physica Posted April 17, 2014 Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) but does not "fail" because of this. It just fails to answer your question, as framed by you. I believe it is worth noting for the tone of this discussion that this paradox was not cooked up by me. This is an age old paradox that has been at the subject of many philosophical writings and analysis for 100s of years. It was then proved logical by calculus, something mathematical philosophers are very proud of. Now in this discussion I am not taking a preference to avoid tangential discussion. Again you have misunderstood what I've said and you are side stepping the issue. So I'm going to lay out more of a structure so we can be more concise and make it easier for you to reply. Now lets look at the oxford English dictionary definition of theory: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox. In conclusion this so called theory is a complete joke. It fails miserably when applied to paradoxes identified in BC times!!!! In fact it's being generous labeling it as pub talk. Edited April 17, 2014 by physica
tar Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 physica, I never understood "proofs". It has been explained to me numerous times, and I have never "gotten" it. What I do however understand is contradiction. When the turtle and runner paradox was presented to me high school math class, I did not take it as some deep unanswerable paradox. It was just plain stupid. The runner could overtake the turtle, so the logic was wrong. Just plain wrong. Incorrect and the goal in my mind was to figure out where the logic was wrong, not to sit around in some sort of stuper being amazed at such a crazy impossible paradox holding any kind of validity. So basically I don't get your point about needing a theory to solve zeno's paradox. All you need is to show Zeno where his logic was wrong. Has nothing what so ever to do with Mike. He is talking on two levels. He is asking a question on two levels. What is the universe doing? What can we say about it? And if it comes down to whether the universe is doing something correctly, or whether Zeno's logic is correct, I will go with the universe. Regards, TAR -1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 20, 2014 Author Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) We need to establish , what quite is/ has been going on in the " tubes of opportunity . As far as I can see, the centre line of a 'tube ' is in fact a field line of the least resistance if not zero resistance. A field line as such, of course does not exist,. There is no line that we can grab hold of or see. But we can feel it . To demonstrate. : we have all walked gently down a hill side. Not rushing, in fact trying to eek out the maximum from gravity, by just allowing enough to pull us ever so gently down the hill. Or contrary wise to go up a slope with the least amount of effort. Zig zagging side to side , up the slope. I have come across this in my latest travels. See the following illustration. : - Notice the track lines on the opposite valley side, no doubt started by the original guanchy natives who colllonised the islands as they regularly struggled there way up the volcanic slopes and returned regularly to the sea to fish. By not climbing directly up hill but by a gentle line slope and descending a gentle line slope ,they , we FEEL the contour line, or field line. Clearly on the moon this would be felt more obviously. And in outer space in orbit could be enjoyed to the full as a complete free feeling orbit. As indeed satellites enjoy. As one strayed away from the central field line , one feels more distinctly field lines of a stronger nature. In other words , in the hillside illustration, one can feel a pull away from or towards the optimum line. Hence there can be a containing influence to stay on the centre line . Perhaps this is more aptly felt in a valley bottom . Where the tendency is to remain as water does central to the flow. Many of the phenomenon of nature clearly follow this path. What is not so obvious are the so far unused field lines. Or " tubes of opportunity " Mike Edited April 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
physica Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) I never understood "proofs". It has been explained to me numerous times, and I have never "gotten" it. What I do however understand is contradiction. When the turtle and runner paradox was presented to me high school math class, I did not take it as some deep unanswerable paradox. It was just plain stupid. The runner could overtake the turtle, so the logic was wrong. Just plain wrong. Incorrect and the goal in my mind was to figure out where the logic was wrong, not to sit around in some sort of stuper being amazed at such a crazy impossible paradox holding any kind of validity. So basically I don't get your point about needing a theory to solve zeno's paradox. This reply is beyond pathetic. Zeno's paradox is well known, many philosophers and mathematical philosophers agree that it is a paradox and that calculus makes it logical. This is in the annuals of philosophy in Stanford University and widely accepted. Just saying you don't see it and putting it down as a point is beyond reasonable debate. I'm usually not this blunt but your post is a waste of time. If you don't understand something go and read up on it. Your post wastes everyone's time, adds nothing to the debate and disjoints the conversation. Thank god not everyone has your view on Zeno's paradox. Many people have accepted this paradox and it has had big implications on modern physics and understanding the world. There have been essential contributions starting from the calculus of Newton and Leibniz and ending at the beginning of the twentieth century with the mathematical advances of Cauchy, Weierstrass, Dedekind, Cantor, Einstein, and Lebesque. Philosophically, the single greatest contribution was to replace a reliance on what humans can imagine with a reliance on creating logically consistent mathematical concepts that can promote quantitative science. I know it's hard to admit when you've lost a debate but next time when you don't know about something just don't post, or spend some time educating yourself, you may learn something (see link below). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/ As for Mike, I understand your attempt to glaze over my point about Zeno's paradox as it clearly shows that this "theory" is a complete joke that fails to explain paradoxes conceived in BC times. However, we can't just glaze over points that make us uncomfortable. Please show a quote from your theory that helps someone understand Zeno's paradox: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox. Edited April 20, 2014 by physica
