and "unit in 5 or 10"; the numbers would be hollow (meaningless). And then it wouldn't matter! if your boss paid you 20, or 10 million; 20 or 10 million nothings is all much the same....

 

 

 

Quote: "But these predictions have to match experimental evidence BETTER than any currently excepted theory."

 

"Experimental evidence" can do two things; it can provide a default setting (if you put certain things together in a certain way, such-and-such will result)(I.e. manifestation of inherent bias) plus manifest logical consistencies in Nature...

 

 

 

Quote: "So take F=ma

 

If I apply a force of 5N for 10seconds to a mass of 1kg which starts at rest, it will have an acceleration of 5m/s/s and therefore afterwards a velocity of 50m/s.

 

The above looks like a word description but it's a fully mathematical one with an word explination of what the steps are, finding the numbers I put numbers into the first equation in my head.

 

Using words you can't do this as accurately, you can do "If I push something it will move" but that's all... And then you can't formulate anythign else from that."

 

Thinking about this....

 

With math-free analysis and other experience I found that:

 

"F=ma" translates as "freedom surface SWAPS with uncertainty multiplied by self-reference" .

 

To define "force" requires some sort of pressure. But "pressure" (such as pushing on a desk) requires "a constant switiching from one side to the other (of your hand for example- try it and you'll see it is apparently so).

 

So "force" freedom to change your hand's being on the surface of the desk (if ever so subtly). If a constant uncertainty (or relative position) is needed to define "force"; then how can you define "force" and "mass" simultaneously?

 

"mass" I discovered translates to "uncertainty": how do you define "mass"?

Comon English usage is very handy here; "a mass of leaves" would be "an uncertainty of leaves"- i.e. their exact number is not required?

 

In physics "mass" appears to be asociated with :"bulk flow"; or an uncertain quantity that remains uncertain over time (conservation of indeterminate number- curiously; makes it look like a Higgs boson- how cool is that? The Higgs boson has been blamed as being responsible for giving particles "mass"- that's a story which could be figured out...)

 

So given that pressing on a desk with one's hand demonstrates the idea that "force" involves "uncertainty" in position of one's hand; and "mass" inviolves "uncertainty"; to define both yet to know which is which; would require "2-d mass" i.e. a self-referential mass i.e. an accelerating mass.

 

Now "force" and "mass" can SWAP; so I can write this as (given that "=" denotes "swappable" from one side to the other) :

 

F = ma (number-free)(i.e. a law of logic)

 

 

("Acceleration" is rate of change of speed per time; "time" like a pendulum swing involves "anywhere within limits"; "speed" involves at least two ways of subdividing space (distance say) that can be directly compared (so "no-where" within limits i.e. a "wall"); "rate of change" involves "A" changes to "B" with reference to "C" so "space collapse" so also involves a wall; to differentiate these two "walls" requires a space-time continum (Time in another dimension i.e. at right angles to space!) i.e. "per time"; but "per time" is already included in the concept "acceleration" so to differentiate one "per time" from the other requires a constant self-reference (frame) i.e. boundary identification or "LIMIT".

 

(The technology that flows from this discovery is absolutely stunning- anyone like a flying saucer that can travel the length of the Milky Way galaxy? No I am not an alien!)

 

 

Quote: "If I apply a force of 5N for 10seconds to a mass of 1kg which starts at rest, it will have an acceleration of 5m/s/s and therefore afterwards a velocity of 50m/s".

 

A good challenge; in that I have mostly used math-free analysis (or comparing and matching of patterns) to shed light on confusion and think of new inventions. I once analysed a totally traditional exam-type physics problem and found mfa was relevant.

 

To solve this proble, mfa is assumed:

 

if "Newton" involves "kg per metre per second"; and mass involves "kg"; and time involves "second";

 

I'm thinking that the traditional way of solving a physics exam problem is "math-free analysis going backwards in time" (just thought of that now)(often think new things in debate).

 

Time: interchangeability between contents of brackets and items outside the brackets

e.g. "(a , b) c" to "a (b, c)' so "anywhere within limits" or "floating brackets"...

 

Math-free analysis (or "comparing and matching of patterns"):

e.g. "(square, circle) compared in "shape"" to "shape" as a hollow in a wood board that COULD BE "square OR circle".

 

So "math-free analysis IS "time" so doing mfa "Stops time" (or stops number).

(Makes counting optional, and you have all the time you need... unless logic intervenes?)

 

If mfa is time; how know which is which? (-this is a typical mfa question i.e. a typical "comparing and matching patterns" question ? )

 

By going backwards? I.e. by information processing; by sorting out the sequences of bracketing so as to make sense of the information?

 

If Newton is seen as "Kgm/s and mass as "kg' and time as 's"; and acceleration as "m/s/s"; then you need to be able to shuffle these patterns around to form a "matrix" or computer.

 

Would take a while to figure out translating exam-physics into mfa but did it once....

 

 

Quote: "Again classical mechanics, in the above example we've equations that describe the motion in terms of time and acceleration, we can then manipulate these using calculus to find velocity and position, you CAN'T do that with words."

 

It isn't about words; its about patterns of information; comparing the patterns (looking for common ground); and matching the patterns (seeing how they are different aspects of the common ground).

[Klaynos]

Seems I missed this reply... oh well it seems to be impenetrable...

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

imagine, What is 2+4?