2. Discrete Universe

In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
(infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
and other continuous structures.

Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
particle internally when it is being accelerated).

3. Probabilistic Universe

The above line of reasoning is fine for most intents and purposes but
this is not what really happens. In truth, there is only one jump
(interaction) duration in nature (a very minute interval, probably on
the order of 10^-32 second). That is to say, all particle jumps have
equal durations, regardless of the observed macroscopic speed of the
particle. It is a rather counterintuitive concept to grasp but the
truth is that there is only one speed in nature and that speed is c,
the speed of light (I will explain why in a future post). Nothing can
move faster or slower! How can this be since we observe bodies moving
a various speeds? The answer is that what we observe are macroscopic
speeds, the result of countless jumps and rests between the jumps.
Since nature cannot calculate exact durations for interactions, it is
forced to use the only possible alternative: probability. What this
means is that the timing of jumps or interactions is probabilistic,
such that, given a particle in inertial motion, the average interval
between all positional jumps during a sufficiently long travel segment
(t2 - t1) will be equal to that of another sufficiently long travel
segment (t4 - t3) for the same particle or some other particle moving
at the same inertial speed. For purposes of clarity, however, it is
beneficial to assume that the jump durations of a particle in inertial
motion are equal over the duration of the movement. Over time, the
arithmetical results of this convention are accurate enough for most
purposes.

Contrary to the deterministic doctrine that is being preached in
certain quarters (e.g., digital physics), a discrete universe is
necessarily a probabilistic one. By the way, this is also the reason
for the probabilistic decay of certain subatomic particles.

More to come...

(1) It is interesting to note that, close to the end of his life in
1954, Einstein wrote to his friend Michele Besso: "I consider it quite
possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on
continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
modern physics."

From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.

Louis Savain

Physics From the Bible
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm

On Apr 10, 3:35 am, Traveler wrote:

[snip junk]

For all your spewing...are you even capable of working out a classical
mechanics problem?

"Traveler" wrote in message ...
2. Discrete Universe

In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to

.... have something that at least remotely resembles the brain
of the common housefly, Savain?
You are right on this one as well.
A sheer necessity indeed, way out of your league.

Dirk Vdm

On Apr 10, 6:35 am, Traveler wrote:
2. Discrete Universe

In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
(infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
and other continuous structures.

Interestingly, this is not the case. *Continuous* spacetime is not a
requirement of gravity. John Wheeler was the first to play with the
idea of spacetime "foam". This was, of course, after Einstein's time
and Einstein wasn't aware of the work. The quote below and the
apprehension by you that if continuous spacetime is dispensed with
then all of modern physics calamitously vaporizes, is simply bogus. It
would be good of you to catch up.


Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
particle internally when it is being accelerated).

All of this is lovely. You'll find that people are singularly
uninterested unless you can propose an experimental test that will
distinguish your model from the prevailing models. This is how science
is done: a new theory predicts a behavior that the current theory says
*cannot* happen, or it does a better job of matching quantitatively a
measurable behavior. In either case, *experiment*, not argument or
sensibility, determines which model is the better one.

PD


3. Probabilistic Universe

The above line of reasoning is fine for most intents and purposes but
this is not what really happens. In truth, there is only one jump
(interaction) duration in nature (a very minute interval, probably on
the order of 10^-32 second). That is to say, all particle jumps have
equal durations, regardless of the observed macroscopic speed of the
particle. It is a rather counterintuitive concept to grasp but the
truth is that there is only one speed in nature and that speed is c,
the speed of light (I will explain why in a future post). Nothing can
move faster or slower! How can this be since we observe bodies moving
a various speeds? The answer is that what we observe are macroscopic
speeds, the result of countless jumps and rests between the jumps.
Since nature cannot calculate exact durations for interactions, it is
forced to use the only possible alternative: probability. What this
means is that the timing of jumps or interactions is probabilistic,
such that, given a particle in inertial motion, the average interval
between all positional jumps during a sufficiently long travel segment
(t2 - t1) will be equal to that of another sufficiently long travel
segment (t4 - t3) for the same particle or some other particle moving
at the same inertial speed. For purposes of clarity, however, it is
beneficial to assume that the jump durations of a particle in inertial
motion are equal over the duration of the movement. Over time, the
arithmetical results of this convention are accurate enough for most
purposes.

Contrary to the deterministic doctrine that is being preached in
certain quarters (e.g., digital physics), a discrete universe is
necessarily a probabilistic one. By the way, this is also the reason
for the probabilistic decay of certain subatomic particles.

