I need someone who knows the math

The sorry state of affairs on this forum is actually that the nonsensical crap put by Dan and others, is not allowed on other science forums, or if it is, it is strictly confined to the fringes, and the proposer must show evidence supporting his/her nonsense and answer all questions within a month.
Otherwise their thread is shut down.
I have some cause for hope that in time, more strict guidelines can be applied here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was my impression also. Nevertheless...

Welcome back Ophiolite!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ideally, science should not have such political connotations....
I don't get what you are saying...you didn' get the drift.

Paddo : Request pl clarify what he said, I am sure you have liked it only after understanding it..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know very little of physics, but a great deal of blustering conmen filled with hot air and a sense of their own importance: individuals such as Dan who have delusions of adequacy. I was observing that Dan's nonsense, clothed in obnoxious implications tends to generate in me the desire for a solution that involves suppression, censorship, imprisonment and being forced to watch soap operas - all right wing thoughts that are alien to my fundamental beliefs.

 

You can be in this section with little knowledge of science, only thing is that intent should be of learning, then that would be fair, ...but I don't think science section is the right place to look for left wing right wing conmen etc.......

 

So, you disagree with the idea that gravity creates geometry (shapes planets, the structure of pyramids, the meandering of the rivers that sculpted the Grand Canyon, the geology associated with oil production, etc), AND that an explanation of exactly where GRAVITY originates does NOT naturally proceed from a consideration of the geometry of parallel lines, vertical angles, the static geometry of circles, tangents, THE PYTHAGOREAN THEOREM, or Minkowski's love affair with light cones, conic sections, or solutions to quadratic equations, just because gravity makes things that are mostly round and/or shiny and curvy, like a geometer's wife's arse?

Gravity MAKES geometry. Geometry merely DESCRIBES gravity. This is true as long as the derivation of the universal gravitational constant G is empirical. Same with ANY math. The OP of this thread seems to be saying: I need someone who can DESCRIBE something. And I am asking, "Why?" Most people who ask such questions really intend to ask something else, not receive a better or simply a different description of the same question. They seek the cause.

Whose imprisonment did you have in mind, Ophiolite? What is the charge? What could I possibly have said that would offend the delicate sensibilities of an energy God and science forum moderator wannabe such as yourself? Noodle it out. Use as much paper as you need. What would John Galt or Ayn Rand say?

By any chance, are you of Greek extraction, Ophiolite? Thought so. And an acting Deacon of the Galt Town orthodox church too, no doubt. Are you still voting for Trump? It's a gamble, but all of the other Libertarians love him, don't they?

Did I miss any sore spot? This should be good. Hold your breaths, and don't say you weren't warned.

 

Strawman - one of your favourite tactics. Do you honestly think it fools anyone with a brain? (Rhetorical question.)

Your imprisonment for being a prat.
It wasn't what you said that offended - for you have said nothing - it was the way you said it.
I am not a science forum moderator wannabe, but a science forum moderator on - currently - three science forums. Your signature ability to screw up facts extends even to the mundane.
I have no interest in what John Galt or Ayn Rand would say.

No. Although I once had a dentist from Smyrna, but he only did crowns, no extractions.

You missed all the sore spots by around 138 degrees.
My single vote for Trump was to have his honorary degree from Aberdeen University revoked.
You do realise that Libertarians and Librarians are not the same thing?

Reply for the others, I'm putting you on ignore.

 

You have come a long way, Ophiolite. What I like best about you is your honesty. I do not ignore you. Take care.

 

Ophiolite knows almost everything there is to know about geology, and I know almost exactly nothing about it. An asset to many such forums, no doubt about it whatsoever.

Tread carefully on the topic of global warming when he is around. It's kind of a vested interest of his. Fossil fuels and stuff. Numbers dont't lie very well about that particular political hot potato either. I missed a spot. Whereever and whenever math becomes predictive rather than just descriptive, you will all eventually know all about it.

T > "you can stand" is a good example. It's very hard to ignore a prediction like that.

Figures don't lie, but an ever increasing number of liars insist on doing their own sort of figuring. Perhaps someone should make a research problem out of that, at someone else's expense, of course.

