- Active Posts:
- 996 (0.32 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Philosophy of Science (905 posts)
- 28-June 05
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Today, 03:49 PM
- Member Title:
- 75 years old
- September 23, 1938
- Southern US
- Click here to e-mail me
Posts I've Made
23 October 2013 - 01:05 PMThis post was accidental! Please delete!!
29 August 2013 - 03:11 AMReading your post leads me to the conclusion that you are misinterpreting my whole presentation. Perhaps chapter 1 of my book will clear some of that up.
Have fun -- Dick
18 August 2013 - 02:08 PMIf I understand you Correctly you are offering a new mental scaffolding to support one's understanding of Theoretical Physics...
Not really, I am actually attacking a problem scientists have laid aside as insolvable. Inventing a language is coming up with defined words or gestures to communicate. This is the first problem presented to any infant and the infant must come up with a way of associating concepts with words or gestures. Of course, the child will use sounds and gestures available to them. That is why they all speak the same language as their parents; that is they guess as to what is meant by those sounds and gestures they find in their surroundings. That is also why languages change with every generation: i.e., they don't always guess the same thing their parents did.
The process of inventing that language is chock full of assumptions. Read Sir Arthur Eddington's “New Pathways in Science”; his Cambridge lectures of 1934. Eddington makes it quite clear that all science is chock full of assumptions. You have nothing to think about unless you make assumptions as to what your experiences mean. According to Eddington, these assumptions are impossible to avoid and thus become an issue of philosophy and not science. Essentially, he justifies the scientific position of avoiding the question as necessary and thus acceptable.
I have simply found a way around the problem; it lies in the invention of the representation itself (the language).
QuoteI am a Mathematically Challenged, Very Left-Brained Individual of an age where my attention span and memory are both Shorter than they once were.
If you cannot follow differential calculus, my proofs will be impossible for you to follow. I am sorry but that is just the way the cookie crumbles.
QuoteIf I take the time to understand your complex and convoluted system—Will it help me Master Advanced Physics concepts more easily?
I would not call my attack “complex and convoluted”. It is actually quite straight forward. The issue of avoiding assumptions is to create a representation (a language if you like) to express the facts you know no matter what assumptions are made. The arbitrary nature of that representation yields relationships which must be true (if they are not true, the representation is internally inconsistent).
When I first began this exercise close to fifty years ago, all I was interested in was, “what kind of constraints could be deduced?” It never dawned on me that those constraints would generate the whole of modern physics. If that were true, science would be a tautology. Certainly no modern scientist will accept the fact that modern science is a tautology -- that would make it no more than a complex religious belief.
QuoteBIG PS: Dude, It is Like: Your link is Deader than Judas Iscariot.
Give us a Live Link to your Magnus Opus!
Yeah, my web site created in 2001 vanished long ago. The internet isn't really a very stable construct, things vanish all the time. Publication on the internet has a life span roughly the same as those old proclamations kings use to post on walls in the middle ages. I could give you some other interesting examples but it isn't worth the effort. Being old, I have decided to self publish. A book will be available on Amazon sometime this fall. The final version is with proofreaders at the moment.
The title will be “The Foundations of Physical Reality”.
Have fun -- Dick
17 August 2013 - 10:58 AMI was looking around at some of my old posts and I ran across this thread, “There are none so blind as those who will not see!”, which died over five years ago.
Can you dumb your equation down to 8th grader level. I have no clue as to what the symbles mean and could use a simpler numeric example.
Having posted on this forum over the last six years, it has become quite clear to me that people simply do not comprehend the underlying problem which I have attacked. That was certainly a consequence of my not understanding their confusion and perhaps I understand things a bit better now. My discovery has to do with the issue of language itself and the central arbitrary nature of the design of language and that should be an issue which can be comprehended by an 8th grader.
If English lacks a word for a notion, somebody soon enough comes along and coins a word, or defines a new meaning for some old word. It happens all the time.
Qfwfq even touched on the issue here. However he totally missed the entire import of his comment. The fact that “language is arbitrary” is the central underlying reason humanity has come up with so many different languages. The actual sounds, marks and/or any gestures used to communicate concepts are all invented for the sole purpose of communication and are of no significance in and of themselves. What they are understood to mean is the significant issue.
Any explanation of any issue which can be communicated can be expressed with a finite collection of defined concepts. If the required concepts do not exist, the explanation can not be communicated. If the number of required concepts is infinite, the language can never be learned. These two issues resolve down to a very simple fact. Once one has an explanation of anything, if that explanation can be communicated (if it can't be communicated there is little reason to worry about it) then one may list the entirety of required concepts and attach a numerical label to each of those concepts.
