"LEFTY" wrote in message
ups.com...
|I did an exhaustive search, and to my astonishment, for some strange
| reason - I have not yet been listed on crank.net. After a full year of
| babbling about trivialities, continuity, nonexistence, time, and
| assorted forms of generalized insanity, still no listing.

Aww, shame.. Have you been kill-filed by George Hammond?
That's an even higher honour. Perhaps you should be writing
to sci.physics.relativity as well. sci.math is not the place for cranks,
there are some real mathematicians there.
|
| I'm going to go out and get a cape with atomic symbols on it - like
| Archimedes Plutonium. I'll paint a big atom on my car, and broadcast
| the voice of Carl Sagan as I drive around campus.

Bah... humbug. You'll fit right in with the relativists, Uncle Al
won't even notice you. What you need to do is shout something
totally insane; "Newton was right!" , or
"w = u+v, so 2+2 = 4" for example.
Any relativist will tell a crank like you
w = (v+u)/(1+vu/c^2), so (2+2)/(1 + 2*2/1^2) = 0.8
You need to be insane to get on crank.net. Going around agreeing
with people about trivialities, continuity, nonexistence, time, and
assorted forms of generalized sanity, or getting a get a cape with
atomic symbols only makes you normal. I'll bet your real name
is "Lefty", right? You should have left it as Wright and write with
the right hand, which is of course the left.
Androcles

I will say that I'm just plain disappointed that I dont seem to be
getting any serious feedback from the math crowd. One of the crown
jewels of math is Cantors transfinite set theory. If you can make
arguments similar to Cantor's regarding space, I think it would be
pretty cool.

The problem with mathematicians is that they are reluctant to speculate
out loud. They do speculate, privately, as if immersed in prayer. Then,
in open discussion, they will deny that they ever speculated and try to
hide it as if it were porn.

It would be nice to hear someone say something like one of the
following:
a) Dude, you're full of crap, dead wrong and here's why - x,y,z.
b) Hmmm,.... interesting idea, but unprovable.
c) Sounds like it might make sense, lets do some math and test this
theory.

Whatever.

Everybody who ever studied physics knows that QM seems to suggests
nonexistence, and everbody who ever said so out loud was quickly told
that it cant be true because of differential geometry. I'm certainly
not the first person to believe these things, but because no progress
has been made in this area and it just sounds wierd it is considered a
dead end.

Nothing in mathematics seems to treat "unobservability". In math,
everything is observable, because everything is defined so cleanly.
It's a pristine imaginary world where the floors never get dirty.

Cantor never said anything about what would happen to R1 if the
rationals really did exist, but you "just cant see them" so they
"appear" noenxistent. There is no such operator. No such function I've
ever seen. And this is exactly what time seems to be doing.

Should I be ashamed of myself because I speculated ?

If I can, I'd like to make some major modifications to the Lorentz
Transform, or start from scratch with some similar construction, and
test it out by running some numbers. If the whoe idea is crazy, then so
what. If it wont work, who cares. You still gain in terms of having
attempted such a thing.

Matter of fact, if you could use relativity to demonstrate quantum
weirdness, then this would be a huge advancement for the relativists.

I think that it CAN be done, the philosophy is now in place, just needs
some algebra.

I dont give a damn about medals, money, or tenure. I like science
because I want to know how this place works. If you feel that way too,
then post some algebra and we'll beat the truth out of this thing
collectively - like a big collective brain.

"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| I will say that I'm just plain disappointed that I dont seem to be
| getting any serious feedback from the math crowd. One of the crown
| jewels of math is Cantors transfinite set theory. If you can make
| arguments similar to Cantor's regarding space, I think it would be
| pretty cool.
|
| The problem with mathematicians is that they are reluctant to
speculate
| out loud. They do speculate, privately, as if immersed in prayer.
Then,
| in open discussion, they will deny that they ever speculated and try
to
| hide it as if it were porn.
|
| It would be nice to hear someone say something like one of the
| following:
| a) Dude, you're full of crap, dead wrong and here's why - x,y,z.
| b) Hmmm,.... interesting idea, but unprovable.
| c) Sounds like it might make sense, lets do some math and test this
| theory.
|
| Whatever.
|
| Everybody who ever studied physics knows that QM seems to suggests
| nonexistence, and everbody who ever said so out loud was quickly told
| that it cant be true because of differential geometry. I'm certainly
| not the first person to believe these things, but because no progress
| has been made in this area and it just sounds wierd it is considered a
| dead end.
|
| Nothing in mathematics seems to treat "unobservability". In math,
| everything is observable, because everything is defined so cleanly.
| It's a pristine imaginary world where the floors never get dirty.
|
| Cantor never said anything about what would happen to R1 if the
| rationals really did exist, but you "just cant see them" so they
| "appear" noenxistent. There is no such operator. No such function I've
| ever seen. And this is exactly what time seems to be doing.
|
| Should I be ashamed of myself because I speculated ?
|
| If I can, I'd like to make some major modifications to the Lorentz
| Transform, or start from scratch with some similar construction, and
| test it out by running some numbers. If the whoe idea is crazy, then
so
| what. If it wont work, who cares. You still gain in terms of having
| attempted such a thing.