No comment on that, Ophiolite? Notice that I'm still on topic.

 

Against all the evidence for General Relativity, danshawen brings only that some objects bound together by gravity are roundish. That's par for the course.

His racism seems to be new, though. Given that he seems to be motivated by anger towards his high school geometry teacher, the racism is not surprising.

 

Its existence as a physical constant was derived by science in the course of working out assumptions about the universality of the phenomenon of gravitation. Its particular value in human-created units was measured by science. Both the general applicability of those assumptions and goodness of that measurement are continuing topics of scientific research because you can't mathematically prove an assumption by collecting data and relative to the precision for which \(c\) and \(\hbar\) are known, the precision of \(G\) is fairly low due to the experimental difficulties of measuring small gravitational forces when nothing shields the experiment from other sources of gravitation.

Shorter: Your point remains unclear.

Then you have missed the core message of first Special Relativity, the choice of which inertial Cartesian coordinate system does not matter, and then General Relativity, the choice of which smooth coordinate system does not matter. The details of this contain a mathematical theory of geometry which is not ancient but 20th century in nature. Contrary to Euclidean geometry, in Lorentzian geometry of space-time the straight (inertial) trajectory has the longest proper time between two (time-like separated) events. Contrary to absolute time, the order of space-like separated events is a choice, not any absolute statement about time.

Shorter: What mathematicians mean by "geometry" has moved on; you should too.

To the extent that you appear to be arguing that it is correct and natural that gravity is stronger than electromagnetism, you have misunderstood the simplest description of the hierarchy problem.

Longer: The gravity of the heaviest known fundamental particles is negligible when compared to the weakest non-gravitational force affecting particles. When you lift a cup of coffee to your lips, you are defying the gravity of the whole planet with just a tiny bit of sliding protein driven by electromagnetic interactions of chemistry. The result is that the tiniest imaginable black hole is, due to the weakness of gravity, many orders of magnitude more massive than the heaviest known fundamental particles while quantum mechanics suggest that the long empty space between the mass scales of gravity and electroweak phenomenology should be filled with stuff unless something fundamental prevents one mass scale from bleeding into the other.

My father was recently stressing out, watching the Republican candidates for the office of president of the United States cavort around as if in a circus. I apologized for not applying myself and becoming the Tyrant of the Earth to spare him that.

Geometry, like other math, is found in nature as we seek to describe it. The more math we know, the more likely we are to be able to apply math to describe nature. You lack the math education and empirical observation to compete in this field. But envy is no reason to throw stones.

That is not the relationship. As with most physical theories, a specific geometric model describes the behavior of gravitation to the limits of our ability to test. Your examples of terrestrial objects which change slowly at human timescales and are larger than human length scales are created via complex interplay between gravity and electromagnetism. Their arrangement in space is not geometry per se but merely shapes to be described in approximate geometric language as they are known in more detail. The sphericity of celestial bodies is not exact.

You misunderstand the lack of importance to physical theory of human choices of units and the concept of working in natural units such as those where \(c = G = 1\).

Math is not empirical. No possible evidence can result in 2 + 2 being other than 4.

That is not what the OP is saying. The OP appears to be misapplying concepts from cosmology and vacuum solutions to general relativity, perhaps as a prelude to comparing two length scales.

From context: Banishment from the realm of human discourse until such time as you embrace intellectual honesty and humility and education in what they phrases you use actually mean for the crime of promoting your ego at the expense of the physics education of others. Is that about it?

Not meaningfully relevant as no one I know is quoting either, but:

“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” – Ayn Rand
“The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.” — Ayn Rand​

Thus the burden has always been on you to demonstrate that you are not wrong, and to compromise and let you shirk that responsibility in some sort of “equality of points of view” would be evil of us, and thus may become our fair responsibility to stop you.

But opposition to you is not predicated on the twisted selfish positions advocated by Rand, but a much broader proposition that talk should have more value than simply puffing the speaker's own ego. You are wasting the reader's precious resources. If you can't see that is sufficient motivation to create in Ophiolite the fantasy of being able to dictate your banishment, then you just may be a narcissistic sociopath — as poor with human interaction as you are with math and physics.

