The book I'm reading says that A is for apple. Am I getting close?altonhare wrote:Just one question GC:
Is A A?
Time and Motion
-
- Posts: 2477
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
- Location: NW UK
Re: Time and Motion
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Time and Motion
It's a yes or no question.Grey Cloud wrote:The book I'm reading says that A is for apple. Am I getting close?altonhare wrote:Just one question GC:
Is A A?
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
- Posts: 2477
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
- Location: NW UK
Re: Time and Motion
To you maybe.altonhare wrote:It's a yes or no question.Grey Cloud wrote:The book I'm reading says that A is for apple. Am I getting close?altonhare wrote:Just one question GC:
Is A A?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
- webolife
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Time and Motion
[quote="altonhare"]not everything in physics has a definite shape
-Web
Okay pause here. Explain to me how an object has "indefinite shape". How is that different from "no shape"?
This we will have to clear up before we can get to "fields" and such.
[quote]
I honestly don't understand your "indefinite vs. no shape" question, so I'm going to assume I don't have to in order to explain my Unified Field Theory's "field."
[I think you may never agree with or understand my use of "field". I hope I'm not correct about that.]
Let me start with an assumption: All objects in the universe interact, if only weakly in some cases or at some scales.
Even at the smallest scale, there is space between those interacting objects. Or perhaps you would prefer I say that the boundaries of [the spaces defined in] those objects are interacting, so as to eliminate my assertion of space between them? The objects are, by definition of A=A, part of the field that contains them. But what produced the objects in the first place? Lets sample a discontinuous object for starters... how did these objects come together? By some internally driven force/gravitation, EM, nuclear force, or?? Or is it possible [I say"yes"] that an extrinsic, centropically directed "action" [sorry for using a verb here] is at work, eg. gravitation, electromotive force/voltage, van der waals force, or whatever, "pushing" objects together to form molecules, planets, galactic superclusters, atoms...
Science need not have the answer to what causes that action in order to describe the effects of, measure, and generalize about the action. Because the actual amount of space involved varies with scale, it is difficult to talk about shape.
I describe as specifically as I could the "shape" of my light action as a [very narrow, virtually cylindrical, in the case eg of looking at a distance star] conical region with a "circular" base ellicited as a spectrum by any device that organizes the vectors, such as a pinhole or slit. This shape is perfectly suited to describe gravitation, EMF, or whatever, and is only a slight modification, if that, of the picture of "rope". I carelessly refer to these actions as vectors [a math construct, to your consternation], because both direction and magnitude are observable and measurable, and because they are rectilinear in effect. A ray diagram is all that is required to visualize it. The entire region [and included objects] of any given object[s] interacts with the centroidal object [the object with local polity], and we detect/observe/measure that interaction from our peripheral vantage point. As the field surrounds us, it also includes us, thus we interact with the centroidal object, and are ultimately and fundamentally "pushed" toward it. The dynamics of the centroidal object, say an energized electron, cause changes in the surrounding interactive field which is part of the object itself as I view it, as hereabove described, and from my perspective these changes are instantaneous in effect, at any scale.
-Web
Okay pause here. Explain to me how an object has "indefinite shape". How is that different from "no shape"?
This we will have to clear up before we can get to "fields" and such.
[quote]
I honestly don't understand your "indefinite vs. no shape" question, so I'm going to assume I don't have to in order to explain my Unified Field Theory's "field."
[I think you may never agree with or understand my use of "field". I hope I'm not correct about that.]
Let me start with an assumption: All objects in the universe interact, if only weakly in some cases or at some scales.
Even at the smallest scale, there is space between those interacting objects. Or perhaps you would prefer I say that the boundaries of [the spaces defined in] those objects are interacting, so as to eliminate my assertion of space between them? The objects are, by definition of A=A, part of the field that contains them. But what produced the objects in the first place? Lets sample a discontinuous object for starters... how did these objects come together? By some internally driven force/gravitation, EM, nuclear force, or?? Or is it possible [I say"yes"] that an extrinsic, centropically directed "action" [sorry for using a verb here] is at work, eg. gravitation, electromotive force/voltage, van der waals force, or whatever, "pushing" objects together to form molecules, planets, galactic superclusters, atoms...
Science need not have the answer to what causes that action in order to describe the effects of, measure, and generalize about the action. Because the actual amount of space involved varies with scale, it is difficult to talk about shape.