There never was a Lorentz Transform involving time, Einstein was
protecting himself from accusation of fraud by blaming Lorentz.

The Einstein cuckoo transform was created by a clerk in Switzerland
where he got to examine patent applications for cuckoo clocks, cheese
with holes in it and chocolate (there is nothing else in Switzerland to
patent) while he was reading the best seller "Time Machine" by
H.G. Wells. Like the cheese, the cuckoo transform is full of holes.
It is derived from
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)),
a curious mixture of values and algebra.
The ½, which should really be t1/t2, comes from
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. "
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can travel faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

If we place some values in the above equation,
c= 5,
v = 3,
x = 80, and "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in
the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of
time",
then x' = 80-3*16 = 32 because 80/5 =16, so
½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0, 32/(5-3)+32/8)] = tau(32,0,0,16).
Since tau(0,0,0,0) = 0,
½ tau(0,0,0, 20) = tau(32,0,0,16).
In physical terms this means that the time at the caboose, 20, is
equal to the time at the engine, 16, because the speed of the turtle
inside the train 8 units/second each way, 16 seconds round trip.
Unfortunately this doesn't agree with Lorentz's notion of the train
being compressed by the aether wind as a function of speed, so we
need to add 8 more cars to the train making it 40 cars instead of
32, and now the speed of the turtle...sorry, light... is 5 units/sec,
the same as it's speed along the track.
I am of course a crank for challenging the ½, there can be
nothing wrong with Einstein's calculations for the following sound
logical mathematical arguments.
1) "Androcles isn't paying any attention to what you are saying. He's
only
calling you names and ignoring what you say."
2) "This is simply insane. You know practically zero about the subject
and
yet you write... THIS?? Why even do you waste your time on this?"
3) "An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by
zero or
something equally trivial."
4) "It's WAY too simple-minded."
5) "would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer."

Crankfully yours,
Androcles.

My crankhood is based on the appearance of a mirage, a 3rd dimension
which is'nt really there, it's trivial because time is unobservable.
But it looks like it's there, and it acts like it's there, it smells
like it's there, but it's not really there. It's an illusion.

It's really 4-space, but looks like 3-space.

How to make annoying transform do that ?

I guess I need an algebra of illusions. All you need to do is slap some
boundary conditions on silly transform ?

This is what it looks like when I bang my head on the keypad:

"
nmgjkl;smsdfgkl;'sdfgnbkl;'sdfgl;nbsfgnbkl;'dfgkl; 'mdfgl;'kmdfgnmkl;'dfgnmkl;'dfgnkl;'m'sfgnbkl;m'df gnmkl;sdfgnmkl;"


Nature is mocking us. Laughing at us, softly snickering under it's
breath - heh heh heh. It's just not funny.

"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...
| My crankhood is based on the appearance of a mirage, a 3rd dimension
| which is'nt really there, it's trivial because time is unobservable.
| But it looks like it's there, and it acts like it's there, it smells
| like it's there, but it's not really there. It's an illusion.
|
| It's really 4-space, but looks like 3-space.
|
Then you are not a crank, everyone knows that. Real cranks
insist that the 3-space is real and 4-space is illusion.

| How to make annoying transform do that ?

Turn some apples into oranges, mass into length, length into time
and time into mass.


| I guess I need an algebra of illusions. All you need to do is slap
some
| boundary conditions on silly transform ?
|
| This is what it looks like when I bang my head on the keypad:
|
| "
|
nmgjkl;smsdfgkl;'sdfgnbkl;'sdfgl;nbsfgnbkl;'dfgkl; 'mdfgl;'kmdfgnmkl;'dfgnmkl;'dfgnkl;'m'sfgnbkl;m'df gnmkl;sdfgnmkl;"
|
|
| Nature is mocking us. Laughing at us, softly snickering under it's
| breath - heh heh heh. It's just not funny.

You cannot be a crank if you continue to exhibit such nomal behaviour.
Do something weird.... say "Gravity is a force", you'll be crucified
and branded as a crank overnight.
Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...
| My crankhood is based on the appearance of a mirage, a 3rd dimension
| which is'nt really there, it's trivial because time is unobservable.
| But it looks like it's there, and it acts like it's there, it smells
| like it's there, but it's not really there. It's an illusion.
|
| It's really 4-space, but looks like 3-space.
|
Then you are not a crank, everyone knows that. Real cranks
insist that the 3-space is real and 4-space is illusion.

| How to make annoying transform do that ?

Turn some apples into oranges, mass into length, length into time
and time into mass.


| I guess I need an algebra of illusions. All you need to do is slap
some
| boundary conditions on silly transform ?
|
| This is what it looks like when I bang my head on the keypad:
|
| "
|
nmgjkl;smsdfgkl;'sdfgnbkl;'sdfgl;nbsfgnbkl;'dfgkl; 'mdfgl;'kmdfgnmkl;'dfgnmkl;'dfgnkl;'m'sfgnbkl;m'df gnmkl;sdfgnmkl;"
|
|
| Nature is mocking us. Laughing at us, softly snickering under it's
| breath - heh heh heh. It's just not funny.

You cannot be a crank if you continue to exhibit such nomal behaviour.
Do something weird.... say "Gravity is a force", you'll be crucified
and branded as a crank overnight.

"GRAVITY IS A FORCE!"
Coulomb's law describes a force of infinite range which
obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as
the gravity force.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
Sue...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&
Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "LEFTY" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | My crankhood is based on the appearance of a mirage, a 3rd
dimension
| | which is'nt really there, it's trivial because time is
unobservable.
| | But it looks like it's there, and it acts like it's there, it
smells
| | like it's there, but it's not really there. It's an illusion.
| |
| | It's really 4-space, but looks like 3-space.
| |
| Then you are not a crank, everyone knows that. Real cranks
| insist that the 3-space is real and 4-space is illusion.
|
| | How to make annoying transform do that ?
|
| Turn some apples into oranges, mass into length, length into time
| and time into mass.
|
|
| | I guess I need an algebra of illusions. All you need to do is slap
| some
| | boundary conditions on silly transform ?
| |
| | This is what it looks like when I bang my head on the keypad:
| |
| | "
| |
|
nmgjkl;smsdfgkl;'sdfgnbkl;'sdfgl;nbsfgnbkl;'dfgkl; 'mdfgl;'kmdfgnmkl;'dfgnmkl;'dfgnkl;'m'sfgnbkl;m'df gnmkl;sdfgnmkl;"
| |
| |
| | Nature is mocking us. Laughing at us, softly snickering under it's
| | breath - heh heh heh. It's just not funny.
|
| You cannot be a crank if you continue to exhibit such nomal
behaviour.
| Do something weird.... say "Gravity is a force", you'll be crucified
| and branded as a crank overnight.
|
| "GRAVITY IS A FORCE!"
| Coulomb's law describes a force of infinite range which
| obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as
| the gravity force.
| http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
| Sue...
|
|
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...dee0ace?hl=en&
| Androcles.
See what I mean? Sue is one of top cranks.
Androcles.

Currently, the Lorentz Ttransform does not map 4space to 3space
anywhere. Correct ?

What I mean is that successive frames of reference are basically
isomorphic unless we're talking about black holes or something - no ?

If you have successive frames which are less than Planck length, I want
to map them to --- Minkowski(3+0) space.

Do you just define it to be so - or do you need algebra ? I think that
in the case of time you can get away with just defining it to be so,
but length is trickier. You have the same exact situation with length,
but I think that this must have some implications for the algebra of
the transform.

Lengths less than Planck Length must also map to Minkowski(3+0) space.

Maybe that's the trick. instead of playing around with balls of radius
r and bla bla bla, just incorporate scale right into Lorentz transform.


Is that what Nottale did ? Anybody know ?

Check this out -

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...e_calculus.htm
--------------------------------------------------
Time scale calculus
[Categories: Recurrence relations, Calculus]

In (A science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of
quantity and shape and arrangement) mathematics, time scale calculus is
a unification of the theory of (Click link for more info and facts
about difference equation) difference equations and standard (A hard
lump produced by the concretion of mineral salts; found in hollow
organs or ducts of the body) calculus. Invented in 1988 by the German
mathematician Stefan Hilger, it has applications in any field that
requires simultaneous modelling of discrete and continuous data.
--------------------------------------------------



I think that this would apply to what I'm trying to do - were it not
for one small hitch, namely, "Invariance of Domain Theorem".

My claim is that 4D "appears" to degrade to 3D - like an illusion -
because time becomes unobservable. Triviality and nonexistence become
physically signifigant.

But it might be interesting to ask - if you had succesive reference
frames in the Lorentz Transform, could you apply time scale calculus to
successive reference frames ? Possibly. Would this replicate quantum
weirdness ? Does this explain nonlocality ? Superluminality ? Maybe,
but I dont think so.