 

Although a typical British word and not used in Australia, I certainly understood its meanings and how it was addressed and applied to your self and Dan.
I would have used the word brat instead.
The message is clear none the less.
And I agree re science should not have any political connotations, but also it should be applied without any religious or other agendas.
On that score, you lose.

 

No I haven't. There aren't really any coordinates that "move with you" in your rest frame. Except in your mind. Those are just other pearl beads of bound energy sharing your inertial ride with you, not coordinates, and not static geometry.

This is not reflected in the math I do understand. And they keep making the same mistake over and over. They taught it to me that way; I don't blame anyone in particular, other than the freshman physics prof who represented Minkowski rotation in only THREE dimensions, when it was supposed to be rotation in four. That's still a problem, the way I see it.

And if you will notice, Trump only talks about polls these days. "The debate is over."

I think that's a harsh judgement, which I do not reciprocate on Ophiolite, or anyone else here. Are you really that secure in the science you believe you know? Perhaps you shouldn't be.
It has been a rare and distinct pleasure conversing with you on this thead, as always rpenner.

Einstein: "God does not play dice."
Bohr: "Einstein, don't <presume to> tell God what to do."

 

You assert you haven't missed the message of SR and GR.

This demonstrates that you have missed the content of SR in that you think coordinates are imaginary yet a rest frame is not imaginary. They are the same thing: An arbitrary choice of inertial motion, an arbitrary choice of origin event and an arbitrary choice of spatial orientation comprising a total of ten degrees of freedom in the Poincaré group.

Unclear anteceedant for "those". Non sequitur/unsupported novel claims. It's unclear why "static geometry" is supposed to be pejorative of the model when coordinate time's view of simultaneity is a continuum of disjoint sections of that single space-time geometry and from the point of view of an embedded observer's past light cone, is a function on where along the personal history of the observer one chooses to describe the light cone.

Yes, clearly I was addressing the majority of math you do not understand.

Your issue is either with your personal misunderstanding of physics or a complaint that you were mis-educated in physics. Neither posture qualifies you to authoritatively critique other people's views on physics. Also, it is conventional to teach both Lorentz boosts and rotations alike in two dimensions before moving on to the full ten-parameter inhomogeneous Lorentz group.

That raises a false dilemma of choosing between the science I believe to know and the science you purport to advocate. Until such time that you are demonstrated to be at least as successful at usefully modelling the precise behavior of observable phenomena as the best science I believe to know, I don't even face a choice.

Until such time as you embrace intellectual honesty and humility and education in what they phrases you use actually mean, I will have no hope that you will eventually embrace your burden of proof to demonstrate that your views are at least as good as the progressive state-of-the-art. So while it is within the outer limits of what is conceivable that someday you contribute to humanity's understanding of the behavior of a wide class of related phenomena, I have no basis to conclude that you are more likely than average to make such a contribution during your finite lifetime. Nor have you presented such a basis.

Any attention is good attention, eh?

 

"Static geometry" is perjorative because atomic structure in an inertial reference frame is dynamic with respect to every other reference frame, including the one that is "at rest" along with it. Atoms, electrons, etc. are never 'at rest". Their fundamental components continuously interact with quantum fields outside of their structure. The dynamics of time dilation is thoroughgoing, even in the atomic domain. None of this is new, just ignored for G-d only knows whatever else science seems to be interested in investigating at the moment.

I already know that I am not the only one with a passing interest in an enhanced physical description of the universe that can be translated into math only for the purpose of making even more physical connections. It's more important than polishing old math that was never more than an approximation.

 

Irrelevant to the discussion of the geometry of space-time. The description of dynamical theory of 3-dimensional space where events either happen or do not happen is equivalent to the description of a 3+1-dimensional space-time where events either happen or do not happen. In both cases, physical events that actually happened are localized in both time and space. Unless there is a dimension of change unrelated to the four-dimensions of space-time the later description is static precisely because it already accounts for the observed variation within a single all-encompassing geometry. A geometry where the center of mass of an accelerating rocket describes a single, continuous curved line in space-time.

But this is nothing new. Even in Newton's calculus, the equations of motion have solutions and those solutions are static — determined by the laws of physics and boundary conditions — just as space-time and trajectories through them have boundary conditions in General Relativity.

To what end? How do you establish any new thing is better than an approximation? What is your specific quibble with the quality of today's approximations and is that quibble based in empirical evidence?

 

Regardless what restrictions the rules pose the moderators should have the authority to make a determination as to whether a sock puppet is presently posting in these threads. Absolute proof is a bullshit requirement that relieves the moderator from doing any analysis. The moderator should have the time, and the will, to participate in the threads they're moderating. Apparently the source leading to moderation is a report. That seems to be the only source. The good thing about this forum is they

Very informative posts. All of them. Thanks for being so helpful. To bad danshawen is going to continue to disappoint. I'd love to be wrong. It would be an astounding turnaround.

 

I like your quote better ".......... the twisted selfish positions advocated by Rand, ...."

 

??? The LHC discovered a key component of that inertialess spacetime to which you refer in 2012. It has mass and imparts inertia to electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons and their antiparticles, as well as itself and neutrinos as a side effect of that mechanism. It holds atomic structure together. But judging from the way you write about it, it either never happened (and I place that possibility at 0.1 sigma), or else you don't believe that the Higgs they found was the foundational particle of the Standard Model, an excitation of the vacuum Higgs field, which also comes in at the same 0.1 sigma. If I were you, I wouldn't gamble on that premise.

No part of atomic structure is EVER at rest with respect to any other part, or with respect to the Higgs field, other than the geometric centers of other dynamic structures, and even those are not really at rest at temperatures and energies corresponding to ambient. Is it your mathematical intention to attach coordinate systems to individual electrons or atoms? Good luck with whatever the static geometry of the situation can tell you about that. You don't even seem to wish to use the preponderance of evidence that the time portion of "spacetime" is the only real physical dimension, and that it proceeds at different rates within atomic structure itself. The only clue you really need is that it moves.

Relative to what, exactly? Please describe one of those kinds of events for me, and whatever it is "localized" to.

No. This is pre-1990's physics. Relativistically speaking, the second derivative with respect to position is not at all what Newton thought it should be, or what any of your calculus teachers taught you, and the fact that instantaneous velocities, not acceleration determines time dilation is a clue.

Uniform circular motion can be analyzed the way standard physics does only at low speed: omega^2 times r for acceleration, omega times r for velocity. But at relativistic speeds, different radii experience different rates of time dilation, and at rotational speeds NOT involving any moving masses (at or even exceeding c), it pretty much behaves as quantum spin does, with a few tweaks never imagined by the founders of QM. QM relativistic rotational geometry ('space-time') is as different from normal experience as relativity is from low speed dynamics, or Euclid's static geometry.

You previously mentioned Herbert Dingle:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm

So much for that. That is where an absolute belief in static geometry and coordinate systems, absolute space and absolute time applied to physics takes you. Do yourself a favor and don't go there. It was no different for John Doan's later internet rants against the twin paradox, and both Doan and Dingle are very sad stories indeed.

There are folks who balk at the Monty Hall problem with the same bone headed interpretation of the idea that Monty opening one of the doors makes no real difference to the probability of your choosing the right one out of three the first time, and they are just as wrong as they can possibly be. I understand the math.

And I see no point in discovering all of this fantastic new science if almost no one intends to seek a deeper understanding of the older questions with the new results. What exactly is wrong with the idea of trying to reconcile the latest science with whatever we previously thought we understood, other than a career or a reputation on the one hand, and possibly advancing science on the other? Get your priorities straight. No one else really cares about your career other than you, do they?

 

Pl don't get carried away by the incessant likes your posts are getting for non-scientific contents....let 'any attention is good attention' not distract you. You are good, you can see the logical fallacies, but I have not seen you taking on Paddo / Brucep ? Why ? They accept your supremacy ?