Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

[hansda]

Thanks for your views. You can read the biography in the profile page, where I have explained the background for my theory of success.

"Success" is defined by hansda as "an action, by performance of which the doer achieves the desired result. The desired result is as per the choice of the doer". Which clearly signals that some consciousness or mental process has to be present for any "success" to be able to be defined. It indeed is a far cry for anything to do with mechanical physics, and the rest of the text doesn't connect these two dots. There's two parts to this text: the classical mechanics bit, and the "success" bit, but nowhere do they really intersect or connect.

But perhaps hansda can explain it here in this thread. hansda?

"Success" basically is an "action". Any action can be explained by physics. So, "success" also should be explained by physics/math.

 

[QuarkHead]

That's not the point. The language of physicists is sloppy if considered from point of view of mathematicians. The language in such a forum, full of laymen, is even more sloppy.

Well, it seems to me to be PRECISELY the point; accurate communication using ambiguous or poorly defined language is impossible.

I might as far as to say that this is at the heart of many of the unseemly squabbles here. In fact I will go that far, and suggest it is the duty of those members who do know how to use the language of science with appropriate precision to step in and - well - do their duty

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, it seems to me to be PRECISELY the point; accurate communication using ambiguous or poorly defined language is impossible.

I might as far as to say that this is at the heart of many of the unseemly squabbles here. In fact I will go that far, and suggest it is the duty of those members who do know how to use the language of science with appropriate precision to step in and - well - do their duty

Ideally, sure. But ideally, we/they would need to take a university course in mathematics to understand it.

It's just not feasible, and not really the point, here. You'd go to Physicsforums.com for that.

 

[NotEinstein]

"Success" basically is an "action". Any action can be explained by physics. So, "success" also should be explained by physics/math.

Your definition of "success" contains the phrase "desired result". As I already pointed out, a desire is something that can only originate from a mind or mental process. Thus for "success" to be defined, a mental process must exist. I can imagine a universe just like ours, but without any life (and thus without mental processes) in it. Your definition of "success" cannot be applied to such a universe, while GR and Newtonian mechanics still work just fine. Are you therefore suggesting that there is an every-present mental processes in any universe? In other words, who is determining the "desired results" of the nuclear reactions in the center of the sun (or a star so far away, its light hasn't reached us yet)?

 

[QuarkHead]

"Success" basically is an "action".

No it is not. Success is the subjective evaluation of the outcome of an action

"success" also should be explained by physics/math.

Since success is a subjective evaluation, there is no reason to think this is true

 

[DaveC426913]

No it is not. Success is the subjective evaluation of the outcome of an action

That is an excellent point.


A nut hitting a squirrel on the head is an action.
A nut missing a squirrel is also an action.
In hansda's terms, they are both successes, since they are both actions.
If everything is a success, then it is a meaningless term.

 

[hansda]

Your definition of "success" contains the phrase "desired result".

Correct.

As I already pointed out, a desire is something that can only originate from a mind or mental process. Thus for "success" to be defined, a mental process must exist.

Correct. I explained this fact in the biography, in my profile page.

I can imagine a universe just like ours, but without any life (and thus without mental processes) in it.

I dont know whether our universe has life or not.

Your definition of "success" cannot be applied to such a universe, while GR and Newtonian mechanics still work just fine.

I did not apply any success for the universe.

Are you therefore suggesting that there is an every-present mental processes in any universe?

I have not suggested that.

In other words, who is determining the "desired results" of the nuclear reactions in the center of the sun (or a star so far away, its light hasn't reached us yet)?

I have not explained a "desired result" for the Sun or the Stars. "Desired Result" can be expected from the entities who can have a desire. Example: living beings.

 

[hansda]

Success is the subjective evaluation of the outcome of an action

Your above statement basically implies the "desired result" of an action. Here you also considered success as an action. So, success basically is an action.

 

[NotEinstein]

I dont know whether our universe has life or not.

Excuse me?

Please give your definition of "life".

Edit: Wait... I think I understand what happened here. I'm not claiming our universe itself is alive; I'm only saying there are live things inside our universe.

I did not apply any success for the universe.

Right, let me clarify what I meant:
Your definition of "success" cannot be applied to anything in such a universe, while GR and Newtonian mechanics still work just fine.

I have not suggested that.

Then how can you define "success" for particles that are unobserved (and thus no outcome is desired of them)?

I have not explained a "desired result" for the Sun or the Stars. "Desired Result" can be expected from the entities who can have a desire. Example: living beings.

So the Sun and stars are (generally) not covered by your "success" approach?

 

[hansda]

Excuse me?

Please give your definition of "life".

Edit: Wait... I think I understand what happened here. I'm not claiming our universe itself is alive; I'm only saying there are live things inside our universe.


Right, let me clarify what I meant:
Your definition of "success" cannot be applied to anything in such a universe, while GR and Newtonian mechanics still work just fine.


Then how can you define "success" for particles that are unobserved (and thus no outcome is desired of them)?


So the Sun and stars are (generally) not covered by your "success" approach?

"Success" should be seen with relative to a "doer".

 

[NotEinstein]

"Success" should be seen with relative to a "doer".

So you agree with me that since there is no "doer" for remote, isolated stars, your "success" approach does not describe them?

 

[hansda]

So you agree with me that since there is no "doer" for remote, isolated stars, your "success" approach does not describe them?

That is correct. If there is no "doer", success can not be applied.

 

[NotEinstein]

That is correct. If there is no "doer", success can not be applied.

In other words, you at the very least do not have a Theory of Everything, because there are things that it cannot describe.

 

[hansda]

In other words, you at the very least do not have a Theory of Everything, because there are things that it cannot describe.

This is a wrong conclusion of yours.

 

[NotEinstein]

This is a wrong conclusion of yours.

Please explain why.

 

[hansda]

Please explain why.

My TOE basically says that, "Every Action has got an Unique Technique". Here the term "technique" can be mathematically explained by CFS or CRFS. That means every action or movement of a particle has a CFS or CRFS. As every action has a CFS or CRFS; this can be considered as a TOE.

 

[NotEinstein]

My TOE basically says that, "Every Action has got an Unique Technique". Here the term "technique" can be mathematically explained by CFS or CRFS. That means every action or movement of a particle has a CFS or CRFS. As every action has a CFS or CRFS; this can be considered as a TOE.

But the success-part of your theory cannot be applied universally, which was what I was referring to (see post #151). Without that, you've only got a reformulation of classical mechanics. In other words, without the success approach, it's not your TOE, it's Newton's.

 

[hansda]

But the success-part of your theory cannot be applied universally, which was what I was referring to (see post #151).

Success part of my theory can be derived from my TOE. You can read II.11 and II.12 of my paper.

Without that, you've only got a reformulation of classical mechanics. In other words, without the success approach, it's not your TOE, it's Newton's.

The concept of CFS, CRFS are mine. So, I can claim it is my TOE based on NM.

 

[NotEinstein]

Success part of my theory can be derived from my TOE. You can read II.11 and II.12 of my paper.

But the success-part cannot be applied globally/universally, as you yourself admitted earlier.

The concept of CFS, CRFS are mine. So, I can claim it is my TOE based on NM.

That part of your TOE is just a peculiar reformulation of classical mechanics; it is nothing new. That part is no more advanced than what Newton himself wrote down.

 

[hansda]

But the success-part cannot be applied globally/universally, as you yourself admitted earlier.

My TOE is generalised. Success-part is only a part of it.

That part of your TOE is just a peculiar reformulation of classical mechanics; it is nothing new. That part is no more advanced than what Newton himself wrote down.

Well, Newton did not talk about CFS or CRFS.