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 20, 2014 Author Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) This reply is......... I have been trying to think why anyone should be quite so abrasive in their approach? I can only think it is possible , as some form of an attempt to provoke. You clearly have latched on to this " zenocks paradox " as some form of pet goad. Perhaps by quoting Stanford University you feel I would be intimidated. I think I would be more impressed, if you quoted some of your own ideas, with some original thinking. This would excite me more, that something original was going to be brought to the table. If all we have to work with, is what has gone before, we are not likely to make much progress. I am quite happy to reason , and argue things out with you. But abuse and flagrant rudeness ,I can do without . mike Edited April 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
physica Posted April 20, 2014 Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) Yet again we see more side stepping. I have been trying to think why anyone should be quite so abrasive in their approach? I can only think it is possible , as some form of an attempt to provoke. You clearly have latched on to this " zenocks paradox " as some form of pet goad. Perhaps by quoting Stanford University you feel I would be intimidated. It's getting abrasive because the other side is not actually replying. As for the Stanford quote you can speculate all you want about my motives, however, this is another side stepping issue. Standford is a reputable university. The link is not saying that Mike's theory is wrong, it doesn't even mention you so I don't know how it would be employed to intimidate you. It's used in order show that I'm not making this Zeno's paradox up and it is a widely accepted paradox. I've latched onto this paradox as it has shown that this theory is useless. I keep having to repeat it as no one is directly addressing it. I think I would be more impressed, if you quoted some of your own ideas, with some original thinking. This discussion isn't about impressing you. I am of the belief that someone has to study many years in a particular field in order to come up with something original that isn't useless. This is why I'm not spouting my own original thoughts. This would excite me more, that something original was going to be brought to the table. If all we have to work with, is what has gone before, we are not likely to make much progress. I am quite happy to reason , and argue things out with you. But abuse and flagrant rudeness ,I can do without . This is a little rich considering that you haven't directly addressed the point that I have made at all. Now you've sidestepped, made your Ad hominem attack and pointed out I'm a bad person lets get back to the issue. Your theory fails to aid anyone understand a well established, well known paradox that was conceived in BC times that has now been proved logical by calculus. I understand your attempt to glaze over my point about Zeno's paradox as it clearly shows that this "theory" fails to explain paradoxes conceived in BC times. However, we can't just glaze over points that make us uncomfortable. Please show a quote from your theory that helps someone understand Zeno's paradox: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox. You can tell when the other side is losing miserably. They try anything not to address the point that will put the final nail in their coffin. We have seen it here, by dismissing a well known and accepted paradox on the grounds that they don't understand it, and completely dedicating a reply on the basis of my character with speculations on why I'm quoting and sticking with concepts. Take note people these are classic tactics for people who do not want to admit they have failed. So is it concluded that this theory is useless and doesn't even aid in the understanding of BC problems in logic? Or can you show me how this theory aids someone in understanding zeno's paradox? Edited April 20, 2014 by physica
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 20, 2014 Author Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) I am of the belief that someone has to study many years in a particular field in order to come up with something 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action 1.3 Mathematics So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything I still find your approach unnecessarily abrasive. However if that is your style good luck to you. Answering your points as abbreviated above :- a] about studying for a number of years. When I was 21 and at University , I was desperate to share my thought with other people. Now I am 70 years , I am grey, I have seen a lot ,thought a lot, done a lot ,witnessed a lot . Still want to share my thoughts with others. { bit more rounded out thoughts] b] [your 1.1] A set of principles. Well Isaac Newton came up with a set of principles. That " if anything was still, it would stay still, unless acted upon by a force. " If anything was moving , it would continue to move with constant velocity, unless acted upon ,by a force. " a lot of what I have said in my Lingual Theory of everything is Precisely that. Except I have expanded it beyond motion to include " Anything and Everything " Why ? Because it works ! As regards calculus, One of my admirations of Newton ( ds/dt you can not feel velocity ; d2s/dt2 you can feel accelleration ) , and beyond d3s/dt3 difficult to discern. Integration well a fine set of tools. if you know a boundry condition . c] [your 1.2 ] A direction as this is a theory of anything and everything, so to make a test, ,you have to specify what it is you want to happen. then go find a place,or condition where it can happen. If you do not want to specify what is to happen , ,then you will have to let things go off automatically, { only where conditions are right for them to happen ] This appears to be how the universe has behaved. This is where an initiative is either present or not. d] [Your 1.3 } Well Maths, can come into play or not like calculus mentioned above. But Maths being a specific interpretation of reality is too cumbersome for what I am discussing here. That is why I have used the more flexible ,and more able to describe namely Language [Lingual] It would be very difficult to describe Anything and Everything mathematically . Where Language [lingual] can approach describing Anything or everything. I am not sure whether your "Zeno's , Achilles and his tortoise, " can cope with what I have said above. .All i can say is , I did not come up with it ,over quite some serious observations , thinking and experiments , with them in mind .[sorry] mike Edited April 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
physica Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) once again it hasn't been addressed. There's a lot of waffle with some words vaguely associated with what I'm trying to point out but again there is side stepping. a] about studying for a number of years. When I was 21 and at University , I was desperate to share my thought with other people. Now I am 70 years , I am grey, I have seen a lot ,thought a lot, done a lot ,witnessed a lot . Still want to share my thoughts with others. { bit more rounded out thoughts] This isn't necessary, just waffle, if you look back at what I said I pointed out that I think there has to be years of studying, this is why I am not spouting my own original thoughts, said nothing about your credentials. Refrain from using cheap straw man arguments in the future. b] [your 1.1] A set of principles. Well Isaac Newton came up with a set of principles. That " if anything was still, it would stay still, unless acted upon by a force. " If anything was moving , it would continue to move with constant velocity, unless acted upon ,by a force. " a lot of what I have said in my Lingual Theory of everything is Precisely that. Except I have expanded it beyond motion to include " Anything and Everything " Why ? Because it works ! As regards calculus, One of my admirations of Newton ( ds/dt you can not feel velocity ; d2s/dt2 you can feel accelleration ) , and beyond d3s/dt3 difficult to discern. Integration well a fine set of tools. if you know a boundry condition . This waffle adds nothing either. You have side stepped and started focusing on Newton's laws, this is not the focus. If we look at Achilles overtaking a tortoise with just logical statements, the clarification, what constitutes overtaking makes the point that it is impossible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. If we use a mathematical approach (calculus) it is logical. However, lets say someone wants to understand the concept of a faster object overtaking a slower moving one but the person has never seen this happen. So how does he, using your theory understand how this works, as logical statements say it's impossible yet the maths says it is. Your theory gives nothing. Therefore it fails. c] [your 1.2 ] A direction as this is a theory of anything and everything, so to make a test, ,you have to specify what it is you want to happen. then go find a place,or condition where it can happen. If you do not want to specify what is to happen , ,then you will have to let things go off automatically, { only where conditions are right for them to happen ] This appears to be how the universe has behaved. This is where an initiative is either present or not. Again another side step. What you have to address here is the fact that your theory gives no direction. It doesn't tell the person wanting to understand whether to believe the logical statements or the maths, or to believe that it is impossible and possible at the same time. d] [Your 1.3 } Well Maths, can come into play or not like calculus mentioned above. But Maths being a specific interpretation of reality is too cumbersome for what I am discussing here. That is why I have used the more flexible ,and more able to describe namely Language [Lingual] It would be very difficult to describe Anything and Everything mathematically . Where Language [lingual] can approach describing Anything or everything. this is completely false. Mathematical philosophy flies straight in the face of this statement. Although maths can give specific predictions and interpretations the concepts of maths unlocks new ways of thinking and new approaches to concepts. I am not sure whether your "Zeno's , Achilles and his tortoise, " can cope with what I have said above. .All i can say is , I did not come up with it ,over quite some serious observations , thinking and experiments , with them in mind .[sorry] I accept your apology as Zeno's paradox explores the logic of a faster object overtaking a slower moving one. This happens all over the universe. It's not whether Zeno's paradox can cope with your theory, it's whether your theory can cope with Zeno's paradox. In conclusion just more side step hidden behind waffle. My point has still not been addressed whilst I wade though tangential points and straw man arguments. You can tell when the other side is losing miserably. They try anything not to address the point that will put the final nail in their coffin. We have seen it here, by replying to points with tangential statements that have some vague word association combined with waffle. And by making points about things I didn't say. Take note people these are classic tactics for people who do not want to admit they have failed. As a side note this tone is abrasive. If you look at my other posts on other threads they aren't as much. However, when people start dancing round the subject with vague tangential replies and speculations about your character and your motives as opposed to answering the points you have to be abrasive otherwise you'll get nowhere. So is it concluded that this theory is useless and doesn't even aid in the understanding of BC problems in logic? Or can you show me how this theory aids someone in understanding zeno's paradox? Edited April 21, 2014 by physica
