A child's perspective on relativity!

[swansont]

 

As a graduate student, I was taught the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (something never brought up in Einstein's theory of special relativity).

 

It's not brought up in Darwin's theory of evolution, either, and for similar reasons. (that being relevance, and the linear nature of time)

[ajb]

I am having a hard time understanding the point of all this.

 

Doctordick, your verbose story telling and presentation of irrelevant facts (eg. your PhD) is not helping in the slightest. Your style is a little condescending. It is not about 'willing to follow you', you have to present things so that we can follow you.

Edited May 1, 2015 by ajb

[Mordred]

I am having a hard time understanding the point of all this.

 

Doctordick, your verbose story telling and presentation of irrelevant facts (eg. your PhD) is not helping in the slightest. Your style is a little condescending. It is not about 'willing to follow you', you have to present things so that we can follow you.

Completely agree. Not enoiugh detail, too much side comments. Particularly since rereading. "One,two,three Infinity" reminds me of reading my 1919 physics textbook where the atom didn't include the neutron. The textbook certainly didn't include your formulas. Far too advanced for that book.

 

If you had explained your ideas correctly I wouldn't need this degree of digging. C'mon mate you have the PH.D not even several of the accredited and published posters that replied on this thread on arxiv can follow your reasoning. You might consider explaining your model better mathematically

(Unfortunately I don't have his "Gravity" book anymore, can't locate it

(I liked his section on Egyptian triangles, but that's off topic)

Edited May 2, 2015 by Mordred

[Doctordick]

I am making another post only because of the number of posts added after my last comment.

Some people are I interested but are having difficulty following your line of thought.

I've read George Gamows "one,two,three infinity". I still have a copy as some of his mathematics I find useful.Though that book is very basic math (I also tend to collect a lot of textbook in physics subjects, my earliest was written on 1921)

You might try showing how the formulas you posted thus far compare to the GR methodology.

 

First of all, nothing I have said has anything to do with GR methodology and furthermore, there appear to be a number of competent people out there complaining about GR. In essence, it seems to me to be a subject of little importance to my general analysis.

 

Regarding the general difficulty following my line of thought, as far as I can tell, no one has yet comprehended what the devil I am talking about. (My verbose presentation was an attempt to bring context to the discussion. Something I have clearly failed to accomplish.)

The issue I am trying to discuses is, "obtaining exactly the same answers is not evidence that the relevant explanations are the same". (My child's view of special relativity was what brought up the issue and serves no further purpose beyond that fact.)

I gave two definitions which everyone is apparently refusing to even consider. No one has given me either acceptance as a basis for argument or any reason to reject as unimplementable.

Those two definitions are as follows:

One, that each and every concept necessary to express any specific explanation of any collection of facts can be represented by a numerical label "x". Once an explanation is known, a set of numerical labels may be created. Although absolutely arbitrary, a specific label [latex]x_i[/latex] is a knowable thing which can be used to refer to the relevant concept. That fact is not constrained in any way by the explanation being represented.

Two, that any fact expressible via those labeled concepts can be expressed by the notation [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] where "P" is the probability that the assembled list of concepts, [latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex], expresses a true statement under the specific understanding being represented.

On the assumption that someone out there is willing to work with those definitions, I put forth the first step of my presentation.

That first step is to observe the fact that the absolutely arbitrary nature of the labeling allows one to assert that

[latex]\frac{d\;}{da}P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a)=0[/latex]

for all possible explanations of any collection of facts.

And that is exactly where I apparently lose everyone's attention!

 

 

 

There is a difference between being equal to and being identical to.

 

When one is speaking of specific numbers, please explain to me the difference between being equal and being identical?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[studiot]

 

When one is speaking of specific numbers, please explain to me the difference between being equal and being identical?

 

 

 

 

Are you qualifying your statement about the x_i s?

 

If they are specific numbers then of course all the differential coefficients are zero, as they are for any constant.

 

But that is introducing new material, not before stated.