I describe as specifically as I could the "shape" of my light action as a [very narrow, virtually cylindrical, in the case eg of looking at a distance star] conical region with a "circular" base ellicited as a spectrum by any device that organizes the vectors, such as a pinhole or slit. This shape is perfectly suited to describe gravitation, EMF, or whatever, and is only a slight modification, if that, of the picture of "rope". I carelessly refer to these actions as vectors [a math construct, to your consternation], because both direction and magnitude are observable and measurable, and because they are rectilinear in effect. A ray diagram is all that is required to visualize it. The entire region [and included objects] of any given object[s] interacts with the centroidal object [the object with local polity], and we detect/observe/measure that interaction from our peripheral vantage point. As the field surrounds us, it also includes us, thus we interact with the centroidal object, and are ultimately and fundamentally "pushed" toward it. The dynamics of the centroidal object, say an energized electron, cause changes in the surrounding interactive field which is part of the object itself as I view it, as hereabove described, and from my perspective these changes are instantaneous in effect, at any scale.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Time and Motion
Web, explain to me exactly what you mean by an object having "indefinite shape". This is absolutely crucial to my ability to understand your theory. There are objects, which have shape, and there are concepts, which don't have shape themselves because they are relationships among objects with shape. Either there is an object there, with shape, or there is not an object there, and thus there is no shape. To me "indefinite shape" simply means I'm not sure what it looks like. The object still has a particular shape, even if I don't know what it is. You will have to explain this "indefinite shape" to me.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
- Posts: 2477
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
- Location: NW UK
Re: Time and Motion
Webolife,
Would fog or a cloud qualify as something which is of an indefinite shape? Their shape is quite definite from a distance or via a photgraph but at a certain proximity it is difficult to know where the fog begins.
Would fog or a cloud qualify as something which is of an indefinite shape? Their shape is quite definite from a distance or via a photgraph but at a certain proximity it is difficult to know where the fog begins.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Time and Motion
GC you made my point without realizing it. The "shape" definition of object works precisely because it has nothing to do with perception.Grey Cloud wrote:Webolife,
Would fog or a cloud qualify as something which is of an indefinite shape? Their shape is quite definite from a distance or via a photgraph but at a certain proximity it is difficult to know where the fog begins.
"Fog" or "Cloud" rigorously is not an object, it is a specific spatial arrangement of objects (atoms or whatever the fundamental constituent is). From a distance you may think it is an object, but that's your faulty perception. Whether you look at the fog/cloud or not its fundamental constituents have a definite shape. When you look at it you may decide to call this collection of atoms "fog" or "cloud". You may think it has a definite shape but then when you look closely enough you find this was just a matter of perception, the fog is not really an object itself but rather just a collection of objects that you thought looked like one object. The fact that you thought it was a single object with a definite shape was your own mistake. If you look even closer you'll find that these constituents have shape all on their own, they are continuous. It is not a matter of your perception or cognition that decides if they have shape or not, it is inherent.
Indeed, if you look closely enough at any everyday object like a table or chair or w/e you'll find that its fundamental constituents are what have shape. The table is just a particular arrangement of fundamental constituents. In everyday life we just say the table has this shape and be done with it, but rigorously the table only has shape by virtue of how we perceive it. Only continuous objects, the fundamental constituents, have shape in the absence of our perception. This is why they are fundamental. You cannot "look closer" at them.
Again, "shape" has nothing to do with perception or what we see. It means that an object has a definite border, i.e. it is finite, it cannot merge with its surroundings. It avoids the subjectivity and fallibility of perception, whereby one person may say the cloud has shape and another says it does not. Shape is not a matter of opinion.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Time and Motion
I wouldn't waste your time formulating definitions for me, then. We'll debate again when you're certain if A is A.Grey Cloud wrote:To you maybe.altonhare wrote:It's a yes or no question.Grey Cloud wrote:The book I'm reading says that A is for apple. Am I getting close?altonhare wrote:Just one question GC:
Is A A?