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 21, 2014 Author Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) To refer back to tubes of opportunity. Posted 31 July 2013 - 11:16 PM Mike Smith said July 23 2013 :- Quote tubes of opportunity whereby things can happen easily if A) The entrance to the tube is identified B) The initiative is either present automatically or the initiative is originated at the entrance to the " tube of opportunity" . C) Any possible energy requirements are present FOR INSTANCE Micel Gorbachev [ Leader in Russia ] before the Berlin wall came down , When interviewed on Television after the collapse of the Soviet Union said [ to the effect ] . " that He saw the opportunity [ from "tubes of opportunity" ] come floating by in front of him. Only he was in a position to take the initiative of Perestroika ( reform of the communist system ) " . He started the 'ball rolling ' and history showed this lead to the now more open world we know. EQUALLY . A large block of Ice and dust finding it self as the result of a collision with another block of ice , knocked into a particular trajectory { "tube of opportunity"} that leads it into an incoming path towards the Sun . This to become one of the Comets seen from time to time. EQUALLY Our technology is massively constructed , particularly [but not only ] of wires and fiber optics, which act as Conduits or "tubes of opportunity" to bring electrons, light waves, signals to designated places across the globe to perform and make things happen, It was brought up at the time , how one could know where / when one was in the centre of the tube and when was getting near the boundary of the tube, or indeed outside the tube ? An event or sequence of events that is available for observation , that utilise field lines as " tubes of opportunity " are the northern and southern lights , whereby particles emanating from the sun , join the magnetic field lines of the earth and are drawn inward and directed to the earths poles for observers to see. This is a natural phenomenon, using naturally occurring " tubes of opportunity" to produce an example of this -- " lingual theory of everything " -- known to work within the bounds of magnetic field lines , of particles coming from the sun . Mike I think an examination of this ONE facet alone of "tubes of opportunity" of a theory , which is suggested " OF EVERYTHING" can release many used and as yet unused versions of these tubes. Whether this be neutron stars spinning and producing pulses of radiation (PULSARS) , or micro tubules proposed by ROGER PENROSE as being in existance in the brain for brain function, or carbon graphine nano technology as nanotubes, or whether by nature they exist in atoms or elsewhere, yet unused, they beckon . However if, by chance , we do have hold of a phenomenon of unfathomable scope. Then it is hyper important that the " INITIATIVE " is well thought out and the "SPACE " in which to function is sought with care. Or the Genii in the bottle may give us more than we bargained for! Mike Edited April 21, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
tar Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 Physica, Was shown a mathematical proof in high school, that proved that 1=2. Could not find the problem. Read the thing over and talked about it, with the whole class and nobody could find the problem. Teacher knew where it was, and finally showed us where a division by zero had been inadvertently carried out. Such is my opinion of any logical formulation that proves a tortoise can not be overtaken by a warrior. Somebody is inadvertently dividing by zero, or not taking some important aspect of reality into account, when they come up with a logical paradox. I know this to be true. You know this to be true. You even have repeated it 6 times, that using calculus you can see that it is possible for the warrior to overtake the tortoise. So I say, if somebody tells you that 1=2, keep looking for the inadvertant division by zero, and don't take your failure to see the fault in the logic as proof that there is no fault in the logic. There HAS TO BE a fault in the logic, any time logic predicts a result which does not fit reality. You say a well known and proved logical paradox was finally shown to be incorrect by calculus, and that it was possible, all along, for the warrior to overtake the tortoise. Exactly the determination that any observer, even in BC times, would have come to. There is no reason to think that a tortoise could not be overtaken by a warrior. None at all. Regards, TAR
tar Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 Physica, Another instance where math and logic say one thing and reality says another. If you take an ideal ball and drop it from a height, and it bounces up half way the initial height, and down again, on and on, you can show that the ball should have bounced an infinite amount of times within the finite period of time it would take to come to rest. You can not actually count to infinity so if you where to actually count the bounces, there would have to have come a last bounce. Even though logic and math say that the ball bounced an infinite amount of times before it came to rest in a finite amount of time, I say that it did not because it could not have done such a thing. There is something else that had to have happened where the elastisity of the ball caused a compression and rarefaction, but the ball did not leave the ground. At this point, you can effectively stop counting bounces, and therefore not have to get to infinity. Besides, as far as we know there is not a distance shorter than a plank's length, or perhaps not a distance shorter than the distance from one end of a quark to the other end. In this case, once the height of the hypothetical bounce becamee smaller than the shortest length there is, we can effectively stop counting bounces. Regards, TAR
SamBridge Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 This topic was started in February of 2013. Where are we at now?