It follows that absolutely any circumstance can be expressed by the notation . If all relevant questions can be answered then one can be said to posses an explanation. Since the questions themselves can be expressed by the notation one can see those answers as equivalent to some collection of true/false circumstances. So the explanation is no more than the probability a collection of circumstances are true or false.
Understanding anything is totally equivalent to knowing for all relevant circumstances represented by . Interesting mathematical consequences follow directly from the arbitrary inherent nature of that numerical assignment. Now the mathematical consequences may certainly exceed the mental facility of an 8th grader but comprehension of such a representation should be at their level.
And Qfwfq (who should be able to follow the mathematical arguments) seems to confuse knowing an explanation with representation of an explanation; two quite different issues. As I said in the opening post of this thread, “There are none so blind as those who will not see!”
Have fun guys -- Dick
08 August 2013 - 12:14 PMI was quite astounded that no one brought up the issue of scaling itself. Just to keep things easy, use a scaling factor "s" of 250:1 (a quarter inch goes to just over five feet) and examine how common things go. Weight goes as so one's weight would fall by a factor of over 15 million to one. On the other hand, the strength of your muscles has to do with tension in the transmitting mechanism: i.e., the cross section of the muscles,tendons and connections to the bones. That means your strength would fall by a factor of in rough round numbers, a factor of around 50 thousand to one. That means if you could press half your weight as a full sized human, you could could press 125 times your weight if you were the size of an ant. It always bugged me that they judged ants to be extremely strong because they could lift ten or twenty times their weight: i.e., from the scaling laws, they really aren't very strong.
Another interesting effect of scaling. When you go to jump, the length of the stroke with your legs clearly scales by s. The energy you can transfer from your muscles to kinetic energy in a vertical direction is essentially . That means the resultant kinetic energy scales as . Since you will rise until your potential energy equals your original kinetic energy we know how high you can jump: . But your weight (which scales as ) is exactly mg. It follows that the height you can raise your center of gravity during that jump is exactly the same (there is no scale effect). That is really strange. If you were the size of an ant, you could still jump several feet into the air. I have seen spiders jump three feet but never an ant.
Ants sure don't seem to be able to jump very well. Why do you think that is? Actually, it arises because of a very simple problem. Rigidity is an issue very sensitive to scale. The molecular structure of a solid is not absolute. They are held to their shape by molecular forces and this allows some movement. The issue is that, in bending an extended object, the angle of the achievable bend which leaves the object whole (that is, no cracks) is a direct function of the scale factor. The required change in length of the stretched side is proportional to the radius of the curvature. The result is that, the smaller a bone is, the larger the angular deflection can be without breaking that bone.
If you add to that effect the scale of muscle forces, the bending actually rises as the scale gets smaller. As a consequence, a bone structure such as mammals posses tends to lose its rigidity as those mammals get smaller. In fact boned mammals can not really function decently on a scale much smaller than a small mouse. Bending bones become a real problem.
The solution is quite obvious as hollow pipes are much stiffer than sticks. Replace the bones with hollow tubes and put the muscles on the inside. That is exactly why insects have exoskeletons. But exoskeletons increase the effective weight by quite a factor. If ants were as big as we are, they wouldn't have the strength to lift their weight off the ground. If we were as small as ants, we would have to posses exoskeletons: i.e., the conclusion is, if we were as small as ants, we would probably look like ants.
Having brought up scaling effects, there is another very strong effect which should be taken into account. When we run, the distance we move with each step is proportional to our scale. The force of our muscles is proportional to the square of that scale and the weight to be moved is proportional to the cube of that scale and thus sets the acceleration of our body parts to the inverse of that scale. Since the velocity is proportional to the the acceleration times the time, the velocity of the moving member is inverse to the time. Thus the time it takes to complete a step is also inverse to the scale. As the distance moved in a step is proportional to the scale, the net velocity ends up independent of the scale.
That is a rather stunning realization. It means that two identical entities of slightly different scale would run at exactly the same speed. Note that at a track meet, the big guy has no advantage. I said, “of slightly different scale”, because other factors already mentioned come into play if that scale change is substantial. You will never find a perfectly scaled greyhound as large as elephant because his legs would not support his weight. Likewise you will not find a small elephant who can run like a greyhound because he just isn't built right. It turns out that the effective difference can be seen in the dynamics as a changing importance of gravity. That is why squirrels don't run like dogs. They have trouble keeping their paws on the ground and they instead run by leaping as they can cover more ground in less time that way.
And you will never find a “spider man” who can support his weight with sticky finger tips. At our size, gravity is too important a factor. Insects can fall from a tree without harm because, at their scale, gravity can practically be ignored. In fact that is also why they can walk, if they were as big as we are, their legs couldn't support their own weight.
Conclusion? If we were small as ants we would pretty well look like ants!
Have fun -- Dick