Web, what did you mean by "indefinite shape"? Do you mean that something composed of smaller objects can sometimes appear to have an indefinite shape? Or do you mean that there are no continuous objects, that every object is composed of smaller objects as the cloud is, and so cannot have definite shape? Or do you mean that the "shape" definition of object is untenable for you, in which case what is your definition so that we can continue? We must proceed step by step, otherwise I'll never understand your theory.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
- webolife
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Time and Motion
I can understand your desire for rigorous definitions, sort of. "Shape" is a visualization of the definition of an "object" for you. That's fine... I visualize my "objects" also. So which objects are you needing a "definite shape" for? I described my conical/cylindrical regions of action (eg "photons")... not unlike your cylindrical/spiral ropes. I need not define my electrons or other particles any differently than whatever shape you wish to visualize them... what's left? Are you saying that my "fields" cannot be objects, because they are regions? Does that make them not "physical" in the sense that physics is not about them? Or would you say matter is not an object because it is composed of objects? I'm drowning in semantics here... I want to understand your issues, but I can't quite grasp what it is I'm saying, or not, that bothers you. I have little problem "visualizing the invisible" in my UFT, but I am having quite some trouble with the degree/rigor to which you are requiring "shape" as a fundament of "validity"... in science historically we name things for which we have no definition, eg. atom, energy, gravity, electricity, time (saying it is the inverse of length isn't a definition, merely a math construct... it doesn't really explain anything that helps us with our experience of time passage, the "arrow" of time), and just because we can visualize a certain "shape" doesn't validate our theory... eg. the Bohr model of the atom. Nevertheless, being able to model or describe by analogy is a common and helpful practice. My light beams/"cones" are characterized by functionality and observability, even though they are transparent/"invisible" for all intents and purposes. I have no need to explain why light beams can "intersect" without interfering with each other, since they are collimated rays of force/pressure, yet I would say you may have a problem here with your ropes, as objects. I am undoubtedly confused by something you are after.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
- webolife
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Time and Motion
I was just thinking... electrons are variously described around here as having circular, ellipsoidal, helical, toroidal, luxodromic, nebulous or even "no" shape, yet most of the actions of electrons are agreed upon by many. We can all see light and feel the effects of gravity, yet what a huge variety of "shapes" do we ascribe to these! No one has ever seen a light wave or a light particle, yet some here claim that these are the only explanations for light behavior. What shape has a light wave or light particle? LIght acts, it has direction and magnitude, and I describe that action as a vector/beam... is my beam an object? I've even tried to describe its shape, or the shape of the region in which it "acts", which I would assert is the same for electron behavior, or gravity. Because I do not ascribe wavishness or particality to light, does that make it less an object? I guess I'm wondering if we can still do "physics" without having everything rigidly defined in terms of "objects"?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Time and Motion
-webolifeI can understand your desire for rigorous definitions, sort of. "Shape" is a visualization of the definition of an "object" for you. That's fine... I visualize my "objects" also.
This is where we are having difficulty. I am not talking about shape as a visualization. I am talking about shape as the definition of an object. How else will you define your object? An object is something that is finite, to be finite means it has a border. Fundamentally this means it cannot merge with that which it is not. It cannot simply pass through or meld with other objects because they have a distinct border (i.e. shape). This definition works precisely because it does not depend on perception or observation. Objects have shape whether you ever see them or not. Do you understand? This video may help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kA6dbaer4
If something has shape it is visualizable although we may not be able to see the object itself. There is no problem with an inability to see something, but it must be visualizable.
-webolifeSo which objects are you needing a "definite shape" for?
Whatever objects you propose are responsible for the phenomenon you call "light".
-webolifeI described my conical/cylindrical regions of action (eg "photons")...
A basketball court may be called a region of action. But what is happening in that region? I'm asking you what light is. If I asked you what basketball is like would you tell me it involves a rectangular region of action called a court? Or would you tell me it involves a ball, a hoop, players, etc. etc. (objects) and then tell me what those objects do (shoot the ball through the hoop, bounce the ball, etc.). This is what I'm looking for. What objects are performing what actions on your basketball court.
-webolifein science historically we name things for which we have no definition, eg. atom, energy, gravity, electricity, time (saying it is the inverse of length isn't a definition, merely a math construct... it doesn't really explain anything that helps us with our experience of time passage, the "arrow" of time), and just because we can visualize a certain "shape" doesn't validate our theory... eg. the Bohr model of the atom.
Precisely!!! Just because we give something a name doesn't tell us anything about it! Equations don't tell us anything either. You're so close, I think. No, visualizing a certain shape does NOT validate our theory. A shape (object) is a hypothesis. When we "pose no hypothesis" as Newton did we are saying we have no idea what objects are involved. When we name an observation but say nothing about what objects are involved the name is just a convenient referent to some particular observations. When we hypothesize some object(s) then the name refers to the interaction of those objects to explain an observation. If we cannot explain observations with those objects we formulate a new hypothesis. This is the scientific method. We guess a shape and see if it can explain phenomena we observe! This is the scientific method, hypothesis (definitions and objects), conceptualization (what they do), explanation (how what they do results in what we observe) and conclusion (discussion/acceptance/rejection).
For the basketball analogy we would have hypothesis (present hoops, court, ball, people), conceptualization (dribbling, shooting, running, passing, etc.), explanation (they engage in strategy X because it maximizes their chances to shoot or puts player Y in the best position) and conclusion (Is there a better theory, if there is we should reject this one and accept that one).