physica Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) we've got two people just waffling adding nothing. Tar you seem to be tangential again. My whole point is based on the fact that sometimes logic says one thing and reality say another, this is the basis of my argument. This so called lingual theory of everything fails to give direction in these matters thus failing miserably. As for mike, again you're side stepping. We are not talking about electromagnetism. My point that Zeno's paradox concludes that this theory is a complete joke and cannot logically help someone understand a faster object over taking a slower moving one. please address the point. You can tell when the other side is losing miserably. They try anything not to address the point that will put the final nail in their coffin. We have seen it here, by replying to points with tangential statements that have some vague word association combined with waffle. It also has to be noted that the corrections I've made to their previous posts have just been left and they have replied with just more waffle. Take note people these are classic tactics for people who do not want to admit they have failed. I understand your attempt to glaze over my point about Zeno's paradox as it clearly shows that this "theory" fails to explain paradoxes conceived in BC times. However, we can't just glaze over points that make us uncomfortable. Please show a quote from your theory that helps someone understand Zeno's paradox: 1.1: A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based The activity is understanding stuff. Looking at Zeno's paradox: Achilles and the tortoise, we can see that different approaches come up with different results stating that it is impossible and possible for Achilles to overtake the tortoise. Calculus (the theory of rates of change) logically shows me why a faster moving object can overtake a slower moving one. Now instead of going on about different languages quote me a part of the 3 sentences of this so called theory that helps me understand Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise because with no direction it is logically both impossible and possible. 1.2: An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action It can't give any direction but again show me a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" that justifies a course of action in understanding Zeno's paradox. 1.3 Mathematics A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject I see no mathematical proofs in this "theory" So all you have to do is find a quote from the three vague statements of this "theory" of everything that satisfies one of the three definitions of theory in relation to Zeno's paradox. I has to be noted that I'm having to repeat myself again and again because it hasn't been addressed So is it concluded that this theory is useless and doesn't even aid in the understanding of BC problems in logic? Or can you show me how this theory aids someone in understanding zeno's paradox? Edited April 22, 2014 by physica
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) I was sitting down to answer " sambridge question " when the stuck record is there again . I appreciate you have a pet philosophical ,contortion that you like playing with , but I am afraid I don't want to play your game. I wrote what I thought was a reasoned, and written answer to your points, at some length , I hasten to add. And rather than have the decency to reply , you put your stuck record , on to play again. As you continue to be disrespectful and rather tedious , I would ask you to go and find someone else to be abusive to , and annoy. If you wish to humbly discuss a specific ,"ordinary " point or aspect, or question relating to the theory I have proposed, then fine. But if you continue "bleeting on" about this Zeno repeat tract, I shall have to ignore you, until you hopefully go away. ( please). Now I will try and answer " sambridge" , maybe something I say there will help. That is if you have a genuine desire to discuss. If not. Please GO AWAY any take your ZENO pet with you. Thanks Mike This topic was started in February of 2013. Where are we at now? Sambridge, I know you like to come and go, but I will try and sum up. We are talking here ' like a blank sheet of paper ' It is nice to sit down with a blank sheet, as there are no pre-requisits. So if blank , the sheet is crying out for anything, everything . So with this theory " anything" , " everything is possible , if there is no reason ( blank sheet , anything goes ) , to be writ or happen. Once one commits to some design, statement, drawing or whatever on the blank sheet. Then there are reasons, restrictions , pre- requisites for things no longer being allowable, restricted etc. Such is the case with the Universe. . To begin with there was a blank sheet. Nothing there ?( Possibly? ) Anything or Everthing , could or did start ( somehow ) to happen . Big Bang , whatever. Once radiation, matter , fields started to happen , there were increasing reasons why things should or should not happen . However, clearly evident , the universe is full of spaces as well as restrictions on things happening. The opportunities for things happening easily are where A) the initiative is present. B) the space is there for the happening c) if there are restrictions the course of least resistance is followed. It would appear that from the quantum field upward to the universe at large, things, everything type things, any things are indeed happening within " tubes of opportunity " as well as in clear space. The presence of things already , act as a mould to things trying to happen . The natural selection process acts as a negative feedback system to control the growth and stability of the universe, while allowing and utilising the humendous scope of the universe at large. The current state of the universe has many , many spaces to offer opportunities of things happening. Clearly things like tube based life, has already taken advantage of these opportunities. Astronomic , star systems, and space travel have taken advantage of Lagrange points and trajectories and sling shots to navigate space. I believe this lingual theory has great scope to identify already present uses, and encourage future opportunities, using the three simple sentences described in the theory. Mike Edited April 22, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos -1
physica Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) So it is concluded that this theory fails to aid the understanding of Zeno's paradox of a faster object overtaking a slower one. I was sitting down to answer " sambridge question " when the stuck record is there again . I appreciate you have a pet philosophical ,contortion that you like playing with , but I am afraid I don't want to play your game. I wrote what I thought was a reasoned, and written answer to your points, at some length , I hasten to add. And rather than have the decency to reply , you put your stuck record , on to play again. As you continue to be disrespectful and rather tedious , I would ask you to go and find someone else to be abusive to , and annoy. I keep having to repeat myself because you keep side stepping the issue. Show me a quote in your other replies to me that address the issue that your theory fails to give direction in a paradox that in a lingual sense states that it is impossible to a faster moving object to overtake a slower moving one and the mathematical sense states that is is possible for a faster moving object to overtake a slower moving one. If you wish to humbly discuss a specific ,"ordinary " point or aspect, or question relating to the theory I have proposed, then fine. But if you continue "bleeting on" about this Zeno repeat tract, I shall have to ignore you, until you hopefully go away. ( please). Again you haven't replied directly about Zeno's paradox and how your theory fails to aid in the understanding. Now I will try and answer " sambridge" , maybe something I say there will help. That is if you have a genuine desire to discuss. If not. Please GO AWAY any take your ZENO pet with you. Thanks It has to be noted for readers that Zeno's paradox is a well established paradox archived in the Stanford annuals of philosophy and has been solved using calculus by a number of mathematical philosophers, it is also used as an introduction to many advanced mechanics subjects and is not my pet. This type of behavior is also displayed in children who don't want to admit they're wrong. So I think it's safe to conclude that this theory cannot address Zeno's paradox, thus it can't logically aid understanding in how a faster moving object overtakes a slower moving one, thus it miserably fails in a whole range concepts in the universe. So this theory is a joke, completely useless and best described as pub talk. Edited April 22, 2014 by physica
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) So ......... Again you ......... Young man... I would like you to take your Zeno and your paradox gobble-de-gook. Pack it in a Brown paper parcel. Head out down the road from your University, Stanford or otherwise, and book in at a FINISHING SCHOOL for respectful behavior . My further suggestion is,, you do not speak like the way you are currently speaking,,in a Pub that you keep referring to..lest someone less tolerant of your behavior than I , should remove you to the outside of the pub. and shove Zeno down your throat . Please , I have tried to be civil with your provocative , base , behavior . But I really want you to go somewhere else, other than in front of me. There's a good chap, I really am tired of you. Mike Edited April 22, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos -1
physica Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) again more side stepping and not a dressing the issue. It's been a bit of a trek but I'm glad we're concluded that the theory is majorly flawed and doesn't help understand a whole range of properties of the universe. Young man... I would like you to take your Zeno and your paradox gobble-de-gook. Pack it in a Brown paper parcel. Head out down the road from your University, Stanford or otherwise, and book in at a FINISHING SCHOOL for respectful behavior . Looks like I'm having to repeat myself again. Zeno's paradox is a well established paradox archived in the Stanford annuals of philosophy and has been solved using calculus by a number of mathematical philosophers. It's an age old paradox. Another classic cheap tactic for the losing side. Berate well established concepts without going into specifics. Again not addressing any of the points I've raised. So your theory didn't match up to BC standards of logic, don't worry about it. Better luck next time. This is a science forum, if you look back you will realize that I only criticize cheap by-standing tactics, failures to address issues raised and the major flaw in the theory itself. I've made no personal attacks. Don't take this bossing personally. Edited April 22, 2014 by physica 1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 26, 2014 Author Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) John Scott Russel Apparently discovered the SOLITON By noticing a Bow wave Set off one day in front of his barge, and because the barge was in a narrow canal , like a TUBE , The SINGLE wave continued ahead of him up the canal for ever without loosing amplitude. His discovery of the SOLITON apparently gave rise to the later development of the FIBRE OPTIC CABLE ...Tube .. Now that is interesting ! If that is not a " tube of opportunity " . I do not know what is ? Mike Edited April 26, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
physica Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) hahahahah so we have some word association. Once again you did not go the specifics. To sum up your post. There is a solution to this by this guy (good start, I also state that there are solutions to the paradox but your theory doesn't give direction in achieving a solution that's why it's failing.) The solution was recognised in the situation of a boat going down a canal (tube) yeah tubes of opportunity Yeah ever since first school I always needed more than word association. Classic cheap tactic, gloss over the specifics. What is this solution. Don't revert to another cheap tactic that I'm refusing this solution. We just need to know to details so we can see why your tubes of opportunity helps me understand this solution. To sum up you've said that there is a solution and you've said that your theory helps understand this solution but you don't actually describe the solution in relation to the paradox. How does this solve the paradox would be a basic, good start to a reply. John Scott Russel Apparently discovered the SOLITON By noticing a Bow wave Set off one day in front of his barge, and because the barge was in a narrow canal , like a TUBE , The SINGLE wave continued ahead of him up the canal for ever without loosing amplitude. His discovery of the SOLITON apparently gave rise to the later development of the FIBRE OPTIC CABLE ...Tube .. Now that is interesting ! If that is not a " tube of opportunity " . I do not know what is ? Are you sure you're not trolling?? This is a complete joke. Now there has been a cheap tactic thrown about that I've got this goad pet Zeno's paradox. Even though it's a well established paradox where whole books have been written on it let's crank it up a notch. How does this joke of a theory explain the following? hydrostatic paradox, states that an object can float in a quantity of water that has less volume than the object itself, if its average density is less than that of water. A more general formulation of the paradox is that "that any quantity of water, or other fluid, how small soever, may be made to balance and support any quantity, or any weight, how great soever". The implication of this is that a large, massive object can float in a relatively small volume of liquid, provided that it is surrounded by it. One extreme application of the paradox is that a battleship can float in a few buckets of water, provided that the water surrounds the hull completely and that the ship would have floated had it been in open water. Aristotle's wheel paradox is a paradox from the Greek work Mechanica traditionally attributed to Aristotle. There are two wheels, one within the other, whose rims take the shape of two circles with different diameters. The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution. The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. But the two lines have the same length, so the wheels must have the same circumference, contradicting the assumption that they have different sizes: a paradox. The fallacy is the assumption that the smaller wheel indeed traces out its circumference, without ensuring that it, too, rolls without slipping on a fixed surface. In fact, it is impossible for both wheels to perform such motion. Physically, if two joined concentric wheels with different radii were rolled along parallel lines then at least one would slip; if a system of cogs were used to prevent slippage then the wheels would jam. A modern approximation of such an experiment is often performed by car drivers who park too close to a curb. The car's outer tire rolls without slipping on the road surface while the inner hubcap both rolls and slips across the curb; the slipping is evidenced by a screeching noise. Alternatively, the fallacy is the assumption that the smaller wheel is independent of the larger wheel. Imagine a tire as the larger wheel, and imagine the smaller wheel as the interior circumference of the tire and not as the rim. The movement of the inner circle is dependent on the larger circle. Thus its movement from any point to another can be calculated by using an inverse of their ratio. The Ehrenfest paradox concerns the rotation of a "rigid" disc in the theory of relativity. In its original formulation as presented by Paul Ehrenfest 1909 in relation to the concept of Born rigidity within special relativity, it discusses an ideally rigid cylinder that is made to rotate about its axis of symmetry. The radius R as seen in the laboratory frame is always perpendicular to its motion and should therefore be equal to its value R0 when stationary. However, the circumference (2πR) should appear Lorentz-contracted to a smaller value than at rest, by the usual factor γ. This leads to the contradiction that R=R0and R<R0. The paradox has been deepened further by Albert Einstein, who showed that since measuring rods aligned along the periphery and moving with it should appear contracted, more would fit around the circumference, which would thus measure greater than 2πR. This indicates that geometry is non-Euclidean for rotating observers, and was important for Einstein's development of general relativity. How does this theory of everything explain these concepts? The truth is it doesn't. Let's review, there hasn't been a single post showing how this theory of everything aids someone in understanding Zeno's paradox. The maths says it's possible the logical statements say it's impossible. The theory of everything doesn't get direction for which path to take. Mike has hinted that there may be a solution and that there is some word association but we have yet to hear the specifics. The theory is also failing to aid the understanding of the other physics paradoxes that I have presented. To be honest a theory of everything is a very arrogant premise. Many amazing scientists and philosophers have failed to unite physics under one theory. There are many counterintuitive findings and nuances in nature that a theory of everything has to be very vague to capture it all, thus it will be too vague to give direction in paradoxes. It's understandable for a child to think they've come up with something that encapsulates everything but for an adult to come up with this just makes depressing reading and a slight loss in my belief in democracy. So let's try and show me how this theory helps someone understand Zeno's paradox, hydrostatic paradox, Aristotle's wheel paradox and the Ehrenfest paradox. Mike I appreciate that it must to hard to spend time on something that fails so miserably but don't take this personally. I don't know you at all, I just think the theory's complete trash. Edited April 27, 2014 by physica
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 27, 2014 Author Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Jolly Good. Now can you go away and bother someone else please . There's a good chap Mike Edited April 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos -1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 28, 2014 Author Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) A SOLITON is a PLANE WAVE ~~~~~~~~~ SOLITON ~~~~~~~~ So the wave front is at right angles to the direction of travel. If it is contained within a channel or tube , in theory and maybe practice it will maintain its amplitude for ever. [ as the energy in the wave is not dissipated on a spherical surface], as with inverse square law type propagation ( like heat from the sun . ) This sort of propagation is what is used when long distance communications are required. EG Radio Frequency Transmission often uses a yaggi antenna [looking a bit like HHHHHH ]also fibre optic cables. My observation are that wind starting a wave formation quickly converges into plane waves. Hence they arrive on the beach parallel to the shore. Also if seen out of an aircraft window the waves on the high seas appear as Plane waves. Sunami also arrive as plane waves. Mike Edited April 28, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
physica Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 Nice waffle but how does this answer Zeno's paradox hydrostatic paradox, Aristotle's wheel paradox and Ehrenfest paradox in relation to your theory? In other words how does your theory aid someone in understanding these paradoxes? The conclusion still stands that this theory is trash
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) The best test for any theory is to see if it works. It is a theory that requires space, and initiative. Seek out the spaces. Creat the spaces. Take care with selecting the initiative. Follow the theory , use the inbuilt rules, TEST THE THEORY OUT. There are plenty of instructions, success tests and applications throughout the thread. The theory works , the natural environment uses it, living things use it, engineering designs use it, space flight uses it, it has been in use from the beginning of the universe. It does not belong to me. It just works ! It is all in the thread. Just ---- TEST THE THEORY OUT Mike Edited April 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted April 30, 2014 Posted April 30, 2014 The best test for any theory is to see if it works. It is a theory that requires space, and initiative. Seek out the spaces. Creat the spaces. Take care with selecting the initiative. Follow the theory , use the inbuilt rules, TEST THE THEORY OUT. There are plenty of instructions, success tests and applications throughout the thread. The theory works , the natural environment uses it, living things use it, engineering designs use it, space flight uses it, it has been in use from the beginning of the universe. It does not belong to me. It just works ! It is all in the thread. Just ---- TEST THE THEORY OUT Mike When last I perused this thread, there were no inbuilt rules, nor legitimate tests of the theory that fell under the umbrella of science. I got tired of asking and waiting for them long ago. Since we're >500 posts in, perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out a few? Short version: is there any math to be found?
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted April 30, 2014 Author Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) When last I perused this thread, there were no inbuilt rules, nor legitimate tests of the theory that fell under the umbrella of science. I got tired of asking and waiting for them long ago. Since we're >500 posts in, perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out a few? Short version: is there any math to be found? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A TEST. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The inbuilt rules are :- " A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur " 2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. " 3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. " notes on inbuilt rules :- The secret number 1 of having things happen easily is to find " Space " for them to happen . In other words , Things happen more easily if there is plenty of space for them to happen . You might require some form of small drive or initiative to start the process, but then "if there is no reason for it not to happen " eg the really clear space , then it will happen. Eg Atomic particles do it, Suns do it , Galaxies do it , There is lots of Space. People do it. Unfortunately we find in today's society, which is driven by Stuff, Materials , Money, and goodness knows what else, there always seems to be reasons why we cant do something. Not enough space. So maybe why things dont happen , is " there is a reason for them not to happen " Secret number 2 . Go find things to happen where there is no reason for them not to happen. However it can happen with small things. And it can happen with very powerful things. Don't forget the initiative bit secret no 3. If you find the experiment works, Then you can go and observe it happening in the natural world of science. [A] The Initiative is " send a single pulse down a " Tube of opportunity " The Space is " a Fiber optic cable " [C] The Description is " A Single wave transmission by a Soliton down a fiber optic cable " [D] The Maths is " Manakov system . From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . (Redirected from Manakov equations) Maxwell's Equations, when converted to cylindrical coordinates, and with the boundary conditions for an optical fiber while including birefringenceas an effect taken into account, will yield the coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations. After employing the Inverse scattering transform (a procedure analogous to the Fourier Transform and Laplace Transform) on the resulting equations, the Manakov system is then obtained. The most general form of the Manakov system is as follows: It is a coupled system of linear ordinary differential equations. The functions represent the envelope of the electromagnetic field as an initial condition. For theoretical purposes, the integral equation version is often very useful. It is as follows: One may make further substitutions and simplifications, depending on the limits used and the assumptions about boundary or initial conditions. One important concept is that is complex; assumptions must be made about this eigenvalue parameter. If a non-zero solution is desired, the imaginary part of the eigenvalue cannot change sign; accordingly, most researchers take the imaginary part to be positive.References[edit] [E] The Links and Simulations Solitary wave simulation link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BBM_equation_-_overtaking_solitary_waves_animation.gif Gravity wave link link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity_wave Soliton Main link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton " Tubes of opportunity" link in this thread :- http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72758-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/?p=758950 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Edited April 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Recommended Posts