 

It is a pretty pedestrian statement that

 

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +........................ = Well suprise, 0

 

Originally, you stated an identity concerning a bunch of variables, labelled x_i

 

This may be true for some values of x_i but not for others, nevertheless it could be a valid equation.

 

To qualify for an identity it must be true for all values of all the x_i s

 

This is elementary.

Edited May 3, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

The issue I am trying to discuses is, "obtaining exactly the same answers is not evidence that the relevant explanations are the same".

 

I would have thought that was obvious. For example, Newtonian gravity and GR are completely different explanations and yet, in the appropriate domains, produce identical results. The same is true of the classical view of electromagnetic radiation and the quantum view (QED). Science is about producing models of relaity; in general the simplest model that is appropriate will be used.

 

 

My child's view of special relativity was what brought up the issue and serves no further purpose beyond that fact.

 

Given the title and the amount of time spent on this, I assumed this was the main point of the thread.

 

 

I gave two definitions which everyone is apparently refusing to even consider.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I find your definitions totally incomprehensible.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

OK - I think this thread is getting a bit strained and silly. DoctorDick - either come to the point and in doing so please ensure you make your argument in accepted terms, language, and formation (any more deliberately recondite riddles may lead to the assumption that you are trolling) OR we will consider closing this thread. There are rules / guidelines to this forum - perhaps take another look before posting your next message.

 

 

[Doctordick]

 

 

Are you qualifying your statement about the x_i s?

 

If they are specific numbers then of course all the differential coefficients are zero, as they are for any constant.

 

But that is introducing new material, not before stated.

 

It is a pretty pedestrian statement that

 

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +........................ = Well suprise, 0

 

Originally, you stated an identity concerning a bunch of variables, labelled x_i

 

This may be true for some values of x_i but not for others, nevertheless it could be a valid equation.

 

To qualify for an identity it must be true for all values of all the x_i s

 

This is elementary.

 

The [latex]x_i[/latex] have never been introduced as variables. They have been, from the very start, nothing more than numerical labels on that finite set of listed concepts. The representation [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] is not a mathematical expression. It is an expression of the probability that the assertion represented by an ordered list of concepts [latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] is a valid assertion. It is a defined representation of supposed facts (the important point being that they are represented without defining those represented concepts).

 

The virtue of this representation is that, not being specifically defined, the representation applies to all conceivable explanations of any collection of facts. It is an absolutely general representation of facts to be comprehended.

 

The meaning of the various "concepts" has to be learned from their usage and the patterns inherent in that usage. A result which could be accomplished were one given the list of circumstances represented by [latex](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] which are held to be valid (you could call that an experience of reality if you wish). The fact that those numerical labels are entirely arbitrary leads to a very significant relationship. Given the entire list [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex], the expression [latex]P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a)[/latex] becomes a defined mathematical function of "a". Since the simple addition of a constant makes no changes whatsoever in the patterns represented in those relevant lists, learning the meanings of the various "concepts" is a problem identical to the original problem. That implies that [latex]P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a)[/latex] must be identical to [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] as they are deduced from exactly the same patterns.

 

It follows that [latex]\frac{d\;}{da}P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a)[/latex] must vanish for all such representations of any coherent understanding of any collections of facts.

 

Regarding -- 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +........................ = Well suprise, 0

 

You are apparently defining [latex]\frac{\partial \;}{\partial x_1}P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)=0[/latex] whereas I am regarding it as undefined since [latex]x_1[/latex] is a numerical label and not a variable. You are jumping to the conclusion that because it looks like a mathematical function [latex]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/latex] is a mathematical function.

 

The next step of my argument concerns changing my representation into a valid mathematical expression in such a manner that it's generality is conserved without altering the underlying meaning of the representation. That is not a trivial issues.

 

 

I would have thought that was obvious. For example, Newtonian gravity and GR are completely different explanations and yet, in the appropriate domains, produce identical results.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I find your definitions totally incomprehensible.