More to come...

(1) It is interesting to note that, close to the end of his life in
1954, Einstein wrote to his friend Michele Besso: "I consider it quite
possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on
continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
modern physics."

From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.

Louis Savain

Physics From the Bible
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm

[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....

Paul "PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 10, 6:35 am, Traveler wrote:
2. Discrete Universe
In order to understand the nature of motion it is first necessary to
confront another fallacious concept in physics called continuity
(infinite divisibility). It is a concept that scientists, especially
mathematicians, hopelessly cling to in spite of its being blatantly
illogical. This belief has led to the introduction of the theory of
general relativity which postulates a geometric solution to the
phenomenon of gravity and introduced such harmful concepts as the
existence of a spacetime continuum (1). Truth is, continuity is wrong
simply because it leads to an infinite regress. Nature is discrete
and, as a result, particles move in discrete steps, i.e., their
positions change from one discrete value to another. Discreteness
means that there exists only discrete positional properties and that
things like lines, circles, curves, surfaces, angles, etc... are all
abstract concepts. The old debate between Euclidian and non-Euclidian
geometries about whether or not parallel lines meet becomes
immediately pointless since both wrongly assume the existence of lines
and other continuous structures.

[Paul]
Interestingly, this is not the case. *Continuous* spacetime is not a
requirement of gravity. John Wheeler was the first to play with the
idea of spacetime "foam".

[hanson]
Now, watch Paul's yearning in his next sentence..... ahahahahaha...

[Paul]
This was, of course, after Einstein's time and Einstein wasn't
aware of the work.

[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA... now that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....

[Paul]
The quote below and the
apprehension by you that if continuous spacetime is dispensed with
then all of modern physics calamitously vaporizes, is simply bogus. It
would be good of you to catch up.

[Louis]
Note that, in this light, when physicists speak of an object in
inertial or accelerated motion, they are always referring to Newtonian
or macroscopic motion. However, smooth macroscopic motion is an
illusion of the senses. In a discrete universe, a body moves by making
discrete jumps, i.e., its position changes by discrete fundamental
quantities. Causality requires that a jump must be caused by an
interaction between two particles. Ideally speaking, we can say that
the duration of a jump is the same as the duration of the interaction
and the more energetic the interaction, the faster the jump. In the
same vein, we can say that, if a body is in inertial motion, all of
its jumps have equal durations. Assuming that all jumps happen across
a fundamental discrete distance, we can further say that the jump
duration of a faster moving body is shorter than that of a slower one.
Acceleration can thus be seen as a change in the jump duration of a
particle. (In a future page, I will explain exactly what happens to a
particle internally when it is being accelerated).

[Paul]
All of this is lovely. You'll find that people are singularly
uninterested unless you can propose an experimental test that will
distinguish your model from the prevailing models. This is how science
is done: a new theory predicts a behavior that the current theory says
*cannot* happen, or it does a better job of matching quantitatively a
measurable behavior. In either case, *experiment*, not argument or
sensibility, determines which model is the better one.

PD


3. Probabilistic Universe

The above line of reasoning is fine for most intents and purposes but
this is not what really happens. In truth, there is only one jump
(interaction) duration in nature (a very minute interval, probably on
the order of 10^-32 second). That is to say, all particle jumps have
equal durations, regardless of the observed macroscopic speed of the
particle. It is a rather counterintuitive concept to grasp but the
truth is that there is only one speed in nature and that speed is c,
the speed of light (I will explain why in a future post). Nothing can
move faster or slower! How can this be since we observe bodies moving
a various speeds? The answer is that what we observe are macroscopic
speeds, the result of countless jumps and rests between the jumps.
Since nature cannot calculate exact durations for interactions, it is
forced to use the only possible alternative: probability. What this
means is that the timing of jumps or interactions is probabilistic,
such that, given a particle in inertial motion, the average interval
between all positional jumps during a sufficiently long travel segment
(t2 - t1) will be equal to that of another sufficiently long travel
segment (t4 - t3) for the same particle or some other particle moving
at the same inertial speed. For purposes of clarity, however, it is
beneficial to assume that the jump durations of a particle in inertial
motion are equal over the duration of the movement. Over time, the
arithmetical results of this convention are accurate enough for most
purposes.

Contrary to the deterministic doctrine that is being preached in
certain quarters (e.g., digital physics), a discrete universe is
necessarily a probabilistic one. By the way, this is also the reason
for the probabilistic decay of certain subatomic particles.

More to come...

(1) It is interesting to note that, close to the end of his life in
1954, Einstein wrote to his friend Michele Besso: "I consider it quite
possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on
continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
modern physics."

From: "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais.

Louis Savain

Physics From the Bible
Shaking the Foundations of
Physics:http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm

In article GP6Th.3644$%l5.85@trnddc05, "hanson"
wrote:

[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....


Still exposing your stupidity on a world stage Hanson?

--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. I touched a nerve in yet another one!:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" aka Diddly**** Mike Varney, an aging Einstein
Dingleberry himself, 35-ish and still not graduated, cranks himself...
wrote in message
news
In article GP6Th.3644$%l5.85@trnddc05, "hanson"
wrote:

[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...02c02bce7c0fdf
AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....

[Diddly**** Varney]
Still exposing your stupidity on a world stage Hanson?

[hanson]
.... So.. s.p. is your world stage, Varney... That figures...
All Einstein Dingleberries have that illusion... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Varney.
BTW, if you studied more instead of spending your time
on the net you may have graduated by now... 35... sheesh!
ahahaha... ahahahanson

In article ma7Th.8155$V15.3221@trnddc02, "hanson"
wrote:

[hanson]
... So.. s.p. is your world stage, Varney... That figures...
All Einstein Dingleberries have that illusion... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Varney.
BTW, if you studied more instead of spending your time
on the net you may have graduated by now... 35... sheesh!
ahahaha... ahahahanson


Still insisting I'm some Varney bloke loon?

And I take it you feel threatened by people who better themselves too
;-) For your info, graduate this year with a nice shiny doctorate place.

Of course, you don't need to feel bad you're getting older and still
haven't achieved anything - not everyone can do it.



--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.

"hanson" wrote in message
news:ma7Th.8155$V15.3221@trnddc02...
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. I touched a nerve in yet another one!:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" aka Diddly**** Mike Varney, an aging Einstein
Dingleberry himself, 35-ish and still not graduated, cranks himself...
wrote in message
news
In article GP6Th.3644$%l5.85@trnddc05, "hanson"
wrote:

[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...02c02bce7c0fdf
AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....

[Diddly**** Varney]
Still exposing your stupidity on a world stage Hanson?

[hanson]
... So.. s.p. is your world stage, Varney... That figures...
All Einstein Dingleberries have that illusion... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Varney.
BTW, if you studied more instead of spending your time
on the net you may have graduated by now... 35... sheesh!
ahahaha... ahahahanson

Mike Varney?!?

What a Faggot name!

HJ

.... hahaha... AHAHAHA... I've touched yet another a nerve in this one!:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" aka Diddly**** Mike Varney, an aging Einstein
Dingleberry himself, 35-ish and still not graduated, cranked himself
grievously as & wrote in message
news news

[hanson to Paul, who had enough class not to take the bait]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...02c02bce7c0fdf
AHAHAHAHA... now, that is too much... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Only pathologically devoted Einstein Dingleberries can have
notions like that... yearning and *wishing* to attribute anything
that fits their Weltbild to Einstein... even posthumously... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul... ahahahaha....

[But Diddly**** Varney went for it hook, line and sinker]
Still exposing your stupidity on a world stage Hanson?

[hanson]
... So.. s.p. is your world stage, Varney... That figures...
All Einstein Dingleberries have that illusion... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Varney.
BTW, if you studied more instead of spending your time
on the net you may have graduated by now... 35... sheesh!
ahahaha... ahahahanson

[Diddly**** Varney cranks himself]
Still insisting I'm some Varney bloke loon?
And I take it you feel threatened by people who better themselves too

[hanson]
Of course you are the "Varney bloke loon" because you act like
one, with all the earmarks... and the only thing you know better
is that you come running after me after you killfiled me.... ahahaha
So, you were lying then as you are lying now.

[Diddly**** Varney, on the hook, tries to get off]
;-) For your info, graduate this year with a nice shiny doctorate place.
Of course, you don't need to feel bad you're getting older and still
haven't achieved anything - not everyone can do it.

[hanson]
.... ahahaha... and you of course you just lied again. Trying to make
me believe that you'll doctor this year in astronomy when you whine,
in your last year of study, that you have problems with trivial IR spectrum
issues... ahahaha... Put me back into your killfile, loser... ahahaha...
.... ahaha... I will call you, Varney. Don't call me. Go argue with Relf...
But thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahanson