God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Traffic Jams Obey The Equations Of Supersonic Flow. Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Richard Ruquist on June 28, 2002 13:31:27 UTC

***Take two positions of the car on one line-traffic jam (call this 'an event'); and you have two positions on the superposed at-right-angles imaginary line. The Dirac delta function seems to describe this scenario.***

How does the Dirac Delta function, which is either zero or infinity at a point describe this scenario? You seem to answer it here.

***Between any two positions on one line, the car has described a curve if you plot its changing position on both lines, including the superposed at-right-angles line. ***

The Dirac Delta function is not a curve, so it could not be applicable.

And how is a universal delta fuction different from the ordinary one?

*** read in "The Force Of Symmetry" by Vincent Icke (all about quantum mechanics) that the qm idea of "spin" involves a curious kind of relativity: like you cannot tell apart actual spin (rotation) of the letter box from apparant rotation caused by your walking past it. ***

Not true. Icke emphasizes that spin has nothing to do with rotation. Read the book again.

***If either party may be rotating/ and/or moving sideways; how to separate out what is going on? ***

With mathematics- assume you are walking in a straight line and that the mailbox is stationary, and you will predict all the relevant data. That is how science is done. Nothing mysterious.

***Its all a question of entangled perspectives. As I see it, Dr. Dick is dramatically on the right
track. ***

Dr. Dick says nothing about entanglement. His equations do not apply to entanglement. In fact, the equations of entanglement are not known, only the data exists.

***It should be possible to demonstrate by pure logic why he cannot be wrong in certain respects within certain limits. ***

I have demonstrated by pure logic that his math is incorrect. His departure is evidence of that claim.

***Do you agree that Dr. Dick may be corrct re: Dirac delta function: he has complementary
views of it. His view may be wider than physics, which is why physics is a subset of his wider
view, so his paper can not be constrained into the regular restricted perspective on physics? ***

No. There is only one view of the delta function. You cannot bend math to suit your purposes. His wider view is irrational. I now have to judge that your original statement about looking at looking is also irrational. Can you defend yourself and convince me that you view is rational.

Richard

 Web www.astronomy.net