 

"In the appropriate domains" is the critical limitation there. I gave my "child's perspective on relativity" because it gave exactly the same results as Einstein's 'theory of special relativity" throughout the entirety of exactly the same domain. Oh, outside that domain they don't agree but at least mine is perfectly consistent with quantum mechanics. That seems to me to be at least an interesting aspect. The moderators here put this into speculation, not I. I wish someone would comment upon where they think I have made a speculation.

 

If you find my definitions incomprehensible, I suggest you ignore me. That won't bother me at all.

 

And finally, imatfaal, what are those "recondite riddles" are you referring to?

 

Have fun --Dick

[studiot]

The purpose of mathematical notation is to facilitate the making and communicating of statements in mathematics.

 

It serves no other purpose and blindly attempting to redefine it simply obstructs that purpose.

 

As that is all you have achieved so far you cannot lay claim to any such argument since you have yet to commence one.

 

 

The next step of my argument concerns changing my representation into a valid mathematical expression in such a manner that it's generality is conserved without altering the underlying meaning of the representation. That is not a trivial issues.

 

 

This is a complete waste of everyone's time.

[ajb]

I really don't understand why we don't have mathematical expressions here. The meaning of them is a different question.

 

It looks to me that we have some finite set S of 'concepts'. Each point is a concept, what ever that means exactly. We then have a function from S to R that assigns to each 'concept' a number which we call xi. It looks like we need an ordering here for the label 'i' to make a lot of sense, so you chose some ordering which I think should be fixed. We then allow the function assigning 'coordinates' to each 'concept' not to be fixed. We allow 'coordinate changes', which are just translations? (Other more general transformations have not appeared yet for some reason.)

 

Next we assign a probability, that is to any ordered subset U of S we have a map U -> (0,1), which is the probability that the ordered subset represents a 'truthful assertion'.

 

It might be worth being very explicit with a 'binary system' in which we have two 'concepts' c1 and c2.

[swansont]

I wish someone would comment upon where they think I have made a speculation.

 

Make your case that it is not. All you need to do is show where your formulation is taught in mainstream physics, i.e. where it shows up in textbooks.

[Doctordick]

The purpose of mathematical notation is to facilitate the making and communicating of statements in mathematics.

 

...

 

This is a complete waste of everyone's time.

 

My representation merely "locks" like mathematical notation and everyone on this forum simply presumes that, if it looks like mathematical notation, it is mathematical notation. There is utterly no defense of that position and the only reason seems to be to avoid thinking about what I am saying.

I use that particular notation for the simple reason that it yields the rather surprising result totally consistent with the notation as defined. That would be:

[latex]\lim_{\Delta a\rightarrow 0}\frac{P(x_1+a+\Delta a,x_2+a+\Delta a,\cdots,x_n+a+\Delta a)-P(x_1+a ,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a)}{\Delta a}=0[/latex]

That fact has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics and is no more than a direct consequence of the finite nature of the information being represented together with the absolute arbitrary nature of the "language" used to represent that information. Since the meanings of the elements of that language are deduced from the patterns in represented facts (which must include the language itself), the probability a represented expression is valid (true within the understanding achieved from the information analyzed) can not be a function of a ("a" is no more than an alternation in the nature of the specific arbitrary "language").

The above is not a mathematical expression; however, the result is nonetheless exactly the definition of a derivative. To me that is a very interesting fact.

It must be comprehended that since the elements are finite they may be listed. If they can be listed, the list may be numerically enumerated. I prefer to work with numbers because of the ability of that representation to represent any and all possibilities. If ajb wants to use a binary representation, that is fine with me but I see no benefit arising from a binary representation.

The reader should comprehend that the representation of the underlying elements is absolutely arbitrary.

The statement "The earth is round!" in English can be represented as an ordered list of five concepts:

1. -- earth 55. -- round

2. -- "an explanation mark" 98. -- The

3. -- is or perhaps 21. -- "an explanation mark"

4. -- round 76. -- earth

5. -- The 12. -- is

The first case yields (in my representation) (5,1,3,4,2) or, given the alternate list, it could be represented by (98,76,12,55,21). In the first case, the probability it was a true statement would be represented by P(5,1,3,4,2). That probability would be established by the explantation achieved to explain the complete set of facts known (including the facts from which the language was deduced). In the second case exactly the same probability would be represented by P(98,76,12,55,21): i.e., a difference between those two representations is non-existent. That fact is a direct consequence of the arbitrary nature of the representation (the value of [latex]\Delta a[/latex] has no bearing on the result so long as [latex]\Delta a \neq 0[/latex]). Once one has established the representation method, that same representation can be achieved for any explanation.

That is exactly the reason the human race has developed so many languages. Exactly the same facts could be represented in Chinese or perhaps in Linear A (if you know somebody who knows it. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A)

The issue here is, has anyone ever even taken the effort to analyze the consequences of that arbitrary nature of language? To my knowledge, no such analysis has ever been made by anyone.

The expression I put forth above is not a mathematical expression at all; however, it certainly looks like a mathematical expression. It is that fact which leads me to use that representation as a starting position in my argument. My sole purpose is to perform (by pure logical analysis) a transformation of that representation into a form which does qualify as mathematics. To me the problem is very clear. What I would like is for someone to follow my logic and point out any error they see. I would appreciate any help on that issue anyone would be willing to provide.

 

 

Make your case that it is not. All you need to do is show where your formulation is taught in mainstream physics, i.e. where it shows up in textbooks.

 

Zeno's paradox has been seen as being of no significance to science for over two thousand years. I doubt there has been one serious modern scientist who has even thought about the consequences of the finite nature of our knowledge. I can guarantee you won't find my formulation of the issue in any physics textbook.

If, in your mind that makes my presentation speculation, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, I am merely defining a specific representation of the possible facts we have to base our understanding on and then logically deducing the consequences of the finite nature of that collection. What I am interested in is the possibility of error in my deductions and no one here is even willing to work with my representation.

Have fun -- Dick

[studiot]

I have ignored other minor errors as typos anyone could make, and I make all too often.

 

However for someone to preach to me about the English language and any connection it might have to Mathematics should start by getting his facts right, not wrong and then repeating that error.

 

What is an explanation mark?

 

 

 

 

drdick

 

"The earth is round!"

 

2. -- "an explanation mark"

 

The problem about discussing or not discussing your ideas as I see it is that, whilst on the one hand you are inviting comment, on the other you are making contradictory statements about any comment and being quite rude about it.

 

 

On the one hand you say

 

"To me the problem is very clear. What I would like is for someone to follow my logic and point out any error they see. I would appreciate any help on that issue anyone would be willing to provide."

 

But on the other hand you say

 

"..........no one here is even willing to work with my representation."

 

 

ajb, in particular, has offered you some mathematical insight taking mathematics beyond the simple definitions that could be entirely applicable if your ideas were serious.

That you reject them out of hand suggests to me you are not, but simply trolling.

[xyzt]

That you reject them out of hand suggests to me you are not, but simply trolling.

Obviously. His posts are either content free or outright nonsense.

[Mordred]

Well obviously this has nothing to do with relativity but seems to be more on how information is processed and represented.

 

Yet I'm curious as to why the choice on ignoring binary?

 

Seems to me your ignoring an extremely flexible key to understanding how information is processed.

I once heard that any question can be represented by Boolean logic.

 

Take the human brain neural pathways. Fundamentally how we process information is a series of on| off switches. Aka binary. We may do so faster than computers but the process is still the same.

 

Any mathematical expression can also be translated to binary, lanquage can as well, speech to text synthesizers for example.

 

AI is still a challenge.

 

Seems to me if you want to mathematically correlate language to information processing to mathematics I would start there

[ajb]

That fact has absolutely nothing to do with mathematics and is no more than a direct consequence of the finite nature of the information being represented together with the absolute arbitrary nature of the "language" used to represent that information.

If this really has nothing to do with mathematics then how can one even talk about sets, elements, assignments of probability, something equalling zero? This all seems mathematical to me and you should see this. Interpreting what the mathematics is telling you is a separate question, but still important.

 

The above is not a mathematical expression; however, the result is nonetheless exactly the definition of a derivative. To me that is a very interesting fact.

But it cannot be a definition of anything as you claim this is not mathematics. I hope you see the oxymoron here. I would claim that you do have mathematics, if you start to think about it in the right way.

 

If ajb wants to use a binary representation, that is fine with me but I see no benefit arising from a binary representation.

My suggestion is twofold. First start to think more mathematically, it will help. This is especially true of how you assign probabilities. You have some map from ordered subsets of your set of 'things' to the open interval (0,1). This is how everyone would understand a probability.

 

I then suggest maybe a very simple example using the initial set of just two 'things'. You can easily write down all words that do not contain repeated elements. I am not sure if in your set up you want to consider all words from your set, maybe you do.

 

 

 

 

The expression I put forth above is not a mathematical expression at all; however, it certainly looks like a mathematical expression. It is that fact which leads me to use that representation as a starting position in my argument. My sole purpose is to perform (by pure logical analysis) a transformation of that representation into a form which does qualify as mathematics. To me the problem is very clear. What I would like is for someone to follow my logic and point out any error they see. I would appreciate any help on that issue anyone would be willing to provide.

You represent something by an ordered tuple of real numbers (just integers maybe). You want to use logic. Again this all 'smells like' mathematics to me.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

DoctorDick

 

I was clear in my last modnote - this is now your last chance to stop trolling and get with the programme:

 

the rules are here

the subforum specific rules are here

the guidelines to posting in speculations are here

and also we have some ideas on posting here

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[swansont]

Zeno's paradox has been seen as being of no significance to science for over two thousand years.

Baloney. Knowing why Zeno was wrong is a matter that gets a fair amount of discussions.

 

I can guarantee you won't find my formulation of the issue in any physics textbook.

 

If, in your mind that makes my presentation speculation, then so be it.

You have your answer.

[michel123456]

 

In my mind he was essentially asserting that reality was four dimensional structure though we could only see three of them. (...),

in my mind that four dimensional universe was simply being projected in the time direction onto the three dimensional world we could see. (...)

t it was quite easy to just leave out the "x" axis and picture a three dimensional universe (y, z and t) where the "t" axis was being projected out yielding a two dimensional (y,z) shadow universe. (...)

everything was moving in both space and time.

Clearly, if an entity was at rest in the shadow universe, it meant that (in the actual four dimensional universe) it must be moving directly in the "t" direction. If an entity was not at rest in the shadow universe, it meant it had some motion in a direction orthogonal to the "t" direction in the actual four dimensional universe. In my head, the correct measurement in the "t" direction should be exactly the same as measurements in the other directions. As I saw it, hours, minutes and seconds were being used for changes it time only because we couldn't actually measure "t' distances because of the projection.

Clearly, the fastest motion in the shadow universe had to occur when that motion was orthogonal to the "t" direction. Since things were clearly moving in the time direction it seemed to me that, if the velocity of light was the fastest velocity and thus orthogonal to the "t" direction, things at rest should be seen as moving at the velocity c in a direction parallel to the "t" direction: i.e., every second they would move 186,000 miles in the t direction.

(...)

I think the cornerstone of your idea is the bolded part. (the previous part, T being orthogonal to XYZ is mainstream IIRC)

Personally, I don't find it outrageous. It is the reverse of considering us being at rest and the photons traveling at C. The Laws of Physics are reversible, so, why not?

[Strange]

I think the cornerstone of your idea is the bolded part. (the previous part, T being orthogonal to XYZ is mainstream IIRC)

 

That bolded sentence is a pretty standard interpretation of SR, where you can consider the Lorentz transform as a rotation between the spatial and temporal dimension.

 

It is the rest of his "this isn't maths but you can do maths with it" nonsense that is more contentious.