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 Escaping The Jungle? Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread TopicsPosted by Alan on August 12, 2002 10:06:10 UTC

Hi Luis, Aurino:

Aurino:"So I implore you to follow this suggestion: forget the word games, get yourself some good books, and learn physics the proper way, which means understanding every single mathematical step starting from Newton, going all the way through Maxwell."

Very good idea to try and study what we are talking about! Hard work though!

Coincidentally, today I just spent quite a bit of time looking at the vector-based origin of Maxwell's equations in an over 700 page textbook called "LIGHT" (3rd edition 1976) (ISBN: 0-12-218150-6) by R.W. Ditchburn.

I figured out: that it would take a lot of time to properly follow eaxctly what they are doing in this book. I got a vague idea though!

I was trying to see if it would fit the imaginary superposed traffic-jams visualisation of physics
I dreamed up (describes a definition meeting a definition; where two categories intersecting = 1 definition). I think it looks promising but I haven't figured out exactly what Maxwell's equations say. So I have a vague idea that Dr. Dick probably should have been able to derive Maxwell's equations from his system.

Luis: I throw ideas in to the mix so readily that feel free to criticise without restraint as it helps bring out the flavour; might make the soup more edible!

Various quotes:

"Stafford's problem is that he's looking for that 'other' outside time."

Could be. But is the issue this: even "local time as a dimension of locality" is based on the idea of: a fixed space (a reference frame), within which "change" is measured by a clock?

Maybe R. Stafford is claiming that "The reference frame itself ISN'T THERE YET; that "YET" (time-possibility) isn't even there 'yet'. And that what IS THERE is "Reference" itself. Specifically: self-reference! That "space" and "time" even your definition of them, and the definition itself; are BUILT out of self-reference!

And it just so happens that "self-reference" also happens to be a UNIVERSAL: consciousness.

Quote: "So which one experienced real time?"
"Neither, there is no PRIVELEGED frame of reference""

Exactly maybe; but......all the non-priveleged frames of reference DO HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON, SOMETHING PRIVILEGED: "REFERENCE" itself.

(Not word-games is it? Don't think so.)

So it may look as though Dr. Dick is appealing to some universal time (Mike asked Bruce to comment on "universal time", now looks like an answer to that here). But Dr. Dick may have found the UNIVERSALITY OF SELF-REFERENCE instead. And maybe that is what he found.

The priveleged frame of Stafford's work is "self-reference". The laws of physics then are the laws of self-reference; true by definition because they ARE definition laws. Laws of how things are defined through the common ground constructed by mutual consciousness of interacting consciousnesses?

Essentially these laws can be obtained by considering how a word sees itself and other words in a circular dictionary?

And: How a pattern sees itself and other patterns in a world of pattern comparison?

Maybe Dr. Dick figures that clock's don't measure time because there isn't any time to measure.....yet! It hasn't been made yet! The clock (Or ruler) constructs itself into self-reference? Maybe clocks (and everything else) measure whatever you want them to measure; as "measurement" requires "comparison"; and as you compare, so you are compared? Self-referencing, consciousness, a way of looking at a way of looking that distills out a fixed structure in "self-reference"?

?????????????????????????????????

-dolphin