-webolifeNevertheless, being able to model or describe by analogy is a common and helpful practice.
Only after we actually have a hypothesis (objects) is this useful.
You will find this useful:
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/03Intro.html
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/04Ex ... eally.html
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Time and Motion
-webolifeWhat shape has a light wave or light particle? LIght acts, it has direction and magnitude, and I describe that action as a vector/beam... is my beam an object?
If the beam shape it's an object. Now, is it continuous or discontinuous i.e. is it made of other objects or is it a single continuous object? This is the most important distinguishing feature. After you have resolved this you will need to conceptualize what the beam does. Why is it emitted from the atom? What physically takes place to shoot the beam out of the atom? What physically takes place when the beam hits an atom? Finally you will have to explain why light travels rectilinear yet has a finite velocity, among other things.
-webolifeI've even tried to describe its shape, or the shape of the region in which it "acts", which I would assert is the same for electron behavior, or gravity.
So far I see a continuous light saber beam that justifies rectilinear behavior but not observed finite velocity or discrete absorption ("quantum jump"). Mostly you have tried to use concepts such as action, motion, force, and pressure as objects. We must start with the objects themselves then move to the concepts. It is the modern scientists' evasion of the first step in the scientific method that has science in such a dismal state today.
-webolifeBecause I do not ascribe wavishness or particality to light, does that make it less an object?
Wavishness means something moves in some particular way, it's a concept and not an object, so it's not a hypothesis. A particle is a hypothesis but is impotent to explain almost any phenomenon of nature. I'm glad you have not taken recourse in either of these, which so many others seem to revel in.
-webolifeI guess I'm wondering if we can still do "physics" without having everything rigidly defined in terms of "objects"?
How can we? If we want to explain what happened, how will we do so without talking about the somethings that are happening? Can you explain why a bowling ball hit you in the face without pointing to a clumsy idiot and a bowling ball? Will you instead decide that a velocity vector intersected a region and transferred a force? What does that tell anyone? It doesn't explain anything unless we define force and velocity in terms of objects (the bowling ball). If we don't refer to the bowling ball all we have are empty disconnected words that people will ascribe whatever meaning they want to and imagine whatever they want to imagine. Everyone will come up with a different physical explanation in their head! That's what the particle physicists do. Is that science??? Everyone pictures something different? Nobody realizes that the bowling ball hit you in the head?
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
- webolife
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Time and Motion
I'm tired. But I'm not giving up.
In my UFT light is not "emitted", nor does it "travel". It doesn't "come from" an atom. It is our view of the "voltage drop" of the light field as though our photoreceptors were voltmeters... the "voltage drop" or change in potential of the centropic pressure due to the "dropping" of an electron to a "lower energy level" in the atom. The change in the field is instantaneous, as is the light effect on our rods or cones. The electron "collapse" takes a wee bit of time, moreso the electrochemical changes happening in our neurons, or the inertial impetus of our radio receiver or whatever... but no measurable time delay happens in the rectilinear radial distance from us to the light source/centroid. Help me. Where do I need to defiine a shape here?
In my UFT light is not "emitted", nor does it "travel". It doesn't "come from" an atom. It is our view of the "voltage drop" of the light field as though our photoreceptors were voltmeters... the "voltage drop" or change in potential of the centropic pressure due to the "dropping" of an electron to a "lower energy level" in the atom. The change in the field is instantaneous, as is the light effect on our rods or cones. The electron "collapse" takes a wee bit of time, moreso the electrochemical changes happening in our neurons, or the inertial impetus of our radio receiver or whatever... but no measurable time delay happens in the rectilinear radial distance from us to the light source/centroid. Help me. Where do I need to defiine a shape here?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
-
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Time and Motion
Since your theory of light is tied up in something you call an "electron" changing energy levels you will need to hypothesize a shape of the electron and define energy level in terms of objects. You will also have to explain why the "dropping" of an electron into whatever an "energy level" is would cause another electron to perform a similar action. What is intervening between them?
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
- webolife
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Time and Motion
"Intervening" is a much better question than "emitting" or "traveling".
The universal/unified field operates everywhere at every level, so I see "intervening" as
"operating centropically". Whether a source/centroid is viewed as an atom or as a star,
the fundamental operator is the "holding force" of the universe. Newtonians would like this to be
gravity, Einsteinians would like this to be some kind of geometrical space-time matrix, TT would likely insert "ropes",
and I visualize the fundamental operants as vectors (pressure, magnitude and direction measured over an area). The question of what is the true nature of that "holding force" energizes the EU, this forum, and science in general for the past 20 Centuries as well as the future of science. I say with mixed emotion, from hope to frustration, that ultimately the question may never be fully answered by science. I wake up and go to sleep thinking about it. We tend to focus on the centroid and ask, as you are doing, what exactly is that thing, whether it is the surface of a distant sun, or a bouncing electron. Whether stars are nuclear powerplants, z-pinches, or hollow as some would suggest, or whether the electron is massless or a combination of subtrons, or a lafreniere-like standing wave, or whether or not some kind of material or non-material aether is intervening between interacting objects (I'm trying to honor your definition here) is not ultimately important to my UFT theory, which is more about the universal "cause" of matter and its motions, rather than a rigorous defining of their shapes. Perhaps you might see my offering as philosophy rather than true science... if so we will return to the debate once engaged by me and plasmatic over the foundational role of philosophy, assumptions, paradigms, beliefs (I view all of these with the term, "faith", to plasmatic's and your consternation, I know) in the pursuit of "true" science.
Every Object for me is defined by the properties of its "field" that is the region in which is operates, which generally means its interactions with other objects. How else can we ever relate to an object except in its interactions with other objects? This interaction occurs in an operant region, which I refer to as a field, but more importantly this interaction is at any scale a manifestation of the universal "holding force", hence my frequent use of the term "unified field". How this force is detected at whatever scale is the stuff of science. It manifests as gravity, voltage, nuclear force, and light, among other things. What any particular person's visualization is of the invisible objects and forces which are at work is the stuff of theory. I visualize my unified fields using ray diagrams. Your ropes perhaps overlay my rays pretty nicely I think... A ray of course has no "volume", so a further embellishment of "ray" must include the entire interactive or detectable region, which I see as a very narrow (in the case of distant stars) cone with its apex at the centroid and its virtually circular base at the peripheral receptor "viewpoint", I call it a "beam". Whether near or far, the light source pressure gradient surrounding the central line-of-sight shows up as a spectrum, more accurately a geometric progression of spectra, which are not in my UFT a function of wavelength or associated with a c-rate.
The universal/unified field operates everywhere at every level, so I see "intervening" as
"operating centropically". Whether a source/centroid is viewed as an atom or as a star,
the fundamental operator is the "holding force" of the universe. Newtonians would like this to be
gravity, Einsteinians would like this to be some kind of geometrical space-time matrix, TT would likely insert "ropes",
and I visualize the fundamental operants as vectors (pressure, magnitude and direction measured over an area). The question of what is the true nature of that "holding force" energizes the EU, this forum, and science in general for the past 20 Centuries as well as the future of science. I say with mixed emotion, from hope to frustration, that ultimately the question may never be fully answered by science. I wake up and go to sleep thinking about it. We tend to focus on the centroid and ask, as you are doing, what exactly is that thing, whether it is the surface of a distant sun, or a bouncing electron. Whether stars are nuclear powerplants, z-pinches, or hollow as some would suggest, or whether the electron is massless or a combination of subtrons, or a lafreniere-like standing wave, or whether or not some kind of material or non-material aether is intervening between interacting objects (I'm trying to honor your definition here) is not ultimately important to my UFT theory, which is more about the universal "cause" of matter and its motions, rather than a rigorous defining of their shapes. Perhaps you might see my offering as philosophy rather than true science... if so we will return to the debate once engaged by me and plasmatic over the foundational role of philosophy, assumptions, paradigms, beliefs (I view all of these with the term, "faith", to plasmatic's and your consternation, I know) in the pursuit of "true" science.
Every Object for me is defined by the properties of its "field" that is the region in which is operates, which generally means its interactions with other objects. How else can we ever relate to an object except in its interactions with other objects? This interaction occurs in an operant region, which I refer to as a field, but more importantly this interaction is at any scale a manifestation of the universal "holding force", hence my frequent use of the term "unified field". How this force is detected at whatever scale is the stuff of science. It manifests as gravity, voltage, nuclear force, and light, among other things. What any particular person's visualization is of the invisible objects and forces which are at work is the stuff of theory. I visualize my unified fields using ray diagrams. Your ropes perhaps overlay my rays pretty nicely I think... A ray of course has no "volume", so a further embellishment of "ray" must include the entire interactive or detectable region, which I see as a very narrow (in the case of distant stars) cone with its apex at the centroid and its virtually circular base at the peripheral receptor "viewpoint", I call it a "beam". Whether near or far, the light source pressure gradient surrounding the central line-of-sight shows up as a spectrum, more accurately a geometric progression of spectra, which are not in my UFT a function of wavelength or associated with a c-rate.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests