Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Thank You

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on May 13, 2003 02:55:28 UTC

Thank you for responses.

Do not worry, Harv; I can explain so clearly even you will see I think. Your comments are welcome.
Hope you can clarify where stuff is not so well figured out.

I look forward to investigation of what I found.

May I elaborate slightly:

freedom surface: a range of possible choices that you can take up if you want to but do not have to.

Repeated cycles of possible division: you could divide but do not have to. The freedom surface is defined by the number of cycles: the "surface" is the number of opportunities to divide something: that is a "surface" over which the freedom "to divide or not to divide" is spread over.

When it comes to definitions: dividing something may be can be thought of as narrowing it down, as confining it. But it doesn't have to; it only does so "by definition" if the divisions are assumed to be equal-spaced. Then you are supposedly dicing the item smaller and smaller.

(The very act of dividing something creates a wall; so one-sided confinement like Aurino's idea of "one hand clapping" maybe; freedom on the other boundary) (?)

The "strong defining" force of repeated cycles of division is a self-fulfilling phrophesy generated by the system of math we use to count the cycles. That system of math assumes numbers are equally spaced.

But this "1" is not necessarily equal spaced from "that 1"; one could be an apple, the other an orange.

But add another "1"; and you get a self-referential Zeno's arrow type scenario; where the assumed-equal-spacing between numbers is defined in by repeated self-referential dicing.

In Zeno's arrow: an archer fires an arrow towards a wall say. In the first moment it travels half the way to the wall. In the next moment it travels half the remaining distance to the wall. In the next moment it travels half the remaining distance to the wall. It never gets there?? No.

"Moment" here was defined purely with respect to the ever halving distances. The time intervals were getting diced smaller along with the distance intervals.

Our system of numbers does the same.

Introduce a third "1" and it partially differentiates the other two "1's; introduce further "1"s and you start building an impression of equally-spaced numbers from all that self-referential dividing.

In the physics lab: scientists count; they make measurements. They compare counts; they compare measurements.

But number is full of self-reference.

Physics is generated in the lab, at that level even, by comparing numbers; so by "consciousness" of math; by effective redistribution of math counting as one count meets another (?) Interference effects between the assumptions of equal-spaced-numbering in each count generate a "virtual math" (now possibly called Heisenberg's matrix algebra".)

The consciousness (freedom in self-referent referencing) of math: one calls physics; is generated. Dr. Dick can be shown to be precisely correct in certain discoveries it appears; but I think he overlooked some things.

A "function" is a constant-version of a variable through two "meetings" with other stuff. If it was one-off: you would just call it a variable.
Dr. Dick has apparantly anaylsed what rules the "haystack" must obey if the needle (a group-variable called a function) is lost in the haystack (re-distributed; juggled about; mixed with layers of other stuff).

He adds "unknown data" to equalise his lists (so simulating "not assuming" equal-spacing of numbers. (What he does is like what Godel did: Godel assigned "Godel numbers" to regular numbers.
Dr. Dick effectively breaks down assumptions about numbers by talking about "sets of numbers" rather than numbers. Maybe Dr. Dick "split the atom of number" that way?)

He adds additional unknown data so you take away any one item and the list is still unique: to simulate the group-variable minimum definition (a function definition; as at least two-variables are held constant with respect to any combination or layers of other variables)

He apparantly unravels the infra-structure of possible ways the needle could get "lost" in the haystack: he finds the minimum definition of the haystack. He finds physics as the haystack?

So finds no rule constrains the future other than the law of non-contradiction.

Somewhere I worked out what exactly he appears to have done and where he appears to have slipped up (vindicating you both possibly?).

That breakthrough followed quickly after realising what something called "Hamilton's principle" was. (Can explain).

I can show in incredible precise detail much of physics and chemistry infra-structure to fit a pattern of a conference or discussion where all perspectives are taken into consideration.

Taking time to type though.

I can show what looks like Dr. Dick's discovery (his "Dewey decimal system"): it reminds me of the sorting hat in Harry Potter: 4 houses.
Think of 4 catalogues that sort each other; how they divide each other is a question of which one you hold as constant equal-divisions (from recall; have written down elsewhere).

But in Harry Potter: beware the house: Slytherin! The founder of Slytherin wanted only "pure bloods" to be magicians. Think of "pure-bloods" as equal-spaced-number style math. The truth is told may ways. It is all around us. Human beings tell the truth one way or another. So Harry Potter books; movies e.g. "The Matrix" can have patterns that tell something.

I can show a "floating bracket" system where some
items are mixed (uncertain re: which one you choose) (free) while other items are held in a fixed order.

Chemistry looks like Scottish country dancing; where people stand in a row while people take turns dancing in circles in the middle (I saw a demonstration somewhere).

Mathematics with assumed equal spaced numbers looks like a 2 x 2 matrix or grid. Heisenberg's matrix algebra might be "the matrix re-loaded".

So-called M-theory may be the disguised re-appearance of the pattern we call "mathematics".

"String theory"; Dr.Dick is right in connecting it to groups: further; this may be re-appearance in disguise of "number lines" from math.

Probably/possibly: 2-branes: graph paper-template math; 3-branes: topology re-appears in thin disguise; 4-brane+, if they call these p-branes; how appropriate: the seed of physics re-appears; the template of what is called physics (I'm guessing sort of ?)

M-theory: mathematics-physics?
"Black hole" : number. In the math that assumes equal-spaced numbers; a number is like a black hole: 7896 is defined as any way you can get to that sum.

"Instanton" would be the "black hole" of physics theory (any way you can get 4-geometry)(as opposed to "number" as the model of current black-hole theory).

4-geometry uncertainty (overlap of definitions) generates so-called "magnetric mass" and "electric mass" ("specification uncertainty" and "generalisation uncertainty").

Discussion model of physics: I can reveal spectacularly accurate mapping of this. I suspect can be shown that "nut" and "bolt" (see Stephen Hawking papers) translate effectively to what you can call "the nuts and bolts of an argument".

Precession: a side-suspended bicycle wheel does not flop over to horizontal from vertical under gravity if it spins fast enough. I can show why in the map I have. This is known as precession where the axis of spin rotates in the horizontal plane making gravity visible this way.

Nuts and bolts appear to be a Einstein-relativity like scenario where from one perspective you see two precession effects tightning (like Eulers disk: a rim-weighted ring spun on a table-top will spin faster and faster as it topples from vetical balance to horizontal). From another perspective you get a threading perspective. (only scarce detail here).

I haven't my material here so the most persuasive arguments I haven't given here.

It just so happens that there are interesting connections between what Christianity teaches; what physics is looking to be; and what I know from when I was a newborn baby.

The jury is still out on a lot of things. But I think I have something to debate.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins